Faith without reason? Many people claim that religion is just the unwarranted belief in things without evidence or reason, or that faith is antithetical to reason. If we do believe in God based on evidence, what would be the best way to convey these evidences to a secular world?

In other words, is there any evidence that God is real and that the bible is true?

A great many atheists / humanists are essentially applying scientific process, and science is adaptable; it is entirely willing to change, as new discovery and observation is made. All you need to do, then, is to provide some kind of tangible evidence that actually stands up for more than a few seconds in the face of the appropriate community (so, the science community if such proof is scientific, etc). Such evidence has never been forthcoming so far.

A very good example of this is the current speed of light claims. Now, general accepted wisdom is that the speed of light cannot be exceeded; however, some scientists have submitted interesting results, with decent explanation of their method and workings, and have invited the community for feedback. The scientific community did not say "pfff you're wrong", but rather (paraphrasing) - "wow; that's staggering; that challenges an awful lot of existing findings - but hey, your process is not without merit - let's look into that some more". Indeed, regardless of the outcome, the science will have progressed for the better.

(Reversing that, the problem with religious dogma is that it generally cannot be changed, even when it is outright contradicted by science).

So: in answer to your question: find evidence. Any evidence of actual merit, that can be inspected, discussed, and validated or disproved (any genuine theory must be refutable - otherwise it is simply not a theory in the way that science means).

As another example; I currently have no reason to believe that fairies exist. I am aware that some people do believe in fairies, but my default position (given a complete lack of reason-for, or evidence-of, their existence) is that : fairies do not exist. However! If you can find reasonable evidence of fairy-folk, I'll be surprised and shocked, but I'll seriously consider it (by which, I mean I should also evaluate the merit of the evidence too; photoshop is rather too good these days, for example). By the same token, homeopathy - it has proponents, but also has a lot of counter-evidence about the subject. In many ways, the argument here is alarmingly similar to religion. To paraphrase Tim Minchin (by removing the rude bits advisory)

  If you show me
  That, say, homeopathy works,
  Then I will change my mind
  I’ll spin on a (redacted) dime
  I’ll be embarrassed as (redacted),
  But I will run through the streets yelling
  It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
  Water has memory!
  And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice seems Infinite
  It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!

  You show me that it works and how it works, and when I've recovered from the shock
  I'll take a compass and carve "fancy that" on the side of my (redacted).

A common answer here is that religion is outside of things like science; that is an acceptable answer, but in that case do not engage science with logic. We can always agree to coexist without trying to convert each-other.


Are contraceptives ok to treat other conditions? What does the Catholic church teach about the use of the hormone medications normally proscribed for use as birth-control to regulate the symptoms of PMS or other conditions brought on by hormone imbalances?

Specifically in situations where they could not be used as birth control because the person taking these medications is not sexually active.

I'm intentionally not reading the non-edited version of this question, because if it is more personal in nature @WaxEagle is right, you should ask a priest (one you know is a really straightforward confessor) for advice.
It's not the medication that is treated as grave matter by the Catholic Church, it's contracepting itself.

Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not oppose artificial birth control because it’s artificial. She opposes it because it’s contraceptive. Contraception is the choice by any means to impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse. In other words, the contracepting couple chooses to engage in intercourse, and, foreseeing that their act may result in a new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their fertility - Christopher West, The Good News about Sex and Marriage

And as far as being prescribed contraceptives by a hospital, you'll know when you get them at a Catholic Hospital (if your doctor says you need them):

Any cooperation institutionally approved or tolerated in actions which are in themselves, that is, by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end . . . is absolutely forbidden. -#44 Ethical Religious Directives

I'm not a doctor, I'm not a theologian either (but I play one on the Internets), but I've been told by my wife who is still not a doctor, but is a woman, that prescribing contraceptives to young women to treat other disorders is mostly a rouse to get them on contraceptives in the first place.
Furthermore, the harm that contraceptives cause the body may outweigh the benefits.

The medical community clearly understands that there are serious medical side effects from the specific use of the injectable or non-injectable hormones. While some claim that the good outweighs the bad, too many healthcare professionals continue to prescribe and/or assist with birth control and abortion with little concern for the consequences. couple to couple league
Most birth control drugs use a combination of two female hormones, estrogen and progestin, to stop ovulation and thicken cervical mucus, which helps block sperm. For decades many women have reported bloating and mood swings as side effects. Huffington post  12/6/11

So, as a rule, yes, it's the contraception action which is at issue here, not the contraception itself. But if you dig a little deeper and you want to be ever faithful to the teachings of the Church, it's a bridge that is better left uncrossed.

Natural Family Planning Resources

Couple to Couple League

Marquette Model of NFP

Pope Paul VI Institute

Teachings of the Catholic Church regarding Contraception

One More Soul - Check out Dr. Janet Smith's "Contraception Why Not"

National Catholic Bioethics Center

Humanae Vitae (on the regulation of human birth)


Under what circumstances, if any, can audio assistive technology be used in confession? This recent answer mentions that it is not permitted to use the internet or cellular communications in (private) confession. It also mentions a story of a certain catacomb with particular acoustics that allowed the priest and parishioner to be widely separated.
Now, the answer (and in a sense, its related question) is dealing with desirable separation (e.g. for health reasons) between the priest and parishioner, which obviously raises a potential issue of them being able to hear each other.
I understand why that digital networks are not allowed because they allow for the possibility that the audio might be intercepted, thus breaking the seal of secrecy that is supposed to exist. (Side question: are confessionals ever swept for bugs? ) However, this leaves me wondering, would a closed circuit system be acceptable? I'm thinking something like a microphone on each side connected to a speaker on the other. (Probably through an amp, but the amp would not be connected to anything else other than power. Thus, the chance of the audio being "intercepted" somehow not be appreciably increased. The simplest version of this, I suppose, would be some sort of closed-circuit telephone system such as what's seen on TV when someone is talking to an inmate.)
p.s. Peter Turner raises an interesting point, which is that one would think the answer to the above would be the same as whether or not a person using electronic hearing aids can partake in confession. I would rather expect there exists an official ruling on that, but I also wonder if that has been extended to other systems such as I discuss above and/or if there is a broader ruling on this general subject outlining what is and is not permissible.

Under what circumstances, if any, can audio assistive technology be used in confession?
Before answering this question further, I would like to mention an important point. Visual contact and/or a physical presence, even if behind a screen is absolutely necessary.
Generally speaking there are no sacraments that can be received over modern forms of communications, including over cell phones, etcetera. You can not baptized someone over the phone.
Nevertheless some confessionals, I have been in, are equipped with a form of hearing aid strictly for use between the confessor and the penitent only. As such secrecy is maintained. Again, a physical presence equally been maintained.
Two way phone calls, in high security prisons have been validly used by priests in prisons to here confessions. This is equally a question of necessity, as state rules will not permit physical contact of inmates with anyone visiting them. Again the inmate is visually present, even though thick glass and/or bars that separate the two.
In the article, The Monk and the Murderer Fr. Kirk Larkin heard the confession of James Malicoat on the day he was executed at Oklahoma’s States Penitentiary infamous H-Unit on August 31st, 2005.

But at 10:45 a.m., under their own tension, the monk and the priest were ushered in to see Malicoat. After days of trying to conjure up what the killer would look like, Father Larkin was relieved to see a human being on the other side of the glass. Brother Vianney-Marie had never seen him look worse. Malicoat was slumped over for terror and want of sleep. "It's inhuman," the monk said. He was given about an hour with his last visitors, and Brother Vianney-Marie wasted no time. He made quick inquiries about Malicoat and his family and then introduced him to Father Larkin, telling Malicoat that he could make an act of faith and confess to him. He gave Father Larkin the telephone.
Malicoat told the priest he didn't want to confess.
"James was truly concerned about other people more than himself at this point," Father Larkin recalled. "He told me, 'Father, I don't want to burden you with the horrible things that I've done and that have been done to me over the course of my life.'"
The priest, with nothing rehearsed, trying to pry open the window that Brother Vianney-Marie had cracked, turned to the Profession of Faith. He went through the Creed point by point, asking Malicoat whether he agreed with each article.
Brother Vianney-Marie, his active participation relinquished, could hear only the priest's side of the conversation. He was in agony. When Father Larkin turned to apostolic succession and how a priest could forgive sin, the monk imagined how much time the explanation could eat up and couldn't take it any longer. He got up and went to the back of the room, where he paced and prayed the rosary out of earshot.
Brother Vianney-Marie looked up from his prayers in H-unit to see Father Larkin raising his hand in blessing over James Malicoat. The monk had no way of knowing whether this was absolution. But he could be pretty sure.
"I just knew it was his confession," Brother Vianney-Marie said. "I was ready to jump through the ceiling."
A few minutes later and Father Larkin was beckoning Brother Vianney-Marie back to Malicoat. Their half an hour apart had closed a chasm. And opened the window.
"All of a sudden, he had this weight off his conscience," Brother Vianney-Marie said. "I told him, 'I don't think you're my friend, you're my brother.' He has all the same graces. I said, 'Are you ready to go?' and he said, 'Yeah.' There was a peaceful tranquillity. He realized what he had done and was man enough to accept the consequences."

In the 23rd photo of the Tour of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester - Photo Gallery one can see the location where Fr. Kirk Larson brought James Malicoat into the Church and heard his confession.
Fr. Larkin had maintained visual contact with James the entire time.
Further information may be gleaned from the following article:

Confession by phone, Skype, or emoji? Could it happen during coronavirus pandemic?
Online confession and absolution
Can I Make My Confession Over the Phone


Do any Christian denominations prohibit eating rare meat? In comments on this question ..What does it mean to abstain from blood in the 21st century?... A user stated that Christians must not eat rare meat because doing so violates the command in Acts 15:28&29 (keep abstaining from blood)
I have not ever heard a person say:" make my steak well done I can't eat rare steak it is against my religion".
Are there denominations that prohibit members from eating meat that still shows traces of blood in it?

If you google "Torah Christian", you may not find a denomination, per se, but you'll see several sites which support the notion that Christians must follow the Torah.

I have a friend who belongs to such a church (they're all "non-denominational", but loosely associate with each other) who maintains that Christians should not eat rare steak because there is still blood in it.

The problem with this stance is that, unless you are eating truly raw meat (eg off a freshly-killed rabbit before any cooking), there is [practically] no blood left in the meat, it's a combination of water and myoglobin.

Myoglobin is functionally similar to hemoglobin, but stores oxygen in muscles vs blood, respectively.

There are all kinds of reasons to eat (or not eat) rare steak - that "blood" is still in it is not one of them.


According to Calvinists, does God command the non-elect to do what is for them impossible? Question: Does God, according to Calvinism, command people He has specifically given neither the ability nor choice to do so to repent and believe in Christ or be damned?1, 2 And if so, why?

Scriptures such as as 1 Corinthians 10:13 come to mind:

  (NASB) No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

The converse of which means God would be unjust to tempt (or let suffer temptation rather: Jas 1:13) and not give means of escape.

Thanks in advance.

1 By 'choice' I don't mean a 'creaturely will' as James White puts it, but a will that can choose salvation or damnation with the help of God post Fall (in the sense of refusing salvation in the case of damnation; and in the sense of accepting Christ and all that means in the case of salvation). I specify this as a 'creaturely will' which God invented to specifically not choose salvation does not meet the definition of 'was given the choice to be saved,' since such a choice was never even theoretically possible. Choice is here assumed to mean there is more than one really possible outcome (else choice is defined as 'you are free to do exactly what I tell you and nothing else.'

2 By 'ability' I mean the real and not merely theoretical capacity and power to do or perform some thing.

Monstrous surely is the madness of the human mind, that it is more disposed to charge God with unrighteousness than to blame itself for blindness.

Before answering positively, allow me to object to the scripture you cited as an argument to the contrary. The passage 1 Corinthians 10:13, cannot be interpreted to mean that God only commands men that which they are able to attain.
First, the passage does not refer to a command in the nature of your question, but rather to temptation. The distinction is important. A command originates in the holiness of God, while a temptation originates in the aberration of sin. However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, suppose that the passage did say that no command would be given except that which could be followed.
The audience to which the passage was written was not a universal one, and so you ought not apply universally. Paul addresses his letter thus,

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and our:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is, the letter is written to the Church in Corinth, and the Body of Christ elsewhere. So, the “you” in the passage you cited cannot be generalized beyond that. Then, even if it says that God will not command “you” in a manner “you” cannot follow, “you” here can only mean the Church.
In the passage, Paul has just recounted to the Church, in light of his concern regarding wickedness among them (e.g, 3:4, 5:1, ), of the judgements upon the wicked in Israel, that his elect among them might be preserved, according to his promise to Abraham and for the redemption of the gentiles, among whom they were counted. And so in like manner the passage is an encouragement to the whole church, that as his people then were preserved among those trials while the wicked were purged from among them, God is still faithful to preserve the elect.
Now, the converse, is not as you suggest, that God is unjust to offer a command that the wicked cannot attain, but rather that God would be unfaithful to his promise if he were to allow his Church to be overcome. And since it cannot be said that God is in any sense unfaithful, we are assured of the perseverance of the Church.
Since I have addressed the passage, let me address the question you actually asked.
Does God, according to Calvinism, command people He has specifically given neither the ability nor choice to do so to repent and believe in Christ or be damned?
The call to repentance is universal. In his commentary on Acts 17:30, Calvin reiterates Paul’s teaching,

In these words Paul teacheth that we must give ear to God so soon as he speaketh, as it is written, “Today, if ye will hear his voice harden not your hearts,” ( Psalms 95:7; Hebrews 3:7.) For the stubbornness of those men is without excuse, who neglect this opportunity when God doth gently call them unto him. Also, we gather out of this place to what end the gospel is preached, to wit, that God may gather us to himself from the former errors of our life. Therefore, so oft as the voice of the gospel doth sound in our ears, let us know that God doth exhort us unto repentance.

And again he confirms the universal call to repentance in his commentary on Romans 3:23,

He urges on all, without exception, the necessity of seeking righteousness in Christ; as though he had said, “There is no other way of attaining righteousness; for some cannot be justified in this and others in that way; but all must alike be justified by faith, because all are sinners, and therefore have nothing for which they can glory before God.”

Now, since it is clear both that the call to repentance is universal, and also that not all repent, it is certain that God commands of many an act with which they cannot comply, by their will or ability. So, to answer your question in the affirmative, the command is made to all, and can be attained by none, so indeed God commands both the elect and the reprobate alike to repentance though they have neither the ability nor choice.
The nature of the question though, I conclude, is whether God makes the command, knowing full well that they are unable to comply- that is, you ask not “Does God do so?” because you already know the answer, but rather, “How does God do so justly?” I’ll continue after reminding you that one need not visit Calvin for an answer, but simply look to Paul’s answer to this very question in Roman’s 9.

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

You might also consider Calvin’s discussion of your very question in “A Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God,”

For, pretending a great concern for the honour of God, they bark at us, as imputing to Him a cruelty utterly foreign to His nature. Pighius denies that he has any contest with God. What cause, or whose cause is it, then, that Paul maintains? After he had adopted the. above axiom--that God hardens whom He will and has mercy on whom He will--he subjoins the supposed taunt of a wicked reasoner: " Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? " (Rom. ix. 19.) He meets such blasphemy as this by simply setting against it the power of God. If those clothe God with the garment of a tyrant, who refer the hardening of men even to His eternal counsel, we most certainly are not the originators of this doctrine. If they do God an injury who set His will above all other causes, Paul taught this doctrine long before us. Let these enemies of God, then, dispute the matter with the apostle. For I maintain nothing, in the present discussion, but what I declare is taught by him. About these barking dogs, however, I would not be very anxious.

So how can God condemn them if they are not free to choose?
The reprobate, though depraved, are not automatons. Though their will is not free because of their nature, the vice of the wicked is voluntary.   In Book 2 of his Institutes, Calvin writes

Another objection [to predestination] is founded on a mode of speaking which is constantly observed both in Scripture and in common discourse. God works are said to be ours, and we are said to do what is holy and acceptable to God, just as we are said to commit sin. But if sins are justly imputed to us, as proceeding from ourselves, for the same reason (say they) some share must certainly be attributed to us in works of righteousness. It could not be accordant with reason to say, that we do those things which we are incapable of doing of our own motion, God moving us, as if we were stones. These expressions, therefore, it is said, indicate that while, in the matter of grace, we give the first place to God, a secondary place must be assigned to our agency.

In addition, their condemnation is not from their actions alone, but they are guilty of the very sin of Adam.

For whence that impotence of which the wicked so readily avail themselves as an excuse, but just because Adam voluntarily subjected himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence the corruption by which we are held bound as with chains, originated in the first man’s revolt from his Maker. If all men are justly held guilty of this revolt, let them not think themselves excused by a necessity in which they see the clearest cause of their condemnation. […] The second step in the reasoning is vicious, because it leaps from voluntary to free; whereas we have proved above, that a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice.

So ultimately, the premise of your question that men ought to be inculpable because of their depravity is circular, because their depravity is the result of Adam’s choice, which was truly free. And their own wills, through him depraved, are carried out in wickedness in their own bodies voluntarily. Their choice to sin is inseparable from Adam’s, which was free.
Why?
Again, Paul clearly explains the reason thusly: the default is condemnation, because God is just. And the reason that he spares some is plainly evident: to demonstrate his mercy. If we had the light of the Spirit, which by the Law uncovers our feebleness beside a holy God, we ought not think “Why is it that God condemns some, though they cannot in their own power repent?”, but to the contrary, “Why is it that God has redeemed some, though they are deserving of the same condemnation as the whole lot?”
Calvin concludes his discussion of the “difficulty” of the injustice of God,

In order to remove this difficulty, Paul divides his subject into two parts; in the, former of which he speaks of the elect, and in the latter of the reprobate; and in the one he would have us to contemplate the mercy of God, and in the other to acknowledge his righteous judgment. His first reply is, that the thought that there is injustice with God deserves to be abhorred, and then he shows that with regard to the two parties, there can be none.
But before we proceed further, we may observe that this very objection clearly proves, that inasmuch as God elects some and passes by others, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in his own purpose; for if the difference had been based on works, Paul would have to no purpose mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion could have been entertained concerning it if God dealt with every one according to his merit. It may also, in the second place, be noticed, that though he saw that this doctrine could not be touched without exciting instant clamours and dreadful blasphemies, he yet freely and openly brought it forward; nay, he does not conceal how much occasion for murmuring and clamour is given to us, when we hear that before men are born their lot is assigned to each by the secret will of God; and yet, notwithstanding all this, he proceeds, and without any subterfuges, declares what he had learned from the Holy Spirit. It hence follows, that their fancies are by no means to be endured, who aim to appear wiser than the Holy Spirit, in removing and pacifying offences. That they may not criminate God, they ought honestly to confess that the salvation or the perdition of men depends on his free election. Were they to restrain their minds from unholy curiosity, and to bridle their tongues from immoderate liberty, their modesty and sobriety would be deserving of approbation; but to put a restraint on the Holy Spirit and on Paul, what audacity it is! Let then such magnanimity ever prevail in the Church of God, as that godly teachers may not be ashamed to make an honest profession of the true doctrine, however hated it may be, and also to refute whatever calumnies the ungodly may bring forward.


What movement was Chesterson writing about in "Orthodoxy" I just started reading G.K. Chesterson's Orthodoxy and came across this quote:

  In this remarkable situation it is plainly not now possible (with any
  hope of a universal appeal) to start, as our fathers did, with the
  fact of sin. This very fact which was to them (and is to me) as plain
  as a pikestaff, is the very fact that has been specially diluted or
  denied. But though moderns deny the existence of sin, I do not think
  that they have yet denied the existence of a lunatic asylum.

In context, he seems to be talking about a movement within Christianity, not an atheistic movement, that denies the very existence of sin.

Certainly I've heard atheists make the claim that sin is a man-made concept, and that it's "relative" - what one person considers sin may be perfectly OK for someone else, for example.  But within the bounds of official Christian doctrine and understanding, the concept seems incomprehensible to me.  Why would someone bother self-identifying as a Christian if they didn't need Christ's atonement for their sins?  What would be the point?

My own incredulity aside, there are enough beliefs within Christianity that it wouldn't surprise me to find teachings that deny the very existence of sin, but I've never really paid attention to such things, or bothered to learn about them.  Now my curiosity is piqued.

Was there such a movement at the time of the writing of the book, and how widespread was it?  And further, is there still such a belief within recognized traditions (even those considered cults by more orthodox Christianity) that are known for teaching the idea that sin doesn't exist?

Chesterton always is talking about German philosophers he despises mainly Nietzsche, even if he doesn't name them.  He also routinely takes on his British contemporaries (and friends) spewing these same philosophies.

But you're right, he's not talking about George Bernard Shaw or H.G. Wells here.  He's talking about what he saw in British Churches in the early 20th century.

I like to go back to what he says in Orthodoxy about Original Sin being the only provable doctrine.  I think what he's saying is that there's a good many Christians who don't think they need 'a washing.  Keep in mind the various ways Protestants and Catholics deal with post-baptismal sin and you'll see where I'm going.  The doctrine of original sin means that we've got a tendency to follow our passions and they will lead us astray.  Not all Christians believe this and a good many believe that if something feels good, that it's OK.

But, to your point, who were these people

  Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R.J.Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.

So, who is R.J. Campbell? Well, he's one of the progenitors of the New Theology Movement. And what is the New Theology Movement?

  The New Theology is a false "religious" system that became popular among Catholics in Europe from the 1920s onward. Because it was recognized as resurgent modernism, it was kept under a lid by the Vatican and was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. Its primary founders were Maurice Blondel, Father Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar. It enjoys an undeserved popularity today.

A Short Catechism on the New Theology

I love short Catechisms that get to the point. So, there was a movement somewhere within liberal Anglican and liberal Catholic circles to apply modernism to theology, which fortunately was quashed rather handily in , but unfortunately oozed out over the 20th century and beyond.

A theology based on Evolution would sincerely deny original sin, since it denies our first parents' existence.  That's one thing Catholics are not allowed to believe in regards to evolution

  Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

Pope Pius XII - Humani Generis

So, thanks for asking the question (it was fun to track down all those references, I usually just assume I'll never know who he's talking about) and keep reading Chesterton!


Is chastity only expressed in virginity? Blessed Alexandrina da Costa of Balasar

  On Holy Saturday of 1918, while Alexandrina, Deolinda and a young
  apprentice were busily sewing, three men violently entered their home
  and attempted to sexually violate them. To preserve her purity,
  Alexandrina jumped from a window, falling four metres to the ground.

Also

  Like St Maria Goretti, she was ready to die rather than consent to the
  man's lustful advances.

I'm sure there is more women who were saints and had similar story.
My question is how does a woman who is raped or forced to an unwanted impure act lose her purity? Does only a virgin keep her purity intact? I personally don't think they would lose their purity even if they "let" them to rape them.

I agree with what the saints did and see it as a heroic act. I just don't understand why do they say "and this way they preserved their purity" like they would lose it if they let them. This tells me that you can only be pure if you stay a virgin. What is the catholic church understanding on this?

Virginity is the highest degree of chastity/purity, as St. Thomas Aquinas shows in Summa Theologica II-II q. 152 a. 3 "Whether virginity is a virtue?" ad 5:

  Conjugal chastity is deserving of praise merely because it abstains from unlawful pleasures: hence no excellence attaches to it above that of chastity in general [communem castitatem].
  Widowhood, however, adds something to chastity in general; but it does not attain to that which is perfect in this matter, namely to entire freedom from venereal pleasure;
  virginity alone achieves this.

  Wherefore virginity alone is accounted a virtue above chastity [in general],* even as magnificence is reckoned above liberality.

*[what he said above: communem castitatem / "chastity in general"]

So, here's the ranking of "freedom from venereal pleasure" (descending order):

virginity
chaste widowhood
chaste marriage / "chastity in general"

It's interesting to note that the Dominican friar Laurent d'Orléans, O.P., in his Somme le roi, whom French king Philip III commissioned in 1279 (not long after St. Thomas's death in 1274), devised a sevenfold ranking of chastity:

The chastity of

non-consecrated virgins
unmarried repentant non-virgins
marrieds
widows
consecrated virgins
ordained priests
the religious (monks, nuns)


Apparent Discrepancy in Mark 2:26 There seems to be an apparent discrepancy in Mark 2:26, Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for complaining that his disciples are picking the heads of grain on the Sabbath:

Mark 2:26

  26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

The story he is referring to is in 1 Samuel:

1 Samuel 21:1-6

  1 David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?” 2 David answered Ahimelek the priest, “The king sent me on a mission and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about the mission I am sending you on.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. 3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.” 4 But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.” 5 David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!” 6 So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.

The problem here is that Jesus when referencing the story says 'Abiathar', and in 1 Samuel 'Ahimelek' is the priest.

It seems a pretty clear cut case of a discrepancy, but can this be harmonized? Or did Mark just simply make a mistake?

The very next chapter indicates that Ahimelek had a son named Abiathar.

Priestly duties were typically within a given family at one time (eg Aaron and his sons). The title of "high priest", while alone at any given time, does not preclude there being other priests (otherwise Aaron and his sons would have all been "high priests" - whereas "high priest" indicates a specific level of duty to the Lord over and above that of a 'normal' priest).


Did Jesus wear tefillin? Tefillin1 are boxes containing Torah verses, worn by Jews on the head and the upper arm, in accordance with instructions in Exodus 13:9, 13:16, and Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18. There is a great deal of commentary in the Talmud and elsewhere about exactly how this should be done.

Jesus says that the Pharisees were ostentatious in their wearing of tefillin - Matthew 23:5  (NIV) reads:

  Everything they do is done for people to see: they make their phylacteries1 wide and the tassels on their garments long.

It seems from Mt 9:20, 14:36, Mk 6:56 that Jesus may have worn the same kind of fringes or tassels (tzitziyot), similarly commanded in the Law, albeit presumably his were not as long as those of the Pharisees.

Would Jesus also have worn tefillin, and why/why not?
If he did (and his disciples too?) then when did Christians stop? If he didn't, then was this unusual or scandalous?

1 Tefillin (תפילין), or totafot (טוטפת), or phylacteries (φυλακτήρια)

In the first council of Jerusalem (In the Acts of the Apostles), we see an outline of the practices which the Jews did that they thought were reasonable to ask of the Gentiles. The wearing of Tefillin is not among them.

In all likelihood after the destruction of Jerusalem and certainly after the Muslim incursions into the middle east, the number of culturally Jewish Christians was probably close to zero, and thus the practice of wearing Tefillin too would have disappeared.

Jesus may have worn Tefillin, we don't have a solid answer for that question. It is reasonable to assume that he didn't given his criticism of the practice. There are no records of him having worn them. It also would have been redundant.


Why is there a need for a perfect sacrifice? Why does Jesus have to be perfect? Theologically, why was it necessary that Jesus be perfect? Couldn’t there be another ordinary human who said “I will be the sacrifice and take on all the sins of the world past, present, and future and suffer and die as a substitutionary atonement for all of mankind”? Why did it have to be Jesus and why did it have to be a perfect Jesus?

According to the levitical priesthood a sacrifice had to be without defect

  Lev 22:20 Do not bring anything with a defect, because it will not be
  accepted on your behalf.

In this case any sacrifice offered to God has to be without defect. We humans are born into sin and no one lives a life without sin. Romans 3:23 tells us we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Sin is bad because it separates us from God.

  Isaiah 59:2  But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
  your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.

So ideally God would not accept any sacrifice by any man since sin  has already made them impure. The one person who lived without sin was Jesus so He was the only one capable of being offered as an acceptable sacrifice


Has anybody heard the word "beatified love"? Is there a biblical passages or traditions to support this word? I encounter the word "beatified love" in a comment in other channels and it said
that beatified love is higher than beatific vision which a soul can experience in the heavenly kingdom.
What am I looking for?
Is there any biblical reference that points out to the word "beatified love"?
Is there a traditions that holds beatified love is higher than beatific vision?
Is beatified love an official doctrine to a Catholic belief or did any Christian or other faith also are using this phrase beatified love in their teaching that a soul can experience in heaven?

"the love of God is better than the knowledge of God"

  beatified love is higher than beatific vision?

Perhaps you are asking if love of God is greater than knowledge of Him? St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica q. 82 a. 3 c., quoted in Petri 2016 p. 247, ch. "Love in the Summa Theologica"):

  When, therefore, the thing in which there is good is nobler than the soul itself, in which is the idea understood; by comparison with such a thing, the will is higher than the intellect. But when the thing which is good is less noble than the soul, then even in comparison with that thing the intellect is higher than the will. Wherefore the love of God is better than the knowledge of God; but, on the contrary, the knowledge of corporeal things is better than the love thereof. Absolutely, however, the intellect is nobler than the will.

Degree of knowing God in the Beatific Vision depends upon one's merits.

From my answer here:

  When we behold the Beatific Vision in heaven, we do not become God; we
  maintain our individuality. We will know God as perfectly as His grace
  enables us us know him,* but not as perfectly as He knows Himself.

  *There are hierarchies in heaven; not all saints (i.e., those in
  heaven) are equally close to God [i.e., not everyone sees God as equally deeply in the Beatific Vision]. The Blessed Virgin Mother is closest
  in her relation to her Son.

  St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Compendium Theologiæ cap. 106
  ("Fruition of Natural Desire in the Beatific Vision [in Heaven]"):

    …the most perfect way of attaining likeness with God: to know God in the way He knows Himself, by His own essence.

    Of course, we shall never comprehend Him as He comprehends Himself. This does not mean that we shall be unaware of some part of Him, for
    He has no parts. It means that we shall not know Him as perfectly as
    He can be known, since the capacity of our intellect for knowing
    cannot equal His truth, and so cannot exhaust His knowability. God’s
    knowability or truth is infinite, whereas our intellect is finite. But
    His intellect is infinite, just as His truth is; and so He alone knows
    Himself to the full extent that He is knowable; just as a person
    comprehends a demonstrable conclusion if he knows it through
    demonstration, but not if he knows it only in an imperfect way, on
    merely probable grounds.

    This ultimate end of man we call beatitude. For a man’s happiness or beatitude consists in the vision whereby he sees God in His essence.
    Of course, man is far below God in the perfection of his beatitude.
    For God has this beatitude by His very nature, whereas man attains
    beatitude by being admitted to a share in the divine light, as we said
    in the previous chapter.

and here:

  everyone in heaven is not equal [in their beholding of the Beatific
  Vision] because of the diversity of their merits.

  The degree of closeness to God in heaven [i.e., how deeply one sees
  God in the Beatific Vision] depends on one's merits. The Council
  of Florence, under the authority of Pope Eugenius IV (1431-1447),
  defined the dogma (DZ 693) that

    the souls of those, who … are immediately received into heaven, … see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according
    to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another.

  Since the Blessed Virgin Mother has the greatest merits, she is the
  closest to God in heaven.


Why is God considered by many to be a male? I am not a Christian, but I believe in many of the biblical stories and the message that they provide for the world to be a better place. I think the Bible could be more accepted and it’s strong ethical messages become regarded and understood better, if people discussing the Bible would use more inclusive language.

I just wanted to see you alls thoughts.

Because Christians believe God inspired the scriptures, and in the scriptures he predominantly uses masculine pronouns and masculine imagery to talk about himself. There are different views of inspiration, but in all the major branches of Christianity I think it would be accurate to say that most Christians believe that God has so worked inspiration that while the human authors did express their individual voices, what they wrote is exactly what God wanted to be written. While there are many cultural accommodations in scripture, the masculinity of God is not one, for it would have been very difficult easy to write about God as female or as both or as neither, as the pagan gods around them were of all genders.

I think there's a little bit of irony in this age of accepting and using people's preferred pronouns that some people don't want to use God's preferred pronouns ;). I think that ultimately comes from people not accepting that the scriptures are inspired by God.


Ezekiel Temple and Prophecy The temple detailed in prophecy by Ezekiel chapters 40-48 is very specific in detail. Does anybody have any theological evidence or would like to apply a reasoned assertion that it may ever be fulfilled in the Physical Form detailed?

Throughout the Book of Ezekiel, the theme often changes dramatically from chapter to chapter, returning in a later chapter to a previous theme, with some of the symbolism being obscure and some of it extremely offensive to modern readers. However, the earlier chapters are essentially a condemnation of Israel and Judah for worshipping other gods. Then, Ezekiel gradually changes to themes of hope and comfort. The Book of Ezekiel is notable for the careful way in which the author regularly tells us the exact date on which he receives his visions. Thus we know that Ezekiel is prophesying after the destruction of Jerusalem and the first temple.

Chapter 37 is notable for the promise that Israel (Ephraim) and Judah will soon be reunited as one nation upon the land, and never again divided into two kingdoms. David (his descendants) shall be their king (37:24-25). The Jews could hold onto these prophecies in their long period of exile, even if they never came true after the Return from the Exile.

Chapter 38 tells of an apocalyptic invasion of the now united and prosperous land of Israel by the legendary Gog of Magog. When Gog invades Israel, the fury of God shall be aroused against him (38:18). Yet this invasion from the north will be instigated by God himself, so that all the nations will know him (38:14-16). Having led the armies of Gog against Israel, God will then ensure their total defeat, such that it will take all the people of the land seven months to bury their carcasses (39:11-12). This is another prophecy that never came true, but it was probably the kind of heroic epic the Jewish exiles wanted to hear.

The book ends, in chapters 40-48 with the promise of a new Israel, a new Jerusalem and a new temple.  Measurements are carefully taken so that the new temple will be on the same grand scale as the old one. Chapter 43:7:

  "The voice said to me: Son of man, this is where my throne shall be,
  this is where I will set the soles of my feet; here I will dwell among
  the Israelites forever. Never again shall they and their kings profane
  my holy name with their harlotries and with their high places."

Ezekiel's temple was built, just as he prophesied, although perhaps not to his exact plan.


Were the similarities between the miracles of Elisha and Jesus deliberate or simply coincidental? I have often wondered if God deliberately intended for the miracles of Elisha to be a preview of the miracles our Savior would perform, as a way of verification of Jesus Deity.

Elisha brought the dead son of the Shunammite back to life in 2 Kings 4:33 thru 35.
Jesus brought the daughter of a certain ruler back to life in Matthew 9:24 and 25, and also Lazarus in John 11:43.

Both were preceded by a prayer.

Elisha turned a small amount of oil into an abundance in 2 Kings 4:1-7.
Jesus turned water into wine in John 2:1-10.

Elisha turned poison stew into good stew to feed a hungry group in 2 Kings 4:38-41, and fed a hundred men with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn in 2 Kings 4:42 and 43.
Jesus fed 4,000 with a few fishes and loaves in Matthew 14:15-20, and 5,000 in Luke 16 and 17.

Elisha cured Naaman of Leprosy in 2 Kings 5:1-14.
Jesus cured 10 lepers in Luke 17:11-19.

Elisha made an iron axe head float in 2 Kings 6:5-7.
Jesus made himself and Peter to walk on water in John 6:19 and 20, and in Matthew 14:25-29.

It seems to me that these miracles are too uncommonly alike to be merely coincidental. Have any prominent theologians or teachers made the same connection?

Two salient facts should inform the reasoning:

At the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus was shown to be in league with the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).
Elisha had asked to receive a "double share" of Elijah's gifts - and that was granted.  Elisha performed many of the same miracles that had accompanied Elijah's ministry.

Jesus, then, was shown to be a prophet performing the same miracles as a prophet. That these miracles were similar would have the effect of showing that Jesus was fully a prophet (in addition to being fully the lawgiver and fully God) in a way that would have made sense to those who already knew the works and role of the prophets from the Ketuv'im.


How did Paul know that Satan hindered his movements? It took me by surprise that Paul sounds very certain that Satan blocked him from coming back to Thessalonica. How could he know that? And how do we know, from the scriptures, that he is not just passing the blame to Satan?

  But since we were torn away from you, brothers, for a short time, in person not in heart, we endeavored the more eagerly and with great desire to see you face to face, because we wanted to come to you—I, Paul, again and again—but Satan hindered us. (1 Thessalonians 2:17-18, ESV)

As John MacArthur said in a recent radio broadcast, Satan and his minions are involved 24/7/365 in doing whatever is in their power to "kill, steal, and destroy" what God is doing in the world through His church and through the servants of His church.

Paul, being as he was on the cusp of doing great things for God by reaching out to the Gentiles with the redemptive message of the Gospel, was not immune from Satanic and demonic hindrances, and if Paul said "Satan hindered us," he was neither copping out nor engaging in the "blame game," but was rather stating a fact.

Satan and his demons and their ways are devious, evil, implacable, insidious, corrupt, immoral, crafty, wily, and much too powerful for even the most spiritual of believers to go "head to head" with them. Moreover, any attempt to "dabble" in the occult is perhaps almost as dangerous as attempting to engage occult forces in combat, which Paul was wise not to do.

The best we can do as believers is to put on the complete armor of God and simply stand against Satan in the power with which God supplies us (Ephesians 6:10 ff.). Prayer, too, can often be effective, particularly when combined with fasting (see Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29).

Perhaps God has gifted some of His servants with the gift and responsibility to cast out demons. Back to John MacArthur for a moment, he tells of a time when he came into the presence of a person who was demonized, and the demons communicated with John, telling him they knew who he was and that they wanted him to leave. From that one experience alone, John realized he was out-classed and out-gunned by the devil's demons, and he refused to engage them in battle. The wise man that he is, he, like Michael the archangel who disputed with the devil regarding the body of Moses, said simply, "The Lord rebuke you" and left the scene (see Jude, vv.9,10). We would be wise to do the same, unless God has called us to a ministry of what the Roman Catholic church calls exorcism. In the New Testament it is called simply "casting out demons" (see the list here).


Quotation from Desert Fathers I am looking for a particular quotation that I believe comes from the desert fathers.  I searched the Philokalia but didn't find it.  I don't think it was from there anyway, but I looked.

In the story, the father asks a person with no goals to shoot an arrow into the desert.  Since he has no target, it doesn't matter where he shoots.  A person without a goal is like an archer without a target.  Anyone know either where it came from or how I might search for it?

A couple of stories about shooting arrows from the desert fathers, perhaps one of these jogs your memory:
Abba Anthony, desert father (source):

A hunter in the desert saw Abba Anthony enjoying himself with the brethren and he was shocked. Wanting to show him that it was necessary sometimes to meet the needs
of the brethren, the old man said to him, 'Put an arrow in
your bow and shoot it.' So he did. The old man then said,
'Shoot another,' and he did so. Then the old man said, 'Shoot
yet again and the hunter replied 'If I bend my bow so much I
will break it.' Then the old man said to him, 'It is the same
with the work of God. If we stretch the brethren beyond
measure they will soon break. Sometimes it is necessary to
come down to meet their needs.' When he heard these words
“the hunter was pierced by compunction and, greatly edified
by the old man, he went away. As for the brethren, they
went home strengthened.

Dorotheos (source much less reliable-looking, additional source):

A man who gives way to his passions is like a man who is shot at by an enemy, catches the arrow in his hands, and then plunges it into his own heart. A man who is resisting his passions is like a man who is shot at by an enemy, and although the arrow hits him, it does not seriously wound him because he is wearing a breastplate. But the man who is uprooting his passions is like a man who is shot at by an enemy, but who strikes the arrow and shatters it or turns it back into his enemy's heart.


What are some of the reasons for which mainstream non-Catholic Christians are against gender-neutral secular marriage? What are some of the reasons for which mainstream non-Catholic Christians are against gender-neutral secular marriage?

I get that some churches won't acknowledge religious gender-neutral or same-sex marriage (GNM) and why they won't support GNM,

but why exactly does that extend to being outright against (as opposed to having no stand) secular GNM?

Besides homophobia (like with the Westboro Baptist Church and the sort) and possibly the arguments here, what are there?

In case the article is too long for you, here is a response that takes the article apart.

I guess mainstream is:

Orthodox (e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc...)

Roman Catholic

Protestant (Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc...)

Historic Non-Chalcedonian Churches (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Nestorian, etc..)

Jehovah's Witness

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)

Seventh-Day Adventists

Christians believe that God's law is not an arbitrary set of rules designed to make life inconvenient, but that it represents God's intended pattern for living a happy, successful, fulfilled life.

Many Christians believe that following God's pattern for human behaviour therefore results in more fulfilled people and a better society, whether or not those people believe in the source of the pattern (God). Many also believe that it is the duty of secular authorities to  promote moral behaviour; and especially the duty of Christians to use whatever influence they have on the government to make it promote moral behaviour.


Claims by Jehovah's witnesses from doctrine? I have heard these three claims at different times from Jehovah's witnesses said in the presence of other JWs. Are they based in JW doctrine?

Jehova created dinosaurs for the purpose of clearing forests for humans to plant crops and removed them when that task was done.
The "abomination that maketh desolate" (KJV) or "disgusting thing that is causing desolation" (NW) mentioned in Dan 11:31 is a prophecy identified with the United Nations in New York, with particular condemnation of the display in the UN of the "swords into plowshares" quotation from Isaiah 2:4.
The "breath of life" that Jehovah put into the nostrils of Adam in Gen 2:7 is what we call oxygen. It is essential for living things and impossible for humans to make; scuba divers and astronauts cannot survive without bringing oxygen with them.

Jehova created dinosaurs for the purpose of clearing forests for humans to
plant crops and removed them when that task was done.

I can find no evidence this is has ever been official teaching of the Watchtower Society. It teaches a naive Young Earth philosophy, but does not claim that God created dinosaurs for the purpose of clearing forests for humans to plant crops.
The "abomination that maketh desolate" (KJV) or "disgusting thing that is
causing desolation" (NW) mentioned in Dan 11:31 is a prophecy identified with
the United Nations in New York, with particular condemnation of the display
in the UN of the "swords into plowshares" quotation from Isaiah 2:4.

The Watchtower Society is ambivalent in regard to the United Nations. On the one hand, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the United Nations will soon destroy all other religions, and then turn against Jehovah's Witnesses. On the other, the Society secretly joined the United Nations as a non-government organisation (NGO). Wikipedia states:

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the United Nations is the "image of the wild beast" referred to in Revelation 13:1-18 and the fulfillment of the "disgusting thing that causes desolation" from Matthew 24:15.[6][7] Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah will use the United Nations to destroy "false religion" as an institution, wherein all institutionalized religions except Jehovah's Witnesses will be destroyed. It is expected that the United Nations will then turn against Jehovah's Witnesses to destroy them, but Jehovah will intervene and destroy all political elements. They believe this act of divine intervention will be Armageddon, the final part of the Great Tribulation.[8][9]
In practice, Jehovah's Witnesses "view the United Nations organization as they do other governmental bodies of the world," as "superior authorities" that "exist by God's permission," based on their interpretation of Romans 13:1, 2. They believe "this Scriptural position does not condone any form of disrespect toward governments or their officials," to which they are to "render due respect," and they "obey them as long as such obedience does not require that they sin against God.

The Jwfacts site says the Watchtower became an Associate NGO with the United Nations in 1992 and provides copies of what are purported to be official UN documents. Tami Dickerson, a Jehovah's Witness at the time, says in Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations, page 7, that as soon as she heard that the Watchtower had joined the United Nations, she began to investigate and eventually concluded that the report was true.
So, the second statement in the question is at least partly true, but the Watchtower Society seems to be backing away from its former total opposition to the United Nations.
The "breath of life" that Jehovah put into the nostrils of Adam in Gen 2:7
is what we call oxygen.

The Watchtower Society teaches that humans do not have a soul in the traditional Christian sense. Therefore, according to Witnesses, the "breath of life" can not be ensoulment. This Wikipedia reference page shows that some Witnesses do teach that the  "breath of life" that Jehovah put into the nostrils of Adam in Gen 2:7 is what we call oxygen, whether or not this is official doctrine:

The Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine expounded to me by a national overseer is that oxygen is pneu the breath of God which was imparted to living things at their creation.


Why is the Latin New Testament authoritative for the Catholic Church rather than the original Greek? Just wondering why they chose Latin instead of Greek to be the source of truth of the texts, and instead added this abstraction layer when they were so close to the Greek culture at the time?

Pope Pius XII explains in his 1943 encyclical on biblical studies, Divino afflante Spiritu, §21:

  this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council [of Trent] particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

Even from a "critical" standpoint, St. Jerome had access to manuscripts that are no longer extant; his "New Testament scriptural texts were within a few generations of the original manuscripts penned by the Apostles" (Dr. William G. von Peters, editor of the new reprint of the Douay-Rheims).


Miracle of the loaves and fishes, multiplication or sharing? Did Pope Francis say these words about the miracle of the loaves and fishes or not:

  "This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer"?

Can we understand from this that he does not believe that fish 'plopped' into existence (a disgusting idea unless the miracle includes frying them in batter) but that it involved people sharing what they already had or even that people bought for each other?

What the Pope actually said (from the official translation of the Italian) was

  Looking at those five loaves, Jesus thinks: this is Providence! From this small amount, God can make it suffice for everyone. Jesus trusts in the heavenly Father without reserve; he knows that for him everything is possible. Thus he tells his disciples to have the people sit down in groups of 50 — this is not merely coincidental, for it means that they are no longer a crowd but become communities nourished by God’s bread. Jesus then takes those loaves and fish, looks up to heaven, recites the blessing — the reference to the Eucharist is clear — and breaks them and gives them to the disciples who distribute them... and the loaves and fish do not run out, they do not run out! This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity.

I'm not sure what's unclear about this: the five loaves and two fish were not more than five loaves and two fish, but that small amount of food was successfully shared between the people present. The fish did not suddenly multiply to become five thousand fish and each person get one; they remained two fish, and each person received a part of those.

That is, rather  like the widow's jug of oil [1 Kings 17:8–16], the five loaves and two fish were never exhausted. Not only did they not run out, but as well as feeding everyone there was loads left over. This is what Pope Francis means by "they do not run out, they do not run out!"

The bible account does not say that the people brought more than that with them; only that one boy came prepared and he fed everyone. This is the miracle. Everyone shared the boy's meal, and received their fill.

This was part of Pope Francis' sermon on the Sunday after Corpus Christi. The Pope draws an analogy between the sharing of five loaves and two fish such that all in the multitude receive some of that food which Christ makes possible, and the Eucharist, where all receive the completeness of the Body of Christ in a single small particle.


What is the Lake of Fire? Revelation 20:14 is what I'm talking about. It is only confusing because nearly every translation says something like this:

  14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
  15 And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

First, 'death and hell' are cast in, then the wicked not found in the Book of Life.

Some translations say 'death and Hades'. The NASB says 'death and the grave'.

What kind of place consumes death, hell, the grave, and the wicked, then calls that event the second death? What is the Lake of Fire?

This question exists but it does not have a helpful answer.

The ‘lake of fire’ is a final progression of the theological development of God’s judgment. The ‘lake of fire’ is a final ‘hell’ which is a New Testament description of the more generic realm of the dead previously called ‘Hades or Sheol’, in the Old Testament. The Greek Old Testament uses Hades ( ᾅδης ) for the Hebrew name Sheol ( שְׁאוֹל). To fully understand the ‘lake of fire’ we need to trace the meaning of God’s judgment as ‘fire’ in the Old Testament and relate how it pertains to Sheol/Hades and Hell.

Sheol/Hades in the Bible is similar but not exactly the same as that found in ancient pagan philosophy.  Sheol is basically the grave with its unknown disembodied life beyond it. Originally, the idea from the lack of any further clarity is without any revelatory definition in the Bible. Like many biblical doctrines the subject is progressively revealed. In this original undefined idea, both the good and the evil went to that ‘unknown/unrevealed world’:

  before I go—and I shall not return— to the land of darkness and deep shadow, the land of gloom like thick darkness, like deep shadow without any order, where light is as thick darkness. (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Job 10:21–22).)

Sheol was perceived as a place beneath the Ocean where ‘the dead tremble under the waters’ Job 26:5.

It is tempting to resist and admission to the ancient understanding of what we now call hell, because it assigned both the good and the evil to it as well as imagined silly geographical elements, which may have even been related to the view of the earth ad the center of the universe. For these and many more reasons it seems contrary to the New Testament teaching. In the New Testament the division between paradise and hell is spelled out more clearly. This was not a result of progression in human thought but as result of further revelation from God himself. On one hand Death was basically an obscure unknown in the Old Testament, therefore speculation of unrevealed details would naturally be only a little better than current Greek pagan philosophy. On the other hand the trajectory of revelation progression from God, and not from human development, included solid hints at the resurrection, such as the disappearance of Enoch, or the necessary implications of the hope of salvation whereby a return to paradise in Eden was anticipated. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that God as he unfolds heavenly matters to humans, who in turn conjecture and imagine things along the way, to at time allude to those same half-baked speculations in further extruding his doctrines to us in clarities never imagined by the human heart.  This is essentially what happens at the time of Christ, for in between the last book of the Old Testament and the Gospels; popular rabbinical writings had already speculated a great del about paradise and the idea of Sheol was becoming more and more a concept that included only the wicked. Somehow speculation about the unknown was to a certain degree scripturally inspired and sanctified and extended by Jesus himself into a modern New Testament higher definition.

At the time of Christ Hades was still referred to, for example in Luke 16:23, where the rich man is there in Hades, while Lazarus is like a child in the lap of Abraham. Also, when Peter made his confession the ‘gates of Hades’ could not stand against the church. Clearly Hades has become another name for hell where only the disembodied wicked live. While paradise is the place for the disembodied righteous, such as the place where the thief next to Jesus on the cross was to go that ‘very same day.’ However, Jesus often referred to hell under different imagery that moves beyond the general abstract notion of Hades. Jesus often referred to hell as a fiery place called “Gehenna”. Hades was also considered to be a place of ‘fire’ but Gehenna amplifies the fiery aspect.

  “Gehenna” (Hebrew “Hinnom”), the name of a valley south of Jerusalem. The valley was noted in the OT period for the abomination of child sacrifices (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; 23:10) and in the NT period for its smoldering garbage. (Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (592).)

The Lake of fire is essentially the final development of the concept of the judgment of Gehenna. We can imagine hell as temporary steam of fiery judgments, which will flow into the final basin.  It is a full lake of hell, meaning there is no further judgment to occur, as it is complete and endless without any adjustments. It is ‘forever and ever’ that the wicked will be burdened under a full awareness of their just desert and where the ‘weeping and gnashing’ of their ‘teeth’ (a cliché for sorrow and angry frustration) due to being eternally separated from the creator is forever felt.

If we trace the imagery of fire using Sodom and Gomorrah as well as the altar of the temple court we find that it represents God’s eternal judgment on sin. The lake of fire includes ‘brimstone’ and so we find one of the very first lively ideas of the lake of fire in his destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, for we see ‘the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens’ (Gen 19:24). In addition according to Jude, Sodom is to be understood as ‘eternal’, for hose that died under that fire ‘serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire’ (Jude 7). Then again, God is in himself and his own just nature the ‘consuming fire’. (Heb 12:29).  We see it everywhere in the Old Testament for in the daily practice of the altar ceremonies, justice punishes sin in the ‘fire’ upon the sacrifices.  ‘Fire’ was God’s anger inflicting judicial punishment upon the sinner, or more correctly, the animal in the sinners place. This occurred every day in the temple.

In the prophetic books we find further supporting evidence of the New Testament high definition view of the lake of fire. In Isaiah we see the phrase that Jesus commonly referred to in his parables:

  “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 ,Is 66:24)

In Daniel 7:10 ‘A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him’. That is Christ is seated on a throne and the lake of fire is that body of fire flowing out from his throne to judge his enemies. (As an aside, to maintain information of pagan thoughts that scripture is still free to borrow when beneficial in extruding it doctrine out from the elements of knowledge within men’s understanding, this imagery has a specific parallel to another Greek idea of a ‘river of fire’ beneath the earth that emptied out into a lake called Tartarus, which is also referred to by ‘hell’ in 2 Peter 2:4)

In summary, the ‘lake of fire’ is that final development of the concept of eternal death under the punishment of God. Sin, death, hell, devils, sinners and all the garbage that Jews used to throw into Gehenna ‘for burning’ will forever rest in a broad final ‘lake’ flowing out of God’s eternal throne of judgment. The fact that is also has brimstone in it, indicates the original horror and ‘stench to the senses’ of that molten fire that rained down on Sodom. ‘Brimstone’ or ‘sulfur’ is that rock that slowly burns and melts making a rotten egg like smell. It does not sound good.  What this fire is, in terms of literal location, experience and suffering is not even slightly indicated in the Bible. We are to read between the lines of the images and humbly accept that we can only vainly imagine. However, as the wicked are resurrected with ‘spiritual bodies’, analogous to the ones we have on earth, it seems that the wicked will at a minimum have bodies that can endure this punishment whatever it is. The wicked are raised to pay for their sin and they must have bodies capable for the task. A human body would probably collapse just at the thought of approaching God’s throne let alone understanding, accepting and paying with full regret for a wasted life. This is truly a prophecy of warning concerning the end of the world for those outside of Christ. At the same time is a great comfort to those who are in Christ, for whose name they suffer the hatred of the world. He who has an ear to hear…


Who rules this Earth after the millenium? According to premillenial eschatology, there will be a special period after Christ comes again in which He will reign on earth with His saints for a 1000 years. Their view is typically based on a specific interpretation of this verse:

  Revelation 20:6 (ESV)
  6  Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

Who do premillenialsts identify as reigning after this period? What happens after the 1000 years?

As a premillennialist, here's my view:

After the 1000 years (Revelation 20:6), Satan is loosed temporarily. He gathers those who remain on Earth who want to rebel against Christ to try one more time to defeat Him (Rev 20:7-8). Those forces are destroyed by God directly (verse 9). The devil is then permanently cast into the lake of fire to be tormented forever (verse 10). After this the universe and the Earth cease to exist (verse 11; also the end of 2 Peter 3:10). The final great white throne judgment occurs (verses 12-15).

After this, only those written in the Lamb's book of life remain (Rev 20:15). The Earth and the universe are replaced with a new one (Rev 21:1). It has one city called New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2-27). It has the river of the water of life and the tree of life having 12 varieties of fruit in it (Rev 22). God the Father and Jesus in His resurrected body and the Spirit are there (Rev 22). It will be like Eden when God walked with man face to face.

Who rules it? There is one throne, therefore one authority, called the throne (singular) of God and the Lamb. So it is a co-regency of God the Father and God the Son.

The people of God are the only ones left. They are in resurrected bodies, so they will have no tendency to sin; sin will be as repulsive as eating dirt because we will see it clearly for what it is. "Government" and "ruling" will be different because we will all be in perfect harmony doing whatever good fun things we want (where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17). We will have a city to explore- if each floor is 10 feet high, there will be the square footage in it of 369,600 United States. Add to that an entire new planet, a new universe, and an infinite heaven outside the universe with forever to explore and enjoy with an infinite God.

Since all good things come ultimately from God (James 1:17) and all things in this universe have been tainted by sin (Romans 8:22), and God is infinitely complex; then we can assume that the next universe will:

Look better than anything we can see, taste better than your favorite flavor, be more exciting, feel better, be more interesting, more refreshing, more fun, than anything we have now; and never boring. 1 Corinthians 2:9-10 states that "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them which love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."

It is so worth it to live for God now. :)


How is the view of guaranteed salvation for infants justified? Many Christians hold the view that unborn and born infants and children who die before the age of reason or eternal responsibility are guaranteed access to heaven. For instance, Dr. William Lane Craig has famously stated the following, When justifying the slaughter of the Canaanites:

  Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.

It seems obvious that if a child/infant dies before they are responsible for accepting salvation they should not be condemned to Hell, but that they should be automatically granted salvation also seems equally unjust. I would think that it be more just for God to annihilate the souls of those children.

How, in this view, is God just by automatically saving all infants/children who die before they can be held responsible?

As Matt Gutting pointed out, the question is about how someone holding the view that infants/children who die in infancy are guaranteed salvation can reconcile their view with God's justice.

Firstly, we need to know that God is just and fair.

  God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you. (2 Thessalonians 1:6,
  NIV)

  But you are stubborn and refuse to turn to God. So you are making
  things even worse for yourselves on that day when he will show how
  angry he is and will judge the world with fairness. (Romans 2:5,
  CEV)

Secondly, we must also believe that just as Heaven is real and eternal, Hell is also real and eternal. Though there are some who believe in Annihilationism, they are minority.

  "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to
  eternal life." (Matthew 25:46, NIV)

Is the view of guaranteed salvation for infants unjust? Not entirely.

The Catholic Church believes that unbaptized infants go to Heaven.

The Bible never tells us that innocent children will go to Hell or not. But we know for sure that Jesus said that the Kingdom of God belongs to children.

  Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder
  them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." (Matthew
  19:14, NIV)

  And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like
  little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew
  18:3, NIV)

This seems like a contradiction to the teaching of Saint Paul that all have sinned.

  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23,
  NIV)

  Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived
  me. (Psalm 51:5, NIV)

However, the Bible tells us that we are going to be judged according to what we have done, not what we haven't commit.

  For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden
  thing, whether it is good or evil. (Ecclesiastes 12:14, NIV)

  God "will repay each person according to what they have done."
  (Romans 2:6, NIV)

Some adults might say that they have not done any serious crime but in God's standard all sins are big, for Jesus said,

  "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
  committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

Therefore, it is fair and just to assert that children who died young before committing any sin will go to Heaven but adults can go to Heaven only by believing in Jesus Christ.

There are many interesting testimonies around the world - people who claimed to have visited Heaven. Out of them, I find these two very interesting as they deal with one of the toughest questions which Christianity cannot answer objectively.

In the book Heaven Is for Real, Colton, a pastor's 4 years old son went to Heaven and said that he met a little girl in Heaven who said she was his sister who died in his mother’s “tummy”.
In his interview video "An insight into heaven"(please search on YouTube), D. G. S. Dhinakaran, the founder of Jesus Calls Ministries also said that he saw infants in Heaven and they are taken care of until they reach 30 years and they become angels. He said that children who died young are not given the saved status and do not enjoy the privileges like the saved, they are simply given a basic entry to Heaven.


What is the difference between Baptism of Jesus and Baptism of others? What is the difference between Baptism of Jesus and Baptism of others? For others it was for repentance of sins.

Matthew 3:5-6 NIV

  5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Matthew 3:13-15 NIV

  13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented."

From a Protestant, Evangelical perspective, the baptism of Jesus by the prophet John was not a baptism of repentance; rather, it was a baptism into a way of life for Jesus which culminated in his ultimate baptism: his cross-death for the sins of the world.
Recall that Jesus asked James and John, the sons of Zebedee, a poignant question when they asked if they could sit next to Jesus when he came into his kingdom. For reasons of context, I include a lengthy passage:

Jesus Predicts His Death a Third Time
32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”
The Request of James and John
35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”
36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”
38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”
39 “We can,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:32-45 NIV, my emphases).

Truly, Jesus lived in the shadow of the cross. Several times (or more) Jesus predicted his death to his disciples, but each time they failed to grasp what Jesus meant (see, for example, Mark 9:30-32 NIV). Only after his resurrection did the pieces of the puzzle come together for them.
Peter in particular actually rebuked Jesus for his plain teaching about his coming trial, death, and resurrection. Jesus in turn rebuked Peter, saying,

“Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men” (see Mark 8:31-33 RSV).

We read that after he was baptized by John,

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan [River] and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days being tempted by the devil (Luke 4:1-2 NASB).

With the exception of Jesus' transfiguration (and his death, burial, and resurrection), his baptism was perhaps the most pivotal event in his adult life. The baptism signaled not only the beginning of his public ministry, but it foreshadowed the giving of his life at Calvary as a ransom for many.
In conclusion, as for Jesus' baptism being a fulfillment of all righteousness, that fulfillment was also, perhaps, the capstone of having successfully completed 30 years of humble obedience to the Father. You'll recall that at Jesus' baptism,

. . . the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased" (Luke 3:22 NASB).

With that declaration by the Father, Jesus did battle with the devil and thereafter began in earnest his journey to Calvary.


What does "Jesus did not commit himself unto them" (John 2:24) mean? I have trouble understanding what John 2:24 and John 2:25 mean. Does anyone know what it means for Jesus to not "commit himself unto them"?

  John 2:22-25 (KJV)
   22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

There is some fun linguistic gymnastics going on there and two things are being played off of each other.

First, remember that Jesus was fully God and he was omniscient* and knew the hearts of men. He knew what people were thinking even when they didn't say it.

Now note that while your question is in 24, the play here starts in verse 23. Let's look at these two verses again:

  John 2:24-25 (ESV)
  Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

When we believe in Christ and choose to follow Him, we entrust ourselves to him.

Even though our English translations usually use different wording for thse two verses, in the Greek original both "believed" in verse 23 and "commit" (KVJ) or "entrust" (ESV) in verse 24 are the same root word πιστεύω (pisteuō) that is widely translated as 'believe'.

In other words, Jesus knew that something was wrong in their hearts in spite of their profession of faith.

* Actually in his role as the Son there were things he chose not to know because there were rights that he voluntarily surrendered in order to fulfill his calling, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he knew mens hearts.


What is the Bible's oldest Messianic prophecy? Some Messianic prophecies occur near the beginning of the Bible, such as Deuteronomy 18:15 (or even Genesis 3:15).  What I want to understand is which Messianic prophecy do scholars believe was actually recorded first?

Does, for example, the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah 8:23-9:1 predate Deuteronomy 18?

If that question is too difficult, due to questions of authorship and redaction, can we ask

What is the earliest date for which historians are confident Messianic prophecy existed in Israel?

The first Messianic prophecy occurs in the first book of the Bible, Genesis 3:15., probably written in the 15th century BC. We can't readily distinguish the chronology between the 5 books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), but they were among the first books of the OT to be written. Job is actually normally considered the earliest written book of the Bible, with an unknown date but with a proposed Messianic prophecy in Job 19:25 "I know that my Redeemer lives", described in this article. Besides Job, Genesis is seemingly the first to be penned.

  Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity
      between you and the woman,
      and between your offspring and hers;
  he will crush your head,
      and you will strike his heel.”"

The significance of the verse (explained by Blue Letter Bible and Ligonier Ministries) is that the He is referring to Jesus and we know this because "he" is singular in Hebrew, even though the previous statement refers to the plural "offspring." A "surprisingly" similar verse in the New Testament is

  Romans 16:20 "And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly."

It is likely that the "striking his heel" refers to Jesus' crucifixion, and the final crushing will occur at His Second Coming when He, holding the keys of death and Hades, will lock up and deal with Satan completely. The onset of the Kingdom of God also relates to Jesus "binding the strong man" (Mark 3:27).

So the prophecy is that a single, particular offspring (Jesus) will crush Satan, and Satan will strike his heel, corresponding to Jesus' crucifixion and 2nd Coming. This prophecy was likely recorded in written form (though passed down for generations accurately through oral transmission in an oral culture) around 1445-1405 BC. (The link is not an academic source; I have just seen that date range for the Pentateuch from multiple sources repeatedly).

Again, Job is proposed to be written earlier (unknown date) with a prophecy in Job 19:25 "I know my Redeemer lives." See this article.


How is "binding and loosing" extrapolated to all clergy? Matthew 16:19
  And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

I recently read an article in which the Roman Catholic author states,

  In the Catholic Church’s understanding, the office of “binding and loosing” which was given to Peter was also assigned to the whole college of apostles who in turn commission their assistants in ministry to do likewise.

If it is understood that Jesus was talking to Peter, by what rationale or authority can this "office" be passed on from him to others?

Christ gave St. Peter the "power of the keys" to bind or loose.

Addressing the question of "Whether priests alone have the keys?," St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

  There are two kinds of key. One reaches to heaven itself directly, by
  remitting sin and thus removing the obstacles to the entrance into
  heaven; and this is called the key of "order." Priests alone have
  this key, because they alone are ordained for the people in the things
  which appertain to God directly. The other key reaches to heaven,
  not directly but through the medium of the Church Militant. By this
  key a man goes to heaven, since, by its means, a man is shut out from
  or admitted to the fellowship of the Church Militant, by
  excommunication or absolution. This is called the key of
  "jurisdiction" in the external court, wherefore even those who are not
  priests can have this key, e.g. archdeacons, bishops elect, and others
  who can excommunicate. But it is not properly called a key of heaven,
  but a disposition thereto.

Addressing the question of "Whether holy men who are not priests have the keys?," St. Thomas explains why only those men ordained to the priesthood have the power of the keys:

  There is this difference between a principal and an instrumental
  agent, that the latter does not produce, in the effect, its own
  likeness, but the likeness of the principal agent, whereas the
  principal agent produces its own likeness. Consequently a thing
  becomes a principal agent through having a form, which it can
  reproduce in another, whereas an instrumental agent is not constituted
  thus, but through being applied by the principal agent in order to
  produce a certain effect. Since therefore in the act of the keys the
  principal agent by authority is Christ as God, and by merit is Christ
  as man, it follows that on account of the very fulness of Divine
  goodness in Him, and of the perfection of His grace, He is competent
  to exercise the act of the keys. But another man is not competent to
  exercise this act as principal agent, since neither can he give
  another man grace whereby sins are remitted, nor can he merit
  sufficiently, so that he is nothing more than an instrumental agent.
  Consequently the recipient of the effect of the keys, is likened, not
  to the one who uses the keys, but to Christ. Therefore, no matter how
  much grace a man may have, he cannot produce the effect of the keys,
  unless he be appointed to that purpose by receiving [holy] orders
  [(the priesthood)].

Thus, your question really amounts to why St. Peter and his successors, the popes, are necessary for there to be a valid priesthood.


How do you know when you are truly saved, and how do you live as a Christian afterwards? I'm 18 years old, and I was born in a Christian family (Evangelical), so I've been going to church and believed in Jesus my whole life. However, I am concerned about salvation. According to what I know, to get saved you have to repent, believe in Jesus, and try to sin as little as possible afterwards. However, I think there are more requirements because I do all of those things but I'm not really sure if I'm saved. Whenever I do sin I repent again (I pray for forgiveness) I know that many people would even consider me unsaved since I asked this question, because supposedly when you are saved you know it for sure and are confident. But the reason that I included my background in the question is because I am already saved, but I just don't see a difference because I don't have the luxury that a non-believer-turned-Christian would have. That is, I can't compare my current situation with my very sinful past and see a distinction, because I've always believed in God. What do you think? I think that even if I am saved, my lack of confidence shows that I am very weak. (By the way please be as direct as you need, and do not worry about offending me at all; this is a very serious topic and I need to know the answer).

P.S. Please include any relevant passages for me if you have any in mind.

Of course the answer will depend on which Christian tradition the answerer comes from, but since you requested passages from Scripture on the matter, here are a few to consider:
Is Jesus your Lord?

if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved -Romans 10:9

Do you live for Jesus?

He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. -2 Corinthians 5:15

Do you lay down your own will to follow Jesus?

If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. -Luke 9:23

Are you led by His Spirit?

all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. -Romans 8:14
In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. -Ephesians 1:13-14