According to Emanuel Swedenborg, will a good person who rejects Jesus go to heaven? According to Emanuel Swedenborg, or the New Church, can a good person go to heaven if he or she rejects Jesus? If all religions are inherently good, it would mean the a good person who believes only in Allah but refuse to believe or mock the idea that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, will still go to heaven? How does the whole thing work?

From a Swedenborgian perspective, this is a trick question.

Technically, according to Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), anyone who rejects Jesus ("the Lord," as Swedenborg refers to him) cannot go to heaven.

However, Swedenborg's definition of "rejecting the Lord" is quite different from the usual Christian definitions.

By the usual Christian definitions of "rejecting Jesus," yes, according to Swedenborg someone who has rejected and even mocked Jesus can go to heaven.

That's why it's a trick question (but a good one!): because it all depends on your definition of "rejecting Jesus."

Let me explain.

1. Swedenborg rejected the Trinity of Persons.

First, it is necessary to understand that Swedenborg utterly rejected the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in God--which is the foundational doctrine of most of the rest of Christianity.

He said, instead, that there is one God, and that Jesus Christ is that God. So although Swedenborg does state that there is a Trinity in God, he says that that Trinity is in a single Person of God, and that Jesus Christ is that one Person. For more on this, see my article, "Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?"

Therefore, in Swedenborg's view, anyone who believes in God is, in fact, believing in the Lord, or Jesus Christ, because there is no other God to believe in. Here is how he puts it in Divine Providence #330:5:

  Someone could point out that they [non-Christians] do not know the
  Lord, and that apart from the Lord there is no salvation. But no one
  is saved because of knowing about the Lord. We are saved because we
  live by his commandments. Further, the Lord is known to everyone who
  believes in God because the Lord is the God of heaven and earth, as he
  tells us in Matthew 28:18 and elsewhere. (link added)

So from Swedenborg's perspective, Muslims who believe in Allah are believing in Jesus Christ even if they do not call Allah "Jesus Christ" because Jesus Christ is the one God of heaven and earth. This means that for a Muslim, rejecting Jesus--or "the Lord" in Swedenborg's terminology--would mean rejecting Allah. And Muslims who reject Allah cannot go to heaven (according to Islam and Swedenborg) because they are rejecting God as they know God.

Muslims, Swedenborg says, can go to heaven if they believe in God (Allah, as they call God) and live a good life according to the teachings of their religion. To repeat a quote from the same section of Divine Providence given in the answer linked in the question:

  It is an insane heresy to believe that only those born in the church
  are saved. People born outside the church are just as human as people
  born within it. They come from the same heavenly source. They are
  equally living and immortal souls. They have religions as well,
  religions that enable them to believe that God exists and that they
  should lead good lives; and all of them who do believe in God and lead
  good lives become spiritual on their own level and are saved. (Divine
  Providence #330.5)

2. Swedenborg rejected the Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories of Atonement.

Second, it is necessary to understand that Swedenborg's view of Atonement and salvation departs fundamentally from Catholic and Protestant views.

It has only been for the last thousand years of Christianity, since Anselm, that some Christians (primarily Roman Catholics) have believed that Christ somehow stood in as a substitute for us in satisfying God's need for honor and justice.

And it has only been for the last five hundred years of Christianity, since the Protestant Reformation, that any significant number of Christians (mostly Protestants) have believed that Jesus paid the penalty for our sin on the cross--something that the Bible never actually says.

Swedenborg rejected both of those theories of atonement as false and non-biblical. His view was much closer to the Christus Victor view of salvation that was the primary theory of atonement for the first thousand years of Christianity. (Unfortunately, the Wikipedia articles on Penal Substitution and Christus Victor are not very good. The Penal Substitution article is particularly weak on the history of that doctrine.)

In Swedenborg's view, Jesus Christ made salvation available to all people everywhere by conquering the power of evil, the Devil, and hell and bringing them under his personal control. Without this, all people would have been spiritually destroyed by the mounting power of evil, which had reached its peak at the time of the Incarnation.

Because of Jesus' battles against and complete victory over evil and hell, God (AKA Jesus Christ) was able to restore the balance between good and evil, so that every human being everywhere on earth now has the freedom to choose God and goodness over hell and evil. And all who do so, according to Swedenborg, are saved.

This would not have been possible without the spiritual work Jesus Christ accomplished by his life, death, and resurrection. The Crucifixion was not salvation. Rather, it was only the final battle, by which Christ achieved final victory over the Devil, or hell.

Because of this view of salvation and atonement, from the perspective of Swedenborgian theology there is no need for non-Christians to believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins. The fact that Jesus did die for our sins is sufficient to secure our salvation, without the need for human belief in it. Rather, it is necessary for humans to believe in God and live according to God's commandments--which, as the next item points out, is one and the same thing in Swedenborg's view.

I realize this may raise many more questions. I am simplifying Swedenborg's doctrine on these subjects in the interest of time. For Swedenborg's own full presentation of these doctrines, please see the first volume of True Christianity.

3. Swedenborg defined "faith" as "the beliefs you live by."

Third, it is necessary to understand that Swedenborg defines "faith," or "belief," quite differently than many traditional Christian definitions of faith.

In Swedenborg's view, faith is inseparable from charity, meaning action.

Another way to put it is that for Swedenborg, "faith" is not a mere intellectual belief or assurance that something is true. Rather, faith is the belief that we live by. In this, he is very much in line with the Apostle James's views on faith:

  What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have
  faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or
  a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to
  them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about
  their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by
  itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James 2:14–17)

From Swedenborg's perspective, having faith in Jesus necessarily includes living by what Jesus teaches, because what we really believe is what we live by.

By the same token, rejecting Jesus means not living by what Jesus teaches. And although believing explicitly in Jesus is one of the things Jesus, and the New Testament generally, teaches, this, from a Swedenborgian perspective, is primarily for the purpose of inducing Christian believers to live according to Jesus' teachings.

The most important teaching of Jesus, and therefore of Christianity, is expressed in Matthew 22:35-40:

  One of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher,
  which commandment in the law is the greatest?"

  He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your
  heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the
  greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall
  love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all
  the law and the prophets."

Based on this teaching of Jesus, Swedenborg says that those who believe in God and love God, and who love their neighbor as themselves, are saved and go to heaven no matter what their religion. These people, Swedenborg says, truly believe in the Lord (Jesus Christ) because they are living according to the central and most important teaching of Jesus Christ.

4. Rejecting Christianity does not necessarily mean rejecting Jesus.

Fourth, it's necessary to understand that according to Swedenborg, many non-Christians, including Muslims and Jews, reject Christianity and Jesus for two basic reasons:

They see Christians living evil lives, which gives Christ a bad name.
They view Christianity as polytheistic because of the (false, in Swedenborg's view) doctrine of three persons in God.

Swedenborg believed that it was necessary for Christianity to be completely renovated, and to reject the fundamental falsity (as he saw it) of a Trinity of Persons in God before it would become acceptable to many believers in firmly monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Islam.

And Swedenborg believed that it was necessary for Christians to live by their religion instead of merely giving it lip service while living evil and self-centered lives, and thus giving Christianity a bad name.

So Swedenborg considered the rejection of Jesus among Muslims and Jews to be excusable because Christianity itself had become corrupt, and had presented to people of other religions a false picture of Jesus.

He looked forward to the day when a renewed and restored Christianity would present a true and belief-worthy picture of Jesus Christ as the one God of heaven and earth, who loves and saves all people, of every religion, who believe in God and live lives of love and service to their fellow human beings according to the teachings of their own religion.

This form of Christianity, he believed, would in time draw all nations to the beauty and power of the Christian faith, and to the belief that Jesus Christ is indeed the God and Savior of all.

For more on this, see my article "Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?" linked above, and also:

Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?
If there’s One God, Why All the Different Religions?


What things led to the canonization of Thomas More? Besides his martyrdom, what were some specific things that led to the canonization of Thomas More?

Besides his martyrdom? What were some specific things that led to his canonization?

The Homily at the Canonization of St. Thomas More in 1935 by His Holiness Pope Pius XI1 provides some of the reasons:

St. Thomas More, together with St. John Fisher were bright champions and the glory of their nation ... “as a fortified city, and a pillar of iron, and a wall of brass.” Therefore they could not be shaken by the fallacies of heretics, nor frightened by the threats of the powerful. They were, so to speak, the leaders and chieftains of that illustrious band of men who, from all classes of the people and from every part of Great Britain, resisted the new errors with unflinching spirit, and in shedding their blood, testified their loyal devotedness to the Holy See.
St. Thomas More was endowed with the keenest of minds and supreme versatility in every kind of knowledge, he enjoyed such esteem and favour among his fellow-citizens that he was soon able to reach the highest grades of public office. But he was no less distinguished for his desire of Christian perfection and his zeal for the salvation of souls.
The testimony in the ardour of his prayer, in the fervour with which he recited, whenever he could, even the Canonical Hours, in the practice of those penances by which he kept his body in subjection, and finally in the numerous and renowned accomplishments of both the spoken and the written word which he achieved for the defence of the Catholic faith and for the safeguarding of Christian morality.
St. Thomas More [was a man of] a strong and courageous spirit, [and] like [Saint] John Fisher, when he saw that the doctrines of the Church were gravely endangered, he knew how to despise resolutely the flattery of human respect, how to resist, in accordance with his duty, the supreme head of the State when there was question of things commanded by God and the Church, and how to renounce with dignity the high office with which he was invested. It was for these motives that he too was imprisoned, nor could the tears of his wife and children make him swerve from the path of truth and virtue.
In [his] terrible hour of trial he raised his eyes to heaven, and proved himself a bright example of Christian fortitude. Thus it was that he who not many years before had written a work emphasizing the duty of Catholics to defend their faith even at the cost of their lives, was seen to walk cheerful and confident from his prison to death, and thence to take his flight to the joys of eternal beatitude.

1. cf. Pius XI | Vatican.

Endnote:

St. Thomas More was a remarkable man, loving husband and good father and father-in-law.

Several Heads of State and of Government, numerous political figures, and some Episcopal Conferences and individual Bishops asked Pope St. John Paul II [the Great] to proclaim Saint Thomas More the Patron of Statesmen and Politicians. Those supporting the petition included people from different political, cultural and religious allegiances, and the Pope took this as a sign of the deep and widespread interest in the thought and activity of this outstanding Statesman. - Source: Supremacy and Survival: The English Reformation: Pope John Paul II and St. Thomas More, Tuesday, April 19, 2011.

Further reading:

St. Thomas More | New Advent.
Motu Proprio Proclaiming Saint Thomas More Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, 31 October 2000 | Pope St. John Paul II [the Great].


How do monothelites explain Jesus' prayer in the garden of Gethsemane? ...monothelitism is the view that Jesus Christ has two natures but only one will. - Wikipedia

In the garden, Jesus prayed:

  Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done. - Luke 22:42 NIV

How do (trinitarian) monothelites explain this? Do they believe that the Son's will can vary from the Father's (in which case, why doesn't the Son's willingness to accede to the will of the Father also represent an expression of the Son's will); or that the first half of this prayer does not actually represent an expression of the Son's will (in which case, for what reason does he pray this - wouldn't it then be a disingenuous request)?

First, You may be conflating Trinitarian monotheism with monothelitism which does not meet the definition of Triniterianism. Trinitarian monotheism teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not just one in will, but also one in substance.

Latter Day Saints, for example are monothelitic, but not monotheistic, teaching:

  Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose but are not literally the same being or substance

And on this basis many Protestants believe that Latter Day Saints are not Christian or are unsaved - so this is actually pretty large distinction and not as pedantic as one might think.

In either event, the answer is the same for both the Trinitarian monotheist and the monothelitist. This is merely a dialectic conflict within the single will of God.

This is the same dialectic conflict that any person might face who has a fear of, say, going to the dentist. You may be afraid and pray that your tooth pain would go away. You might plead and bargain to try to avoid the dentist, yet ultimately you go. You go because you know it is good for you in the long run. That despite your fear, you must go - that it is good for you in the long run. So despite your fear, you muster you courage, overcome your dread and fear, and you go to the dentist even though you don't really want to.

This does not indicate that you have two separate wills, but instead that you have mixed feelings and a fear of going to the dentist. You have an uncomfortable dissonance within your single psyche. The same is true of Jesus in the Garden. This does not signify two wills, but instead a fear of the coming thing that he has to do.


Is it generally acceptable to attend a bible study as a non Christian? I am a bit curious about seeking out a bible study. There are several reasons for this:

A friend of mine (in another country) says she finds such a study group enjoyable, and it seems to be a good way to meet new people. (I myself just moved to a new country, where Christianity seems to have a larger place in society than I am used to).

It will help me understand Christianity better.

However, I do not really consider myself a Christian. Will I be out of place in such a study group, or even, will people be offended?

I do like to question things, and ask if something is unclear (I have a strong background in science). Is this something that might make people uneasy?

The best bet is probably to talk with the leader of the group you are considering going to.  Many Bible studies welcome non-Christians.  You don't have to be Christian to study the Bible and people are unlikely to get offended in most cases.

Some Bible studies may be more uncomfortable for you than others depending on how they are run and what kind of spiritual things you are comfortable with though.  They may include prayer, worship music and confessing sins among other things in addition to time studying the Bible.

Bible Studies do tend to form tight knit communities studying together and often result in really interesting religious and philosophical discussions.  If you want a safe context where you can get questions answered about the Bible, it is probably worth trying one out.

As for your scientific background, as long as you don't treat people like they are stupid, you are unlikely to run in to any serious issues.  There are, in fact, many Christians who are very scientifically minded (myself included among them).  It may make some people a bit uneasy at first, but if you are polite and honestly try to understand where people are coming from and express yourself clearly and respectfully, the vast majority of people will be fine with you.

I've been to many Bible studies where there were non-Christians, young Christians and long term Christians alike.  Each have something different they can add and the best groups have generally been those that have a mix of all three.


Why do priests celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the congregation) at most Masses in the Ordinary Form? Why do priests celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the congregation) and at most Masses in the Ordinary Form?

Why do priests celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the congregation) at most Masses in the Ordinary Form?
Before getting into the crux of this question, let us see what the origin’s of this tradition might be. We can not truly understand this issue unless we can understand its’ origin.

Early evidence of Christian praying towards the east
Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220) says that, because Christians faced towards the east at prayer, some non-Christians thought they worshipped the sun.
Clement of Alexandria ( c. 150 – c. 215) says: "Since the dawn is an image of the day of birth, and from that point the light which has shone forth at first from the darkness increases, there has also dawned on those involved in darkness a day of the knowledge of truth. In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are made looking towards the sunrise in the east."
Origen (c. 185 – 253) says: "The fact that [...] of all the quarters of the heavens, the east is the only direction we turn to when we pour out prayer, the reasons for this, I think, are not easily discovered by anyone."
Later on, Fathers of the Church such as John of Damascus advanced mystical reasons for the custom.
Origin of the practice
The primitive Church had no knowledge of the origin of the practice. Origen says: "The reasons for this, I think, are not easily discovered by anyone." Although the general custom among Jews was to pray towards the temple in Jerusalem, Clement of Alexandria, Origen's older contemporary, says that the custom of praying eastward was general even among non-Christians: "In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are made looking towards the sunrise in the east. Whence also the most ancient temples looked towards the west, that people might be taught to turn to the east when facing the images."
In 1971, Georg Kretschmar proposed a connection between the Christian custom of praying towards the east and a practice of the earliest Christians in Jerusalem of praying towards the Mount of Olives, to the east of the city, which they saw as the locus of key eschatological events and especially of the awaited Second Coming of Christ. In his view, the localization of the Second Coming on the Mount of Olives was abandoned after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but the eastward direction of Christian prayer was retained and became general. Stefan Heid rejects his theory, but Lang holds that it is not without reasons to support it.
Martin Wallraff held that at the time of the formation of Christianity Jews prayed as commonly towards the east as towards the Jerusalem temple, but Lang considers that the eastward posture was rare among Jews. It was the practice, Paul F. Bradshaw says, of the Jewish sects of the Essenes and the Therapeutae, for whom "the eastward prayer had acquired an eschatological dimension, the 'fine bright day' for which the Therapeutae prayed being apparently the messianic age and the Essene prayer towards the sun 'as though beseeching him to rise' being a petition for the coming of the priestly Messiah." - Ad orientem (Wikipedia)

Celebrating the Mass facing the people is a centuries-old practice, although the vast majority historically said the Mass facing east.

After the Council, detailed directions for the celebration of the revised form of Mass were drawn up, including an instruction that the priest should celebrate Mass facing the people.
No, I am not referring to the Second Vatican Council or Inter Oecumenici or the GIRM. This was the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563), and the relevant documents were prepared under the leadership of St Charles Borromeo, the archbishop of Milan. He had not attended the Council, but he became a major implementer of the disciplinary reforms that the Council promulgated. Many of these were about removing superstitious ceremonial from the Mass; others spoke directly to the conduct of bishops and priests. The former were to avoid silken vestments, expensive furs, rings other than the episcopal ring; the latter were to exhibit restraint in their clothing and personal furnishings. Both were expected to exercise simplicity and moderation in every aspect of their lives. The splendor of faith was to be preferred to ornate display. You might say that St Charles anticipated the call for ‘noble simplicity’ of a later Council.
He also wrote extensively about the construction and furnishings of churches, in a document published in 1577, Instructiones fabricae et supellectilis ecclesiasticae. Chapter 10 speaks about the principal chapel of any church:

The site of this chapel must be chosen at the head of the church, in a prominent place and on an axis with the main entrance. The back part should face east, even if there are houses behind it. It must not face to the east of the summer solstice, but towards that of the equinox.

If this is not possible, the Bishop can decide and permit that it be built facing another direction, but in this case care must be taken at least that if possible it does not face north, but south. In any case the chapel in which the priest celebrates Mass from the high altar facing the people, in accordance with the rites of the Church, must face west.

In other words, orientem means simply “east”. When the priest celebrates at the main altar, facing the people, “in accordance with the rites of the Church”, he is to face east.
The historian John O’Malley asserts that Borromeo sought to standardize and promote a number of liturgical practices. Some were broadly adopted – for instance, placing the tabernacle in the center of the main altar. Others, which Borromeo had advocated, were not – O’Malley cites celebration with the priest facing the people as an example.
Uwe Lang speaks about Borromeo in his book about the orientation of liturgical prayer:

… the archbishop of Milan says that the capella major must be oriented, with the main altar facing east.  Where this is impossible, it can be directed towards another cardinal point (except north) but preferable toward the west, ‘as, in accordance with the rite of the Church (pro ritu Ecclesiae) the sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated at the main altar by the priest with his face turned towards the people.’

But Lang airily dismisses this as an exception:

Borromeo must have had in mind those Roman basilicas with a westward apse and an eastward entrance, where Mass was celebrated facing the people; this practice was no doubt familiar to him. Still, for Borromeo, the eastward direction was the paramount principle for liturgy and church architecture.

Celebration facing the people did not become normative, as (per O’Malley), St Charles Borromeo had wished it would. But this bit of history seems to give the lie to claims that celebration facing the people was a fabrication of the 20th century liturgical movement, or of misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. - Celebration facing the people: a centuries-old practice

While the current edition of the Roman Missal assumes that Masses are to be celebrated “ad orientem,” it is also permitted to celebrate “facing the people”. So, both ways are allowed.
No Vatican II document said that priests must face "toward the people" (versus populum). In fact, all Masses today can be celebrated ad orientem ("toward the east," the same direction the people face, which is toward the tabernacle). However, modern church architecture has made all but impossible to do so in many regions.
In many older churches, especially in Europe there are altars that make it an obligation for a priest to say the New Mass "ad orientem", facing east. Visit St Peter's Basilica at the Vatican for example.
There is no one correct answer as to why so many priests celebrate Mass facing the people. But some hints do exist.

The Mass versus populum is completely liturgically permitted by Rome.
Sadly, almost every church built or renovated since 1965 has significant design impediments to celebrating the Mass ad orientem. Because of confusion about what exactly the Second Vatican Council’s reform of the Mass required of sacred architecture, the traditional design of a church was radically altered in such a way that a return to the traditional posture of the priest facing liturgical East is difficult, if not impossible, in many churches. (Source)
Non-traditional Catholic seminaries need to teach their students the significance of saying the Mass “ad orientem”. Traditional gestures within the Mass need to be instilled into seminarians studying for the priesthood. Sadly this not being done in any great degree.
The faithful need to also to be taught the significance of the gesture of saying the Mass “ad orientem” so that the true symbolism of this gesture would be more easily accepted.
Some (with just cause) have reasoned that Jesus had the Apostles more or less in a circle or a U shape at the Last Supper when he instituted the Mass. Impossible to say whether or not Jesus faced east
(”ad orientem”). Jesus definitely faced his Apostles at the institution of the first mass. Source
Did Jesus have His Last Supper standing?

It should be noted that at Papal High Masses within the Roman Basilica of St. Peter, in either the Ordinary Form of the Mass or the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are both facing the people and the Sovereign Pontiff is still facing east (ad orientem).
As far as the Tridentine Mass goes the YouTube video Mass In Vatican With Pope Pius XII bears this fact out.
Part of this reason is the the actual basilica faces east.

Rome tourist attractions map
The traditional liturgical posture is to face East. That is the direction of the dawn, the new light and thus facing the direction of the returning Christ.
Most churches were built so that that the direction of worship literally faced East (traditional synogogues are also built in this manner).
However, St. Peters was not be build that way. Constantine literally had to carve into the side of Vatican Hill to get enough room to build the original basilica so that the altar was over the burial place of St. Peter. For these reasons, both Latin Rites share a common tread with the Supreme Pontiff facing east and facing the people at the same time.
A floor plan of St. Peter’s Basilica makes this unique unity between the the Roman Rite more understandable.


What tribe was Joshua from? I'm listening to a sermon about Aachen (from Joshua 7), when Joshua brings everybody in Israel before God, tribe by tribe, then clan by clan, then family by family.

As I'm listening, I am wondering how closely related to Aachen Joshua was. Presumably when he is doing this, there comes a place where Joshua is calling out his own. Who was that?

From the account of the spies entering Canaan, Joshua is identified as an Ephraimite (Tribe of Joseph, half-tribe of Ephraim):

  from the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Nun;   - Numbers 13:8  ESV

and in case of any doubt that Hoshea son of Nun is one and the same as Joshua son of Nun:

  And Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had spied out the land, tore their clothes - Numbers 14:6 ESV

-- makes it clear that it's the same guy.


When and why did the ancient church no longer care about offending a brother? Anyone reading the New Testament becomes aware that the early church would avoid practices that offended their brother, out of a spirit of love.  For example, even if it was not technically wrong to eat meat purchased in a market, that might have been originally been a sacrifice to an idol, where it offended a brother's conscience, a believer should avoid exercising his freedom in love.  This subject is described more fully here.

I am naturally interested in symbols and have posted a few questions about them. For example, here you can find discussion about how Jews hated every kind of human image, even on coins as 'graven images' were idolatry, if indicating any kind of power.

Also, I discovered that the modern halo can be traced back as far as ancient Canaanite and Babylonian Son worship. The brightness behind the head being the Sun. This was a common pagan symbol that seems to have been adopted by the ancient church around  the fourth century AD. At first it was only depicted in art for the divine nature of Jesus and then various versions spread to many other objects such as esteemed saints and Mary, etc. For details one can refer here.

The question is, as these pagan traditions were so fully detestable by Jewish ethics, even possibly more than eating unclean meat,  why such a aggressive introduction of so many things that would offend?  I can only imagine that some Jewish Christians still existed in the 4th century. Besides, even today many, if not most, Protestant Christians are deeply troubled in their consciences over the practice of praying to Saints, using religious icons, etc. So why would Paul say avoid even meats that 'seemed unclean' due to idolatry, according to a weaker brothers faith, but in the fourth century anything and everything that might appear as joining a golden calf to the worship of God was not only no longer shunned but lovingly embraced? Without even questioning the actual ethics of the individual practices, and even generously and falsely pretending it is the weak conscience that is offended, still it begs the question: 'Why no longer care about a brother's conscience?'

Note: Please avoid condemning specifc practices, or justifying specific practices that are offensive to many Christians.  My question is being raised at a higher level, which respects how a brother treats the offended. The actual offences are not central to this current question.

The fact that Paul found it necessary to discuss this issue not once, but twice, would seem to indicate that it WAS a problem in the first century church, and not something that the church handled just fine in the first century but then went astray later.

More important, there are two sides to Paul's discussion of such offense. He doesn't say, If something offends a brother, don't do it, period end of story. Rather, he has admonitions for both parties.

  Romans 14 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. ... 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.

So yes, vv 19-21 say that the brother who sees nothing wrong with X should nevertheless be careful that he does not create a stumbling block for the brother to whom it is a problem. This may mean giving up something that he is convinced is perfectly good and acceptable to avoid offending another Christian.

But before he says that, look at verse 3: The brother who thinks that X is bad but has no clear scriptural justification for saying that, should not condemn the brother who does it.

We could debate exactly what Paul meant you should do. I suspect he's a little vague because the answer is not so simple as "never do it". If that was the rule, then one foolish Christian who condemns things for no good reason would force all the other Christians in the world to give up all sorts of good things. It is no answer to say that you will only give it up if the other person can offer good reasons. Paul's whole point is that he is talking about "disputable matters". By definition, this is about cases where neither person can give solid, undisputable reasons for his position.

Suppose another Christian said that he believed that a Christian should not own a house. Would you burn your house down and live under a bridge to avoid offending him? (You can't sell it -- that would just be encouraging others to sin!) Sorry, I doubt I would go that far.

In practice, well, let me take a real case. Many Christians I know believe you should not drink any alcohol at all. I disagree. I won't get into the scriptural arguments here as they're beside the point. I don't belittle Christians who don't drink. I don't try to badger them into drinking, like saying, "Here, have some  wine. How can it hurt? What's the big deal?" etc. I don't drink in front of them, offer them alcohol, or discuss how much I like this brand or whatever in front of them. But I don't totally abstain to avoid offending hem, either. I just don't do it in front of them.

Likewise, Paul is saying that they should not condemn me for drinking.

We should respect each other's difference of opinion or understanding.


If a person undergoes an emergency baptism, then recovers, do they need a "non-emergency" baptism? If a person receives an emergency baptism, but then recovers from that danger, is that considered valid for the rest of their life? Or would they be expected to undergo a "non-emergency" baptism in the future?

In other words, is emergency baptism temporary or is it permanent?

A baptism is a baptism. There is no such thing as a "temporary baptism".

The key part of the Canons is as follows:

  An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay. (Canon 867 §2)

There is no provision for any kind of "rebaptism" or anything similar: indeed "only [a person not yet baptized] is capable of baptism" (Canon 864).

There are other rules about baptisms in case of necessity (imminent danger of death being the most common necessity). For instance, any person with the correct intent may baptize in necessity, not only a priest. None of these rules, however, suggest the emergency baptism is anything other than full, complete and efficacious.


What does a "non-denominational" Protestant believe? I have heard "non-denominational" Protestant churches identify themselves as such because they believe they are above the squabbling and blindness that characterizes denominational Christianity.

I have heard Christians identify themselves as "non-denominational" because they aren't really loyal to any particular denomination at the moment.

I have also heard from non- non-denominationals that "non-denominational" is in essence a denomination of itself, because churches of this identification are actually related in their origin, theology, etc. Is that true? Are there any distinct characteristics of non-denominational Protestant churches besides the name?

A Christian denomination is simply a group of churches which have agreed to work together (in over-simplified terms).  Some denominations have very rigid structures, others not so much.  They tend to share some degree of theological beliefs, but even within a denomination there may be a wide variance.

A non-denominational church, by contrast, simply does not belong to such a group.

It's quite analogous to retail chains.  Some retail chains maintain very strict control over their various retail outlets, ensuring that branding is the same everywhere, that customer service is the same everywhere, etc. Cracker Barrel comes to mind.

Some chains maintain a very loose control, allowing franchisees to set cleanliness standards, customer service standards, etc. Phillips 66 comes to mind.

Then you have one-off, mom-and-pop stores, which have no corporate or franchise oversight at all, and they do whatever they wish.  They may have the same standards of service and products as some chain stores, but not by mandate.

So asking what a non-denominational protestant believes, is a lot like asking what a non-chain store is like:  It's all over the map.

Pretty much the only thing that non-denominational protestants all believe, is that they are not Catholics.


What does the LDS Church teach about infallibility? "Infallibility" is a loaded word and very likely has different connotations in different denominations.  In its most basic form, it suggests that there is a path (revelatory or not) between God and man that can be absolutely trusted.

Despite the benefits of an infallible path of communication between God and man, the LDS Church believes no one but Jesus Christ has been or will be infallible.  Indeed, the Church teaches that the various editions of the Bible are not infallible (Article of Faith #8).

Question: What does the LDS Church teach about infallibility?

I am seeking a canonical answer.

I think the best summary of the LDS teaching on infallibility, specifically in reference to prophets and revelation, is the following statement from Joseph Smith:

  I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught - (The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 369)

In short, nobody who has lived on the earth except Jesus Christ has been or will be infallible; however, those called of God are still capable of receiving and teaching infallible doctrine through revelation.

Since prophets are not infallible, how can we be sure that what they are teaching is infallible doctrine, actual revelation from God?  I know of two canonical measuring sticks, there may be more:

Unity of councils.  At both general and local levels of leadership in the church, presidents of organizations and congregations are members of a council.  For the prophet, he is a member of the 3-person First Presidency and is assisted by the 12-member Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  The decisions of these councils are supposed to be unanimous, according to section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 27:

  And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other

This process of obtain unanimity is believed to be the working of the Holy Spirit to obtain revelation, in order for divergent viewpoints to be brought together in harmony.  From Boyd K. Packer, who was an apostle:

  I have, rather, observed a beautiful and remarkable thing—the coming
  together, under the directing influence of the Holy Spirit and under
  the power of revelation, of divergent views until there is total
  harmony and full agreement. Only then is implementation made. That, I
  testify, represents the spirit of revelation manifested again and
  again in directing this the Lord’s work. - (Ensign, May 1994, 54, 59)

The above quote along with other statements on the process of obtain revelation in a council can be found in this LDS Institute Manual.

This statement from mormonnewsroom.org is also relevant:

  Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Personal revelation.  The LDS church teaches that each member can and should receive a personal witness through revelation of anything and everything taught in the scriptures and by church leaders and teachers.  Doctrine & Covenants 50:21-22 demonstrates this:

  21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

  22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

Thus both teaching the word and hearing the word are to be performed by the spirit of God, allowing both the word of truth to be taught by revelation and its truth to be received by revelation.

Similarly, Joseph Smith taught

  God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve [Apostles], and even the least Saint may know all things as fast he is able to bear them. - (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007, 268.)

In summary, no one on the earth except Jesus Christ has been or will be infallible, but through revelation those called of God call still share infallible teachings, and also through revelation those who receive those teachings can come to know of their infallibility.


Is the idea that God is infinite in all ways accepted by all Christians? From a Catholic site:

  "When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that every *conceivable perfection belongs to Him in the highest *conceivable way."

*I presume this means 'conceivable by God' as infinity is, by definition, unable to be fully pictured by us.

This seems to imply that every single good thing (literally every good thing) is an aspect of God and is one of His many infinite attributes that has (again, literally) unending quality.

Do all Christians agree with this idea?

In short, no. Concepts such as infiniteness, omnipotence, ect do have slight variations among Christian theologians.

Alternative interpretation of the infiniteness of God:

Infinity is a pattern which is able to repeated endlessly. God contains characteristics and qualities- patterns- which will be repeated without end, such as His existence, goodness, and so on.


Mormon view of the wrong action committed by angels according to 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude I noted from an earlier question that, according to Mormons, the "Sons of God" that married "daughters of men" in Genesis 6 were human males.

Based on this I had wanted to ask about three New Testament passages that seem to refer to some wrong actions committed by spirit beings or angels.

The passage at 1 Peter 3:19,20 seems to say that the action happened at the time of Noah:

  19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20
  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
  waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein
  few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The passage at 2 Peter 2:4,5 seems to say pretty much the same as above, but refers to the creatures as "angels" rather than "spirits":

  4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to
  hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto
  judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth
  person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the
  world of the ungodly;

And the passage in Jude 6 and 7 seems to relate their action to the fornication and "going after strange flesh" in Sodom and Gomorrah:

  6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own
  habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto
  the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the
  cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to
  fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an
  example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Possibly related to above passages (but not part of this question) is this one in 1 Corinthians 6:3:

  Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that
  pertain to this life?

What wrongful action by spirit beings do these passages refer to?

First, it's important to understand what an angel is. In Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3 it says:

1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—
2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.

Both spirits and resurrected beings are considered angels.
These passages that you mention are actions of people before they died, in this case in the time of Noah. In the spirit world, there are two parts: spirit prison (usually referred to as hell) and spirit paradise (sometimes referred to as heaven). In 1 Peter3:19,20 the author is saying Jesus went and preached to those in spirit prison, and some of those people in spirit prison were those who sinned in the times of Noah.
The second passage in 2 Peter 2:4,5 refers to spirits as angels (which Mormons believe to be synonymous, but we know from the first passage what type of angels (spirits)) and how they are in hell or spirit prison awaiting judgment.
The third passage in Jude 1:6,7 mentions angels who kept not their first estate. From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism it says:

First estate refers to the unspecified period of time otherwise known as premortal life. The words "first estate" in Jude 1:6 are the King James translation of the Greek arché. In other English versions the word is translated as "principality," "domain," "dominion," "appointed spheres," "responsibilities," and "original rank." In the context of Jude 1:6 each of these implies that certain intelligent beings existed in significant positions in the pre-earth life and fell from their favored status with God.

This is all part of the Plan of Salvation. Mormons believe that before we lived on earth everyone lived in the Pre-mortal life with God as spirits. He presented a plan where we could come down to earth to gain a physical body. The plan involved us (man) to have a veil placed over our mind (so we wouldn't remember the pre-earth life) and we'd have agency, or the ability to choose and act for ourselves. This would mean some would sin and fall away, thereby not retaining one's first estate, or standing with God in the pre-existence. Man would also have the choice to be obedient and be able to return to live with God again (retaining their first estate).
To be clear the wrong actions these angels performed (before they were angels, when they were men) were various sins, but it does not necessarily say what sins except that they were disobedient (1st passage), they sinned(2nd passage), and  it mentions fornication and going after strange flesh (3rd passage).
emphasis added


According to the Roman Catholic church, who can baptize a new believer? As far as I remember, there is no rule in the Bible as to who can baptize a new believer. However, I'm almost certain that sometime in the early history of the Roman Catholic church, someone or some group of people decided on some rule, such as being a pastor. Or, perhaps they instead decided that anyone could baptize a new believer. I don't know, so I'm asking: according to the Roman Catholic church, who can baptize a new believer?

Related: In general, in the Protestant branch, who can baptize a new believer?

In an emergency where there is danger of imminent death, anyone (yes, anyone) who has the appropriate intention can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula.
In all other cases, Catholics are instructed to contact their parish.
(Note that this only concerns who can baptize: not all persons should be baptized. There are certain restrictions regarding the baptism of certain adults, though young children can always be baptized.)

The official Catechism addresses this directly:

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

To be very clear: in cases where there is danger of imminent death, anyone can baptize. A person does not need to be male or baptized. Even a child can baptize in an emergency, if an adult is not present or incapacitated, though the child must be able to form the appropriate intention.
When there is no danger of imminent death, baptism is to be handled by the Church. The relevant Canon law is:

THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM
Can.  861 §1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 530, n. 1.

Can. 530 The following functions are especially entrusted to a pastor:
1/ the administration of baptism; [...]

§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.
Can.  862 Except in a case of necessity, no one is permitted to confer baptism in the territory of another without the required permission, not even upon his own subjects.
Can.  863 The baptism of adults, at least of those who have completed their fourteenth year, is to be deferred to the diocesan bishop so that he himself administers it if he has judged it Expedient.

These rules are in place to ensure that the baptism is, above all, performed in a valid way, but also to ensure that it is recorded appropriately.
It would be unwise and prideful for a person to perform baptism out of accordance with these rules, for the same reason that it would be unwise and prideful for a person to perform life-threatening surgery without the proper consultation of a trained doctor. Though of course, when a person is dying in front of you and there is nobody better able, you will, can, and are obliged to do everything you can to help save them, if they can be saved.


According to pre-tribulation pre-millenialists, when would and will Christians be persecuted for their faith as a sign to the world? In Matthew 10:16-25 BSB, it says

  "16 Behold, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 But beware of men; for they will hand you over to their councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18 On My account, you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they hand you over, do not worry about how to respond or what to say. In that hour you will be given what to say. 20 For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rise against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next. Truly I tell you, you will not reach all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. 24 A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for a disciple to be like his teacher and a servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!"

Moreover, it is repeated in Matthew 24:9 BSB,

  9 Then they will deliver you over to be persecuted and killed, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name.

Now the context of Matthew 10 is when Jesus is sending out the 12 disciples to preach to Israel and he is saying that they will be persecuted, hated, and called all kinds of horrible names. The context of Matthew 24 is a bit of the opposite case; it's now about the end of the Jesus' gospel ministry instead about the beginning of it. During both periods of time, Jesus said they would be persecuted, but now, why not in the middle of the two? Don't get me wrong - I do know of missionaries who are persecuted in other countries and people who go to church in their country despite their country having laws/enforcements against it, but the majority of professing Christians don't get physically, verbally, or mentally persecuted in the way that Jesus said they would be.

However, my questions are the following: according to pre-tribulation pre-millennialists, when will (if they will be) professing Christians be persecuted throughout the world to the full extent that Jesus intended when he said "all nations" would hate Christians? and does persecution (from the world) accurately measure how we are following Jesus since

  18 If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me first. 19 If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. 20 Remember the word that I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well. 21 But they will treat you like this on account of My name, because they do not know the One who sent Me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. John 15:18-22 BSB

and also since Jesus said to

  4 Remain in Me, and I will remain in you. Just as no branch can bear fruit by itself unless it remains in the vine, neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in Me. John 15:4 BSB

So by being called to remain in Him, will we (according to pre-tribulation pre-millennialists) also, therefore, be called to be perfect and holy, bearing the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and thereby provoking the world to jealousy, thus producing persecution?

Also, I hope to make this question have non-opinionated and non-biased (as humanly possible) answers. If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve this question, please chime in below!

Your question tho aimed to a specific grouping of individuals, has peaked my interest. The question of when as you have pointed out is everyday, for people in various places tho not in your locale... One hears of people being gunned down in churches, wiped out of villages and the such... But what I get from you is when will there be arnachy  right? Chaos as some others would term it... Get this, that would be after Rapture... Now altho I hold to no specific denomination tho I frequented them whilst growing, I know this sort of responce would be termed pre-trib... And whilst I am not a proponent for any official wording or doctrine of any specific group I do find this consistent with the scripture... I could cite them but of course you may be well versed yourself, so here it goes my reasoning:

Not all believers are and would be ready to depart in Rapture, some are like the 5 foolish virgin's whose oil has finished (yet they are still virgins tho foolish). They will be witnesses to affirm the event of the rapture and be the ones to counter the official (And I mean governmental) explanations for the bizzare events of the rapture and everything that follows... [Mass alien abduction may be the buzzword]... and the 'aliens' [angelic manifestations of The OTHER kind] are not the other worldly sci-fi entities you were brought up on... But rather spiritual entities, manifested...

Believers who were not 'ready' tho 'left-behind' will be very aware of what occurred,  and will be the ones to continue witnessing, preaching, converting those who are left here, or even born then, about the God of the Rapture... but that is on the physical side, the spiritual side of this is that the rapture will be simply the withdrawing of the Restrainer (Holy Spirit) and with him all who house him in their hearts as referenced in Thessalonians (those who accept the free gift of salvation, offered by Yeshua [Jesus Christ])...

Now when the Restrainer is removed along with the saints he inhabits, then obviously, what was being restrained will be allowed free reign and may manifest fully in our physical world... take a look at popular media to get a glimpse of what is to come (spiritual expression [zombie apocalypse]) is just one buzzword I will use to set you thinking due to the Restrainer being removed... that is when the message would be prosecuted as referenced by the scriptures u cited, when God in the Spirit form (Holy Spirit) would not daily restrain but leave man to his choices and devices, yet still faithfully accept those who would hear even in those days, and believe, confess and even be matyred in His name...

The saving grace is we still have time! Today to be specific, make that decision today, be vigilant, be (spiritually sober), be ready!..

As further encouragement; Revelation 20:5-6:- Blessed and Holy are you, if...


Are those instructed before baptism considered catechumens before entering the catechumenate formally? This question and its answer reminded me a question I wondered about a long time ago: the ritual of entering catechumenate usually takes place some time during the process of pre-baptismal catecheses (i.e. learning the basics before someone is prepared for baptism), so there is some time (often quite a long time) when the person is being instructed but didn't enter catechumenate yet.

My question is whether the person is considered a catechumen by canon law since the moment the process of pre-baptismal catecheses begin (may be hard to find out when did it begin!), or since the ceremony of entering the catechumenate? If the latter is the case, have those learning so that they could be baptized any special status?

One who is exploring whether to become Catholic is known as an Inquirer and is in the stage known as Period of Evangelization and Precatechumenate, as explained by the USCCB's webpage devoted to explaining the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. It goes on:

  After a conversation with a priest, or RCIA director, the person, known as an "inquirer," may seek acceptance into the Order of Catechumens, through the Rite of Acceptance. During this Rite, the inquirer stands amidst the parish community and states that he or she wants to become a baptized member of the Catholic Church. The parish assembly affirms this desire and the inquirer becomes a "catechumen."

Those who are already baptized Christians desiring full communion with the Catholic Church, known as Candidates, go through a process known as formation. As practical matter at many parishes, both candidates and catechumens attend many (if not most) of the same instructional classes.


Why did the apostle John call himself, "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? John refers to himself, on at least four occasions, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? (John 13:23, 19:26, 21:7 & 21:20).

Why is this? It seems a bit arrogant, especially as Jesus loved the other disciples as well.

There are two ways to read that. Reading it as an arrogant statement is certainly one, but I think it can also be read exactly the opposite way -- as a sign of humility. Not wanting to name himself in a "me, John, I was there see" way, he simply refers to himself based on his identity in relation to Christ.

As a Christian I think this is great way to think of ourselves. Rather than thinking about myself and my accomplishments, if I think about my identity as the way Christ sees me -- that I am simply a recipient of undeserved love -- my life is more likely to reflect him.

It doesn't have to be a boastful statement.


What are the conditions for removing excommunication of a married priest? If a Catholic priest leaves his priesthood and marries a woman, he is automatically excommunicated.
Does the Catholic Church recognize his marriage? He marries outside of the Chuch so his marriage is not sacramental but it might still be recognized as it is for atheists or other Christians.

What can the priest do if he realizes his wrong decision and wants to go back to the priesthood or at least start leaving a sacramental life? Let's say he has children and is validly married according to the secular law.

I know deacons must stay away from a marital act with their wives and live in celibacy. So I'm expecting similar requirements for an excommunicated priest who at least wants back because of sacraments. Can he even live with his wife as it might be considered cohabitation or would he be allowed to remarry in the Catholic Church so he can live with his wife?

If a man is ordained, he is unable to validly marry in the Church:

  Those in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 1087)

But he is not (as AthanasiusOfAlex points out) excommunicated by that fact. He is suspended from carrying out his priestly office:

  A cleric who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae suspension. If he does not repent after being warned and continues to give scandal, he can be punished gradually by privations or even by dismissal from the clerical state.

(Canon 1394)

Thus it is expected that the man will separate from his putative wife and presumably get a civil divorce. In some ways he is in a similar situation to one who has civilly divorced and "remarried" (i.e., one who who lives in concubinage). (I've answered a question about that very possibility.)

There is no way to validate the putative marriage by convalidation or radical sanation while still being a priest. He can request an indult (formal permission) from the Holy See to become laicized, and then another to marry after that.

He cannot go on living "as brother and sister" with his putative spouse. This is an option for lay people. But if a priest were to do so, he'd invite scandal, the possibility of leading people into evil (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2284.) In this case, the scandal would be the potential belief that the Catholic Church was actually OK with the man's sin, and therefore that this wasn't a big deal, and maybe that it was not really a sin in the Church's eyes. Thus he will need to leave, and make it clear that he is not married to this woman.

If he is laicized, he can (with permission) validly marry. Even if he remains a priest, though, the man is still responsible for his minor children, and will have to make some sort of arrangement for their welfare. Since the bishop is in turn responsible for him, he will probably suggest that the priest request to be laicized, allowing him to raise a family as if he were a married layman.

Either way, once the man's spiritual situation is regularized (i.e. once he becomes again either an active priest in good standing or a laicized priest validly married), he should confess the sin (of fornication) which he has committed, and return to full spiritual health.


Did the apostles believe that God is unique, eternal, infinite, omnipotent, immutable, "simple", spirit, and personal? I am pretty sure the Jewish Bible (OT) gives these characteristics to God.

Examples.

1) God is unique: Is 45:18

2) God is infinite and omnipotent: Ps 135:5-6

3) God is eternal: Is 40:28

4) God is beyond measurement, He is not limited to space:
1 Kgs 8:27

6) God is immutable, He does not change...ever: Ps 102:26:28

7) God is utterly simple, pure spirit: Ex 20:4 (a negative statement showing that He cannot be represented)

8) God is personal: Jer 31:3

Well and good.

I also know that the apostles were various types of Jewish, who Jesus called. So. Did the apostles still hold to the "attributes of God"?  They didn't stop believing that God had all those attribs, did they?

The apostles believed the SAME God revealed in the OT fulfilled his promise by sending Jesus, His Son.  The promise He delivered through the prophets as well as hinted through His inspiration to the writers of the Wisdom books such as the Psalms, Job, etc. so the NT books are replete with OT references.

I think the variety of Jewish schools of thoughts (the primary ones being the Pharisees, the Sadducee, the Essenes, the Zealots) did not differ when it came to characterizing who their God was, possessing the attributes of the LORD (yhwh) in the OT.  Furthermore, when the apostles began to realize how Jesus's essence was actually the same as the God that they have been worshiping in the Temple, it's NOT necessary for them to discard / demote those attributes.

Instead, they were delighted that now they could see God face to face, something that was scary (they could die) or prohibited.  If you place yourself in the apostles's shoes, it's like the far distant King whom you so much revered and longed for His presence in the world suddenly came for a visit to YOUR home and personally called you to be one of the twelve.  It's like Queen Elizabeth visited your home in rural England disguised as a regular person but who later revealed herself to be the Queen AND adopted you as her son.  What an honor!  Did you believe her and accept the adoption?  Or did you refuse to believe she was truly the Queen, like Judas?

After resurrection, the apostles were emboldened and were willing to suffer and die like Jesus for the SAME OT God, like the Maccabean heroes who were martyred less than 200 years earlier.  In their evangelistic ministries (Paul being the most documented in the NT), do we see them relinquishing the attributes you mentioned?  Let's see.  I'm adding an NT verse to your list.  They may not be the best NT verse for the attribute, but close enough.

God is unique: Is 45:18  Acts 14:15
God is infinite and omnipotent: Ps 135:5-6 Rom 11:33-35
God is eternal: Is 40:28  Rev 1:8
God is beyond measurement, He is not limited to space: 1 Kgs 8:27  Acts 17:24 (In fact, I think Paul quoted 1 Kgs 8:27 !)
(you skipped a number :-) )
God is immutable, He does not change...ever: Ps 102:26-28 Heb 6:17
God is utterly simple, pure spirit: Ex 20:4 (a negative statement showing that He cannot be represented)  1 Cor 10 (here Paul warned the Corinthians not to follow the example of the Israelites in the wilderness, worshiping idol)
God is personal: Jer 31:3  John 3:16

I hope I addressed your question.


Is celebrating Christmas required of Catholics? I understand that Catholics are obligated to attend mass and take communion on Christmas — are they obligated to celebrate Christmas in the traditional tree-in-the-house, gift-giving sense?

As a Catholic, you are required to celebrate the "holy-day" of Christmas, as you mentioned, by going to Mass, receiving the Eucharist, giving honor and glory to God and celebrating Jesus' birth. However, you are not required to celebrate it in the "traditional tree in the house gift giving sense". These traditions, like many traditions on Christian holidays, represent something related to the holiday, but are not a necessity. What really is important is giving honor and glory to God on that day. To sum it up, it is not required to put up a tree, decorate or give gifts, you just need to make the holiday a holy-day. If you can find other ways to celebrate that give glory to God, do them. They are much more pleasing to Him than letting what has become mostly secular occupy your mind and heart.

P.S. There's nothing wrong with the extras. As long as Jesus is the center, they make nice additions!

Christ be with you!


Is there a tradition of breaking pottery in the Paschal Liturgies of the Eastern Churches? As a Melkite deacon, I'm familiar with the liturgical practices of the Eastern Churches.  However, I've just seen a youtube video of something I've never heard of, and can't explain.

Near the end of the video titled, Easter Saturday night and resurrection, Zakynthos, Greece found here: specifically at about 25:15, the procession of the tomb apparently ended, the people can be seen gathered around a large empty space in the church courtyard.  More or less on cue, the people start throwing large clay pots, or water jugs, into the center. This continues for several minutes, with participants tossing in their contribution  when, as it were, the spirit moves them.

Can anyone explain this? Thanks!

Christ is among us!

This custom occurs on a few of the Ionian islands such as Corfu (and Zakinthos). In Corfu it usually occurs on holy Saturday where they toss ceramic pots off their balconies into the streets.

As you know the video link is mistitled. This is not the holy Saturday night/Midnite Anastasis service, this is Great Friday evening of The Epitafios Lamentation service. Some say these traditions originated with the Venetian rule after the defeat of the Ottomon seige, others say they are of pagan origins.

Regardless this custom is meant to symbolize the Harrowing of Hades or more specifically the smashing of the Gates of Hades, where Christ burst through the gates and released the captive souls.  St Macarius gives a homily on the descent into Hades with a twist where one can make the connection of this event and the smashing of pottery. St Macarius states (source):

  When you hear that the Lord in the old days delivered the souls from hell, how He descended into hell performing that glorious deed, do not think that all these events are far from your soul. The same Lord comes into the souls that seek Him, into the depth of the heart’s hell, and there commands death, saying: ‘Release the imprisoned souls which have sought Me and which you hold by force’. And He shatters the heavy stones weighing on the soul, opens graves, raises the true dead from death, brings the imprisoned soul from the dark prison… Is it difficult for God to enter death and, even more, into the depth of the heart and to call out dead Adam from there?


Which specific canons of the Second Council of Constantinople do Lutherans and Calvinists reject? The Wikipedia article on the Second Council of Constantinople (the fifth Ecumenical Council) claims that Lutherans and Calvinists accept only the first four Ecumenical Councils as being canonical.

My question is really two fold, and directed separately towards Lutherans and Calvinists.

Is the above claim true?
If so, which specific canons of the Second Council of Constantinople are rejected and why?

I realize that I may be at risk of overgeneralizing "Calvinists", since perhaps there are disparate beliefs among different Calvinist denominations.  If so, perhaps someone could answer the question(s) from their own denomination's perspective.  I don't expect the same possibility of divergence among Lutherans, but perhaps I am in error here.

The First Four Councils

The main, but only the main,  conclusions of each of the first four Ecumenical Councils  were specifically endorsed by both Calvin and  Luther personally.  These 4 councils are also mentioned by name  in the (Calvinist) Second Helvetican Confession, Chapter 11 . The doctrines themselves are also in the  Westminster Confession chapters 2 and 8, and the (Lutheran)  AugsburgConfession Articles 1 and 3, amongst others.

Endorsing only  the first four seems  to imply  there must have been some objection to the fifth. We may imagine Luther, in his Wittenberg study, going through the Councils in order and saying:  Nicea,  ok; First Constantinople , ok; Ephesus,  ok, Chalcedon, ok; Second Constantinople,  uh-oh, don't like this one.

But that would be a misunderstanding.  The first four were particularly mentioned because of the great importance of the doctrines to which they bore witness.  Pope Gregory the Great, who lived after the fifth Council, but before the sixth,wrote  that he received and revered the first four Councils as he did the four gospels. He went on to say he also revered the fifth Council. It wasn't that Gregory had  anything against the fifth, but it just wasn't, to him,  such a big deal, doctrinally, as the first four. In this, Luther and Calvin concurred with him.

Furthermore, the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church accept only the first two Councils, objecting to the third;   and the Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Coptic, not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox) accept the first three, objecting to the fourth.  In accepting four the Reformers demonstrated their Catholicity in contrast to these groups.

Luther

Luther wrote On the Councils and the Church in 1539. In it he summed up the doctrines of the first four as follows.

  The first, at Nicaea, defended the deity of Christ against Arius; the second, at Constantinople, defended the deity of the Holy Ghost against Macedonius; the third, at Ephesus, defended the one Person of Christ against Nestorius; the fourth, at Chalcedon, defended the two natures in Christ against Eutyches: — but they did not thereby establish any new article of faith. For these four articles are established far more abundantly and powerfully in St. John’s Gospel alone, even though the other evangelists and St. Paul and St. Peter had written nothing about them, though all these, together with the prophets, teach them and testify mightily to them.

Luther was adamant that these doctrines of these councils were fully proved in Scripture, and believed for that reason only. The Councils, per se, added nothing.  It is convenient to refer to the doctrines by the names of the Councils, but they are not accepted merely by authority of the councils. At all councils there   were bad mixed with good," like mouse-droppings in the pepper", as he put it. In any case, he said, he would "rather drink from the spring than the brook", by which he meant Scripture rather than Council.

Luther drew a distinction between the chief subject of a Council, that is the purpose for which the Emperor had called it, and the other matters it might take it upon itself to consider. He was quite scathing about  most of the decrees of the even the first Ecumenical Council, that of Nicea.

  The greater part of them is merely priests’ quarrelling :  —  there are not to be two bishops in one city; no bishop of a small church is to be ambitious for a greater one; clerics, or servants of a church, are not to leave their own church and slip hither and thither among other churches; no one is to ordain the people of any bishop without his knowledge and consent; no bishop is to accept a man who has been expelled by another bishop; the bishop of Jerusalem is to retain his ancient privilege of dignity above others; and more of that kind of talk.
   Who can hold these things for articles of faith? What of them can one preach to the people in the Church? What difference do these things make to Church or people? Unless, of course, they are to be treated as a history from which one can learn that at that time, too, there were everywhere in the Church self-willed, wicked, disorderly bishops, priests, clergy, and people, who were more concerned about honours and power and wealth than about God and His kingdom, and that people needed to be on their guard against them.

Luther also ridiculed  the  Nicean canons  on military service (12) and  priestly castration (1).  So it is clear that Luther did not regard any of the Ecumenical Councils as binding or even correct except as regards specific points which were, anyway, in the Bible, and accepted on that account alone.

In fact Luther goes further back, to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 . The chief subject was whether Gentile Christians must obey the Mosaic Law. The decision: no. But to this was added a stipulation, proposed by James, about abstaining from blood. If people were to take  that seriously, Luther pointed out,  nobody would eat blutwurst.  Since a ban on German sausages was so patently preposterous,  it proved  that the  peripheral decrees of councils, even of the apostles never mind later bishops, could  not to be taken seriously as having any permanent  relevance.  (Luther also moved James' epistle towards  the back of German Bibles, but gave reasons unconnected with sausages.)

Calvin

Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 9, addresses "Councils and their Authority".  In section 8 of this chapter he said of the four councils, and later ones:

  Thus those ancient Councils of Nice, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the like, which were held for refuting errors, we willingly embrace, and reverence as sacred, in so far as relates to doctrines of faith, for they contain nothing but the pure and genuine interpretation of Scripture, which the holy Fathers with spiritual prudence adopted to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen. In some later councils, also, we see displayed a true zeal for religion, and moreover unequivocal marks of genius, learning, and prudence. But as matters usually become worse and worse, it is easy to see in more modern councils how much the Church gradually degenerated from the purity of that golden age

While praising the four he is very much opposed to the seventh, which condemned iconoclasm and mandated images in church. This Second Council of Nice (757) is condemned by  Calvin in  Book 1, Chapter 11, section 14  of the Institutes. He ridicules some of the arguments used by the Council in "the absurd defence of the worship of images", and quotes approvingly  from a refutation of the seventh council said to have been written by  Charlemagne.

Protestant Doctrinal Standards On Councils  Generally

The Westminster Confession states in Chapter 31, article 4

  All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both

The first two articles of the Epitome of Concord in the Lutheran doctrinal standard say (abridged):

  We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas  should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone.   .....  Other writings, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses.

Article 21 of the Church of England says

  General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

So, to summarise, Protestants acknowledge the truth of the principal dogmas of the first four councils. They do not accord any power to any council to declare any doctrine by its own authority. They believe Councils can err, and have erred. Calvin, in particular, asserts that the Seventh Council erred.

The fifth and sixth,  dealing with obscure and long-forgotten controversies of no particular interest, were simply not mentioned.

This was the position in the time of the Reformation.

Twentieth Century Lutheran/Orthodox Statements

In the latter half of the twentieth century a dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation and representatives of the Eastern Orthodox churches resulted in a series of agreements.

The Seventh Joint Declaration, 1993,  refers to all  seven Ecumenical Councils accepted by the  Eastern  Orthodox. These are First Nicea, 325; First Constantinople, 381; Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451; Second Constantinople, 553; Third Constantinople, 680; and Second Nicea, 757. Paragraph 4 says the teachings of these Councils are normative for the Churches today.

Paragraph 5  includes the recognition that not all decisions on canonical matters have the same authority as the doctrinal decisions, and their reception and use in the Orthodox and Lutheran Churches differs.

Paragraph 6 says that the statements at the Councils went through a process of "reception" in the years after them, across the Church's life, worship, catechesis and service even when the councils were not explicitly named.

Paragraph 7 says that the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils  are authoritative for both Lutherans and Orthodox, but goes on that the seventh was not part of the tradition received at the Reformation, and that it does not have the same significance for Lutherans as it does for Orthodox.

The Eighth Declaration in 1995 in paragraphs 5a and 5b, is perhaps clearer.

  We agree on the doctrine of God the Holy Trinity, as formulated by the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, and on the doctrine of Christ formulated by the first four Ecumenical Councils. The Fathers of the  four Councils rejected the Arian and Eunomian notion that the Logos, the Angel of the Great Council, was created before the ages, and insisted that the Logos is "homoousious to Patri". They also rejected the Nestorian notion that the One born of the Virgin Mary was not the Logos himself and that the Logos only dwelled in the One who was born of the Virgin Mary. In short, the Fathers of these Councils affirmed that he who was born of the Virgin Mary is God by nature and not just by the will of the Father, and that he became homoousious with us in his humanity. The union of the divine and human natures in the hypostasis of the Logos is, according to the Council of Chalcedon, "without confusion, without change, without division and without separation". The Ecumenical Councils which followed continued this teaching and applied it to new challenges to the faith.

It continues.

  The Fifth accepted as orthodox two theological terminologies in the confession of the one Lord Jesus Christ. The Sixth affirmed the two natural wills and energies with their natural properties of the one person of the Logos incarnate. The Seventh drew conclusions from affirmation of the  hypostatic union in Christ in order to confirm the veneration of icons. .....  We agree in these fundamental teachings.

Perhaps the most striking thing about this, for the purposes of this Question, is how very little there is to say about the Fifth  Council, in comparison with the first four.


How do Seventh Day Adventists understand "a form of [a] God" in Philippians 2:6? SDA is Trinitarian and believe that Jesus in his preexistence was Michael the archangel. Do they then believe that Jesus' preexistent form was that of an angel all the time or that Michael was a form he adopted when doing messenger work and such? In other words is Jesus an angel reincarnated as a man or some other "divine form" incarnated as a man?

And what do they say going on with Michael waging war in heaven post-resurrection?

Hi let me start by correcting some of the assumptions you seem to have made

  Jesus in his preexistence was Michael the archangel

This statement suggests that there was a change from Michael to Jesus. In fact Adventists would say that Jesus is Michael and that it is another name for Jesus. When you look at the name Michael, it has the meaning of "One who is like God" so it fits the character of Christ.

In his pre-existence, Christ was involved in many aspects of earth's history including creation. Note the plural pronouns used when God says Let us make man in our image.

Next is the assumption that Michael is an angel. The term arch angel is a transliteration of ἀρχάγγελος which is translated chief of the angels. So it is more that he has authority over angels rather then being one.

This should resolve the first two questions. Michael/Jesus is the Son of God incarnated as man.

  what do they say going on with Michael waging war in heaven post-resurrection?

The assumption made here is that this is post resurrection. Adventists would describe this as the beginning of the great controversy and that this actually happened before the fall. This is a brief summary of the interpretation of Revelation 12 and you will see that this is not interpreted chronologically as it appears.

The war in heaven. This is the initial disagreement of Satan against God. He is cast out of heaven to earth taking some angels with him. At this point he, Satan, is on earth and can tempt Eve.
The woman who gives birth is God's chosen people giving birth to Christ, who was crucified and caught up to God again.
The history of the church is then explained using symbolic language.

A lot of these answers don't have the substantial amount of work that is required to complete this story.  I can provide more detail around sections if needed.


Can a Sovereign-will authorize personal liberty? Every thing I read about “sovereignty” associates it with having “authority” not how authority is exercised.  Some Protestant Denominations seem to claim that because God is sovereign then He is the causal agent of all things.  Must "authority" always employ "power"?

On what basis do these denominations exclude liberty from sovereignty?

Technically, Reformed Theology does not exclude liberty from sovereignty. Quoting from The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, point I:

  I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Calvinists define free will as the freedom to act according to one's nature. From a Reformed perspective, including a truly random perturbation to provide a certain kind of freedom would not increase the power of the individual's will — the perturbation would be just as external as a Divine decree — but rather establish a lesser but coworking god called Chance to which (in some small part) creation would be subject.

Similarly, God accidentally getting creation just a little wrong so that unintended consequences occur would not increase the freedom of the individual, but such would indicate an imperfection in God. Such a concept of a fallible God is offensive to many Christians.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul provides a response to one complaint about such sovereignty. (This response seems similar to what God told Job — effectively, 'I am God and you are not'.)

  One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 8:19-21 [NIV])

The writers of The Westminster Confession of faith closed Chapter III with a recognition that such is a difficult teaching and with a declaration that this teaching is not an encouragement to passivity but rather toward worship and obedience (and peace/assurance):

  VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.


Are there any denominations that teach Adam and Eve did not have the opportunity to be saved? Do any denominations officially teach that Adam and Eve did not have the opportunity to be saved after they sinned?

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe there is any biblical basis to think that Adam and Eve could benefit from the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, which means they believe they will not be resurrected.  This is what they say on page 49 of their ‘Bible Teach’ book:

“Clearly, then, when Adam disobeyed God and was condemned to death, he paid a very high price. His sin cost him his perfect human life with all its blessings” (Genesis 3:17-19)...  There was no hope for Adam or Eve because they wilfully chose to disobey God.”

Here are some other direct quotes from their literature:

Watchtower 1 May 2005 article Who Will Be Resurrected?  “15 The first humans, Adam and Eve, were created perfect. Their fall into sin was deliberate. Before them was either everlasting life or death. They disobeyed God and sided with Satan. When they died, they had no prospect of benefiting from Christ’s ransom sacrifice. Rather, they went to Gehenna.  16 Adam’s firstborn son, Cain, murdered his brother Abel and thereafter lived as a fugitive. The apostle John described Cain as one “who originated with the wicked one.” (1 John 3:12) It is reasonable to conclude that like his parents, he went to Gehenna when he died.”
Watchtower 15 July 2005: Questions from Readers – Who will be Resurrected?  “The Scriptures speak of only two possibilities for the dead—the temporary state of nonexistence and the state of eternal death. Those who are judged unworthy of a resurrection are pitched into “Gehenna,” or “the lake of fire.” (Matthew 5:22; Mark 9:47, 48; Revelation 20:14) Among these would be the first human pair, Adam and Eve, the betrayer Judas Iscariot, and certain ones who died when God executed judgment upon them, such as the people in Noah’s day and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

They believe that all who are in what they call a “temporary state of nonexistence” will be resurrected.  This means everyone else who has ever died (prior to the battle of Armageddon) will be resurrected in a physical body to life on Earth and will have 1,000 years during the reign of Christ Jesus (from heaven) to come to saving faith.  If they fail to pass the final test they will die (again), only this time they will suffer eternal death.  They believe that all who die during the battle of Armageddon will (like Adam and Eve) forfeit the right to a resurrection.
Disclaimer: As a Christian of the Protestant persuasion I declare that I disagree with their views.