Does a Catholic have recourse if a priest gives a ridiculously harsh or impossible penance? Say that a person went to confession and confessed a sin, and the priest gives a ridiculously harsh penance (e.g. row across the Atlantic Ocean), or even an impossible penance (fly to the moon).

If the priest refuses to change that penance, does the penitent has any sort of recourse? Can they, for instance, get a second opinion from another priest? Are they permitted to report to a higher up, such as a Bishop?

Does a Catholic have some recourse if a priest gives a ridiculously harsh or impossible penance?
Well, the short answer is yes.
What recourses one has as a Catholic in the confessional when one receives an arbitrary ridiculous harsh or unpractical (undoable) penance, let us take a look at the sacrament of reconciliation more closely.
Priests are obliged to hand out penances during the sacrament of confession. This point is not open to debate.
If one receives an extremely harsh or undoable penance, one should approach the priest in question and ask for a doable, yet reasonable penance.
One can always go to another confessor and explain the situation get guidance about what to do.
And yes you are always free to report the matter to a priest's superior, either the local bishop or in the case of a religious priest, their immediate religious superior. This should be done in cases where the priest imposes something like you must fly to the moon. Bishops should be notified about priests that are sloppy about the sacrament of confession.
There is an obligation in can. 981 to impose penances during confession.  Can. 981 is a legal and not just instructional type of canon.  It places an obligation on the confessor and the penitent:

Can.  981 The confessor is to impose salutary and suitable penances in accord with the quality and number of sins, taking into account the condition of the penitent. The penitent is obliged to fulfill these personally.

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf puts it nicely:

In other words, penances are to be given, and the penitent is to do them, not some one else. You cannot pay another person to do them.  But this obligation to give and do penances does not affect the validity of the absolution or the efficacy of the sacrament. If the penitent hasn’t done the assigned penance before going to Communion, he is still forgiven and can still go to Communion.
And, yes, it is a bit arbitrary to assign penances. How do we really judge that 3 Hail Marys are proportioned to, say, serial adultery. But how would 10 Rosaries be proportioned?
In any event, the penances assigned in confession do not affect the efficacy of the sacramental absolution we receive.
Confession can be hard, but it shouldn’t be the rack.
Priests should take it easy on people and not assign penances that are vague or hard to do. They should make clear to people what the requirements are for the sacrament of penance to be efficacious, so that they are not left in doubt or, by falling into error, run the risk of becoming discouraged or overly scrupulous. - Am I forgiven if I don’t do a penance assigned in confession?

Penances should be very clear, not vague or undoable.

And remember, validity of absolution is not contingent on the penance that is assigned.  Yes, we penitents must do our best to do some penance and we have a strong motivation to take the penance that the priest assigns seriously.  But sometimes these well-meaning nitwits suggest something incomprehensible or undoable.  So, we get out of the box, scratch our heads, and do something else that’s meaningful.  Or, if there is time and opportunity, go to a different confessor, explain the situation, and get guidance about what to do.  Not everyone has that option. - Penance given in confession was too vague

Note that a penitent has a moral obligation to report the priest to religious and/or civil authorities if the penance is illegal and/or immoral. If a priest were ever to solicit sex in the confessional, this crime should be reported to religious authorities as soon as possible. (Although not directly in Canon Law, this is still a moral issue not to be taken lightly):
Sex abuse and the seal of the confessional

The 1917 Code of Canon Law continued Benedict XIV’s 1741 decree, and required the penitent to denounce the soliciting priest within one month. The 1983 Code abolished the requirement to denounce and the reservation of absolution to the pope for false accusations against priests. Instead, it imposed an automatic interdict, a form of excommunication, on anyone making a false accusation. Canon 982 further provides that anyone who confesses to making a false accusation “is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation, and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.”

The Code of Canon Law (1983) does not forbid the denunciation of such acts. It warns us more about false accusations instead than denouncing bad priests. We are still free to speak the truth if a priest were to solicit evil in the confessional. The Code of Canon Law (1917) is much clearer and harsher on the subject. The 1917 Code of Canon Law "required the penitent to denounce the soliciting priest within one month". We are no longer required to denounced within a month, but this should nevertheless still be done, as soon as possible. I know I would!
The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1962) speaks of how such denunciations are to be done in its' Instruction On the Manner of Proceeding in Causes involving the Crime of Solicitation.
Let us not forget to pray for the sanctification of our priests. May they imitate St. John Vianney (Cure d'Ars), the universal patron saint of parish priests.

St. John Marie Vianney would pass uncomfortable nights shaken by the “grappin” (Devil) –  happily because he knew it was a good sign that the next day some big sinner would come to the Sacrament of Confession.  Sometimes there would be a “good haul of fish,” as he called the many sinners who would show up to confess after the Cure had passed such a night.
He would rise in the middle of the night to begin hearing confessions at one o’clock in the morning, and spend an incredible 14 to 18 hours a day in the confessional.
If a penitent withheld certain sins, the Cure would admonish them and proceed, to their astonishment, tell them their sins. He was known to weep while hearing confessions, with the remark, “I weep, my friend, because you do not weep.” - The Story of the Cure of Ars


According to Catholicism, it it possible for Satan and/or his satellites to roam the earth, while still being in hell? According to Catholicism can Satan and his satellites, roam the earth for the destruction of souls, while still being in hell?

Do demons on earth  take their own form of hell with them or does God give them leave from hell to torment and persecute souls before they die?

From the Blog of Archdiocese of Washington:

  Thus, though consigned to Hell, it would seem that some or all of the
  demons have the ability to roam the earth as well. Demons, however, do
  not have bodies and thus do not “roam the earth” the way we do. Their
  “roaming” is more an indication of their capacity to influence than
  their ability to move from one place to another. Further, Satan and
  demons are described as being “chained,” “in prison,” or “in
  darkness.” This is likely a way of indicating that their power to
  influence or “roam” is limited in some way. This does not say that
  they do not wield considerable power, just that it is not unbounded.
  If you think it is bad now, just imagine what it will be like when
  their power is unchained! You can read more about it here


According to the Catholic Church, what is to become of a family when the married couple discovers they are brother and sister? The scenario

A brother and sister are separated at birth and grow up not knowing of each other. Years later they meet and unbeknownst that they are brother and sister, fall in love, marry, and have children.

The question

Later, perhaps due to a search in family medical history, they discover this fact in their past.

According to the Catholic Church, what is to become of a family upon this discovery?

An answer may include a real life example.

Legally in most places a marriage that would have been illegal if the facts were known is automatically anulled - in other words it is deemed never to have taken place. Here is a page about it from Californian law..

Wikipedia gives grounds for automatic annullment of a marriage according to the Catholic church - it includes 'consanguinity', i.e. close affiliation by blood. Siblings would certainly count.

The anullment of a marriage does not affect the status of the children. They are considered 'legitimate' as long as at least one parent entered into the marriage in good faith. The anullment does not take away any of the duties of the parents to care for the children.


Where does the Scripture say that you need to be in the state of Divine Grace in order to go to Heaven? If I am correct, the Catholic Church teaches that you need to be in the state of Divine Grace at the moment of your death if you wish to go to Heaven.

If you are not, then you are automatically cursed for all Eternity and go straight to Hell.

Let's say a man had devoted his whole life to God, believed in Jesus and lived his life according to what Jesus had said, but prior to his death committed some kind of 'eternal' sin. Still, he didn't stop to believe in Jesus for even a second. Let's say he was caught off guard by temptation and died shortly afterwards.

According to the idea of Divine Grace, he goes to Hell.

My two questions:

1) How can this be just whatsoever ?

2) Where in the Scripture does Jesus say that you will end up in Hell if you are not in Divine Grace state ? If I am correct he doesn't say it at all and the whole concept has been invented by the later Tradition of the Catholic Church, not by Jesus himself.

I'm not trying to offend anyone by asking these questions. I believe in God, Christ and the Scripture. I also have a deep faith that the Church tries to bring us to God as close possible. I'm just trying to figure out the purpose of some of the 'constructs' like Divine Grace and whether they can have such a big impact on our salvation.

If I am correct, the Catholic Church teaches that you need to be in the state of Divine Grace at the moment of your death if you wish to go to Heaven.

Not only the Catholic Church, but the Bible itself teaches that you must be in a state of grace or status gratiae at the moment of your death if you wish to go to Heaven.

In Rom. 5:1-2, the apostle Paul wrote,

  Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God by our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we also have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

The Greek εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμε, meaning "into this grace wherein we stand," is the basis for the idea of a "state of grace" or Latin status gratiae.1 If you are not in a state of grace, that is, if you do not stand in grace, then you are not saved; you are not justified by faith.

  If you are not, then you are automatically cursed for all Eternity and go straight to Hell.

Actually, this is true. If you do not stand in grace, you will suffer eternal torment in Gehenna ("Hell"). The logical corollary of Rom. 5:2 is that if you do not stand in grace, then you do not have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, for it is "by faith" (τῇ πίστει) that one may have "access" (προσαγωγή) to stand in grace. Ergo, if you do not have faith in order to have access to stand in grace, then neither do you have peace with God, nor are you justified by faith (cp. Rom. 5:1).

If you have faith,

you are justified
you have peace with God
you have access to stand in grace

If you do not stand in grace,

you do not have peace with God
you are not justified
you do not have faith

The consequence of the latter is eternal torment in Gehenna.

All this being said, I think you should also know that one may stand in grace (i.e., a state of grace) yet be a sinner. However, if we sin, we must confess and repent of our sins, and "he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Sin defiles (Mark 7:23), thus the corollary is that if we do not confess and repent of our sins, we are defiled with unrighteousness, but "nothing that defiles shall enter into it" (Rev. 21:27), that is, God's kingdom and New Jerusalem. For those standing in grace who sin without confessing and repenting their sin(s) before death, they must still be purified from the unrighteousness of their sins after death by enduring Purgatory (purification).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1030, states,

  All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

Footnotes

The Latin is in gratiam istam in qua stamus. The word stamus is a verb conjugated from the lemma sto. The word status is a noun related to the verb sto; it means "place; position; state; status."


What is the Biblical basis that prayer is sufficient as a way to recognize truth? I have talked to many people who question the theology behind prayer as a way to recognize truth. A common argument is that people may get differing answers. What is the Biblical basis for this?

When you say "truth" I'm going to assume you mean eternal truths, such as the existence and nature of God, the legitimacy of scripture, and the gospel of our Saviour.

James gave this counsel on asking questions:

  "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men
  liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him
  ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of
  the sea driven with the wind and tossed. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." (James 1:5-7)

James states that any man may receive wisdom from god, but only if he asks in faith, nothing wavering, meaning that he does not allow his thoughts or biases to get in the way of receiving an impression from the Lord, you must be open to the answer the Lord gives you, even if it isn't the answer you want.

Double-mindedness refers to fickleness, being noncommittal, and wavering in one’s loyalty. Here in the Epistle of James it means to vacillate in one’s commitment to the Lord (see also 1 Kings 18:21; Matthew 6:24; 1 Corinthians 10:21).

This is how some people end up with different answers to the same prayer; they ask truth questions, but do not approach the Lord unwavering, they are fixed already in their mind about what the answer is going to be, or what they want it to be.


According to Catholic theology, why does God have an only Son? Catholics, and to my understanding other Trinitarian Christians, believe and teach what is borne by scripture [cf. Eph 4:4-5] i.e. there One God the Father, One God the Son, and one God the Holy Spirit.

The Father, being the Origin without origin is perhaps easier to grasp.

The Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed recite I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord and We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father respectively.

A human father by nature can have many sons, many children. It is an article of Faith that God begets by nature - God from God - one and only Son.

The question is, according to Catholic theology, why does God have an only Son1; that is, why is there one and only one "member" (or whatever the appropriate term is) of the Godhead who can properly be called "God the Son"?

1 Anecdote: I remember when testifying to a person on how God gave his only Son to suffer and die ignominiously for our sins, and they answered, why doesn't he have another one ...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a section on the line of the Apostles' Creed reading (in translation) "and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord". Each phrase is discussed separately; but unfortunately the five paragraphs discussing the phrase "His only Son" focus more on "Son" than on "only".

St. Thomas Aquinas, however, touches on the issue in the Summa Theologica. The First Part of this work contains a large number of "questions" (the Latin might be better translated "discussions" or "investigations" regarding the Trinity. In particular, Question 27, Article 5 (and again the Latin might be better translated "point" or "section") asks "Whether there are more than two processions in God?"

Aquinas explains the relationship of the Father to the Son by offering the analogy of a person who has in mind something they want to say. In one sense, the word they want to say is distinct from them; they are not identical to what they say. In another sense, though, the word (especially before it is spoken) is a part of them: it is a thought in their mind. Thus, Aquinas says, the Son is to the Father, proceeding from Him as one's word proceeds from one's mind and yet part of Him as one's words and thoughts are part of who one is. (In a similar way, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as a person's love proceeds from them and from their words.)

Aquinas derives from this analogy an objection to God's having only one Son: "In us there is not only one procession of the word, but there are many: for in us from one word proceeds another. ... Therefore in God there are more than two processions." (Question 27, Article 5, Objection 3) That is, he objects that since we can have multiple words proceeding from us, surely God could have multiple Words (that is, multiple Sons of God) proceeding from Him?

His response is to say that God is not really like us in this sense. Words, in us, proceed from our understanding of a situation; and our need to use multiple words arises from the fact that our understanding comes in parts and stages. We don't automatically understand everything perfectly all at once, nor can we (therefore) communicate everything perfectly all at once. But God can. He has therefore, Aquinas says, only one Word by which he understands everything, and communicates everything: "God understands all things by one simple act. ... Hence there cannot exist in Him a procession of Word from Word ... for there is in Him only one perfect Word." (Reply to Objection 3)

This unique Word of God we call the Son of God (as Aquinas discusses in Question 27 Article 2); and thus there can be only one Son of God.


In Eastern Orthodoxy, what is most important for the efficacy of the sacraments: the right Church or the right God? In Eastern Orthodoxy, is it most important for the efficacy of the sacraments that they be administered canonically by an ordained priest (who is in apostolic succession), or the fact that God is the one who works in and through the Holy Mysteries? Or is it both (or something else)? A discussion of canonical decisions made during the Novation and Donatist controversies would be helpful, as well as the decisions of Church councils. I am specifically interested in the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion (the Mystical Supper).

I'm not Orthodox and I don't know much on Orthodox theology, but I'll try to answer from what I have found.

AFAIK Orthodox Church shares the ex opere operato doctrine though the understanding is not the same (here near the bottom). This means that the answer is "God". The action of the priest is necessary, but not so much, it's less important than in Catholic understanding.

The priest is necessary for Eucharist (like in Catholic Church). For baptism the priest is not necessary: under extraordinary conditions, even a layman can baptise.


What is the army in Joel 2? I've always heard that the army described in Joel 2 was some kind of end-time army, but reading about in the NLT (as in the link) the chapter subtitle is "Locusts Invade like an Army". Is there a Biblical basis for either position?

There is very similar imagery in Revelation to particular verses in Joel. A comparison is shown below:

Joel 2:4-5 (NIV)
4 They have the appearance of horses;
they gallop along like cavalry.
5 With a noise like that of chariots
they leap over the mountaintops,
like a crackling fire consuming stubble,
like a mighty army drawn up for battle.
Revelation 9:7-8 (NIV)
7 The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. 8 Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9 They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle.

So, there is support for the idea that Joel's Army is an end-times army. But wait! Shortly after that bit in Joel, there's these few verses:

Joel 2:25-26 (NIV)
25 “I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten—
the great locust and the young locust,
the other locusts and the locust swarm[b]—
my great army that I sent among you.
26 You will have plenty to eat, until you are full,
and you will praise the name of the LORD your God,
who has worked wonders for you;
never again will my people be shamed.

This sounds more literal, and as such, it makes it seem like the earlier passages may have been metaphors. However, immediately after that, it's back into end-timey talk:

Joel 2:28-32 (NIV)
28 “And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
[...]

As it doesn't really make sense that Joel/God would insert a short literal passage in a chapter of symbolism, I'm going to say that Joel's Army appears to be an end-times army.


Do churches in the West ask the faithful to leave their sandals out , while attending service? At Exodus 3:2-5  (NRSVCE) we read:

  There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush; he looked, and the bush was blazing, yet it was not consumed.  Then Moses said, “I must turn aside and look at this great sight, and see why the bush is not burned up.”  When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”  Then he said, “Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.

I have seen many churches in India in which the faithful are not allowed to wear sandals while they attend service. I wish to know if such a tradition exists in churches of any denomination in  the West.

I've only heard this is the case in churches that have their patriarch in India. In Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Churches the faithful keep their shoes on. I understand the clergy in Oriental Orthodox churches wear liturgical slippers that do not contain leather.


How have US Christian churches handled discrimination and segregation in the past? How did Christian Churches deal with segregation laws in the United States and are there any Bible passages that deals with discrimination and segregation? What were typical responses from Churches that were within that sub-culture? Were there Churches on both sides of the issue?

The doctrinal controversies inherent have been discussed in Does the Bible support slavery and (white) superiority in the context of American slavery?, so I will limit myself to actual movements.  This question: When did the African-American population become Christian? also talks about the rise of the black church.
Perhaps the most famous examples of how the church both engaged in and overcame racism are:

The emergence of the AME Church
The AME Church was founded by Richard Allen, a black minister in Philadelphia in the late 1700s.  Although licensed, his ministry was restricted to blacks, and was relegated to early morning services.  When one prayer meeting went long, the story goes, the whites came in and told him he had to move, even while in the midst of prayer. When he demanded that the prayer should continue, the white men beat him savagely.  This was the genesis for the denomination to begin.

The abolitionist movement, and William Wilberforce
Slavery was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1807, and William Wilberforce is most commonly credited with the legislative victory.  A committed Christian, he understood that God was no respecter of persons, and that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free.  The Abolitionist Movement in the United States took largely the same queue.

The emergence of the Civil Rights Movement amongst churches in Alabama
That the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was started by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is not a coincidence.  Much of the early organizing against segregation was coordinated in churches in Montgomery, Birmingham, Atlanta, and later across the south.

The Apology By The Southern Baptist Convention for Slavery in 1995.
The largest denomination in the United States outside of the Roman Catholic Church is the Southern Baptist Convention.  It was formed in 1845, as the result of a split between the Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists, over the question of whether or not missionaries should be allowed to keep slaves.  In 1995, the SBC acknowledged this history, and asked forgiveness for it.

The answer to your questions are thus:

The church was on both sides of the issue, perpetuating evil and good in this regard. (I think I can get away with calling discrimination and slavery as evil).
In general, the White church tended to justify itself, but later came around on the issue
The Black church in the US is neglected way too much.


What is an open atheist's fate in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe? What would happen to me if, while living in Europe, say, in the 13th or in the 15th century – in fact, in any time of the existence of the Roman Catholic Church before the Reformation – I openly declared that I didn't believe in Christ or in the existence of God. What consequences would I have been facing then?

You would have been excommunicated by the church and shunned by the community. But then again, for some individuals, the solace that comes from "having the courage of your convictions" and "being right" may have made that option more palatable (see de Tocquville below).

People would have thought you odd, and possibly a public health hazard. (After all, God could punish the village for your unbelief.) But, if you were willing to move, you'd probably have been ok.

There were all sorts of dissenters - Waldensians, Hussians, Huguenots. When they became large enough to threaten the local potentate, sure, you'd be dealt with- but the fact that these groups could begin to number in the tens of thousands shows how tolerant the High Middle Ages could be.

Sociologically speaking, the community simply cared about other things far more - surviving the Plague (1347 - 1350), resisting invasions (When Genghis Khan invaded Poland in the 1240s, people thought the world was coming to an end!), ignoring the Papal politics of your time.  Heck, for at the least the latter half of the 14th Century, you had three Popes to choose from. They were so busy fighting amongst themselves, they would have had little time for you. And, if you were a peasant, you were either so busy trying to make a living (before the Black Death) or choosing which of several jobs you wanted (after the Black Death), religious conformity would have been low on your list.

Duns Scotus, for example, was able to get away with chipping away at the ecclesiastical authority of the Pope pretty signficantly - and he prospered.

It is unlikely that you would have been publicly "executed" - you just would have been so weird that nobody else would have wanted anything to do with you.

In other words, while you may have been anti-Christ, you certainly weren't "the Anti-ChristTM". You were just a nut!

Incidentally, as Alexis De Tocqueville (Democracy In America) points out that your persecution at the hands of a despot would have entitled you to take solace in your martyrdom. In contrast, simple ostracism may seem a greater punishment, if only because you would have realized how different and alone you truly were.  All that said, if you were truly an atheist, your love of reason should have been sufficient solace for you not to care.


In the Catholic Church, can archbishops excommunicate people? I was reading an article in the November 2018 edition of "The Atlantic" on Óscar Romero and stumbled upon this strange sentence by Paul Elie while he's narrating the events of autumn of 1978.

  When the president of El Salvador failed to stop the murders of priests and laity, Romero excommunicated him.

By then, Romero was already archbishop of El Salvador.

This got me wondering: can archbishops excommunicate people?

I believed that excommunication occured either on automatic ground or after Papal intervention. What am I missing?

About this, Wikipedia states:

Excommunication is either a jure (by law) or ab homine (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. The second is inflicted by an ecclesiastical prelate, either when he issues a serious order under pain of excommunication or imposes this penalty by judicial sentence and after a trial.
Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has proper jurisdiction can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be a jure (by the law) or ab homine (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from the pope, from the bishop for his diocese; and from regular prelates for religious orders. But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty. The subjects of these various authorities are those who come under their jurisdiction chiefly on account of domicile or quasi-domicile in their territory; then by reason of the offense committed while on such territory; and finally by reason of personal right, as in the case of regulars. As to excommunications ab homine, absolution from them is reserved by law to the ordinary who has imposed them.

So, yes, an archbishop can excommunicate. Notice however that they do so under the authority given to them by the Pope. The code of Canon Law, number 1442 states:

The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world; he renders judicial decisions personally, through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or through judges he has delegated.


Does God predetermine all things according to His prescience? In "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" (ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως) John of Damascus wrote,

  Χρὴ γινώσκειν, ὡς πάντα μὲν προγινώσκει ὁ θεός, οὐ πάντα δὲ προορίζει· προγινώσκει γὰρ καὶ τὰ ἐφ' ἡμῖν, οὐ προορίζει δὲ αὐτά· οὐ γὰρ θέλει τὴν κακίαν γενέσθαι οὐδὲ βιάζεται τὴν ἀρετήν. Ὥστε τῆς θείας προγνωστικῆς
  κελεύσεως ἔργον ἐστὶν ὁ προορισμός. Προορίζει δὲ τὰ οὐκ ἐφ' ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ· ἤδη γὰρ κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ προέκρινε πάντα ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὴν ἀγαθότητα καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ.

which I translate as,

  It is necessary to understand, while God foreknows everything, yet He does not predetermine everything. For He even foreknows those things that are dependent on us, but He does not predetermine them. For He neither wills evil to occur nor forces virtue, so that predetermination is the work of the divine command of foreknowledge. On the other hand, God predetermines those things which are not dependent on us, according to His foreknowledge. For according to His foreknowledge, God has already forejudged all things according to His goodness and righteousness.

Is John's remark that God does not predetermine all things, only things not within our own power and ability, considered an accepted, orthodox belief by Roman Catholicism? Are there any scriptures that contradict his assertion?

St. John of Damascus is in some ways just repeating St. Augustine’s reflection made a couple hundred years before. If your interested in the subject from ancient Father’s this is really the place to go.

  Chapter 47.— Predestination is Sometimes Signified Under the Name of Foreknowledge. Consequently sometimes the same predestination is signified also under the name of foreknowledge; as says the apostle, “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” Romans 11:2 Here, when he says, “He foreknew,” the sense is not rightly understood except as “He predestinated,” as is shown by the context of the passage itself. For he was speaking of the remnant of the Jews which were saved, while the rest perished. For above he had said that the prophet had declared to Israel, “All day long I have stretched forth my hands to an unbelieving and a gainsaying people.” And as if it were answered, What, then, has become of the promises of God to Israel? He added in continuation, “I say, then, has God cast away His people? God forbid! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” Then he added the words which I am now treating: “God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.” And in order to show that the remnant had been left by God's grace, not by any merits of their works, he went on to add, “Do you not know what the Scripture says in Elias, in what way he makes intercession with God against Israel?” and the rest. “But what,” says he, “says the answer of God unto him? 'I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee before Baal.'” Romans 11:5 For He says not, “There are left to me,” or “They have reserved themselves to me,” but, “I have reserved to myself.” “Even so, then, at this present time also there is made a remnant by the election of grace. And if of grace, then it is no more by works; otherwise grace is no more grace.” And connecting this with what I have above quoted, “What then?” Romans 11:7 and in answer to this inquiry, he says, “Israel has not obtained that which he was seeking for, but the election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” Therefore, in the election, and in this remnant which were made so by the election of grace, he wished to be understood the people which God did not reject, because He foreknew them. This is that election by which He elected those, whom He willed, in Christ before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and without spot in His sight, in love, predestinating them unto the adoption of sons. No one, therefore, who understands these things is permitted to doubt that, when the apostle says, “God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew,” He intended to signify predestination. For He foreknew the remnant which He should make so according to the election of grace. That is, therefore, He predestinated them; for without doubt He foreknew if He predestinated; but to have predestinated is to have foreknown that which He should do (On the Predestination of the Saints (Book II).

The key point of St. Augustine’s view (later picked up by Luther and Calvin) is that but to have predestinated is to have foreknown that which 'He should do'. In other words it includes 'what we will do', but principally includes what 'God would do'. Foreknowledge can’t exclude man’s choices or God's purposes, or anything else in time! However, as everything is done 'according to God’s purposes' (at least is defining un-moveable boundaries) God's choice is the overall guide and determination governing the whole, otherwise he is no God at all.

The idea of God’s relation to time is what forms the basis of St. Augustine’s views of predestination:

  Chapter 21.— Of God's Eternal and Unchangeable Knowledge and Will, Whereby All He Has Made Pleased Him in the Eternal Design as Well as in the Actual Result.
  Neither is there any growth from thought to thought in the conceptions of Him in whose spiritual vision all things which He knows are at once embraced. For as without any movement that time can measure, He Himself moves all temporal things, so He knows all times with a knowledge that time cannot measure. And therefore He saw that what He had made was good, when He saw that it was good to make it. And when He saw it made, He had not on that account a twofold nor any way increased knowledge of it; as if He had less knowledge before He made what He saw. For certainly He would not be the perfect worker He is, unless His knowledge were so perfect as to receive no addition from His finished works. (City of God, Chapter 21.— Of God's Eternal and Unchangeable Knowledge and Will, Whereby All He Has Made Pleased Him in the Eternal Design as Well as in the Actual Result.)

Having this principle view of a God outside time, God can’t learn or change in any way. It means he decided everything before time was created. This includes the idea of creating time itself based on the fact that the creature is 'subject to change'. Time is just a duration of one thing to the next which has no meaning if everything was unchangeable like God.  God alone is outside of time being unchangeable. Now the obvious tension this produces is how predestination of those ‘elect’ to damnation and those ‘elect’ to salvation is to be understood in terms of God’s love and justice.

St. Augustine himself struggled with this and after modifying his ideas later in life eventually concluded the same ideas as Calvin. However, this is only possible by simply saying it can’t be understood in its real analysis but is hidden in God.

  That owing to one man all pass into condemnation who are born of Adam unless they are born again in Christ, even as He has appointed them to be regenerated, before they die in the body, whom He predestinated to everlasting life, as the most merciful bestower of grace; while to those whom He has predestinated to eternal death, He is also the most righteous awarder of punishment not only on account of the sins which they add in the indulgence of their own will, but also because of their original sin, even if, as in the case of infants, they add nothing thereto. Now this is my definite view on that question, so that the hidden things of God may keep their secret, without impairing my own faith. (On the Soul and its Origin (Book IV) )

Note the phrase the hidden things of God. The idea here is that to try to understand God foreknowing and electing 'some to grace' and 'some to damnation' is not to be understood by man. If we try it will seem that God is mean and not just at all. No, those who ponder the subject for a great length of time commonly give up and just have faith knowing he is love and just. The eternity of God and his foreknowledge as well as his determination of what happens in time under the boundaries of providence are believed as a hidden mystery, without impairing my own faith. This subject has always caused perplexity for the church from its earliest days and the positions that one takes of the subject (in agreement with St. Augustine or not) was already defined by the time of Augustine. Naturally, not everybody views this mystery the same way, otherwise it would not be hidden.


Does the Holy Spirit indwell the Christian, and if so, how? It is written that the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian, as the apostle Paul wrote (1 Cor. 3:16 cp. 1 Cor. 6:19),

  Don't you know that you are the temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in you?

I was browsing the internet, and to my surprise, I found quite a few sites that said that the Holy Spirit does not actually dwell in the Christian.

For example,

  The word "dwell" does not necessitate a literal indwelling of the Person.

According to 1) Roman Catholicism, 2) Protestantism, and 3) Evangelical Christianity, does the Holy Spirit actually dwell in the Christian, and if so, how does this occur (including, where does he dwell)?

Generally, Christians hold that the Holy Spirit dwells within the heart of man; man being body, soul and spirit.  This indwelling is not physical but spiritual.
The heart consists of soul and spirit.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The sending of the Holy Spirit was foretold within the Old Testament.

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

True circumcision is of the heart.

Romans2:28,29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Our personal economy, our value system is established within the heart and our actions are derived within the heart.

Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things

The “hidden man of the heart” is Jesus Christ born of the Holy Spirit, which resides within the heart of man.

1 Peter 3:4 But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Galatians4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.


How should I understand the emphasis on "begotten, not made" in the Nicene Creed? I'm trying to understand the importance the repetition of "begotten" in the Nicene creed. It states (emphasis mine):

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
    the only Son of God,
    eternally begotten of the Father,
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.

I understand the purpose of this: that Jesus is the Son of God, that He is wholly divine, and not a separate entity from the Father, but I'm not fully clear on the purpose of emphasizing the difference between begetting and making after stating it once already.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the emphasis to combat early heresy that Jesus's divinity was adopted, not inherent:

But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is "begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father", and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God "came to be from things that were not" and that he was "from another substance" than that of the Father.

Based on this, I read the emphasis merely as a way to ensure people know that Jesus is one with the Father: "we really mean the same entity, not someone or something else."
But, C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity puts it thusly:

We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.
Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man.

I read that as a limitation of God's power: that He is incapable of creating something that is of Himself, He must beget it.
How should it be read? That it's merely a linguistic tool to emphasize Jesus is one with the Father, a limitation on God's power to create, or something else?

The Arians were very good at using the same (Biblical) language as orthodox Christians, but meaning entirely different things by them. The language in the Creed had to be so specific that it removes all wiggle room. I think I can hear, in the creed, the frustration of someone so upset with Arian double-speak that they pound orthodoxy home with some conceptual overlap.

Nevertheless, the two statements do affirm different things about Jesus:

  eternally begotten of the Father

That is, the Son is eternal. He was not begotten at some point in time, and there was not a time when he did not exist. But this does not mean, by itself, that Jesus was the same type of being as God.

  begotten, not made

Here I think your C.S. Lewis quote applies. Jesus is not a creature, he is not part of the creation. Contra the Arians, begotten does not mean created. The other clauses (true God from true God, one in Being with the Father, etc.) explain what it means to be begotten as distinct from created.


Early 90s Jungle themed christian childrens Musical There was a popular Jungle themed christian children's musical, in the early 90's.

It centered on a young lion cub worried about growing up and becoming King (not Lion King).

It had several fun characters in it, including one that liked to play tennis on Tuesdays (English accent).

Does anyone know the name of this musical, and maybe who wrote it or performed it so I can find it?

Here's the lowdown, background info:

  Since 1990, Jeff Parker, Nathan Carlson, Phil Lollar and David Buller
  have worked together to entertain and enrich children and their
  parents all over the world. As Woolly Mammoth Entertainment, they
  created and developed the hit radio series Jungle Jam and Friends the
  Radio Show!, which also featured the RazzleFlabbenz and Sing Along
  with Bert the Moose!   In 1999, Wayne Zeitner from Everland
  Entertainment joined the team. They changed the name of their company
  to Fancy Monkey Studios, and are launching brand new programs, still
  designed to make kids and their parents laugh through stories that
  show the goodness of God and the relevance of the Bible.

Should you wish to inquire about rights, etc...,:

This is a link to the producer, Fancy Monkey Studio and the particular series in question, Jungle Jam, a link to purchase CD's from them.  The site also has Downloads, CDs, Books, Quizzes, Videos, Contests,
Gift Certificates, and Coloring pages.

A Link for Amazon with Keywords Everland & Jungle Jam.

An ebay link to the exact episode, King of the Jungle for purchase.

Tape Contents, Side One:
In the Jungle
Very Nice Thing to Have a King
I Love to /eat
Fun for Only One
The Whole World's Waiting on Me

Side Two:
Kings Should Not Be Afraid of the Dark
Where Can We Find a King?
These Things Are Hard for Me
Jesus is Our King
In the Jungle (Reprise)

And finally, an interview with the producer--Jeff Parker

A Talk With Jeff Parker done in 2009 about the show.


Why the resurrection? My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven alive.

What is believed to have been the purpose of this? Specifically, once dead, why not just ascend to heaven in soul form like everyone else? I mean, either way, he gets to heaven.

I looked at Wikipedia and saw only that "Paul explained the importance of the resurrection of Jesus as the cause and basis of the hope of Christians to share a similar experience", which doesn't make much sense to me (I assume it doesn't mean that it's believed to allow for modern-day CPR), and that Augustine "argued that the death and resurrection of Jesus was for the salvation of man", which also doesn't.

It has been well said that mankind's greatest enemy is death.  Whoever would be the Savior of all mankind must then, of necessity, conquer mankind's greatest enemy.  Had Jesus merely died and returned to Heaven without overcoming death, then man's greatest enemy would remain unconquered.  As it is, we can ask along with the apostle Paul, "Where, O Death, is your sting?" (1 Corinthians 15:55)  Death's sting has been thoroughly defeated.  So, the first reason is that death had to be conquered.

Secondly, the resurrection proves that Jesus is not merely a great, albeit misunderstood, teacher, nor is He merely a prophet or a narcissist.  No, the resurrection proves that Jesus is divine, as Paul states:

  Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart
  for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his
  prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was
  descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to
  be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his
  resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.  Romans 1:1-4 ESV

Indeed, it was and is the resurrection of Jesus that brings credibility to His otherwise incredible claims.  If there were no resurrection, Christianity would be nothing.  Indeed, Paul also says that very thing:

  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are
  still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in
  Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only,
  we are of all people most to be pitied.  1 Corinthians 15:17-19 ESV

It is also the resurrection of Christ that gives us the hope of resurrection for ourselves.

So, three significant reasons are 1) to conquer death, mankind's greatest enemy, 2) to prove His Divinity, and 3) to give followers of Jesus the hope of resurrection.


Did Moses have an Egyptian Stepbrother? I have seen the Ten Commandments movie from the 1950’s and the Pharaoh has a son which grows up with Moses. This Phaorah dies and his son becomes the King/Phaorah. So Moses approaches this Pharaoh..well his stepbrother!
The 1990’s version with Ben Kingsley also seemingly depicts The Pharaoh as being his stepbrother too who also hates him.
Another version with Dougray Scott doesn't make his stepbrother Pharaoh, but he seemingly grows up with him and is a friend?? (Am not 100% positive the character was meant to be a brother)..I didn't like that version very much. This guy later dies in the Red Sea parting. I can't confirm the brotherhood in the last two movies. Because the made up parts can be quite..unusual.

Is there any evidence Moses had an Egyptian stepbrother in Egypt? Where did this movie tradition start? I honestly thought Moses had an Egyptian stepbrother because of the movies.

The story of Moses is in the Book of Exodus in the Bible and begins in Chapter two. It is a fascinating story and the answer to your question is addressed in:

  Exodus 2:10 KJV  And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

We do not know whether the eventual Pharaoh you asked about was a natural son of Pharaoh's daughter or not, but being the assumed son of Pharaoh's daughter; Moses would have grown up in the Palace. If the second Pharaoh was the natural son of Pharaoh's daughter, he would have been natural ascendant to the throne.

It is also probable that He and Moses would have been considered as brothers.

Other than those considerations the Bible shows Aaron and Meriam to be the only siblings of Moses.

Hope this helps.


What is the basis for saying that the Gospel of Thomas was accepted as scripture by early Christians? In an answer here, Dick Harfield writes:

  we know that [the Gospel of Thomas] and (probably) Q were treated as scripture by early Christians.

Reading the Wikipedia article on the Gospel of Thomas, I see that there is scholarly disagreement over the dating of the Gospel of Thomas – some say before AD 100, while others say after.  But by the mid- to late-2nd century, the four gospels we recognize today were affirmed by Irenaeus and others, to the exclusion of the Gospel of Thomas.  Actual evidence from the first century seems sparse, and so my question:

Among those arguing for an early date for the Gospel of Thomas, what is the evidence that points to early Christians (i.e., 1st century or early 2nd century) considering it to be "scripture"?

There is a "Gospel of Thomas" and there is an "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" - they are two different documents.

The former Gospel of Thomas - along with all other non-canonical Gospels - was roundly condemned by Cyril of Jerusalem in his fifth catechetical lecture:

  Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the
  rest have false titles and are mischievous.  The Manichæans also wrote
  a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance
  of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort.

Aside from a possible quote from the book in Clement's 2nd Epistle (whose authenticity Eusebius seems to dispute), there is no evidence that any Church Father considered the Gospel of Thomas or any other apocryphal gospel to be canonical.  It is not included in the list given by Athanasius (Festal Letter XXXIX), nor in any of the lists enumerated by any local or ecumenical council, nor in the later Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, by John of Damascus.

That is not to say that there were not some who called themselves "Christians" who would have considered the book to be Scripture, as historians suggest, but the sects who held these beliefs were considered to be/have been heretical by the Church of the Ecumenical Councils.


What is "sin that leads to death" in 1 John 5:16? 1 John 5:16 (NIV)

  If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.

(emphasis obviously added)

In that passage, it says that there is a sin that leads to death.  What sin is he referring to here?

I'm seeking a mainstream Protestant exegesis of this scripture.  I suspect that all denominations and doctrines that fall in this category will have similar understanding of this text.  If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll refine my scope.

Protestants actually provide a variety of interpretations of this passage.  The "easy" answer, that this refers to the "unforgivable sin," is held by some, but others argue that the case for that interpretation is weak, and suggest several  alternatives.

A couple of notes to begin:

Protestant definitions of the unforgivable sin vary significantly, and these variations impact how this passage is interpreted.
Many commentators point out that John is not necessarily forbidding prayer for sins that lead to death: he may be simply not commanding it.

Physical death

Adam Clarke references two possibilities in particular that he finds preferable, and both involve interpreting "death" as physical death, not spiritual.

The first, described by John Hewlett and held by John Rosenmuller and Henry More, is that the "sin unto death" is a crime deserving capital punishment.  Thus, the government, and not God, should be petitioned in such cases.

The second possibility of this type was advanced by John Wesley.  Citing the example of the disobedient prophet in 1 Kings 13, Clarke summarizes:

  The sin unto death means a case of transgression, particularly of grievous backsliding from the life and power of godliness, which God determines to punish with temporal death, while at the same time he extends mercy to the penitent soul.

Spiritual death

The theologians described here broadly agree that the "death" mentioned here is spiritual death, and that it applies to those who demonstrate themselves, by their actions, to be outside the Body of Christ.  However, they disagree on the definition of the "unforgivable sin."  The first group thus holds that the two are the same, but the latter does not see a reference to it.

Reference to the unforgivable sin

The New Bible Commentary is straightforward on this point – John is referring to the unforgivable sin, which the authors see as a "state of sin, of being in rebellion against God":

  Our Lord warns that he who blasphemes against the Spirit 'will not be forgiven' (Lk. 12:10) and it is this kind of thing that is in mind here.

John Calvin also sees the unforgivable sin as the referent: not a mere "partial fall" but "apostasy, by which men wholly alienate themselves from God."  This corresponds to his view that the unforgivable sin can only be committed by the unsaved: he sees this passage as referring the "reprobate" and those "given up to destruction."

Matthew Henry is a bit more cautious, but still believes "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" and "total apostasy [...] to be the sins chiefly intended by the apostle."

Not a reference to the unforgivable sin

Colin J. Kruse isn't convinced that John is referring to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit here, "because it fails to note the explanation given by Mark concerning the nature of this sin, that is, that it involves ascribing the miracles of Jesus to the work of the devil.  There is no hint of this in 1 John."

Brooke Westcott, argues that the phrase "sin unto death" was borrowed from Rabbinic writings (cf. Numbers 18:22).  Thus, "a 'sin unto death' would be a sin requiring the punishment of natural death.  [...] Death in such a case was final exclusion from the Divine Society."  Extending this to Christian society, then, he sees this sin as referring to any sin that by "its very nature excludes from fellowship," such as hatred of believers or denial of Christ: acts that reveal that one is not a part of the Body.

Kruse argues that from the context of the book, John is "very likely" referring to the sin of a group called secessionists, people who denied the incarnation and atoning death of Christ.  Kruse sees this group as one of the "central issues being addressed by the letter," and thus finds it preferable to interpret the sin that leads to death to be "that of the unbeliever," particularly, these "antichrist" heretics.

Robert W. Yarbrough similarly sees the sin as those actions proceeding out of "a heart unchanged by God's love in Christ," and IVP New Testament commentary agrees:

  The distinction between kinds of sin is not, therefore, a ranking of the seriousness of sins that believers commit. Instead, we have here an implicit distinction between kinds of sinners and sinning. "Sinning not unto death" is, paradoxically, sin in the realm of life, committed by one who has eternal life. [...] But where there is no confession, there is "sinning unto death," sin committed in the realm of death, sin that comes from and leads to death for the one who is guilty of it.

Summary

The Protestant interpretation of this passage is by no means clear cut, as evidenced by the number of variations advanced by these theologians.  However, it's important to note that despite the wide-ranging rationales, ultimately two views emerge: (1) that this sin is naturally punished with physical death, and (2), that the sin is committed only by those outside the Body of Christ.

Thus, we find general agreement that John is not describing a sin that, if committed, sends a Christian to hell.  Nor is he concealing some mysterious infraction that, if accidentally committed, results in spiritual death.  If indeed he does have spiritual death in view, he refers only to sins that in themselves demonstrate alienation from Christ's church.

References:

Calvin, Commentary
Clarke, Commentary
Henry, Commentary
Hewlett, Commentaries and Annotations on the Holy Scriptures, V, 171
IVP New Testament Commentary
Kruse, The Letters of John, 2000, 192–94
New Bible Commentary, 1970, 1270
Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, 209ff..  This text also includes a number of quotations from church fathers on the subject.
Yarbrough, 1–3 John, 2008, 309–11


Can a mentally ill person who takes medication regularly be a Catholic priest? If a person is mentally ill but his mental illness is controlled by medication and he feels God is and was calling him earnestly for the last forty years of his life to become a priest, can he become a Catholic Diocesan priest?

Will his mental illness be a barrier between him and his priesthood?

Can a mentally ill person who takes medication regularly be a Catholic priest?

The short answer is possibly.

While Canon Law seems to indicate that it is not possible, it also allows for dispensations in this matter.

Please remember that mental health issues come in a large variety of forms. Anxiety and depression are not the same thing as being insane. Being insane is not a grave as being criminally insane.

  Irregularities and other Impediments

  Can. 1040 Those affected by any impediment, whether perpetual, which is called an irregularity, or simple, are prevented from receiving orders. The only impediments incurred, however, are those contained in the following canons.

  Can. 1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:

  1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;

  2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism;

  3/ a person who has attempted marriage, even only civilly, while either impeded personally from entering marriage by a matrimonial bond, sacred orders, or a public perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman bound by a valid marriage or restricted by the same type of vow;

  4/ a person who has committed voluntary homicide or procured a completed abortion and all those who positively cooperated in either;

  5/ a person who has mutilated himself or another gravely and maliciously or who has attempted suicide;

  6/ a person who has placed an act of orders reserved to those in the order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical penalty.

Thus we might conclude that a person with some form of mental illness may be barred from by ordained, Rome will allow one to petition the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities for a dispensation. Thus even Rome recognizes the the vast variations in mental health issues. In any case it is always most prudent to talk these matter over with competent authorities, rather than common strangers over the internet.

True that an individual suffering from some from of mental health issue must be examined carefully to see if the underlined conditions make him a suitable candidate for ordination or not. This is ultimately a question that this response can not truely answer on behalf of the Catholic hierarchy because each case must be examined on its own merits and such decisions would not be publicly announced. Exemptions could be made by Rome.

For dispensations, here is what Canon Law has to say:

  Can. 1047 §1. Dispensation from all irregularities is reserved to the Apostolic See alone if the fact on which they are based has been brought to the judicial forum.

  §2. Dispensation from the following irregularities and impediments to receive orders is also reserved to the Apostolic See:

  1/ irregularities from the public delicts mentioned in can. 1041, nn. 2 and 3;

  2/ the irregularity from the delict mentioned in can. 1041, n. 4, whether public or occult;

  3/ the impediment mentioned in can. 1042, n. 1.

  §3. Dispensation in public cases from the irregularities from exercising an order received mentioned in can. 1041, n. 3, and even in occult cases from the irregularities mentioned in can. 1041, n. 4 is also reserved to the Apostolic See.

  §4. An ordinary is able to dispense from irregularities and impediments not reserved to the Holy See.

Although Canon 1047 does  not implicitly mention a direct petition for a dispensation is allowed for these cases of mental heath issues that are not listed in Canon 1041; it does so in dealing with issues other than “amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly”. Then yes, an dispensation is quite possible.


What were the circumstances behind the loss of the "True Cross?" It is my understanding that there was a relic, used by the Crusaders, that was claimed to be the very Cross on which Jesus was crucified. I also understand that sometime around 1187, it was captured by Muslims, and subsequently burned. What is the history behind this relic, and if it was believed to be something as important as the true cross, what on earth possessed them to do something as crazy as risk it in battle?

About "doing crazy thing as risking in battle" - do you think Israelites were crazy for risking the Ark of the Covenant in battle?

About the history of finding of the Precious and Livegiving Cross - look here for the narration about Saint Helen http://www.goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/exaltholycross


Why did Eusebius quote this passage? So this is a quick question. We all know Eusebius quoted Testimonium Flavianum in his Church History.

  About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

He either used a version of passage with Christian interpolations, or he is the one who interpolated it (completely unlikely he made it up).

However, I don't have Church history nor did I read it or found some context. So can someone tell my why Eusebius quoted it, in response to what or in which context?

Thanks in advance!

Apparently the passage may be found in three books by Eusebius.  Here is the most common.
The context of mentioning Christ is in relation to his mentioning John the Baptist and elsewhere perhaps James the Just who is brother of Christ.  These things are mentioned as explanations for subsequent calamities.

It was on her account also that he slew John, and waged war with Aretas, because of the disgrace inflicted on the daughter of the latter. Josephus relates that in this war, when they came to battle, Herod’s entire army was destroyed, and that he suffered this calamity on account of his crime against John.

The same Josephus confesses in this account that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the things written of him in the Gospels. He records also that Herod lost his kingdom on account of the same Herodias, and that he was driven into banishment with her, and condemned to live at Vienne in Gaul
… 7. After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, …
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201/npnf201.iii.vi.xi.html

TO ADD/EDIT:  In my opinion, this answers the OP question.  What is the context for Eusebius quoting Josephus?  The answer is to show why the Jews experienced subsequent calamities, including the destruction of their temple and Jerusalem.  Jesus is the Christ.  John the Baptist was a righteous man.  They, along with Pilate and others, put them to death.  It was wrong, and God poured out His wrath.  That's the point for Eusebius.

Since an historian [Josephus], who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them? But let this suffice here.
-ibid-

As to what seems to be another question/answer, is Eusebius verifying that Jesus is the Christ, the answer is not really.  It is a fact, but not the point.  Again the context for Eusebius is to explain why it (destruction of temple and Jerusalem) happened.
To be sure, subsequent Christians have used Josephus' comments as "outside" proof that Jesus is the Christ, and use Eusebius in support of that assertion, but again, that was not Eusebius' primary point.
With this in mind, I'd further argue that the quote from Josephus is in fact true with no, or very minor, subsequent interpolations.  If it wasn't true as one explanation for 70ad, why else would Eusebius mention it within context of trying to explain 70ad?


Approximate amount of money per year the Catholic church spends for charity? I'm curious of how much money the Catholic Church spends globally for charity per year. I could not find the information I wanted by a simple Google search, and even on Wikipedia, I could only  find some figures for the USA.

I'm not interested in a debate about who gives more or who gives less, or whether it's too little or too much. I'm only interested in the cold hard sum expressed in a notable currency, with a source where the information or approximations comes from.

For the sake of simplicity, I do not include Catholic persons who privately give to charity, I'm only interested in Church-owned funds.

Edit: some comments pointed out, that the word "charity" is too ambiguous. I used it in a sense like charity outside of supporting the upkeep of the Church, but charity in the sense of giving to poor people, starving children, etc. (and schools, sanitation and hospitals in poor countries)

What's the best word for "charity" in this sense? "External charity" seems odd to me and even more prone to be misunderstood. Or should I say Vatican, not Catholic Church? I'm not Catholic myself, so my understanding of Catholic organization and structure might be flawed.

Kind of depends on your definition of charity.

I consider 100% of my donations to my parish and diocese to be charitable donations.  100% of them go to building upkeep, promoting and sustaining religious vocations, proclaiming the gospel, instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, prison ministry, running hospitals, schools and catechism programs.

The church has no income other than what is given to it through charitable donations and it's investments, which go up and down with everyone elses'.

If your only definition of charity is providing for the immediate needs of people, then the Catholic Church isn't a slouch in this area either.

The closest I could find is the financial statements of Caritas, which is official  European charitable org and Catholic Relief, which is the US charitable org.

You can check out their financial statements here and here.

Beyond that, the Catholic Church has no obligation or duty to divulge what she does with her money any more than your mom does.


How do we know prophets are prophets? Some like Elijah, and Moses, can create miracles, like Jesus. Many of the miracles are not that public though. Still, it's reasonable.

Some, like Abraham have "voices" in their head. Most of the time, we call those people shizoprenia.

What do we know about each prophets and how do people there knows that he is a prophet?

An easy way to pinpoint false prophet is to see if the prophecy is false. But how to identify true prophet.

The prophets of the Old Testament frequently brought warnings, adjuring the people (or the recipients of the message) to change...or else.

  Deuteronomy 18:22 (NASB)
  When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken.

This is the real test of any prophet.

The prophets frequently performed miracles or knew things that they couldn't have known (Nathan, 2 Sa 12:7) to prove that they were from God. Some had already an already established reputation as a prophet (i.e. Elijah, Elisha, ...) and didn't need to prove it every time they delivered their messages.

I suspect that in addition to these things, the people to whom the messages were sent could tell that the message was real because it rang true in their consciences. Typically, when God tells people to do something (as opposed to warning them about their sin), he adds a miracle as a "signature." (Is 38:8)


What denominations of Christianity forbid meat from strangled animals? In Acts 15, at the end of the Apostolic Council the Church sends the following letter to Gentile Christians:

  The apostles and elders, your brothers,
  To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
  Greetings.
  We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
  Farewell.

I'm interested in the part in bold.  Judaism is known for having tons of dietary restrictions, whereas Christianity isn't.  But my question is, what denominations of Christianity prohibit eating meat from strangled animals?

I think Jehovah's Witnesses is one.  Are there any others?

Seventh Day Adventists go one step further. Since the late 1860s the Adventist Church has advocated a vegetarian diet.  In 1938 the SDA Church compiled Ellen White's writings on health into a book entitled 'Counsels on Diets and Foods'.  Here are two quotes on the subject of eating meat:

"When the message comes to those who have not heard the truth for this time, they see that a great reformation must take place in their diet. They see that they must put away flesh food, because it creates an appetite for liquor, and fills the system with disease. By meat eating, the physical, mental, and moral powers are weakened. Man is built up from that which he eats. Animal passions bear sway as the result of meat eating, tobacco using, and liquor drinking." (p. 268-269)
"As a general thing, the Lord did not provide His people with flesh meat in the desert, because He knew that the use of this diet would create disease and insubordination." (p. 375)

No reference is made to Genesis 9:3-4 where God gives Noah permission to eat meat, but with this proviso:

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you.  Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it."

There may be other Christian denominations that prohibit the eating of meat from strangled animals, but it would take a great deal of time and effort to track them down.
As for Jehovah's Witnesses, while they are asked not to eat meat that has been strangled, they are not under any obligation to make enquiries from the butcher to ensure the animal's blood has been drained (that it was not strangled).  I believe this is left as a matter of conscience and is not a hard and fast rule.
Edit - Additional information on Christian denominations (other than Jehovah's Witnesses) who uphold the prohibition on eating the meat of strangled animals:
The Armenian Apostolic Church observe rituals similar to Jewish kosher slaughter (second paragraph): https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Christian+dietary+laws
The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ) forbids the eating of meat from strangled animals:  https://iglesianicristoreadme.blogspot.com/2009/08/eating-animals-blood.html#.WxY1B0gvy00
Apparently, the Catholic Church can allow the eating of meat from strangled animals: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-church-can-allow-eating-strangled.html


What is the biblical basis for "March for Jesus" or "Jesus Day"? As a Christian, I believe that the scripture contains the basis for all the activity that I, as a member of the Church, need to get involved.

Of course, we can't find all kind of Christian activity on the text in stricto sensu, but we surely need to find a consistent theological ground that clearly support every activity that we get involved into.

That being said, my question is: what is the biblical basis for things like "March for Jesus" or "Jesus Day"? There is any commitment for the church to march into the streets or to make a spiritual parade, like romans had the Lupercalia and feasts like that?

I can't remember any verse in the NT that supports such a behavior.

Some points:

The Wikipedia article provides no such thing as a Bible basis, even in the "further reading section".
No event website provides any Biblical basis at all, like London Jesus Day or Brazilian March for Jesus or even this really old website, from the beginnings.
Here in Brazil, we have the biggest March for Jesus and is important to state that the Pentecostal movement is largely involved with that.

There seem to be no records of the specific theological basis on which March for Jesus was founded. However based on its priorities and aims it is easy enough to discern general theological principles for the event.

The founders (like many Christians) are coming from a theological traditional where it is not necessary to find specific biblical approval for something as long as it is in accordance with Biblical principles. The general purposes of March for Jesus are well supported in scripture:

Praising God. The main focus of March for Jesus is praise for God. Plenty of scripture attests to the need for this, both in public and private.
Making the name of Jesus known Obviously also commanded as a central part of Christianity.
Prayer Prayer is also a major focus of March for Jesus, specifically prayer for the city the march takes place in. Christians are commanded to pray not just for themselves but for their rulers and cities they live in.

Since there is a 'vast theological basis' for these activities, the founders take the view that there is nothing wrong, and much that is right, with adapting them to a present-day form.


Do Catholics psychologists have a moral obligation to treat homosexuality as a perversion? I was reading today about the Governor of New Jersey acting to ban "Gay Conversion Therapy", and wanted to know if this is just one more thing that Catholics would have a moral obligation to oppose.

The Catechism is clear in its stance, but vague in what it requires that people do when it says that the act is intrinsically disordered, but unjust discrimination is to be avoided.

So, to boil it down, is what the media calls Gay Conversion Therapy tantamount to unjust discrimination or is it a corporal work of mercy?

According to a statement made by The Catholic Medical Association in November of 2000, gay conversion therapy is considered a corporeal work of mercy.

This statement clearly points out that Catholic therapists are obligated to encourage chastity in all situations. The Church has always taught (and will always teach) that chaste behavior is required for spiritual health and well-being.

  It should be pointed out that Catholics cannot support forms of
  therapy which encourage the patients to replace one form of sexual sin
  with another. (Schwartz 1984) Some therapists, for example, do not
  consider a patient "cured" until he can comfortably engage in sexual
  activity with the other sex, even if the patient is not married.
  (Masters 1979) Others encouraged patients to masturbate using
  other-sex imagery. (Blitch 1972; Conrad 1976)  Catholic therapists
  working with Catholic individuals should feel free to use the wealth
  of Catholic spirituality in this healing process. Those with father
  wounds can be encouraged to develop their relationship with God as a
  loving father. Those who were rejected or ridiculed by peers as
  youngsters can meditate upon the Jesus as brother, friend, and
  protector. Those who feel unmothered can turn to Mary for comfort.
  (Homosexuality and Hope, part I, sect. 5-6)

As you pointed out, the CCC is clear about the chastity of those afflicted with same-sex attraction:

  Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of
  self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of
  disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can
  and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
  (CCC 2359)

The Church, as well as the CMA, teaches that anyone with any type of sexual disorder (i.e. masturbation, adultery, homosexuality etc.) should be approached with nondiscriminatory therapeutic charity.  Where ever mercy is needed, the Body of Christ should be there.

  The teachings of the Catholic Church on sexual morality are explicitly
  clear and do not allow exceptions. Catholics have a right to know the
  truth and those working with or for Catholic institutions have an
  obligation to clearly enunciate that truth.  Catholics must, of
  course, reach out to individuals experiencing same-sex attraction, to
  those actively involved in homosexual acts, and particularly to those
  suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, with love, hope, and the
  authentic, uncompromised message of freedom from sin through Jesus
  Christ. (Homosexuality and Hope, part I, sect. 5-6)

History has shown that whenever the Church makes a counter-cultural stand to defend her morals, she is always met with opposition.  This sometimes puts a heavy burden on those providing medical and psychological treatment. Nevertheless, the Church stays true to the Law of Christ, which is the Law of Merciful Love.  Catholic physicians and therapists are obligated to do the same.

  While any attempt to teach the sinfulness of illicit homosexual
  behavior may be greeted with accusations of 'homophobia', the reality
  is that Christ calls all to chastity in keeping with the particular
  state of life. The desire of the Church to help all live chastely is
  not a blanket condemnation of any who find chastity difficult but
  rather the compassionate response of a Church seeking to imitate
  Christ, the Good Shepherd.
  (Ibid.)


Are the twelve spiritual disciplines biblically sound? I was reading about Renovaré and came across the "twelve spiritual disciplines": meditation, prayer, fasting, study, simplicity, solitude, submission, service, confession, worship, guidance, and celebration

My first thought is that the list almost sounds contrived (being exactly 12).  However, when I look at each one, I can see how each of these things might be able to help us grow spiritually.

Is this list found in the Bible somewhere or was a contrived list?  Is this the only twelve items that can help you grow (or even the "top twelve")?

Are there any one of the twelve items that may be contentious or can they all truly be ways to grow in faith?

More info at their website

The twelve items you mention are not found as a list anywhere in the Bible. However that does not mean they are contrived. They are, I believe, very ancient and proven over a long period. I don't believe that they were ever intended to be an exhaustive list.

Each of the disciplines can be justified with biblical references, and they are definitely "biblically sound". I can provide references if necessary, but the Renovare site you link to, or Richard Foster's book, will give a foundation much better than I could.


Is there a reason why the story Bel and the Dragon is included in the Book of Daniel by some churches and not by others? The story of Bel and the Dragon seems disjointed and like a strangely put together fairy tale, yet most churches include it as apocryphal literature and others believe it to be canonical.

What were they thinking?

Bel and the Dragon is in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles because it was in the Septuagint's version of Daniel. It is not in the KJV because the translators used the Jewish Masoretic texts as the source for the Old Testament, which have a version of Daniel without Bel and the Dragon.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses interpret verses like Isaiah 9:6 which call the messiah 'God'? For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, THE MIGHTY GOD, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

Indeed if there is one God wouldn't this verse mean that the child, the Messiah, who we know as Jesus, is that God?

Jesus can be referred to as “a god” even though he is not God Almighty for the following reasons:

http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001729?q=ps+82%3A6&p=par#h=10...

The judges of Israel were called “gods”. At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were “gods” in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah.

Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1...again because he was a spokesman for God.

JESUS identified his role and his relationship with his father at John 10:31-36.  The Jews wanted to stone him. Jesus asked them why. THEY charged he was claiming to be a god, or claiming to be god (depending on the translation you use).  Jesus replied by reminding them that they (the judges of Israel) were called “gods” in scripture (and then reminded them that scripture cannot be nullified). (Jesus was quoting from Ps 82:1,6.) So since THE JUDGES OF ISRAEL WERE CALLED GODS themselves, how could they stone him just for saying he was GOD'S SON?

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, “Mighty God” (not ʼEl Shad·daiʹ [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1)."

Jesus, even though God's son could prophetically be called a Mighty God because he was:

a) Jehovah Gods spokesman (John 7:16,17)

b) Appointed to become judge to all those who lived on earth. (ACTS 10:42)

So, in summary, since Jehovah God referred to Moses and Israelite judges as "gods" in scripture, Jesus most certainly was a mighty god.


Do Pentecostals believe that they are speaking real languages or that God purposely uses gibberish? How do Pentecostals reconcile the babbling of modern "tongues" with the scriptural example of actual languages being spoken? Do they say that the babbling is indeed a real language or that God has chosen now to use babbling for other purposes than to edify by communicating actual messages? In other words, do they teach that the ecstatic incoherent sounds are now the divine order or do they say that what appears to be repeated meaningless pseudo-lingo is actually a real language?

I've heard at least two lines of thought on the issue back when I was in the Charismatic movement, attending Full Gospel churches etc.

A minority of folks seem to cite the verse of saint Paul that mention "the tongues of Angels" and claim it as a kind of heavenly language.
Romans 8:26:

  In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

The majority however see this as being a proof text for modern glossalia being "gibberish", most of the time.   However many Charismatics will point out many anecdotal tales where people who believe they are just speaking the groans of the spirit/gibberish are in fact speaking actual languages that they never studied!   (There is someone in the congregation that studied the language that recognizes the speech as being a language in an ancient or modern tongue and can even translate the message, which is often a praise to God or some other similar message.)


Do all Orthodox saints have their own akathist? I don't quite understand the concept of an 'akathist' (hymn devoted to a saint). Are these written, one per saint whenever someone is glorified? Are they spontaneously generated over time? I am trying to find the akathist for St. Dorotheus of Gaza and do not know if he has one even.

Hopefully this blurb from this Wikipedia article answers your question:

  The writing of akathists (occasionally spelled acathist) continues
  today as part of the general composition of an akolouthia,
  particularly in the Slavic tradition, although not all are widely
  known nor translated beyond the original language. Reader Isaac E.
  Lambertsen has done a large amount of translation work, including many
  different akathists. Most of the newer akathists are pastiche, that
  is, a generic form imitating the original 6th-century akathist to the
  Theotokos into which a particular saint's name is inserted. In the
  Greek, Arabic, and Russian Old Rite traditions, the only akathist
  permitted in formal liturgical use is the original akathist.

In other words I gather that there may not be an Akathist for St. Dorotheus, or there may be one in Arabic that hasn't been translated.


LDS Free Agency viewpoint I have a question concerning free agency. Mormons believe that men are free to choose but how is it that there are prophets that can see what will happen? So they know what people will do? Like Jesus knows that Peter will deny him thrice it's like Peter is destined to do it stripping him of free agency.

That is a great question, and sometimes I have pondered that myself. Through study of the scriptures and church resources I have come to this conclusion:
What is Agency?
Basically, agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves. Agency is essential to God's Plan of Salvation. Without it, we could not make the choices for ourselves. Satan wanted to remove agency from the Plan so everyone would come back and live with God again. (Moses 4:3) Agency allows us to be “free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil” (2 Nephi 2:27)
Jesus knew Peter would deny Christ three times before the cock crowed. This is not stripping him of his free agency. As a father, I watch my children, and often times I know what they will do, or what the outcome of their choices will be before they make them.  I then warn them. Often they still follow through.  I am not stripping them of their agency.  They still make the choice and the consequence follows. In my case, I know what will happen because I have learned their personalities and what choices they will make combined with my experience.
What is the purpose of a prophet?
As stated in the church's website:

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.
Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God's will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit.
We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38).

Prophets purpose is to testify of Christ and warn of the consequences of sin. Isaiah was a prophet who testified of the destruction of Jerusalem and what it will be like in the last days. John wrote Revelation which is all about the destruction of the world.  Their prophecies did not rid people of their agency. Like them of old, the prophets in our day can see into what will happen but this will not rid an individual of their agency.
I hope this answered your question. If you need clarification, please let me know!


Is there a prayer to rebuke storms at sea? My mom comes from a family of fishermen and ship captains, the vast majority of all men in her city are still doing of those professions, I live in Lebanon, middle east.

She told me more than once that her grandpa used to rebuke or let waterspout or sea tornadoes disappear by prayer to a saint some special prayer, maybe saint George. The grandpa is Catholic Maronite, which is in essence just Catholic.

I googled it, I got nothing, I just want to know if such prayers exist in Christianity and if people used to say them historically, I found few videos like this:

Man Rebukes Tornado in the Name of Jesus Christ (Youtube)

In fact if you google something like "Prayers Rebukes a Tornado" you'll see plenty of videos, most of them are just

'In the name of Jesus I command you to go'

But that's not what my question is about, nor whether these videos are fake or not. My question is this:

Is there a special prayer that only few people know, that people used to pray to a saint in order to rebuke a tornado or a waterspout? My mom is pretty certain of it, all her family are certain too, it's just that, her grandpa never told the prayer to anyone and passed away.

The particular prayer that your grandfather once prayed to calm storms at sea will be rather hard to pinpoint as there are many saints invoked against storms and this list is not a complete one. Both St. Michael the Archangel and St. Nicholas of Myra are traditionally invoked against storms at sea. St. Peter is one of the patron saint of fishermen. As you see there is a large list in play and we may never know for sure.

I will give here three hopeful possibilities, but before going into detail I would like to mention the Scriptures tell us that Our Lord (Matthew 8:24-28) and the Prophet Jonah (Jonah 1:11-12) both calmed storms at sea and could be invoked as the need presents. The Prophet Jonah is honoured on September 21 in the Roman Martyrology.

The most popular saint invoked against storms is St. Scholastica (February 10). In Malta, there is a unique feast in St. Paul the Apostle's honour known as the Shipwreck of St. Paul (Naufragium S. Pauli), which is also held on the 10th of February. How St. Scholastica became invoked against storms can be found here. In times of real necessity the short prayers are the easiest to recite.

St. Scholastica and St. Paul the Apostle, pray for us.

My second suggestion is the traditional prayer to repel dangerous storms taken from the missal of 1962. I personally use these sort of prayers in my own private devotional life accompanied with St. Scholastica.

  When a major storm is headed your way, you should prepare as much as you can. But you should also pray.

  Prayer is powerful, and it can change history. No, we don’t always get what we prayed for. But God always hears us – and sometimes he does grant us what we pray for.

  These prayers, titled “Ad Repellendas Tempestates” (“To Repel Storms”), are meant to be used in the extraordinary form of the Mass at their respective parts (and some people are using them!). But feel free to use them as inspiration for your own personal prayer.

  Here’s the original Latin:

  A domo tua, quǽsumus, Dómine, spiritales nequítiæ, repellantur: et aërearum discédat malígnitas tempestatum. Per Dóminum.

  And here’s an English translation:

  We beseech Thee, O Lord, that all wickedness being driven away from Thy house, the fury of the raging tempest may pass away. Through our Lord.

  The Traditional Catholic Mass Prayers to Repel Dangerous Storms

My last suggestion is a prayer to St. Medard.

  Prayer against tornadoes?

  I am not aware of any specific prayer against tornadoes, but I do know that St. Medard is traditionally regarded as the patron saint against bad weather. He was a bishop in France during the first half of the sixth century.

  Legend has it that when he was a child, he was once sheltered from a violent rainstorm by an eagle that hovered over his head. That is how he is commonly depicted in art, and Christians have long invoked his aid in stormy weather.

  The prayer that is said admits of different versions but generally goes something like this:

  “Lord Jesus, though the intercession of St. Medard, be with me during the storms of my life and the storms of nature. Protect the victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Send in helpers and multiply the supplies that are needed for their aid. You calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee; deliver us now from the storms that rage around us. Amen.”