What do YOU find confusing about Catholicism?


Continued from previous post…

Jesus was sent to take back the power that has been handed over to idols, to defeat them and to break the chains of slavery that held humanity in their grip. Because he is Israel’s King (Messiah) he can appropriately be our representative on the battlefield (think of David and Goliath); because he is our representative, he is our substitute and bears the full fury of the evil we empowered; because he rose from the dead, he proved to have emerged victorious, thus robbing evil of its power over those who believe in him. However, the Resurrection goes even a step further than this, for on that day God began the restoration of the work of Creation that was begun in Genesis 1 & 2. The blood of Christ purified the world so that there would no longer be any barrier between God and his people (this is how “atonement” worked in the Jewish Temple), and the Biblical vision of New Creation of a New Heaven and New Earth coming together as one was fulfilled. This is what Jesus meant by the coming of the Kingdom of God.

There is nothing incoherent about this very Jewish story, which runs straight through the Old Testament all the way to the book of Revelation. However, when you assume a platonic eschatology (we are souls seeking to return to heaven) and a moral anthropology (the knowledge of good and evil trumps our relationship with God, which was the sin of Adam & Eve) and a pagan soteriology (sacrifice understood as the death of an innocent victim in order to appease the wrath of the god), then you introduce all sorts of misconceptions and internal contradictions that are derived from pagan world.

If you want to make sense of Christianity, you need to change your way of thinking. The word for that is conversion.

If you have an hour, watch this:



Since the abolition of Canon 1399 and 2318 of the former Code of Canon Law by Paul VI in AAS58 (1966) page 1186, publications about new apparitions, revelation, prophecies, miracles, etc., have been allowed to be distributed and read by the faithful without the express permission of the Church, providing that they contain nothing which contravenes faith and morals. This means, no imprimatur is necessary.

The Discernment of Visionaries and Apparitions Today by Albert J. Hebert, S.M., Page III


Thanks, very well done!

God Bless you



God knows or can know everything that has ever happened, everything that is happening, and everything that will happen. Does that mean He knows everything that has never happened, everything that is not happening, and everything that never will happen?

Just knowing that an event will happen doesn’t mean you made it happen. This is not a platitude, it is true.

Let us try to view this from the angle of how God would understand it as much as possible.
He is outside of time. He created us. He knew what we would do, and what we could have done, and what we did not do and could not have done. If you choose strawberry milk, you were not made to choose strawberry milk. You also had white milk available to you. You could have chosen either one, your choice. But you didn’t. You chose one. Well, actually, you could have chosen to drink both of them, but then would’ve realized that you drank too much and then would have been in the bathroom and missed your favorite show, which had an event in it that would later inspire you to make your own special cake for a bake sale, which is where you would have met this one person who you really, really hit it off with, but this person was really someone who was going to simply try to steal your recipe for an upcoming holiday. But, you didn’t choose both, you only chose one. Of course, you could have chose neither but then…well, never mind, back to the point. You chose strawberry. God did not make you choose strawberry. He simply knew you would. Perhaps this can get into a discussion on God’s passive vs active Will.


It’s annoying how many people ignore who claim to be catholic ignore what the vatican says. I can’t state how many times I’ve had this conversation.

Other Person: "The church says this!"
Me: "No it doesn’t. Here’s a document from the Vatican describing what it actually says on the topic."
Other Person: "You’re wrong. The church says this!"
Me: "What about the indisputable source I cited?"
Other Person: "I’m just gonna pretend you didn’t cite anything! I won’t even mention it in my rebuttal!"
Me: "Well here’s some more sources. From priests."
Other Person: "Those priests are wrong! I may be a layperson without any training in theology, but I believe I know better than even experts on faith!"
Me: groans

But that’s just a problem with terrible people, not with the church itself. Even Jesus himself knew this; one of his apostles handed him over to his executioners and the others abandoned him.

With the church itself, I’m still confused as to what baptism does. It doesn’t assure our salvation because baptised people still sin and are still in danger of perdition. It isn’t a necessity for salvation because the church itself says unbaptized people do go to Heaven (unlearned people and martyrs being two examples listed in the Catechism). If it’s a way of devoting your life to Christ then why do we baptize people before they’re old enough to know what that is?


No, a triangle is not a square.

A Mobius strip has only one side. No front and no back side.

Uh-oh! I am not even going to speculate how THAT “marriage” was consummated.


A square has four angles.

A Mobius strip has only one side. No front and no back side.

Look again. See the shadow on the bottom.

That is why Scripture says, “to the pure, all is pure”.

In the consummation of the Eucharist. It is the marriage to the Church.


Baptism is a Sacrament (a visual sign of invisible grace, that actually does what it signifies) where we die to our old selves and rise up new. Sin is washed away completely as the person is reborn. Baptism also makes us sons and daughters of God, co-heirs with Jesus; and body parts of the Body of Christ. The cross marked on our forehead (and other body parts) is a sign that our souls are indelibly marked as such.

But we can choose to refuse our position as adopted children of God, waste our inheritance, and poop all over God’s love and care. He will always take us back, up until the last moment… but we have free will, so we can do the wrong thing if we want.

Of course Baptism doesn’t assure our salvation. If we really, really want to reject God later on, He is not going to hold us against our will. No guns to our heads, no forcing us to live in bliss forever and ever.

Jesus instructed us to baptize people. He didn’t say that He wasn’t going to baptize people too!

The formal way of saying this is that Jesus has granted graces to the Church, to be distributed through the Sacraments. But He is not bound to distribute graces only in that way. The story of the workers in the vineyard tells about that sort of situation.

But although we can trust Jesus to take care of emergency stuff, He has made it clear that He expects us to baptize. So we can’t put the burden all on Him.

[quote=“BornInMarch, post:85, topic:459188”]
If it’s a way of devoting your life to Christ then why do we baptize people before they’re old enough to know what that is?[/quote]

It’s an adoption. Tons of babies get adopted. Adoptions are one example of a covenant action (ie, a way of creating family bonds between unrelated people). Plenty of adoptions of babies, so it’s not a surprising thing to see baptisms of babies, either.

Another example is circumcision, which made Jewish males into members of God’s extended clan. It was a family matter, so their parents could give consent to it for them. If a guy grew up and wanted no part of God, he could leave. A lot of Jews did.

Of course it’s more advantageous to grow up under a covenant than to have to negotiate one. What other tribe or family could be better than God’s family? If a child’s parents are in it, why would they want the kid to be excluded?

(“Please cut my baby out of the will until she’s old enough to torque you off,” said nobody ever.)


Vatican II, and how religiously indifferent people have become since then.


Why my friend do YOU find this to be confusing?

Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa became Saints in that time period



It seems that - at least in interpretation - the entire Church in how it teaches fundamentally changed its doctrines in terms of liturgy and other religions.

It’s a long list.


And four sides. A triangle has 3 angles and three sides. There can be no “four sided triangle”, not even for God.

At what? The Mobius strip only has one side. Not even God can put that “four sided triangle” on the reverse side, since there is no reverse side.

Oh, brother. So the church marries to all the priests? What a moral cesspit! What happens on the wedding night?

Get real. Not even God can create a stone so big that he is unable to lift it. The laws of logic are “above” God.


Perhaps Logic is an aspect of God’s nature. The things you ask about are definition bound.


Hello, I would like to say baptism washes away our original sin, and brings us in the Church of Christ. Hence infants baptized properly by protestants are srill Catholic. Prior to Baptism, we are spiritually dead.
Many would wait until one was about to die/very sick to baptize them back in the day of, say, St Augustine.

Those saved without baptism would be the exceptions rather than the rule. Martyrs are “baptized by blood”, and those with baptism of desire may be similar to Abraham who was justified by agreeing to be circumcised. Even if he were to die before it happened, but was willing and hopeful to go through it, it still would have been similar. We are not clearly told the judgement of infants without baptism, but are told to trust in God’s Mercy and not despair.


Yes, I am pretty sure that this is very closely related to the Word, ie Jesus Christ. The Logos, Wisdom, reason etc.
I believe it was said that Plato and such partook of the Word because of their practice of a truer philosophy.

God is completely self sufficient. He is the source of Wisdom, and authority, and Good.


Thank you,

As a FYI, Defined Doctrines are not changeable.

What you refer to as changes in the Liturgy are termed Church Practices, which are changeable [not always for the better as history has proven].

I’m unclear as to what you means as to “how it teaches”; not necessarily disagreeing with you, just unclear as to what you mean?

God Bless you



Has the teaching on the filioque changed?


My two cents fwiw-did Mary really have free will to do “no” to the angel messenger? If she had, was there another, backup pure virgin waiting in the wings ready to go? I think not and we’re told she was the only person ever born free of original sin. So, logic tells me she had not the choice to deny God and had to say yes. Of course, we’re thinking like simple humans about something outside our pay grade.


I’ve always thought that if Mary did not have free will then she wouldn’t be fully human but she would be more like a robot that was programmed. The question then would be If she was not fully human, would Jesus have been fully human? And if He was not fully human could He have saved us? I believe that one of the Early Church Fathers (I forget which one) said that that which had not been taken on (this meaning a full human nature) could not have been saved. If Jesus was not fully human than he could not have saved us.


She has free will. It is her choice to say yes. Beyond that we don’t know. God had a plan and it worked accordingly. We don’t know the alternative though and that’s about it for us - there’s no need to second guess God.

More importantly Mary’s fiat gives her the special honor, reverence and veneration from us.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.