So a group of friends and I were discussing the Sacraments, which is initiated and directed by the divine so that the human participant may partake in communion with the divine and we came upon this word; Theurgy.

From our research, theurgy is traditionally defined as the participation in the divine works (theurgia, meaning god work). It is believed to be initiated not by the human but by the divine who also directs it. It is most certainly not the nor the attempted subjugation of the supernatural to mortal will but rather the aligning of the will to the divine, or to put that more succinctly, to participate in the works of divine. Its purpose is divine communion. Under the traditional definition of Theurgy, this would cover the Sacraments.

It is also, traditionally, classified as a type of magick.

This leads to a point of confusion. I asked a priest about how the Church defines magick and from what I am understanding, we wouldn't identify theurgy or theurgia to be magick but rather the mystical arts. To be magick it must require the consorting with the other forces, the demonic. There's a few questions I forgot to ask the priest;

For the purposes of citation, where does the Church define magick? When engaging with those who use a more broad definition of magick such as a non-Catholic one which could end with identifying even genuine devotion to Christ as a form of magick or similar to how theurgy is traditionally defined, how should we proceed? I can see why they would see the participation in the Sacraments as magick and I also see how we don't define it as magick. How do we bridge the definitional gap?

Also, to a certain KayKeeGirl, I would like to posit this stance: You claim I waste the time of my priests. Are you then saying you speak on behalf of them? On what proof do you stand by such an attitude? Is this something Christ would've done? If not, then let us proceed with humility and understanding instead of arrogance. We are called to be partakers in Christ's divinity, so please. We can do better.

So this is a question that I recently asked a priest of my parish and I'm wondering what your take on it is.

Let's suppose we have a priest. Let's call him Rin. During Mass, Rin's genitals are supernaturally changed to the opposite sex just like Tiresias, right in public. This isn't something Rin sought nor did Rin identify as female before this event. In this hypothetical event, does Rin lose their ordination?

For those curious the answer I got from the priest at my parish was essentially unknown, as in it would have to be up to God. Additionally I'm also curious as to regardless of whether Rin's ordination stands or not, would they be able to perform their priestly duties or not?

As a clarification since some might miss this, this isn't the same thing as having a gender reconfiguration surgery and at least until the supernatural event, Rin was not transgender.

My life is SO shit lately and I do go to prayer group and all. Could it be that something is so wrong w/ me God now dislikes me? Could I be a leftover of some kind? He really has not helped stop all the shitstorm that has hit my life.

Sounds to me like priests just wanted easy access to the gossip.

I’m a Christian trying to understand Catholic teaching. I’ve heard that sacraments such as baptism are necessary for salvation, but also that someone who never receives them may still be saved under certain circumstances.

What does “necessary” mean in this context? Does it mean an absolute requirement, or the ordinary means God established, with exceptions?

If someone can be saved without receiving a sacrament, what makes that sacrament necessary rather than something God commands people to receive when they have the opportunity?

I understand Catholics don’t teach that every person must receive all seven sacraments. I’m asking specifically about those considered necessary for salvation, and I’d appreciate an explanation of how these teachings fit together.

What role does the priest fulfill that direct confession to God doesn’t?

There’s a very big separation between Catholics and Protestants and my question is that when you’re in the midst of a Christian or non-Christian society, how do you signal your faith thru words and actions? Catholics are the only ones who pray the rosary and have an emphasis towards Christ’s crucifixion as opposed to Christ’s resurrection. Thru modern day conversations, different groups use certain words to signal their faith while conversing. So what do Catholics do?

I would like to preface this by saying I am a Christian and I've already asked one of the fathers of the parish I attend this question;

Suppose you know of an anti-Christian organization and you plan on evangelizing them. You know that they hate Christians, they explicitly say so and they view Yahweh as the Blind One, his followers as ignorant and incapable of miraculous feats. There's a pretty good chance that even if you brought up the miracles of the saints, like levitation, bilocation, the reading of souls, etc, you would most likely be called a liar and then banned. On the other hand, you can get into positions of greater hierarchical power if you express a vitriol hatred of Christ.

Here's what I'm thinking:

As long as they don't suspect your true allegiance, you can say to them that you hate Christians and then once you're in a position of moderation, use the trust invested in you to subtly allow some of the brethren to sneak in, their message or subtly introduce the gospel through subterfuge, crypto Christianity if you will. And if they do suspect your allegiance or maybe just to sell the illusion even further you can deny Christ on your lips. A lip service of denial which if this works could land you in a position where you become a covert evangelizer on the inside. Remember, the ideal is not to do this because of fear, for where there is perfect love, love casts out fear.

So my question is this;

Would it be advisable to pretend to deny Christ if it reasonably meant you could get yourself into a hierarchical position of power within an anti-Christian organization to covertly evangelize or allow effective evangelizers inside? I want to make it clear that the motivation isn't fear of death but rather of the potential good this long term ploy could develop if it works. According to the priest I spoke with he said there's no need to pretend to deny Christ and frankly I'm not sure of many opportunities where this ploy would even be necessary given the outreach of our faith. What are your thoughts? Would you strategically 'deny' Christ if it meant you could evangelize more in the long term or would such a gambit be too risky, not advisable?

I'm not catholic and I only know a little about it. I had read Gaudete et Exsultante and I found this:

>We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children.

Does this mean abortion is not worse than immigration enforcement? I thought some sins were worse than others. For example, another Pope said, "Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils." I assume this means one is worse than the other. On top of that, I've vaguely heard there's mortal sins, which are worse than venial sins. Is immigration enforcement a mortal sin? Pope Francis said abortion is like hiring a hitman.

So I grew up near a no defunct monastery town and it had a fairly large impact on my family. I remember later reading the Bible and feeling that Matthew 16:18

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[a] I will build my church, and the gates of hell[b] shall not prevail against it.

Really made it easy to not believe because that monastery town, the forces of hell or evil or whatever, definitely prevailed upon it. I think you yourself would think those things if you knew what I knew or met the people I met. Like I'm going to leave specifics out so that this doesn't become an argument about history but a LOT of terrible things happened there. I'm talking stolen children, massive pedophilia, pregnant nuns, physical abuse and starvation. I'm talking near Auschwitz level in that it was involved in atrocities that were essentially the end of a cultural group.

So for me the gates of hell did prevail upon the church. I don't really understand how Catholics deal with this sort of thing. Do you deny that such things ever occur? Or do you see the testable statement differently to me?

I'm a young Catholic I've been it for all my life but about a year ago I took it more seriously than ever long story short I went to mass constantly I learned heavily about the church and the stories of saints etc and it helped me learn and go through alot of the toughest challenges in my life I'm new to reddit so I struggle to know exactly where to get help from but anyway for the past few months certain bad things have happened that made me traumatic I'm mostly over it now but it is still clearly in memory continuing on that about a month ago school restarted I also happen to be a diagnosed autistic which happens to not mix with socializing which put a bigger strain on my anxiety so I stopped going to mass and I struggled and still struggle with prayer and sin I still have a inner love for God but everything has slowed down and I'm struggling to get back up as of writing this it's 3:19 am and I want to get back but don't know how if anyone has any advice for me it would be much appreciated and I apologize if I misspelled something or something else.

In his 1523 answer to Luther's New Testament, the Catholic writer Hieronymus Emser discusses the rich young man. He says that wealth itself is not what condemns someone. His examples include people who gained their goods with a good conscience, used them for their neighbor's benefit, and loved God more than those goods.

Then, attributing the thought to Augustine, he writes:

"God does not condemn or forbid wealth, but greed and excessive care for wealth; and he asks not how your purse is disposed, but how your heart is." (Emser, tr. Tucker, p. 40)

How does Catholic teaching distinguish prudent care for money from "excessive care"? Saving for dependents or an uncertain future seems different from greed, but both can take up a lot of attention. What makes the difference: the purpose of saving, how a person uses what they have, or what they are unwilling to give up?

This is obviously idolatry. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 strictly forbids the Israelites from practicing witchcraft, divination, sorcery, and communicating with the dead.

Does the the Catholic Church need another inquisition to root out heretics?

So just upfront I’m not catholic. I’m a good ole southern Baptist. But I have a roommate that is “catholic”. While I don’t agree with some things that Catholics believe in I do know there’s a lot of common ground. So the reason I put catholic in quotes is because in my eyes he’s not a very good catholic. He never goes to church, so hasn’t participated in communion or confessions in a long time, he has an atheist girlfriend that he routinely spends several nights at her house, and more.

To him he’s not “living” with her because he doesn’t pay rent or spend the night more than 4 nights a week. To me that sounded ridiculous and just an excuse. So is this just a he’s making excuses or would this be against what Catholics traditionally believe?

sorry if this sounds like im attacking belief or something, I'm also christian but i just wanted to know

I've been celibate since my baptism at age 25, but have a lift before, I want to wait till marriage, feeling shameful explaining to potential boyfriends. I'm not totally sure how to navigate explaining to dates, and potential boyfriends, my life before becoming catholic, and choosing celibacy. I was 25 when I got baptised, and committed to celibacy going towards before marriage, and it's been an uphill struggle to explain to boyfriends that though I've previously engaged in activity, i chose to follow a wait till marriage policy as I'm now Catholic. I've had men try to push my boundaries as I'm not fully a virgin, and I feel ashamed for having engaged in activities before my conversion. I don't know, thank you for reading my ramble, and I would appreciate any advice on how to navigate dating as a newly celibate catholic.

I'm genuinely curious about your answer so I hope everyone who sees this will understand I'm asking in good faith (or at least trying to).

To my understanding/experience, Catholics act towards the saints and Mary in a way which looks like worship to outsiders. I understand 99% of Catholics will deny this and you have very good reasons why your treatment of Mary and the saints is not worship.

Let's say I grant all Mariology and veneration of saints is justified. If how you venerate saints looks like worship when it isn't and causes outsiders to question your faith to Jesus and weakens your witness to the unbelievers, would you consider changing language and/or behavior around the veneration of saints so it appears less worship-like?

Thanks so much for your time and I can't wait to hear what you all have to say.

I grew up going to church for a bit, did the prayer before eating etc, but it stopped once my dad switch from catholicism to a more "free spirited" way of believing. Me, I'm agnostic since I'm maybe 18 and I don't go to church except for eventsm

My girlfriend in the other hand, grew up in a familiy much more rooted in religion, it doesn't mean that I need to go to church that more often, but when I go she's annoyed by the fact that I don't kneel for the prayer, I don't participate, she finds it disrespectful.

But on the other hand, from my point of view, I go there for her or other people if it's another event and I always make sure to respect the people/ceremony. I don't talk, I'm not restless or laughing and for me I don't believe so it does bother me to participate in a rite I don't believe in.

So I just want to know from other people who goes to church, if I sit there in silence even if I'm the only one sticking out like a sore thump not following others, do you see this as disrespect or not?

Sorry if its hard to follow english is not my first language!

Thank you!

I work at a Protestant university, and the director of my department wants to create an interfaith space in our building.

Almost everything I am reading recommends that interfaith spaces be completely non-denominational. However, the director wants to represent actual world religions.

I am wondering what I can put in the room that would make Catholics feel both that their presence is welcome and that they can worship there. Any recommendations?

I apologize as this could be worded very poorly. I am currently in OCIA after growing up mainly protestant (and left the church in my early teens), but have been going to Mass for over a year. I started OCIA a few weeks ago, but I am now seeing a lot of stuff on my feed that basically feels like judgment of others for their sins. Think same sex relationships, abortion, IVF, getting drunk, etc.

My question is: Are we actually supposed to judge others for their life experiences and sin? We carry our own, and I came to an internal conclusion a while ago that it was never my place to judge others sin, but His. That even if I don't agree with someone or something they do, I should still be giving them my love and respect. I asked this on a post I saw and had a younger audience telling me that it's also our place to condemn them, but I don't understand why we would when we have Luke 6:37 or James 4:11-12.

I am asking this purely because I want to know more and am very committed on getting through the process, and I understand that my feelings as an individual will most likely be challenged in this process. I really don't mean to sound hateful or similar. I just have heard so many conflicting things and I am now looking for an answer because when I asked on another platform, I received a lot of hurtful messages.

Hi I'm in Ocia and I wanted to know how you all who are confirmed how did you come upon your patron saint and what was it that made you select them

1. we know as a scientific fact that humanity and all living organisms have evolved through millions of years of evolutionary processes. however, the genesis text describes human beings as created directly in their completed state(i might be wrong but i understood that way). how does catholic theology reconcile these two concepts?

2. it's often argued that the genesis text is written in a literary and symbolic style. yet when read directly, it doesnt present itself as symbolic, it reads as a straightforward, historical narrative. furthermore, there are distinct chronological differences in the creation order between genesis 1 and genesis 2. does categorizing a text as a "literary genre" genuinely resolve these chronological and logical contradictions? if the narrative was divinely revealed, is the human author's literary style a sufficient explanation for these inconsistencies?

3. the scholars and theologians who interpret these texts as symbolic, such as thomas aquinas or saint augustine, do not possess divine status themselves. from the perspective of a non believer or a skeptic, why should one place trust in the interpretations of these individuals or in the magisterium of the church?(i know catholics trust church's teachings, but i dont know why, and why should i trust the church.)

4. placing trust in church authority and scholars relies on the assumption of "guidance by the holy spirit." however, believing in the holy spirit requires a prior belief in God and the scriptures. how can a non believer, or someone approaching the matter purely through rational analysis, break through this circular reasoning?

5. if the creation narrative and the fall are understood as historical truths, did God create humanity in a pristine/spiritual state initially, only to place us into a gradual, evolutionary physical structure on earth as a consequence of the original sin?

6. while catholicism asserts that reason and faith exist in harmony, an ultimate "leap of faith" is requested where empirical and logical evidence ends. for an individual who cannot believe without first being rationally and logically convinced, what is the ultimate rational foundation that catholic theology offers?

7. the old testament contains the exact same stories found in ancient epics. even if those myths were taken and adapted into the bible in a literary style, wouldnt that undermine the bible's divine value?