Do mormons have a doctrine of afterlife preaching and repentence? I swear I read somewhere some years ago that Mormons have a developed doctrine of saints in the afterlife descending to Hell in order to preach the gospel to those who are stuck there and give them the opportunity to accept Christ and repent.

I find this interesting and appealing because it would neatly solve the age-old dilemma of the dude in the jungle who went his whole life without ever hearing the Gospel. He ends up in Hell, but the friendly mormon missionaries take a holiday from heaven to come and hang out with the damned where they "preach to the spirits in prison". This jungledude then has the opportunity to accept the gospel. Presumably there is no time limit set on the offer of salvation and therefore it is safe to assume that everyone will eventually end up responding positively to the gospel (either here on earth or after death in Hell).

My question is, is any of what I just said accurate? Do Mormons actually believe anything similar to this?

(I note that what I just described is slightly similar to the "Holy Saturday"/"Harrowing of Hades" tradition in the Catholic/Orthodox churches: this is where Jesus "descended to Hell" and busted out of hades/sheol all the righteous people from the old testament times)

(Can someone please add the tag "harrowing-of-hell" or "holy-saturday" (these are basically synonymous))

Not only is this belief held by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is one of the core tenets of their faith as outlined in the Four-fold Mission of the Church.

Mormons believe that after physical death the spirit is separated from the body and enters the Spirit World. The spirit is then places in Spirit Prison or Spirit Paradise, based on the person's words and deeds during their life. A primary reference for this belief can be found in Alma:40 in the Book of Mormon.

Mormons believe that when Christ was in the Spirit World prior to his Resurrection he organized a ministry among the righteous dead assembled in the Spirit Paradise and bridged the gulf between Spirit Paradise and Spirit Prison. This can be found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 138.

Hand in hand with the belief of the ministry to the dead is the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead. Members of the LDS church observe the practice of Baptism for the Dead in which they are baptizes as proxy for their ancestors. This gives those in Spirit Prison who accept the gospel posthumously a chance to receive the necessary saving ordinances to enter into Spirit Paradise. Baptism for the Dead is only done within Temples and is seen as a very sacred ordinance. More about the Baptism for the Dead can be found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 127 and 128.


How did the phrase "getting to know Jesus" come to be ubiquitous among Evangelicals (i.e. Campus Crusade for Christ)? How did the phrase "getting to know Jesus" come to be ubiquitous among Evangelicals (i.e. Campus Crusade for Christ)? To them, what is it really supposed to mean? Does it refer to the act of converting to Christianity, or does it refer to the act of living a Christian lifestyle? Can a person "know Jesus" but still not commit to Jesus's teachings?

Apparently, Catholics mean something completely different. In context, my best guess is that it means a theologically correct understanding of christology by means of understanding the role of Mary as co-Redemptrix of mankind. Hmmm... it seems to be used differently from the Evangelicals. The Evangelical meaning seems to be linked toward evanglism toward non-believers, while the Catholic meaning seems to be linked toward orthodoxy.

How did the phrase “getting to know Jesus” come to be ubiquitous among Evangelicals (i.e. Campus Crusade for Christ)?

"Getting to know" someone is indicative of a progressively deepening relationship. It is a phrase that would come naturally to a ministry to youth that makes a distinction of an active personal relationship with Jesus in contrast to the frequently held view that many denominations present Jesus as a system of rules or rituals that you are compelled to follow. There is Biblical support for this deeper Christian life.

  1 John 5:20  And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given
  us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in
  him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God,
  and eternal life.

  Philippians 3:10  That I may know him, and the power of his
  resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made
  conformable unto his death;

  Revelation 3:20  Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man
  hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup
  with him, and he with me.

The phrase would resonate with those Christians seeking more from their Christian life than checking off denominational criteria from a list. The "house church" movement can be seen as also attempting to live the Christian life in a more relational as opposed to institutional or organizational way.

I would say that the phrase came to be more widely used because there is market for those who seek to know Jesus better than some alternatives allow.


Does the Bible prescribe any rules for who may attend and "join" a Catholic church? What are the "rules" of a Catholic church? I wanted to start attending Church a few years ago (I wasn't brought up in a religious family - but I was baptized) and the lady at the Church basically told me that I cannot join the Church. Actually, I didn't even really know what she meant by "join the church".

Are there rules in the Bible that say anything about who can attend a Church and "join" it?

TL;DR Yes. Everyone is welcome. (Matthew 28:16-20)

The apostles were instructed to teach all nations in the Great Commission. There are many other verses that reiterate that everyone is welcome and I could be here all day going through all of them. One of my favorites on the subject is Paul's statement that he became all things to all men so that he might save some. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

"Joining the Church" can mean one of two things. First, a professed Christian who is becoming a member of a church. Membership generally involves taking on the responsibility to support the church financially and to be an active participant in the operations and ministry of the church. Second, a person going through the process of converting to Christianity.

If you were baptized and confirmed Catholic then you only need to receive the Sacrament of Penance. If you were not baptized Catholic or if you were baptized Catholic but not Confirmed, you will be required to go through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. It involves some classes, receiving the sacrament of penance, making a profession of faith, then Confirmation and the Eucharist. Traditionally this happens during the Lenten season.

It's possible that she meant that you cannot become a member without becoming Catholic or that the process doesn't start until the Lenten season. Either way this is an important process that you need to discuss with the priest.


1 Thessalonians 1:4, how is the chronological order according to Calvinism? 1 Thessalonians 1:4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has
  chosen you

Before the creation:

A.
Because God love some people
that is why He choose these people

or....

B.
Because God choose some people
that is why He love these people

If there is an answer, I would like to have the verse also as the reason of the answer.

Since both the love of God for his own, and the election of God, in Christ, are an eternal matter, rather than a matter of time, I think that the question, in its present form, cannot be answered.

What is made clear in scripture is the following :

  I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. [Galatians 2:20, KJV.]

Three things are made clear :

The reason that the Son of God redeemed Paul was because the Son of God loved Paul prior to that redemption.
The redemption of Paul was not a corporate matter, but an individual matter. Paul was  not redeemed as one of an indiscriminate crowd, but as one personally known and loved.
The redemption of Paul occurred before Paul did any good works. Paul only 'now' lived by faith. Only 'now' after redemption is Paul crucified with Christ and walking in the Spirit.

Since the love is called the love 'of the Son of God' (not the love 'of Jesus') what is being drawn to the attention is the Divine and eternal love of Christ, in Deity, towards the man Paul.

If an eternal love, then a love that is not a matter of time, a love that had no temporal beginning and a love that cannot be separated (in terms of time) from other aspects of the Divine knowledge (that is to say foreknowledge) of the man Paul.

  Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. [Jeremiah 31:3, KJV.]


What was/is different about the way the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass? I've been reading a little too into some recent Churchy news about the Pope "imposing an oath" on a Franciscan group I had heard nothing about.  I don't want to cast aspersions on the Holy Father in the least, but what is the deal with the way the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate celebrate Mass? How does and how can it differ from what's in the Roman Missal?

Good luck trying to figure that one out ;) Let me, though, attempt a little insight.

For one, is has been said that the FFI has not contradicted magisterial teaching on faith or morals. Rather, what it appears to be is that leadership and discipline has broken down significantly enough that some members of FFI itself have called on Rome to help them sort things out in 2012 (that's not, by the way, a complaint but a formal petition the Holy See has to deal with). The Holy See indeed dealt with it, through a visitation (=inquiry) that lasted a whole year and ended this July. It found a lot of shortcomings, in particular through an questionnaire in which over 60% of respondents noted that there are big problems in how the FFI was run. Hence the appointment of Fr Fidenzio Volpi as Apostolic Commissioner, who is somewhat equivalent to an Administrator in English insolvency law: he's overseeing where things will go (bankruptcy, reorganisation &c.) on a temporary basis.

The unfortunate thing is that we know all about what the administrator did, but never why -- those decisions are not, as a rule, published and thus everything is ascribed to a hostility to the Latin Mass. I daresay the FFI probably hasn't done anything liturgically wrong. Rather, the main problems seem to be at the head, in particular with the founder and Superior General, Fr Manelli. He has been rather absent from the whole picture, having admitted himself to a private clinic. To which Fr Volpi's reaction was 'okay then!', and thus forbade him to leave until he's recovered. This was then widely reported as "conservative priest who likes Tridentine Mass in house arrest by Vatican commissar!", giving the impression that a lot of this had to do with their particular rite.

One of the liturgical misdeeds they have committed was 1) the Franciscan Sisters (the female part of FFI) putting through a modification of their constitution under which they would be allowed to choose spiritual directors from those FFI friars who approve of the Extraordinary Form and 2) Fr Manelli mandatorily imposing the Extraordinary Form. There's a difference between the Extraordinary Form being 'permitted' and 'mandatory', and the vow (which is really unusual but on the other hand, given its content, is something any Catholic ought to be able to take with confidence) is meant to sort that out.

A little footnote to this is that liturgical conservatives feel a bit persecuted at the moment, and rightly so: there have been other hotspots of heresy and the Vatican hasn't tackled them yet. It's not entirely an unjustified feeling but every person investigated first will point to the other guy. Normally, interventions like this are staged when there has been a systemic breakdown of things, and as present in this case, there is a lot more to it than merely their preference for the Extraordinary Form.


What does the Orthodox Church actually teach about Original Sin? I've read from this link as followed :

  In the Orthodox Faith, the term “original sin” refers to the “first”
  sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the
  “consequences” of sin, the chief of which is death

From the quote above, my own illustration is something like this:

There is a couple of husband and wife (no children yet) who has a television.
One day the husband do something which cause the couple don't have that TV anymore forever. They are unable to enjoy a TV program anymore forever.

Even before the couple has any descendant, (imho) the consequence can be concluded like this : all their next generation will be unable to enjoy a TV program, because the couple don't have a TV forever, because the husband do something which cause the TV is no more forever.

From the illustration above, to me, the conclusion of the consequence above is not a possibility.

The illustration provided by the link is different :

  Imagine, if you will, that one of your close relatives was a mass
  murderer. He committed many serious crimes for which he was found
  guilty—and perhaps even admitted his guilt publicly.

  You, as his or her son or brother or cousin, may very well bear the
  consequences of his action—people may shy away from you or say, “Watch
  out for him—he comes from a family of mass murderers.” Your name may
  be tainted, or you may face some other forms of discrimination as a
  consequence of your relative’s sin. You, however, are not personally
  guilty of his or her sin.

From the illustration above, to me, the conclusion of the consequence above is a possibility.

So, my question is :
What does the Orthodox Church actually teach about Original Sin ?
The consequence is possibly exist ? or the consequence is certainly exist ?

The Orthodox position is called "Ancestral Sin".

  Ancestral fault (Greek προγονικὸν ἁμάρτημα, προπατορικὸν ἁμάρτημα) is the doctrine that the sins of the forefathers lead to punishment of their descendants. In Christian hamartiology, the concept is also known as ancestral sin (προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία or προγονικὴ ἁμαρτία).

.....

  St. Gregory Palamas taught that, as a result of ancestral sin (called "original sin" in the West), man's image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam's disobedience.[9] The Greek theologian John Karmiris writes that "the sin of the first man, together with all of its consequences and penalties, is transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human being is a descendant of the first man, 'no one of us is free from the spot of sin, even if he should manage to live a completely sinless day'. ... Original Sin not only constitutes 'an accident' of the soul; but its results, together with its penalties, are transplanted by natural heredity to the generations to come ... And thus, from the one historical event of the first sin of the first-born man, came the present situation of sin being imparted, together with all of the consequences thereof, to all natural descendants of Adam."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_sin

  “For the Orthodox tradition, then, Adam's original sin affects the human race in its entirety, and it has consequences both on the physical and the moral level: it, results not only in sickness and physical death, but in moral weakness and paralysis. But does it also imply an inherited guilt? Here Orthodoxy is more guarded. Original sin is not to be interpreted in juridical or quasi-biological terms, as if it were some physical 'taint' of guilt, transmitted through sexual intercourse. This picture, which normally passes for the Augustinian view, is unacceptable to Orthodoxy. The doctrine of original sin means rather that we are born into an environment where it is easy to do evil and hard to do good; easy to hurt others, and hard to heal their wounds; easy to arouse men's suspicions, and hard to win their trust. It means that we are each of us conditioned by the solidarity of the human race in its accumulated wrong-doing and wrong-thinking, and hence wrong-being. And to this accumulation of wrong we have ourselves added by our own deliberate acts of sin. The gulf grows wider and wider. It is here, in the solidarity of the human race, that we find an explanation for the apparent unjustness of the doctrine of original sin. Why, we ask, should the entire human race suffer because of Adam's fall? Why should all be punished because of one man's sin? The answer is that human beings, made in the image of the Trinitarian God, are interdependent and coinherent. No man is an island. We are 'members one of another'(Eph. 4:25), and so any action, performed by any member of the human race, inevitably affects all the other members. Even though we are not, in the strict sense, guilty of the sins of others, yet we are somehow always involved.”

Kallistos Ware, "The Orthodox way"


In Luke 5 did Levi become an apostle almost straight away? In Luke 5 we have the conversion of Levi. It appears that he became an apostle almost straight away. Is that what is happening here?

Yes. From that point on Levi became a disciple of Jesus.

Levi left everything and followed Jesus. The Greek for left everything, katalipon panta, means abandoned all, forsook or deserted. The word for followed is in the imperfect tense, not a one-off action but a continuing state.

He didn't knock off for the day, he quit his job. He didn't sneak off early, he abandoned his post. That evening there was a party at his home to which Jesus was, of course, invited. Many other tax collectors were present. It was in part a Leaving Do in which many of his former colleagues came to say goodbye. It was also a chance for them to meet Jesus, and to understand for themselves what had prompted his resignation, and the new life he had chosen.

It was not until some time later, perhaps a few weeks, that Jesus chose from amongst his many disciples Twelve in particular. So whether or not Levi became one of the Twelve it did not happen immediately. Long tradition says that Levi and Matthew were one and the same person.  St Augustine of Hippo in his Harmony of the Gospels Book 2 Chapter 26 thought so. In Matthew, Mark and Luke the story of the calling of a tax collector immediately  follows the healing of the paralytic, and all say the calling of the tax collector was followed by a meal at his home, which led to identical complaints from the pharisees. It is widely conjectured that this was one and the same incident.

Luke and Mark refer to the tax collector as Levi, and include the name Matthew amongst the Twelve. If he is one and the same they may be referring to "Levi" as the name he used then, rather as we might refer to an incident involving the Duchess of Cambridge before her marriage as happening to a Miss Middleton. They may also have wished to avoid embarrassing Matthew by mentioning his former profession. Matthew,  in his own gospel, refers to the tax collector as Matthew, modestly having no wish to hide his shady past.   Similarly, whereas Luke refers to a great banquet, Matthew plays down the occasion as a dinner.

Following the Resurrection Matthew became one of the Apostles, as did all the Twelve disciples apart from Judas. The difference between a disciple and an apostle  is that a disciple learns and an apostle teaches. During Christ's earthly ministry they were disciples, afterwards apostles.

So yes, Levi became a disciple immediately.   He probably, though some reasonably doubt it,  became one of the Twelve Disciples  when they were called, a few weeks later. If so,  after the Resurrection he became an apostle.


Which temple is being referred to in Acts 2:46? In the book of Acts, a certain temple seems to be being referred to in chapter 2 verse 46:

  Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.

Which temple is this?

The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.

Acts 2 records how Holy Spirit was poured down on the Day of Pentecost (v 1-4). And then Peter addressed the crowd who were amazed and confused what was going on. Most of them were Jews who came to Jerusalem for the Pentecost festival (v 5). Following Peter's sermon, 3000 were baptized that day (v 41). From verse 42, the writer recorded the activities of the first believers. They devoted to the apostles’ teaching (v 42), they shared everything (v 44) and they met together in the temple courts everyday (v 46).

Acts 2 is no doubt before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Hence, it refers to the Temple in Jerusalem and none other.

What were they doing in the Temple courts? Meeting together and preaching about Jesus Christ as we see in the immediate next chapter, Acts 3, where Peter and John healed a lame man who was begging at the temple gate.

  Acts 3:11 (NIV) While the man held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called
  Solomon’s Colonnade.

The believers  used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade, which was  on the eastern side of the temple.

  Acts 5:12 (NIV) The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s
  Colonnade

You can see the picture of how the temple at that time looked like here in Wikipedia.


How could Satan be cursed to crawl on the ground, yet walk before God in Job? In Genesis 3:1 we find a serpent. Supposedly Satan inhabited the serpent, or the word should be translated Shining One (NIV). At any rate, God curses the snake in 3:14: "On your belly you shall go, and  you shall eat dust all the days of your life."

If going on his belly is Satan's fate, then how is he coming and going before God in Job 1 and 2, and on the earth, "walking back and forth on it" instead of crawling around?

The only reconciliation I can think of is that the serpents were different back then, not relegated to their bellies as they are now -- so the curse is directed to the animal and not Satan.

I welcome answers from any Christian viewpoint that accepts the Genesis 1 days of 24 hours and a literal rendering of Genesis 1-11 events, and believes in the Apostle's Creed.

I guess when you consider that Revelation clearly identifies the serpent in the garden as Satan, then this might appear to be a problem. However when you consider that Satan is a spiritual being that according to scripture can "enter" people, as well as Romans 16:20:

  The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Then it seems that there would be a dual fulfillment of this prophetic curse pronounced against "the serpent": one enacted immediately against the creature that Satan possessed (you are not alone in thinking that its form must have been transformed at this point); a second still to be fulfilled as per this verse acting on Satan himself.

The narrative in Job lies between the initial fulfillment in Genesis and the final fulfillment reaffirmed in Romans.


Is dressing oneself in formal attire on Sundays (Sunday hat and dress) solely an American Christian custom? Before I start, I realize that this question is related to another question. However, this question is more concerned about the custom of wearing one's "Sunday best", which usually means a nicely brimmed Sunday hat and modest-looking dress. This has been portrayed in literature and in movies. Example: Chicken Sunday, written by Patricia Polacco, and Bridge to Terabithia (2007 movie). Is this solely an American Christian custom? Are there examples in other Christian cultures? How did this custom come about, and how did it evolve over time?

I am unsure as to most other Christians. Among those that I have studied with and continue to study with they have always dressed formally.

I believe that Christians of any denomination dress nicely when going to worship god. It's part of giving god your best. Here in an article that may explain a bit better and I think it is relevant not only to witness', but all Christendom. Why dress up for meetings

This doesn't mean your clothes had to be expensive. As long as you are clean and presentable then that is acceptable.

It seems as far as history goes Christians not only wore, but where encouraged to wear simple clothing so as to not distract from the meaning of the occasion. This is especially true in the 18 and 19th centuries. Worshipers usually dressed plainly with no ornate jewelry and such. This is not only for the reason stated above, but that your everyday person didn't have the means to come by these things.

Origins /3rd Century changes / Why dress nice?

Based on a little more research it seems dressing up was a social status thing and then later became a part of representing and honoring god.


How do we know the events described in the bible are true? Many Christians will quote passages from the bible as proof or evidence when needed. However, given that it is a story written, translated, interpreted, re-written, re-translated and re-interpreted by humans over tens of generations and adapted for many of the monotheistic religions such as Christianity, how can we be sure that it still accurately represents the original material, even if it were written by a monotheistic god?

A commenter has made a good point about there being very old manuscripts presumably containing similar information to modern interpretranslated bibles, though this raises more questions for me:

Are those very old manuscripts written in God's handwriting?
Is there anyone alive who knows the language they were written in, and hasn't needed to try and interpret what they say by cross-referencing various documents of a similar age to find patterns and derive meanings, essentially using a bit of detective work and some educated guesses?

I'll post an answer to one aspect of your question "How do we know that the Bible hasn't changed since it was written?"

It all boils down to manuscripts.

The number and age of the manuscripts that we have shows that nothing of significance has changed since the earliest Christian times.

Here is a list of some of the earliest manuscripts.  For reference on this site:

Author  Date Written            Earliest Copy   Time Span   Copies (extent)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)       1st century     50-60 AD    co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John)             90 AD           130 AD      40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John)        90 AD           150-200 AD  60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)    1st century     200 AD      150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century     200 AD      150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible)         1st century     325-350 AD  275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)        1st century     350 AD      300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)      1st century     400 AD      350 years

Through these (and many other) manuscripts, we have been able to show that the Bible of today has not been altered at since its earliest manifestation.


According to Roman Catholic teaching, did Martin Luther's alterations to the order of the Mass invalidate his consecration of the elements? In the Catholic Church (at least, according to the Church's teaching today), a validly ordained priest retains the powers of the priesthood for life, even if he is excommunicated or laicized and thus forbidden to use them. Therefore, an excommunicated or laicized priest who celebrates the Mass does so validly (the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ as they would were he not excommunicated or laicized) but illicitly (he celebrates the sacrament in a manner against Church law). However, in such cases, it is assumed that the priest celebrates the Mass according to an order of Mass that either is approved or has once been approved by the Church. For example, a validly ordained priest who is a member of the illicit Society of St. Pius X celebrates Mass validly in spite of using the Tridentine order of Mass, which is not the order of Mass endorsed in the current Roman Missal. Regarding the necessity of proper matter and form, true bread and true wine must be used (proper matter), and I believe the part of the anaphora that is integral to proper form (and thus to valid consecration) is the words of institution (in the Catholic Church, "this is my body" and "this is my blood").

Luther's case (and by extension the case for all other priests of the day who would come to celebrate his revised Mass) is unique in that although he was a valid priest who could theoretically continue to celebrate Mass illicitly according to the order of Mass in use in his day, did his consecrations remain valid even after he made notable changes to the Eucharistic liturgy that were not ever approved by the Church? Perhaps most crucial to consider here is that although he retained the words of institution, he translated them into German. Would that be enough to invalidate the sacrament?

Also to be considered are Luther's intentions when celebrating the Mass after his alterations of the Mass order. It is notable that among the early reformers he is one of few, according to Hendrix, who maintained throughout his life that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly "present in" the bread and wine, though he was never too keen on elaborating in what fashion this was so. The biography never explicitly portrays Luther as denying the formulation that the bread and wine "become" the Body and Blood of Christ (transubstantiation), but the former formulation is used by him more frequently. What is certain, however, is that Luther explicitly rejected the sacrificial character of the Mass according to Hendrix (see the second list point below for citation): while he intended, then, to make the body and blood of Christ present in the Mass, he did not intend to make the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood present, which is integral to proper intention according to this report, which elucidates Apostolicae Curae  (see quotation of the relevant paragraph in Ken Graham's answer). What is clear from this is that Luther's defective intention would have invalidated his Mass; what I would like answered in the question is whether, all other conditions being adequate for a valid consecration, Luther's revised order of Mass would have invalidated his consecrations.

Other alterations that Luther made to the Mass which may be pertinent to take into consideration include:

Its translation in whole or in part into German (although he permitted most of the Mass to remain in Latin depending on the scruples of a given congregation, he always spoke the words of institution in German), and
The removal of the "long prayer of consecration that implied the mass reenacted the sacrifice of Jesus." (Hendrix 128, 129; elsewhere in the biography Hendrix mentions Luther's distaste for the canon of the mass, to which he is likely referring with "long prayer" here. Clearly Luther retained the words of institution, albeit in German, but if I were to guess, he would have at least done away with the preface, the oblation, the epiclesis, and the intercessions [see anaphora]. Of course, if someone else knows more specifically what was changed, that would be good to know.)

Martin Luther's alterations to the order of the Mass did not invalidate his consecration of the elements. If his Mass was invalid, it would have been through some other reason such as a lack of intention as is mentioned in Geremia's answer.

Unlike Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of all Anglican Orders due to a "defect in form" in his Apostolic Curae (De Ordinationibus Anglicanis) of September 15, 1896, one can not find a similar condemnation from Rome of Martin Luther's Mass due to the alterations he made to the liturgy.

  Apostolicæ Curæ presents a theological defense of this tradition of Vatican rejection of the validity of Anglican orders. It is based on the argument that the Church of England ordinal was defective in 'intention' and 'form'. By 'defect of intention' Leo XIII meant that by the omission of any reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice and to a sacrificing priesthood in the ordination ritual of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, the Church of England intended to introduce a radically new rite into England, one markedly different from those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. By 'defect of form' Leo XIII meant that the words of the Anglican ordination prayer, 'Receive the Holy Ghost', did not signify definitely the order of the Catholic priesthood with its power to consecrate and offer the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice. - Anglican Orders

This question deals more with form than with intention and as such one can not find any condemnation from the Vatican due to the alterations to the Mass by Martin Luther. Yes, he made changes to the Mass, but their form has never been condemned by any pope. His wording of the consecration remained valid. However, such was not the intention of the Church and such usage would make the celebration of the Mass illicit.

As said above, other factors could invalidate a Mass, such as matter and intention. Here is an excellent read: What Constitutes a Valid Consecration?

As for celebrating the Mass in other languages, Rome has allowed the Tridentine Mass to be said in various languages through the use of indults.

Here are a few concessions that have approved:

  a) During the fourteenth century the Roman Liturgy in its Dominican variant was translated into Greek for use by the Dominican missionaries in Greece.

  b) Permission had been granted to celebrate the Dominican Liturgy in the Armenian classical language in Armenia.

  c) At the end of the sixteenth century missionaries of India of the Latin rite were allowed to celebrate Mass in Syriac.

  d) In the seventeenth century the Discalced Carmelites were granted permission to use Arabic in their mission foundation in Persia.

  e) In the seventeenth century the Theatine Clerics were granted permission to use Georgian or Armenian in their mission foundation in Georgia.

  f) In the nineteenth century the Franciscans in the Holy Land were granted permission to use Arabic.

  g) In 1958, an indult was granted India to use Hindi.

  h) Five Latin priests in the Holy Land were granted permission to use Hebrew.

  i) In 1959, the Holy See renewed Germany's privilege to use the vernacular in the Epistle and Gospel after they are recited in Latin. - Liturgical Languages

Addendum: The "Question" of Lutheran Orders

  During the first years of the Reformation in Sweden, a validly ordained bishop continued ordaining after the split with Rome. But on the issue of the elimination of all sacrificial language, the reformed ordinals of Norway and Sweden were no different from their Anglican counterparts.

  Conclusion: the orders of even "high-church" Lutheran pastors and bishops must be held invalid in virtue of the same principles Leo XIII applied to Anglicans.


The "Tetragrammaton" name As I read from the internet that according to some people - sometimes "The Son" appear in Old Testament era which today it is called Christophany, my question : is the name Yahweh referring to the Father according to the "Christophany" group ?

A theophany is a manifestation of God in the Bible that is tangible to the human senses. In its most restrictive sense, it is a visible appearance of God in the Old Testament period, often, but not always, in human form.  Frequently, the term “glory of the Lord” reflects a theophany, as in Exodus 24:16-18; the “pillar of cloud” has a similar function in Exodus 33:9. A frequent introduction for theophanies may be seen in the words “the Lord came down,” as in Genesis 11:5; Exodus 34:5; Numbers 11:25; and 12:5.

However, when the pre-incarnate Christ has appeared, that is called a Christophany.  These appearances are usually identified by the expression “the angel of the Lord” and are found in Genesis 16:7-14; Genesis 22:11-18; Judges 5:23; 2 Kings 19:35; and other passages.  While there are no indisputable Christophanies in the Old Testament, every theophany wherein God takes on human form foreshadows the incarnation, where God took the form of a man to live among us as Emmanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23).

Since any pre-incarnate appearance of Christ in the Old Testament is called a Christophany and not a Theophany, then I really don’t know how this links to the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the Old Testament.  Perhaps you could provide some additional information from your research?

EDIT: Thank you for clarifying your question.  With regard to the theophany in Genesis 12:7, my NIV Study Bible (2000 edition) makes this comment:

  The LORD appeared: The Lord frequently appeared visibly to Abram and to others, but not in all his glory (see Exodus 33:18-20; John 1:18).

“The LORD came down” is the clue that indicates it was a Theophany.  The NIV Study Bible notes on the incident in Numbers 12:3 when the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud to speak with Moses, Aaron and Miriam make this comment:

  Came down – Often used of divine manifestations.  In Numbers 11:5 he came down in grace; here and in Genesis 11:5 he came down in judgment.  In a sense every theophany (appearance of God) is a picture and promise of the grand theophany, the incarnation of Jesus, both in grace and judgment.

There is another incident (Joshua 5:13) where Joshua “saw a man standing in front of him.” The NIV Study Bible notes say this:

  The experience is taken by many to be an encounter with God in human form (theophany) or with Christ (a Christophany).  But angels also were sent on missions of this kind (Judges 6:11; 13:3), and some were identified as captains over the heavenly armies (Daniel 10:5, 20; 12:1).

Yes, because Jesus is part of the One Being of God, there is a sense in which we can say a theophany is also a Christophany – but not with absolute certainty.  Opinion is divided.  The incident in Genesis 12:7 is positively identified as a theophany, but not all appearances are so clear cut.  Here are some Old Testament examples:

  Genesis 18:1-33 – One day, Abraham had some visitors: two angels and God Himself. He invited them to come to his home, and he and Sarah entertained them. Many commentators believe this could also be a Christophany, a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ.
  Genesis 32:22-30 – Jacob wrestled with what appeared to be a man, but was actually God (vv. 28-30). This may also have been a Christophany.
  Exodus 3:2 - 4:17 – God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush, telling him exactly what He wanted him to do.
  Exodus 24:9-11 – God appeared to Moses with Aaron and his sons and the seventy elders.
  Deuteronomy 31:14-15 – God appeared to Moses and Joshua in the transfer of leadership to Joshua.
  Job 38–42 – God answered Job out of the tempest and spoke at great length in answer to Job’s questions.

When the Bible says “the angel of the Lord” appeared, it means a Christophany.  The important thing to remember is that after the incarnation (Matthew 1:23) the appearances of “the angel of the Lord” cease after the incarnation of Christ. Angels are mentioned numerous times in the New Testament, but “the angel of the Lord” is never mentioned in the New Testament after the birth of Christ.
Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/angel-of-the-Lord.html


Where does the Bible say along the lines of, "The weakest saint is stronger than the strongest demon?" This is definitely a biblical concept, and have heard similar to it I thought. But, when asked to find this by another, I am having little luck.

This seems to be a chapter title from The Recognitions of Clement Book IV:

Chapter XXXIII.—The Weakest Christian More Powerful Than the Strongest Demon.
”Is it, then, that we are of another and a superior nature, and that therefore the demons are afraid of us? Nay, we are of one and the same nature with you, but we differ in religion. But if you will also be like us, we do not grudge it, but rather we exhort you, and wish you to be assured, that when the same faith and religion and innocence of life shall be in you that is in us, you will have equal and the same power and virtue against demons, through God rewarding your faith. For as he who has soldiers under him, although he may be inferior, and they superior to him in strength, yet ‘says to this one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to another, Do this, and he doeth it;’[26] and this he is able to do, not by his own power, but by the fear of Cæsar; so every faithful one commands the demons, although they seem to be much stronger than men, and that not by means of his own power, but by means of the power of God, who has put them in subjection. For even that which we have just spoken of, that Cæsar is held in awe by all soldiers, and in every camp, and in his whole kingdom, though he is but one man, and perhaps feeble in respect of bodily strength, this is not effected but by the power of God, who inspires all with fear, that they may be subject to one.

1 Corinthians 10:13 gives a vague reference to this idea, but is not an exact match.

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.


In 1 Peter 4:18, what does Peter mean by the righteous having difficulty to be saved? And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will
  become of the godless man and the sinner? (1 Peter 4:18, NASB).

It seems that Peter wasn't talking about salvation from hell here because the subject is already righteous, but he's clearly talking about salvation. So, what sort of salvation is he talking about?

I would not separate this 'salvation' from salvation from hell, for I do not think there is any other kind of salvation. Sin, hell, the world and the devil are all arrayed against the believer making our death to the world and our life in Christ a target of conflict; an inwardly felt weakness and struggle. This target (the faith of believers) is the end direction of all the energy, malice and aggression that the Devil and all the whole world enslaved to sin aims at, making our salvation very difficult. Not that we can ever loose it but that it is a road of conflict by nature of the evil in this world and the remans of sin within our own selves.

On the other hand, sinners often have an easy life for their lusts are harmonious with the desires of the whole world.  If a sinner has wealth, or very good looks or a very reputable name in business or religion, he may live an easy life without intense inner conflicts against sin, for he freely follows his lusts without conflict in the world and is praised for it by the world.

The statement is saying that if a real believer who 'feels so weak' and is often actually 'externally weak' in terms of worldly power, and who 'struggles daily' like a 'bruised reed and a smoldering wick', if they are saved through this kind of 'difficulty', how will the wicked find the final judgment to be after their life of ease and lack of struggle?

The answer is clear, sinners who have no struggle with a world of sin will find hell swallowing up their souls in sudden terror, whereas the struggling weak and tortured believer, whose faith seems always tested from without and within due to our backsliding hearts, will enter at last into glory forevermore. What a contrast! This is the point of it, a contrast of life in this world and one's corresponding destiny hereafter.


Would it have been possible for Jesus to sin? I think most, if not all of us, agree that Jesus did not sin.  However, the devil tempted Jesus, at least in the wilderness, prior to Jesus' public ministry (Matthew 4:1-11).  Does this mean it would have been possible for Jesus to sin?  Or was the devil just too stupid to realize his efforts were futile?

Yes
John 10:18 (NIV)

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

Jesus, in this verse, says that he has the ability to choose whether he laid down his life or not.
Because of this, he had the free will to choose to follow God's wishes or not.  Therefore, yes, he had the ability to sin.

Wow, I thought this was a pretty obvious answer.  Some more concepts to back up this idea:

Perfection does not preclude sin
Adam and Eve were perfect and sinless in the Garden of Eden.  However, they, who knew no sin, were tempted and succumbed to sin.  Clearly, perfection and not having previously knowing sin is not a preclusion to actually sinning.

Divinity does not preclude sin
Others claim that because of his divinity--more specifically, his part of the trinity--that he was incapable of sin.  However, John 10:18 (shown above), clearly shows that Jesus himself (not the other members of the trinity) had the authority to choose to sin and go against his Father.  Also, his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane shows that his will and his father's will were separate.  Since their wills were separate and since he had the ability to choose to sin, it would have been possible for Jesus to have put his will first and chose to go against his father's will.

Therefore, Jesus had true and complete free will and the ability to sin.


Was Jesus obligated to answer the High Priest that he was the son of God? In Matthew chapter 26 Caiaphas when questioning Jesus adjured him to declare whether or not he was the son of God.

Mat 26:63 and 64  KJV

  But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

According to Merriam Webster Adjure is defined as:

  ADJU'RE, v.t. [L. adjuro, to sweat solemnly, or compel one to swear; from ad and juro, to swear.]

1. To charge, bind or command on oath, or under the penalty of a curse.

2. To charge earnestly and solemnly, on pain of God's wrath.

    1. ***I adjure thee by the living God. Mat 26.***

3. To conjure; to charge, urge or summon with solemnity.

The original Greek word translated adjure was:

ἐξορκίζω exorkizo (ex-or-kid'-zo) v.1. to exact an oath, i.e. conjure

    [from ἐκ ek (ek) (or  ex  ex) prep. And ὁρκίζω horkizo (hor-kid'-zo) v.]

        KJV: adjure

It doesn't posit much difference in the meaning even if you use all the words such as forced, compelled, adjured, demanded, charged, obligated etc. The whole idea is that the high priest was looking for a way to force Jesus condemn himself to death. Many accusers came forward but no one was able to find any appropriate charges to put Jesus to death. The high priest, knowing that Jesus would not lie in the name of God, forced Jesus to confess in public that he was the Son of God. According to Jewish Law, blaspheming God deserved a death punishment. When Jesus admitted that he was the Son of God, the high priest now got the opportunity to sentence Jesus to death.

The sad side of this story is that even though they knew that Jesus would not lie when swearing in the name of God, they took Jesus' answer as blasphemy. Their hearts were hardened. They could not see the Messiah standing before them but they only saw a man claiming to be the Messiah.


How did Swedenborg interpret 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins"? Many Christians believe that Jesus died to appease the anger of God. One reason for this is 1 John 2:2, which says:

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου.

Propitiation basically means to appease the wrath of a god through an offering. How did Swedenborg translate ἱλασμός and interpret 1 John 2:2?

Preface: 1 John 2:2 in Swedenborg's writings
Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) does not comment directly on 1 John 2:2 anywhere in his published or unpublished theological writings.
He does quote 1 John 2:2 in one of his unpublished notebooks, traditionally titled Scripture Confirmations, which served as a specialized Bible concordance for the composition of his final comprehensive work of systematic theology, True Christianity. In that single quotation of the passage, he translates the Greek word ἱλασμός (hilasmos) into the Latin word propitiatio, which is the standard Latin word for "propitiation." You can see his original Latin here (it occurs in the fourth line of text), and an English translation here.
Introduction: Swedenborg's general approach to "propitiation"
Although Swedenborg does not comment directly on 1 John 2:2 anywhere in his theological writings, he does discuss the concept of the propitiation for sins, mostly in his explanation of the meaning of the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant in the ancient Jewish tabernacle, and also in explaining the meaning of various Old Testament sacrifices and rituals of atonement.
Swedenborg largely skips over the traditional Christian theology that had grown up over the centuries around the concept of Jesus as the propitiation for sins. Instead, he draws his explanation of the meaning of this concept directly from the biblical text. And rather than relying upon later Greek- and Roman-derived philosophical concepts of "propitiation," he seems to assume that the use of the Greek word ἱλασμός and its related forms in the New Testament draw their meaning primarily from the terms in the Hebrew Bible that are commonly translated in the Septuagint using various forms of ἱλασμός—and that this Old Testament usage is the primary referent of the term ἱλασμός as used in the New Testament. The writers of the (Greek) New Testament drew heavily on the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures produced two or three centuries before the birth of Christ.
To understand Swedenborg's interpretation of Jesus as "the propitiation for our sins" as used in 1 John 2:2, then, it will be necessary to delve into the Hebrew word כָּפַר (kaphar) and its derivatives, which are the words most commonly translated in the Septuagint as ἱλασμός and its derivatives, and which therefore provide the primary meaning of ἱλασμός as used in the New Testament.
This we will do below. But first we must cover Swedenborg's view of the traditional Christian understanding of Christ as a propitiation for our sins.
Swedenborg rejected the traditional notion of propitiation as appeasing the wrath of God the Father
Swedenborg was aware of, but rejected, the traditional philosophically-based interpretation of "propitiation" as meaning to appease the wrath of God the Father through the literal shedding of blood and death of the Son of God on the Cross. In Apocalypse Explained, his massive unfinished and unpublished exegesis of the Book of Revelation, he comments on the traditional Christian belief about the meaning of propitiation for sins:

In respect to the first proposition, "That there is propitiation, that is, a propitiation of God the Father by the passion or by the blood of His Son." This involves a rejection or alienation of the human race because of some anger or vengeance, that is called vindictive justice, which was laid upon His Son by God the Father, to the end that by the passion of His cross He might be reconciled to the human race, and thus be propitiated. But who does not see that for God the Father to reject from Himself the human race, or from justice to revenge their alienation, is contrary to the Divine essence itself, which is love itself, mercy itself, and goodness itself? Such vengeance, indeed, could not exist in any angel, and scarcely with any well disposed man, much less with God. Who does not also see that it is difficult to think that such vengeance was laid upon the Son by His Father, or that the Son took such vengeance upon Himself, and that God the Father has mercy from seeing or recalling this, and not from the Divine love itself, which in its essence is infinite, eternal, and immediate towards the whole human race? I do not know, therefore, whether anyone can think from God and with God that he has been rejected of God, and therefore that by the will of the Father the Son was condemned, and was thereby made a propitiatory and a throne of grace. Moreover, justice is a Divine attribute, but not vindictive justice, and still less can it be in one on another's account; and if it is not justice neither is it according to Divine order for one to be saved on another's account, though it may be by means of another. Nor can God be reconciled by any other means than by the repentance of the man himself. To be saved by means of the Lord, and also by means of the passion of His cross, thus by the Lord, is propitiation and expiation, as will be seen in what follows. (Apocalypse Explained #805:3)

The primary points Swedenborg makes here in rebutting the traditional Christian divine wrath- and justice-based concept of "propitiation" are these:

It is contrary to the nature of God's love, mercy, and goodness for God to reject humanity.
It is contrary to the nature of God's love, mercy, and goodness for God to execute vengeance upon God's Son.
God's infinite love and mercy go out directly to the entire human race.
Divine justice is never vindictive justice.
Divine justice does not save one person due to the actions of another person (in this case, the Son of God), although that other person may be the means of saving the person.
The only way for a human being to be reconciled to God is for that person to repent from his or her sins.

Atonement in the Old Testament
As stated in the Introduction above, Swedenborg draws the meaning of "propitiation" primarily from its usage in the Hebrew Bible.
Although there are a two or three Hebrew words that are translated into English as "propitiation" and "expiation," the most common one by far is כָּפַר (kaphar).
כָּפַר is a Hebrew root word whose primary, concrete meaning is "to cover over." Its first use in the Hebrew Bible is in the story of the building of Noah's ark:

Make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. (Genesis 6:14, italics added)

Here the Hebrew word for "cover" is a form of כָּפַר. And in a play of words not reproducible in English translation, the Hebrew word for "pitch" is כֹּֽפֶר (kopher), "pitch" being something that covers things over. This gives a sense of the original, concrete meaning of the relevant Hebrew word.
It is from this concrete meaning of כָּפַר that it derives its more figurative and abstract meanings: "to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel:—appease, make an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile(-liation)" (from Strong's definition of כָּפַר).
The original meaning of the Hebrew word, then, does not point to the appeasement of an angry God, but rather to God "covering over" sins, which is a Hebrew idiom for forgiving sins out of mercy. It also has the sense of purging or cleansing away sins.
This leads to Swedenborg's understanding of "propitiation" in the Old Testament and in the Bible generally.
The mercy seat, or propitiatorium
Swedenborg's most extensive discussion of "propitiation" comes in his exegesis of the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, whose description first appears in Exodus 25:17–22. Here is the first half verse of that description:

Then you shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. (Exodus 25:17)

The Hebrew word here translated "mercy seat" is כַּפֹּרֶת (kapporeth), which is derived from the Hebrew word כָּפַר.
The common Latin translation of this word, which Swedenborg uses in his exegesis, is propitiatorium (see the Vulgate translation of this verse), which, obviously, is derived from the Latin word for "propitiation."
Swedenborg's exegesis of the mercy seat
This, then, is Swedenborg's key reference in the Bible for his explanation of the meaning of "propitiation" throughout the Bible. Here is the opening summary from Secrets of Heaven (Arcana Coelestia) #9506, where Swedenborg comments on the first half of Exodus 25:17. (For his full exegesis, click the number link just above.)

"And you shall make a mercy-seat from pure gold" means the hearing and reception of all things that belong to worship arising from the good of love. This is clear from the meaning of "the mercy-seat" as the cleansing from evils or forgiveness of sins, consequently the hearing and reception of all things that belong to worship, dealt with below; and from the meaning of "gold" as the good of love. (Secrets of Heaven #9506, italics added)

He then goes on to speak in more detail about the meaning of the mercy seat as hearing and receiving everything related to worship because God spoke to Moses and the priests from between the cherubim on the mercy seat. And he states that only people who have been cleansed from evils and sins can hear and receive these things from God, as symbolized by the requirement that Aaron, the high priest, engage in rituals of purification and atonement before entering the Most Holy Place where God would speak to him from between the cherubim.
So in Swedenborg's theology, the primary meaning of "propitiation" draws on the key meaning of the original Hebrew words, in which "to cover over" is taken as a metaphor for mercy and forgiveness of sins, which happens only when worshipers of God repent from their sins according to God's commandments, and are thus cleansed from their sins by God.
For additional passages in which Swedenborg comments on the meaning of "propitiation" in relation to sacrifices for atonement prescribed in the Old Testament, see Secrets of Heaven ##10122, 10124, 10127.
Swedenborg's general understanding of "propitiation"
Here is Swedenborg's brief summary of the meaning of "propitiation" and other traditional Christian concepts that are related to sacrificial worship in the Old Testament:

Sacrifices and burnt offerings in general served to mean the regeneration of a person by means of the truths of faith in the Lord and forms of the good of love to Him, both received from the Lord . . . . The pardoning of sins, expiation, propitiation, and redemption are nothing other than purification from evils and falsities, the implantation of goodness and truth, and the joining together of these, which is regeneration. (Secrets of Heaven #10042:5)

"Regeneration" here means spiritual rebirth, or in New Testament terms, being born again. Swedenborg saw this as a process that involved repenting from our sins, reforming our desires, thoughts, and actions, and becoming a new person motivated by God's love, guided by God's truth, and doing good deeds for our fellow human beings ("the neighbor," in biblical terms) from the power of God's love and truth flowing through us.
So although Swedenborg does use the traditional word "propitiation," his understanding of it is not derived from traditional Christian theology, nor from the more philosophical definitions of it that have developed over the centuries, but rather from the key words and passages in the Bible itself that define the concept.
These key words are occasionally used in the Bible to speak of appeasing someone's wrath, such as in the story of Jacob reuniting with his estranged brother Esau in Genesis 32:1-21, 33:1-17, as seen specifically in this verse:

For he [Jacob] thought, "I may appease him with the present that goes ahead of me, and afterwards I shall see his face; perhaps he will accept me." (Genesis 32:20)

However, these words are used far more often in the sense of forgiving sins out of mercy. And it is this primary meaning that Swedenborg draws upon in his understanding of "propitiation."
And he insists that although God does indeed forgive all of our sins out of pure love and mercy, the only way we can receive that forgiveness is to repent from our sins and live a new life of love and service to our fellow human beings, as Jesus Christ and the entire Bible command us to do.
Summary and conclusion
"Propitiation," as Emanuel Swedenborg understands it, has nothing to do with appeasing the supposed wrath of God the Father at our sins, as understood in traditional Christian theology. So it does not mean God being appeased by the shed blood and the death of his Son on the Cross.
There is no need for such appeasement, Swedenborg says, since such wrath and vengeance cannot be attributed to a God of pure love and mercy. God's "wrath" and "vengeance," when encountered in the Bible are, rather, metaphors for how God's love strikes people who are in opposition to it because they are actively engaging in evil desires, thoughts, and actions. For more on this, please see my article, "What is the Wrath of God? Why was the Old Testament God so Angry, yet Jesus was so Peaceful?"
Instead, Swedenborg says, "propitiation" has to do with God "covering over" our sins, meaning forgiving them out of pure love and mercy—which forgiveness we receive when we repent from our sins and live a good life instead, as God commands us to do throughout the entire Bible, both Old Testament and New.
And this, Swedenborg says, we cannot do by our own power, but only from the power of the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ working in us and through us—as Jesus himself said:

I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)


Catholic priests in China that reject the papal primacy, are their administration of sacraments considered valid? I was just wondering how the Catholic church in Rome views those priests ordained by the Chinese communist government which do not recognize any authority of the Pope?

I realize from an interesting wiki article that there are underground priests that do, but my question is strictly related to those priests that don't recognize the Pope. Are people who receive Catholic sacraments, such as baptism, by these communist government ordained priests considered valid?

I guess another way of asking the same question would be: would a Catholic who was baptized by that priest (who rejects papal supremacy) be considered by the Pope a member of the Catholic church after baptism?

According to  "Letter of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, To the Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons, and Lay Faithful of the Catholic Church, in the People's Republic of China:"

... sacraments administered by such Bishops and priests are likewise valid.

More details if you don't want to read the whole letter yourself:
In Section 8 of the letter, he talks about the Chinese Episcopate and mentions a few different groups of Bishops:
There are some:

...Bishops who have received episcopal ordination in conformity with Catholic tradition, that is to say, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Peter, and at the hands of validly and legitimately ordained Bishops in observance of the rite of the Catholic Church.

There are also:

Other Pastors, however, under the pressure of particular circumstances, have consented to receive episcopal ordination without the pontifical mandate, but have subsequently asked to be received into communion with the Successor of Peter and with their other brothers in the episcopate. The Pope, considering the sincerity of their sentiments and the complexity of the situation, and taking into account the opinion of neighbouring Bishops, by virtue of his proper responsibility as universal Pastor of the Church, has granted them the full and legitimate exercise of episcopal jurisdiction.

These two groups are validly and legitimately ordained Bishops, so of course their administration of sacraments would be considered valid.
Then he talks about another group:

Finally, there are certain Bishops – a very small number of them – who have been ordained without the Pontifical mandate and who have not asked for or have not yet obtained, the necessary legitimation. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, they are to be considered illegitimate, but validly ordained, as long as it is certain that they have received ordination from validly ordained Bishops and that the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination has been respected.

Of this last group, he says:

Therefore, although not in communion with the Pope, they exercise their ministry validly in the administration of the sacraments, even if they do so illegitimately.

The full sentence that I excerpted above is:

Concerning Bishops whose consecrations took place without the pontifical mandate yet respecting the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination, the resulting problems must always be resolved in the light of the principles of Catholic doctrine. Their ordination – as I have already said (cf. section 8 above, paragraph 12) – is illegitimate but valid, just as priestly ordinations conferred by them are valid, and sacraments administered by such Bishops and priests are likewise valid.

In the very next sentence, he says that the faithful should seek Bishops and Priests who are in communion with the Pope, but:

... where this cannot be achieved without grave inconvenience, they may, for the sake of their spiritual good, turn also to those who are not in communion with the Pope.


What is the biblical basis for Christians NOT to quit their jobs, sell all their possessions, and preach the gospel? While an argument can be made that all Christians should quit their "secular" jobs, sell all their possessions, and preach the gospel fulltime, I am thinking that its basis may not biblical. What then could be a biblical basis for not quitting one's job?

You seem to be alluding to the account of the rich young man in the Gospels:

Matthew 19:16-22

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Mark 10:17-22

And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

First, in these Scriptures we note that Jesus is speaking specifically to one particular individual whose attachment to his wealth was an impediment to his faith.  As the Church Fathers pointed out, although it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:23), it is not impossible.  Joseph of Arimathaea is an example of a rich man who was Jesus' disciple (Matthew 27:57).

Second, in the accounts of the rich young man, Christ does not urge the young man to "preach the Gospel".  He is asked, rather, that he take up his cross (Mark 10:21) and follow Jesus (Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21) - not to preach.
Throughout the New Testament, the importance of truth is emphasized.  Christ is the Truth (John 14:6).  Jesus taught that one must worship in Spirit and Truth (John 4:24).  The Church itself is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).  Like Paul immediately after his conversion (see below), many may feel "inspired" to begin preaching the Gospel, without really being prepared to do so.  The result is spiritual delusion, leading to heresies and schisms (1 Corinthians 11:19).  The fact that there are so many Christian "denominations" (a term more suited to currency than the Church) with conflicting beliefs attests to the fact that many, many persons throughout history must have preached another Gospel (1 Galatians 1:18):  When conflicting doctrine is taught by multiple sects, either all or all but one of the sects must have been teaching falsehoods.

Third, many understand that to follow Jesus means to preach the Gospel.  This belief has no basis in Scripture.  To follow Jesus means to obey Him (John 14:23), not to preach, unless specifically directed to do so.  The famous "Great Commission" was given specifically to the eleven remaining Apostles, who alone were assembled by Jesus (Matthew 28:16), and were commanded to baptize and to teach all nations ... to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you (Matthew 28:20).  It was not a commandment that was given to all disciples or believers in general.
A close reading of the Acts of the Apostles will show that when the disciples went forth to preach, they were sent either directly by the Apostles or by one(s) who were appointed by the Apostles or by others who were successively appointed to preach.  One exception was Paul, who appeared to begin preaching shortly after his conversion without being so appointed (Acts 9:20), but very quickly had to be rescued (Acts 9:25).  The next time we see Paul beginning a ministry, it will be under the direct supervision of an Apostle (Barnabas; see Acts 11:25).


Does this mean He will help us overcome difficulties in this life? Ephesians 3:20 - "Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us"...

I, at first, read this as being about Heaven. A lady in a church in leeds said it was about Him strengthening us now, in this age. Correct?

Since neither view is stated explicitly in the text nor can be inferred from the context, there's no definitive answer, however the use of present tense, and the next verse:

  21to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

To me indicate that his ability and power are available to us now.


HOW does the existence of the Universe make those who do not worship God to be "without excuse"? "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20, ESV)

The Apostle Paul here says that those who ignore God, who fail to worship him or give him thanks are without excuse because the Universe shows there is a Creator God with certain attributes, namely, that he is eternal and has a divine nature.
My question is, in what way(s) does the existence of the Universe plainly demonstrate the existence and nature of God?  Preferably, in your answer say what "eternal power" means, and show how the Universe demonstrates the eternal power of God?
My question seeks answers mainly from a Trinitarian perspective.  (If you answer from other perspectives please indicate this in your answer.  Thanks.)

St. Paul is evidently musing on themes in the book of Wisdom in Chapter 1 and beyond:

Wisdom 13:1-9 But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: 2 But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. 3 With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. 4 Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that he that made them, is mightier than they: 5 For by the greatness of the beauty, and of creation, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby. 6 But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. 7 For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen. 8 But then again they are not to be pardoned. 9 For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof?

The logic is this: in recognizing objective beauty in something (to the extent, especially, of worshipping it), one of necessity must recognize the mind behind it, since beauty is only appreciable in a mind, and thus only authorable by it. Hence, for as long they do so and refuse to worship the Author of such beauty, they sin: "for the first author of beauty made them all."
And if the author of beauty itself is greater, by definition, than the sum of all his creations, then "his eternal power" is evident, because it is far beyond - literally - anything we can conceive or imagine, and obviously lives with him, and so eternally.
The overall point is that all goes back to God, no matter what it is, good or bad; if you worship the good things He made, you are offending and robbing Him; if you worship the bad things, you are doing him a double offense and a double robbery.


Who is the oldest Blessed? Just a question that ought to have a concrete answer and be a good example for how the process of canonization works for my Religious Ed. class:

Who has been declared blessed for the longest period of time without being canonized?
Who is the oldest person to have been declared blessed (died shortest after Christ)?

Bonus points if anyone knows who has been 'venerable' or 'servant of God' for the longest or is the oldest

(Bonus points may be stored up and redeemed in Heaven, where neither moth nor worm may spoil them)

Wikipedia has an article entitled List of Blesseds in the Catholic Church. One can click on the heading of the column giving the date of beatification. Doing so, the earliest that shows up is Eutychius of Como, who died in 539; however, no specific date of beatification is given. The earliest date of beatification is 1259 for Bronislava of Poland.

The external references for the article are:

Catholic Online list of saints and blesseds
Patron Saints Index

Wikipedia also has an article entitled List of Venerable People. The person in that list with the earliest date of declaration is María de Ágreda, declared venerable in 1673.


Is a confession valid if I only voice the sins I'm comfortable sharing and confess the rest in my heart to God? So my wife is Catholic and my daughter has been baptized in the Catholic faith and my new born son is soon to be baptized as well. I was baptized myself but I've fallen away from my Baptist roots for certain reasons and I've come to enjoy the structure of the Catholic faith.

My question is this, I spent a good amount of time in the military and overseas, I've done somethings that I don't like to talk about or want to even voice.  It makes me sick just thinking about them.  I really don't think I can voice these when it comes time for my first confessions and has kept me from join RCIA sooner for fear of the Priests response.  Would the confession be valid if I only voiced what I'm comfortable sharing and confess the rest in my heart to God?

I'm really anxious about this, but truly desire to become closer to God once again.

You must confess all mortal sins that you're aware of and any venial sins you feel compelled to confess. You are not absolved of any mortal sins you withhold, and intentionally withholding mortal sins not only invalidates the whole confession, but is a mortal sin itself. (catholic.com) And, if left in a state of mortal sin, you're expected not to receiving the Eucharist. The Eucharist is life-giving for those in a state of grace; it's a condemnation for those in a state of mortal sin. (See how to confess for the basic details and process.)

So, be less afraid of how your priest might react than making your reception of the Eucharist into a condemnation against yourself! And don't worry! Just about every priest I've heard speak on the matter says pretty much the same thing: You can't confess something I haven't already heard.

Furthermore, a priest may not withhold absolution on the condition that you reveal your sins to another person. The only valid reason for withholding absolution is insincerity of the penitent. (catholic.com Q&A)


What does it mean to "Make a Mission"? I was reading Dorthy Day's autobiography and she mentioned something that Catholics of her time, at least, would take for granted "doing a novena and making a mission".  I've prayed a novena, but I've got no idea what making a mission is - at least not without leaving your home city.

What does it mean to “Make a Mission”?

Before going into the what it means to "make a mission", I believe that the modern phrase is to "take part in a mission".

Now let us see what the Catholic Church by teaches with the different term variations of what defines the word: "mission".

  Mission

  The term literally denotes "sending" and covers a variety of meanings, all somehow expressing the idea of a going forth from one person to others in order to effect some beneficial change in their favor. At the highest level are the divine missions of the Trinity: the visible mission of the Second Person, sent by the Father in the person of Jesus Christ, and the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father and the Son. Christ then sent the Apostles to make disciples of all nations. Their mission was to preach the Gospel, baptize, and teach the people "to observe all the commands I gave you" (Matthew 28:19-20). The Apostles, in turn, personally and through their successors have been sending other faithful to continue the work of the Master in evangelizing the human race. Mission, therefore, is the purpose of vocation. All who are called to follow Christ are sent by Christ, in the person of his Church, to extend the Kingdom of God. (Etym. Latin missio, a sending.)

Now, taking this basic definition of what a mission is, let us take a look at the three types of Catholic Missions:

Catholic Missions in pagan or non-Catholic lands
Home Missions
Parish Mission

Ever since the foundation of the Church, the Apostles were sent out as missionaries by Our Lord to all the peoples of the world. In this sense, the Church has always been of apostolic missions, sent to make conversions among pagans and heretics by its very nature. The faithful are encouraged to pray for the evangelization of all who jet to become believers of what the Church professes and as such are also to be considered as missionaries, even if it is only in a passive sense.

  The New Testament missionary outreach of the Christian Church from the time of St Paul was extensive throughout the Roman Empire. - Catholic missions

Home Missions are those missionary activities which take part within a particular diocese or country.

  What Are Home Missions?

  “Home Missions” is the name for dioceses and parishes in the United States, including its territories and former territories, which cannot provide basic pastoral services to Catholics without outside help. Basic pastoral services include Mass and sacraments, religious education, and ministry training for priests, deacons, religious sisters and lay people.

  For many decades, the Church in the United States has sent missionaries overseas to serve the people of Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. The home missions are dioceses and parishes here in the United States that need the same kind of support.

The third type of mission is called the parish mission or parochial mission. This is the type of mission that Dorothy Day was referring to when she stated some Catholics would "take a mission!"

So what is a Parish Mission?

  A Parish Mission is special time in a parish community when the community gathers together to gain further insight into a faith filled life.  It is a time for grace and renewal of the parish through services and talks filled with stories, examples and meaning.

  Every mission will be designed and tailored to the unique needs and requests of the individual parishes. - Why A Parish Mission?

In my home parish we generally have a parish mission that lasts a given by whole week (8 days). Some parishes may have them for 3, 4 or even 5 days. They are usually by a priest from outside the diocese in question are priests that from a Religious Order or who have a great ability to give captivating homilies.

The "missions" are held twice a day (morning and evenings) with the same homilily being preached at both Masses. Generally speaking the sacrament of confession is made available before and after Mass in order to help the spiritual renewal of the parish, both within and outwards. Hopefully the graces received at such a parish mission will manifested themselves through our deeper love and commitment for Christ and his Church.


What is the source of the count of 40000 denominations, and how are they classified? It is often said that there are up to 40 thousand Christian denominations.

What is the original source of this claim, and how are the denominations classified?

The 40,000 figure comes from a chart that is quoted by the "Best Estimates" web site, the estimation comes from the a chart that is linked below originally provided by Gordon Conwell Edu.   It is an estimation of where things stand now in Christianity world wide.    This figure is actually off now, and has been surpassed as time has passed.   If you go to line 41 of the original chart the figure should now be over 45,000 separate denominations, and should grow to 55K by 2025!

https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/04/StatusofGlobalChristianity20191.pdf


Why is rape not in the 10 commandments? Seems like a good one to touch on.

I'm sure there could have been room in there somewhere if he wanted it. Why not?

Note: This answer comes from the perspective of the Old Testament alone, since the question was in regard to the Ten Commandments and gives no indication that it's seeking a "Christian" perspective, but does give indication that it's seeking a historical perspective (since it references the Ten Commandments).
History of the ten Commandments
Why is rape not included among the these commandments?  Because there are many things (including homosexuality, having sex with your fathers wife, not wearing clothes made of both wool and cotton, etc.) that are not in them.
The Ten Commandments were originally written on stone tablets after Moses ascended Mount Sinai.  Their purpose was to provide a set of basic, simple laws that would hold the nation of Israel over until they got the full Levitical law.
The Levitical law was not given until the book of Leviticus, after the Ten Commandments had been given.  These commandments were not meant to be all-encompassing, but simply meant to give them the top-ten basic laws that God wanted the Israelites to obey until they could get the complete Law.
Rape defined
It is important to note that "rape" during those days was not a crime against a woman, but rather a crime against the head of the household (History of Rape).
To understand how rape plays out in the Old Testament, it is important to understand adultery.  Adultery was a sin that had the death-penalty associated with it.

Deuteronomy 22:22 (NIV)
If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

However, if the man were to rape another man's wife, only the man would die, since he is the one that committed the act of adultery.

Deuteronomy 22:25
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.

Note that in Old Testament times, betrothal came after the marriage price had been paid.  The groom and the bride at that point were effectively married, although there was a waiting period before they could live together.
Now, if a man rapes a woman who is not pledged to be married, then he has not committed adultery and did not deserve death.  Instead, he was forced to pay the marriage price, taking the girl/woman as his wife.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives

What these laws are showing is that rape is not "non-consensual" sex as we think of it today.  It's actually a crime against the man who "owns" the woman (for lack of a better term).  The crime committed in the case of a betrothed or married girl is the crime of adultery.  The crime committed in the case of a non-betrothed, unwed girl is the crime of not paying for something that you've taken.
The punishment for rape back then was the same as the punishment for either adultery or stealing, based on the marital status of the girl.
This also means... there is nothing in the Old Testament saying that non-consensual sex with your wife is wrong.
Rape as Adultery/Theft
With the definition above, we see that rape carried the punishment of either adultery or theft, based on the marital status of the girl/woman.  With that in mind, the laws of adultery and stealing were in the Ten Commandments:

Exodus 20:14-15
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.

If we compare these laws established in the Ten Commandments with the rules established in Deuteronomy, we see that rape was considered either stealing or adultery.
Because of this, the root law that is being violated is actually covered in the these commands.
Summary
Rape, from the Old Testament perspective, is either considered adultery or thievery (based on the marital status of the woman).  Those two root laws are specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments.  Therefore, the two laws that might be broken from a given rape are actually written there.


How much of the deuterocanonical books are true? I found this book on Christian Doctrine in my class (I go to a private Christian school) and you could clearly tell it was of protestant bias. It stated that the deuterocanonical books contradict what the books in the protestant Bible say and also aren't in the Jewish canon. As someone who is looking to convert from protestant to Catholic, what is the view of the deuterocanonical books from Catholic/Orthodox teaching. How can we know if we are true and God's word? Please link the question if this has already been answered.

How much of the deuterocanonical books are true?
All deuterocanonical books are considered inspired biblical texts by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East to be canonical books of the Old Testament but which are considered non-canonical by Protestant denominations and thus considered Apocrypha by Protestant. Each individual Church has it own particular list of deuterocanonical books which may vary only slightly between the major denominations which have these books listed in their proper biblical canons.

The deuterocanonical books (from the Greek meaning "belonging to the second canon") are books and passages considered by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East to be canonical books of the Old Testament but which are considered non-canonical by Protestant denominations. They date from the period 300 BC–AD 100 approximately (mostly from 200 BC–AD 70, i.e. before the definite separation of the Church from Judaism). While the New Testament never quotes from or ascribes canonical authority to these books, some say there is a correspondence of thought, while others see texts from these books being paraphrased, referred or alluded to many times in the New Testament, particularly in the Pauline Epistles depending in large measure on what is counted as a reference.
Deuterocanonical is a term coined in 1566 by the theologian Sixtus of Siena, who had converted to Catholicism from Judaism, to describe scriptural texts considered canonical by the Catholic Church, but which recognition was considered "secondary". For Sixtus, this term included portions of both Old and New Testaments (Sixtus considers the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark as 'deuterocanonical'); and he also applies the term to the Book of Esther from the canon of the Hebrew Bible. The term was then taken up by other writers to apply specifically to those books of the Old Testament which had been recognised as canonical by the Councils of Rome (AD 382) of Hippo (AD 393), Carthage (AD 397 and AD 419), Council of Florence (AD 1442) and Council of Trent (AD 1546), but which were not in the Hebrew canon.
Forms of the term "deuterocanonical" were adopted after the 16th century by the Eastern Orthodox Church to denote canonical books of the Septuagint not in the Hebrew Bible (a wider selection than that adopted by the Council of Trent), and also by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church to apply to works believed to be of Jewish origin translated in the Old Testament of the Ethiopic Bible; a wider selection still. - Deuterocanonical books

The deuterocanonical books were added to the Catholic Canon well before the Council of Trent (1546).

But the seven deuterocanonical books were added at the Council of Trent (1546) in order to justify Catholic doctrinal inventions.
This is a myth that always comes up but is simple to answer. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).
Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Gutenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.
Luther had a tendency to grade the Bible according to his preferences. In his writings on the New Testament, he noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed “the certain, main books of the New Testament.” In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible.

To be able to see which books are considered part of a particular Christian Tradition’s Biblical Canon please check the chart here


Were OT prophets poor or wealthy? did they need to relay on others ?

I hope you can base your answer on the OT

Some professions of OT prophets are recorded, but likely many of them were supported by God himself and by those putting faith in their message (much like Jesus would later be).

Did they have to rely on others?

Yes, but their need to rely on others was a test on those they were sent to.  Ultimately their reliance was on God himself, and the perceived need of the prophet was a test on the people the prophet was sent to.

A very good example is Elijah in 1 Kings 17

At first God feeds Elijah through the ravens themselves, showing as in many cases in Elijah's life, God's ability to provide directly for the prophet.

Second a person is used to feed Elijah - and when they give the last of what they have, yet another miracle is given so that both are fed.

This is not very different than any other prophet situation, because everything under the heavens belongs to God. If anyone could provide food for a prophet, they are giving something that was first given to them, and could be rewarded based on that faith - just like the widow of Zarephath was.

To reiterate - in every case the prophet's needy state was simply a test on those he was sent to.

Were they poor or wealthy?

The majority of what we know about OT prophets is that they were generally not wealthy, and this was not by accident - the prophets represented people lightly esteemed by the world of that time. But there are a few who had prophetic roles, directly or indirectly, who were not exactly the poor either.

Moses:
House of Pharoah (wealthy), turned Shepherd (not wealthy). While not necessarily poor, he was progressively humbled through is work to the point that he is called "The meekest on the earth". (Exodus 2)

Samuel
Not necessarily rich or poor, but instead a dedicated prophet. If he had access to wealth (being in the service of the temple) there is nothing to suggest he made personal use it. A clue we have on his wealth-or-not priorities was that he generally always wore the little coat his mother made him, and not expensive attire he may have had access to - 1Sa 2:18, 19. He was also good in his dealings. 1 Samuel 12:4,5

Jeremiah
Definitely not wealthy and did not benefit from the  world at that time. His attendant was, however, and it proved to be somewhat of a snare to the attendant. The entire book of Jeremiah testifies to his lowliness - especially the statement recorded here: Jeremiah 45:5 - he could not have given such advice as a wealthy man.

Solomon
A bit of a prophet through example, and definitely wealthy - but an example in wisdom and a prefiguration of Jesus in his kingdom. Later became unfaithful. Solomon is a common example of a wealthy man, and there are prophesies hidden scattered his writings in proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

Elijah
Elijah, during the time of his prophesying, was far from wealthy - to the point that God fed him by having ravens carry him food, and later by a few miracles. Spent much of his time on the run. See above.

Amos
Shepherd and fig farmer. Not wealthy professions. Amos 7:14

Daniel
One of the foremost prophets with the most interesting books of OT, we could say that Daniel was likely wealthy in terms of position and power, and likely had the perks of his position available to him if he wished, but its obvious that was not his concern. He was definitely wealthy at Babylon's fall when they gave him gifts and promoted him. Daniel 5:29

Abraham
Not necessarily known as a prophet, but certainly a tool of prophesy, was wealthy to a degree as many were dependent on him - but thats not an emphasis of his life. Genesis 24:35

Joseph
Certainly a prophet - had a series of ups and downs in wealth. Ended up being a foremost ruler of Egypt. Genesis 41

Ezekiel
The priesthood - but (wealthy profession?) was called to be a prophet, and the details of his prophesying work certainly do not reflect wealth at the time, but rather showed the poverty people would suffer in being reduced to eating food by careful ration cooked over dung cakes. Ezekiel 4:12

These are a few commonly known examples.

Poverty by Necessity

Prophets, during the time of their prophesying, rarely had "the good life" but were generally known for being treated insolently and being among the lower ranking ones of the world, much in the spirit of what is stated later in NT: 1 Corinthians 1:27 - God chose the foolish things of the world.

Depending on how you define wealth, you could even say they were the richest in the world, but again, proving such a thing requires New Testament reasoning provided by Christ, considering treasure in heaven.

If we assess a prophet according to their station during the time of their prophesying, most had very little.

Even Joseph, though quite wealthy in the end, was still at "prisoner" status when he arrived before Pharaoh to make the future known.

Although Daniel was indeed rich in comparison to his contemporaries, he longed to be back in Jerusalem, so likely the "riches" of the pagan empire were worthless in his eyes, keeping him poor in his own eyes.

Moses abandoned the rich life altogether. Its part of the OT story, but confirmed in the NT Hebrews 11:26-27 - summing up an important lesson.

You've asked a very good question, because the "wealth" of a prophet and their attitude toward their wealth (or lack of) is a very important part of their message, their values, and their faith.