Source of the view that the human will is necessitated but not coerced Consider this excerpt from Aquinas:

  Some have held that the human will is necessarily moved to choose things.  But they did not hold that the will is coerced, since only something from an external source, not everything necessary, is coerced.  And so also some necessary movements are natural but not coerced.  For what is coerced is as contrary to what is natural as to what is voluntary, since the source of both the natural and the voluntary is internal, and the source of what is coerced is external.  But this opinion is heretical...
  (De Malo, Question VI, Article I)

It is interesting that the heretical position which Aquinas describes is later taken up by John Calvin in his reply to Pighius.

My question is this:
 Which theologians held the view that Aquinas describes?  Where does it come from?
Secondarily and related:
Where did John Calvin get this idea from?

As is indicated in the comments and attached chat. I am not familiar with the distinction between man's will being "necessarily moved" and "coerced", but it would seem to arise from John Calvin wishing to retain both the idea that man is a free moral agent and totally depraved, so the man must be "necessarily moved" by irresistible grace to accept baptism and become regenerate, but not be coerced.

The idea that man is a free moral agent and the chief cause of evil (i.e. - God cannot be the cause or creator of evil) is a foundational Christian concept that I trust is universally accepted. So the question becomes where does total depravity come from, since this idea of the will being "necessarily moved" logically flows out of it. Thankfully John Calvin is rather explicit in this regard:

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2 Chapter 2, Part 4

  Moreover, although the Greek fathers, above others, and especially Chrysostom, have exceeded due bonds in extolling the powers of the human will, yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings ... still the expression was often on their lips, that man's natural gifts were corrupted, and his supernatural taken away. Of the thing implied by these words, however, scarcely one in a hundred had any distinct idea ... Persons professing to be the disciples of Christ have spoken too much like the philosophers on this subject. As if human nature were still in its integrity, the term free will has always been in use among the Latins, while the Greeks were not ashamed to use a still more presumptuous term ... (autexousion), as if man had still full power in himself.

So John Calvin indicates that his teachings on free-will are, in general, in line with Augustine, but outside of the larger tradition of the Greek fathers and other Western writers.

He practically identifies his doctrine of total depravity (which necessitates irresistible grace) with Christianity itself, shaming those who teach otherwise as being under the influences of unchristian philosophy; which is to say that he thinks the entire Church was confused on a core Christian doctrine, besides Augustine, until he and Luther arrived.

However, its obvious that Aquinas is not referring to John Calvin in his writing. See my discussion with Nathaniel; I would assume with him that Aquinas is referring to some Augustinian interpretive tradition that, like John Calvin, sought to retain the traditional Christian concept that man creates evil while insisting that his nature is corrupted to the point that he cannot choose salvation.

So I suppose this is a partial answer. And thanks Nathaniel for helping me understand some nuances of the topic.


What are the biblical arguments against soul sleep? Quoting from this site:

  Soul sleep is the teaching that when a person dies that his soul "sleeps" until the time of the future resurrection. In this condition, the person is not aware or conscious.

What are the biblical arguments against soul sleep?

The Bible never described someone else's soul sleeping only to be awaken at the last judgment.

Rather, what the Bible records show is that in the New Testament all of God's people who are in the state of death are away from the body and present with the Lord. They are not sleeping but are at home with the Lord.

  Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the
  body and at home with the Lord

  2 Corinthians 5:8 (ESV)

Paul himself expressed, not the desire to sleep, but to be with Christ.

  21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 If I am to live
  in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall
  choose I cannot tell. 23 I am hard pressed between the two. My
  desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But
  to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.

  Philippians 1:21-24 (ESV)

2 Corinthians 12:2-3 bolsters this interpretation:

  2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the
  third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know,
  God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into
  paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God
  knows—

  2 Corinthians 12:2-3 (ESV)

God knows that a man can be with Him in the paradise. This is not sleep but a relationship! Take note that The thief on the cross didn’t sleep! Jesus promised him on that day that he will be with him in the paradise! (Luke 23:43).

What all this shows is that human death is not about "cessation of existence." Rather, it is about separation.

  For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart
   works is dead.

  James 2:26 (ESV)

James 2:26 says that death is a separation of body and spirit. Both do not undergo annihilation after death. Rather, both merely separated.

This one scripture powerfully attests the doctrine of "souls don't sleep":

  who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live
  with him.

  1 Thessalonians 5:10 (ESV)

Conclusion

We have cogently proven from the Bible that "soul sleep" teaching is unbiblical. The New Testament consistently shows us that souls do not sleep and that the metaphor 'sleep' used for those who are dead is merely a reference to their physical bodies appearing as if sleeping.

References:

http://www.gotquestions.org/absent-from-the-body.htm

https://carm.org/soul-sleep


What is the origin and purpose of a new bishop being questioned by a layperson? At the enthronement of Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury on 21 March 2013, the following exchange took place as part of the ceremony. Evangeline Kanagasooriam is a  layperson from the diocese, and a pupil at a school with a very long association with the cathedral. (The text is from the order of service, p14, and it can be enjoyed on video as well.)

When the Archbishop arrives at the West Door he strikes it three times with his pastoral staff. The doors are opened and a fanfare is sounded.
Evangeline Kanagasooriam: We greet you in the name of Christ. Who are you and why do you request entry?
The Archbishop: I am Justin, a servant of Jesus Christ, and I come as one seeking the grace of God, to travel with you in his service together.
Evangeline: Why have you been sent to us?
The Archbishop: I am sent as Archbishop to serve you, to proclaim the love of Christ and with you to worship and love him with heart and soul, mind and strength.
Evangeline: How do you come among us and with what confidence?
The Archbishop: I come knowing nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified, and in weakness and fear and in much trembling.
Evangeline: Let us then humble ourselves before God and together seek his mercy and strength.

I believe that this is new for the occasion. The order of service for Rowan Williams in 2003 does not contain it, but it does have the triple knocking followed by a welcome by the Dean (which also occurred slightly later in the Welby ceremony).
Is there a precedent for this question-and-answer text in Anglican or earlier practice? (I don't mean just the scriptural allusions, but the use of a question-and-answer format when welcoming a new bishop.) What is the rationale for having the interview with a member of the laity?

I would like to try to address the second question, "What is the rationale for having the interview with a member of the laity?"

It does not seem clear from the ancient Canons that laypeople were explicitly called to approve and/or examine a candidate bishop.  It seems, though, that a bishop's election had to be approved by laypeople as well as clergy by the time of the 5th century, at least in some jurisdictions.  Leo the Great wrote:

  When therefore the choice of the chief priest is taken in hand, let
  him be preferred before all whom the unanimous consent of clergy and
  people demands, but if the votes chance to be divided between two
  persons, the judgment of the metropolitan should prefer him who is
  supported by the preponderance of votes and merits: only let no one be
  ordained against the express wishes of the place: lest a city should
  either despise or hate a bishop whom they did not choose, and
  lamentably fall away from religion because they have not been allowed
  to have when they wished.

  Letter XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, Chapter VI,
  "The Election of a Bishop must proceed by the wishes of the clergy and
  people."

There is perhaps a still better answer, but since the question has remained unanswered for two years, I thought I would at least contribute this.


Why is Satan referred to as Beelzebub? In one of the passages in the bible, Satan is referred to Beelzebub which means "lord of flies." But why flies? Why is this name so significant?

Beelzebub or Beelzebul?

The word "Beelzebub" occurs seven (7) times in seven (7) verses in the 1769 edition of the King James Version translation.1 It is transliterated from the Greek word Βεελζεβούλ which is an indeclinable proper noun (i.e., a name). The accurate English transliteration of Βεελζεβούλ is not "Beelzebub" but "Beelzeboul" (or "Beelzebul"). Note the ending of the Greek word Βεελζεβούλ: it is an λ /l/, not a β /b/.

So, why did the committee of men who produced the King James Version write "Beelzebub" instead of "Beelzebul"? It cannot be known for certain, but it could be that they were influenced by St. Jerome who produced the Latin Vulgate. In it, he wrote Beelzebub when transliterating Βεελζεβούλ into Latin.

For example, Matt. 10:25 in the Latin Vulgate states,

  sufficit discipulo ut sit sicut magister eius et servus sicut dominus eius si patrem familias Beelzebub vocaverunt quanto magis domesticos eius

It is interesting to note that the Peshitta also has the Syriac equivalent of "Beelzebub," that being ܒܿܥܠܙܒܼܘܼܒܼ (note the ending: ܒܼ /b/ ather than ܠ /l/):

  ܣܦܼܩ ܠܗ ܠܬܼܠܡܝܕܼܐ ܕܿܢܗܘܐ ܐܝܟܼ ܪܒܿܗ܂ ܘܠܥܒܼܕܿܐ ܐܝܟܼ ܡܪܗ܂ ܐܢ ܠܡܪܗ ܕܿܒܼܝܬܿܐ ܩܪܘ ܒܿܥܠܙܒܼܘܼܒܼ܃ ܚܕܼ ܟܿܡܐ ܠܒܼܢܝ̈ ܒܿܝܬܿܗ܂

Even more interesting is that Symmachus, who produced another Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh in the late 2nd century A.D., translated the Hebrew phrase בַּעַל זְבוּב into Greek as Βεελζεβούλ, the same word (name) which occurs in the Greek NT.

So, why did St. Jerome write Beelzebub in Latin rather than Beelzebul? In his commentary on Matt. 10:25, St. Jerome wrote,

St. Jerome believed that Βεελζεβούβ (rather than Βεελζεβούλ) was a reference to בַּעַל זְבוּב (Báʿal Zḇūḇ), the god of Ekron (a city of the Philistines) in 2 Kings 1:2:

  And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease. (KJV, 1769)

  וַיִּפֹּ֨ל אֲחַזְיָ֜ה בְּעַ֣ד הַשְּׂבָכָ֗ה בַּעֲלִיָּתֹ֛ו אֲשֶׁ֥ר בְּשֹׁמְרֹ֖ון וַיָּ֑חַל וַיִּשְׁלַ֣ח מַלְאָכִ֔ים וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲלֵהֶם֙ לְכ֣וּ דִרְשׁ֗וּ בְּבַ֤עַל זְבוּב֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י עֶקְרֹ֔ון אִם־אֶחְיֶ֖ה מֵחֳלִ֥י זֶֽה׃ (WLC)

  καὶ ἔπεσεν Οχοζιας διὰ τοῦ δικτυωτοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ ὑπερῴῳ αὐτοῦ τῷ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ καὶ ἠρρώστησεν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ἀγγέλους καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς δεῦτε καὶ ἐπιζητήσατε ἐν τῇ Βααλ μυῖαν θεὸν Ακκαρων εἰ ζήσομαι ἐκ τῆς ἀρρωστίας μου ταύτης καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἐπερωτῆσαι δ αὐτοῦ  (Rahlfs LXX)

The men who produced the LXX translated the Hebrew phrase בַּעַל זְבוּב into Greek as Βααλ μυῖαν, which is actually a transliteration and translation. That is, they transliterated בַּעַל into Greek as Βααλ, and they translated זְבוּב into Greek as μυῖαν, meaning "flies," which seems to be the meaning elsewhere (cp. Ecc. 10:1).

In his commentary on Matt. 12:24, John Lightfoot (pp. 203-204) wrote,

According to this theory, Βεελζεβούλ is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew phrase בַּעַל זֶבֶל ("lord of dung") or בַּעַל זָבוּל ("lord of dunghill"), which itself would be an intentional alteration of בַּעַל זְבוּב ("lord of flies") for the purpose of repudiating idolatry. While the verb זָבַל (zaḇál) and its related derivatives do not occur in biblical Hebrew (to my knowledge), they do occur in later Mishnaic Hebrew, which would have been known during the time of New Testament. Jastrow (p. 379) notes that the noun זֶבֶל (zéḇel) means "manure," i.e. dung.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on "Idol Worship,"

  Although the Jews were forbidden in general to mock at anything holy, it was a merit to deride idols (Meg. 25b), and Akiba decreed that the names of the gods be changed into derogatory names (Sifre, Deut. 61, end, et passim). Thus, Baal-zebub (II Kings i. 2, 6) is called Beel-zebul (בעל זבול = "dominus stercoris") in Matt. xii. 24, 27, and elsewhere, and the word with which the Talmud designates sacrifice to idols (זבל; Yer. Ber. 13b) literally means "to manure."

Satan as the "Master of the Dunghill" and "Prince of Demons"

זָבוּל, or dunghill, was a euphemism for a idolatrous place of worship, and similarly, זֶבֶל, or dung, was a euphemism for idolatry itself. The fallen angels and evil/unclean spirits were considered responsible for inciting humans to idolatry.

For example, in 1 Enoch 19:1-3, it is written,

  1 And Uriel said to me: 'Here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their spirits assuming many different forms are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray into sacrificing to demons as gods, (here shall they stand,) till the day of the great judgement in 2 which they shall be judged till they are made an end of. And the women also of the angels who 3 went astray shall become sirens.' And I, Enoch, alone saw the vision, the ends of all things: and no man shall see as I have seen. (R. H. Charles)

Since Satan was considered to be the leader of the fallen angels (cp. Rev. 12:9), and the fallen angels and demons were responsible for inciting men to idolatry or "dung," it was fitting for Satan to be known as Baʿal Zevul, the master of the dunghill (i.e., idolatrous place of worship), and thus, the leader of the demons (ὁ ἄρχων τῶν δαιμονίων).

Footnotes

1 Matt. 10:25, 12:24, 12:27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 11:18, 11:19

References

Field, Frederick. Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol. 1. Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1875.

Jerome. Commentary on Matthew (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 117). Trans. Scheck, Thomas P. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008.

Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Vol. 1. London: Luzac; New York: Putnam, 1903.

Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae ("Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations"), Vol. 2. Trans. Gandell, Robert. Oxford: UP of Oxford, 1859.


Did Jesus say that he was coming back within a generation? It seems that Jesus was admitting that he would return after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.
That the abomination of desolation was the Roman leader Titus.
14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation[w] standing where it[x] should not be” (let the reader understand),[y] “then those in Judea must flee[z] to the mountains. 15 The one on the roof[aa] must not come down or go inside to take anything out of his house.[ab] 16 The one in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 17 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing their babies in those days! 18 Pray that it may not be in winter. (Mark 13:14-18 NET)
Jesus then says that after this happens he will come back.
“But in those days, after that suffering,[ai] the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light... Then everyone[ak] will see the Son of Man arriving in the clouds[al] with great power and glory. 27 Then he will send angels and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.´(Mark 13:24,27 NET).

I interpret Matthew 24 from an amillennialist point of view.
Matthew chapter 24 is a complex chapter because at the beginning of the chapter the disciples ask a lot of questions all together.  It looks as if they might be thinking the Temple will be destroyed at the end of the age:-

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.  And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.  And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?  (Matthew 24:1-3)

Part of our Saviour's answer relates to the time of the destruction of the Temple and part of it relates to the time of the end of the age. A key section for understanding the chapter is verses 33-36:

So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.  But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.  (Matthew 24:33-36)

Here he speaks of "these things" and "this generation" in contradistinction to "that day and hour".  He is saying I know this generation is going to see these things take place; but nobody knows about that time when the end of the age will be.
Matthew 24:36 has a parallel verse in Mark 13:32 which adds an extra interesting portion:-

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

The time of the end of the age, when our Lord returns, has not even been revealed to our Lord as he is a man.  Hence it is that he calls us to be always ready for his second coming for "we do not the hour", Matthew 24:42-44.
So when he talks of "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 he is speaking of the time of the destruction of the Temple: the Temple was destroyed at the end of the Jewish Rebellion in 70 AD.
But he is not giving a time of when he shall return to judge the living and the dead because he does not know.  His human nature has not been given this information.
This interpretation can found in the Matthew Henry's Commentary from the early 18th century.


Which persons of the Trinity are attached to which noun in John 1:18 No one has ever seen God[1]; the only God[2], who[3] is at the Father's[4] side, he[5] has made him[6] known. (John 1:18 ESV)

I have always had trouble understanding what this verse is actually saying, partially because I can't determine which person of the Trinity each noun is associated with.

I've tagged each eligible noun with a number. Please explain which person of the Trinity is associated with which noun and your reasoning for thinking so.

No man has ever seen God[1]; the only-begotten Son[2], who[3] is in the bosom of the Father[4], he[5] has declared [him][6].

θεὸν[1] οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός[2], ὁ[3] ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς[4] ἐκεῖνος[5] ἐξηγήσατο

[1] the Father
[2] the Son
[3] the Son
[4] the Father
[5] the Son
[6] the Father (pronoun not present in Greek, but the ellipsis is appropriately supplied according to the context)

Basically, it's saying that the only-begotten Son, Jesus, is in the bosom of the Father, at all times. Nobdoy has ever seen the Father. The only-begotten Son "exegeted" or revealed the Father to us. The Greek verb ἐξηγήσατο, a conjuagtion of the lexical form ἐξηγέομαι, is where we get the English noun "exegesis" from.


What is the "Kingdom of God" supposed to be? everlasting blissful happiness and peace on earth
heaven after death / afterlife
a metaphorical way to describe that righteousness would be made on earth by the power of the holy spirit, and that Jesus' parables give a sample and foreshadow of what the real Kingdom of God on earth will be like; in order to achieve the Kingdom of God, one must obey his commandments as well as continue the covenants given to Israel before Jesus.

The Kingdom of God or Heaven literally means the Realm where God dwells.

The Kingdom of God may be divided into two types based on it's establishment.

 1. At the First coming of Jesus Christ

When Jesus came to earth as a humble man to suffer and die for us, He's goal was to bring down the Kingdom of God, which was also His role as the promised Messiah. But at His first coming, the Kingdom of God was not to be established physically on earth, which was the expectation of the Jews. Jesus came to establish the Kingdom of God in the hearts of men. Jesus was preparing the people for the coming kingdom, which was to be established soon after He finished His work on the cross. John the Baptist was proclaiming that the Kingdom of God was near.

  Matthew 3:1-2 (NIV) In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in
  the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of
  heaven has come near.”

Jesus started explaining to the people what the Kingdom of God is. He used metaphors like  the sower, mustard seed, hidden treasure, weeds, yeast and fishing net (see Matthew 13). But until it was established from the day of Pentecost, which was the beginning of the Church era, it was not fully understood. Therefore, this Church era is the first establishment of Kingdom of God and it's dominion is in the hearts of mankind.

For instance,

  Matthew 13:23 (NIV) But the seed falling on good soil refers to
  someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who
  produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was
  sown.”

Here, Jesus said that the Kingdom of God can start from a single person, which can yield many other believers. Peter was the first man to preach the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost and 3000 people were baptized that day. And the apostles went on to preach everywhere and the number of Christians kept on growing and growing.

2. At the Second coming of Jesus Christ

Jesus will come again with all His glory and power to establish His kingdom physically on earth forever. This present world is in the hands of Satan but when Jesus comes, Satan will be defeated and the eternal physical Kingdom of God will be established on earth forever and ever. Amen.

  Revelation 19:11-20 (NIV)
  - excerpt

  I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse,
  whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and
  wages war. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of
  God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses
  and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is
  a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule
  them with an iron scepter.” On his robe and on his thigh he has this
  name written: king of kings and lord of lords.
  Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies
  gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his
  army. But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who
  had performed the signs on its behalf.
  The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning
  sulfur.


In the Gospels, is there any recorded instance of the Pharisees quoting Scripture? In a discussion, a family member said that the Pharisees often quoted Scripture.  Do we have any record of this in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John)?  I don't mean just referring to Biblical concepts or Jewish tradition; I'm looking specifically for direct quotes of the Old Testament.  I can't think of any such case, but I also can't think of a good way to search for such a passage.

Sometimes the Scriptures identify Pharisees specifically, but other times they merely reference chief priests, who may have been Pharisees.  There are a few passages of note:
The Chief Priests and Scribes cite Micah 5:2 in reference to the birth of the Messiah

Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:
6 ‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah,
Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah;
For out of you shall come forth a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”  Matthew 2:4-6 NASB

The Scribes and Pharisees reference Moses' Teaching on Adultery

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?”  John 8:3-5 NASB


What does Satan look like? Many people have seen the Classical depiction of Satan in paintings and statues, but what does scripture say about what Satan looks like?

Apparently, anything he likes, including an angel:

2 Corinthians 11:14:

  ... Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Assuming Satan is an angel, then he can probably take on any appearance, at least that of a human:

  Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.

Hebrews 13:2

And possibly a snake (though some Christians do not take this passage literally)

  Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.

Genesis 3:1

More information can be found on the Christian demonology Wikipedia article.


Do I need to confess the sins I committed before becoming Catholic? I am currently going through the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults in order to join the Catholic Church. Do I need to confess the sins I committed before becoming Catholic?

The Catholic Church requires that one go to confession for any mortal (serious) sin one has committed after baptism. If the one entering the Church has never been baptized, there is no need to go to confession since the sacrament of baptism cleans the soul of all sin, regardless of its gravity. One could still do so in order to be more at peace with oneself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism


Is there any reference to Abraham building a house of worship? Where is Bakkah? Is there any reference to Abraham building a house for worship in the Bible?

Where is the valley of Bakkah located?

In Islam they say Bakkah and Mecca are the same word, and the Kabah is built on the original foundation that Abraham build as the 1st place of worship.

Does Christianity recognize this at all or have a different location for Bakkah?

There is no reference to Abraham building a house of worship in the book of Genesis.

The only things that it is recorded that Abraham built were four altars to YHWH. He built two different altars in chapter 12, one in chapter 13, and another in chapter 22.

There is no record of Abraham ever building a dwelling (he is believed to have lived in tents), or a house of worship for God. The first record of God recieving a physical location in which he was to be worshiped was the Tabernacle in Exodus, and he did not have a building until the Temple was built during the time of Solomon.

Islam believes that Bakkah was the place where God provided water for Hagar and Ishmael, recorded in chapter 21 of Genesis. However, this is not a significant location for most Christians (that I am aware of), and Ishmael is not a significant figure in Christianity.


The Protestant perspective concerning the Four Horsemen As a continuation of this question:

Few Biblical symbols, allegories, or metaphors have fired the imagination more than the alleged Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse described all too briefly in Revelation 6:1-8.

Does Protestant Christianity have an official interpretation of these verses? And if so, how are the Horsemen interpreted by the Protestant churches?

NOTE: I recognize there are a lot of Protestant churches and this question may be too broad if there are multiple significantly different interpretations.  If this is the case, please help me out by leaving a comment listing the major sects that would cover the majority of interpretation and I'll delete this question and re-ask for each group.  Thanks!

There is no one, official Protestant interpretation. However, I can give information from a book compiled by a Protestant scholar but which makes no distinction between basically Catholic, and basically Protestant stances. He offers an even-handed summary of the four traditional views of Revelation in parallel columns, allowing the reader to compare each view quickly and easily. The four main views are:

Preterist – most prophecies were fulfilled during the time of the Roman empire.
Historicist: the prophecies have been fulfilled throughout history and are still being fulfilled today.
Futurist: most prophecies are yet to be fulfilled.
Spiritual (or Symbolic or Idealist): most prophecies portray ongoing cosmic conflict of spiritual realities and may have many fulfilments throughout history.

Revelation 6:2-8 equates the breaking open of four seals with the appearing of the four horsemen; a rider on a white horse, a rider on a red horse, a rider on a black horse and a rider on (either) a pale or a sickly green horse.

The Historicist view says the white horse represents the period of five good Roman emperors from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius. The second seal was from the accession of Commodus to Diocletian. The third seal is viewed as the fiscal oppression imposed by some of the emperors of the third century (or a later period). The fourth seal was from A.D. 248 to 268 or 296.

The Preterist view says the seven seals are on a row on the overlapping lip of the document, making it impossible to begin opening the scroll until all seven seals are removed. In this view, nothing happens historically until the seventh seal is broken in Revelation 8:1. Others believe it gives a progression of events leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The Futurists see the Tribulation beginning with the breaking of the first seal. Some see the rider of the white horse being the Antichrist. The red horse represents the bloodshed of Tribulation war with the black horse being the famine following, and the fourth horse being global death and hellish destruction.

The Spiritual/Symbolic view can include Christ as being the rider on the white horse, the four riders representing the universal sequence of conquest, war, famine and death, this proceeding from God’s sovereign purpose in judging a corrupt humanity. Some see this also (in addition) in John’s day, the time of Domitian.

I cannot begin to do justice to the many views about the four horsemen, so would recommend you get this book – Revelation – Four Views edited by Steve Gregg, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. in 1997. He names leading theologians in connection with the various views, so that would give you a guide as to particular denominations.


Is falling to the floor during blessings or prayers supported in Roman Catholic doctrine? In the Pentecostal Church and some other Christian movements, during blessings or prayers people often fall to the floor. This is critiqued by some people. But today I saw a Roman Catholic priest and exorcist praying or blessing someone, and that person was falling to the floor the same way as happens in the Pentecostal Church. (This was not an exorcism.)

I did not think things like this happened in the Roman Catholic Church—or maybe I did not understand what was going on.

My question:

Is falling to the floor during blessings or prayers supported in Roman Catholic doctrine (much like in the Pentecostal Church)?

Falling down could be a sign of possession, especially if it is a sort of fall that injures oneself.

In the New Testament, προσπίτνω is often translated as "to fall down," whether it be demons falling down before Christ (e.g., Mk 3:11) or a penitent sinner falling down in resignation to Christ (e.g., Mk 5:33). It could mean "to kneel," although "γόνυ ἐπουράνιος" (to bend the knee; cf. Phil. 2:10) means more properly "kneeling" or "genuflecting" (that latter word literally means "knee-bending").

St. Jerome translates προσπίτνω as procido, which carries the sense of prostration (lying face-down in adoration). This is used, for example, in the ordination rite for priests:

cf. also the nine ways of prayer of St. Dominic


Saints: Are they always comfortable in society? (Catholic Church perspective) I know saints are exceptional, but I wonder how they could bear some people who are everything they are not.

Could someone be a saint while being asocial, or a bit misanthropic?

I know some saints were hermits or prefered to be alone, but to what extent could they do this without contradicting the Gospel and its teaching?

My question is mainly about: Are there some examples of these kind of saints in the  history of the Catholic Church?

Saint Bernadette Soubirous was a very shy person as we can see here:

  The next request of the Lady to Bernadette was to have a chapel built on the site of her visits. For Bernadette, a shy, 14-year-old girl, this was an impossible task. She felt compelled, though, to go to the parish priest with the request. She received a curt dismissal from him with these words: “Tell the beautiful Lady that the Cure of Lourdes is not in the habit of dealing with mysterious strangers. If she wants a chapel and has the right to one, she must reveal her identity.” - Our Lady of Lourdes

A good biography of her life will give examples of this saint avoiding human praises, like the time she hide behind a curtain in order to avoid being singled out by the bishop.


What is the most basic Biblical understanding of the nature of the firmament? Going back to original Hebrew texts where possible, what is the most basic understanding of the firmament (the substance/realm/space that God supposedly stuck between heaven from earth)?  I've read a lot of literature theorizing about the antediluvian world, creationist texts and such, postulating (guessing about) different natures for the "firmament".  But looking only at the texts, what could be learned about the Biblical/ancient-Hebrew understanding of the stuff?

The word "firmament" denotes something firm and strong, referring to the "dome of the heavens" that was believed to make up the top of the sky in King James's day.  It's a rather poor translation of the Hebrew raqiya, meaning "expanse".

Raqiya is derived from the root raqa, which refers to stretching or spreading something out; the term was used in reference to the creation of gold leaf, for example.  The idea is that God put something thin and spread out (the atmosphere) over the surface of the earth.


What do the verses in Luke 5:20-25 teach us? They have always puzzled me and I fail to understand what is what.

Luke 5:20-23

  When Jesus saw their faith he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” Then the experts in the law and the Pharisees began to think to themselves, “Who is this man who is uttering blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” When Jesus perceived their hostile thoughts, he said to them, “Why are you raising objections within yourselves? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’?

Knowing that Jesus is Son of God: what is the difference between these two sentences, which prompted Jesus to say them? Which statement is the easier to say?

It is becomes more puzzling when Jesus says the second sentence.

Luke 5:24-25

  But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he said to the paralyzed man – “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher and go home.” Immediately he stood up before them, picked up the stretcher he had been lying on, and went home, glorifying God.

It is not clear whether Jesus said the easier one or the tougher one. Why He did not say the first: that is, “your sins are forgiven?”

Is it that this sentence was easier to say?

Jesus is here asking the Pharisees a rhetorical question, that is - what would be easier for him to say if he was not God. The answer is simple - it is easier for a mere man to say "Your sins are forgiven", because there is no outward immediate manifestation. It is much more difficult to say "Stand up and walk", because it would be readily apparent that Jesus was not able to back up his power, were he only a man.

As John Gill writes:

  Neither of them could be said by a mere man, with effect, so as that sins would be really remitted on so saying; or that a man sick of a palsy, by such a word speaking, would be able to stand upon his feet and walk; but both of them were equally easy to him, that is truly God; and he that could say the one effectually, could also say the other: or in other words, he that could cure a man of a palsy with a word speaking, ought not to be charged with blasphemy, for taking upon him to forgive sin: our Lord meant, by putting this question, and acting upon it, to prove himself to be God, and to remove the imputation of blasphemy from him

When Jesus says the second part, that is:

  But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he said to the paralyzed man – “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher and go home.”

He is demonstrating to the Pharisees that he is who he says he is, that he has the power to forgive and the power to heal.


What place do ritual and ceremony have in the church today? (Non-Liturgical POV) Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, goes into great detail about the specific ways of doing certain worship-related things. For example, The ordination of Aaron is a highly ritualized procedure. The sacrifices are each a little different and are laid out as detailed rituals performed by priest and worshiper. Even the camp around the tabernacle was highly organized and only set out when the trumpets were blown a certain way.

Given the ceremonial aspect of all the rituals laid out in the Sinaitic law, the specific guidelines for priests and sacrifices, and the ceremonial and symbolic nature of communion and baptism, is there any biblical basis for rejecting ceremony and ritual? In the worship service, this would be a question for non-liturgical churches. For things like weddings and the like, please give biblical support for why the ceremony or ritual of the wedding service itself would be considered unnecessary.

As a Protestant evangelical under the New Covenant in contrast to Jews under the Old Testament, or various forms of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox denominations, the answer is pretty clear comparatively - ritual and ceremony have almost no place in the church today.

At the top level of the idea this is merely a division between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.  For most Protestants there are only two rituals   enshrined under the word 'sacrament' which force an external observation that would not necessarily occur spontaneously out of worship for God. These two rituals are baptism and the Lord's supper.  In contrast to this I do not know how many sacraments existed under the Old Testament but would imagine if they were counted it would be over a hundred.

So why the transition by God of over a hundred sacraments to two? A common starting point is often traced to Jesus himself who predicted how things would be aft he died, but left it to the Apostles to have those things revealed to them and subsequently taught by them after Christ ascended into heaven.

You will recall that all the ritual and ceremony of the Old Covenant was integrated and based upon worship in the temple of God on Mount Zion. In predicting the new order of things Jesus said:

  Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “ Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. (John 4:20-23, ESV)

Notice Jesus made a contrast between the location of worship and its implied rituals with the 'truth' and 'in Spirit'.  Clearly Jesus was contrasting the 'external form' of religion with the inward 'truth' of it.  This contrast of ritual verses truth, implied that the ritual was within the old order primarily to foreshadow the reality but the worshippers often never had the reality within themselves. That is the point of ritual, it does not rely on the spontaneous sincerity of the people but prescribes an external rule.

This foundational statement of Christ is further established by the church in Acts that broke away from ceremony but in stead practiced brotherly love and community within peoples family homes.  Furthermore the Apostles established this freedom form ritual and the need to have genuine love in the Spirit in their writings and when referring to the God ordained rituals of the past said things like:

  For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. (Hebrews 10:1, ESV)

As far as subsequent traditions and ceremonies that may have been established in churches such as when performing marriage, burial, etc. These are not to be made inflexible rules but for those cultures that find more meaning with more structure around them, let them be free to enjoy such structure and form those who enjoy less structure and ceremony let them enjoy less.  The Apostles always relied on brother love and forbearing with each other's differences and the rule of church government.  It was only later that some denominations took upon the form of pagan governments designed to enforce top down authority as like a Monarchy.

Regarding those churches who do enforce top down government and want to return to many outward forms, most Protestants feel it is a betrayal of the Spirit of Christ and the liberty of the gospel so that it is a denial of the inward reality in accordance with predicted apostasy of the church among many:

  having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. (2 Timothy 3:5)

Therefore although some tradition is alright and may be highly valuable to some, the external forms of tradition rather than the invisible doctrinal forms, are often considered the enemy of Christ if they become abundant and made mandatory as this opposes 'the spirit and the truth' in the gospel.


How can there be Five Sola's (Solae) in Reformed theology? Reformed soteriology usually centers on Five Sola statements.

Literally, this Latin "Sola" means "alone" or "only" in translation. So how can 5 things that save us be, by name, alone or the only thing each be together with 4 others that also save us (alone)?

Doesn't that make them not alone?

How is it intended for the 5 Solas to relate to each other? Is this even a correct understanding of "Sola"?

Read: I'm asking about their functional/logical association, not their content. How they are intended to cooperate and coexist even while they are "Sola." Where necessary, I should hope simple definitions would be adequate. I'm not looking for an essay on faith alone.

I can see how this would look confusing and logically incoherent, but the reason that 5 statements, each about "something alone" can co-exist is that each of them achieves something different "alone". This can make more sense to look at, by chaining three of them together, as per the first line of the summary of "Faith alone" here.

  Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone

"Grace" and "Faith" are by far the easiest two to get confused about here, but in essence each of these "alones" is accomplishing a different thing:

Grace alone: God's grace is the means by which we are justified - not exemplary behaviour
Faith alone: Faith is the means by which we access Grace - not through empty religion (but this doesn't mean that somebody more "religious" than you is guilty of "empty religion" by default)
Christ alone: Christ is the one through whom this is accomplished - not any other saviour / sacrifice

The other two are much easier to distinguish because they don't directly have anything to do with salvation.

Scripture alone: Scripture is the only ultimate authority on Christian teaching - not the church and more specifically for the reformation, not the Pope.

Interestingly though there was a lot of difference on this point between different parts of the reformation, on exactly how much "Catholic tradition" they were going to keep, and how important tradition and authority are- generally the consensus was that scripture was always the ultimate authority, rather than having a human authority on roughly the same level.

Glory to God alone: God should be our highest priority and is the only one  worthy of worship

This is a different point to the rest as it doesn't deal with salvation, or authority with regards to teaching. It is a statement about God's ultimate goodness and worthiness in a sense that is "other" to anything else.


Was Thomas a believer before seeing the resurrected Jesus? A friend of mine and I had a debate this evening about whether or not the apostles were actually believers in Jesus. She claimed that since the Bible does not explicitly say that each man declared belief that Jesus was who he said he was, that one cannot assume that they did believe him. She said that they might have just thought he was doing some "cool stuff" (miracles) and liked what he had to say. She specifically mentioned that Thomas was not a believer until John 20, when he was face to face with the resurrected Jesus. Thomas' statement of "until I see the nail marks...I will never believe" somehow means, to her, that Thomas was never a believer up until he saw Jesus.

My question is this then: is it logical to think that the twelve apostles (also called disciples) were believers in Jesus and his message prior to his crucifixion/resurrection? I am of the belief that since they were selected by Jesus, and considered disciples who followed him everywhere for his 3+ years of ministry and witnessed his execution on the cross, I'd say that they were all believers (even Judas, who committed suicide because of guilt). Thomas decided to not go with the other apostles when they heard that he had resurrected, and when the others told him that Jesus was alive, he didn't believe it. It's not like people rise from the dead all the time; I'd be skeptical too.

Anyway, thoughts? I'm curious to see what the varying denominations believe. (I'm Church of Christ.)

Was Thomas a believer before seeing the resurrected Jesus?

Yes and No.

Faith is not a binary option - it comes in degrees, has differing objects in view, and requires testing to discern it's genuine worth.

Thomas was a believer in the sense of trusting in Jesus as his master and teacher and forsaking all to follow him - this was akin to the faith of the Old Testament saints.  He may even have agreed at one point with Peter's assertion that Jesus was 'the Christ, the Son of the living God'. However, prior to 'receiving the Holy Spirit' (post resurrection) he did not fully understand what this meant (even though Jesus had forewarned his disciples on multiple occasions) - that the Christ would have to suffer and die for the sake of the sins of His people and would be later raised to life as Lord over all creation.

Thomas was yet to receive what most Evangelical Christians think of as 'saving faith' through the work of the Holy Spirit in Regeneration which did happen sometime in the period between his first post-resurrection encounter and the outpouring at Pentecost. There are some differences of opinion amongst Christians (even amongst Evangelicals) as to exactly when this happened, the main options being:

a. Through Revelation by the Holy Spirit of the risen Christ as Lord (immediately prior to Thomas's declaration of 'my Lord and God'.

b. When Jesus breathed on his disciples to receive the Holy Spirit.

c. When the disciples received the outpoured Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

Scripture References: John 20:19-29, Luke 24:36-53, Acts 1:1-14, Acts 2:1-4


Crucified for false accusation, how did Jesus' death turned into a redemptive sacrifice for our sins? In the OT God provided a way for His people to redeem their sins through burnt offering and sacrifices. In a way to demonstrate His grace and love for His people, and to give a glimpse of His salvation plan.

The circumstances in which Jesus was crucified is not as an offering to redeem anyone's sin. Instead it was intended as a punishment although for false accusations.
How did Jesus' death on the cross turned out to become a sacrifice to redeem sins?

While on the cross Christ pleaded the Father to forgive us. Then the whole of mankind's sins was on Him and the Father forsook Him. Am I right to say that, at that moment, through the Son's pleading, Son of God (God Himself) deomonstrates His great love. And in the act of shielding God's wrath Jesus took upon Himself the sins of all men. And the crucifixion becomes a redemptive sacrifice?

So, though intended to be a punishment under man's law, Jesus, the trinity God made Himself a sacrificial lamb and die on the cross?

How did Jesus' death on the cross turned out to become a sacrifice to redeem sins?

While the Roman execution was taking place, there were other elements not as noticeable.

Jesus allowed himself to be put to death.

  John 10:17-18  Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my
  life, that I might take it again.   No man taketh it from me, but I
  lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power
  to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

The Father place the sins of the world on him.

  2 Corinthians 5:21  For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no
  sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

  1 John 2:2  And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours
  only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

If you look at the crucifixion and sees only a Roman execution, you miss the most important thing in the history of the world.


Were humans once angels? Are humans fallen angels who are being given the chance to earn their place in heaven again?
I was reading somewhere that this is true. The source gave no scripture references, however. Please give all answers from a biblical standpoint. I do not care of what denomination you are. Just show me in the word. Is there any scripture that backs up the claim that humans wew once angels? Thank You.

The Bible doesn't support this at all, so there is no scripture reference to give. Although perhaps there is a negative one.

Speaking of Jesus' incarnation, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews says:

  Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (KJV)

That is, Jesus came to save men, not angels. This is why he took on human nature, not angelic nature. And it obviously also means that men are not angels. There is also Psalm 8, which is partially quoted in Hebrews 2.

  Psalm 8:3-5 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; [4] What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? [5] For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

So, men are not angels, but a little lower than the angels.


Why do most Christians call Jesus "Son of God" rather than simply "God"? We call Jesus the son of God that became the son of man.  And yet, Jesus is God per the doctrine of the trinity.  Why don't orthodox Christians address him as God when talking about him and praying?  Is there a biblical basis?

Trinitarian Christians most often refer to Jesus by name or by the title of "The Son of God" to distinguish between the Three Persons of the Godhead.  (The title of "The Son of Man" is a specific reference to a prophecy in Ezekiel with which Jesus identifies Himself.)

The Doctrine of the Trinity can be explained as such:

Jesus is God
The Father is God
The Spirit is God
The Son is not the Father.  Jesus is not the Spirit.
The Father is not the Son.  The Father is not the Spirit.
The Spirit is not the Son.  The Spirit is not the Father.

Jesus had a specific role in that He is the One who became a man.  Neither the Father nor the Spirit did so.  So, we often reference Jesus specifically because of His role in redemption.

However, we may refer to Jesus as God and be correct in doing so.  Indeed, we often say the "God became a Man," and we mean by this that The Son of God became a Man--not the entire Trinity.

So, to answer your question, we don't refer to Him as God all the time, because we are identifying and distinguishing Him for His Incarnation, Vicarious Sacrifice, and Resurrection.  Yet, we can and do refer to Him as God at times--just not as often as we refer to Him by His Name or His titles.

See this question for more information on the Biblical Basis for the Trinity.


All my days are ordained before I was born? Psalm 139:16 (KJV) Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being
  unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in
  continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

My understanding of this verse: God has written down the process of how our bodies will be formed. Thus, referring to embryology.

  Psalm 139:16 (NIV) Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days
  ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to
  be.

My understanding of this verse: God has written down how many days I should live on this earth. Thus referring to predestination. This translation is very hard to digest for me.

How should we interpret this verse?  I myself cannot accept the NIV way of translation because that would put God responsible for everything in my life, whether good or bad, and that even my destiny of going to Hell or Heaven is predestined. Some writers like Rick Warren  prefer this NIV way of translation.

What is the view of Mainstream Christian Denominations on this verse?

Foreordination is not the same as predestination.

Ordination in the Bible typically refers to being set apart to the office in the Priesthood, for example, the members of the house of Aaron were ordained to take care of the tabernacle during the exodus and later the temple.

A great example of someone who did not follow through with his ordination is Kind David. Even though he was ordained to great things he committed great sin and lost his opportunity.

When the bible refers to foreordination it means that God has identified the potential of certain individuals and ordained them to do great things before they were born. That said, someone does not have to follow through with their potential because we were each given what's probably the most difficult gift for any father to give: the freedom to choose.


1 Corinthians 11:18, what kind of divisions actually? 1 Corinthians 11:18

  In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church,
  there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

My question is already there by reading verse 18.

However, after reading the next verse, 20 to 21 :

  So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat.
  For when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private
  suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets
  drunk.

From the bold sentences, my guess of the divisions is something like this :
There are some who agree to "go ahead with their own private suppers",
 but there are also some who don't agree to "go ahead with their own private suppers".
The group who agree, don't care to the hungry (the poor).
The group who don't agree, care to the hungry (the poor).

But since I realize that my guess above is only my own imagination, that's why I post this question.

Thank you.

In Corinth, it's thought that the rich and the poor in the church were quite divided.  When they came together, it was in the same place, but, the rich who didn't work long hours would come early, and bring much food, and feast.  The poor, only after working, would come, but they would have only meagre food.  Paul is saying that this lack of sharing, this unconcern for the other members of "Christ's body"—i.e. the other members of the church, means the church is not celebrating "the Lord's Supper" but something else.  Unity among believers and care for one another, across all divides, including socioeconomic—and by extension, ethnic and gender etc., is expected if the church is the "Lord's body" and how we relate to one another in the church is very important to the Lord.  When Paul mentions a person who does "neglects the Lord's body" he's not talking about the communion elements but the relationships between church members.


According to Catholicism, does an individual bishop have the safeguard of Infallibility or Indefectibility? Is an individual bishop in communion with the Church and Supreme Pontiff prevented from teaching/approving heresy via formal acts under the doctrines of Infallibility or Indefectibility?

According to Catholicism, do individual bishops have the safeguard of Infallibility or Indefectibility?

The short answer on both counts is no.

First of all what is indefectibility?

  Indefectibility

  Definition

  Imperishable duration of the Church and her immutability until the end of time. The First Vatican Council declared that the Church possesses "an unconquered stability" and that, "built on a rock, she will continue to stand until the end of time" (Denzinger 3013, 3056). The Church's indefectibility, therefore, means that she now is and will always remain the institution of salvation, founded by Christ. This affirms that the Church is essentially unchangeable in her teaching, her constitution, and her liturgy. It does not exclude modifications that do not affect her substance, nor does it exclude the decay of individual local churches or even whole dioceses.

By definition the local ordinary of a diocese does not enjoy the  safeguard of indefectibility since it’s definition states clearly that it is accorded to the Church in its entirety. It is not the pope or a bishop that is indefectible, but the Holy Catholic Church itself. Whole dioceses can vanish and no longer exist.
Historically, this has already happened many times over. However the Church will last until the consummation of the world.

Dioceses that no longer exist are generally referred to as titular sees.

  A titular see in various churches is an episcopal see of a former diocese that no longer functions, sometimes called a "dead diocese".

  The ordinary or hierarch of such a see may be styled a "titular metropolitan" (highest rank), "titular archbishop" (intermediary rank) or "titular bishop" (lowest rank), which normally goes by the status conferred on the titular see.

  The term is used to signify a diocese that no longer functionally exists, often because the diocese once flourished but the territory was conquered by Muslims or no longer functions because of a schism. The Greek–Turkish population exchange of 1923 also contributed to titular bishoprics. The see of Maximianoupolis along with the town that shared its name was destroyed by the Bulgarians under Emperor Kaloyan in 1207; the town and the see were under the control of the Latin Empire, which took Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Parthenia, in north Africa, was abandoned and swallowed by desert sand.

Do individual bishops have the safeguard of infallibility?

This part of the question needs some clarification before going on. On their own, an individual bishop does not enjoy the privilege of infallibility. Only the pope and only when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of consent of the Church". Most bishops never teach erroneous doctrine and many are saints. But nevertheless they do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility in their episcopal office. It belongs to the Successor of St. Peter the Apostle.

  Infallibility

  Definition

  Freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals. As defined by the First Vatican Council, "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of consent of the Church" (Denzinger 3074).

  The bearer of the infallibility is every lawful Pope as successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. But the Pope alone is infallible, not others to whom he delegates a part of his teaching authority, for example, the Roman congregations.

  The object of his infallibility is his teaching of faith and morals. This means especially revealed doctrine like the Incarnation. But it also includes any nonrevealed teaching that is in any way connected with revelation.

  The condition of the infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required that: 1. he have the intention of declaring something unchangeably true; and 2. he speak as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority, and not merely as a private theologian or even merely for the people of Rome or some particular segment of the Church of God.

  The source of the infallibility is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit, who protects the supreme teacher of the Church from error and therefore from misleading the people of God.

  As a result, the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope are unchangeable "of themselves," that is, not because others in the Church either first instructed the Pope or agree to what he says. (Etym. Latin in-, not + fallibilis; from fallere, to deceive: infallibilis, not able to deceive, or err.)

If individual bishops in union (at the same time) with the Supreme Pontiff were to make an infallible teaching within the Catholic Church, they would enjoy this privilege, uniquely by virtue of being united to and in union with the pope at that exact moment would they be infallible. Apart from this unique perspective, generally speaking, bishops are not infallible. They can make theological errors.

A bishop in full communion does not have the grace of infallibility. Bishops do not have the grace of infallibility, that is they do not have the safeguards of the assurance that they will always be infallible.

Thanks be to God, the vast majority do not.

Deo Gratias.

It should be noted that bishop who writes a theological work must still obtain an imprimatur. He can not grant an imprimatur to his own works! Papal encyclicals do not carry an imprimatur! There is no need to do so.


What is a "Pentecostal Catholic"? One of my new neighbors is a "Pentecostal Catholic" from India.  I have heard of this denomination before, during an Evangelical Missiological Society conference, but didn't have a reason to investigate further until now.

What is a "Pentecostal Catholic"?

I'm familiar with Catholicism and Pentecostalism, so feel free to explain it in terms of the main differences between one (or both) of those denominations if that makes it simpler.

NOTE: I am not looking for an exhaustive explanation of all of their doctrines, just a "what you need to know" sort of thing; i.e. What do they emphasize?  What's the back-story?

The only time I've encountered similar labels was when people were talking about the Charismatic Renewal, which is a Catholic approach to speaking in tongues, baptism of the Spirit, etc.

Having come from a Protestant denomination, the outward manifestations do not strike me as terribly different, but the Catholics are clearly Catholic in other practices and theology.


According to Roman Catholicism, was the 1054 excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople valid, in light of Leo IX's death? The excommunications of 1054 have long been seen as a pivotal moment in the Great Schism.  But recently I found that some people apparently doubt that the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople was actually valid, because the pope that had sent the representatives, Leo IX, had already died when the excommunication was announced.  The linked Wikipedia article calls its validity "doubtful," while a different article, this time without a source, simply says that because Leo IX had died, "the excommunication was thereby invalid."

Yet I also know that in 1965, Pope Paul VI lifted the 1054 excommunication – which seems to suggest that it was valid.  And Everett Ferguson (Church History, I, 19.V.B) gives no indication of their invalidity.

According to Roman Catholicism, then, was the excommunication of the Patriarch valid?  Were the representatives able to validly excommunicate only until Leo IX's death, or only until his successor took office, or anytime?

According to Roman Catholicism, was the 1054 excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople valid, in light of Leo IX's death?

The short answer is no.

Even in the seminary, all my professors said that the excommunication imposed by the Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida’s day was is invalid because at the moment he pronounced the above said excommunication, Pope Leo IX had already died. Tradition holds that Cardinal Humbert never lost his title of legal standing as a papal legate of Pope Leo upon the death of this same pope.

  Since the jurisdiction of a legate is ordinary, he does not cease to be legate even at the death of the pope who appointed him, and even if he arrived at his post after the death of that pope. - Legate (Catholic Encyclopædia)

Now here is  major problem with Cardinal Humbert’s actions. Only the Supreme Pontiff may excommunicate bishops and sovereigns. Although legate may excommunicate someone in the name of a Sovereign Pontiff, Legate Humbert could not pronounce such a sentence as Pope Leo IX had been dead for three months.

Only the Pope can excommunicate bishops because only he has jurisdiction over them. Pope Leo IX died on April 19,1054 and Cardinal Humbert’s excommunication was executed on the 16th of July, 1054. Although he retained the office of legate after the Pontiff’s death, he lost the ability to excommunicate him in the name of the pope because the Holy See was in a state of sede vacante.

  In a certain sense excommunications may also be reserved in view of the persons who incur them; thus absolution from excommunications in foro externo incurred by bishops is reserved to the pope; again, custom reserves to him the excommunication of sovereigns. - Excommunication (Catholic Encyclopædia)

Thus it is not the fact that he was or was not the legitimate papal legate at that moment in time. It is a fact that he could not excommunicate a bishop in the pope’s name since Pope Leo was dead.

Now let us look at the evidence, if any, more closely.

  Mutual excommunication of 1054

  In 1053 Leo of Ohrid, at the instigation, according to J. B. Bury, of Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople, wrote to Bishop John of Trani a letter, intended for all the Latin bishops, including the pope, in which he attacked Western practices such as using unleavened bread for the Eucharist, and fasting rules that differed from those in Constantinople, while Cerularius himself closed all Latin churches in Constantinople.

  In response, Leo IX wrote the letter In terra pax of 2 September 1053, addressed to Cerularius and Leo of Ohrid, in which he speaks at length of the privileges granted through Saint Peter to the see of Rome. In one of the 41 sections of his letter he also speaks of privileges granted by the emperors, quoting from the Donation of Constantine document, which he believed to be genuine (section 20). Some scholars say that this letter was never actually dispatched, but was set aside, and that the papal reply actually sent was the softer but still harsh letter Scripta tuae of January 1054.

  The advance of the Norman conquest of southern Italy constituted a threat to the possessions of both the Byzantine Empire and the papacy, each of which sought the support of the other. Accordingly, conciliatory letters, the texts of which have not been preserved, were written to the pope by the emperor and Cerularius. In his January 1054 reply to the emperor, Quantas gratias, Leo IX asks for his assistance against the Normans and complains of what the pope saw as Caerularius's arrogance. In his reply to Caerularius, he upbraided the patriarch for trying to subject the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch to himself and for adopting the title of Ecumenical Patriarch, and insisted on the primacy of the see of Rome.

  These two letters were entrusted to a delegation of three legates, headed by the undiplomatic cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, and also including Frederick of Lorraine, who was papal secretary and Cardinal-Deacon of Santa Maria in Domnica, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi. They were given friendship and support by the emperor but were spurned by the patriarch. Finally, on 16 July 1054, three months after Pope Leo's death in April 1054 and nine months before the next pope took office, they laid on the altar of Hagia Sophia, which was prepared for celebration of the Divine Liturgy, a bull of excommunication of Cerularius and his supporters. At a synod held on 20 July 1054, Cerularius in turn excommunicated the legates. In reality, only Michael may have been excommunicated along with his then-living adherents.

  At the time of the excommunications, many contemporary historians, including Byzantine chroniclers, did not consider the event significant.

  Efforts were made in subsequent centuries by emperors, popes and patriarchs to heal the rift between the churches. However, a number of factors and historical events worked to widen the separation over time.

  "Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".

  There was no single event that marked the breakdown. Rather, the two churches slid into and out of schism over a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations. - East–West Schism

Cardinal Humbert acted with impunity when in the presence of the Patriarch of Constantinople to say the least. Having known the pope had died, a papal legate’s authority was seriously diminished and he knew that. Cardinal Humbert deserved to be excommunicated himself for the actions he chose to do!

  Pope Leo IX sent an official delegation on a legatine mission to treat with the Patriarch. Members of the papal delegation were: cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, papal secretary Frederick of Lorraine, who was Cardinal-Deacon of Santa Maria in Domnica, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi. Soon upon their arrival in Constantinople, news were received that pope Leo IX had died on 19 April. Since official position and authority of papal legates was dependent upon the pope who authorized them to represent him, the news of Leo's death placed his envoys in an awkward position. In spite of that, they decided to proceed with their mission, but even before any religious discussions were held, problems arose regarding some basic formalities and ceremonies. During the initial audience, Patriarch refused to meet with papal envoys in their official capacity and left them waiting with no further audience for months.

  During that time, from April to July 1054, cardinal Humbert and his colleagues continued with their activities in Constantinople, taking part in informal religious discussions on various issues. Their behavior was seen as inappropriate by the Patriarch. Despite the fact that their legatine authority officially ceased after popes death, cardinal Humbert and his colleagues decided to engage in open confrontation with the Patriarch. On Saturday, 16 July 1054, they produced a Charter of Excommunication (lat. charta excommunicationis), directed against Patriarch Michael of Constantinople, Archbishop Leo of Ohrid, and all of their followers. On the same day, cardinal Humbert and his colleagues entered the church of the Hagia Sophia during the divine liturgy and placed the Charter on the altar.

  Soon after that, Patriarch decided to react. On 20 July 1054, a synod of 21 metropolitans and bishops was held in Constantinople, presided by Cerularius. The council decided to excommunicate cardinal Humbert and his colleagues. Only the three men were anathematized, and a general reference was made to all who support them, but there was no explicit excommunication of the entire Western Christianity, or the Church of Rome. On Sunday 24 July the conciliar anathema was officially proclaimed in the Hagia Sophia Church.

  The events of 1054 caused the Great Schism and led to the end of the alliance between the Emperor and the Papacy, and caused later Popes to ally with the Normans against the Empire. Patriarch Michael closed the Latin churches in his area, which exacerbated the schism. In 1965, those excommunications were rescinded by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, when they met in Jerusalem. Although the excommunication delivered by Cardinal Humbert was invalid, this gesture represented a significant step towards restoring communion between Rome and Constantinople.

  The short reign of the Empress Theodora saw Michael intrigue against the throne. Michael Psellus notes that while their initial relations had been cordial, once Theodora took the Imperial throne, they entered into open conflict, as Michael "was vexed because the Roman Empire was being governed by a woman", and on this topic "he spoke his mind freely.". The historian suggests that Theodora would have deposed Michael for his open effrontery and sedition, had she lived longer.

  Cerularius had a hand in negotiating the abdication of Michael VI Stratiotikos, convincing him to step down on 31 August 1057, in favour of the rebellious general Isaac, for whom the army declared on 8 June. The emperor duly followed the patriarch's advice and became a monk. Having had a role in bringing him to the throne, Cerularius next quarrelled with Isaac I Komnenos over confiscation of church property. Michael went so far as to take the highly symbolic step of donning the purple shoes ceremonially reserved for the Emperor. Michael apparently planned a rebellion, to overthrow the Emperor and claim the Imperial Throne for himself or for his relative Constantine Doukas. Isaac exiled Michael to Proconnesus in 1058 and, as Michael refused to step down, had Psellus drew up the Accusation of heresy and treason against him. Cerularius died before coming to trial. - Michael I Cerularius (Wikipedia)

Did Rome have the right to excommunicate Cerularius?

  The question about whether Rome should have excommunicated Cerularius is a good one. Pope Paul VI thought not, given the choice of words for the mutual 1965 statement. We don't think an excummunication should have happened. There probably was a better way to handle the mess. However, the question about whether the Pope had the right to do it is an entirely different matter, because it calls into question the right of Rome to intervene in matters of extreme importance to the entire Church. It also challenges the primacy of the seat of Peter.

  The Byzantine fathers affirm that Rome has the right and the duty to excommunicate heretics and schismatics. For example, St. Maximos the Confessor writes:

    “If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church.  I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox.  For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world."  (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

  This is a Byzantine forefather –a SAINT of the Orthodox Church.

  It was not Rome’s authority to do so, he had not the office to be able to excommunicate. It is as unlawful  and silly as if a child were to cast his parents out of their own house.

  The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, where over 500 Eastern bishops address Pope Leo the Great and declare:

    “Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head (Pope) also fulfill what is fitting for the children (other bishops)." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.

    "Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (i.e., PATRIARCH Dioscorus of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness" --Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3.

  According to the Ecumenical Council of Chalecedon, a Pope of Rome has the right and the power to excommunicate a patriarch (in this case, the Patriarch of Alexandria). So, the position that there was no right of excumminication is not only at odds with the fathers, but with the formal decree of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL (Chalcedon), which recognizes the Pope of Rome’s authority to excommunicate a patriarch. This same canon of Chalcedon also says that Peter is the Rock of the Church. The idea of no right to excommunication is at odds with the fathers of this Ecumenical Council that Eastern Orthodoxy claims to accept and to be bound by.

  Was the excommunication against the whole Eastern Church?

  Rome excommunicated Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople and all of his immediate clergy. It did not excommunicate the emperor, or the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem, or the bishops of any of the other Eastern churches (especially not in the Slavonic north or Russia). Nor did the Slavs or any of the other patriarchs ever excommunicate Rome. So, strictly speaking, Romans are still technically in communion with most of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And this is especially true because we formally healed the schism at Lyon II in 1274 and at Ferrara-Florence in 1439. Our present schism dates from 1472, when the Greeks renounced the union of Ferraea-Florence -- something the Slavic Churches never formally did. Also, in 1965, Patriarch Atheneagorus of Constantinople and Pope Paul VI nullified the excommunications from 1472, which means that Romans are now technically in communion with Constantinople itself though most Greeks do not recognize this. But, technically, there is no reason why we should not be in full communion today.

More information may be gleaned from the following article(s):

Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I (December 7, 1965)


Is the nation of Israel itself a type of Christ and, if so, how? There is a branch of theological study devoted to archetypes, or types of Christ.  Some of these are explicitly defined in the New Testament, as when Jesus speaks of the manna from heaven and calls Himself the Bread of Life and the Bread the came down from heaven.

My question is whether the nation of Israel itself is considered an archetype, and, if so, what makes it so.

Christopher Wright authors the book Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament to help modern day Christians make a correlation between Old Testament Israel and the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. I think this is the best resource for the answer to this question and the full text can be found here

Wright begins his book by making the assertion that the Jesus of the New Testament embodies the covenants and promises set forth in the Old Testament by God to Israel (Wright 1992, 62). Wright claims that it “is the contention of [the] whole book that we must clearly face up to the distinctive claims of the Hebrew scriptures if we are to get our understanding of Christ’s uniqueness straight also” (Wright, 35). In the Old Testament, the people of Israel are the chosen people of God. It is through these people that God chooses to bring salvation to the world (Wright, 49). Wright claims that Jesus “had, in a sense, taken on the identity of Israel” in the New Testament (Wright, 182). Jesus came into a historically centered Jewish culture and claimed the identity of the saving grace of the world.

Wright concludes his text by making the claim that “Jesus did not come to teach people new ideas about some new moral philosophy which he called the Kingdom of God,” but rather became the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises entirely (Wright, 251). Wright accurately shows how Jesus not only fulfills the promises of the Old Testament but also adapts it’s philosophies for himself (Wright, 197). Jesus, then, uses the Old Testament to find his own identity, his purpose and his values.

As Wright begins to develop his book, his fundamental claim is the Jewish nature of Jesus himself. Therefore, Wright begins Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament by exploring the Jewish culture that surrounded the time of Jesus. His goal is simply to enhance the personhood of Jesus through a deep knowledge of the Old Testament, its history, and its theological values. Just as through Israel God created a universal blessing, through Jesus God has created a universal means of salvation (Wright, 36). Through both Israel and Jesus there occur elements of election, redemption, covenant and inheritance (Wright, 40). Wright affirms this biblically through multiple passages, the foremost being Galatians 3:29 – “If you belong to the Messiah, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” This verse and the assertions of Wright all center around Jesus being the doorway into which modern-day Christians are accepted into the covenant of eternal life and the blessings set forth in ancient times by God to Israel.

Therefore, as Wright presses on into the book the reader travels with him into the promises that God makes in the Old Testament to Israel and the other nations. It is here that Wright explains in detail the inter-connectedness of Jesus and Israel and how the people in the time that the gospels were written would have implicitly understood the significance (Wright, 60). As the reader explores all of the ancient covenants that God created with Israel, Wright explains how each one of them was more than just a specific promise to a specific people. “So once again, we find the same combination: the universal, missiological dimension of the covenant, in its ultimate scope, for the blessing of all nations through Israel” (Wright, 92-93). This sets up the historical context for the New Covenant which occurred with Jesus (Israel) and through Him salvation can be expanded to other nations (Gentiles).

Wright’s goal of enhancing the person of Jesus through the Old Testament is both clear and powerful as moves forward in the text. Wright then explains how the character of Jesus was formed by the Old Testament’s use of the phrase “Son of God” (Wright, 106-107). Many times in the Old Testament, the people of Israel are referred to as the “sons of God” and are therefore related to Jesus within the text (Wright, 122-123). In Exodus 4:22 God declares Israel to be His firstborn son; therefore, the relationship between Israel and Jesus is very explicit – Israel was the firstborn son of God and Jesus also carried this title. Because of this, the mission of Israel must also be the mission of Jesus. The redemptive abilities of Israel then become the redemptive abilities of Jesus. Through Israel God chose to bless the world and through Jesus He chose to save it.

Wright also asserts, then, that Jesus gained his mission from the Old Testament as well. Wright claims that “Israel was the servant of God, chosen and upheld by [God], with the purpose of being a light to the nations” (Wright, 162). As Jesus became the embodiment of Israel he also took on the global mission and yoke of Israel. This is the weakest part of Wright’s argument for the purpose of Jesus through the Old Testament. While he provides some Biblical examples in the chapter about Jesus’ purpose, this is the area of his book where he treats the Bible figuratively. Wright produces a firm argument for his case but loses ground in his over-employed metaphor of Jesus acting as every aspect of Israel.


Is there a way to know for sure that a given practice is true Catholic Tradition? Is there a way to ascertain if a spiritual practice really comes from Catholic Tradition, and is not a fabrication? If, for example, I am told to look at the book of Athanasius in the New Testament in chapter 10, verse 20, I know that that book is fictitious.

I ask this question because where I live a Catholic priest organized a novena of prayer to the bloody tears of the Virgin Mary a few years ago and it made me very uneasy. We know that Jesus shed sweat of blood, but how can we know that a novena is a prayer approved by the Church, and not some invention by a devout medieval person or group of persons?

A bit of background: traditions and Tradition

Sacred Tradition

When the Church refers to Sacred Tradition, she is referring, not to practices, but to a body of doctrines that are not explicitly found in the Sacred Scriptures.

A few examples of such doctrines (some of which rise even to the level of dogma, or solemnly defined doctrines that are subject to divine and Catholic faith):

The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Although the Scriptures refer to Mary as kecharitomene (one who has been definitively filled with grace), it does not affirm in black and white that she was born without the effects of Original Sin.
The doctrine of Original Sin is itself an inference not found explicitly in the Scriptures.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This event occurred, presumably, after most of the the New Testament was written, and so could not have been recorded in it (unless Revelation 12 is a veiled reference).
The canon of Scripture. The Bible does not itself contain a “table of contents;” which books actually belong to the Bible is a doctrine transmitted by Tradition.
The number of the Apostles. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the office of Apostle is limited to the Twelve, or to the Twelve and St. Paul, or that the office would cease after the Apostolic Age. This is only known thanks to Tradition.

All of these are doctrines that have been taught, with differing degrees of explicitness, from the earliest moments of Church history. We can be sure that they are true, because of the infallibility that Christ endowed to his Church, and it is the task of the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) to be stewards and interpreters of these truths. In this capacity, they exercise the Church’s Magisterium, or teaching authority.

Ecclesial traditions

Sacred Tradition is to be distinguished from so-called ecclesial traditions (written with a lowercase T), which are various kinds of practices and popular beliefs that have developed over the ages.

Some of these practices are explicitly sanctioned by the Church (such as the various forms of the Sacred Liturgy), and others (such as novenas, rosaries, processions, and so on) are forms of popular piety, practices that people have found helpful for expressing their faith over the years.

Among ecclesial traditions are also certain popular beliefs that are not the subject of faith (many of which are probably historically spurious).

For example, the story of Veronica wiping the face of Christ, which is common in the Way of the Cross, has no basis either in the Scripture or in Sacred Tradition. There is nothing wrong with thinking that such a person really existed, but neither does the Church require such belief. Similarly, most depictions of the crêche show three Wise Men, but in fact the Scriptures do not specify their number.

No ecclesial tradition is completely set in stone (in contrast to Sacred Tradition), although, of course, ancient and venerable practices are generally to be respected. For example, even with the reforms of the Mass after Vatican II, the Roman Canon—now the First Eucharistic Prayer—was left essentially unchanged from the pre-Vatican-II Mass.

See the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) numbers 80-90 for a full treatment of this topic.

How to judge if a practice is good and holy

There are objective ways to judge if a given practice is good and holy, or if, instead, it tends toward superstition.

It should be in complete conformity with Church teaching (including, evidently, what is contained in Sacred Tradition).
It should lead people to greater love and devotion to Jesus Christ.
It should lead people to the Sacraments and to the reading of the Sacred Scriptures.
It should foster obedience, humility, and the other virtues proper to Christian discipleship.

(These criteria are derived from the way that the Church judges Marian apparitions, which fall under the category of popular piety.)

Ultimately, it is for the Church’s Magisterium to decide whether a given practice, or even a popular belief, is helpful or not.

Regarding the specific concerns of the O.P.

It seems to me that a novena to Mary’s tears of blood is not a cause for concern. It is simply an example of popular piety.

No one is requiring Catholics either to believe that Mary shed tears of blood, or to take part in the novena. Both the popular belief and the popular practice are entirely optional. On the other hand, neither do they contradict any truth of the faith. If someone finds such a practice helpful, then he should feel free to participate. If not, then he is free not to do so.


Why are babies dressed in white during a Roman Catholic christening? Why are babies dressed in white during a Roman Catholic christening (aka baptism)? Is the color symbolic or anything? Can any other color be worn? Similarly, are there some sort of color restrictions for adult converts?

The color white is primarily symbolic of the pure state of the baby's/adult's soul along with the renewal of life after being cleansed of original sin by the Holy Spirit. But as with all symbolism, there are many more things associated with the color (according to Wikipedia):

  According to surveys in Europe and the United States, white is the color most often associated with innocence, perfection, the good, honesty, cleanliness, the beginning, the new, neutrality, lightness, and exactitude.

There are no official Catholic teaching on the color of clothing, but people may choose white on account of the tradition and symbolism of the color.


"Actor's idolatry" problem - is it a sin? Let's imagine an actor, a good Christian. As a part of his role of some pagan, he prays to Zeus or other ancient deity on stage. He just plays the role and there is no inclination to Zeus behind his words and gestures (he may even pray to the true God in heart while playing the scene), but the words and gestures are the same as used by real pagans many centuries ago.
That's what I call "actor's idolatry" - the action as seen from outside and without knowledge of context seems to be idolatry, but there's no intention to sin.

I know some would say it is idolatry, some not, and it depends on circumstances too. Biblical reasons why this should be seen as a case of idolatry are quite frequent in Old Testament (for example Ex 23:13). But what are reasons from Bible (or tradition) that "actor's idolatry" isn't real idolatry?

You are not describing something that is traditionally considered to be idolatry. However, you may be describing the sin of scandal (beliefs may vary on what constitutes "leading others into sin", but I understand that you're not asking us to get into that).

The Catechism actually addresses this almost directly, in the following:

  2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon." Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast" refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.

Regarding the "simulation of idolatry", the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions:

  Even the simulation of idolatry, in order to escape death during persecution, is a mortal sin, because of the pernicious falsehood it involves and the scandal it causes. Of Seneca who, against his better knowledge, took part in idolatrous worship, St. Augustine says: "He was the more to be condemned for doing mendaciously what people believed him to do sincerely".

The point here is that the "simulation of such worship" is marked as distinct from the actual worship (idolatry), and then explained to be a matter of doing what others believe is done sincerely. So the traditional understanding of idolatry, re-iterated there by St Augustine, is that it requires sincerity. In the same way, our worship of God also requires sincerity, and not merely "outward displays".

So acting out or demonstrating how pagans worshipped is not the sin of idolatry. (Except when it is: if you know you are particularly prone to falling into idolatry, or your acting style very much involves you "getting into the role" mentally, then this may not be the role for you).

But there is actually another part to your question. Most people don't really believe that what is done in the context of theatre or film is done sincerely, except perhaps children (...there was a time when I thought a certain actor really had a disability due to a convincing character portrayal). But what you go on to describe as "actor's idolatry" (action as seen from outside without knowledge of context) is traditionally considered not to be the sin of idolatry, but the sin of scandal.

  2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

There really won't be any basis for this not being a sin. Scripture is very clear, see for example Luke 17:1-2, Proverbs 28:10. The only thing in dispute is whether certain things count as leading others into sin - and that can be a pretty big dispute among people.