My friend and I are currently on vacation in Portland and while we were walking around the downtown area, we met a kind welcoming priest named Father Tom helping the local homeless and hungry in his parish. BTW, we are both NOT Catholic. However, I did grow up Catholic with wonderful people in my life from the church who were kind and loving.
Anyways, Father Tom gave us a tour of his small church and operation. They have been working there for years providing food and help to the poor in the city. Because of the pandemic and recent violence, he has had to greatly reduce their aid. It takes 15 volunteers for them to run the kitchen in the building and invite people in to sit down and eat. He only had 3. As such, the most they could do was hand out donations at the door.
I was so moved by their kindness and dedication to the community, I wanted to help. Now I realize this is probably misguided. I did check their website and news about the parish to see if there was any reason other than a few rough years that their struggles began. They make it clear on the website that all donations go straight to the poor, not the parish. There is an article about how they were attacked in 2020 and confirmed they have done nothing but serve the community. So I posted a request in the local reddit for help. Big mistake.
I got lots of anti-catholic hatred, told to mind my business, etc. In the end, out of fear that I would do harm to Father Tom and his parish, I deleted my post.
Call me naive, but I was kind of dumbstruck at the amount of hate was thrown my way. People just couldn't see past their hatred for the institution to see that not every single person in that institution is a horrible person. What institution exists out there that does not have evil AND good things?
​
Edit:
If you are interested in helping out, the church was St. Andre Bessette. Here is their website where you can volunteer or donate: https://saintandrebessettepdx.org/volunteer
I really am not out for anything. I just wanted to help out someone who is doing something so wonderful in this tough tough world

Thanks to a fellow redditor, I learned about this great resource for those who pray the Liturgy of the Hours. It just arrived in the mail today.

The ward will resume accepting patients once the church has completed an internal investigation into the validity of these "potentially miraculous events".

I want to promote the idea of a defunct or perished God so that it is further explored and elaborated in the philosophy of religion because what I have found so far in textbooks and treatises is rather meagre. It's about expanding the conceptual landscape in the service of truth.
My point is not one of proof, but one of possible line of reasoning.
Here's what I found in the literature:
“Even if valid, the first-cause argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause in the distant past. It does not establish the present existence of the first cause. On the basis of this argument, there is no reason to assume that the first cause still exists — which cuts the ground from any attempt to demonstrate the truth of theism by this approach.” (George H. Smith – Atheism. The Case Against God)
“Indeed, why should God not be the originator and now no longer exist? After all, a mother causes a child but then dies.” (Peter Cole – Philosophy of Religion)
“This world […] is the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated deity; and ever since his death has run on at adventures, from the first impulse and active force which it received from him….” (David Hume – Dialogues concerning Natural Religion Part V)
“What about the necessary existence of God? I have already suggested that what is metaphysically necessary is God’s initial existence. I see no reason to hold that God necessarily continues to exist. That is, I hold God had the power to bring a universe into being and then cease to exist, while the universe went on.” (Peter Forrest – Developmental Theism: From Pure Will to Unbounded Love)“
[T]he reasons given for believing that there is a necessary and simple being are only reasons for holding that, necessarily, at some time, there exists such a being. There is nothing incoherent in the idea that there was a first moment of Time, and that everything that was the case then was necessarily the case, including the existence of a simple being. That leaves open the possibility that this being might change or even cease to exist, contrary to classical theism.” (Peter Forrest – Developmental Theism: From Pure Will to Unbounded Love)
This depends on a certain conception of time:
“Here is a brief history of God. There is a first moment of Time, at which God exists but nothing else […]. God has the power never to act. If God had never acted, that one moment would have been, as it were, the whole of Time. In that case, strictly speaking, there would have been no Time. […] For Time, I take it, is characterized by the before/after relation between its parts. As it is, there is a succession of other moments. Brian Leftow has pointed out that if you are the only person at the counter, you are not a queue, and that Time is like a queue in that respect. But as soon as someone else comes along, there is a queue, and you are at the head of it (Leftow 2002). Likewise, if there are no other moments because God chooses to do nothing, then that moment is timeless. Yet if God acts, there is then at least one other moment, and so there is Time.” (Peter Forrest – Developmental Theism: From Pure Will to Unbounded Love)
So, many cosmological arguments (Kalam, Contingency) only lead to God as a starting point, but not to a still present God.
Now people will say that there is evidence to suggest that God must constantly sustain the world in the here and now, that the world would disappear if divine sustenance ceased.
David Bentley Hart first asks the legitimate question:
“Why is this so? Why must a thing be dependent on any continuously real source of being in order to persist? Why can it not, once it has been caused to exist by something else, just continue on from its physical origin with a kind of existential inertia until it exhausts itself, without any need for some eternal “absolute” to certify it in its contingent existence?” (David Bentley Hart from THE EXPERIENCE OF GOD BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS, BLISS.)
In the end, he denies the slightest possibility of existential inertia. I would rather not dwell on this topic because it is too complex, although it is crucial.
But I recommend the following blog entry, which makes a forceful and convincing case for the idea of existential inertia:
https://www.josephschmid.com/2021/07/31/so-you-think-you-understand-existential-inertia/
I will now present one way in which God can disappear; many explanations will be added.
A 1. The universe began to exist a finite time ago.
A 2. The absolute beginning of the universe could only have been initiated by an act of God.
B 1. A literal creation from nothing is impossible.
B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible.
C 1. God is absolutely simple (simplicitas). Otherwise, He would not be the first and most original principle.
C 2. Accordingly, He has no parts to offer for transformation. Rather, He would have to give Himself completely for this purpose. In fact, in His simplicity, He is “so much of one piece” (as if flawlessly and seamlessly made from one piece) that He would be entirely the power that would serve to transform. This means: Everything that is in God is God. There is nothing inherent in God that is different from Him. He is, so to speak, an extra-worldly, undifferentiated, and structureless “blob” overfilled with primordial Being. His “blobness” is completely rounded or absolutely homogeneous. If “you” “take” a “little” of it, “you” inevitably “take” “all” of it, figuratively speaking.
D Therefore, God has completely transformed Himself into the universe. In other words: The “infinite” existence has subjected itself to total finiteness. Or: God's absolute existence has been completely limited by Himself to the existence of individual things.
The only way to avoid this conclusion is to play the MYSTERY CARD or to make an APPEAL TO MYSTERY. As long as we want to argue conceptually clear and distinct (clare et distincte), that is, philosophically, we should in any case favor those theories that give us a rational explanation, and not those that can only point to a mystery.
And if anyone wants to avoid admitting a mystery by saying that it does not follow from the idea of simplicity that God cannot create out of Himself without becoming other than Himself, you must answer: 'From simplicity it follows very well what has been said here. You seem to be tacitly or unspokenly assuming a literal creatio ex nihilo, or still a mystery.'
The appeal to mystery should be a very last resort, to be considered only in specific cases where rational clarification is impossible.
It is important to note the following: The Aristotelian concept of change cannot be applied to God's complete transformation or transmutation. This transformation is thus not to be understood as change in the traditional sense. For:
“Aristotle insists that in every change (whether movement in space or alteration in quality or size) something remains the same, the man, for example, or the gold. This is taken to be a necessary truth: it is part of the very concept of change that something or other undergoes it.” (J. L. Ackrill - Aristotle the Philosopher)
God is definitely not an unchanging subject, just with a new state after His transformation. There is nothing that remains the same. Since this fact is very significant, here is the whole thing again in other words (and then even a third time):
“Aristotle holds, then, that there are three principles involved in the analysis of any change -- the underlying subject of change, its (prechange) lack of a character, its (post-change) character.“ (J. L. Ackrill - Aristotle the Philosopher)
God cannot undergo any change by gaining or losing states or properties, if only for the reason that He is a simple unity, excluding any even potential and attributive inner multiplicity. Nor is His “change” one in which He could be said to be simultaneously present. The transition from transcendence to immanence is a perfect one. At the moment of transition, God has disappeared and in his place there is suddenly something mundane. And God was the very other compared to the world (God and creatures are entirely diverse realities with no real commonality.), which can then at best be understood as an imperfect, fragmented “echo” or “reverberation” of His defunct transcendence.
Theoretically, one could also attribute immutability to God. Indeed, in the way described below, God cannot change:
“Divine immutability also follows from divine simplicity. When a thing undergoes a real change (as opposed to a merely Cambridge change), it changes in some particular respect while remaining the same in other respects. For example, a substance loses one of its attributes while remaining the same substance and while retaining its other attributes. But that presupposes that the changing thing is composed of parts, some of which remain while another or others are lost. Since God is simple or noncomposite, then, he cannot change.” (Edward Feser - Five Proofs of the Existence of God)
But God can disappear completely if He wants to.
Here are three quotes to help explain B 1:
(1) “The Supreme does not create out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit—out of nothing nothing comes. He produces from His Own eternal nature and eternal wisdom, wherein all things dwell in a latent condition, all contrasts exist in a hidden or non-manifest state.” (W. P. SWAINSON – JACOB BOEHME. THE TEUTONIC PHILOSOPHER)
(2) “Classical theists hold that God created the world ex nihilo, out of nothing. This phrase carries a privative, not a positive, sense: it means not out of something as opposed to out of something called ‘nothing.’ This much is crystal clear. Less clear is how creation ex nihilo (CEN), comports, if it does comport, with the following hallowed principle:
ENN: Ex nihilo nihit fit. Nothing comes from nothing.
My present problem is this: If (ENN) is true, how can (CEN) be true? How can God create out of nothing if nothing can come from nothing? It would seem that our two principles form an inconsistent dyad. How solve it?
It would be unavailing to say that God, being omnipotent, can do anything, including making something come out of nothing. For omnipotence, rightly understood, does not imply that God can do anything, but that God can do anything that it is possible to do.
God does not create out of pre-given matter, essences, or mere possibilia. But if God creates out of nothing distinct from himself, this formulation allows that, in some sense, God creates ex Deo, out of himself. Creating the world out of himself, God creates the world out of nothing distinct from himself. In this way, (CEN) and (ENN) are rendered compatible.” (Maverick Philosopher – Creation ex nihilo or ex deo)
(3) “If the world (as effect) emerges neither from sheer nothingness [...] nor from any pre-existent some-thing, it seems that the world must emerge ex deo – i.e. from God[.] [...] [Thomas] Aquinas seems to reject this conclusion when, for example, he castigates David of Dinant for teaching the ‘absurd thesis’ that God is prime matter. [...] As long as we are careful, however, not to assume that a material cause has to be some kind of physical ‘stuff’, there seems to be no reason why we cannot speak of God being the ‘material cause’ of the world: i.e., the innermost Cause that provides the whole substantial reality of the creature.” (Daniel Soars - Creation in Aquinas: ex nihilo or ex deo?)
Plotinus, for example, is very concerned to ensure that the One remains undiminished as it gives rise to the world of multiplicity. The idea that the first metaphysical principle could perish or disappear was an impossible thought for the ancient Greeks. Their way of thinking confronted this possibility with a great, dogmatic (insurmountable) mental barrier. There is a German saying for this kind of mentality, taken from a poem by Christian Morgenstern: Weil … nicht sein kann, was darf nicht sein. For … that which must not, cannot be. [transl. by Max Knight] That's what you say when you don't want to acknowledge a fact because it goes against your interests.
The Plotinus expert Eyjólfur K. Emilsson states: “[S]omehow, everything is in the One but there it is totally indistinct and undifferentiated[.]” (Eyjólfur K. Emilsson – Plotinus) Wouldn't it be plausible to think that everything indistinct and undifferentiated in the One must be made distinct and differentiated if a real world of multiplicity is to come about, and that such making distinct and differentiating can only take place within the One? Shouldn't it then be that the One loses everything of itself because it is absolute simplicity?
God's Existence “portions” Itself by self-determination, self-limitation, and in a single stroke the created things come into being. However, the idea of dividing or limiting the Infinite (Non-Finite) in order to describe the creation of things inevitably leads to God limiting Himself without residue, so that He completely annihilates Himself. Why is this so? Because God is not only infinite (not finite) but also absolutely simple.
Let us take John Damascene's conception of God as an aid, quoted by Aquinas in ST. I. 13. 11:
“…for comprehending all in itself, [God] contains existence itself as an infinite and indeterminate sea of substance[.]”
From this sea, you can scoop up the things of the world, but you have to understand this sea as spaceless so that there can only be one instance of scooping up, so to speak. So concrete things or individuals are to be understood as finitizations of an infinite realm. But this infinite realm, because of its simplicity, cannot limit or finitize itself partially, but only totally, in its entirety.
This is a rational and (by philosophical standards) comprehensible explanation of the transformation of God into the world of multiplicity.
I would now like to comment briefly on a few passages by David Bentley Hart from THE EXPERIENCE OF GOD BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS, BLISS. First the passages:
According to Bentley Hart, one can say in accordance with the philosophical tradition, “that created things exist by subtraction: that is, they are finite and somewhat diffuse expressions of an infinite and indivisible reality, and their individual essences are simply special limits graciously set to the boundless power of being that flows from God, special definite modes in which God condescends to share his infinitely expressive plenitude. Or—one more very venerable metaphor—God is the infinite “ocean of being” while creatures are finite vessels containing existence only in limited measure.”
The word subtraction comes from the Latin subtrahere and means as much as: carry off, take away. So, to carry off or take away from God, I guess. There is no other way to make sense. The boundless power of being and God should be identical, shouldn't they? Hart also uses the word condescend regarding God. What does the dictionary say: (1) to descend to a less formal or dignified level: UNBEND; (2) to waive the privileges of rank. Then it should read: God gives of his simplicity (which is his being) in sharing “to waive the privileges of rank”. Hart should not do things by halves with his metaphors, unless he is using them as window dressing. If we take the metaphors more seriously, on the verge of becoming literal, we come closer to what I want to argue.
The infinite “ocean of being” is in itself spaceless. The spatial vessels contain water from this ocean, which should be drained by now.
Schopenhauer clarifies the actual meaning of infinite and finite:
“Finite and infinite are concepts that have significance only in relation to space and time, in that both are infinite, i.e., endless, as well as infinitely divisible. If one still were to apply these two concepts to other objects, then the latter must be such as fill space and time and partake of their qualities. From this we are able to measure how great is the abuse perpetrated with these concepts by philosophasters and windbags in this century.” (Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume 2, Chapter 13, On philosophy and its method. §20 Annotations)
Now another section from Bentley Hart:
“And if [God's “particular spiritual intentions (acts of will and knowledge, that is) toward finite things”] somehow “determine” anything about who God is, it certainly could not be a passive determination in any sense, but an eternal act of self-determination or self-expression. More important, they would certainly add nothing new in the order of real being to God, since the “subtracted” reality of finite things is always already embraced within the infinitely fuller reality of divine being.”
However:
“[T]he One is […] neither determinate nor manifold[.]” (Dominic J. O'Meara – Plotinus: An Introduction to the Enneads)
“[T]he One is […] without form or determination[.]” (Dominic J. O'Meara – Plotinus: An Introduction to the Enneads)
A divine act of self-determination logically leads to self-abolition.
Hart again:
“In the end, the crucial question is whether any of the relations that finite contingencies have to God’s infinite absolute being require alterations in God himself; and the traditional assumption is that God is not like some finite bounded substance that undergoes change as a result of external forces but is the transcendent source of the actuality of all substances and forces, and so he does not receive anything from “outside” himself, for everything is always in him and already realized in his own essence in an immeasurably more eminent way.”
My argument most plausibly assumes a total alteration. And it is rationally stronger than Bentley Hart's.
His last paragraph:
“[W]e can observe the divine simplicity’s plural expressions and effects in contingent things, and from those abstract toward the reality of their unconditioned source. But, in the end, how that simplicity might be “modulated” within itself is strictly unimaginable for us. At that uncrossable intellectual threshold, religions fall back upon inscrutable doctrines, philosophers upon inadequate concepts, and mystics upon silence. “Si comprehendis, non est deus,” as Augustine says: If you comprehend it, it is not God.”
I have the impression that Hart left the question of an alteration in God somehow ambivalent. He has, of course, the clear tendency or conviction towards God's complete untouchability and perpetual intactness, but he is apparently aware of the more or less justified theoretical problems raised by the critics. But if God allows even the slightest touch on Him, the slightest modulation, then the game is over for God. Hart can only play the Mystery Card and may become angry and pushy when confronted.
The following quote mentions a theological problem in case one wants to assume that God is not absolutely simple and has parts:
“There’s an objection—I’ll call it the ‘Injury Problem’—that I think poses a larger problem for the claim that God creates out of His proper parts. The objection is this: if the x’s are proper parts of God and God creates the universe out of the x’s, then God loses whatever functions or features the x’s conferred on God. And this would make God worse off or lessened. For instance, if Michelangelo created the statue of David not out of a block of marble but out of the flesh and bone in his right foot, Michelangelo would no longer be able to walk as he once did. It would seem that something just as injurious to God would take place if He were to create out of Himself. Perhaps we could reply that God creates out of parts that don’t really contribute to God’s properties or functions. But this response seems unappealing and ad hoc, for why did God have those parts in the first place and in what sense are they really parts of Him if they don’t really serve any function? A different response is to say that God could heal Himself—replace those parts from which He created the universe with new parts. But the problem (and the injury) would just be pushed back to where those parts were taken from.” (Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker - A Theory of Creation Ex Deo)
“wouldn’t creating out of those parts lessen or destroy God?” (Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker - A Theory of Creation Ex Deo)
So, wouldn't creating from His parts diminish or weaken Him and ultimately destroy Him anyway? Because every part contributes to the whole. If even the smallest part is missing, the whole perishes.
If something that is not God comes out of God, then in order for the creatio ex deo to really make sense, something must happen to God in the coming out of that which is not God.
Whether He is partless or has parts, creation entails the end of God.
The scholars or experts in philosophy of religion: Daniel Soars, Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker, Bill Vallacella (Maverick Philosopher) whom I quote in the OP all advocate panentheism instead of theism to avoid the problems mentioned. The same goes for the mystic Jakob Böhme.
Panentheists would directly say creatio ex deo instead of ex nihilo, which the Catholic Church would never do. And in panentheism, unlike theism, creatures are not absolutely distinct from God. Rather, there is a kind of continuum from the world to God (we exist in His “mind”).

First in series: https://www.reddit.com/yandere/comments/142b5vq/irl_yandere_couple_experiences/
Previous: https://www.reddit.com/yandere/comments/143av67/our_second_date/
Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXNLdBxR_1g
​
After the second date it was agreed that we would meet again Monday for lunch. I was pushy and hinted that I knew his schedule but he didn't know that I was being generous because I would have gone home with him right there and then. All we did on Sunday was talk on the phone. Finnian remembers that I actually called him twice after he called me. Sunday was a communication day for my family. I was an international student at ColoSU from Spain. My family was comfortable with this because I was an excellent student and mature for my age. I rarely caused any trouble and if anything I was known for being straight laced. I was raised Spanish Catholic but my family was relaxed about it. All this comes into play later on. Also Finnian and I are Christians and this will be the only warning that I will mention spirituality in these accounts, I know how easily triggered Reddit is. My family was functional. There was no abuse or neglect or trauma just typical bullying which was minor. If you are expecting a girl with PTSD going Yandere you will not find that in my story. Finnian was raised atheist and converted to Christianity before I met him. That is why we attended IVCF. (see below) I'd rather him tell you his story about that. His family was dysfunctional. He does not like to use terms like abuse, neglect and alcoholism but I know what I saw. I believe that he was so independent because of his upbringing. When I met him he was already working a budget, bought stock and an automobile (loan). He was ready to be on his own at 19 (he and I were married when he was 19 and I was 20). Final thing about religion, we are both ecumenical and that plays into our story.
I went to mass in the morning and I know I spoke to Father Bob (see below) but I don't remember what I said. I do know that I left him with the impression that we were much more than a couple because he had the impression that by the time he married us we had been engaged for 6 months. This is a lie. A lie is a lie and it does not matter if it's a fib, small or large lie, omission or leaving someone with a false impression and it does not matter who it is you lie to either. I am not excusing my behavior I'm just being honest. I've changed. I have a very bad habit of relationship elevating hence the title. I was not his girlfriend, I was just his date. We fell into that status but in my mind I was thinking so much more. As I said I spoke with my family and I don't remember much but if you've been around Castellanas then you know that we can talk and talk and talk... I remember that my parents were pleased with my progress (they didn't know about him yet) and I also remember that I spoke with my sister semi-privately and she knew something was up. She and I are close and she has been a sort of "confessor". She asked how our date was and I just gushed over him.
The rest of the day I actually studied a lot. My grades had been slipping and I was in danger of losing my scholarships if I didn't get my act together. Finnian is my muse. He and I saved my scholarships and college career that I almost destroyed through my stalking. At one point in our relationship he was walking me to class to make sure I'd attend instead of snooping on him. I was that bad. I had already irritated my roommates gushing over him the previous day so I studied and according to Finnian called him a couple of times. I was ramped up motivated and even wrote in my journal, "nuevo día nuevo yo" (new day new me). I also wrote down in my journal revised plans to get us closer. These were not formal but rather ideas and based on things I learned from him the past two days. Things like "¿le gusta el pelo oscuro liso u ondulado?" (he likes dark hair straight or wavy?" and "Telescope cost?" and "Find Marcus Aurelius Meditations" and "Tool/Chemical Brothers - ask Miguel similar bands" "Meet Brad") (Miguel is my brother and I was asking for Spanish bands, Brad was Finnian's apt mate) If there is any "yandere/yeredere" style I have that is predominant it would be that I am a weaver. I take various parts of him and his life and weave them together with me and my life until all parts are inseparable. No knives or handcuffs just a million tiny golden threads attached to golden needles inserted in and out of our beings and lives until all parts they are interwoven together like beautiful lace. I'm serious about this. I've gotten so good at mixing that even our mutual work places have communicated with each other on our behalf. I signed a HIPPA agreement at his work. That's kinda toxic. This is what I am like, what we are like. And in the future he would learn just how resourceful I can be, I would learn just how tolerant he can be, and everyone will learn that we do in fact go together.
IVCF: https://www.ivcentralrockies.org/home.html
Father Bob: https://saintjohn.church/st-john-xxiii-history/ scroll down to the left

The passage in question reads:
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.”-1 Tim.2:13-15
One user asked:
”What can this possibly mean? Given that Paul has always been saying it(salvation) is through faith.”
A helpful user responded with an answer posited by John MacArthur. Mac, sensing that this passage was a threat to sola-fide(and rightfully so) springs into action and attributes the word “saved” to be referring to “salvation from a stigma” as opposed to it being about salvation from “sin” itself. Mac writes:
“Paul is not advocating that women are eternally saved from sin through childbearing or that they maintain their salvation by having babies, both of which would be clear contradictions of the NT teaching of salvation by grace alone through faith alone (Ro 3:19, 20) sustained forever (Ro 8:31–39). Paul is teaching that even though a woman bears the stigma of being the initial instrument who led the race into sin, it is women through childbearing who may be preserved or freed from that stigma by raising a generation of godly children (cf. 5:10).”
He concludes with:
“Paul is speaking in general terms; God does not want all women to be married (1Co 7:25–40), let alone bear children. if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. The godly appearance, demeanor, and behavior commanded of believing women in the church (vv. 9–12) is motivated by the promise of deliverance from any inferior status and the joy of raising godly children.”
So Mac chalks it up to being salvation “from a stigma” or “deliverance from an inferior status” and leaves it at that. Problem solved, right?
Wrong.
Mac’s answer has only succeeded in kicking the can further down the road, for we see it rear it’s ugly head yet again in Paul’s letter to the Romans:
(Romans 2:6-7)
“God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.”
Well now we have a real problem. How could doing “good works” result in salvation? You see quick-fixes about damaged reputations may be able to plug one hole but it can’t plug them all. We only see this statement by Paul being doubled-down upon by St.John:
(Revelation 22:12)
““Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done.”
What can we do? We have already exhausted Mac’s “stigma” explanation so we may not return to that well. We must ask ourselves:
Is there ANOTHER way to understand Paul’s meaning in [1 Timothy 2:13-15]?
Yes, of course there is….and it’s the simplest thing in the world that the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years—we are NOT justified by our faith alone:
(James 2:24)
“As you can see, a man is justified by his deeds and NOT by faith alone.”
It is not enough to have faith but no deeds. No charity. For as Paul says:
(1 Corinthians 13:2)
“If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.”
That’s why Paul says a woman will be saved through child-bearing. He doesn’t mean “saved from a stigma” he means “saved from sin”. It’s not about having or not having children strictly speaking, just as it was never about what goes into your body:
(Matthew 15:11)
“What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”
For God…it’s always about why you’re doing what it is that you’re doing. It’s always about that. If you wish to be saved then it’s not enough to have “faith alone”—you must combine your faith with works of charity. Therefore Paul’s use of the phrase “saved in child-bearing” is not a theological problem that needs to be solved. We just need to understand that Paul was connecting these “charitable works” to Christ, who enables us to do them:
(John 15:5)
““I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.”
[1 Timothy 2:13-15] is not about “stigmas” or “damaged reputations”. It’s not about any of those things. It’s about meriting salvation through the good works God causes us to do:
(Philippians 2:13)
“for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”
God causes us to “will and to act” and obeying these things will “save us” because “eternal life” is going to be rendered according to those deeds👇:
(Colossians 3:24)
“since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord AS A REWARD. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.”
We don’t need to solve this problem, we simply need to do these kind of works.

During a recent post I was in the comments on TrueChristian doing my thing defending the Catholic position regarding the council of Trent. I thought my exchange with one user would be informative enough in it’s own right to be the subject of it’s own post. This is by NO MEANS exhaustive in it’s content. My intent is only for it to serve as a starting point for those who wish to be more informed about the statements made by this council. This post was removed from TrueChristian and I do not know why although I have messaged the moderators over there. So here it is yet again.
A user writes:

And there are huge problems with catholic theology including their non-acceptance of the 5 solas.

Yes, we do reject many of Luther’s ideas.
(Note: this person then goes on to cite certain portions of Trent)

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

This is supported by [James 2:24] and [Romans 2:13]. It is also an indictment of Luther’s position that prior to salvation man does not have Free Will.
Luther writes in his “On The Bondage Of Will”(1525):
”For if man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good, what conclusion can more justly be drawn concerning him, than that he sins and wills evil necessarily?" Martin Luther BW pg. 149
The church viewed this as heretical because Moses says:
[Deuteronomy 30:19]
“This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live “
The Catholic Church’s teaching at Trent was that Moses was not inviting them to do that which they could not do(i.e; obey God) by means of their will, which meant that their will was truly free.
The wording about needing to be ”prepared” beforehand is a reference to the Council of Orange[529AD] which said that God provides “stimulating graces” which prepares the will for cooperation with justification, freeing it so that man may then choose to do what is good.
Luther did not only assert that man is justified by faith alone, he also denied these “stimulating” graces talked about at the Council of Orange—hence why he denied Free Will. A denial of these preparatory graces was, to the council of Trent, a denial of Our Lord’s own testimony:
[John 3:8]
”The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
As extra reading, St.Thomas Aquinas cites these verses to established these “stimulating” graces[1 Cor 12: 4-12].
If you didn’t know that before reading canon 9 you would be lost at this point. Now why was the Council of Orange teaching about “stimulating” graces in the first place?
See Pelagianism:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/heresy
As well as this article on the Council of Orange:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/councils-of-Orange

Canon 14. If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.

Trent included canon#14 because the scriptures teach that the apostles(and by extension their successors) are the ”ministers of reconciliation”[2 Cor.5:18]. They exercise their apostolic authority to forgive sins through the administration of the sacraments of baptism[Acts 22:12] and sacramental confession[John 20:23]. One may not unilaterally declare that on account of the fact that they “believe” that one has obtained the remission of sins. It is not “through faith alone” that one has the remission of sins, but rather through the authority of Christ, which he has invested in His Church.

Canon 24. If anyone says that justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely fruits and signs of justification obtained, not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

This is being taught because it is supported by [2 Corinthians 3:18] which says:
“And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[note: ‘to contemplate’ is a ‘good work’] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory,[aka: Justice is increasing] which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”
The reformers denied that your justification can increase AFTER you have been saved. The above passage clearly denies that idea so yes, they rejected sola fide. They had no choice.

Canon 30. If anyone say that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out ... that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged ... before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Temporal punishment for sin was not expiated by the atonement, that’s why we are all going to grow old and die someday. Natural death is a “temporary” punishment, or curse, which was placed on Adam and Eve. Each sin has a temporal punishment associated with it, and man’s need to atone for his sin is supported in various sways across several passages:
[1 Peter 4:8]
“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
See also:
[Colossians 1:24]
“Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”
And:
[Matthew 5:26]
“Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”
[1 Tim.2:13-15]
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.”
Furthermore, we see this evidence in the OT as well.
David repents of his sin and acknowledges his sin merited death[2 Samuel 12:5].
Then Nathan says, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die” [12:13].
But this did not negate punishment:
“Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die” [12:14].
IN CONCLUSION
I hope you have enjoyed this brief explanation of why the Council of Trent said what it said with respect to Luther’s ideas.

During a recent post I was in the comments doing my thing defending the Catholic position regarding the council of Trent. I thought my exchange with one user would be informative enough in it’s own right to be the subject of it’s own post. This is by NO MEANS exhaustive in it’s content. My intent is only for it to serve as a starting point for those who wish to be more informed about the statements made by this council. So here it is.
A user writes:

And there are huge problems with catholic theology including their non-acceptance of the 5 solas.

Yes, we do reject many of Luther’s ideas.
(Note: this person then goes on to cite the portions of Trent)

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

This is supported by [James 2:24] and [Romans 2:13]. It is also an indictment of Luther’s position that prior to salvation man does not have Free Will.
Luther writes in his “On The Bondage Of Will”(1525):
”For if man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good, what conclusion can more justly be drawn concerning him, than that he sins and wills evil necessarily?" Martin Luther BW pg. 149
This is heretical because Moses says:
[Deuteronomy 30:19]
“This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live “
The Catholic Church’s teaching at Trent was that Moses was not inviting them to do that which they could not do(i.e; obey God) by means of their will, which meant that their will was truly free.
The wording about needing to be ”prepared” beforehand is a reference to the Council of Orange[529AD] which said that God provides “stimulating graces” which prepares the will for cooperation with justification, freeing it so that man may then choose to do what is good.
Luther did not only assert that man is justified by faith alone, he also denied these “stimulating” graces talked about at the Council of Orange—hence why he denied Free Will. A denial of these preparatory graces was, to the council of Trent, a denial of Our Lord’s own testimony:
[John 3:8]
”The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
As extra reading, St.Thomas Aquinas cites these verses to established these “stimulating” graces[1 Cor 12: 4-12].
If you didn’t know that before reading canon 9 you would be lost at this point. Now why was the Council of Orange teaching about “stimulating” graces in the first place?
See Pelagianism:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/heresy
As well as this article on the Council of Orange:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/councils-of-Orange

Canon 14. If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.

Trent included canon#14 because the scriptures teach that the apostles(and by extension their successors) are the ”ministers of reconciliation”[2 Cor.5:18]. They exercise their apostolic authority to forgive sins through the administration of the sacraments of baptism[Acts 22:12] and sacramental confession[John 20:23]. One may not unilaterally declare that on account of the fact that they “believe” that one has obtained the remission of sins. It is not “through faith alone” that one has the remission of sins, but rather through the authority of Christ, which he has invested in His Church.

Canon 24. If anyone says that justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely fruits and signs of justification obtained, not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

This is being taught because it is supported by [2 Corinthians 3:18] which says:
“And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[note: ‘to contemplate’ is a ‘good work’] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory,[aka: Justice is increasing] which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”
The reformers denied that your justification can increase AFTER you have been saved. The above passage clearly denies that idea so yes, they rejected sola fide. They had no choice.

Canon 30. If anyone say that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out ... that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged ... before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Temporal punishment for sin was not expiated by the atonement, that’s why we are all going to grow old and die someday. Natural death is a “temporary” punishment, or curse, which was placed on Adam and Eve. Each sin has a temporal punishment associated with it, and man’s need to atone for his sin is supported in various sways across several passages:
[1 Peter 4:8]
“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
See also:
[Colossians 1:24]
“Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”
And:
[Matthew 5:26]
“Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”
[1 Tim.2:13-15]
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.”
Furthermore, we see this evidence in the OT as well.
David repents of his sin and acknowledges his sin merited death[2 Samuel 12:5].
Then Nathan says, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die” [12:13].
But this did not negate punishment:
“Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die” [12:14].
IN CONCLUSION
I hope you have enjoyed this brief explanation of why the Council of Trent said what it said with respect to the 5-Solas.

Our Syro-Malabar Catholic parish recently started offering the Holy Eucharist by intinction (consecrated body is dipped partially in the blood of Christ and placed on the tongue) for the first time since COVID hit.
Honestly, I did not pay much attention to the change since I always receive on the tongue, although I should have...
This past Sunday, after Communion, as I went back to my pew and knelt to pray, I was overcome by a sense of being one with everyone in the church - that I'm in the midst of my brothers and sisters - my relatives because they all shared the blood of Christ with me... that His blood now flows in our veins. The very next thing I felt was a strong bond of the maternal love of Mary, when I realized it's HER blood that Jesus inherited when he took on human form. And from that visual suddenly I could feel this strong sense of being grafted on to the people of God, that I'm related to all the patriarchs... from David, back through to Jacob all the way back to Abraham, only because of her. That in some way I was being formed in her being, while St.Joseph looks on...
And then poof, I suddenly snapped out of it.
I know all this sounds kinda weird, but I think God in His mercy gave me an intimate experience of Mary's maternal care for ME because I've always struggled a bit intellectually with Marian devotions.
Especially that last bit about seeing St.Joseph looking on while I felt one with Mary... I've countered the special place of Mary in my head by arguing that St.Joseph was just as central to the incarnation and thus part of God's plan of salvation.
Realizing that the Body of Christ that I'm receiving is entirely of HER genetic/human makeup and thus feeling tied to her physically suddenly made a distinction for me which while not lessening St.Joseph's place, made her exalted place as Mother of the Church more evident.
I shared this with just my wife and a friend. But reading some comments here today about Marian apparitions, I thought I should make a thread about this.
I know many people share the same kind of skepticism about Mary as I did (not commenting here on specific apparitions but in general about her role), but one thing that strikes me is that if God chose her as the corporal vessel for making himself incarnate and thus feed us even today, why would it be such a stretch to imagine that he could do the same to dispense spiritual graces even now from heaven through her?

This got excessively long, sorry.
I mentioned it here before I left, but I did the Camino de Santiago! I walked from St. Jean Pied-de-Port in France to Santiago de Compostela. Took me about 37 days. I walked about 780km/490miles.
First: It was an amazing experience. Lots of highs and lows, lots of amazing scenery, lots of amazing people, lots of amazing food and wine. If you're thinking of going: do it, if at all possible. At least once a day (usually more) I had a moment of thinking: I cannot believe I get to be here. I cannot believe I get to do this!
I mean, I also got blisters (repeatedly), lost a toenail (possibly two, we'll see), I had a panic over where I was going to sleep that night a few times, the hostels had hard beds and were full of people who snored and people who kept closing the windows no matter how stuffy/hot it was, I've been home a week and I'm still sometimes stiff when I get up after sitting for a while...but it was worth it and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
Secondly: while I really appreciated being able to go to Catholic masses at least twice a week and some of them were very moving, boy did it reinforce that I am Episcopalian and not Roman Catholic. The Vibe is just different. It's entirely possible that some of this is just the way Catholicism is done in Spain or even just that part of Spain, but even Sunday mass seemed...kinda perfunctory a lot of the time? I was surprised at how often they skipped the creed entirely, for instance. Communion was sometimes just put in a bowl that was passed around, and was only ever in one form--the priest drank some wine, but nobody else did. And we almost never sang?! I think there was maybe three times we did more than just a few alleluias before the gospel reading. Almost all of them did a pilgrims' blessing after the service, and the priests varied a LOT in how enthusiastic they were about this. Some just ended the service by reading it off at everyone there, some called us up afterward to ask where we were all from and make sure everyone heard or read the prayer in a language they knew. A Franciscan gave us all small stones with a yellow arrow hand-painted on them (he also preached a great sermon, based on what little English he spoke and what little Spanish I understood, as he went back and forth between languages). A group of nuns gave us colorful paper stars they'd cut out while praying for us. On the other hand, there were two churches where after the service, we got lectured on how the RC church is the only TRUE church of Jesus Christ. At one of them the priest specifically tried to convert me and a lovely retired gentleman who is CofE by telling us only the RC church had real apostolic succession, and I made eye contact with the CofE gent and we both nearly laughed. Oops. (The priest only spoke Spanish and was telling us this through a translator, which is probably a blessing because otherwise I don't know if I could've resisted replying with "Well we're both gay and don't think that's a sin, so I don't think you want us.")
(I did have a print-out of the mass in Spanish and English next to each other that I'd taped into my journal so I could follow along, which means I have learned some Spanish that is useless in daily conversation, lol. I also would pull up the readings for the RC lectionary in English on my phone--and there was multiple times I looked around and other pilgrims were doing the same. In related news: their daily readings are much shorter than the ones in our daily office lectionary!)
Thirdly, and possibly ironic considering my last point, I found that praying the rosary while walking (usually via a recording since I walked with trekking poles lol) was really meditative. I also found that when I was having a hard time walking (because it was hot, because my feet hurt, because I was tired, because I was lonely) it was useful to me to pray a decade of the rosary for other people? I would think of someone I cared about, then go into the Our Father etc, counting off the Hail Marys with my fingers; then think of another person, repeat. This had the positive side effect of loosening my death grip on my trekking poles and preventing numbness in my hands! It's funny that I started doing it as a way of distracting myself when I was not enjoying my walk, but when I look back some of my most spiritual moments were those times I was alone and sweaty and my feet were killing me, because I spent that time talking to God about (and asking the Virgin Mary to pray for) people I cared about. I also prayed for a few people I met on the Camino that I found personally unpleasant. This made it easier to be gracious with them when we were inevitably seated together at dinner another day. I should probably learn something from that, lol.
At churches doing daily mass in the evenings, they often did the rosary a half an hour before that. There was a couple of times that the people there (nearly always a handful of middle-aged and elderly Spanish women) were benignly confused by my presence until they saw the beads in my hand and my well-worn leaflet with directions and illustrations of the sets of mysteries. (I still can't say any of the prayers in Spanish, but at least I can usually tell which one they're doing!)
Third: there's an Anglican church and mission in Santiago! I was in Santiago for Pentecost, and while yes of course I went to mass at the cathedral (no huge incense swinging, alas) I also went to the tiny Eucharist at the Anglican mission--I think there was eight of us total including the priest, who was an American woman. But it was such a comfort to hear and say the words of liturgy that I know by heart. (And see a woman priest!) Her sermon connected the wind at Pentecost to the stream of pilgrims walking into the square in front of the cathedral, and noted that despite our different languages, we pilgrims understand each other's joy upon reaching Santiago.
The mission recently bought a pension (a bit like a small hotel or bed and breakfast) and I *think* they're accepting guests. I'm hoping that within the next few years I can spend some time volunteering there--I stayed in many hostels run by volunteers (sometimes locals, sometimes a church and/or nuns, sometimes another country's confraternity of St. James) and they were often my fave places to stay. More info on the mission: https://www.anglicancentresantiago.org/
Fourth: I saw a ton of really old, really gorgeous churches. It sometimes seemed like every tiny village had a startlingly beautiful church (of the ones that were open--some were only open for mass on Sundays, or twice a month, or not at all). I think the oldest one I visited was the Church of Saint Mary of Eunate from the 12th century, but many churches had bits and pieces that were that old or older. My fave church was the Cathedral in Leon (built in the 13th century), which I paid to get into twice (they kicked us out for siesta) because it was so beautiful I kept crying. The stained glass is just spectacular, but honestly everything about it is gorgeous--the cloisters had a series of fresco paintings from (I think) the 1500's of events from the Gospels and Acts that were natural in expression.
The Leon cathedral had amazing wooden carvings in the choir--every seat has a carving of a person from the bible. Praying the daily office paid off unexpectedly: I recognized Saint Simeon, not from the Latin version of his name, or the fact that he was shown holding an infant Jesus, but because the gold lettering around his head started "nunc dimittus..." I could hear the Evening at the Office recording in my head: "Lord, you now have set your servant free, to go in peace as you have promised; For these eyes of mine have seen the savior, whom you have prepared for all the world to see; A Light to enlighten the nations, and the glory of your people Israel."
Fifth: So, St. James the Apostle. He's alllllll over the Camino, for obvious reasons. So many statues and paintings, from cute cartoony images in logos of local businesses, to heavily-gilded statues in many churches. I admit to being amused at how often he was portrayed as an older man with a beard, because he was (famously!) the first Apostle to be martyred--beheaded by a sword on Herod's orders in the book of Acts. He was mostly portrayed as a pilgrim--a pilgrim's cloak, hat with scallop shell, a walking staff and drinking gourd. In a few churches, he was also portrayed as The Moor-Slayer--on horseback with a sword, about to take off someone else's head. St. James the Pilgrim felt like a friend, St. James the Moor-Slayer definitely did not. St James did not, while alive, kill anyone that I'm aware of; but he's the patron saint of Spain in part because of his miraculous help in a battle against the Moors that historians are pretty sure never happened.
A lot of the legends about St. James in Spain are...unlikely. There's just too many instances of "funny how nobody discovered this/thought to write this down until three hundred years later, when it was useful for the church/the current king."
Which means that I've personally spent a lot of time pointing out to people that while it's doubtful his actual bones are in the cathedral at Santiago, it doesn't really matter--so many people have made genuine pilgrimage to Santiago to venerate him that the place has *become* sacred to St. James, y'know?
But speaking of the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, there's a fascinating contrast between the altar, with its multiple statues of St. James and an insanely over-the-top gold retablo and huge baby-faced angels holding up a gold platform, upon which is an statue of St. James about to slaughter someone; with the actual place under the altar where his supposed relics are kept. You'd miss the way to the relics if it weren't for the line of people. There's a small metal sign saying "entrada" above a humble stone stairway down to a narrow, low-ceilinged space, where there's a couple of steps in front of a metal grille and about five feet between you and a small altar with a fancy silver box on it.
When I went into the cathedral the day I arrived in Santiago there was barely a line, so within a few seconds I was in front of that box. Other people had pushed things through the grille: rosaries, bits of paper with prayers on them.
And there's no way around it: I had a moment of profound awe and gratitude while I was there, along with a sensation of Presence, a feeling best described as "Oh god, what if he's really in there." People were snapping cell phone pics and walking past me as I knelt and tried to just let myself sit in that Presence. But I was also self-conscious of how few people fit in that space and other people wanting a turn, so I left within a minute or two. I went to a side chapel that was open for Eucharistic Adoration, and not knowing what else to do, I prayed the rosary and did the evening Office.
I went back the next day, after the early morning mass. I read to myself the prayer that was in my credencial (which is originally from a pilgrims' guide written in the 12th century), but I changed it all to the past tense and a prayer of thanks:
O God, who brought your servant Abraham out of the land of the Chaldeans, protecting him in his wanderings, and who guided the Hebrew people across the desert, we ask that you watch over us, your servants, as we walk in the love of your name to Santiago de Compostela.Be for us our companion on the walk,Our guide at the crossroads,Our breath in our weariness,Our protection in danger,Our albergue on the Camino,Our shade in the heat,Our light in the darkness,Our consolation in our discouragements,And our strength in our intentions.So that with your guidance we may arrive safe and sound at the end of the Road and enrichedwith grace and virtue we return safely to our homes filled with joy.In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
(This isn't the exact version printed in my credencial, but I'm at work and don't have it in front of me.)

Welcome to Sabah! We hope you will enjoy your star here :)

Are you a tourist thinking about visiting Sabah, Malaysia?

These are some interesting places in Sabah you probably want to visit while you're here:

1. Mount Kinabalu
2. Sepilok Orangutan Rehabilitation Centre
3. Mabul Island
4. Danum Valley Conservation Area
5. Kinabalu Park
6. Metaking Island
7. Poring Hot Spring
8. Tabin Wildlife Resort, Lahad Datu
9. Masjid Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu
10. Mari Mari Cultural Village
11. Tanjung Aru Beach
12. Pulau Pom Pom
13. Pulau Tiga
14. Borneo Sun Bear Conservation Centre
15. Maliau Basin Conservation Area
16. Boheydulang Island
17. Ladang Tenusu Desa Cattle
18. Gomantong Caves
19. Sabah State Museum
20. Labuk Bay Proboscis Monkey Santuary
21. Lok Kawi Wildlife Park
22. Tun Sakaran Marine Park, Semporna
23. Atkinson Clock Tower
24. Kundasang War Memorial
25. Tawau Hills Park
26. Ranforest Discovery Centre
27. Polumpung Melangkap View Camp Site
28. Mount Trusmadi
29. Sosodikon Hill Kundasang
30. Pulau Sapi
31. Sandakan Memorial Park
32. Kelambu Beach
33. Agnes Keith House, historic house museum, Sandakan
34. Kota Kinabalu Wetland Ramsar Site
35. Dalit Bay Golf & Country Club
36. Mengalum Island
37. Timpohon Gate, Kundasang
38. Deramakot Forest Reserve
39. Kiulu White Water Rafting Centre
40. Teck Guan Cocoa Museum
41. Meragang Hill
42. Mahua Waterfalls
43. Dinawan Island
44. Tanjung Aru Perdana Park
45. PuuJih Syh Temple
46. Sepanggar Island
47. Coral Flyer Zipline
48. Hounon Ridge Farmstay & Camping
49. Bukit Tengkorak Archaelogical Heritage Site
50. Sabah Art Gallery
51. Bukit Bongol
52. Crocker Range National Park
53. Sabah Agriculture Park
54. Ranau Rabbit Village
55. Aquarium & Marine Museum, Universiti Malaysia Sabah
56. Klias River Cruise
57. Mesilau
58. Bodgaya Island
59. Kokol Hill Elf
60. Pulau Mantanai Besar
61. Langanan Waterfall
62. Mount Tambuyukon
63. Balung River Eco Resort
64. Tuaran Crocodile Farm
65. Sg. Moroli Fish Spa
66. Borneo Rainforest Lodge, Danum Valley Conservation Area
67. Madai Caves
68. Murug-Turug Eco Tourism (MTET)
69. Gombizau Honey Bee Farm
70. Tamparuli Suspension Bridge
71. Usukan Cove
72. Kabili-Sepilok Forest Reserve
73. Orang Utan Sanctuary, Sepilok
74. Sandakan Rainforest Park
75. Imbak Canyon Conservation Area
76. Sandakan Heritage Trail
77. Monsopiad Heritage Village
78. Bombon Kg. Marakau (Fish Spa)
79. Mandalipau White Water View & Fish Pond
80. Tadzmahal Travel & Tours Jetty
81. Upside Down House Sabah
82. Sinurambi Tambunan (Tambunan Viewing Point)
83. Gemok Hill Forest Reserve
84. Tanjung Parapat
85. Kokob Rafflesia Conservation Garden
86. Mesilou Highland Strawberry Farm
87. Chantek Borneo, specialist in Sabah's ethnic textile design
88. Peak of Hope, Tuaran
89. Ulu Kionsom Waterfall
90. Pitas Bay View
91. Tegudon Tourism Village
92. St Michael's Catholic Church, Penampang (100+ yrs old historic Church)
93. Borneo Ant House, Tuaran
94. Tanjung Lipat Beach, Likas
95. Handicraft Market, Kota Kinabalu (Pasar Filipina)
96. Alpaca Club, Ranau
97. Gaya Street Sunday Market (Morning), Kota Kinabalu
98. Kadazandusun Culcural Association (KDCA), Penampang (May - Harvest Festival)
99. The North Borneo Railway train ride (functional wood-burner train)
100. Luxury yacht of Puteri Sutera sunset cruise, Sutera Harbour, Kota Kinabalu
101. World Highest Via Ferrata Mount Kinabalu

Do you have some questions about Sabah?

Post your questions in the comment section or make a standalone post in the main page!

Is devotion/love for a ‘mother church’ a uniquely Roman thing?
In England, we have a mother church (the church we were baptised in), the mother church of the diocese, and the mother church of the country.
The Wikipedia page for St John’s Lateran says that it is the ecumenical mother church for all the catholic faithful. I knew it was considered the mother church for Latin catholics, but is it considered so for Eastern catholics too?

Hello Reddit Catholicism,
Long time lurker, first time poster! I am a cradle Catholic and my wife converted when we got married 5 years ago. My wife started wearing her veil to mass and really took to it. I came home from work one day and she had her mantilla on, and I wasnt sure what to think, I was shocked tbh.
We sat down and spoke about it after the children went to bed and she broke out a litany of bible quotes and statements from the Fathers & Doctors of the Catholic church stating that it is what a good Catholic woman should do. It was tough for me to argue against the words of St Paul and the Psalms.
I have to admit, I do like the veil. I think its beautiful and every day I come home from work and see her I immediately think of our lord and his blessed mother.
My question is: Why dont more Catholic women veil full-time? Its not in vogue with the current state of modernity, but it is biblical.
​
Edit:
Thank you to all those that reached out with their support for my wife. To clarify a couple points:
- My wife knows she doesn't have to wear it around the house, she was just doing so to work up the courage to wear it in pubic.
- She wears more than just a mantilla, sometimes its an infinity loop and sometimes its a scarf or bandana.
We are both a little disappointed in some of the responses from this community. We will pray for those of you who are harsh in your criticisms. Scapulars are so common, but yet if a woman decides she wants to wear a bit of fabric on her head then the world explodes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_head_covering#Scriptural_basis

TLDR: I’m absolutely sick of hiding my identity. I just want to be out and proud already. My boyfriend and homophobic parents know I’m bi. And my posts are always limited to FB friends so I’m not worried about trolls. I’m a freelancer and I don’t think my clients will care if I’m bi. But I wonder if there are risks that I haven’t thought of?
During the pandemic, I realized I was bi. Back in Catholic high school, I thought I was a lesbian since I fell for one of my close friends. When my parents found out they completely freaked out and almost made me transfer schools in my senior year. Dealing with the heartbreak of seeing her everyday and not being able to be with her was really traumatic for me. But I broke it off because I thought that was what God wanted me to do.
When I got to college I found that I liked boys and concluded that I just went through a phase, like many girls at all-girls’ schools. But I still had crushes on girls. And in 2021 I realized, well duh, I’m bi.
I’ve always felt like I was in this weird in-between space. Like I’m bi so I don’t completely belong with conservative Catholics, but I’m too religious to belong with the LGBTQIA+ community.
I love God and I love being a Catholic and going to mass. I have depression and anxiety, and the only thing that makes life bearable is the thought that if I get it right, one day I can go to heaven and be with God and everything will be okay. I’ve spent so much time suppressing my identity as bi that half the time I forget I’m not straight. I came out to my parents several times, but they like to forget that I’m bi and pretend I’m straight, to the point that they make disparaging remarks about LGBTQ people with their friends even if I’m there. My boyfriend of 7 years knows that I’m bi, and I feel very grateful that he accepted me and has no problem with my sexual orientation at all. My brother loves me, but he’s super conservative. When I told him I was bi, he didn’t judge me, and he explained Church teaching to me and said not to talk about it to my parents because it must make them very sad.
I never explored my attraction to girls, since I was so afraid of committing a mortal sin and going to hell. Im still deeply afraid of going to hell and I go running to confession anytime I do something that could be a mortal sin. And I really do love my parents, so I haven’t talked about being bi that much.
But then my parents and I went to Boston and seeing pride flags everywhere stirred up something in me (I’m from the Philippines, a very conservative Catholic country).
Then we went to New York, and I found out Fr. James Martin was going to be part of a panel at an episcopal church. Seeing a church lit up in the colors of the pride flag and being told I was welcome there absolutely blew my mind, and the panel was wonderful. I got to speak with someone from the LGBT ministry of St. Ignatius Loyola Church, and it really made me feel like there was a space for me to be myself AND be Catholic. And I’m planning to speak with a priest from St. Ignatius about being bi and Catholic.
I’ve always been vocal about gay rights on Facebook, but I’ve never said that I myself am bi other than a comment thread with my American cousin. I’m planning to post about the panel discussion I attended and St. Ignatius of Loyola’s LGBT ministry, and mention at the end of the post that I’m bi. But I wonder if coming out on FB is going to be seen as gauche and attention-seeking? And maybe there are other repercussions I’m not seeing, given I’ve been living with one foot in the closet and one foot out until now.

Christian Churches in Cape Coral:

• Abundant Life Christian Center
• Cape Coral First Assembly of God
• Cape Coral United Methodist Church
• Cape Coral Vineyard Church
• First Baptist Church of Cape Coral
• First Presbyterian Church of Cape Coral
• Grace Church, Cape Coral Campus
• New Life Community Church
• St. Andrew Catholic Church

Jewish Synagogues in Cape Coral:

• Cape Coral Hebrew Center
• Temple Beth El

Muslim Mosques in Cape Coral:

• Islamic Society of Cape Coral

Hindu Temples in Cape Coral:

• Hindu Temple of Cape Coral

Buddhist Centers in Cape Coral:

• Cape Coral Buddhist Center

Other Places of Worship in Cape Coral:

• Cape Coral Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
• Unity of Cape Coral

During a recent post I was in the comments doing my thing defending the Catholic position regarding the council of Trent. I thought my exchange with one user would be informative enough in it’s own right to be the subject of it’s own post. This is by NO MEANS exhaustive in it’s content. My intent is only for it to serve as a starting point for those who wish to be more informed about the statements made by this council. So here it is.
WHY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT REJECTED THE FIVE SOLAS
A user writes:

And there are huge problems with catholic theology including their non-acceptance of the 5 solas.

Yes, we do reject them and for good reason.
(Note: this person then goes on to cite the portions of Trent which reject the 5-Solas)

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

This is supported by [James 2:24] and [Romans 2:13]. It is also an indictment of Luther’s position that prior to salvation man does not have Free Will.
Luther writes in his “On The Bondage Of Will”(1525):
”For if man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good, what conclusion can more justly be drawn concerning him, than that he sins and wills evil necessarily?" Martin Luther BW pg. 149
The Church viewed this as heretical because Moses says:
[Deuteronomy 30:19]
“This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live “
The Catholic Church’s teaching at Trent was that Moses was not inviting them to do that which they could not do(i.e; obey God) by means of their will, which meant that their will was truly free.
The wording about needing to be ”prepared” beforehand is a reference to the Council of Orange[529AD] which said that God provides “stimulating graces” which prepares the will for cooperation with justification, freeing it so that man may then choose to do what is good.
Luther did not only assert that man is justified by faith alone, he also denied these “stimulating” graces talked about at the Council of Orange—hence why he denied Free Will. A denial of these preparatory graces was, to the council of Trent, a denial of Our Lord’s own testimony:
[John 3:8]
”The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
As extra reading, St.Thomas Aquinas cites these verses to established these “stimulating” graces[1 Cor 12: 4-12].
If you didn’t know that before reading canon 9 you would be lost at this point. Now why was the Council of Orange teaching about “stimulating” graces in the first place?
See Pelagianism:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/heresy
As well as this article on the Council of Orange:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/councils-of-Orange

Canon 14. If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.

Trent included canon#14 because the scriptures teach that the apostles(and by extension their successors) are the ”ministers of reconciliation”[2 Cor.5:18]. They exercise their apostolic authority to forgive sins through the administration of the sacraments of baptism[Acts 22:12] and sacramental confession[John 20:23]. One may not unilaterally declare that on account of the fact that they “believe” that one has obtained the remission of sins. It is not “through faith alone” that one has the remission of sins, but rather through the authority of Christ, which he has invested in His Church.

Canon 24. If anyone says that justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely fruits and signs of justification obtained, not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

This is being taught because it is supported by [2 Corinthians 3:18] which says:
“And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[note: ‘to contemplate’ is a ‘good work’] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory,[aka: Justice is increasing] which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”
The reformers denied that your justification can increase AFTER you have been saved. The above passage clearly denies that idea so yes, they rejected sola fide. They had no choice.

Canon 30. If anyone say that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out ... that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged ... before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Temporal punishment for sin was not expiated by the atonement, that’s why we are all going to grow old and die someday. Natural death is a “temporary” punishment, or curse, which was placed on Adam and Eve. Each sin has a temporal punishment associated with it, and man’s need to atone for his sin is supported in various sways across several passages:
[1 Peter 4:8]
“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
See also:
[Colossians 1:24]
“Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”
And:
[Matthew 5:26]
“Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”
[1 Tim.2:13-15]
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.”
Furthermore, we see this evidence in the OT as well.
David repents of his sin and acknowledges his sin merited death[2 Samuel 12:5].
Then Nathan says, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die” [12:13].
But this did not negate punishment:
“Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die” [12:14].
IN CONCLUSION
I hope you have enjoyed this brief explanation of why the Council of Trent said what it said with respect to Sola Fide.