Do Catholics view other religion as a sin? I'm interested to make this question after reading Do Catholics view atheism as a sin?, where the answer is :

  Yes. Catholicism states quite clearly that atheism is a sin.  Disbelieving
  God means that you are rebelling against God's commands and therefore
  sinning.

The bold word is quite difficult for me to understand, because it can raise a question "whose God ?"

In other words, the sentence above is the same meaning with this sentence :

  Disbelieving Jesus means that he/she is rebelling against God's
  command and therefore sinning.

But then again, it raise a question "whose God command ?"

More complicated:

  Disbelieving Jesus means that he/she is rebelling against Jesus'
  command and therefore sinning.

A person (who has a religion) doesn't believe Jesus.
So, do Catholics view other religion as a sin?

"whose God ?"
There is only one God, the creator of the heavens and the earth:

Ps 95:5 For all the gods of the Gentiles* are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.

*i.e., unbelievers
St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., commentates on this verse:

St. James [2:19] says, “the devils also believe and tremble;” and, as David alludes to false gods, especially in this Psalm, he, therefore, assigns a reason for our God being feared above all gods, when he says, “For all the gods of the gentiles are devils; but the Lord made the heavens;” that is to say, God is to be feared above all false gods, erroneously adored by the gentiles, because the gods of the gentiles are not true gods, but demons, who, through pride, have revolted from the God who created them, and have been doomed by him to eternal punishment; “but the Lord,” instead of being a spirit created, is a creating spirit, who “made the heavens,” the greatest and the most beautiful things in nature, as well as everything under its canopy, that is, all things created.

Worshiping false gods is the sin of idolatry.
False gods are airy nothings:Pohle's Dogmatic Treatise vol. 1:

The Book of Wisdom devotes several chapters76 to the refutation and condemnation of Polytheism and Idolatry. In fact, Holy Scripture never tires of denouncing Idolatry as foolish and impious, and the pagan deities as “not gods,”77 “lies and vanity,”78 “wind and vanity,”79 airy nothings.8076. Wisd. 12-15.77. 2 Kings 19:18; Jer. 2:11.78. Jer. 16:19.79. Is. 41:24; Dan. 5:23.80. Ps. 95:5; not אֶלוֹהים, but אֱלִילִים, i. e., nihila ["nothings"].

To worship them violates the First Commandment:

Exodus 20:2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

In the ¶ after what I quoted in my answer to "Do Catholics view atheism as a sin?", St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica II-II q. 10 a. 3 co.):

Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his opinion is not God.


Where did the rule regarding abstaining from Communion after divorce originate? I am told that in the Orthodox Church, when someone gets divorced, because it is the breaking of the covenant of marriage, they must go without taking Communion for a certain amount of time.  After which time, a letter is written to the Bishop or Metropolitan or whoever that explains the situation in order to get permission to go back to taking Communion.

The reason and purpose, I'm told, is not that it's some kind of punishment, but rather to be a time of healing.  That does seem a bit counter-intuitive to me, being that the Eucharist is supposed to be for the healing of soul and body, and divorce would be one of those times where you specially need healing of the soul.  Except that I imagine one who must go so long without the Eucharist could form the kind of longing and respect for it that we should all have every Liturgy.

When, how, and why did this rule originate?

I hope I'm not misrepresenting the Eastern Orthodox position, but I'm assuming it's the same as the Catholic. If not, let me know.

Disallowing the divorced the Eucharist is not a specific thing. A priest is not allowed to give the Eucharist to anyone he knows is living in a state of mortal sin. It's simply that divorce is a mortal sin (Luke 16:18), as well as remarrying.

To receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is both an insult to the Body and Blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:29), and thus—or as a result of that—a detriment to the soul (and sometimes even the body):

  1 Corinthians 11:23-31 (DRB) For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. 31 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.

You see St. Paul teaches that you cannot receive the Eucharist whilst you are in a state of judgement, and to be punished for receiving it. Certainly living in a state of "adultery" (Luke 16:18) falls under this category.


Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe in Aerial Toll Houses? In the Oration, St. Gregory of Nazianzus talked about “last baptism,” the baptism of eschatological fire, longer lasting and more painful than one’s penance for sins (Or. 39.19). Some Protestants have been using arguments from few Orthodox who refused to acknowledge any intermediary state for the departed. Claiming that such is a Gnostic idea which crept into Eastern Orthodoxy from Latin scholasticism and has no Apostolic foundation.

This question is not necessarily coincide with the controversy between Fr. Seraphim Rose and Fr. Lazar Puhalo but comment surrounding the dispute can be be included in the answer. In Eastern rites Catholicism we believe in Aerial Toll Houses, it's a consensus in our tradition but apparently this is not the case in Eastern Orthodoxy.

It's a complex issue which might not be addressed completely by this answer right now. But given enough time I'll elaborate more detail to address many aspects related to this controversy in great depth on my next update. For those unfamiliar with the debate between Hieromonk Seraphim Rose and Archbishop Lazarus Puhalo, this might be a good preliminary introduction to Toll Houses controversy within Eastern Orthodox communion.1 As for now I'll provide a support for this view. Later, I'll add a counter argument from those who rejected this teaching. Each sides on this controversy read the same passages from the Fathers but come to two opposite conclusions: Fr. Seraphim herald this teaching as an Orthodox faith while Fr. Lazarus condemn this teaching as a heterodox innovation. The former claim to preserve this faith from the Fathers while the later claim that this novelty is unknown to the Fathers.2

  We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each has done; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation.

  And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented — by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — [their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not.

  Patriarch Dositheous of Jerusalem, Council of Jerusalem in 1672, Decree 18.

Some EOs argue that this confession might be influenced by Latin's influence. As I'll later show, such accusations can't be sustained because this synod is accepted by Patriarchal Sees of Constantinople, Serbia, and Moscow. If it's true that Dositheous was influenced by the Jesuits, those Sees wouldn't accept this synod. To make it more complicated I'll go through one by one EO saints and discuss whether or not they teach the doctrine of Toll Houses explicitly:

  Two Nuns, who had both been Abbesses, died. The Lord revealed to me how their souls had been subjected to the aerial tests, how they had been tried and then condemned. For three days and nights I prayed, wretched as I am, entreating the Mother of God for them, and the Lord in His goodness pardoned them through the prayers of the Mother of God; they passed all the aerial tests and received forgiveness through God's mercy.

  Archimandrite Lazarus Moore, St. Seraphim of Sarov: A Spiritual Biography,
  New Sarov Press, 1994.

This is a very controversial subject to discuss. The Orthodoxy of this teaching as it is now stand has not been decided. Personally, as a Byzantine rite Catholic I believe in Toll Houses, especially because Pope St. John Paul II referred to Hieromonk Seraphim of Sarov as a Catholic saint. To keep my neutrality on this subject, on my next update I'll add counter arguments from those who deny Toll Houses. The purpose of this answer is to bring an awareness and to inform Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals alike about this controversy. That it's not true that the idea of purgatory is unique to Latin's theology. As this answer will later show, both East and West do develop this doctrine around the same time period. The Latins dogmatized this teaching at the Council of Florence in 1439 while the Greeks kept it as theological discourse among the Fathers without dogmatizing it.

1 In my next update, I'll include Eastern Catholic and Oriental Orthodox position on Toll Houses.

2 To be neutral in my answer I'll address both sides as thorough as possible. Because some of the debates resolve around the variations between the Greek and Russian texts. I'll try my best to simplify my answer by discussing the most debated texts for brevity.


Does Romans 7:20 contradict Genesis 4:7? In contrast with Romans 7:20:

  But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one
  doing it, but sin which dwells in me. [NASB]

Genesis 4:7 states:

  “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you
  do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for
  you, but you must master it.”

Are these Scriptures contradictory, and how does mainline Christianity interpret each?

There is no contradiction, however it should be noted that in Genesis 4:7 that is an intentional sin, and in Romans 7:20 it concerns unintentional sin.

The difference between the two is whether or not the perpetrator knows that it is a sin and commits it anyway, or does so out of ignorance or deception as in the case of Eve who was beguiled.


In Eastern Orthodoxy, how is an icon recognized as inspired? In a discussion on imagery and icons, the Orthodox Study Bible says:

  Every image, or icon, of Christ has significant theological content.  For it proclaims anew the Incarnation of God, who "became flesh" for our salvation (Jn 1:14).  Recognized icons of our Savior, prayerfully made, provide us with inspired, trustworthy representations of Him. [page 92; bold added]

This seems to suggest that some images, fulfilling certain criteria, are "recognized" to be accurate representations of Jesus thanks to special information given directly by God to the artist.  If so, this idea of "inspiration" would address the anti-icon argument that all "images of Jesus" are false because nothing is known about his appearance.

I'd like to know two things: is my understanding of "inspired" here correct?  And how does an image become "recognized" in Eastern Orthodoxy?  More fully stated:

In Eastern Orthodoxy, are some artists understood to have received special revelation from God that allows them to create accurate images of Jesus?
In Eastern Orthodoxy, how is an icon "recognized" as inspired? Is it the action of some ecclesiastical body, and what criteria are applied in making the decision? Can new images be "recognized" today?

This seems to suggest that some images, fulfilling certain criteria,
  are "recognized" to be accurate representations of Jesus thanks to
  special information given directly by God to the artist.

There are no specific criteria that I am aware of.  Furthermore, I think it is correct to say that we Orthodox do not necessarily believe that the images presented in icons are physically accurate, nor do we believe that the iconographer receives some special revelation ("information").

I think the right way to understand icons is that they are a visual expression of theology, using the medium of an image rather than the printed word.  This expression may be quite simple. An icon of a particular martyr may do no more than remind us of the existence of that martyr and perhaps cause us to recall what he or she did in their life.  In the tradition of the Church, the Samaritan woman at the well was called Photina and she was martyred by the Emperor Nero in Rome.  Her icon is clearly unrealistic (e.g. the well probably wasn't in the shape of a cross), but her image with the well and Christ reminds us who she was and perhaps causes us to recall something of the Gospel account.

On the other hand, the icon of Christ's Descent into Hades is quite complex.  To his left and right are Adam and Eve, who have been awaiting him since Creation.  Below His feet is a skeletal figure, representing Death or Satan, reminding us of what is written in Hebrews:  Through death He might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil.  The presence of David and Solomon on His left remind us of His genealogy.  Other versions of this icon have other details.  It is literally a visual sermon.

  In Eastern Orthodoxy, are some artists understood to have received
  special revelation from God that allows them to create accurate images
  of Jesus?

No, I would say that no artists are understood to have received special revelation.  We do not believe that certain persons receive new revelations (a belief, for example, of Ted Cruz' particular Christian confession).  As I state above, icons do not purport to present necessarily accurate images.

  In Eastern Orthodoxy, how is an icon "recognized" as inspired? Is it
  the action of some ecclesiastical body, and what criteria are applied
  in making the decision? Can new images be "recognized" today?

The Eastern Orthodox Church has no central authority.  There are Church canons that date back to the 8th century, but they deal with refutations of heresies and with maintaining the good order of the Church.  There are no criteria and no decisions.  Any recognition is spontaneous, by the Orthodox faithful (saints are recognized in the same way, not through any central committee decision, as in Roman Catholicism).  To my knowledge, however, no iconographer undertakes painting an icon without a blessing from his "spiritual father" (usually a priest or a Church hierarch) and no iconographer undertakes painting an icon without first undergoing a very intense period of prayer and fasting.  This has been the tradition of the Orthodox Church since the earliest icons were painted, probably in the late 1st or early 2nd century.


Can obstinacy in sin be forgiven in Catholic teaching? I've read that obstinacy in sin is unforgivable. Is it one of the sins against Holy Spirit and therefore cannot be forgiven? However, what if a sinner decides to stop being obstinate and repents?

Can God forgive it then, or is it still unforgivable, no matter how much the sinner repents?

Obstinacy can be forgiven, like all sin, but only once it ceases.
According to Catholic teaching, the fundamental condition for receiving forgiveness is repentance founded on supernatural love for God, sometimes called perfect contrition. (When repentance is based on something less perfect, such as the fear of punishment, then it is called imperfect contrition.)*
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), reiterating the solemn teachings of the Council of Trent, describes contrition as follows:

Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again” (quotation from the Council of Trent, Denzinger-Schönmetzer [DS] 1676).

When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible. (See DS 1677.)

Regarding the question of obstinacy, when a person commits a grave sin (also called a mortal sin), that very action is incompatible with having God’s grace in his soul. One of mortal sin’s effects, therefore, is to destroy our capacity to love God supernaturally—in other words, after sinning gravely, we are incapable of exercising charity. (See CCC 1855.) Such a sin is called “mortal” precisely because it renders the soul spiritually dead.
But as explained above, perfect contrition entails an exercise of charity; therefore, mortal sin would leave us permanently separated from God if He did not intervene in order to rescue us. When a person is moved to repentance, therefore, it is because God moves him to act—the unaided sinner is incapable of true repentance.
It is, however, always within our power to reject God’s action in our soul. It is possible for us to remain attached to our sin, and to refuse to repent. This refusal to cooperate with God, by definition, is what obstinacy consists in.
Without repentance, of course, forgiveness is impossible. God will not force His grace into our souls if we do not want it.
Of course, once the obstinacy ceases, and we are willing at least to take the first steps toward repentance (beginning, usually, with imperfect contrition, which, with the help of God, blossoms into perfect contrition), then forgiveness becomes possible.
(For Catholics, Orthodox, and other churches that retain all seven sacraments, the ordinary way to obtain that forgiveness is through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. In fact, one of the effects of this sacrament is to transform imperfect contrition into perfect contrition, should that be necessary.  See CCC 1453.)

* In some theological writings, one will find the term contrition (without qualification) in opposition to attrition. When used in this way, the two terms are exactly equivalent to perfect contrition and imperfect contrition—it is just a slightly different terminology describing the same reality.


In Catholicism, does baptism against the will of a dying, unaware person result in baptismal regeneration? Suppose that a hostile unbeliever meets a Catholic priest. The unbeliever is a blasphemer and firmly stated that he never wants to become a Christian. However later that day, he is dying and non compos mentis. The priest while the unbeliever does not know what he is doing, grabs him and baptized him with the baptismal formula. Immediately after he dies.

According to Catholicism, did he go to Heaven?

The baptism would not be valid.

Also the priest would be reprimanded if it was discovered.

Canon law lays down the conditions for adult baptism.

  Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

  §2. An adult in danger of death can be baptized if, having some
  knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has
  manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and
  promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion.

Also, thanks to Ken Graham:

  Baptism can not be forced on someone. One must not baptize a person
  who has lost his or her mind, if this person didn't show their
  intention to be baptized while they were still mentally competent.
  [Summa Theologica, III, q. 68. a. 7, a. 10, a. 12].


Absolution for daughter Our Daughter died today and her mother asked me to have absolution for her. How can l have this done because only a methodist pastor prayed over her?

The Rites of the Church do include prayers for the dead. It's not possible actually to absolve sins after death, but the dead are effectively helped by the prayers of the living. Prayers may be said by anyone; a priest or a deacon may also sprinkle the body with holy water.

A Catholic priest will certainly have access to prayers to use, and Peter has linked in his answer to those commended by the US Bishops' Conference, which are readily available online. The published rite does include a prayer asking for forgiveness of sin (and this—and many other prayers—may be prayed by anyone):

  Lord Jesus, our Redeemer,
  you willingly gave yourself up to death
  so that all people might be saved
  and pass from death into a new life.
  Listen to our prayers,
  look with favour on your people
  who mourn and pray for their sister N.
  Lord Jesus, holy and compassionate:
  forgive N. her sins.
  By dying you opened the gates of life
  for those who believe in you:
  do not let our sister be parted from you,
  but by your glorious power
  give her light, joy, and peace in heaven
  where you live for ever and ever.

"Absolution of the Dead" used to occur in the funeral Mass, but it has been reduced to silence in the modern rite. That title is a little misleading.

  Silence

  All pray in silence.

  Signs of farewell

  The coffin may now be sprinkled with holy water and incensed, or this may take place during or after the song of farewell. If the body was sprinkled with holy water during the rite of reception at the beginning of Mass, the sprinkling is ordinarily omitted in the rite of final commendation.

However, that ceremony used to be far more elaborate and include more extensive prayers praying for absolution, along the lines of the modern prayer quoted above. If the rite includes censing and sprinkling, it must be performed by a priest, but there seems no reason that the prayers themselves may not be prayed by anyone.

The current Order for Funerals in the Personal Ordinariates within the Catholic Church includes the following in place of the silence quoted above:

  Absolution at the Bier

  The Priest and ministers stand at the head of the deceased.

  The sorrow of death compassed me
  and the pains of hell came about me.

  Kyrie eleison.
  Christe eleison.
  Kyrie eleison.

  Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy
  sight shall no man living be justified, except thou grant unto
  him remission of all his sins. Therefore, we beseech thee, let
  not the sentence of thy judgment fall upon him, whom the
  faithful prayer of Christian people commendeth unto thee: but
  by the succour of thy grace let him, who, while he lived, was
  sealed with the sign of the Holy Trinity, be found worthy to
  escape the avenging judgment. Through Christ our Lord.

  The Sprinkling and the Censing

  This responsory may be used as the Priest goes round the
   bier, sprinkling with holy water, and incensing the body.

  Deliver me, O Lord, * from eternal death in that fearful day:
  * when the heavens and the earth shall be shaken;
  when thou shalt come again to judge the world by fire.

  Deliver me, O Lord, from eternal death in that fearful
   day: when the heavens and the earth shall be shaken;
   when thou shalt come again to judge the world by fire.

  O that day, that day of wrath, of calamity, and misery,
  a great and exceeding bitter day:
  when you shalt come again to judge the world by fire.

  Rest eternal grant unto them O Lord:
  and let light perpetual shine upon them.
  Deliver me, O Lord, from eternal death in that fearful
   day: when the heavens and the earth shall be shaken;
   when thou shalt come again to judge the world by fire.

The Sarum Use from which that ceremony is derived included two more censings of the body, between the prayer "Enter not..." and the Libera me ("Deliver me, O Lord."). The priest walked around the coffin, censing it, during the responsories; and then said the prayers at the head of the coffin. These were included in a draft order of service considered for the Ordinariates, although omitted in the final publication.

  First Censing

  Thou who didst raise Lazarus from the stinking tomb,A
   grant them rest, O Lord, and a habitation of mercy.
  Thou who didst raise Lazarus from the stinking tomb,
   grant them rest, O Lord, and a habitation of mercy.

  When thou shalt come to judge the quick and the dead,
   and the world by fire;
  grant them rest, O Lord, and a habitation of mercy.

  Kyrie eleison.
  Christe eleison.
  Kyrie eleison.

  O God to whom all live, to whom our bodies when they die do
  not perish but are transformed, we humbly beseech thee that,
  whatever ill thy servant committed which was contrary to thy
  will, through the devil’s deceit and his own iniquity and
  weakness, thou that art loving and merciful may in thy mercy
  wash away, and command that his soul be borne up by the
  hands of thy holy angels, to be brought into the bosom of thy
  patriarchs, Abraham thy friend, Isaac thy chosen one, and Jacob
  thy beloved, where sorrow, sadness, and sighing flee away, and
  the souls of thy faithful rejoice in felicity, and at the Last Day of
  great judgment grant that his soul receive its portion among thy
  saints and thine elect in the perpetual glory which no eye hath
  seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived but which
  thou hast prepared for those that love thee. Through Christ
  our Lord.

  Second Censing

  Alas for me, O Lord, who have sinned in my life;
   poor and wretched that I am, what can I do?
   Where can I flee if not to thee my God?
   Have mercy upon me
   when thou shalt come again on the Last Day.
  Alas for me, O Lord, who have sinned in my life;
   poor and wretched that I am, what can I do?
   Where can I flee if not to thee my God?
   Have mercy upon me
   when thou shalt come again on the Last Day.

  My soul is very sorrowful,
   but thou, O Lord, wilt make haste to help me
  when thou shalt come again on the Last Day.

  We beseech thee, O Lord, have mercy upon thy departed
  servant, that he, who in his intentions adhered to thy will, may
  not receive the reward of his deeds in punishment: in thy mercy
  grant him, whose lively faith joined him to the company of thy
  faithful, fellowship with the choirs of angels.

A I think this translation of Qui Lazarum resuscitasti a monumento fetidum, while poetic and literal, is rather unfortunate. Lazarus' grave was only thought to have "a bad odour" [Jn 11:39], but in fact there's no other reference to it at all. Foul might be better, but the rhythm requires two syllables. This may have contributed to the omission of these extra censings.


A priest I requested kindly to bless salt and oil did not use the prescribed prayer but used his own, is the blessing valid? A priest I requested kindly to bless salt and oil did not use the prescribed prayer but used his own, is the blessing valid?  The prayer for exorcising the salt and blessing the oil was available, the vision however of the elderly priest was poor and he could not read the prayer to bless/exorcise the salt and bless the oil.  The priest then said that , his own prayer is still valid and efficacious to bless the salt and oil.  Is his blessing on the salt and oil as valid or efficacious as the prescribed prayers for these items?

If a priest blesses salt and oil, but does not use the prescribed prayer, but used his own wording, is the blessing valid?

The short answer is yes.

But there is a caveat to my response.

Rome allows objects to be blessed by deacons, priests and bishops. The traditional method would be to use the prayers contained in the Rituale Romanum, making a sign of the cross over the object to be blessed and sprinkling it with holy water.

A priest saying a few word in blessing, while employing the sign of the cross is sufficient to make the blessing valid.

  Sometimes the clergy member blessing something will say a few words of their own before giving the words of blessing, and sometimes the cleric will simply say a silent prayer over the object and make the Sign of the Cross over it. Any of these methods is a valid blessing done with the intent of the Church. - Q & A: Blessing Objects and Things

Not using the traditional formula will weaken the efficaciousness of some prescribed blessings, especially if a minor exorcism is involved.

Some priest chose to do such simple blessings since there is no holy water on their person.

Some of the formulae contained in the Rituale Romanum are in fact minor exorcisms. In these cases the ritual must be followed word for word, with the sprinkling of holy water at the appropriate moment.

For this reason alone, I carry a Pocket Holy Water Sprinkler with me when attending church. I also bring with me a hard copy of the prayers I desire the priest to employ.

Some priests will no doubt be uncomfortable with this, but more traditional priests will not have any problem.

There is a Benedictine Abbey near my residence and the abbot carries an Aspergillum as seen below to bless objects (usually medals), but employs his own words of blessing. If a particular object have a blessing listed in the Rituale Romanum, I make a hard copy to take with me when getting it blessed. Most priests do not carry the Book of Blessings with them, but some do.

Pocket Holy Water Sprinkler Made of Stainless Steel with Holding Case

As Peter showed in his comment, some blessings are in fact minor exorcisms and just not simple blessings. In theses cases the prayers prescribed by Rome must be followed.

  Minor Exorcisms

  According to Catholic belief demons or fallen angels retain their natural power, as intelligent beings, of acting on the material universe, and using material objects and directing material forces for their own wicked ends; and this power, which is in itself limited, and is subject, of course, to the control of Divine providence, is believed to have been allowed a wider scope for its activity in the consequence of the sin of mankind. Hence places and things as well as persons are naturally liable to diabolical infestation, within limits permitted by God, and exorcism in regard to them is nothing more that a prayer to God, in the name of His Church, to restrain this diabolical power supernaturally, and a profession of faith in His willingness to do so on behalf of His servants on earth.

  The chief things formally exorcised in blessing are water, salt, oil, and these in turn are used in personal exorcisms, and in blessing or consecrating places (e.g. churches) and objects (e.g. altars, sacred vessels, church bells) connected with public worship, or intended for private devotion. Holy water, the sacramental with which the ordinary faithful are most familiar, is a mixture of exorcised water and exorcised salt; and in the prayer of blessing, God is besought to endow these material elements with a supernatural power of protecting those who use them with faith against all the attacks of the devil. This kind of indirect exorcism by means of exorcised objects is an extension of the original idea; but it introduces no new principle, and it has been used in the Church from the earliest ages. - Exorcism (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

I get olive oil blessed each year if possible during Eastertide according to traditional old rite, in Latin, by priests who say the Mass of the Ordinary Form and generally have no problems. Know your priests first. Some will be uncomfortable with it and many do not even read Latin, in which case one can always find a vernacular translation somewhere online.


Demon Possession in the Old Testament? I'm wanting to know about any possible demonic oppression and/or possession in the Old Testament, as well as why demons being cast out is not done before the time of Christ?

Was it because Christ as Savior had not appeared yet?

Demon Possession in the Old Testament?

We can be sure that demonic possession occurred prior to the birth of Christ. There are a few instances in the Old Testament of demonic activity in the affairs of people.

  Exorcism is a ritual of power performed in order to drive an evil spirit, whether demonic or ghostly, from a possessed person, location, or object. The Christian scholar Origen credits Jews with a special talent for exorcising demons (Against Celsus, book 4).

  The first allusion to exorcism appears in the Bible, in the youth narratives of David (l Samuel). But while the biblical David seemed to be able to effect a temporary expulsion of Saul’s evil spirit using music, the book of Tobit contains the first explicit description of an (informal) exorcism. Josephus recounts incidents of possession and exorcism in his Antiquities of the Jews (2, 5, 8, 45-48). In his description, exorcism involved burning herbs and immersing the possessed person in water. The New Testament also reports Jesus to have performed numerous exorcisms of demonic spirits in first-century Palestine (Matthew 12; Mark 5, 6, 13; Luke 8).

  The Dead Sea Scrolls include several exorcism incantations and formulae, mostly directed against disease-causing demons. The DSS Psalms collection in particular (11Q5) has “four songs for the charming of demons with music.” People who fell under the influence of false prophets and mediums were thought to also require the exorcism of possessing evil spirits (the false prophets and mediums themselves were subject to death, a sure cure for most possessions; see Zechariah 13). - Jewish Exorcism

There is at least one New Testament source admits that the Jews definitely performed exorcisms:

  When Jesus sends out the Twelve Apostles, “they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them” (Mark 6:12-13). But did you know that exorcisms actually predate Christianity, and that there were Jewish exorcists at the time of Christ?

  Jesus actually refers to this, but it’s such a brief mention in Scripture that it’s easy to overlook. It’s in Matthew 12:24-28, while the Pharisees are questioning Him about His own exorcisms:

    But when the Pharisees heard it they said, “It is only by Be-elzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Be-elzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

  Jesus’ remark makes it clear both that Jewish exorcists existed in His day, and that they were apparently successful in driving out demons.

  That’s all the detail that Scripture gives us. Fortunately, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus tells us much more, in Book VIII of Antiquities of the Jews. - Casting Out Demons in the Name of Solomon: Jewish Exorcisms at the Time of Christ

Demonic activity in the Old Testament:

There seems to be at least vague two incidents in Scriptures for those who are of Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

The first one can be found in 1 Sam 16-23: The first incident involves David where he plays the lyre/harp (1 Sam 16: 18-23) in Saul's presence and the Spirit of Melancholia could flee his presence.

  Whenever the spirit from God came on Saul, David would take up his lyre and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him (1 Samuel 16: 23).

Fr. Gabriele Amorth SSP mentions in this in one of his books that the singing of sacred hymns is a valid form of expelling the demon. Being a Catholic priest moreover, he encouraged the singing of Gregorian Chant during exorcisms, since Gregorian Chant in itself is very scripture based. Fr. Amorth makes note of David playing the harp incident.

  When they had finished eating, they escorted Tobi′as in to her. As he went he remembered the words of Raphael, and he took the live ashes of incense and put the heart and liver of the fish upon them and made a smoke. And when the demon smelled the odor he fled to the remotest parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him (Tobit 8).

A second incident comes from the Book of Tobit which is part of both the catholic and Orthodox biblical canons. The Book of Tobit recounts the story how the young Tobias with the aide of the angel Raphael made the demon flee their presence.

Fr Gabriele Amorthe mentions in one of his two books (on exorcisms) this incident and encourages the use of blessed incense in homes subject to demonic influence.

Josephus Flavius ("Ant." viii. 2, § 5) relates the following:

  "I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal, in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and his captains and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a root of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down, immediately he abjured him to return into him no more, still making mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby let the spectators know that he had left the man; and when this was done the skill and wisdom of Solomon were shown very manifestly." See Ba'aras. - Jewish Encyclopedia


Is the type of love shared between all heavenly members an affectionate brotherly love mentioned in the Bible? (Catholic perspective) Does the Catholic Church teach that the type of love shared between all heavenly members is an affectionate brotherly love mentioned in the Bible, for example, in Romans 12:10 and 2 Peter 1:5-7?

Below are the verses from Romans 12:10:

  Love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honour. (NRSV)

  Love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honour. (RSV)

  (τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλόστοργοι τῇ τιμῇ ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοι.)

Below are the verses from 2 Peter 1:5-7 (emphasis added):

  For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.

In 1 John 4:8, (God is love) the Greek word used for love is agapē. Given that the verse refers to 'God' rather than 'the Father' or 'the Son', one could assume it is referring to God as the Trinity. Thus, the members of the Trinity (God) probably share agapē love.
[agape being the highest and most unconditional form of love]


How did Reformed Theologians view works-based "Heavenly Rewards"? I am currently reading Erwin Lutzer's "Your Eternal Reward". I also watched MacArthus's "Eternal Rewards and Motivation". Now, I know that Reformed theologians believe:

salvation by grace, not works
salvation by predestination

My question is NOT about salvation. My question is about heavenly rewards. How did  Reformed theologians view heavenly rewards?

John Calvin, the ur-Reformed theologian and prolific commentator, says of Matthew 16:27 ("For the Son of man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every one according to his actions"):

  When a reward is promised to good works, their merit is not contrasted
  with the justification which is freely bestowed on us through faith;
  nor is it pointed out as the cause of our salvation, but is only held
  out to excite believers to aim at doing what is right, by assuring
  them that their labor will not be lost. There is a perfect agreement,
  therefore, between these two statements, that we are justified freely,
  (Romans 3:24,) because we are received into God’s favor without any
  merit; and yet that God, of his own good pleasure, bestows on our
  works a reward which we did not deserve.

And on John 4:36 ("And he who reapeth receiveth reward, and gathereth fruit into life eternal") he says:

  And he who reapeth receiveth reward. How diligently we ought to devote
  ourselves to the work of God, he proves by another argument; namely,
  because a large and most excellent reward is reserved for our labor;
  for he promises that there will be fruit, and fruit not corruptible or
  fading. What he adds about fruit may be explained in two ways; either
  it is an announcement of the reward, and on that supposition he would
  say the same thing twice in different words; or, he applauds the
  labors of those who enrich the kingdom of God, as we shall afterwards
  find him repeating,

  I have chosen you, that you may go and bear fruit, and that your fruit
  may remain, (John 15:16.)

  And certainly both considerations ought greatly to encourage the
  ministers of the word, that they may never sink under the toil, when
  they hear that a crown of glory is prepared for them in heaven, and
  know that the fruit of their harvest will not only be precious in the
  sight of God, but will also be eternal. It is for this purpose that
  Scripture everywhere mentions reward, and not for the purpose of
  leading us to judge from it as to the merits of works; for which of
  us, if we come to a reckoning, will not be found more worthy of being
  punished for slothfulness than of being rewarded for diligence? To the
  best laborers nothing else will be left than to approach to God in all
  humility to implore forgiveness. But the Lord, who acts towards us
  with the kindness of a father, in order to correct our sloth, and to
  encourage us who would otherwise be dismayed, deigns to bestow upon us
  an undeserved reward.

  This is so far from overturning justification by faith that it rather
  confirms it. For, in the first place, how comes it that God finds in
  us any thing to reward, but because He has bestowed it upon us by his
  Spirit? Now we know that the Spirit is the earnest and pledge of
  adoption, (Ephesians 1:14.) Secondly, how comes it that God confers so
  great honor on imperfect and sinful works but because, after having by
  free grace reconciled us to himself, He accepts our works without any
  regard to merit, by not imputing the sins which cleave to them? The
  amount of this passage is, that the labor which the Apostles bestow on
  teaching ought not to be reckoned by them hard and unpleasant, since
  they know that it is so useful and so advantageous to Christ and to
  the Church.

Puritan commentator Matthew Henry says of Matthew 16:27:

  Men will then be rewarded, not according to their gains in this world,
  but according to their works, according to what they were and did. In
  that day, the treachery of backsliders will be punished with eternal
  destruction, and the constancy of faithful souls recompensed with a
  crown of life.... The rewarding of men according to their works is
  deferred till that day. Here good and evil seem to be dispensed
  promiscuously; we see not apostasy punished with immediate strokes,
  nor fidelity encouraged with immediate smiles, from heaven; but in
  that day all will be set to rights.

I heard it said by Reformed theologian John Gerstner that the matter waited for Jonathan Edwards, broadly considered the greatest theologian America has ever produced by liberals and conservatives alike, to sort it out. In short, Edwards says that there will be degrees of reward and happiness in heaven on the basis of works. In his sermon "The Portion of the Righteous" Edwards says (paragraphs added to ease reading):

  There are different degrees of happiness and glory in heaven. As there
  are degrees among the angels, viz. thrones, dominions, principalities,
  and powers; so there are degrees among the saints. In heaven are many
  mansions, and of different degrees of dignity. The glory of the saints
  above will be in some proportion to their eminency in holiness and
  good works here. Christ will reward all according to their works. He
  that gained ten pounds was made ruler over ten cities, and he that
  gained five pounds over five cities. Luke 19:17; 2 Cor. 9:6, “He that
  soweth sparingly, shall reap sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully
  shall reap also bountifully.” And the apostle Paul tells us that, as
  one star differs from another star in glory, so also it shall be in
  the resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor. 15:41. Christ tells us that he
  who gives a cup of cold water unto a disciple in the name of a
  disciple, shall in no wise lose his reward. But this could not be
  true, if a person should have no greater reward for doing many good
  works than if he did but few.

  It will be no damp to the happiness of those who have lower degrees of
  happiness and glory, that there are others advanced in glory above
  them. For all shall be perfectly happy, every one shall be perfectly
  satisfied. Every vessel that is cast into this ocean of happiness is
  full, though there are some vessels far larger than others. And there
  shall be no such thing as envy in heaven, but perfect love shall reign
  through the whole society. Those who are not so high in glory as
  other, will not envy those that are higher, but they will have so
  great, and strong, and pure love to them, that they will rejoice in
  their superior happiness. Their love to them will be such that they
  will rejoice that they are happier than themselves; so that instead of
  having a damp to their own happiness, it will add to it. They will see
  it to be fit that they that have been most eminent in works of
  righteousness should be most highly exalted in glory. And they will
  rejoice in having that done, that is fittest to be done.

  There will be a perfect harmony in that society; those that are most
  happy will also be most holy, and all will be both perfectly holy and
  perfectly happy. But yet there will be different degrees of both
  holiness and happiness according to the measure of each one’s
  capacity, and therefore those that are lowest in glory will have the
  greatest love to those that are highest in happiness, because they
  will see most of the image of God in them. And having the greatest
  love to them, they will rejoice to see them the most happy and the
  highest in glory. And so, on the other hand, those that are highest in
  glory, as they will be the most lovely, so they will be fullest of
  love. As they will excel in happiness, they will proportionally excel
  in divine benevolence and love to others, and will have more love to
  God and to the saints than those that are lower in holiness and
  happiness. And besides, those that will excel in glory will also excel
  in humility. Here in this world, those that are above others are the
  objects of envy, because that others conceive of them as being lifted
  up with it. But in heaven it will not be so, but those saints in
  heaven who excel in happiness will also in holiness, and consequently
  in humility. The saints in heaven are more humble than the saints on
  earth, and still the higher we go among them the greater humility
  there is. The highest orders of saints, who know most of God, see most
  of the distinction between God and them, and consequently are
  comparatively least in their own eyes, and so are more humble. The
  exaltation of some in heaven above the rest will be so far from
  diminishing the perfect happiness and joy of the rest who are
  inferior, that they will be the happier for it. Such will be the union
  in their society that they will be partakers of each other’s
  happiness. Then will be fulfilled in its perfection that which is
  declared in 1 Cor. 12:26, “If one of the members be honoured all the
  members rejoice with it.”

In more recent days, N. T. Wright, who is in the Reformed branch of the Anglican church, has made a bit of a stir with his take on the role of works at the final judgment. He says that our final justification at the last judgment will be “in accordance with” works, but not “on the basis of” works. One writer summarizes Wright like this:

  [F]aith is the first evidence that one has become a member of God’s
  covenant people.  Present justification follows immediately.  Present
  justification is “by faith” because faith in Christ is irrefutable
  evidence that God has indeed made one a member of his covenant people
  through the work of his Spirit.  Thus, in Wright’s view, when Paul
  speaks of present justification by faith, he means God’s declaration
  that one has been brought into the family of his covenant people.  The
  evidence that God cites to demonstrate that one has already been
  brought into covenant membership is the presence of faith.

  Wright’s understanding of the function of Spirit-inspired works in
  final justification is identical to his understanding of the function
  of faith in present justification.  Just as Spirit-produced faith is
  the initial sign that God has made one a member of his covenant
  people, so in final justification, Spirit-produced good works serve as
  the sign that one was truly a member of God’s covenant people from the
  point of one’s conversion on.  When Wright has said that good works
  are the “basis” of the believer’s final justification, he has meant
  that Spirit-inspired works serve as the evidence that one truly is a
  covenant member.  They are the “basis” for final justification the
  same way that a paternity test may serve as the “basis” for the
  verdict in a paternity lawsuit.  A paternity test does not make one a
  father; it demonstrates that one was a child’s father all along.  So
  also, Spirit-inspired works do not make one a covenant member in
  Wright’s view; they demonstrate that one has been a covenant member
  all along.

Finally, Reformed Theological Seminary professor Michael Kruger recently wrote on this topic, quoting Reformed Baptist John Piper:

  God can still be pleased with it, even though it is imperfect.
  Consider John Piper’s comments on this point:

    It is terribly confusing when people say that the only righteousness
    that has any value is the imputed righteousness of Christ.  I agree
    that justification is not grounded on any of our righteousness, but
    only the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.  But sometimes people
    are careless and speak disparagingly of all human righteousness, as if
    there were no such thing that pleased God. They often cite Isaiah 64:6
    which says our righteousness is as filthy rags…[But] when my sons do
    what I tell them to do—I do not call their obedience “filthy rags”
    even if it is not perfect.  Neither does God. All the more because he
    himself is “working in us that which is pleasing in his sight”
    (Hebrews 13:21).  He does not call his own, Spirit-wrought fruit,
    “rags.”

  It is only when we recognize that the obedience of the believer really
  does matter, and that we really can please our Father, that the
  rewards passages in the Bible will make any sense. And that can be a
  tremendous encouragement to those of us who labor heavily in ministry.
  When we toil for the cause of Christ, we want to hear, and are
  bolstered by hearing, the encouraging words of Paul: “Your labor is
  not in vain” (1 Cor 15:58).


Why can't people change their denomination? As my profile says, I don't belong to any denomination and I can't answer this question myself.

Recently, there was a question from a Catholic woman having difficulty in her love relationship because her boyfriend  from Jehovah's Witness can't marry her. The main problem  that I suspect is that both of them are not ready to change their denomination.

Here is the thing I can't understand. What is the problem with changing our denomination? Why don't people want to change their denomination? I am ready to join any denomination if required, let it be Catholic, JW, Seventh Day, Orthodox, I don't mind as long as I can read the Bible and worship Jesus. I obviously have my personal choices. I like to go to a church that uses modern instruments, good music system, good worship songs, good sermons, good Bible study programs and a good and supporting community. For now, I prefer to remain denomination-less but I think I can join any denomination and adhere to their doctrines and ordinances, if their is no other choice available.

Why are people reluctant to change their denomination?

What is the reason why some people cannot change their denomination?

What are the major hindrances in changing the denomination?

What kind of challenges are faced after changing the denomination?

The primary reason why serious Christians cannot switch denominations is because the doctrines surrounding salvation have eternal consequences.

For instance, the Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith, and that without a valid transubstantial reception of the Eucharist the human soul will eventually wither away.

On the other hand, most Baptist camps teach and believe that the Eucharist is only a symbolic memorial of the Last Supper, and really has nothing to do with salvific Grace other than a Christ-given ordinance of worship.

...two totally different denominational doctrines...

(I chose these two denominations for no specific anti-ecclesiastical reason other than comparison of doctrine)

Another example is justification by Grace alone through a working faith taught by pre-Reformation churches versus justification by faith alone taught by the majority of Protestant denominations.

On crucially important doctrines such as these, you are either right or wrong. This is why its infinitely and eternally important to find the right denomination (well...at least as close as possible).

Of course there are many other superfulous reasons why people stay where they are, such as familial pressure and tradition.

I really hate focusing on differences rather than what we all have in common, but this question seems to draw lines in the sand.

It must be said that there will always be overlapping areas of grey, and the Holy Spirit knows what he is doing.


Is there any scriptural support for the belief of convulsions/seizures being a sign of the Holy Spirit's presence? I work with a handful of Church of God members, and we frequently have friendly ecclesiastical conversations. The Church of God denomination is very prevalent in the area that I live and work. They often describe church services they have attended that involve sporadic behavior, such as spastic convulsions, falling in the floor, seizures, running around the pews and/or sanctuary, running across the top of pews, and so on.

Is there any biblical support for this kind of behavior?

My intentions are not meant to mock these services at all. Every person I know that is a member (many of whom are my very close friends) are very down to Earth, good people.

I just want to be able to bring scriptural material (if any) to our next breakfast fellowship.

NOTE: I am well aware of the argument for "speaking in tongues" being in the Bible. I am not looking for an answer concerning speaking in tongues...only physical behavior.

There is no Biblical precedent for convulsions or seizures being a sign of The Holy Spirit's presence.

Falling on the floor in a convulsion does have a Biblical precedent, but not a good one:

  When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.

Mark 9:201

I'm not saying that the people you have seen are possessed. However, I do think it is wise to be very wary about this ministry. Consider carefully the fruit of the ministry - are they encouraging people to develop a relationship with Jesus or are they encouraging mere physical manifestations? If the latter, I would stay clear.

1. In verse 25 this is described as an impure spirit; Jesus says it is a deaf and mute spirit. This is also referred to as a demon.


Can Catholics choose to be baptized by immersion? I understand that the most prominent manner in which Catholics are baptized is by pouring.  However, I saw somewhere that baptism by immersion is not considered wrong by the Catholic Church.  (If this is incorrect, please let me know.)

So, my question is whether or not a person today can elect to be baptized by immersion.  Obviously, this would not work well for an infant.  So, does this happen?  Has anyone seen this?  How often does it occur or does it occur in certain countries or orders?

There is no doubt: Yes, baptism by immersion is permissible.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated, while considering the validity of Mormon baptism:

  I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.

The CDF actually rejected the validity of Mormon baptism, but using immersion was not one of the reasons for the rejection.

It also features in the Catechism:

  1239: Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.


How is God's rest on the 7th day traditionally understood? It seems that, to an omnipotent and omnipresent being, the concept of rest would be academic. Why did God rest then? How is this traditionally understood? What would have happened if he hadn't rested?

As you imply, God did not need to rest. But He chose to, apparently as a pattern for us:

Exodus 20:8-11
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This is not the only time God has done something He didn't need to, to set an example for us. Another was when Jesus was baptised (Matthew 3:13-15).


Were the Old Testament prophets married? Were Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel married? There is no mention for them, whilst there are for Moses

Were the Old Testament Prophets Elijah, Isaiah,  Jeremiah and Ezekiel married?

The short answer is yes and no.

As for the Prophet Elijah, the answer is we simply do not know.

The Scriptures do not mention one way or another if the Prophet Elijah was married or not.

The Prophet Isaiah was certainly married.

  Isaiah was the 8th-century BCE Israelite prophet after whom the Book of Isaiah is named.

  Within the text of the Book of Isaiah, Isaiah himself is referred to as "the prophet", but the exact relationship between the Book of Isaiah and any such historical Isaiah is complicated. The traditional view is that all 66 chapters of the book of Isaiah were written by one man, Isaiah, possibly in two periods between 740 BC and c. 686 BC, separated by approximately 15 years, and includes dramatic prophetic declarations of Cyrus the Great in the Bible, acting to restore the nation of Israel from Babylonian captivity. Another widely held view is that parts of the first half of the book (chapters 1–39) originated with the historical prophet, interspersed with prose commentaries written in the time of King Josiah a hundred years later, and that the remainder of the book dates from immediately before and immediately after the end of the exile in Babylon, almost two centuries after the time of the historical prophet.

  The first verse of the Book of Isaiah states that Isaiah prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah (or Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, the kings of Judah (Isaiah 1:1). Uzziah's reign was 52 years in the middle of the 8th century BC, and Isaiah must have begun his ministry a few years before Uzziah's death, probably in the 740s BC. Isaiah lived until the fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign (who died 698 BC). He may have been contemporary for some years with Manasseh. Thus Isaiah may have prophesied for as long as 64 years.

  According to some modern interpretations, Isaiah's wife was called "the prophetess" (Isaiah 8:3), either because she was endowed with the prophetic gift, like Deborah (Judges 4:4) and Huldah (2 Kings 22:14–20), or simply because she was the "wife of the prophet". They had three sons, naming the eldest Shear-jashub, meaning "A remnant shall return" (Isaiah 7:3), the next Immanuel, meaning "God with us" (Isaiah 7:14), and the youngest, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, meaning, "Spoil quickly, plunder speedily" (Isaiah 8:3).

The Prophet Jeremiah was forbidden to marry.

  Jeremiah Forbidden to Marry

  16 The Lord gave me another message. He said, 2 “Do not get married or have children in this place. 3 For this is what the Lord says about the children born here in this city and about their mothers and fathers: 4 They will die from terrible diseases. No one will mourn for them or bury them, and they will lie scattered on the ground like manure. They will die from war and famine, and their bodies will be food for the vultures and wild animals.”

The Prophet Ezekiel was equally married.

  What is known of Ezekiel is derived solely from the book that bears his name. He was among the Jews exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 b.c., and there among the exiles he received his call to become a prophet (see 1:1–3). He was married (see 24:15–18), lived in a house of his own (see 3:24; 8:1) and along with his fellow exiles, though confined to Babylonia, had a relatively free existence there.

  He was of a priestly family (see NIV text note on 1:3) and therefore was eligible to serve as a priest. As a priest-prophet called to minister to the exiles (separated from the temple of the Lord with its symbolism, sacrifices, priestly ministrations and worship rituals), his message had much to do with the temple (see especially chs. 8–11; 40–48) and its ceremonies.

  Ezekiel was obviously a man of broad knowledge, not only of his own national traditions but also of international affairs and history. His acquaintance with general matters of culture, from shipbuilding to literature, is equally amazing. He was gifted with a powerful intellect and was capable of grasping large issues and of dealing with them in grand and compelling images. His style is often detached, but in places it is passionate and earthy (see chs. 16; 23).

  More than any other prophet (more even than Hosea and Jeremiah) he was directed to involve himself personally in the divine word by acting it out in prophetic symbolism. - Ezekiel


Why is the matter of women's authority determined by Eve's acts in her life? 1st Timothy 2:12-14 (NIV):

  I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;
  she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was
  not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a
  sinner.

I don't quite get Paul's logic here. Why does the fact that Eve was not created first and was the one deceived serve as the basis (= the valid reason) for women not to be allowed to teach or to assume authority?

Could it be so that Paul was simply following the lines of how it was with God-created humans before their fall? I mean, in the Old Testament Paul could see only two people that were shown in their pure God-designed pre-fall state - Adam and Eve. Paul must have thought, "So, if with the two humans that have just been created by God and who have not yet fallen things were such that the woman was somehow minor to man and was more prone to make a mistake and that was exactly how God had created them, then in the Church of God this God-preordained order of things should be restored and kept" No?

Why is the matter of women's authority determined by Eve's acts in her life?

  1 Timothy 2:14  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
  deceived was in the transgression.

Paul is not describing a penalty on women in general because of something the first woman did.

Paul is using Eve as an example of one of the the differences between men and women.

Paul is saying that women are more susceptible to deception than men. This is not very acceptable in an age when so much political effort is spent declaring that there are no differences between men and women.

However, if one sees in women that which is trusting and accepting, one has to consider that such a nature can be both a valuable contribution to a marriage and a vulnerability otherwise.

The idea that it is this character of women that is being described can be further supported by;

  1 Timothy 2:13  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Here it is not just primacy that is indicated, but that Eve was created for Adam and not the reverse. The implication here is there is that in women that make them adept in being supportive and suited to helping. This is stated as also making them susceptible to deception and thus not reliable as teachers.


How much can holy water be diluted? My question is kind of similar to this one, but more specific. There's a lot of conflicting information on the internet regarding diluting the holy water. Some people suggest that the water must be comprised of more than 50% originally blessed water to be considered "holy".

None of the sources seemed to suggest that it is "50% holy" then, though; to the contrary, "holiness" of the water is supposed to be a boolean property. This would imply that holy water obtained by 50-50 dilution and contact with originally blessed holy water is different to the originally blessed holy water. Specifically, that all the properties of the original water are kept, except the ability to be diluted with non-blessed water.

This is my understanding basing on some public findings though; I was struggling to find any real canonical source that would definitely answer all of my questions.

How much can holy water be diluted?

The short answer is 49%.

The rubrics for Baptismal Water are the same as those pertaining to Holy Water in this circumstance.

  CHAPTER I: RULES FOR ADMINISTERING BAPTISM

  If the baptismal water has so diminished that it is foreseen it will not suffice, unblessed water may be added even repeatedly, but in lesser quantity than the blessed each time this is done. If it becomes contaminated or has leaked out or in any way is deficient, the pastor will see to it that the font is thoroughly cleansed and replenished with fresh water, and proceed to bless it according to the form given below. - Holy Baptism - General Rules

Although these rules are from the 1962 rubrics, they still show that ordinary water may be mixed with holy water and retain its blessing. In other words, it is important to realize that to maintain its sacramental blessing in force, the water added to the original volume is not to exceed 49%. The water added to the holy water must be less than the original volume. Any more than that the holy water looses its sacramental qualities and is to be considered ordinary water.

When adding water a second time to the previous amount of holy water, the water added to that must also be 49% or less of that volume. It should be noted that this is rarely done and that safeguards are generally in place to make sure this does not happen. This should be avoided if at all possible.

This is exact what I was taught in the seminary.

If one desires a large amount of holy water, it would be okay to ask a priest to bless some water in a separate container for personal use at home or elsewhere. I have done this with oil on several occasions.

The 49 %/51% phrase is quite in line with the Church's traditional way of dealing with less than half: 51% Beeswax for example.

  It is safe to conclude that the Pascal Candle and the candles used at Mass must have at least two thirds wax in their composition, 67% would be the minimum. About the other candles, the Sacred Congregation of Rites prescribes that a greater (51 %) or notable part of the candles must be [bees]wax. - The Wax Candle in the Liturgy


What is the discerning of spirits in 1 Cor. 12:10? What is the discerning of spirits in 1 Cor. 12:10? It seems that it is a bit different from the trying of spirits in 1 John 4:1 as there John gives a particular method as to how to try them and find out whether they are from God or not. Also, John seems to address every believer in his epistle, whereas in 1 Corinthians 12:10 Paul says that the gift of discerning spirits is given only to some believers (to "another").

The setting in 1 Cor 11-14 is the church gathered for worship. At such gatherings Paul expects participation from lots of people using spiritual endowments, given in that moment for the edification of the church.

However, there is a grave danger of people abusing those endowments for the attention and prestige. There is also a danger of "the flesh" lying, mimicking or at least misunderstanding what the Spirit is saying. All gifts are "in part".

Thus, in the context of 1 Cor 12, discerning of spirits seem to be a specific spiritual endowment to recognize by what spiritual inspiration somebody else is acting, what parts are of the flesh and what parts are of the Lord?

The context for 1 John is the early gnostic models of thought. Here it is a matter of recognizing the true Gospel and discarding the gnostic corrupt versions. Gnostics have a worldview that says everything true is 100 % spiritual and the physical world is by definition evil. Christ being truly incarnated (=in flesh) was something they denied. But in so doing they denied the Gospel, since it is Jesus dying "in the flesh" that brings salvation.

That also explains why it was so important for John to say (1:1f) that he had seen Jesus with his (physical) eyes and touched him also after the resurrection with his hands.

Off topic:

There is an interesting spinoff from this. Today media and bloggers or just about anyone will claim that the gnostic "gospels" (Thomas, Judas, etc) should be considered historic sources on par with the biblical gospels.

However, these pseudo-gospels never ever claim to be historic sources in the sense we are using the word today. John claims empirical knowledge of the risen Christ. He saw, he touched. That is exactly why his words were discarded by the gnostics! They claimed "spiritual revelation" - the senses are physical, evil and not to be trusted!

Gnosticism is as far removed from scientific knowledge as you can get, and claiming that gnostic sources should be counted on par with biblical gospels is patently absurd.

Disclaimer:

On a forum like this it is probably wise to tell from what tradition an answer is given. Especially on topics where even Bible believing Christians disagree. Had I had the time to expand my answer with proper exegesis and a comparison of different commentaries that would not have been necessary.

Although I have studied spiritual gifts using the Koine Greek text, nobody studies in an intellectual vacuum. Having read what many traditions have to say, I have found the the most sound exegesis exist in the writings of "empowered evangelicals" or in the writings of pentecostal scholars like Gordon Fee.


What is the symbolism of the Peacock? In some churches I have seen, the peacock is used in furniture or other similar items:

It can also be seen in some Iconography and decoration:

I was just wondering what the symbolism of the Peacock actually is, and what churches this symbol is used in?
Seems to me to that it is just a proud bird!

One can find a reference to the peacock in the book of Revelation 4:6:

  Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back.

"Full of eyes"... "The tail of the peacock, with its ‘thousand eyes’ are symbolic of omnipotence and often ascribed to the Archangel Michael. The peacock’s feather is sometimes associated with St. Barbara."1
Also, The peacock, (due to an ancient myth that Peacock flesh did not decay),
is seen as a symbol of immortality.

The peacock is also seen as a symbol of resurrection: "When the peacock sheds his feathers, he grows more brilliant ones than those he lost."2

One may also hear the opinion that the peacock is the symbol of (ironically) humility, since it has great beauty, yet hides it all behind itself.

As a fleur de lis symbol, it is often seen as a symbol of Beauty, power, and knowledge.3

  What churches is this symbol used in?

To the best of my knowledge, the Protestant denominations have never really used the Peacock as a symbol. It is used somewhat commonly in the Orthodox church (which is where I was first acquainted with its use), and can be seen in medieval Catholic churches. Not sure if the Catholics still use it to this day, but I know that the Orthodox certainly do. For more on this, take a look at this link.


What in Christian faith lies behind subject of science? Specifically:

Some Christians say that their faith is the source of moral values, but this is a subject of ethics.
Some say it is personal relationship with God, but personal relationship is a subject of sociology.
Some say it is personal experience with God, but human mind is a subject of psychology.

Is there anything about faith that can not be subject of scientific research? I know there's a term theology, but it is not a science, there are violations against fundamental scientific approach:

it assumes God exists (and never question it)
it doesn't question it's source (the Bible)
no hypotheses, forecasts etc.

It could be subject of literature or history. I know there are religious studies but these are not about faith. So what in Christian faith lies behind subject of science?

A lot of Christians tend to respond it can not be compared, do not try to apply science on my faith, it is a mystery and other non-constructives. I hope to avoid this here, so any help to improve this question is also appreciated.

By the word science I understand it as a discipline of studying the physical world, or possible metaphysical world (like the mind) expressed in observable physics. Then by these objective observations, experiments, which must be repeatable, draw logical deductions and inferences. These in turn lead to more study, testing, conclusions until a body of knowledge and beliefs are developed which explain large portions of observed phenomena in the material world.

In what sense does Christian faith fall under this discipline? I would say in a few ways and sense.

First, in analyzing the scriptures and determining which translation is the most accurate of the original is according to a scientific discipline.  This naturally brings our faith in some sense under science because the scriptures determine what our faith is.

Secondly, though to a much lesser extent the study of history, where texts outside of scripture are evaluated for trustworthiness by scientific comparison to other know facts of history, influences what many Christians believe.  This historical science provides context for how many scriptures might be properly interpreted.

Third, in the same way that philosophy can follow rules about what is logical, what is a fallacy, etc. Christian theology based on its premises can is some sense become more disciplined and rigorous to ensure the thought patters or not illogical and that biblical texts and assumed beliefs are not developed under dishonest forms of reasoning. From this standpoint religious beliefs can spout from observed phenomena, such as for every good design, there is high probability that there is an architect or designer.

However, with all these aspects where Christian faith is influenced or in some sense brought under science, it is probably truer to say that it is brought under science only from the standpoint that it respects reason in whatever valid shape one might find it.

When turning to the scripture itself, science is considered, as a lower form of knowledge and biblical faith is a higher and more certain form of knowledge. In other words the knowledge that we can obtain from observing what is not seen, is greater than what we can achieve from what is seen:

  Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

The scripture treats knowledge that comes from God through the Bible as a light.  It means this in a literal sense, whereby the knowledge we might obtain by light, or the sight which we can obtain, is not possible but by faith.  Therefore to simply things, the Bible describes a scientist without faith as more or less a man who is literally blind to higher forms of knowledge. He can see the physical world but not the spiritual.  No matter how hard he tries to ‘see’ he can’t because he has no ‘light’.

Naturally the result is that such a blind mind concludes the gospel is just foolishness because he can’t see it:

  The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

The Greek root of the word ‘discerned’ means to investigate, or appraise. In this sense those without faith are not able to judge, evaluate, or discern the meaning of what is certain and true about God because it seems foolish from beginning to end, having no light which alone comes from faith in the gospel.

Conclusion: There are aspects where Christian faith is under science, these occur where physical and logical elements overlap or influence Christian thinking. Christian faith by nature puts itself above reason and science, and what can be seen with the eye altogether, for it fixes itself upon God, who is above all things whatsoever.


What bible courses do men take in seminary before becoming an ordained priest? What bible courses do men take to before becoming an ordained priest? A college course book from a Catholic seminary only list one semester in bible theology.

What bible courses do men take in seminary before becoming an ordained priest?

I am sure it will vary from seminary to seminary.

The Seminary of Christ the King for example teaches at the high school, college and university levels. It is the smallest university in Canada.

Having been a former seminary student here, I could add that depending on the year in question, other electives may be offered in any one academic year. For example if several Ukrainian students were to enter at once, the seminary would include studies in Ukrainian and so on.

It is the only high school seminary in Canada. Here are their high school courses:

  High School Curriculum

  We offer a regular academic high school curriculum:

  English
  Math
  Science
  Social Studies
  Latin
  Religion

  All students are required to take:

  French
  Choral
  Drama
  Band
  Physical Education

Their Faculty of Arts or their Pre-Theology Program includes the following:

  Academic Program
  The concentration is on Philosophy, with a minimum of 18 semester hours. Other courses from the Faculty of Arts are taken, depending on the individual’s needs and interests. A student is expected to carry not fewer than 15 or more than 19 semester hours per semester. No degree or diploma is awarded, but the student will have fulfilled the academic requirements for the Seminary’s Faculty of Theology programs.

  Courses of Instruction

  Philosophy
  History
  Biology
  Education
  English
  Fine Arts
  Geology
  Greek
  Latin
  Religious Studies
  Social Sciences
  Speech – Drama

Their Faculty of Theology or The M.Div. and B.Th. Programs

  As the Seminary accepts only priesthood candidates, it can readily carry out the directive of the Holy See’s Basic Plan for Priestly Formation (#94) that “the pastoral aspect must receive special emphasis in all the subjects which are taught.” During the four-year programme students regularly earn between 120 and 132 semester hours of credit. The curriculum normally includes:

  Sacred Scripture: 24 semester hours
  Dogmatic Theology: 24 semester hours
  Moral Theology: 24 semester hours
  Church History and Patrology: 12 semester hours
  Canon Law: 8 semester hours
  Pastoral and Liturgical courses: 30 to 42 semester hours

  Courses of Instruction

  Sacred Scripture
  Dogmatic Theology
  Moral Theology
  Church History
  Canon Law
  Pastoral and Liturgical Courses

Their Sacred Scripture academic program is as follows:

  SCRI 510

  (3) INTRODUCTION TO THE BIBLE. Inspiration; canon; texts; versions; basic rules of interpretation; biblical geography; Church pronouncements.

  SCRI 511

  (3) WISDOM LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Non-biblical parallels; place of wisdom literature in the development of biblical theology; selected exegesis.

  SCRI 512

  (2-6) THE PSALMS. Literary forms of the Psalms; their place in Hebrew and Christian prayer; exegesis of typical psalms in view of their use in worship.

  SCRI 520

  (3) THE PENTATEUCH. God’s revelation of himself through creation and covenant; the centrality of Exodus in Old Testament history; the concept of People of God and worship by word and sacrifice.

  SCRI 521

  (3) THE FOUR GOSPELS. The Gospels as records of history and faith written by believers for believers; three stages of evolution of the Gospels; the evangelists as theologians; the Synoptics and St John.

  SCRI 530

  (3) OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETICAL BOOKS. Nature of prophecy; the call of a prophet and the difficulty of his vocation; introduction to the individual prophets and selected exegesis.

  SCRI 531

  (3) OLD TESTAMENT HISTORICAL BOOKS. History of salvation from Joshua to the Maccabees; biblical historical forms; king and priests as God’s anointed; Jerusalem.

  SCRI 540

  (3) THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. As portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles; kerygmatic speeches of Peter and Paul; portrait of St Paul.

  SCRI 541

  (3) NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES. Pauline and Catholic Epistles; selected exegesis; justification in St Paul.

  SCRI 590

  (3-6) HONOURS TUTORIAL. In-depth study of an aspect of Sacred Scripture; graduating essay.

The Seminary of Christ the King also has a Spirituality Year or SY Formation Program in place. It is a non-academic program to help develop a Catholic priestly spirituality for students desiring to become priests.

  In the fall of 2018, the Seminary of Christ the King began its Spirituality Year Program (sometimes referred to as a propaedeutic period) for all candidates who enter the seminary. The purpose of the Spirituality Year is to help seminarians “form a priestly heart” in the atmosphere of a Christian community. This involves acquiring a solid foundation for their faith, a habit of prayer, and a deep personal love for the Word of God.  This time of formation (September to May) also prepares candidates to embrace their Christian/priestly vocation with greater freedom of heart. As she states in her most recent guidelines for the training of future priests (2016), the Church now considers programs like the Spirituality Year to be a regular part of seminary formation.

  Meditative Study

  The approach of the program is non-academic and experiential, that is to say, courses are not for credit. It is hoped that, without the pressure of academic performance, seminarians can more easily integrate the readings and discussions into a lived way of discipleship. Classes include: Scripture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, priestly spirituality, and the liturgy. Presentations on selected formational topics also occur regularly.
  It is expected that the candidates will read the whole Catechism and a major portion of the Bible during their year, be instructed briefly in the spirituality of all the major liturgical feasts and read selected Magisterial and Conciliar documents as well as a few important Catholic spiritual classics.


Vain Repetition in Prayers, What Does it mean? Matthew 6:7  New Living Translation
  "When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do.
  They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again.

I still find it difficult to explain to myself what this scripture is about.
Is it that when we pray, we should avoid repeating a certain phrase or word or sentence or what ?

As far as I can determine from other Scriptures it is not the actual repetition of things, but the fact that there is a lack of sincerity in that way of praying. The full intent of Matthew chapter 6 lies in the fact that Jesus is really warning us that:

  1 God knows our hearts and when we are praying we are talking to God and that we should be seeking his attention and that to the exclusion of all else.

  2 When we pray in a manner that is more to seek the approval of those around us that that will be our reward, not the grace of God.

Notice these Scriptures from Chapter 6 in the King James Version:

  Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

  Matthew 6:5  And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

  Matthew 6:6  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

I do not believe that Jesus meant that we should physically go into a closet to pray, but was instead saying to keep our prayers secrets between God and us.

Finally consider this:

Mat 6:7 and 8   KJV

  7  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

  8  Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Notice that in the second part of verse 7 he says that they think they will be heard if they repeat their request often enough.

So does that mean that we should only ask for something once, to my way of thinking God can remember your request even though you only ask one time, and if I read the second part correctly it tells me that an all knowing God already not only knows what want, but also what I  truly need. So if something I want is also something I need He will grant it.


Which sacraments can be administered validly but illicitly? There are several questions on this site dealing with the difference in licit and valid when it comes to sacraments. A good starting point might be this one.

On this basis one can sort administered sacraments into four categories:

valid and licit (should be the majority of all administered sacraments)
invalid and illicit (does occur but is not of particular interes for me)
invalid but licit (does not occur as all invalid sacraments are Illicit)
valid but illicit

The last one is of interest within this question: Several examples for this can be found on this site as: Layperson baptizing children without them being in danger of death or priestly ordination without papal approval.

What I ask: Could you provide a list of (a) examples cases of validly but illicitly administered sacraments for each of the 7 sacraments where this might occur and (b) for the other sacraments a reason why this case might not occur.

Any sacrament that is administered by a priest or bishop is administered validly but illicitly if all other requirements for validity are satisfied but the priest or bishop is excommunicated:

An excommunicated person is forbidden ... to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments.
(Code of Canon Law, Canon 1331 section 1)

That covers all the sacraments except marriage, which the priest does not administer.
Suppose however that the minister of the sacrament is not excommunicated. Then the following seems to obtain:
Baptism
In the case where the priest or bishop is not excommunicated, baptism can be administered validly but illicitly if the infant is not in danger of death, and the one baptizing has not obtained the consent of at least one parent:

Canon 868 section 1: For an infant to be baptized licitly:
Note 1. the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;
Canon 868 section 2: An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

Confirmation
Confirmation can also be thus administered if the confirming bishop is doing the confirmation in another diocese, to residents of that diocese, without it being reasonable to assume that the bishop of that diocese has given permission:

To administer confirmation licitly in another diocese, a bishop needs at least the reasonably presumed permission of the diocesan bishop unless it concerns his own subjects.
(Canon 886 section 2)

Penance
Confession/Penance/Reconciliation appears to be performed either validly and licitly, or else invalidly and illicitly. It appears that it cannot be valid but illicit.
The sacrament requires permission (a "faculty") from the bishop of the diocese to perform; but a priest without this faculty administers confession not only illicitly but invalidly.

The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
(Canon 966 section 1)

Orders
Ordination is also illicit if a Latin rite bishop ordains a man of an Eastern rite church without permission from the Holy See:

If not impeded by a just cause, the proper bishop is to ordain his own subjects personally; without an apostolic indult, however, he cannot ordain licitly a subject of an Eastern rite.
(Canon 1015 section 2)

Marriage
It appears that marriage can be valid but illicit if the parties are wedded above the age required by canon law (16 for men, 14 for women) but below the age required by the local episcopal conference:

A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.
(Canon 1083 section 1)
The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.
(Canon 1083 section 2; emphasis added)

Eucharist
It appears that a priest who is not under some form of canonical penalty (such as excommunication) celebrates the Eucharist both validly and licitly. Canon law gives a list of canonical provisions to be observed. For example, the priest cannot celebrate the Eucharist all by himself, nor more than once a day without permission of the bishop. But the law does not specify that failing to observe these makes the celebration illicit.

A priest not impeded by canon law celebrates the Eucharist licitly; the provisions of the following canons are to be observed. ...
(Canon 900 section 2)

Anointing of the Sick
I cannot find anything in the Code that specifies circumstances under which the Anointing is celebrated illicitly.
Thus it appears that under ordinary circumstances, baptism, confirmation, orders, and marriage may be celebrated validly but illicitly; and if a priest is excommunicated, any of the sacraments may be thus celebrated.


According to Catholicism, can you hit someone in self defence? Can you hit someone in self defence? That is, if someone is trying to kill you, can you hit them to protect yourself?

What is the Catholic doctrine on such a question?

Yes, especially if someone is trying to kill you.
On the Vatican's website it states:

Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."