Source for Biblical Moral Stories Does anyone know of a good book, website, or general source that focuses on telling the the different narrative form moral-stories of the Bible (e.g. Peter walks on water with Jesus, doubts it, then sinks; etc.)

If this doesn’t exist, I think it would be a great source of historical wisdom to pass through the generations, truth/falseness of the stories aside.

Thank you much for your time.

I regret to say I do not know of a book or website that focuses specifically on extracting moral lessons from stories in the Bible, but I can point you to a Protestant source that helps to explain the Christian perspective and lessons to be learned from the miracles performed by Jesus.

One important lesson to be learned from the account of Peter walking on the water to meet Jesus is that although he literally stepped out in faith, he soon became fearful and began to sink – his faith was short-lived:

  Peter’s exercise of faith does not end in failure. Although he is sinking in fear, he calls out to the Lord, “Save me!” God loves to hear our cry for help. It means we know we can’t save ourselves. Peter helplessly cries out to the only one who can help him. The disciple’s experience reminds us that a lapse of faith is merely a stumble. The Lord is near to raise us back safely to our feet when we call to Him for help.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-walking-on-water.html

Linked to this is the meaning behind Jesus walking on the stormy Sea of Galilee to meet his disciples already in the boat:

  When the disciples saw Jesus walking on the lake, they thought He was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw Him and were terrified (Mark 6:48–50). And this brings us to the second significant point of this miracle. Jesus always comes to us in the storms of life...  The point is this: fear and faith cannot live in the same heart, for fear frequently blinds the eyes to the presence of the Lord.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/walking-on-water.html

Other important lessons can be learned from the incident when Jesus was in a boat with the other disciples and a storm arose.  The disciples were afraid for their lives, but Jesus quelled the storm:

  The apostles’ lack of faith reminds us that even those who lived and walked with Jesus, saw His miracles, and heard His message still found it difficult to be 100 percent faith-filled all the time. In that way, the disciples were a lot like us.   If Jesus was able to rescue the apostles from the storm, He is also able to rescue us from the storms of everyday life: sickness, job loss, marriage problems, and even the sting of death (1 Corinthians 15:55).   The Lord never promised we will never see a storm in life (as a matter of fact, He has told us to expect trouble, John 16:33). Rather, He has promised that He will be with us in the storm. He will never leave His children alone in the midst of trouble; with perseverance they will overcome (Deuteronomy 31:8; James 1:12).  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/calming-the-storm.html

The “moral of the stories” found in the Bible regarding the various miracles has a specific application to Christian faith.  Faith in Christ is never misplaced.  If Jesus can command the elements and calm the wind and the waves with one word, He can calm the storms of life as well.

Allow me to leave you with a link to an article that lists all the miracles of Jesus and points to their spiritual significance:

  The vast majority of miracles recorded in the Gospels were miracles of healing. While those who received the healing were relieved of their physical ailments, the stated purpose of the miracles is rarely ever the simple alleviation of physical suffering. The miracle of healing always points to a greater truth, namely, that Jesus is the Son of God with authority. When He casts out demons, His authority over them is emphasized. When He heals on the Sabbath, His authority as Lord of the Sabbath is emphasized. Likewise, many of the miracles emphasize Jesus’ authority over nature.  Source:  https://www.gotquestions.org/miracles-of-Jesus.html


According to Baptist theology why doesn't Satan surrender? We know that Satan is at war with God.  This is a root cause of the Fall (depending on your perspective).  We also know that God is omnipotent, while Satan is not.  This means that Satan is doomed.  In James 2:19 it says (New International Version (NIV))

  You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that — and shudder.

This scripture shows that demons know that they are doomed too.

If I were in a fight that I knew I had a precisely 0% chance of winning, I would surrender if I had the chance.  As God is merciful, I am pretty sure he is giving or has given Satan that chance.

Why hasn't Satan taken the opportunity to accept God's infinite mercy?

I am asking from the Baptist viewpoint.

First, "Baptist theology" is too general a term for a specific question which itself  is a rather peripheral issue  that is unlikely to see a uniform answer even from within one denomination. Therefore I do not think it can be answered except as regards general principals of theology.

Baptist typically hold to either Arminian or Calvinistic theology.   If dealing with the latter, the answer would be that the devil was foreordained to damnation, thus he cannot repent/surrender, and does not want to.  The  Baptist Confession of 1689,  subscribed to by  English Baptist Ministers in the year 1689,  states that "By the decree of God...some men and Angels are predestinated, or fore-ordained to..being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation..."

Contemporary Baptist theologian Wayne Grudem  states that,

Such are held to be reprobate: "Reprobation refers to God’s eternal decree to refrain from providing saving grace to particular fallen individuals and to harden these in their willful sins..."  (https://www.monergism.com/election-and-reprobation)

Arminians  believe that the   devil and his angels had the freedom and ability to obey God, but chose to disobey, and they  believe, as the Arminian Confession of 1621" teaches,  that those who "are guilty of prolonged defiance and rebellion" are liable to God "blinding, hardening, or delivering them to the efficacy of error, to their own corrupt desires and to a reprobate mind," and that the devil will be cast  into everlasting fire. (http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-arminian-confession-of-1621)

The Bible warns about becoming "reprobate," a condition resulting from rejecting  the light and grace one had, and hardening one's heart against it.  Heb. 6:5-9 speaks most clearly about such:

  And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to
  come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance;
  seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him
  to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh
  oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is
  dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns
  and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be
  burned. (Hebrews 6:5-8 KJV)

Also (2 Corinthians 13:5 KJV)

  Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.
  Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except
  ye be reprobates?

(Titus 1:16 KJV)

  They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being
  abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

In contrast (Hebrews 6:9 KJV)

  But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that
  accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

The devil is surely one who has  "tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come," having know a level of light and blessing unknown to us, but who selfishly exalted himself as one worthy to sit as God, whose power and glory he lusted after. (Isaiah 14)  This was the first "Occupy Movement" if you will, climbing up some other way to honor than by grace and  the merit of obedience.

Thus, being cast down due to his unholy presumption, he worked to seduce Eve with the victim-entitlement message, that she was entitled to the one thing forbidden her amid myriad blessings, which one thing (as the devil construed it) God was selfishly keeping from her least she be as God - rather than "sharing the wealth"  - and thus she should just take what she wanted, and that instead of the (unjust) punishment for such presumption, she would be as God.

But like souls in Hell, she found out the hard way that the devil deceived her, to her own hurt, while the devil gloried in his gain.  Which he yet seeks via proxy servants in  false  religion and politics.

(John 10:10 KJV)

  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into
  the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and
  a robber.

(John 10:1 KJV)

  The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I
  am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more
  abundantly.


What does it mean to shed blood in the name of Christ? Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra:

  “The… Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV's qualification "even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ" seems to imply that to shed blood in the name of Christ is a work of piety of such value that some parishioners might expect should allow a person to be saved.

This might be confusing to the modern reader, since in modern English, the idiom "to shed blood" usually means to kill another, especially in an act of violence. The non-Catholic might read this as a commendation of those participating in violent acts associated with the Catholic church like the crusades or the execution of heretics.

What does it mean to "shed blood in the name of Christ"?

Do any other Catholic documents use these words to describe an act of piety?

In modern language 'shed blood' usually means someone else's, but language has changed a lot in 500 years. (read Shakespeare or the KJV).

The sense of the passage is clearly "no matter what good works you do, if you are outside the Church that counts for nothing". It is clearly building up a list of greater and greater deeds - fasting, alms, works of piety - and so literary sense would be that the last item would be the biggest sacrifice of all, conveying the sense that even if you give absolutely as much as you possibly can, still it avails you nothing.

The biggest sacrifice of all would, of course, be giving of your own life for Christ, and I would understand that this is the sense that "shed blood in the name of Christ" is meant. It means to shed your own blood.


How does one become a "lay-minister" in the Catholic Church? Wikipedia definition:

  Lay ecclesial ministry is the term adopted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to identify the relatively new category of pastoral ministers in the Catholic Church who serve the Church but are not ordained. Lay ecclesial ministers are coworkers with the bishop alongside priests and deacons.

Is there a more or less standardized certification process? Is there a formal education requirement? Does it depend on the ministry? Must a priest sponsor the minister? What about the bishop?

How does one become a “lay-minister” in the Catholic Church?
First of all, what constitutes a Lay minister varies according to the definition employed by pastors and dioceses.
That will depend on the type of lay ministry one is involved in. Depending on the field of work the requirements for ministry vary. All dioceses require that the minister has a sense of calling. In regards to training, dioceses vary in their requirements, from those that emphasize natural gifts to those that also require advanced tertiary education qualifications, for example, from a seminary, theological college or university.
If one is considering becoming a ”Catholic Lay Minister” it is best to approach one’s local pastor (parish priest), local ordinary (bishop) chancery office or some other well informed Catholic in this matter or one’s National Conference of Bishop’s secretary (This can be done on line.) for more details.

The term lay ecclesial ministry reflects certain key realities. Lay ecclesial ministry is: Lay because it is service done by lay persons. The sacramental basis is the Sacraments of Initiation, not the Sacrament of Ordination. Ecclesial because it has a place within the community of the Church, whose communion and mission it serves, and because it is submitted to the discernment, authorization, and supervision of the hierarchy. Ministry because it is the work by which Christians participate in the threefold ministry of Christ, who is priest, prophet, and king and continue his mission and ministry in the world. Lay ecclesial ministers are women and men whose ecclesial service (lay ecclesial ministry) is characterized by: Authorization of the hierarchy to serve publicly in the local church Leadership in a particular area of ministry Close mutual collaboration with the pastoral ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons Preparation and formation appropriate to the level of responsibilities that are assigned to them The following understandings should be kept in mind: The term "lay ecclesial minister" is generic. "Lay ecclesial minister" is not itself a specific position title. It is not used in order to establish a new rank or order among the laity. It is the responsibility of the bishop, or his delegate, ign accord with the norms of canon law, to identify the roles that most clearly exemplify lay ecclesial ministry. Application of the term may vary from diocese to diocese. - What is lay ecclesial ministry? Who are lay ecclesial ministers?

Obviously a principal of a Catholic school needs to be properly educated to meet both state and ecclesiastical requirements.

Formation for Lay Ecclesial Ministers:
The Church has always required proper preparation of those who exercise a ministry. In the same way, CIC, canon 231, states that "lay persons who devote themselves permanently or temporarily to some special service of the Church are obliged to acquire the appropriate formation which is required to fulfill their function properly." Lay ecclesial ministers, just like the ordained, need and deserve formation of high standards, effective methods, and comprehensive goals. . .

"To set high standards," said Pope John Paul II, "means both to provide a thorough basic training and to keep it constantly updated. This is a fundamental duty, in order to ensure qualified personnel for the Church’s mission." . . .Lay ecclesial ministers need:

Human qualities critical to form wholesome relationships and necessary to be apt instruments of God's love and compassion.

A spirituality and practice of prayer that root them in God's Trinitarian life, grounding and animating all they do in ministry.

Adequate knowledge in theological and pastoral studies, along with the intellectual skill to use it among the people and cultures of our country.

The practical pastoral abilities called for in their particular ministry.

What do Catholic lay ministers do?
Parish Lay Ministers:

Director of Administrative Services
Director of Religious Education
Pastoral Musician
Pastoral Associate
Adult and Family Minister
Liturgist
Parish Director (Parish Life Coordinator)
Youth Minister (Director of Youth Ministry)
Human Concerns Minister (Social Justice Minister)
Parish Secretary (Administrative Assistant)
RCIA Coordinator
Chaplain (Director of Spiritual Care)
Campus Minister
Retreat Director
Spiritual Director
Lay Missionary
School Principal
Catholic Elementary or High School Teacher

The idea of Catholic Lay Ministers is a rather new concept in most dioceses. These “lay ministers” are required to work a minimum of 20 hours a week in their field of service and it is a paid position.
According to the above definition, what has been stated, those serving at the alter, Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, readers and ushers are not considered “lay ministers”.
These new terms can create some confusion amongst Catholics as the definitions seems to imply things that they are not. Lay ministers are not ordained for example.
However, traditionally altar servers, lector and acolytes are considered minor liturgical ministers.
To a lesser degree ushers are included also.  Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist may also be considered ministers’but not in a traditional sense, as it is a rather new practice within the Church.
The Church in modern times also includes lay readers and ushers as liturgical lay ministers.

In a general sense, any Christian exercising a ministry is a minister. Since all the baptised are part of the universal priesthood, whenever they engage in their vocation to evangelize the world and to help those in need, they are ministers.
In addition, the Church calls people to the responsible stewardship of their time and talent in support of the Church. This often takes the form of volunteering for a specific lay ministry, most of which are liturgical, catechetical, or involved in pastoral care and social justice.
Liturgical lay ministries include lectors (Ministers of the Word) who proclaim scriptural (the Bible) passages during the Eucharist, altar servers and acolytes who assist the presider at the altar, cantors and music ministers who lead the singing, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion who serve during Mass and/or who take Holy Communion to the sick and homebound, and ushers or ministers of hospitality who direct the seating and procession of the assembly.
Catechetical lay ministries include catechists (Sunday school teachers and teachers at Catholic schools), dismissal leaders (ministers who lead RCIA catechumens on Sundays), retreat leaders, youth group leaders, and Scout religious emblems counselors.
Other lay ministries include those who work with charitable activities, pastoral care and outreach, or advocacy for social justice. - Minister (Catholic Church


How are doxologies formed for common prayers? I'm not sure of the exact definition, but a doxology seems to be a prayer tagged at the end which consists of some sort of invocation of the Blessed Trinity.

I'm just wondering if the actual words in a given doxology are important or if in prayer books, like the Book of Common Prayer (for the Liturgy of the Hours) the doxology given is just the most common one used, but shortened for some reason.

  Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and shall be forever

The prayer we teach in Religious Ed. is similar, and the one used in praying the Rosary

  Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now and shall be forever world without end.

So, this is a three part question.

Why do we pray a particular version of the 'Glory Be' during the Rosary and another during the Liturgy of the Hours
Is the prayer interchangeable (especially when said in private)
Is the translation likely to resemble the Latin more closely in the future, with the changes to the Mass?

and 3. I guess it has just historical reasons, and it will probably be corrected someday. In most languages, there's just one version of Gloria Patri.
In Liturgy of Hours it should still be Gloria Patri, and if you pray it by yourself, the translation shouldn't be important. On the other hand, it shouldn't be replaced by other, though similar, prayers (but I've seen much bigger tresspasses against liturgical rules and AFAIK it doesn't make the whole prayer useless). In Rosary and other uses, it's even more free.


What is the Biblical basis for Catholic blessings? What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic blessings? And what are those blessings?

Being an evangelical, I do not understand from the Bible, the reason for papal, priestly, or other blessings. How would you explain it to me?

The first Bible reference that comes to mind is Jacob's blessing of Isaac (Gen. 27:28).  Countless times in the Gospels Christ blesses something, the most notable that comes to mind is the bread and wine at the Last Supper: "And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body (Matt 26:26)." When Christ cured the sick He blessed them, etc.

At it's most basic elements a blessing is just the minister of the Church invoking a Divine Benediction upon a person or thing.  The power to Bless comes from the Holy Spirit which a priest receives in his ordination (as well as the jurisdiction to give the blessings which the priests of the Church can give) but there are blessings that non-priests can give.  As a parent, I can (and do!) bless my children in the evening before they go to bed (something the parents can do as the spiritual heads of their household through the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit, as alluded to in the above citation of the patriarchs of the old testament blessing their offspring).


What is the basis of my fractured understanding of  "Sola Scriptura"? As a Catholic, I'm often baffled by other Christians who base their faith purely off personal interpretation of the Bible as the be-all-end-all proof for everything under the sun (which is what I mean by Sola Scriptura).

I understand the need to figure out what's going on in the bible and the need to live your life according to wisdom of the prophets and saints and especially heed the words of Jesus. But where did the idea come from that everyone can interpret the bible for themselves?  Is this just a common Catholic prejudice or a misunderstanding?

As I understand it, the term Sola Scriptura isn't about personal interpretation so much as it refers to a closed canon, the notion that the Bible is complete and contain all necessary knowledge for salvation, and that no other words from any other source can legitimately be added to it and hold canonical status alongside the Bible.

As for its basis, there really isn't one.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is complete or closed.  (This is partially because the collection of individual works known today as "The Bible" wasn't actually compiled into its present form until centuries after the last of the individual works was written!)  The common justification that Revelation 22: 18-19 prohibits "adding to or taking away from" the Bible is clearly invalid in light of this, even before you consider that Revelation was actually written before John's other works, including the Gospel of John itself, and that extremely similar language is found in Deuteronomy chapter 4.  (Interpreted literally, that would invalidate the vast majority of the Bible, including the entire New Testament!)

Nowhere in any actual revelation or the writings of any prophet or Apostle does it say anything even resembling "Thus saith the Lord, my words are at an end."  The concept emerged during the Reformation as a counter to Catholic traditional teachings that were not found in the Bible and, in the Reformers' view at least, directly contradicted teachings that were found in the Bible.  It's a useful rhetorical device, but it is not itself a scriptural doctrine.

In fact, when you look at the history presented in the Bible itself, the concept of a closed canon is always associated with apostate groups.  The Samaritans and the Saducees both held positions that diminished or invalidated (to different degrees) the prophets after Moses.  Likewise, the Jews in the New Testament time refused to accept the new writings of Jesus's Apostles, and created the Masoretic Text (the basis for the modern Old Testament canon) as a closed work, stating that this was "The Scriptures" and nothing else could hold that status.  Sound familiar?


Is there a Catholic list of Old Testament sacraments? Augustine said that there are fewer sacraments in the New Covenant than there were in the Old:

  Thus the sacraments of the Old Testament, which were celebrated in obedience to the law, were types of Christ who was to come; and when Christ fulfilled them by His advent they were done away, and were done away because they were fulfilled. For Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill. And now that the righteousness of faith is revealed, and the children of God are called into liberty, and the yoke of bondage which was required for a carnal and stiffnecked people is taken away, other sacraments are instituted, greater in efficacy, more beneficial in their use, easier in performance, and fewer in number.

My denomination, Presbyterianism, teaches that there are two (not seven, as Catholics would have it) New Testament sacraments, each derived from a particular one of the two Old Testament sacraments. A good explanation can be found in Fisher's Catechism (Q93), particularly sub-questions 1, 17, and 18.

Do any Catholic sources have a list of Old Testament sacraments, and how they each reached their fulfillment in the seven New Testament sacraments?

The short answer is that the Jewish religion didn't have sacraments, it had sacrifices and laws and blessings and festivals.

The longer answer is specific to Augustine, who was considering each OT law as a type of Christ, and in that way a sacrament. The Jews counted 613 laws, and of course sacrifices and blessings and festivals count on top of that, so there were literally hundreds.

The Catholic Church instituted its seven sacraments independently of the Jewish religion. There is no theology of one-for-one replacement. That said, we can take each of the seven and find some antecedent in Judaism:

Baptism: Jews did practice baptism as a rite of repentance in NT times, but their chief rite of passage into the community of faith was circumcision.

Confirmation: Jews now have Bar Mitzvah, but we have no evidence for this in NT times. Judaism always had many laws that applied only to adults, not children, though. By necessity there would have always been some way of recognizing when a child became subject to the law (and therefore a fully functioning member of the community), such as a 13th birthday.

Penance: Jews had sacrifices for sin, and a day of atonement. They also had elaborate rituals for restoring "cleanness" to themselves on various occasions and to various articles which may incur uncleanness.

Eucharist: Jews had communion sacrifices. An animal was sacrificed in the temple, certain fatty parts were burned on the altar and the rest was eaten by the family.

Marriage: Jewish marriages were (most likely) conducted and blessed by the rabbis (synagogue leaders) in NT times, but it was based upon a covenant or contract between the husband and wife, with the father of the bride negotiating the best interests of the bride.

Holy Orders: Jews had various processes for the ordination and induction of their priests and other leaders. You can read about these rites in Leviticus.

Sacrament of the Sick:
The Jewish religion did not have prayers for the sick and dying (so far as I know) but they did have a procedure for returning lepers to the community after they were healed. The former leper would be inspected by the temple priests and be pronounced clean.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  (c) Sacraments of the Mosaic Law. As the time for Christ's coming drew
  nearer, in order that the Israelites might be better instructed God
  spoke to Moses, revealing to him in detail the sacred signs and
  ceremonies by which they were to manifest more explicitly their faith
  in the future Redeemer. Those signs and ceremonies were the sacraments
  of the Mosaic Law, "which are compared to the sacraments which were
  before the law as something determined to something undetermined,
  because before the law it had not been determined what signs men
  should use" (Summa Theologiæ III:61:3, ad 2). With the Angelic Doctor
  (I-II:102:5) theologians usually divide the sacraments of this period
  into three classes:

  The ceremonies by which men were made and signed as worshippers or
  ministers of God. Thus we have (a) circumcision, instituted in the
  time of Abraham (Genesis 17), renewed in the time of Moses (Leviticus
  12:3) for all people; and (b) the sacred rites by which the Levitical
  priests were consecrated.

  The ceremonies which consisted in the use of things pertaining to the
  service of God, i.e. (a) the paschal lamb for all the people, and (b)
  the loaves of proposition for the ministers.

  The ceremonies of purification from legal contamination, i.e. (a) for
  the people, various expiations, (b) for the priests, the washing of
  hands and feet, the shaving of the head, etc. St. Augustine says the
  sacraments of the Old Law were abolished because they had been
  fulfilled (cf. Matthew 5:17), and others have been instituted which
  are more efficacious, more useful, easier to administer and to
  receive, fewer in number ("virtute majora, utilitate meliora, actu
  faciliora, numero pauciora", Reply to Faustus XIX.13). The Council of
  Trent condemns those who say that there is no difference except in the
  outward rite between the sacraments of the Old Law and those of the
  New Law (Sess. VII, can. ii). The Decree for the Armenians, published
  by order of the Council of Florence, says that the sacraments of the
  Old Law did not confer grace, but only prefigured the grace which was
  to be given by the Passion of Christ. This means that they did not
  give grace themselves (i.e. ex opere operato) but only by reason of
  the faith in Christ which they represented — "ex fide significata, non
  ex circumcisione significante" (Summa Theologiæ I-II:102:5)


Is Mary's virginity evidence that sex is always sinful? It seems that sex is always a sin, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus had to be born of a virgin and not by traditional conception in order to be sinless. Is this true?

Any viewpoint is welcome.

No no, it's not a sin. It could easily become a sin if we pervert that which was intended for good.

I believe that Mary's virgin Birth was a testification to the Truth of Christ. Could you imagine what the Catholic church would have done with the Husband? "Father of God" I'm sure that would have been completely chaotic. Who's really the father of God?

Well, we know through the virgin birth that only God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ.


Why doesn't the Catholic Church support female priests? Understanding that the Catholic Church has its foundation in Judaism, which is a male based religion, how does she justify the fact that women cannot administer religious rites?

Short answer:

Jesus did not ordain women.

Long Answer:

It is because of Christ's example in sacred scripture and because of Apostolic Tradition (Tradition with a capital 'T'). The Church does not consider herself authorized to change this.  Christ could have ordained women to priesthood. He had the power to do that and he chose not to. Christ chose those whom he willedMk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70, and he did so in union with the Father, through the Holy SpiritActs 1:2, after having spent the night in prayerLk 6:12. These chosen men were the one who were present at the institution of the Priesthood in the Upper Room on Holy Thursday.src1 src2 src3

There were women priests in other religion. So it wold not be a scandal if he did ordain women. Also priests are at mass in Persona Christi, so it would be proper for them to resemble Christ in body too.

Also remember that the perfect non-divine human being, the mother of God was not a priest.


What type of Christianity does Hans Christian Andersen depict in *The Red Shoes*? When I was little, my parents used to read to me a Chinese version of the story, The Red Shoes, by Hans Christian Andersen. Though, I was not aware of the story's Christian themes and motifs until I read the English version, a language that I am more fluent in.

There are some defining characteristics:

the girl cannot wear red, presumably because it's a sinful color (?)
the girl must wear black shoes to church
the girl cannot wear red during her mother's funeral; it's socially forbidden
the red shoes are very distracting to the girl, perhaps the epitome of sin
the girl must literally repent and forsake her "sinful" life, marked by the red shoes
the type of Christian that Andersen depicts cannot show pride when other people admire her dress or her looks; she must be modest or humble, and that means ignoring the good things about her

What type of Christianity is this, or is this just a figment of Hans Christian Andersen's imagination, or is it a generic nameless type of Christianity as in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale?

In western culture, Red is the color of passion and it's disordered vice of lust is cooped up in the color. (see also, the Scarlet letter). I see the esteemed Revered V says the sin is pride.  I don't disagree, I just think the real sin that is being covered here is lust and not pride.  Karen has a disordered desire to dance and be seen when she should stand still and keep quiet.

As far as the particular religion is concerned.  I don't see it being Catholicism:

  She went to the parsonage, and begged that she might be taken into service there.

Parsonage is a is a Protestant term, now, either he's just using the wrong word there, which is understandable or he's referring to someone else,  if it were Catholic, we'd call it a Rectory, not a parsonage. I don't think he didn't wrote deliberately Catholic stories like the Grimm brothers did, but I'm not an expert and have read more Grimm's Fairy Tales than his.

So, my answer would be, the same type of Christianity that Nathanael Hawthorne portrays in The Scarlet Letter, good old fashioned puritanism.


From a Lutheran perspective, does Hebrews 6 mean that some who fall away can never be restored? Francis Pieper says that Lutheranism teaches both monergistic election and a salvation that can be lost:

  What Scripture teaches on final perseverance may be summarized in
  these two statements: 1. He that perseveres in faith does so only
  through God's gracious preservation; the believer's perseverance is a
  work of divine grace and omnipotence. 2. He that falls away from faith
  does so through his own fault; the cause of apostasy in every case is
  rejection of God's Word and resistance to the operation of the Holy
  Spirit in the Word. (Christian Dogmatics Volume III, pg. 89)

Hebrews 6 speaks of a loss of salvation:

  It is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened,
  who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
  and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the
  age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to
  repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to
  their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

The author of the paper The Lutheran Doctrine of Apostasy (where I found the Pieper quote) says:

  James also writes of the possibility of falling away and future
  restoration: "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth
  and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a
  sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover
  a multitude of sins." This demonstrates that not all acts of apostasy
  necessitate a state of permanent departure from the faith as the book
  of Hebrews discusses.

So my question is, does Lutheranism teach that some acts of apostasy necessitate a permanent departure from the faith, and others do not? When can apostate believers be restored, and when can they not?

Paul Kretzmann, the son of a Lutheran pastor, wrote his Popular Commentary of the Bible, which "has been a favorite among confessional Lutherans since publication of the first volume in 1921."
In his comments on Hebrews 6, he called attention to the characteristics of the one who is spoken of in the passage: they were once enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the world to come. The description, he says, could only apply to those who were actually saved.

If persons to whom this description applies, people that have undoubtedly accepted Jesus as their Savior, placed their trust in His salvation, and anticipated the joys of eternal life by reason of the power given to them through the Word, now fall away in spite of this saving knowledge, by a deliberate denial of that knowledge, then their return to repentance is excluded. The reason for this fact is not to be sought in God, as though His gracious intention and will in their behalf had not been sincere, but in the people themselves. If their apostasy takes place as here described, with a deliberate, malicious denial of the truth, then they crucify to themselves the Son of God and set Him forth to shame and ignominy before men. They purposely and willfully deny all connection with the Lord, who was crucified for them, they brand Him as a criminal, as a false Messiah, who suffered the disgrace of death on the cross. All this they perpetrate against Him whom they formerly acknowledged as the Son of God, whom they knew to be the Savior of the world. They cannot plead ignorance, or that they acted in foolish unbelief. For that reason their behavior brings upon them judgment, eternal condemnation. Therefore the reason why their hearts become hardened, why it becomes impossible for them to return and to be renewed unto repentance, is to be found in the character of their transgression. They steadfastly and persistently persevere in their antichristian, blasphemous conduct, they harden their own hearts against all attempts of the Word to find an entrance, and are thus finally given over into their hardness of heart.
The writer does not say that his readers have reached this stage; he merely states the possibility that it may happen to them as it has to others, thus warning them to beware of spiritual sluggishness, of lack of diligence in the use of the means of grace. ... If, therefore, any persons that have received these blessings harden their hearts and bring forth fruits of blasphemy and malicious denial of grace, they have sealed their own doom. For the behavior here described is the sin against the Holy Ghost, for which there is no forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come.

In other words, the passage is not describing a mere "falling away" -- Kretzmann's position is that "they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame" is not a characteristic of all apostasy, but of a special kind of apostasy: the sin against the Holy Ghost.
Regarding the sin against the Holy Ghost (spoken of in Matthew 12, Mark 3, and Luke 12), he writes:

The sin is committed, not against the person, but against the work of the Holy Ghost, which consists in calling sinners to Christ and giving them the assurance of their salvation. Not the mere blasphemous thoughts, but the actual speaking, the open mockery of the work of the Holy Ghost, is condemned in these passages. If the work of the Holy Ghost is believed to be, and is openly declared to be, the work of Satan, then the blasphemy is directed against the Spirit. Such blasphemy is uttered in full consciousness and with the most perfect comprehension of the import of the blasphemy; the blasphemer glories in his blasphemy. ... Man having gotten into this condition of continual blasphemy by his own fault, repudiates all attempts of God to influence Him for good. The soil of his heart has become cursed, and will bear nothing but thorns. The sin against the Holy Ghost is therefore one which cannot be acknowledged; a confession of sin and a desire for forgiveness is excluded by its nature.
The person living in this sin will continue in his stubborn resistance, with blasphemous, outspoken mockery of the work of the Holy Ghost, until the end. The sin is not unpardonable on account of its greatness, but on account of its nature of rejecting all pardon. No one has committed the sin that still seeks repentance.

Pardon is excluded not by God, but by the apostate himself, as Kretzmann said in both of the sections I've quoted. "Restoration unto repentance" is excluded because such a person will not seek repentance.
So an act of apostasy is permanent if the apostate wills it to be so by continually rejecting and blaspheming the Holy Spirit. An apostate can be restored upon repentance, but one who never repents is never restored.


Why have some conservative Reformed churches objected to the Belhar Confession? Among the reasons given by several Reformed Church in America churches in the midwestern US when leaving the denomination are issues with the Belhar Confession, a document emphasizing reconciliation and justice in the context of race and poverty.  Kevin DeYoung, the pastor of University Reformed Church in Michigan, wrote:

  Let me simply say at this point that our reason for seeking to leave the RCA is not one thing, but many things. From the adoption of the Belhar Confession, to the removal of the conscience clauses related to women’s ordination, to the growing acceptance of homosexual practice in the denomination, we believe the RCA has changed significantly in the last several years. (source; emphasis added)

After giving the confession a cursory read, I didn't notice anything particularly problematic in it with respect to conservative Reformed theology.  But it sounds as though I might have missed something.  What is an overview of the several most significant objections to the Belhar Confession given by the conservatives leaving the RCA in recent years?

I would refer you to another article by Kevin DeYoung that is included in the belhar confession: yea or nay.   In it DeYoung points out that:

"there are a few lines that cannot be supported by Scripture" (an example DeYoung includes is "We believe that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged", indicating in contraposition that "God does not show partiality to the poor, nor does he defer to the great (Lev. 19:15)
some adopters assert that "support for homosexual unions and
homosexual ordination is demanded by the Confession"

DeYoung also expresses his opinion that the Belhar confession raises issues rather than settling them: many extend its reach making it "a very different document than the anti-racism confession many of us read it to be".


In the Lord's Prayer, to what does "daily bread" refer? I am taught that in the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) all petitions concern matters of our souls upon which we should meditate, except the fourth, "Give us today our daily bread" which petitions for an earthly concern, namely, and literally, bread. In Luther's Small Catechism, it states:

  The Fourth Petition.

  Give us this day our daily bread...

  What is meant by daily bread?--Answer.

  Everything that belongs to the support and wants of the body, such as
  meat, drink, clothing, shoes, house, homestead, field, cattle, money,
  goods, a pious spouse, pious children, pious servants, pious and
  faithful magistrates, good government, good weather, peace, health,
  discipline, honor, good friends, faithful neighbors, and the like.

But in John 6:31-35:

  31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written:
  ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

  32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has
  given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the
  true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that
  comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

  34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

  35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me
  will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be
  thirsty..

And in Matthew 4:4:

  Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone,
  but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

And since John 1:1 says:

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God.

And since the Passover bread is symbolic of Jesus Christ as well, on what basis am I to believe that the bread in the Lord's Prayer is food (etc.), and not Jesus Himself?

Martin Luther once participated in a debate with Ulrich Zwingli’s over whether the Lords Supper was actually the body of Christ or simply a remembrance of it.  It is reported that Martin Luther walked into the debate, went up to the board and took a piece of chalk and wrote “This Is my Body” then left the debate without looking back.

The translation of the Lords supper is a curious one, first off Christ says,  “Give us each day, our Daily bread” this is strange in itself as he could of said if what he meant was our substance to survive.  “Give us each day our bread” It would have been enough, but he did not just say that, in fact, he said something almost unexplainable.

To fully understand this we have to go to the Greek text and look at the actual translation by the inspired authors.   The word translated to “Daily Bread” Is the Greek word  “επιούσιος  “ or more easily read “Epiousios” The word epiousios is only found in the two versions of the Lord’s Prayer in Mathew and Luke, not appearing anywhere else in known classical ‘Greek Literature.  It is as if when translating Christ words from Aramaic to Greek,  the inspired Authors had to make up a word to explain what was being said.

The term is a Hapax Legomanon, a Greek phrase meaning a word only used once.

In the Lutheran Church the term “Consubstantiation” is used to describe what happens to the bread and wine when the mass is celebrated.  The ideas are that all of a sudden Christ is present with the bread and the wine together.   This however is not what the lord stated while initiating the New Covenant.  He said, “This is my Body” as Luther so boldly wrote on the board during his debate, he did not say,  “This contains my body”.

The Catholic Church however has a different term, that being “Transubstantiation” in Greek “μετουσίωσις” again more easily “metousiosis”.  The term with out getting to technical refers to the fact that the bread and wine ceases to be and becomes only the body and blood of our lord.

When you break down the word “Epiousios” you end up with two separate words in Greek  “Epi” meaning “Super” and “ousios” meaning “substance”.  It is the tradition of the Church that these words refer not specifically to food for our stomachs but to the bread, which came down from heaven, the Manna, which was provided by the father to the people in the wilderness before crossing the Jordon.

The Church takes the word “Epiousios” used in the Lords Prayer and alters it but not changes it to explain the process by which the bread and wine do in fact change during the consecration of the mass.  “This is my Body”,  “This is the bread that came down from heaven” “This is the Manna of the New Covenant”  “This is the New Covenant, do this in memory of me”  "this is the supersubstantion (transubstantial) bread"

"Give us each day our super substantial bread" or "Give us the Eucharist, give us the true manna that came down from heaven, give us you Lord Jesus Christ"

IN Response:

“am I to believe that the bread in the Lord's Prayer is food (etc.), and not Jesus Himself?”

By no means Should you believe such a thing, it is in every way Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, Body Blood Soul and Divinity.  This is The Second Person in the trinity, present and real, worthy of worship and adoration.   To believe this is to believe the Gospel, to believe this is to be part of the body of Christ and to Share table with Abraham Isaac and Jacob.   This is the bread that is our super substance while in this vale of tears, before we cross the river Jordon into the promises revealed by Christ.


Martin Luther's take on Roman Catholic clergy individuals living (immediately) before him Is there any evidence that Martin Luther considered any of the Roman Catholic clergymen who lived in the centuries preceding his own lifetime (evidence related to those living in the centuries immediately preceding his own lifetime is preferred) a part of the Universal Church?

Luther viewed Thomas Aquinas as one of his adversaries. He saw him as someone who interpreted the Bible according to Aristotle. There are many references against Thomas in Luther's writings. Here is an example when speaking against indulgences:

  They are far more foolish than the Pythagoreans who assert only those things which Pythagoras has said. These, on the other hand, assert those things which the Pythagoreans doubted. But let us come to the source and fountains of these rivulets, that is SS. Thomas and Bonaventura. (Luther's Works Volume 31,  P146)

Catholic Saints, Monks and Nuns are generally viewed by Luther as totally lost as they relied on their own works for salvation. However, Luther had his own secret hopes that many of them still found faith on their deathbeds. After referring to St.'Francis, Dominic, and others', Luther says:

  I do believe, however, that the aforementioned monks recognized and acknowledged their error before they died and finally rested all their hopes on Christ, the true and only Light, through whom alone man is illumined, and not through any other. ...Had St. Bernard not died in this faith, he would have gone to the devil and into the abyss of hell with his monkery and monastic life. It is the same with all the monks in the papacy. No matter how holy and ascetic their life may have been, if they were saved, they must have come to this same realization. (Luther's Works Volume 22,  P52-53)

On the salvation of non-famous monks, etc. Luther said:

  I once saw a monk who took a cross into his hands and remarked while the other monks were boasting of their good works: “I know of no merit of my own but only of the merit of Him who died for me on the cross.” And in reliance on that merit he also died73 In the papacy it was customary to admonish a dying monk to be mindful of his own merits and works and of those of others. And in that faith they died. But just as the pious monk died a blessed death, relying solely on the merit of Jesus Christ, so many a wretched criminal on the gallows has been delivered from sin and saved through faith. That is how St. Bernard was saved. He was an exemplary monk. (Luther's Works Volume 22,  P359)


Where did the priests who served the Lord in Shiloh live? I am currently editing a children's book of biblical stories. In the story of Samuel, the book says that Samuel went to live with Eli in the house of the Lord.

1 Samuel 3: 1-4 (NIV):

  1 The boy Samuel ministered before the Lord under Eli. In those days the word of the Lord was rare; there were not many visions. 2 One night Eli, whose eyes were becoming so weak that he could barely see, was lying down in his usual place. 3 The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the house of the Lord, where the ark of God was. 4 Then the Lord called Samuel.

At the time, the house of the Lord was the tabernacle in Shiloh. So did the priests, like Eli, live in the tabernacle itself? But there were many priests, where did they live?

A clue is to be found in 1 Samuel 1:9 where Eli the priest was sitting on a chair by the doorpost of the Lord's temple.  Here is the comment from the NIV Study Bible:

  Here and in 1 Samuel 3:3 the central sanctuary, the tabernacle,is referred to as "the Lord's temple". It is also called "the house of the Lord" (v. 7; 3:15), "the Tent of Meeting" (2:22) and "my dwelling" (2:32).  The references to the tabernacle as a "house" and a "temple", as well as those to sleeping quarters and doors (3:2, 15), give the impression that at this time the tabernacle was part of a larger, more permanent building complex to which the term "temple" could legitimately be applied.

I don't know how many priests there were at this point in time, but it appears that living quarters were part of the building comples.


According to Pentecostalism, what is the impact of the sin nature, hormones, and the Holy Spirit on libido? What has more of an affect on libido, the flesh/sin nature or hormones and how does that change, after becoming a Christian filled with The Holy Spirit? And does receiving the Holy Spirit as a teen give you power over the flesh with peak hormones?

I'm interested in the views of the Assemblies of God and other Pentecostals.

This is a very provocative question and with many unspoken layers. It’s hard not to assume certain things into the question that were not explicitly asked. For instance, “peak hormones” in teenagers doesn’t seem to refer to acne, pubic hair and height increase but rather to emotional stability, sexual self gratification and pornography. This is not an exhaustive list, merely an example and obviously I could be way off. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

This can be a very controversial topic because it is very personal, and in some cases the person in question is experiencing a thought that is not their own.

  “But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of G-d, but on the things of man."”
  Matthew 16:23 ESV

Peter is clearly talking but in fact it was satan who had planted the thought into Peter’s head and Peter having no discernment owned the idea and criticized Jesus. Here is another example

  “During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him,”
  John 13:2 ESV

“Put into the heart”, it when further than the head, it is now at the heart level. A thought that rooted itself deeper.

Often times, bad thinking about G-d can give opportunity to satan and his daimons(demons) to influence someone into certain decisions and even convince them about certain things that are not true. If you don’t have a solid understanding of what G-d actually said, like Eve, you may be tempted to rationalize yourself into a mistake and consequently a sin, which ripples into other people’s lives.

We are body, soul and spirit. The body (flesh) wars against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh.

  “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit(spirit), and the desires of the Spirit(spirit) are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
  Galatians 5:17 ESV

When someone is born against they are born again (either that means their spirit is quickened/made alive or they are given a brand new spirit as per Ezekiel) and this spirit cannot sin. It is perfect born of incorruptible seed. The human spirit has access to the Holy Spirit and communes with the Holy Spirit, the hidden things of G-d. However your spirit cannot act directly on the body without going through the soul (will, mind and emotions). There is one except where the spirit bypasses the soul and acts on the body directly, and that is speaking in tongues

  “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful (or doesn’t understand).”
  1 Corinthians 14:14 ESV

This bypass of the mind prevents the soul from interfering with the message. But for the most part the soul is involved. Now due to sin nature, the flesh has conspired with the soul against the spirit. And that’s why the flesh generally wins against what the spirit wants to do.

  “For I delight in the law of G-d, in my inner being(spirit or inner man), but I see in my members(flesh) another law waging war against the law of my mind(soul) and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members(flesh).”
  Romans 7:22-23 ESV

If the issue is not very deep then it is a matter of changing or renewing one’s mind so that the flesh cannot conspire with the mind aganst their spirit.

  “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of G-d, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
  Romans 12:2 ESV

Some people struggle with pornography because they have a wrong thinking. For instance, they don’t believe G-d loves them. When that thinking is addressed and corrected their addiction stops.

Others have left an open door and given opportunity to the devil through wrong information. They don’t know a door needs to be shut because they don’t know something like oral sex is persimissble or not. Because they don’t take a stance on the issue they have an open door. Oral sex is wrong as defined by Scripture but recently the words have been translated to exclude the parent definition and it has caused ambiguity.

  Sodomy definition anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

Sodomy is not limited to homosexual but also includes heterosexual copulation and it’s not merely anal but also oral sex. When someone  doesn’t shut a door, like in this case, they can’t take a stance against oral sex, the door stsys open and they can be influenced in their mind to commit actions in your flesh. It doesn’t start in their flesh, the command comes from the mind and then the hormones change accordingly.

  “And the peace of G-d, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”
  Philippians 4:7 ESV

Guarding of the heart and mind or one’s soul is more important than balancing hormones with pharmaceuticals. Not saying that in some cases as a last resort pharmaceuticals may be needed but it’s not a first resort for a healthy person.

Now there are other factors that can affect the flesh. The flesh can be attacked from the outside or from the inside. From the inside it is most effective, imagine taking a city from outside its walls or from within its walls, the effort is far smaller from within the walks. If someone has opened themselves up to or someone else has opened them up to daimons(demons) then the aforementioned renewing of the mind will not work because there is a deeper issue.

Usually it is a curse. Which is essentially a legal right to exploit. These can come in different ways, rebellion, dabbling in the occult, persistent habitual sin just to name a few. Sometimes a parent or even several generations earlier can have an ongoing curse like alcoholism or adultery. These legal contracts until they are broken will be exploited by the enemy.

And although when you are born again all curses are broken, unless you specifically address the curse these demons that exploit this legal “loop hole” will squat and trespass onto your property. They need to be kicked out. That’s why some things that are stronger like masturbation, homosexual tendencies, eating disorders, phobias, drug/alcohol addictions may need a curse to be broken and those that exploit the curse (daimons) need to be removed from the premises.

I would highly recommend Derek Prince on breaking the curse, just go to YouTube and listen to his sermon, check it with Scripture and then release yourself by praying the prayer at the end.

Don’t go straight to breaking curses and don’t  escalate immediately. Start by renewing your mind, feed yourself with the Scripture get a good understanding of the Word, build the walls of your soul up, so that when the curse is broken and the eviction takes place (if it is necessary) you can maintain the victory and the walls are impenetrable.

If someone cannot donthis for themselves or struggle to get freedom in extreme situations then they will need deliverance by a minister who has this calling on their life and is experience in deliverance. But again, it’s not necessary to escalate to this for people who function normal lives other than their addiction or personal struggle.

Please let me know if this is the angle you were asking your question in or whether I went on a totally different tangent. Thank you and be blessed of G-d. I would add a denomination but although this is somewhat of a Charismatic Pentecostal teaching it isn’t limited to and it has started to be accepted by others too.

If you want to downvote that’s fine, I’m not here for points, I would really like a reason why you think I’m wrong and if you have more questions please ask.


Is a radically sanated marriage a true marriage without subsequent marital intimacy? Supposing that a couple had a putative marriage which was consummated but was in fact invalid according to Church canon law. If the couple's marriage undergoes a radical sanation, but for some reason one of them refuses subsequently to engage in marital intercourse, are they indeed married?

Almost certainly, yes; but it may depend on how thorough the party issuing the radical sanation was.

Radical sanation is the retroactive issuance of a dispensation (a waiver) from various conditions that prevented the marriage from being valid in the first place:

  The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 1161 section 1)

Radical sanation can be issued by the local ordinary (usually the bishop of the diocese) in most cases, and always by the Holy See.

Obstacles to validity of a marriage can take any of three forms: defect of form, defect of consent, or impediment.

Defect of form, considered in canons 1108–1123 of the Code of Canon Law, occurs when the wedding does not take place according to the forum prescribed by canon law. Generally speaking, it means that the wedding did not take place in the parish church of either of the couple, or was not assisted by the pastor of the parish, or by a priest or deacon delegated by him. Defect of form, if not dispensed by the local ordinary, invalidates a marriage.

A second set of problems is defect of consent (discussed in canons 1095–1107), which can happen if either spouse were coerced into the marriage vows, or if they were judged mentally or psychologically incapable of understanding or carrying out the vows, or if they intended the vows to be dependent on some future condition ("I'll be married to you as long as you're physically attractive to me" or "... as long as you are making lots of money"), or if they don't intend their relationship to match what the Church considers marriage to be.

Finally, impediments are conditions the Church considers incompatible with marriage: relationship by blood or marriage within certain degrees, ordination or religious vows, being below a minimum age, being previously married, and some others. Impediments are discussed in canons 1083–1094.

Radical sanation, which basically excuses from obstacles after the fact, can handle all three of these obstacles (though defects of consent and impediments must have ceased before the sanation; that is, consent must now be given if it was lacking before, and there must be no further impediments still applicable). However, it will only excuse from defects the issuer of the sanation knows about. Thus, if the issuer is not informed about all obstacles to validity, the radical sanation may be insufficient to validate the marriage.

Once the sanation is issued, the marriage is considered to have been canonically valid from the beginning, if there was no defect of consent, or from the time free and full consent was given, if there was such a defect.  Thus, if the couple had had intercourse after the wedding, even if not after the radical sanation, the marriage is still considered valid and consummated (ratum et consummatum), and alterable "by no human power and by no cause, except death" (Canon 1141). Since canon 1162, section 1, states that

  A marriage cannot be radically sanated if consent is lacking in either or both of the parties,

this is certainly something which the ordinary is obliged to investigate. It appears most likely, then, assuming the person issuing the sanation was obedient to canon law, that the marriage is valid and indeed (assuming marital relations occurred after true consent was given) consummated.

If on the other hand the bishop did not investigate closely enough to discover that there is a continuing defect of consent, or to find all the impediments that applied at the time, or to ensure that these were not continuing, it is possible that the radical sanation was of no real effect and the marriage still invalid.

One would like to believe that such possibilities are remote, and they may be; still, bishops are humans, and busy humans at that; and they're not usually experts in canon law. So the best answer is simply that assuming the radical sanation was properly issued and inclusive of all necessary dispensations, the marriage is indeed valid in Catholic law. (In particular, conditions of married life after the sanation, such as withholding of marital relations after the marriage has been consummated, are not grounds for considering the marriage invalid according to canon law.)


What is the will of the (Catholic) Church when she baptizes? The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that, in an emergency, any person with the right intention can baptize. And “the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes.” (CCC 1256)

I can’t find anywhere a clear description of what it means to will to do what the church does. Any suggestions? I would appreciate a solid reference.

What is the will of the Catholic Church when she baptizes?

The Catholic Church states the following when it comes to performing a baptism in an emergency situation:

  In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate's head while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." - Catechism of the Catholic Church (1284).

You probably will not find a truly solid reference as to what “the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes” means.

In substance, the intention of the Church when administering the sacrament of baptism is just that. The will of the Church is to perform a valid sacramental baptism.

When about to perform a Baptism in an emergency situation, one must have the intention of baptizing someone while pouring water on the candidate's head while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is the will of the Church as regards to how an emergency baptism should be carried out.

  The Essential Parts

  You must have the intention of performing a valid baptism.

  For example, if children are playing church or if you perform a baptism as part of a play, or you are horsing around in a swimming pool, it is not a valid baptism.

  Water must be involved.

  Immersion is valid in all churches, but since this is an emergency, that is probably not practical. Instead, pour water on the candidate’s head three times. (This instruction goes back to the first-century document called the  Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.) Sprinkling the water, daubing water on the candidate’s forehead, or pouring the water only once may be valid in some churches but it won’t be valid in many others.

  You must use the formula in Matthew 28:19.

  You must say to the candidate, “I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” You can add any additional wording that you like, but it’s probably best to stick to the bare essentials. If you substitute other formulas or if you baptize only in Jesus’ name, the baptism may be valid in some churches, but in most churches, it won’t be valid.

  How to baptize someone in an emergency

This is the minimum that the Church requires for a baptism to be valid. This is the intention what the Church desires to be done when administering the sacrament in an emergency.

  In the case of necessity (e.g., the danger of death), the person who baptizes pours water three times over the candidate's head, or immerses the candidate three times in water, while simultaneously pronouncing the baptismal formula: "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father (the minster pours water or immerses the first time), and of the Son (the minister pours water or immerses a second time), and of the Holy Spirit (the minister pours water or immerses a third time)." A lay person who administers an emergency baptism must at least have the intention to do what the Church does when baptizing. It is also desirable that, as far as possible, one or two witnesses to the baptism be present.

  When baptism has been administered neither by the pastor nor in his presence, the minister of the baptism, whoever that was, must inform the pastor of the parish in whose territory the baptism occured, so that the pastor may record it in accord with canon 877, §1and canon 878. - Administering the Sacrament of Baptism: Who, When and How

Baptism truly conveys new life in Christ, but that is the great and glorious effect of being baptized. It restores man to the friendship with God, restores grace in man's soul, destroys original sin and actual sin. But without having that intention of performing a valid sacramental baptism as intended by the Church, the affect of the sacrament would be invalid.

  Anybody—even an atheist—can administer baptism if he has the proper intention. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1256) "the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula." The reason anybody can baptize is that it is, in fact, Jesus Christ who performs the baptism. Once again, baptism is God’s grace to us, not our work for him. - Can only Christians administer baptism?

In the case of an emergency anyone can baptize someone. If it is truly an emergency who is going to think about the consequences of performing a baptism. It is an emergency, so make sure it is administer correctly. That is the Church's' intention. One can contemplate the effects of the sacrament at a later date.


What defines official Christian belief? Almost every Christian I meet believes in something a bit different.

Is there an official set of things you are supposed to believe in order to be considered a Christian? If so, who decides what goes on that list list and what doesn't?

Christianity is not a single group, it is a diverse set of beliefs.  Even though it originated with the teachings of Jesus back 2000 years ago, difference sects/denominations have their own sets of rules and "official" teachings and many individuals determine the rules for themselves.  There is no global trademark owner of "Christian" so you can call whatever it is you believe Christian and though other Christians may disagree and not form a church group with you, in the end God is the only arbiter of that, and he tends to not send rulings via email.

Some churches, like the Catholic church, have a large body of teachings they consider "official" and will hassle you more or less officially if you deviate from them/teach deviations from them.  Other churches stress personal interpretation of the Bible and therefore don't have official teachings (though often have unofficial ones, that you may be ostracized from deviating from).

There are certain sets of belief that large swaths of these groups consider to be normative.  For example, many mainline churches consider the Apostle's Creed to be the minimal acceptable set of Christian beliefs. Outside that, they'd say that you're using the brand name, but probably inappropriately. But even the creeds like this leave a whole lot out; it's a couple of paragraphs compared to a whole belief system.

This is augmented by a lot of folks not really having any rigorous thought process behind their own personal theology - when asked a question they just come up with an analogy that sounds good to them at the time, whether their church would say, upon sober review, that it was accurate or not.  So if you ask a variety of folks self-identifying as Christians about stuff, you are likely to get a variety of answers - there will be more consensus closer to core matters of the faith, and from people who belong to a church that has a stronger stance on having a corpus of official teaching, but in the end it's a big batch of folks with a big set of beliefs, guided by a lot of group and personal history.

As a result this SE says "hey, if you self identify as a Christian, you're in scope here," even though some of those groups don't fit into some of the traditional creed sorts of definitions, because in the end no one knows for sure who was right till we get to heaven...


Apologist for keeping salvation Does the following verse imply that your salvation can be lost?  It does not say, "... unless you've accepted Jesus"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV

  Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of
  God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters
  nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the
  greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the
  kingdom of God.

I am specifically asking for an answer from a "keeping salvation" apologist.

The conventional Protestant answer is to say that you must take this verse in the larger context of the Bible, which includes statements assuring us that our salvation cannot be lost. For example, John 10:28-29, "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand." And many similar verses.

Then look at, for example, Romans 6:6-7, "knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin."

Most Protestants therefore conclude that when you are saved, you are freed from your "sin nature". While you will still fail and fall, you will not engage in patterns of habitual sin. If you do, you are probably not really saved. That, they say, is what this verse is saying: That if you engage in habitual sin, you are probably not really saved and will not inherit the kingdom.

I'd hasten to add that we are also warned against judging the state of others' salvation. It is not my job to determine whether or not you are saved, that's between you and God.

Note I am speaking specifically from an evangelical Protestant perspective. I think a Catholic would give a very different answer.


On the topic of marriage in heaven, how does the LDS church reconcile Matthew 22:23-33? Curious

Based on this document which appears to outline celestial marriage, and LDS temple rites pertaining to the eternal sealing of husbands and wives; children as well, born after the sealing of a husband and wife, are said to be partakers; 'born in the covenant', or, having been born before the sealing, through provision of temple rites, can be sealed to the covenant of their parents; what is to be done with these words of Jesus Christ.

  The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
  (Mat 22:23-33)

Thinking that they could find some error in the perfect doctrine of Jesus Christ, the Sadducees had designed to ensnare him, by a solicitation of his doctrine on the resurrection of the dead. I see, had he agreed with their position, being that, to them, there was no resurrection of the dead, they would have been content to take his part, in turning it to their advantage; a sharp disagreement between their sect, and the Pharisees; or equally content to have an open declaration from him on the matter, to give a doctrinal prerogative for their rejection of him.

A short personal aside, on that captivating matter-of-course; entering through the back door, while his adversaries guarded the front, in a figure of speech; their preoccupation with the expected answer, left them vulnerable to his triage of the matter.

Jesus begins first by addressing that particular pretext of theirs, a convoluted arrangement on their part; apparently to them, of no significance, but for the occasion it afforded. 'Ye do err', and though their expectation, as I said, being his answer to the resurrection, 'not knowing the scriptures' (I suspect the other half 'nor the Power of God', is in reserve for the ensuing 'as touching the resurrection of the dead') --'they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.'

Question

How do Latter Day Saints perceive this, in regard to the LDS doctrine on divine confirmation of the figurative covenant of marriage, carried on in perpetuity? Being that it is in apparent opposition to the explicit revelation of Jesus Christ; in priority over, even the resurrection of the dead? (Feel free to strike the last two clauses, if you perceive an assertive veneer.)

It's important to understand who 'they' refer to. From verse 23 we know the Lord is talking directly to the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection. They were asking a question to bait/trap the Lord in contradicting Moses, the lawgiver (see Deut 25:5-10). Remember this question is about what happens in the resurrection when the Sadducees don't even believe in the resurrection (see vs 23). The Savior effectively dismissed their question on marriage by stating that in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven(vs 30). Jesus is trying to turn to the important issue of the Sadducee's unbelief in the resurrection (see vs 31-32).

So here are some important points on the Lord's statement:

First, we see that it was made in response to an attempt by the Sadducees to trap the Lord. Consequently, it would not have been the Lord’s final word on the subject. Why should the Lord scatter pearls before them that they would only trample underfoot?
Second, the Lord did not say there would be no people in the married state in the resurrection, but that there would be no marriages made in the resurrection.
Third, we must be clear about the “they” who are neither marrying nor being given in marriage. The context of the scriptures just cited suggests a generic rather than a specific meaning. Simply put, that means no marriages are made in the resurrection. The Lord was warning the Sadducees. They were Jews of the day who had rejected him and therefore had no access to the higher ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood. How could these men, whom Jesus had called a “generation of vipers” (Matt. 3:7), qualify for the highest blessings of the celestial kingdom?
The Lord has previously, and we believe has again in this day, given the power to bind on earth and in heaven (Matt. 16:19, Doc&Cov 132:19)

Joseph Smith has said:

  “A man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife in this world, or he will have no claim on her in the next.
  “No man can obtain an eternal blessing unless the contract or covenant be made in view of eternity. All contracts in view of this life only terminate with this life. [Such is the] case of the woman and seven husbands. Those who keep no eternal law in this life or make no eternal contract are single and alone in the eternal world and are only made angels to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation, never becoming sons of God, having never kept the law of God, that is, eternal law.” (emphasis added, in this answer referencing Sadducees who did not live the new law that Jesus taught)

Similarly, Joseph Fielding Smith said:

  “So here we have the true understanding of the Savior’s answer to the Sadducees. If by any chance, any who believed as they believed, and therefore were married for time only, proved worthy to obtain that world, that is the kingdom of God, they would have to enter there separate and singly to become servants-angels-to wait on those who were worthy of the exaltation. These Sadducees who might be worthy of a place in that kingdom would be in exactly the same condition that members of the Church of Jesus Christ will find themselves, if they likewise, have been content with a civil union only.” (emphasis added)

On marrying, James E Talmage sums up the answer by saying:

  “In the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.”

References/See also

Ensign 1986- 2nd article (heavily referenced)
Matt 19:4-7- Jesus taught Pharisee, who believe in resurrection, about marriage
Doesn't Matthew contradict Eternal Marriage- answer to a similar question
Joseph Smith's Commentary on the Bible, pg 125
Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 5, pg 118
Jesus the Christ chapter 31

--EDIT--

Specifically, on the topic of eternal marriage, the LDS believe that when a man and woman are married in the temple, their family can be together forever. The article you mention says:

  Mormons assert that for a celestial marriage to occur, several key steps must be followed. First, the man and woman must be sealed, or bound, by one holding the authority of God to perform such sealings, which can only take place in Mormon temples. Second, the couple must seek, with all their hearts, to individually and jointly follow Jesus Christ. Third, the sealing must be confirmed by God through His Spirit.

Biblical basis of sealing/binding power is seen in Matt 16:19 where Jesus Christ gives Simon the power to bind on earth and in heaven. The LDS believe that that authority was lost during the apostasy and has been restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. (see also Eccl 3:14, Mark 10:9, Matt 28:18)

Eternal marriage is another doctrine that central to God's plan. Matt 19:4-7 says, What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. When a man and woman are sealed together in the temple the LDS believe they are sealed eternally, that their marriage isn't til death but will last forever. (See also 1 Cor 11:11, Ephesians 5:31)


Origins of Ash Wednesday There has been a long standing association between ashes and repentance within Christianity stretching all the way back to Tertullian not to mention various grief filled moments of repentance found in the Old Testament. Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of Lent a period of fasting, inner reflection and repentance within the church calendar.

For a long time (until about the 8th century), however, the practice of sprinkling ashes or applying an ashen cross to the forehead as a mark of repentance was not used on the first day of lent.

Why did this change? Was it a cultural shift? Was it an idea from the papacy or other church authority? Where did this particular practice come from? In essence then what is the origin of the Ash Wednesday ritual traditions?

cf. What Are the Origins of Ash Wednesday and the Use of Ashes? by Fr. William Saunders | Catholic Culture. In part

  The early Church continued the usage of ashes for the same symbolic
  reasons. In his book, De Poenitentia, Tertullian (c. 160-220)
  prescribed that the penitent must "live without joy in the roughness
  of sackcloth and the squalor of ashes." Eusebius (260-340), the famous
  early Church historian, recounted in his The History of the Church how
  an apostate named Natalis came to Pope Zephyrinus clothed in sackcloth
  and ashes begging forgiveness. Also during this time, for those who
  were required to do public penance, the priest sprinkled ashes on the
  head of the person leaving confession.

  In the Middle Ages (at least by the time of the eighth century), those
  who were about to die were laid on the ground on top of sackcloth
  sprinkled with ashes. The priest would bless the dying person with
  holy water, saying, "Remember that thou art dust and to dust thou
  shalt return." After the sprinkling, the priest asked, "Art thou
  content with sackcloth and ashes in testimony of thy penance before
  the Lord in the day of judgment?" To which the dying person replied,
  "I am content." In all of these examples, the symbolism of mourning,
  mortality and penance is clear.

  Eventually, the use of ashes was adapted to mark the beginning of
  Lent, the 40-day preparation period (not including Sundays) for
  Easter. The ritual for the "Day of Ashes" is found in the earliest
  editions of the Gregorian Sacramentary, which dates at least to the
  eighth century. About the year 1000, an Anglo-Saxon priest named
  Aelfric preached: "We read in the books, both in the Old Law and in
  the New, that the men who repented of their sins bestrewed themselves
  with ashes and clothed their bodies with sackcloth. Now let us do this
  little at the beginning of our Lent that we strew ashes upon our heads
  to signify that we ought to repent of our sins during the Lenten
  fast." As an aside, Aelfric reinforced his point by then telling of a
  man who refused to go to Church on Ash Wednesday and receive ashes;
  the man was killed a few days later in a boar hunt. Since this time,
  the Church has used ashes to mark the beginning of the penitential
  season of Lent, when we remember our mortality and mourn for our sins.

Please see also Ash Wednesday | New Advent.


Did any of the Catholic or Protestant paramilitary groups of the Northern Ireland conflicts of the 60s and 70s ever have an actual theological creed? I have been reading old newspapers for fun and noticed a lot of conflicts in Northern Ireland making the newspaper during the 60s and 70s (along with the usual Vietnam and Israel conflicts). When I then looked up the names of these terrorists organizations they only have military information on wiki articles, without any religious ideologies mentioned. On the same token they were always called 'Catholic' or 'Protestant' in the newspapers, but from what I can gather this may simply mean Irish or Colonial British.

So what I'm wondering besides being from cultural backgrounds that were generally Catholic or Protestant (i.e. Irish or British) was there actually any published religious beliefs associated with any paramilitary group in the conflict, or was it more or less 100% just an Irish / British conflict with the names 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' as mere code words for the national sides?

Did any of the Catholic or Protestant paramilitary groups of the Northern Ireland ever have an actual published theological creeds or rules of religious observances for their members?

The paramilitary organisations did not hold particular theological positions and members were not, in general,  especially pious. They were, for the most part, members or adherents of their respective churches. For Protestants this was mainly  Presbyterian and Anglican.  Religious background, as a proof of allegiance and a guard against infiltration, was more important than personal faith or religious practice. Church leaders of all denominations condemned paramilitary violence.

The conflict was between two communities who defined themselves, and each other,  as Protestant and Catholic, hence the use of these words to describe them. To suggest a dichotomy between  "Irish"  and "British" would  have been highly controversial.

There were particular theological/biblical motifs resonant in the wider Protestant community. There was an understanding of themselves as part of God's chosen people in a way Roman Catholics were not.  Loyalty to the Protestant Queen, Elizabeth II, was a religious imperative and to be contrasted with loyalty to the Pope. The UVF (a Protestant paramilitary group) had its motto "For God and Ulster";  while the UDA (the other main Protestant one) had "Quis Separabit" - meaning "who shall seaparate us?". This is from Romans 8, 35 "who shall separate us from the love of Christ" but was taken as meaning who shall separate Northern Ireland from Great Britain.   The number two and a half was regarded as symbolic, and this referred to two of the tribes of Israel:  Reuben and Gad,  and the half-tribe Manasseh.  These two and a half tribes did not live with the other tribes on the West side of the Jordan, but remained on the East side. Nevertheless they were in every way as much a part of Israel as the other tribes. In this way Northern Irish Protestants, though separated by water from their co-religionists in Great Britain, were no less British  than Gadites were less Israelite.

A frequent motif on Northern Irish Protestant  banners is that of Ruth the Moabitess with a text from Ruth 1, 16 "Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God."  This is taken as symbolising the loyalty of Northern Ireland to Great Britain, even if Great Britain were, like Naomi, to urge Northern Ireland to go back.

A much more common motif is that of King William III who defeated James II (and VII of Scotland) in Ireland in 1690, settling the Glorious Revolution and Protestant monarchy for the whole British Isles. William was James' son-in-law, just as David was Saul's. Saul lost God's favour and was replaced by David and in the same way, James by his Catholicism was held to have lost God's favour.  This gives another theological/biblical facet to Protestant understanding of the conflict, as part of a centuries long dispute with biblical parallels.

One reason for the predominance of Catholicism in most rural parts of Ireland was the bungling of the Reformation. The reformers believed liturgy and scripture should be in the language of the people and in England many accepted this had advantages. In Ireland the authorities in Dublin wanted to spread the English language amongst the Gaelic speaking rural areas,  and so initially introduced liturgy in English. In trying to do two things at once, they accomplished neither.  The reformation was rejected by the ordinary people. This may explain the questioner's reference to Catholic as synonymous with "Irish".


Has there been a shift in Christian metaphysics from a unitary cosmos to a binary one? It seems to me that before the Enlightenment, the predominant understanding of the structure of the universe was that the cosmos, while stratified, is unitary- that "the Heavens", which include the spheres of the stars, then of the angels, and the abode of YHWH, have substantial existence in the same way that the Earth does.

An example that this belief was commonplace is Pauls refusal, upon describing an event in which a man "went up to the third Heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:2, to say if he went up in the body, that is physically, or in the spirit.

It also seems that after the Enlightenment, the predominant understanding of the structure of the cosmos became binary- that there is a physical realm of existence and a spiritual realm of existence, where the spiritual realm both fills and transcends the physical.

Is there historical evidence to suggest that such a transition has taken place within Christendom?

It seems to me that before the Enlightenment, the predominant
  understanding of the structure of the universe was that the cosmos,
  while stratified, is unitary- that "the Heavens", which include the
  spheres of the stars, then of the angels, and the abode of YHWH, have
  substantial existence in the same way that the Earth does.

When one speaks of Christian beliefs, one must recall that the beliefs which developed in the west - particularly in the medieval period, perhaps beginning with Charlemagne - were in some cases radically different from the beliefs held by the eastern Christians that now, for the most part, form the Orthodox Church.

I don't think any of the Church Fathers had a belief that the abode of God and His angels had any kind of "substantial" existence.

John of Damascus (8th century) explained:

  The heaven [sic] is the circumference of things created, both visible
  and invisible.  For within its boundary are included and marked off
  both the mental faculties of angels and all the world of sense.  But
  the Deity alone is uncircumscribed, filling all things, and
  surrounding all things, and hounding all things, for He is above all
  things, and has created all things.  For the great part the
  heaven is greater than the earth, but we need not investigate the
  essence of heaven, for it is quite beyond our knowledge.
  -- An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III


Were there any converted children or teenagers among Jesus disciples or in the first century church? Since children and teenagers (minors) conversions are not recorded in the entire New Testament, I always wondered if they were qualified candidates for Christianity.

Suffer the little children to come unto me, for such is the kingdom of God. (Paraphrased)

It is entirely the opposite. Unless you are converted and become as one of these little ones,  you shall in no wise enter the Kingdom of God.

  Mar 10:13-16  And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. (14)  But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. (15)  Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. (16)  And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

I do realize, that you make the special case of qualifying 'teenagers' in your post, as well as children in general. I can only attribute this to some notion of accountability, which in Jewish tradition is , I believe, age 13. I do not see any support for this as a regulatory restriction, in any terms of eligibility for salvation.

There is certainly not a single mention in all of scripture that would support this idea that children would, of all souls, ever be denied by Jesus Christ; Old or New.
I will say in response to the question of some ineligibility; emphatically, no.