Is the Eastern Orthodox opposition to the Immaculate Conception an innovation? This question of mine springs from reading this article (Orthodoxy and the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) referenced in this answer to this Christianity SE question: What is the Catholic response to the Eastern Orthodox view that the Immaculate Conception remove Jesus' ability to redeem all of humanity?

Basically it contests the modern assertion of Orthodox teachers that the Eastern Orthodox church has always opposed the idea of the immaculate conception and instead taught that Mary became pure while raised in the temple as articulated in this podcast: Perfection Possible.

I have a suspicion that the article imposes Western Catholic meanings on the writings of the Eastern fathers/teachers that they cite. I could not look up the references on the internet (for free anyways). Can anyone provide support for or argument against this article while actually citing texts from Eastern Orthodox teachers that I can read or at least providing quotes. Any citation from an EO teacher before the 15th century would be fitting, as the article maintains that it wasn't until this time that the Orthodox began to react against the immaculate conception.

The one source I looked up this morning was from St. Gregory Palamas: Sermon on the Entry of the Mother of God into the Temple. Where he seems to teach something in complete agreement with the contemporary Orthodox view. Specifically, that the Virgin Mary was made pure not simply by election of God, but that her own will and ascetical efforts were involved as well. The corollary being that original sin doesn't need to be miraculously removed by the pre-election of God, but that our ancestral sin is removed by a participatory process.

Is the Eastern Orthodox opposition to the immaculate conception an innovation? YES

In light of their own Tradition which already celebrated the Immaculate Conception having their own liturgy during the early Church Father time.

  Fr. Casimir Kucharek in his magnus opus "The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom" (1971; Alleluia Press, pp. 355-357) marshals the evidence that the early Eastern Church did believe in and commemorate the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos:

  *Also, from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as "archrantos", "the immaculate, spotless one," no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed: "This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary..."; "She is conceived...the only immaculate one"; "or "Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled...." [References: From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the feast; From the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same feast; From the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon for the same feast.]*

  Has Eastern Orthodoxy always opposed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, the Mother of God? She is praised in the Megalynarion hymn in the Divine Liturgy and in Vespers and Matins showing the pre-eminence of Mary among the saints:
  It is truly right to bless you, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cheribum, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without defilement you gave birth to God the Word: True Theotokos, we magnify you.

  *How is the Theotokos "most pure"? Most Orthodox would say that she was without sin at the Annunciation, but would disagree that the Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate by St. Anne. Fr. Peter E. Gillquist comments in "Becoming Orthodox":*

This is where the problem starts with some if not most of the Orthodox. The question is when is Mary begin to be addressed "All-Holy" or spotless?

Some or perhaps most acknowledged Mary as "All-Holy" at the Annunciation, and this is where the innovation begin as the Eastern Orthodox upheld Mary's dignity even at Her origin coming from a saintly parents.

  No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God's creation. For hundred of years, the Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title.

ORTHODOXY AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE THEOTOKOS—UNIQUE TO THE MODERN ROMAN CHURCH OR ANCIENT EASTERN TRADITION?

So, the problem really is Eastern Orthodox must revisit one of their Great Theologian and also acknowledge by the West as Doctor of the Church. The wisdom & teaching of St. John Damascene can harmonize the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Immaculate Conception Dogma even the teaching of the Great Saint St.John Paul II saying "Absolute Enmity".

The question is where does enmity started between Mary and Satan? The one who infected Eve with his malice and tempted Adam to commit the sin of disobedience.

To believe in Eastern Orthodox that Mary contracted the guilt or was born with a fallen human nature would contradict the biblical teachings and Tradition stating Mary was the New Eve and the New Ark of the Covenant.

Aside from this, the Holy Eucharist is the source of Eternal Life which is "body & blood" of the Crucified Jesus which found it's source in Mary's own flesh & blood.

  Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John6:53-55)

With Jesus not compromising this hard teaching even if all the Apostles left Him, how come the East would embraced that at some point in Mary's life her flesh was "touch" by Satan?

So, if St.John Paul II stated the enmity is absolute, meaning there is no window or even a slight event that satan ever "touch" the Blessed Virgin Mary. When does the enmity must start?

We found the clear answer from God Himself after the Fall of Adam & Eve.

Genesis 3:15 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

  "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Now let's connect St.John Paul II teaching on "Absolute Enmity" with God declaring "perennial enmity" with St.John Damascene words;

  “O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

  "O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens."

A Little Treatise on Mary by St. John Damascene

  “She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650). -  THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

  492 *The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".*

St.John Damascene teaching is the answer to Catechism of the Catholic Church when it teaches Mary was redeemed in a more exalted fashion. How? right at the very seed that St.Joachim poured-out. The generation of the seed coming from St.Joachim is where the "Body & Blood" the merit of Jesus Christ had been applied and preserved during "marital act" and sustain at Anne pure & holy womb by the assistance of God's singular & unique overflowing graces to exalt the dignity of the future Mother of God. In this way it affirmed all the text in Ineffabilis Deus pointing to the original holiness purity of Mary at the very beginning of Her existence. Satan had never touch Mary right at the very seed, the source of Her flesh or human nature. God redeemed the human nature of Mary by purifying the seed of St.Joachim, like a purified gold.

Reading the whole text of the Dogma of Immaculate Conception will open your eyes to a lot of revealed and acknowledge Truth about the purity,sanctity,holiness,dignity,etc. of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful.

  This sublime and singular privilege of the Blessed Virgin, together with her most excellent innocence, purity, holiness and freedom from every stain of sin, as well as the unspeakable abundance and greatness of all heavenly graces, virtues and privileges

  In like manner did they use the words of the prophets to describe this wondrous abundance of divine gifts and the original innocence of the Virgin of whom Jesus was born. They celebrated the august Virgin as the spotless dove, as the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built, and as that Queen who, abounding in delights and leaning on her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, entirely perfect, beautiful, most dear to God and never stained with the least blemish.

Ineffabilis Deus

Note: Read again the Dogma of Immaculate Concepcion and you will find that this document described Mary's purity right at the very beginning from the mouth of God.Why? She is the Woman destined enflesh the Divine Word to dwell among us and also the Woman destined to give house to the Holy Spirit to indwelt in us.

  721 Mary, the all-holy ever-virgin Mother of God, is the masterwork of the mission of the Son and the Spirit in the fullness of time. For the first time in the plan of salvation and because his Spirit had prepared her, the Father found the dwelling place where his Son and his Spirit could dwell among men. In this sense the Church's Tradition has often read the most beautiful texts on wisdom in relation to Mary.101 Mary is acclaimed and represented in the liturgy as the "Seat of Wisdom."

In closing, The Eastern Orthodox must upheld the teaching of St.John Damascene in order for them to embraced the Wisdom in the defined and proclaimed teaching of the Immaculate Conception. And he Catholic Church must embraced the teaching of St.John Damascene too in order for them to described & support their Catechism in how Mary was redeemed in a more exalted way.

The Blessed Virgin Mary was redeemed in a more exalted way better than St.John the Baptist even better than the prophet Jeremiah and to all the chosen souls (patriarchs & prophets) whom the merit of Jesus Christ won at the Foot of the Cross had been applied in advance to fulfill the Divine Plan of Salvation.

"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship[b] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—  to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves."(Ephesians1:4-6)


Literality of Matthew 13:44? I brought up Matthew 13:44 (see below for text) as related to this answer, though it was only tangentially related. I brought up the question Is that not a literal passage? along with the verse, and decided to spin it off into it's own question. Is it? Specifically, the part about selling one's possessions. Are we actually meant to sell all we have to "buy the field containing that treasure" (i.e. do what good we can with it)?

  “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

Too often parts of the Bible are taken literally when in their context they are figurative.

It is necessary to look at these verses in context; in reference to this specific "teaching moment" we read (emphasis mine):

  34  Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not
  say anything to them without using a parable. 35 So was fulfilled what
  was spoken through the prophet:

  “I will open my mouth in parables,     I will utter things hidden
  since the creation of the world.”

  ...

  44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When
  a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all
  he had and bought that field.    45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is
  like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46 When he found one of great
  value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

  ...

  51 “Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.

  “Yes,” they replied.

  52 He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has
  become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a
  house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”

  53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there.

The primary point Jesus is making is that the Kingdom of God is so incredibly valuable it would be worth paying any price to obtain a place within it.

So, yes, this account is literally what Jesus taught, but no, he did not teach using a literal form on this occasion.


When did knowledge of Christ's sacrifice become necessary for salvation? First, this question makes two assumptions:

For a person to be saved today, they must hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, and accept the gift of His death on the cross as penance for their sin.
Before the death of Christ, the requirement for salvation was faith in God's future redemptive work (See How were people saved before ~33AD? ).  This is what saved Abraham, the thief on the cross, and anyone else who was saved up to this point.

These two premises are commonly held by many Christians, including many very close friends of mine.

So my question is, given this understanding of saving faith, when, precisely, did the requirement cease to be "faith in future redemptive work" and instead become "faith in past redemptive work?"

The easy answer would of course be "The instant Christ died," but that has unfortunate implications for anyone who died 5 minutes after Christ did but did not know of Christ's death because the obituary had not yet been published.

Pre-Christianity Salvation
The concept of "salvation" before Christ was not the same concept as we see today.  The idea of salvation back then was that God would come and save us from whatever affliction we were dealing with.  God brought salvation from the Egyptians;  He brought salvation from the giants that controlled Canaan; He brought salvation from lions and from being thrown in a fire.
So, the idea that "salvation" before Christ was brought from the hope of "future redemptive work" is very much invalid.  "Salvation" before Christ was brought from following God and obeying his commands.
For illustrative purposes:

Deuteronomy 28:1 (NIV)
If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.

(a secular source, a non-secular source)
Pre-Christianity Remission of Sins
However, in the context of Christianity, if we say "salvation", we mean that Christ has saved us from the bondage of sin.  When a Christian says "I am saved", he means that God has forgiven his sin and that he's been freed from that bondage.  The debt has been paid; the sin is forgiven.
The concept of remission of Sins pre-Christ was that of animal sacrifice.  The sacrifice of the animal was performed for the atonement of sins. (See Leviticus 4 and Leviticus 16.)
To show that sins were forgiven:

Leviticus 16:30 (NIV)
because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.

Once the Isrealites were scattered from the promised land, the animal sacrifices stopped and prayers from the forgiveness of sins began.
I won't go into that too deep.  But here's a post on Judaism.SE that explains why they are not required to sacrifice animals: Why don't Jews sacrifice animals anymore?
The point, though, is that the Jews (pre-Jesus and currently) are not expecting future redemption to be forgiven of sins.  They are (rightly so) expecting their sins to be forgiven at the time when they ask for forgiveness and truly repent.
The Salvation of Jesus
The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross has brought about a new type of salvation:  salvation from sins.  He has provided us a way to gain access to God directly; he has become our mediator, our savior, and our redeemer.
When people hear of Jesus, his story, his resurrection, and the forgiveness of sins that we have through his sacrifice, it is at that point that they become culpable for believing or disbelieving his sacrifice.
Prior to hearing of Jesus and learning of his sacrifice and his grace and mercy, people are still under the old ways and the old rules.  (See also What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?)
To answer your question:
The requirement was never "faith in future redemptive work".  The requirement was sacrifice of atonement and repentance.  This requirement is still around today, but the atonement was the perfect atonement made on the cross.  Prior to learning about Jesus, we must make atonement in other ways.  After learning about Jesus, we can accept his amazing gift of his sacrifice as the perfect atonement.
The burden lies on the heart, not on the timing.  It's learning about Jesus that changes the "salvation" (forgiveness) from atonement through animal sacrifice to atonement through messianic sacrifice.
Summary
The sacrifice of Jesus completely changed the concepts of "salvation" and forgiveness of sins.  His sacrifice allows people to be forgiven of their sins without the sacrifice of animals.  He has become the perfect sacrifice for us.
The requirement for forgiveness was never "faith in future redemptive work".  The requirement has always been faith in God and following his laws.  (Remember, Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.)
It is the point of learning of Jesus and accepting him as the Messiah that allows us to turn from other atonement to the perfect atonement.  Once we accept Jesus, we can rest on his perfect sacrifice.


What is the biblical basis against Sola Fide (salvation by faith alone, apart from works)? One of the key points of the Reformation was the doctrine of Sola Fide: that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works. The Reformers thought this was in contrast to the doctrines of the Catholic church.

What, then, is the biblical basis against the doctrine of Sola Fide?

The question could be worded better. Even the reformers would disagree with Sola Fide as you've described it (with the exception of Luther, perhaps).
A common passage against Sola Fide is found in James 2:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15  If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16  and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19  You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21  Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

The problem is that there is more than one aspect of salvation. There is justification, that which is Sola Fide, and there is sanctification, which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit and is manifest by good works. This is why 2nd Peter tells us

10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

So salvation is never Sola Fide. However, salvation is also never of works.


How do the Catholic and Protestant understandings of "Regula Fidei" differ? In the Hermeneutics course I am taking, a definition of "Regula Fidei" was posed that seemed different from the way my Catholic acquaintances use the term. How is the term Rule of Faith  used differently by Catholics than by Protestants? Specifically how is the practical application different even if the concept is similar in definition?

From Wikipedia:

The rule of faith (Latin: regula fidei) or analogy of faith (analogia fidei) is a phrase rooted in the Apostle Paul's admonition to the Christians in Rome in the Epistle to the Romans 12:6, which says, "We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith."
The rule of faith is the name given to the ultimate authority or standard in religious belief, such as the Bible alone, as among some Protestants; the Bible and tradition, as among Catholics; reason alone, as among rationalists; as among the Eastern Orthodox it is theoria the inner light of the spirit, as among mystics.
In the Roman Catholic Church, the Bible and Sacred Tradition (that is, things believed to have been taught by Jesus and the apostles that were not recorded in the Bible but were transmitted through the church) are considered a rule for all believers for judging faith and practice.
In conservative Protestantism Romans 12:6 is viewed as the biblical reference for the term "analogy of the faith" (i.e., αναλογἰα τῆς πἰστεως). The Bible alone is considered the word of God and the only infallible standard for judging faith and practice; hence, for conservative Protestantism, the analogy of the faith is equivalent to the analogy of scripture – that is, opinions are tested for their consistency with scripture, and scripture is interpreted by the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture (compare sola scriptura).

In Methodism, John Wesley described a quadrilateral of faith, which held that Scripture, Reason, Experience and Tradition were interdependent.


Which doctrine supports the idea that Daniel 2:44 is the Millenium Kingdom? After looking at Clarence Larkin's charts, I noticed that some (chart1, chart2) of them associate the Kingdom in Daniel 2:44 with the Millenium Kingdom. Is there any doctrine that supports this? I would hate that the Church is still under the Roman Kingdom - iron and clay. Divided.

I would hate that the Church is still under the Roman Kingdom - iron and clay. Divided.

Without getting into the discussion of the Millenium Kingdom, I thought it might be helpful to take a look at Daniel 2:43-45 (let's use the NIV):

  And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will
  be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with
  clay.

  "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom
  that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people.
  It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will
  itself endure forever.

  This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain,
  but not by human hands--a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the
  clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. "The great God has shown the
  king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its
  interpretation is trustworthy."

And let's take a quick look a bit earlier at 2:35:

  Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all
  broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the
  summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock
  that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole
  earth.

Let's also quote Revelation 20:6-7 just so we all know what we're talking about:

  Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The
  second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God
  and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

  When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his
  prison

Let's just highlight a few points outlined here.  First of all, note that the kingdom in Daniel will endure forever.  Now, strictly speaking, holding to Biblical literalism in all cases isn't necessary the most sure-fire method of evaluating theological bases, but Revelation 20:7 does specific that the end of the 1000 year reign is terminating by an event (the release of Satan) so it is perhaps unreasonable to consider the Millennium Kingdom (which terminates) as equivalent to the Daniel kingdom (which explicitly never terminates).

Is there any doctrine that supports this interpretation?

Certainly!

Is there any reasonable doctrine, internally consistent and grounded in Biblical evidence that supports this interpretation?

That is for you to decide.


Are the apostles the final authority on interpreting the scriptures in the LDS church and how can I get their interpretations of specific passages? I heard a lesson on Isaiah in Sunday school and the manual gave what was to me a surprising interpretation of a scripture. I'm trying to understand the scriptures in Isaiah, (praying included). Having someone actually tell me exactly what it means (assuming the excerpt from the manual is approved by the apostles) like that is a dream come true.

I remember hearing in seminary that one of the roles of the apostles is to interpret the scriptures. Is that right? Are they the final authority? If so, is there some book or reference guide that I could have? Especially, where can I get their authoritative interpretation of Isaiah (because the Sunday school manual only has a little excerpt)?

In a nutshell, yes.

  20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
  private interpretation.

  21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy
  men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

The interpretation of scripture is the number one reason why there are multiple sects and denominations of christianity instead of just one.

Isaiah is particularly notorious for being the source of many personal interpretations, as Isaiah delivered his words much in the same manner as Christ delivered the parables–the message is hidden from those that are not spiritually prepared to receive it.

It's my opinion that your teacher erred in one of two ways: either he offered his personal interpretation of the scripture, or he revealed doctrines that were too "meaty" (see D&C 19:22) to a class without first weening them off the milk.

Regardless of whichever one it was, as with all teachings and direction we receive, it is up to us to take the matter to thoughtful study and prayer to discover the truth of all things. If you find that the words of the prophets conflict with what was shared with you, then you can rest assured that your teacher was merely sharing his personal interpretation.

Read Lesson 8 from the Scripture Study-The Power of the Word Teacher Manual: Prophets Interpret Scripture for more about interpreting scripture.


What is meant by the statement of Our Lady to St. Dominic according to the Catholic Church Some people say that Mary promised St. Dominic, "Whatever you ask in the Rosary will be granted."  According to the Church, is this statement an authentic quote, and if so, what is the teaching behind it?

Why would the Catholic Church make an explication on such a statement when such a tradition is in serious doubt?

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a more reserved approach to its' origin as a whole and tends to see the rosary as a natural development of piety of which St. Dominic does not have any particular role at all:

  We have positive evidence that both the invention of the beads as a counting apparatus and also the practice of repeating a hundred and fifty Aves cannot be due to St. Dominic, because they are both notably older than his time. Further, we are assured that the meditating upon the mysteries was not introduced until two hundred years after his death. What then, we are compelled to ask, is there left of which St. Dominic may be called the author?

  These positive reasons for distrusting the current tradition might in a measure be ignored as archaeological refinements, if there were any satisfactory evidence to show that St. Dominic had identified himself with the pre-existing Rosary and become its apostle. But here we are met with absolute silence. Of the eight or nine early Lives of the saint, not one makes the faintest allusion to the Rosary. The witnesses who gave evidence in the cause of his canonization are equally reticent. In the great collection of documents accumulated by Fathers Balme and Lelaidier, O.P., in their "Cartulaire de St. Dominique" the question is studiously ignored. The early constitutions of the different provinces of the order have been examined, and many of them printed, but no one has found any reference to this devotion.

Wikipedia goes on to say:

  Alanus de Rupe (Alain de la Roche) was a 15th-century Dominican preacher, best known for his efforts to promote the Rosary. Alanus claimed to have experienced a vision by which it was revealed to him that the Blessed Virgin Mary had appeared to St. Dominic and gave him the Rosary as a means to combat the Albigensian movement. Alanus de Rupe's revelation concerning St. Dominic and the Rosary was generally accepted until the 17th century when the Bollandists concluded that the account of Dominic's supposed apparition of Our Lady of the Rosary is not mentioned in any documents of the Church or Dominican Order prior to the accounts of Alanus over two hundred years later.


Where did the idea of the Trinity come from? As noted here about 1 John:

  The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the
  majority of Greek manuscripts.

Which implies that this has been recently added to scripture.  It is also discussed here on hermeneutics.SE.  It also happens to be the only place in the Bible which directly addresses the Trinity as one.  With that in mind, where did the idea of the Trinity come from and where else is it supported?

This is the only place in the bible where it mentions that the three are one:

1 John 5:7-8, KJV

  For there are three that bear record (witness) in heaven, the Father,
  the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are
  three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the
  blood: and these three agree in one.

VS

1 John 5:7-8, ESV

  For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the
  blood; and these three agree

The three are mentioned elsewhere in the bible, but not as one.  As JoaoRodrigues pointed out:

Matthew 28:19 ESV

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

However the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be distinct here - not homoousian.

The revelation of scripture which describes God as existing as one being, with three distinct persons, does not hinge on any particular verse, but is gradually revealed from Genesis to Revelation.  If 1 John was removed from the Bible it would have no impact on the concept of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as three distinct persons of the only God. The word Trinity is just a catch word to say Father, Son and Spirit, assuming that only the Father, Son and Spirit are eternal and without any boundaries, being infinite in all their qualities and essence. The Son had no beginning, the Spirit had no beginning, the Father had no beginning and they are the one and only God. All other things that exists, we're the creation of the triune God.  These many Biblical truths are stuffed into the word 'Trinity' as a container for what the Bible clearly teaches.
In the creation of all things, the Trinity manifests that each person of the Trinity has a distinct operation in their relation to the other persons. When the Bible refers to ‘God’ in general, then no particular person of the trinity is being identified, so we just can know it means all three.  However, when any special impression is made of the special works or properties, more specific to one of the persons of the Trinity; then the Bible is drawing attention to that work as assigned peculiarly to that person.   For example, in the creation (creation = all that is not God) the 'original will' behind the creation, is an expression of the Father.  Gods powerful 'word' in the creation, is an expression of the Son. The 'perfecting and finishing' works of creation is an expression of the Spirit.
One quick proof of the Trinity might therefore go like this:
Originally in the shadows of the obscure revelation under the Old Testament there was only God.  God is, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but not yet known in that full developed sense as we know today. Only known in a weak dark shadowy sense, under the natural and gradual progression of revelation.
We actually see all three persons at work in the creation, but only obscurely:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (NIV Genesis 1:1-3)

Yes, we do see the Father 'speaking' his original will, we see his 'word' powerfully creating, and we see the Spirit, perfecting and completing the work as it hovers, but this may easily be viewed as just God, who hovered over the waters, not the trinity.  We know it is clearly the trinity looking backwards with our light that we now have, but it can't be said to be so clear at first.
So how did we get our clear view? Well first there was the Promise of a 'Messiah', then a Temple for the 'Spirit' in the Jewish nation.  The promise for a Messiah is a theme that developed over a long period with certain immersing concepts until he finally came.  One of these central themes regarding Messiah is that he would be a Son. He would've a Son of David, but also a Son born of a virgin, 'God with us'. This is getting clearer for sure, but still not fully clear.  Once the Son arrived then it was clear. jesus clearly distinguished between His 'Father' and the 'Spirit'.  This is how the trinity became clear, Christ taught it and was the clear manifestation of one of its persons.
First he was manifested as the Son at the inauguration of his ministry:

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (NIV Matthew 3:16-17)

Then besides proving his divinity from his power over disease, devil and nature he directly made known his divine per-existent state through argumentation:

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (NIV John 8:54-58)

Of course I AM was the name God (Father, Son and Spirit) gave himself to Moses which means 'always existed'.
Now we have the foundation of The Father and The Son, all we need is the Spirit to complete the revelation.
Jesus made it clear the Spirit was not the Father:

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (NIV John 14:26)

But we already saw in Genesis, the Spirit was involved in creation and in the Temple the Spirit dwelled, so as the Spirit is the pre-existent God and 'not the Father', then all three, Father, Son and Spirit are God.  These three are therefore put on the same level, so that when we are made to join in the gospel and in Christ, we are being joined into God, which means all three:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (NIV Matthew 28:19)

Therefore, now that we have the full knowledge of Christ, we can look back and realize things they never saw clearly before.

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (NIV Hebrews 1:1-3)

'Many times and in various ways' indicates the imperfection of how he spoke in the past. Before it was alike a spark, here and there, but now a radiant Sun!
Why could the Trinity not be so clearly seen before Christ? Well simply because everything in the days of the Law were faint, weak and dim.

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. (NIV Hebrews 10:1)
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (NIV Hebrews 8:13)

Therefore although the Trinity first came from Genesis Chapter 1, it never became clear until the Son was revealed.


Why is there no marriage in Heaven? Why did Jesus said there is no marriage in Heaven?

Mark 12:25 NIV

  When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage;
  they will be like the angels in heaven.

Is it because Heaven's better than even joyous things like marriage?  Or is it because marriage is to procreate and sex is, well, a bit too 'earthly'?

I assume you're refering to Mark 12:25 where it says:

  When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. (NIV)

First a couple of notes on context. This was the answer to a trick question from a group of Sadducees. The Sadducees were an elitist liberal group similar to the Pharisees, who were an elitist conservative group. Among their many beliefs was a rejection of the resurrection. Their question from Mark 12:18-23 is an attempt to make Jesus look ridiculous for believing in the resurrection.1

  Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

So back to the original question. "Why did Jesus say there will be no marriage?"

The first answer, from the Pulpit Commentary on Mark 12:18, is that if she'd been the wife of only one or all seven brothers someone it would cause problems and after the resurrection there's not supposed to be any problems.

The second answer, also from the Pulpit Commentary this time on Mark 12:25, states:

  There will be no necessity for marriages in heaven. Here, on earth, the father dies, but he lives on in his children after death. In heaven there is no death, but every one will live and be blessed for ever; and therefore it is that St. Luke adds here, "Neither can they die any more." St. Augustine says, "Marriages are on account of children; children on account of succession; succession on account of death. But in heaven, as there is no death, neither is there any marriage."

1 Remember that this was (and still is) a conservative Jewish belief. It's not something Christ introduced.


What is the difference between Apollinarianism and Eutychianism? Both Apollinaris and Eutychius believed in one divine subject Christology that the only and whole person of Christ is a divine person, the Logos. Not a divine-humane person. Their Christology were condemned at Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), respectively. Apollinaris teaches that the Logos supplant the rational faculty of Christ not another man. While Eutychius teaches that the flesh of Christ belongs to the Logos and not another man. So that both teach the Logos, a divine person is the only divine subject. How then one in principle manner differentiate their Christology from one another?

In general, the Apollinarians said that Christ's humanity is incomplete because He has the human body and human soul, but does not have the human spirit, which is mysteriously replaced by the Logos. The so-called Christ is thus formed with these three: Logos, soul, and body (unlike a normal human being which is made up of the spirit, soul, and body).

According to Eutychians, they denied the distinctness and coexistence of Christ's divinity and humanity, but asserted that the two natures were merged into one, which is neither divine nor human, but a third nature resulting through the merging of divinity and humanity - the divinity being dominant, with the humanity being absorbed by the divinity. Hence the Eutychians were also known as the Monophysites.

Eutyches did not seem to reject the full humanity of Jesus Christ. But, even though he did not repeat the exact heresy of Apollinarius, he did reduce Christ's humanity to a "drop of wine in the ocean of his deity".

Justo González, in "A History of Christian Thought, vol. 1", mentions that:

  ... Eutyches, a monk in Constantinople who lacked theological subtlety,
  and who held that, while the Savior was “of one substance [homoousios]
  with the Father, he was not “of one substance with us.

According to Eutyches, the humanity of Jesus Christ made no different to the the Logos and was swallowed up in the incarnation union with Him. So, not only Christ did not have a human personality or individual human existence, he did not have a human nature like ours at all.

Basically, a third nature in which neither human nor divine but in which the divine dominates.

So, the difference is Apollinarians states that Christ's humanity is incomplete while Eutychians merges both natures into a third, losing the distinctness and co-existence of both.


What is the Biblical view of "the spiritual gift of leadership"? Romans 12 is said to describe "spiritual gifts".  (See this post, for instance.)  Such gifts are often regarded as being granted supernaturally to specific Christians, who are then specially able to exercise them.  My question is for Christians who hold such a view.

  Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.  -(Romans 12:6-8)

What is the spiritual gift of "leadership", how is it described in the Bible, and how is it unique to specially-gifted Christians?

As with many gifts of the Spirit, the gift of 'leadership' is not described in the Bible directly. The first conclusion I draw from that is the unique operations of The Holy Spirit do not require a user guide.

For example, at Pentecost the Bible says,

  Acts 2:4
  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

There is no mention of 'preparation' for this unusual miraculous gift of speaking in foreign languages without any training. Peter did not say something like, 'Brothers the Spirit is about to come, when he does you will feel a burning and an urge to waggle your tongue. Do not be shy, give in to the waggle.' No the gifts do not need a user guide. The Spirit was powerful enough to produce the effect without any preparation.

There is a general guide for all gifts in the Bible, such as 'love' 'building up the body', etc. (1 Cor 12)  Also these gifts (whichever of them are in operation today) are part of the 'ministry of the Spirit'. That is they are not just natural gifts sanctified by the Spirit, but are things given by the Spirit. They might not be in operation if we are living in sin. Just as Samson was not strong when his hair was cut, a natural born leader cannot lead without faith strengthened by the Spirit.

With regard to 'leadership' specifically, notice the scripture describes the gifts more by recording those who had them, than by doctrine. For example, we need not doubt that Paul had a gift of teaching.

Some in the Bible that were obvious spiritual leaders are: Joseph, David, Joshua, Jesus, Peter, Paul, Barnabas. Every church also has leaders, these are those people who others 'follow'.  After the scripture we see great leaders in Church history as well, someone like Luther for instance.

As a final description let me just propose something. A leader is someone aware of the Spirit and burdened with God's love to lead people.  They have an ability from the Holy Spirit to influence others towards Christ. People respect them and follow them, without necessarily realizing it. Leaders, who lead in the Spirit help the ministry of a local church strengthen. They see how others feel and express burdens of their brothers and sisters is a way that helps the church avoid sin. People follow their cue, even without words spoken. These are just random observations, but I think you can see what I mean, as manifest in the leaders I listed.

Having said this let me add, many leaders are in the making, and many leaders are only recognized by a few. Nobody recognized Noah's lead.

For an expert analysis on the gifts of the Holy Spirit I recommend, John Owen's Works Volume 4, his second volume on the subject.


Has there been any explanation given on the murder of Joan of Arc? Joan of Arc was burned as a heretic. Now she is a saint. How does the Roman Catholic Church explain this? It turned out that the Roman Catholic Church has murdered its own saint? Has any logical explanation ever been offered for this?

She was burned by the English clergy who denied her appeal to the Pope near the end of the Hundred Years War and she was cleared of all charges only 30 years after her death (even though it took almost 500 years to canonize her).

And yeah, there's been extensive research and analysis of what happened.  The trial and the aftermath is all amazingly well documented and worth reading; or if you prefer historical fiction Mark Twain has an awesome book about her.


According to Catholicism, did St. Paul believe that end of the world was imminent? We read at 1 Cor 7: 29-31 (NRSVCE) :

I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions,   and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.

The said words of St. Paul apparently point to his view that the end of the world was imminent. My question is : According to Catholic Church, did St. Paul believe that the end of the world was imminent?

The Catholic Church has a nuanced approach to Biblical inerrancy. A dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council states inerrancy applies only to

that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation [and that]
the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. -  Dei Verbum

So it would seem possible that Paul could be wrong in a technical sense that "time has grown short", as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, while still conveying what God 'wanted to communicate to us' in 1 Corinthians.
If we turn to the Catholic Encyclopedia it states:

A common characteristic of all these passages [in Thessalonians] is the apparent nearness of the parousia. Paul does not assert that the coming of the Saviour is at hand. In each of the five epistles, wherein he expresses the desire and the hope to witness in person the return of Christ, he at the same time considers the probability of the contrary hypothesis, proving that he had neither revelation nor certainty on the point. He knows only that the day of the lord will come unexpectedly, like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3), and he counsels the neophytes to make themselves ready without neglecting the duties of their state of life.

However, you are asking about St. Paul's personal belief on this matter, not exactly what he may have written in his canonical epistles. Did St. Paul write inerrantly in 1 Corinthians? I believe the Church would say yes as far as what God thought important to communicate to us with that text. But was St. Paul's personal belief about 'end times' correct? I have not been able to find anything stating one way or the other on this as far as official Catholic teaching, so my answer is no, the Catholic Church does not officially hold that St. Paul believed that the end of the world was imminent.


What is the power that Christians possess? There are some verses that use the terminology "power", and I heard it with different preachers that the Christians possess power.
Here are some examples:

and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:4-5, ESV)
And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. (Acts 6:8, ESV)

What is the power that Christians possess?

The following comes from a mainly Calvinist view point:

The power you are looking for is the power granted to Christians by the Holy Spirit. Probably one of the most clear examples of this was in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost.

  5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”  (NIV)

This was the first manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit on these new Christians. Much of the book of Acts continues to chronicle this power that they had been granted.

There is now some debate how this power manifests in the modern 21st century. However, it is no doubt still active. Even those (like myself) that are cessationists believe that the spirit is still active in our daily lives, but that he manifests his power differently than he did in the early church.

For example many believe that one of the greatest examples of the power of the spirit is his working on the hearts and minds of God's people to perform both regeneration and sanctification.


If Mark's gospel presents Jesus as servant, why does John say he's unworthy to loose his shoes? If Mark is the gospel which presents Jesus as servant, why did John the Baptist say in verse 7 that he was mightier than he and that he (John) was unworthy to stoop down and untie his shoes?

There is a difference between someone's worth, or nature, and their actions.

Jesus, in himself, is the Most High God* and worthy of our worship, praise and adoration. Nothing can change that. John is quite correct to say that  he is not worthy to untie his shoes.

In his incarnation Jesus takes on the role of a servant. It's a job he does, and it doesn't in any way diminish his nature.

You might consider the analogy of Prince William, who fulfilled the role of a (relatively junior) officer in the Royal Air Force. While fulfilling that role he accepted the orders of his senior officers, and interacted with other officers as an equal; despite the fact that in reality he outranked every one of them.

*According to most branches of Christianity.


Did God ever really help the Hebrews in battle? Except for the Exodus story, im having serious doubts.

The Hebrews never seem to win against any of the bigger enemies which would be seriously impressive, because they are outnumbered by many factors. Looking at the figures of their victories they seem to have won because they outnumbered their opponent or simply due to better battle tactics.

After all if God really wanted to show his power why didn't he ever defeat Rome, Greece, Egypt or Babylon?

Is this a fair comment?

Here's a list of several events just off the top of my head:

capture/destruction of Jericho
Othniel
Gideon's 300 men against the Midianites
Samson's final crush of the Philistines
Elijah and the prophets of Baal

As to why God didn't save them from some oppressors, one of the myriad instances of a single phrase in Judges shows why:

  Now the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, so that the LORD gave them into the hands of the {nation} for {number} of years*

*note "nation" and "number" can be substituted for any oppressor and duration


Do any denominations rank the apostles? Many Christian denominations hold the primacy of Peter as doctrine.  That is, they believe that Peter was the most prominent, authoritative, influential, and/or prestigious of the twelve apostles.  Various scriptual arguments are advanced in support of this belief, including Jesus's so-called Selection of Peter (Matthew 16:18) and fact that he is always named first when the apostles are listed.   The Roman Catholic Church bases its claim of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over other bishops on the primacy of Peter.

I am wondering whether, among those denominations that recognize the primacy of Peter, any of them assign a rank to each of the other eleven apostles.  The various listings of the apostles given in the New Testament are not consistent in their ordering, except that Peter is invariably first and Judas Iscariot is always last (if he is mentioned at all).  Do any churches make an explicit statement to the effect of, "Peter is the most important apostle, Andrew the second-most important," and so on for all twelve?  If not, have any prominent theologians from any major denominations (say, the Roman Catholics) argued for such a ranking?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not "rank" apostles, but believes that Peter, James, and John were given more authority than the other apostles. In particular, Peter, James and John made up what was known a First Presidency (source), which means that they were tasked with directing the work of the other appostles.

Note that this does not make Peter, James and John "more important" than the other apostles. They were all assigned important work. They were just the leaders.

I do not of any type of "rankings" between the other apostles though, except maybe by "seniority". When the president of the Church dies, the most senior apostle takes over his work until a new president is called.

At the time of this question, the first presidency now consists of President Nelson, President Oaks and President Eyring, who fill the vacancy left by Peter, James and John (and all the other first presidencies in between).


Can a person be baptized against their will, according to Catholicism? In the 2006 film Nacho Libre, there is a scene where Ignacio, a Roman Catholic (but not an ordained priest), decides to sneak up on his tag partner Steven and baptize him, despite Steven not wanting anything to do with the church.

Ignacio: I'm a little concerned right now. About…your salvation and stuff. How come you've not been baptized?
Steven: Because I never got around to it, okay?
[Ignacio shrugs and starts to fill up a bowl with water]
Steven: I don't know why you always have to be judging me. Because I only believe in science.
[Ignacio finishes filing the bowl with water and starts walking up behind Steven]
Ignacio: But tonight, we are going up against Satan's cavemen. [Makes the sign of the cross] And I just thought it would be a good idea if you … [dunks Steven's head in the water] are baptized!
[Steven is in shock]
Ignacio: Felicidades.

While this is played for comedy, would forced baptism, like that shown in Nacho Libre, be valid according to Catholicism? What would be the rationale if it isn't?

In short, the answer is “no.”

Even for the Catholic Church, according to which Baptism is an instrument through which saving (sanctifying) grace is infused into a person’s soul, a forced baptism or baptism imposed by trickery would not be valid.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his treatise on Baptism (part of the Summa theologiae) explains as follows:

  I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins a certain newness of life, according to Rm. 6:4: “We are buried together with” Christ “by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen from the dead … so we also may walk in newness of life.” Consequently, just as, according to Augustine [Serm. 351], he who has the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, “will to repent of his former life”; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament (Summa theologiae, IIIa, q. 68, a. 7).

If the receiver of baptism, then, were opposed to receiving the sacrament, or (as in the case described in the O.P.) it were conferred on him without his consent, then it would be invalid.

(Of course, pretending to receive baptism while internally refusing to allow it to occur, or else—as in the O.P.’s example—forcing or tricking someone into being baptized, is at least objectively a grave sacrilege. Although I am not familiar with the story, it seems as though Ignacio is well-intentioned but misguided.)

Note that, at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, although a person with the use of reason (and hence the ability to make free-will decisions) can prevent Baptism from taking place by an internal act of the will, there is nothing to prevent infants from being baptized. Infants, not having the ability to make free-will decisions, cannot place an obstacle to baptism, and so it takes place in them without fail.

(I will also observe that Ignacio’s attempt at baptism would have been invalid, even if it were not against Steven’s will, because the Trinitarian formula is necessary for validity. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239-1240.)

A note about Aquinas’ notion of intention

In discussing the sacraments, most Catholic theologians use Aquinas’ notion of intention, which would be good to recall. The term intention, which comes from the Latin in (which translates better in this case as “toward” or “into” than the English “in”) and tendere (to tend). Intention, then refers to any tendency toward an end.

In Aquinas, intention gets special attention when he speaks about our faculties and other natural tendencies. When applied to these, intention refers to the actuation of these faculties and tendencies in response to their proper object. For example, the proper object of the intellect is the beings that exist in the world around us, and so the concepts that we form about these beings can be called intentions.

However, intention can also apply to the will (which is the usage most familiar to us nowadays). In the case of the will, it specifically refers to choosing the means so as to obtain an end. I have the intention to go for a walk, as soon as I start to put on by walking shoes and go for the door (which are the means required for me to go for a walk).

That is the precise meaning that Aquinas gives when he says (in the passage I quoted above)

  so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament.

and

  it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament

That means that you can’t just sneak up on a (conscious, adult) person and baptize him without his knowledge. The receiver’s will has to be involved and actually want the baptism (provided, of course, that it is not physically impeded: as is the case in infants, or in comatose or unconscious persons, or mentally handicapped persons).


What criteria do Catholics use to determine if an old testament character prefigures Mary? I was at a Catechetical training seminar in my parish and the presenter on topic of the creed when touching on the Blessed Virgin Mary said that lots and lots of characters prefigure Mary in the old testament.  The same way that lots and lots of characters prefigure Our Lord.

What the criteria for 'prefigurement' is when it comes to Mary?  Clearly no one was all that great in the OT and still show us some aspect of Jesus.

Also, do only women prefigure Mary?

A few figures come to my mind immediately:

Eve - "mother of all living" (Genesis 3:20)
Sarah - chosen to bear Abraham's special son
Esther - put in a position to strategically influence the king regarding her people
Elizabeth - Mary's cousin and mother of John the Baptist

Of course, no other figure ever had the Holy Spirit overshadow her and conceive the perfect God-man, Christ. However, the parallels between Sarah's and Esther's willingness to do what was called of them (and the miraculous nature of Sarah's old, barren womb being reopened) mimics Mary in some extents.

The similarities between Mary and Elizabeth are more striking - while Elizabeth was obviously not a virgin, there was still a vision of an angel announcing their future offspring (the vision regarding Elizabeth came to her husband - Luke 1).

I can't say for sure if "only women prefigure Mary" - but cannot think of any men who do.


What is the connection between Charity and Virtues according to Aquinas? According Paul Wadell's book The Primacy of Love: An Introduction to the Ethics of Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas defends that Charity is the mother of all virtues, and also how they can be perfected into 'gifts' of the Holy Spirit. It is exactly this part of how charity perfects them into gifts that I do not understand. It says that charity, when faced with its human limit, with its limit as a virtue, it is transformed by God into the Spirit, taking the virtue to its plenitude.

How does this transformation happen? Or is it a mystery?

This answer is necessarily a bit long, because it requires some background. Skip ahead to "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" to skip the background.

It is not exactly charity that perfects the virtues into the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit Who gives the Gifts to those who are disposed to receive them.

Some background

Aquinas essentially assumes Aristotle's doctrine regarding virtue and vice. Simplifying the topic a little, virtues and vices are kinds of "habits" (Latin: habitus, Greek ἕξεις); that is, stable dispositions of a person that help him to perform various kinds of actions: if the habitus tends to make one act morally well, then it is a virtue; if evilly, then it is a vice. For Aristotle (as for Aquinas), these habitus are acquired by means of deliberately performing the corresponding actions.

For example, suppose I find $20 sitting on my desk that I know belongs to my co-worker. The first time it happens, perhaps I am tempted to pocket the $20 bill quietly, even though I know it is stealing. However, I decide to do the honest thing and give it back to my co-worker. Aquinas would argue that by doing that, I make it easier for myself to do the right thing the next time; he would say that I am forming the virtue of honesty, which is a species of justice. (On the other hand, if I pocket the money, I make it easier for myself to steal the next time, thus forming the vice of dishonesty.)

In other words, acting morally (or immorally) produces a kind of "residue" in the person who acts—the virtue or the vice—that makes it easier for him to act the same way in the future. (Aquinas' description of habitus is to be found in Summa Theologiae Ia-IIae, qq. 49-89, especially qq. 55, Article 4, and 71.)

Traditionally, the human virtues are divided into four "species" or "cardinal virtues" (also called "moral virtues"): prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.

All this, for Aquinas, occurs on the "natural" level, not yet considering the order of grace; that is, the "supernatural" level, that builds upon and perfects the natural.

Once we enter the domain of grace, we have to take into account the action of God (attributed to the Holy Spirit) in our souls. It is not only our actions that leave a "residue" (habit) in our souls, but the action of God.

It is through God's action alone that we can know Him (through faith) and love Him (though hope and charity). Faith, hope, and charity are called "theological" virtues because God is both their origin and their object. (See Summa theologiae, Ia-IIae, q.62.) However, God also perfects our moral life, infusing moral ("cardinal") virtues that bear the same names as the corresponding "natural" virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance), but which have God as their origin, not our actions (q. 61).

Charity is indeed the queen of the virtues because in it all the other virtues find their perfection. (We believe and hope in order to love God and neighbor; justice is the minimum required, so to speak, for charity; in order to apply charity here and now, we need prudence; and so on.)

Gifts of the Holy Spirit

Here is where the Gifts of the Holy Spirit come in. (See q. 68.) The virtues (both natural and infused) have the function of properly disposing our souls to the action of the Holy Spirit. Notice, however, that the exercise of these virtues, even the theological virtues, requires an action on our part.

(The infused virtues, however, come from God. That does not mean that our actions are indifferent, just that these virtues come about thanks to God's gratuitous gift, not by means of our effort. The "natural" virtues, on the other hand, do come about through our own efforts.)

A properly disposed soul, however, can receive additional motions from the Holy Spirit that do not require a direct intervention on our part; rather they come to us by divine inspiration (as Aquinas calls it). These are the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The difference between the Gifts and the virtues is that it is man who exercises the virtues (even though they come from God); but God who exercises the Gifts.

In summary, to answer your original question, it is not that charity perfects the virtues into the Gifts. Rather, it is the Holy Spirit who infuses the Gifts into someone. He does so when the person has sufficiently disposed his soul by practicing charity (and hence all the other infused virtues).

We could say that the gift of Wisdom is the perfection of charity: it presupposes charity, but through Wisdom, the Holy Spirit moves a man beyond what he could do only with the virtue of charity.


Why is this music chosen for a Catholic Mass? At 06:00 in this video (Levithögmässa. 23 november 2019, Göteborg) of Mass in the Extraordinary Form, some special music is performed. Why would anyone choose what I refer to as "concert music" for Mass? Why do some people have this instead of normal church music? I do not hear this as church music at all. Why is this music choosen in stead of normal standard church music? I can see Gregorian Chant and hymns as church music, but this does not sound like "church" at all. Please help me understand this.

This music that you think of as 'concert music' was originally church music.

I don't recognize the specific piece in the video, but pieces of a similar style were originally written to be used in church services. Most classical music with "Mass" or "Requiem" in the title (or linguistic variants such as "Missa" or "Messe") were intended to be used in celebrations of the Mass. This includes works by Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi and Bach among many others.

The words being sung are actually the prayers said during mass, and the sung versions are used in place of the recited prayers.

The music is commonly called choral or church music, and has been part of Catholic and other traditions for many centuries. These settings require a high quality choir to do well, so you will usually hear them only in larger churches and cathederals - and with changing musical tastes they are only infrequently used even there. But there is absolutely nothing unusual about using this style of music in church, and singing it in church was the original intention.


Is there biblical support for "feeling the presence of God" as reported by multiple Christian conversion testimonies? A pattern I've noticed after watching many Christian conversion testimonies is that plenty of them report feeling the presence of God in a life-changing manner at the moment of conversion or maybe not long after. For illustrative purposes, I will list below some of the testimonies that in my opinion are the most reliable (i.e. they are very likely being honest and not making up stories) and impressive, along with a short summary/paraphrase of what each testimony says. In case you may want to watch the testimonies yourself, I'm including the links with timestamps so that you can jump directly to the parts where the relevant experiences are narrated.

From model/to New Age witchcraft/To saved by Jesus Christ: after water baptism, she was lying in bed at night and suddenly was overwhelmed by a feeling of holiness, love, joy. She also had tears of joy and had a vision of the air as gold. For more details, please watch the video.

New Age to Christianity // My Supernatural Experience with God: she prayed to Jesus in the bathroom, and suddenly an "atmospheric peace" engulfed her. She describes it as the most supernatural experience she ever had in her life. Afterwards, she reports having both an "inner knowing" and the feeling that the Holy Spirit entered her, and then reports her life completely changing.

From New Age to Jesus - My Unexpected Encounter with God: she prayed the sinner's prayer, asking God to become the ruler of her life. A minute after the prayer, she says: "I felt this incredible feeling, coming from the top of my head [...] it was like someone pouring oil or warm honey from the top of my head, and just sort of slowly moved down my body, and as it was going down I felt the warmth, just pure love, pure joy, pure peace [...]". She also claims that the feeling was "a whole nother level" above anything she had experienced before in the New Age.

Testimony of Andres Bisonni. Daystar Television Network: he visited Argentina during a revival and was hungry for having an encounter with the Holy Spirit after hearing encouraging testimonies from fellow Christians in a youth conference. While in a bus, someone prayed for him and suddenly he experienced the following: "[...] it's almost impossible to describe with words, but I felt this love being poured into my heart, and this like heat that came and surrounded me, this supernatural presence embraced me [...]".

Paul Washer- The Presence of God: simply put, after months of seeking an encounter in a prayer closet, one night he was suddenly visited by the presence of God, which he perceived as glorious and making him vividly aware of his sin initially but then turning into an overwhelming joy that led to spontaneous praises.

Some common themes I observe in these and other testimonies:

The experience of peace, joy and love.
Describing the experience as something that surpasses anything experienced before (including people who were previously involved in meditation and other spiritual practices).
Describing the experience as something "atmospheric" or that "surrounds" or "embraces" the individual, as if submerged into something.
Sometimes the feeling of heat or warmth is reported.
Sometimes the feeling of a holy presence (a sense of holiness) is reported.
Most individuals describe the experience as life-changing.

Is there any biblical support for this experience? Are there records in the Bible of individuals having encounters with the presence of God who reported feelings or symptoms that resemble the ones reported by these and other testimonies?

The late itinerant preacher, evangelist, and author, Paul E. Little, who traveled nationally as a representative of Inter/Varsity Christian Fellowship, said in a sermon I listened to at spiritual emphasis week at Emmaus Bible College, that Christians should not necessarily experience a "liver quiver" when attempting to discern God's will. Good advice.
Feelings come and go. Jesus's disciples likely experienced many liver quivers as they observed their Lord and Savior in action, particularly during his more spectacular signs and wonders (e.g., calming the stormy Sea of Galilee with a simple command, being with him at the Transfiguration where Moses and Elijah joined them, and the raising of Lazarus from the dead).
Both then and today, however, believers are to walk by faith and not by sight--or by feelings, for that matter (see 2 Corinthians 5:7)!
I have a friend, a believer in Jesus, who heard the voice of God at his conversion. Talk about "liver quivers"! The feelings that that voice elicited from my friend were unforgettable for him, but they added not a whit to the reality of his conversion.
Imagine the apostle Paul at his conversion (when he was still Saul). Imagine the feelings that Jesus's voice elicited from him, not to mention his reaction to the holy light which left him blind, temporarily. As spectacular as his conversion was, I imagine the newness, novelty, and emotionality of what occurred to Saul on the road to Damascus eventually wore off. As Paul grew into his faith, the conviction that his calling by God was real, deepened. What became increasingly important to him was being obedient to his calling by God to be an evangelist to the Gentiles.
In short, feelings are great. They are, after all, God-given. They are part of God's design of us as creatures made in his image. Feelings of ecstasy, like a drug-induced  high (I imagine!), are bound to fade in time. If they are not superseded by belief, faith, and trust, however, they are of little value in the long run. If God graciously gives us that warmth of healing so many Christians describe, then great. If he graciously withholds such feelings from us, sometimes that can ultimately be even better for our walk of faith.


Which Catholic theologians say that Purgatory is a "fiery moment"? I was watching a video interview of NT Wright about life after death, in which he makes a statement that:

  Some Roman Catholic theologians now say that that's actually what Purgatory is actually about. That fiery moment when everything we've done which is not of God and which is not Kingdom Building is just going to be burned up. And they will say that's in a flash. It isn't years and years which you can quantify and get time off for good behavior or whatever. Rethinking Life After Death (NT Wright) -- 22:30

To which Catholic theologians is he referring, whom hold a view, or express the possibility, that purgatory is instantaneous/momentous, as opposed to a long "process"? Where can I read more about this concept?

The only one I've seen Wright specifically identify is Pope Benedict XVI. In Wright's 2004 book For All the Saints?, after briefly discussing Karl Rahner's unusual purgatorial theology, he turns to a discussion of Benedict:

  Perhaps more remarkable still is the view of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who has held high office in the Vatican for many years. Building on 1 Corinthians 3, which we shall look at presently, he argued that he Lord himself is the fire of judgment which transforms us as he conforms us to his glorious, resurrected body. This happens, not during a long-drawn-out process, but in the actual moment of final judgment.

  By linking purgatory to Jesus Christ himself as the eschatological fire, Ratzinger separates the doctrine of purgatory from the idea of an intermediate state, and thus snaps the link that, in the Middle Ages, gave rise to the idea of indulgences. One of the greatest contemporary Protestant theologians, Wolfhart Pannenberg, says that in Ratzinger's view, 'The doctrine of purgatory is brought back into the Christian expectation of final judgment by the returning Christ' -- in other words, Ratzinger has brought the idea closer to a biblical model.

One example of Benedict's conception of purgatory as a "moment" can be found in his book Eschatology (pg. 230-231):

  Purgatory is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where one is forced to undergo punishments in a more or less arbitrary fashion. Rather it is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints. Simply to look at people with any degree of realism at all is to grasp the necessity of such a process. It does not replace grace by works, but allows the former to achieve its full victory precisely as grace. What actually saves is the full assent of faith. But in most of us, that basic option is buried under a great deal of wood, hay and straw. Only with difficulty can it peer out from behind the latticework of an egoism we are powerless to pull down with our own hands. Man is the recipient of the divine mercy, yet this does not exonerate him from the need to be transformed. Encounter with the Lord is this transformation. It is the fire that burns away our dross and re-forms us to be vessels of eternal joy.

Another more recent example is in his encyclical Spe Salvi (paragraph 47), in which he, like Wright, mentions "some theologians" as sharing said view without specifying them:

  Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation "as through fire". But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ's Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the "duration" of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming "moment" of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart's time, it is the time of "passage" to communion with God in the Body of Christ.

James Akin, senior apologist at Catholic Answers, seems to endorse Benedict's view in How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants:

  So the Church has never said that purgatory involves the same kind of time as we experience here on earth, or even time at all. Thus Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, no theological liberal, writes that purgatory may involve "existential" rather than "temporal" duration (cf. Ratzinger's book Eschatology). It may be someone one experiences, but experiences in a moment, rather than something one endures over time.


Understanding Zechariah's prophecy in Luke 1 as a Protestant, Evangelical Dispensationalist believer In Luke 1:68–69, Zechariah says under the influence of the Holy Spirit:

  “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
      for he has visited and redeemed his people
   and has raised up a horn of salvation for us
      in the house of his servant David,"

ESV uses past perfect tense: "has visited and redeemed" as well as "has raised up."

From the context of the rest of his prophetic prayer of praise, some might infer that Zechariah refers here only to God saving physically, by His presence or intervention in the past.

God was silent for about 400 years before sending Gabriel to Zechariah and then Mary.

Did Zechariah grasp the spiritual implication of the salvation that was at hand from reading "the prophets from of old" (70) through whom God had spoken?

He speaks of promises in regard to  being "saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us;" (71)

But this had a spiritual purpose:

  "that we...might serve him without fear,
  in holiness and righteousness before him all our days." (74–75)

He also says that his son, John,

  will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,
   to give knowledge of salvation to his people
          in the forgiveness of their sins,
   because of the tender mercy of our God,
          whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high
   to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
          to guide our feet into the way of peace.”

Zechariah had nine months to study what Gabriel had said and what was recorded by the prophets of old.

1) What did he understand about spiritual salvation and the Lord's visitation through the child to be born to Mary?  (He likely heard her account of Gabriel's visit to her during the three months that she stayed with them.)

2) What specific prophesies in the Old Testament, and fulfillments during Jesus' first advent, can be connected with Zechariah's prophecy?

The dispensational Moody Bible Commentary seems to address both of your questions at a high level.  On this passage, it reads:

  With his restored powers of speech, and being filled with the Holy Spirit [...], Zacharias immediately turned to praising God.  This song—a work of poetry—was intended to be the answer to the people's question in 1:66—What will this child turn out to be?  The song, drawn mostly from quotations and allusions of the OT (e.g., 1:68 with 1Kg 1:48; Ps 41:13; 72:18; 1:69 with 1Sm 2:1, 10; Ps 18:2; 89:17; 1:71 with Ps 106:10; 1:73 with Gn 22:16; 1:78 with Mal 4:2; 1:79 with Is 9:2), is called the Benedictus (after the first word of Lk 1:68 in the Latin version).  In one long sentence (1:68–75) Zacharias praised God for His work of fulfilling His covenant promises to David (1:69) and to Abraham (1:73).  This work of "covenant fulfillment" was to be accomplished by the One whom John would one day announce and introduce to the world—this child (you, child 1:76).  In the rest of the song (1:77–79) Zacharias highlighted the ministry of the coming One in terms of salvation, forgiveness, mercy, guidance, and peace. [emphasis in original]

So we see that Moody does indicate that Zacharias understands the idea of spiritual salvation that "was to be accomplished by the One whom John would one day announce," particularly on the basis of verses 76–79, and it links the Benedictus to many OT passages.  Most of these are allusions and not necessarily prophecies, but perhaps 1 Samuel 2:10 and especially Isaiah 9:2 would be understood as Messianic prophecies.  And Moody sees Zacharias's prophecy being fulfilled in general terms through the ministry of Jesus, "in terms of salvation, forgiveness, mercy, guidance, and peace."

Dispensationalist theologian Thomas Constable goes into more detail in his commentary on Luke.  He connects the "horn of salvation" of 1:69 with Ps 18:2, and argues that Zechariah is speaking of Jesus, knowing that the birth of Jesus was imminent because of Mary's visit. He also believes that the reference to "Lord" in 1:76 is primarily a reference to the Messiah (not simply God).  And he finds a reference to Numbers 24:17 ("a star shall come out of Jacob") in the phrase "sunrise shall visit us" of 1:78, and he too connects 1:79 with Isaiah 9:2.

Like Moody, Constable doesn't connect specific events in Jesus' ministry to the prophecy of Zechariah, but clearly sees a connection between the prophecy and the Messiah's salvation (both political and spiritual) and the fulfillment of the covenant promises.


Why did Swedenborg accept any New Testament books? Based on this question we see that Swedenborg denied most of the New Testament as being divinely inspired.

  Swedenborg did not reject the rest of the books of the Protestant Bible. He considered them "good books of the church" (see link below). However, he saw them as historical, instructional, and doctrinal writings rather than as divinely inspired books of the Word of God. (emphasis added)

However he accepted the four Gospels and the book of Apocalypse as being divinely inspired.

Why did he even accept these five books as inspired?

Swedenborg was a Christian
First and foremost, at the most basic level Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) was a Christian.
As the son of an influential and iconoclastic Swedish Lutheran clergyman, Jesper Swedberg, Swedenborg grew up in an intensely Christian atmosphere. There is even some evidence in his personal journals that Swedenborg believed his father expected him, as the eldest surviving son, to follow in his father's footsteps and become a clergyman himself.
Swedenborg did have a very direct and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This relationship became even more intense through a personal encounter with Jesus that he describes in the dream journal that he briefly kept in the years 1743 and 1744. These were pivotal years in his transition from being a scientist and philosopher to being a theologian. Many Swedenborg scholars believe that this encounter with Christ was the pivotal moment in that transition, completely changing the course of Swedenborg's life.
Based on his strongly Christian background and beliefs, and on his personal relationship with Jesus Christ, it would be unthinkable for Swedenborg not to view the Gospels, in which the life and teachings of Jesus Christ are recounted, as part of the Word of God—if not as the very heart of the Word of God.
And if there is any other book in the New Testament in which Jesus Christ appears most fully in person, it is the book of Revelation, with its opening vision of the risen and glorified Christ, and its (symbolic) account of Christ's battle against and ultimate victory over Satan.
By contrast, the Acts of the Apostles, as its traditional title suggests, focuses less on Jesus Christ himself and more on the activities of his immediate followers after his death.
And though the various Epistles, traditionally written by several of Christ's original Apostles plus the Apostle Paul, do teach many things about Jesus Christ, and amplify Christian doctrine in many ways, they don't have the immediacy of telling Christ's own story, and providing Jesus Christ's teachings in his own words.
On the heart level, then, Swedenborg held closely to the Gospels and the book of Revelation as the Word of God because these are the books in which his Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is personally present, and speaks in his own words. This had a powerful meaning for Swedenborg, who had himself encountered Jesus Christ and heard Jesus' living voice speaking to him.
The books of the Word are those that have an internal sense
The more theological reason Swedenborg accepted the four Gospels and the book of Revelation as the Word of God he expressed in the quotation from Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven") reproduced more fully my answer to the linked question:

The books of the Word are all those that have the internal sense; books that do not have it are not the Word. (Arcana Coelestia #10325)

Swedenborg lived in an era well before today's rampant biblical literalism had gotten a firm grip on much of the Christian Church. For him, it was a very basic part of Christian belief to think that the Bible, as the Word of God, had deeper meanings relating entirely to God and to our spiritual life.
In the years immediately following his call from Jesus Christ—which, based on Swedenborg's later references to it, occurred some time during the years 1743–1745—to set aside his previous scientific and philosophical labors and focus on the Bible and Christian theology instead, Swedenborg read and re-read the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek languages, studying it intensively, indexing it thoroughly, and gaining an intimate, detailed knowledge of the book that had been held up to him as the Word of God from the time of his childhood.
In doing so, enlightened from within, he said, by the Lord himself, he began to see that not all of the books of the Protestant Bible had the same level of depth and inspiration.
More specifically, in the traditional Christian New Testament, he came to the conclusion that although the writers of and figures in the Acts and the Epistles did have a certain level of inspiration from the Holy Spirit, these books were written more from a historical and doctrinal perspective, and did not have the continuous, connected inner meaning that speaks at the deepest level entirely about the Lord's Incarnation and his process of glorification here on earth, and at a less deep level about our human rebirth or regeneration process from being self-centered sinners to being righteous people re-created by the Spirit of the Lord.
Another way of saying this is that the Acts and the Epistles explain the meaning of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ to their audience (Christians and potential Christians), whereas the Gospels and the book of Revelation tell the story of Jesus Christ.
Here is Swedenborg's own explanation of this difference in a letter that he wrote to one of his early followers:

As regards the writings of the Apostles and Paul, I have not quoted them in the Arcana Coelestia for the reason that they are doctrinal writings, and therefore are not written in the style of the Word as are the Prophets, David [the Psalms], the Gospels, and the Apocalypse [the book of Revelation]. The style of the Word consists wholly of correspondences, and therefore these books bring about direct communication with heaven.
In doctrinal writings there is a different style, which does indeed have communication with heaven, but indirectly. The reason these books were written in this way by the Apostles was so that through them the new Christian Church could have its beginning. To accomplish this purpose, doctrinal matters could not be written in the style of the Word, but rather had to be written in a way that could be understood more clearly and intimately.
The Apostles' writings are nevertheless good books for the church, maintaining the doctrine of charity and its faith just as strongly as does the Lord himself in the Gospels and the Apocalypse, as can be clearly seen and discovered if one has his mind on these matters when reading them. (Swedenborg's Letter to Beyer, April 15, 1766; translation edited into somewhat more contemporary English for readability)

By "correspondences" Swedenborg means the spiritual symbolism that he saw as existing throughout the inspired books of Scripture. The books of the inspired Word of God, Swedenborg said, are written in a style that contains this spiritual symbolism—or more accurately, this living relationship with spiritual and divine things—from beginning to end.
The Acts and the Epistles in the New Testament, by contrast, he saw as having a more historical and doctrinal style that, although it did contain some spiritual symbolism, was not fully "correspondential" or symbolic (what today is often called "metaphorical") specifically so that it could explain Christian doctrine more clearly and directly to the members of the nascent Christian Church.
And so, as stated in my linked answer, Swedenborg did not reject the Acts and the Epistles. Indeed, he believed that they had a critical role in the founding and building up of the Christian Church. He simply didn't see them as providing, at a deeper level, a continuous and coherent narrative, from beginning to end, of Jesus Christ's spiritual and divine work during his lifetime on earth, and of our own spiritual rebirth process.
For a full list of the books that Swedenborg saw as the inspired Word of God in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, see my answer to the linked question.