This question regarding whether the Catholic Church considers the Assyrian Church of the East to be heretics made me wonder: are *any* Christians outside the Catholic and Orthodox churches *not* considered heretical by the Catholic Church?

Practically, how were prayer requests handled in medieval monasteries? Did only the abbot/prior review them, or did all the monks know about the prayer requests outsiders would submit to the monastery?

What is the **liturgical**[i] **history** of the **Prayer to Saint Michael ** *(Oratio ad Sanctum Michael)* that was composed by **Pope Leo XIII **? ---------- [i] **Liturgical**, i.e., as part of the official public worship of the Church distinguished from private devotion. Cf. [CATHOLIC CULTURE > Catholic Dictionary > **LITURGY** ]

### The Background A baptized and confirmed Catholic married a Protestant in a Protestant church without permission. About the marriage: - The marriage covenant was made with the full understanding of what a Christian marriage meant in the eyes of God (*cf*. CCC 1601-1620): a solemn covenant between two baptized Christians, with full consent (*cf*. CCC 1625-1632), for life, for the purpose of procreation, etc. - The celebration of marriage was similar to CCC 1621-1624 and similar to the canonical form, except: - officiated by a valid Protestant minister instead of a Catholic priest/deacon - CCC 1621: instead of in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it's made in the presence of Christ in the Protestant ceremony - CCC 1622: instead of receiving the sacrament of penance, the couple confess sin to one another in Christ - The couple has lived honoring the marriage bond and obligations like a Catholic marriage should be (even without contraception), thus realizing The Effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony (*cf*. CCC 1638-1642), The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love (*cf*. CCC 1643-1654), and The Domestic Church (*cf*. CCC 1655-1658). - The couple is raising the kids as Protestants although in a denomination that is not hostile to the Catholic Church. The couple is also attending a conservative Protestant church regularly and bring up their kids there as good Christians who love the Lord. Let's say it's [ACNA](https://anglicanchurch.net/) , a more conservative Anglican denomination than the Church of England. **Now the Catholic has second thoughts** and wants to go back to being in a state of grace and receive the Catholic sacraments. But the spouse wants to remain in the Protestant church and does not allow the kids to attend the Catholic church, although the spouse gives full freedom for the Catholic to practice the faith EXCEPT to teach the kids one or two Catholic doctrines that the spouse doesn't agree, such as praying to Mary. **THIS IS TRULY A TESTAMENT TO THE WARNING GIVEN IN [CCC 1634](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1634.htm).** Therefore, although the spouse is more ecumenical than a typical Protestant, the Catholic cannot fully discharge the obligation spelled out in Can. 1125 §1 but made the best effort: > the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church; For sure, the Catholic has to receive absolutions for the following: - Have been away from the Catholic church - Have contracted a mixed marriage outside the church without exemption But I was taken aback at [Geremia's answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/90364/10672) that **fornication** needs to be repented. Is this true when the marriage is lived as described above? ### The Question Given the limitation that the spouse is not willing to convert and to raise the kids fully within the Catholic church (although she is not hostile to most of the teachings), **according to the Catholic Church**, what else does this Catholic need to do beyond confessing the two sins above and continue raising the kids in the Lord as Catholic as possible? Three related questions: 1. [CCC 1623](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1623.htm) says that > According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace **mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony** by expressing their consent before the Church. ... Although the "Church" here is a [Protestant ecclesial community](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pope-says-other-churches-not-churches-in-proper-sense-1.949220) , it appears that this Catholic can remain in this Protestant marriage (as described above) without committing fornication, or is this not true? 2. It DOES appear that the [marriage has to be convalidated](https://archden.org/marriage/marriage-convalidation/) since the Catholic married in a non-Catholic ceremony without an exemption from the Catholic church. But is the Protestant spouse consent / presence needed for the convalidation? A [*Catholic Answers* article](https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-can-i-do-about-my-invalid-marriage) suggests that this require radical sanation (Can. 1161 § 1) and in some cases the non-Catholic does not need to know (although it's preferable that the non-Catholic knows). But can radical sanation still be obtained even though the Catholic cannot perform Can. 1125 §1 to the full extent because of the spouse's opposition? 3. Modifying the case study a little, let's say the case is between a Protestant couple in which one wants to become Catholic but the other wants to remain Protestant and the kids need to be raised in the Protestant church. Is it an impediment for the would-be-Catholic to receive communion? Is marriage convalidation necessary / possible in this case? Is fornication committed without convalidation? ### Motivation for this question I believe there are many who are in this situation: who through Catholic evangelization effort now want to go back practicing Catholic but have a difficulty introduced by the Protestant spouse. Ultimately, this is an ecumenical question as all mainline denominations try to reconcile as much as they can without losing their distinctiveness.

I was reading this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14143/117426 . Contemplation is defined by [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemplation) as follows: > In a religious context, the practice of contemplation seeks a direct awareness of the divine which transcends the intellect, often in accordance with religious practices such as meditation or prayer. > > ### Christianity > > In Eastern Christianity, **contemplation (theoria) literally means to see** > **God or to have the Vision of God**. The state of beholding God, > or union with God, is known as theoria. The process of Theosis which > leads to that state of union with God known as theoria is practiced in > the ascetic tradition of Hesychasm. Hesychasm is to reconcile the > heart and the mind into one thing (see nous). > > Contemplation in Eastern Orthodoxy is expressed in degrees as those > covered in St John Climacus' Ladder of Divine Ascent. The process of > changing from the old man of sin into the newborn child of God and > into our true nature as good and divine is called Theosis. > > This is to say that once someone is in the presence of God, deified > with him, then they can begin to properly understand, and there > "contemplate" God. This form of contemplation is to have and pass > through an actual experience rather than a rational or reasoned > understanding of theory (see Gnosis). Whereas with rational thought > one uses logic to understand, one does the opposite with God (see also > Apophatic theology). > > The anonymously authored 14th century English contemplative work The > Cloud of Unknowing makes clear that its form of practice is not an act > of the intellect, but a kind of transcendent 'seeing,' beyond the > usual activities of the mind - "The first time you practice > contemplation, you'll experience a darkness, like a cloud of > unknowing. You won't know what this is... this darkness and this cloud > will always be between you and your God... they will always keep you > from seeing him clearly by the light of understanding in your > intellect and will block you from feeling Him fully in the sweetness > of love in your emotions. So be sure to make your home in this > darkness... We can't think our way to God... that's why I'm willing to > abandon everything I know, to love the one thing I cannot think. He > can be loved, but not thought." > > Within Western Christianity contemplation is often related to > mysticism as expressed in the works of mystical theologians such as > Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross as well as the writings of > Margery Kempe, Augustine Baker and Thomas Merton. > > Dom Cuthbert Butler notes that contemplation was the term used in the > Latin Church to refer to mysticism, and "'mysticism' is a quite modern > word". This [article](https://conversatio.org/being-with-god-the-practice-of-contemplative-prayer/) presents contemplative prayer as the fourth stage of the *Lectio divina*: > *Contemplatio* is prayer as being. In *contemplatio*, we rest in the presence of the One whose word and presence have invited us to transforming embrace. That word, having touched both our minds and our hearts, now leads us into quiet rest in the Beloved. This is a prayer of presence—the gift of consciousness that is transformed by and infused with God’s presence. It is prayer as being—a gift of being in and with God that allows all my doing to flow from this center. It is, as described by Thomas Keating, the movement from conversation to communion. GotQuestions features an [article](https://www.gotquestions.org/contemplative-prayer.html) on contemplative prayer that outright claims it has no biblical support whatsoever: > Contemplative prayer begins with “centering prayer,” a meditative practice where the practitioner focuses on a word and repeats that word over and over for the duration of the exercise. The purpose is to clear one’s mind of outside concerns so that God’s voice may be more easily heard. After the centering prayer, the practitioner is to sit still, listen for direct guidance from God, and feel His presence. > > **Although this might sound like an innocent exercise, this type of prayer has no scriptural support whatsoever. In fact, it is just the opposite of how prayer is defined in the Bible**. “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.” (Philippians 4:6). “In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete” (John 16:23-24). These verses and others clearly portray prayer as being comprehendible communication with God, not an esoteric, mystical meditation. Do Christian practitioners of contemplative prayer believe it is based on the Bible? If so, what is the scriptural support for contemplative prayer?

Recent personal experiences have made a close relative question their Christian beliefs to a far extent. They still believe in the possibility of an all-knowing God but question specific characteristics of Protestant-Christianity such as Priesthood. They strongly believe every Christian should have equal and direct access to God, preferring to align towards agnosticism. From the perspective of protestant-catholicism (Anglicanism) can this individual be said to be an unbeliever?

The Orthodox Study Bible's OT translation (produced by the St. Athanasius Academy) is based on the Septuagint, instead of being primarily based on the Masoretic text like most English translations of the Bible. The text of 1 Samuel 17:4 in the Septuagint lists Goliath's height as "four cubits and a span" (roughly 6'9''), contrasting with "six cubits and a span" (roughly 9'9'') in the Masoretic text. The OSB follows the Septuagint in its translation, but the footnote says: > Goliath is over nine feet tall. This is accurate regarding the Masoretic text, but not the Septuagint. Is it a mistake? Or are they following St. Augustine's interpretation of differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text? I.e. that the Hebrew text is historically accurate, but that the Greek is also divinely inspired and contains symbolical significance (*City of God* Book 18, chapter 43-44 ). There could also be another explanation I've not thought of.

According to Catholic teachings, how are Catholics to speak with their guardian angels? With their voice? In their minds? Does the Church provide any guidance or description?

The statement, "Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins" does not appear in the Bible. When in the history of Christian theology did this specific statement first appear? Who said it? Please provide the actual text (and source) from the writings of the Christian theologians or teachers who first said it—or at least, the earliest ones you can document. **If that is clear to you, there is no need to read the rest of this question.** *Please note:* - This question is specifically about the statement that Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins. Equivalent wordings, such as "Christ paid the *price* for our sins" or *"Jesus* paid the penalty for our sins," are on-topic. However, "Christ died for our sins" or "Christ suffered for our sins" or even "Christ was punished for our sins" are off-topic. I am looking for statements specifically about Christ *paying the penalty,* or *paying the price,* for our sins. - "Paying the price" in the context of Ransom Theory is also off-topic. A ransom is not a penalty or punishment for sin. - I am *not* looking for antecedents for this idea, nor am I looking for passages quoted as the biblical basis for this idea. I am looking for the earliest *explicit statements* of the idea itself. - For reference: the Wikipedia article on Penal Substitution . Please do not just quote from or refer to the Wikipedia article, which seems rather murky and disorganized. ***Edit** in response to comments:* My hypothesis is that the Penal Substitution theory of atonement is closely tied to the phrase "paid the penalty." This is a history of doctrine question rather than simply an English phrase question. However, it is common for proponents of Penal Substitution to see this theory of atonement in phrases representing ideas that are not necessarily the same. For example: - *"Christ died for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you and kills you, you have died for (due to) the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not *paid the penalty* for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. - *"Christ suffered for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you and injures you, you have suffered for the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not *paid the penalty* for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. - *"Christ was punished for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you, and you are wrongfully accused and put in jail instead of the drunk driver, you have *still* not paid the penalty for the drunk driver's sins. The drunk driver remains guilty of the crime, and subject to its penalty if and when it is discovered that there was a miscarriage of justice. Or if you were to voluntarily go to jail *with* the drunk driver, taking the same punishment even though you didn't commit the crime, you would still not have *paid the penalty* for the drunk driver's sins. S/he would *still* remain guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. The point is, every one of these statements can easily and very reasonably be read as meaning something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins. (And I happen to think that they *do* mean something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins.) That is why I am insisting on the precise language that most specifically expresses the Penal Substitution theory of atonement: that Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins. Protestant tracts are full of the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins." That phrase is not in the Bible. It must have come from *somewhere.* I want to know where it came from. I suspect this will also provide the origin point of the Penal Substitution theory of atonement in the history of Christian doctrine. If none of that works for you, just repeat over and over again before writing an answer: **Where did the precise phrase "Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins" come from?**

I am slowly converting to Catholicism and am confused on the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. I do understand that it is Mary's conception that she was free from original sin. According to St. Augustine, original sin was passed down via sexual intercourse. Augustine also said that because Jesus did not have a human biological father and was not conceived with sperm. From what I understand of the story of St. Joachim and Anne, they had intercourse at the gates of Jerusalem. I may be wrong on these things as I am still learning. But taking these things into account, how can Mary be born without original sin if her parents had intercourse.

As far as I can tell, Christians are morally obligated to stay faithful to their beliefs at any cost, even under pain of martyrdom. However, what if it's someone else's life at stake? For example, if someone holds an innocent bystander at gunpoint and threatens to kill them unless you worship a false god, what do the Church or Scripture have to say about this?

Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia referring to the eternal Word that, '[B]efore He was begotten ... He was not, for He was not without beginning.'1 Where he qualified his argument on the fact that the Son has an eternal beginning from the Father who alone has no beginning.2 Arius seems trying to say that the Son does not exist apart from being begotten. An idea he claimed to be shared by Church fathers before him. There is a debate on whether or not precursor to Arianism can be found among the earliest church fathers before the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. Among the early Christian authors whom the early Church considered authoritative we can find some whose teachings are similar with the Arians that were used by the Arians to assert that their theology is patristic. What then differentiate these Ante Nicene Fathers3 from the Arians in terms of their Christology? --- 1 Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, NPNF II:3:41. 2 '[The Son] being begotten apart from time before all things.' NPNF II,4:458. 3 Ante Nicene refer to before the Council of Nicaea in 325. They're early Church fathers who are venerated in the 24 sui juris Catholic churches, 16 canonical Eastern Orthodox churches, 6 canonical Oriental Orthodox churches, and Church of the East. Such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St Lucian of Antioch.

In Matt 16:24 Jesus tells His disciples to pick up their crosses and follow Him. How would the apostles have understood what He was saying? He spoke these words before He was crucified, so the mention of a cross is a bit strange to me. The Greek word is "stauros" or "stauron" which means an upright stake. Jesus does tell the apostles in verse 16:21 what would shortly come to pass (His crucifixion) but the verse doesn't make any mention of crucifixion. We could surmise that Jesus told them that He would be crucified and the text just doesn't explicitly mention it, that could be a reasonable explanation, but what if He didn't give them those details? It creates a dilemma of sorts. I'd be interested in hearing how other people understand this passage.

If Jesus was merely a man, then God would seem unjust for punishing the innocent Jesus in place of the guilty due to violating the following: 1. Man is to be put to death for his own sin and not for the sin of another (Ez 18:20; Dt 24:16) 2. No man can ransom another or give to God the price of his life (Ps 49:7-9) Moreover, God seems unjust for WANTING to crush the innocent man that is Jesus (Is 53:10; Lk 22:42), regardless of Jesus' willingness to follow the Father's will and lay His life down as a sacrifice. That God could desire and plan to punish/sacrifice an innocent man, His Son no less, for the sins of others would go against His character. The only way I see God being just would be that Jesus is God. Thus, God's plan would not be the unjust sacrifice of an innocent third party but rather the just, noble sacrifice of the self. But if you can show that God is just in sacrificing Jesus even if Jesus isn't God, then please leave an answer down below.

I have always found it deeply confusing that Pope St. John Paul II said: "The Rosary is my favourite prayer. A marvellous prayer! " (Angelus Sunday, 29 October 1978) but still recited the *Aves* in the rosary very quickly; at least in the recordings I have found. To me it just sounded like he rushed through the prayers and did not focus on meditation at all. What I nowadays know is that many people recite Aves quickly and can meditate. They might focus more on contemplation or meditation found in Dominican traditions. Dominican friars seem to focus on reciting it in more quick repetitious ways like we can see in this YouTube video: [The Sorrowful Mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7YDElMg8Rg&t=436s) I have listened to some Montfortians reciting the *Aves* and they do not focus on a quick repetitious recitation. The Dominican friars say the rosary in such a way that it become a kind of painful penance. This attitude is really confusing to me. I don't like to view prayer as painful penance but people are different. That is how I understand what the Dominican friars are doing in the video. Sadly it is very hard to find good information on this topic. It is a topic that might be avoided. Most people who recite the rosary seem to be influenced by Dominican traditions and their contemplation. What is Dominican contemplation (found in the rosary) and why do most people focus on Dominican contemplation and not Montfortian contemplation when praying the rosary?

Were there a fair number of representation of Remonstrants (Reformed Arminians) as there were of Contra-Remonstrants (Reformed Calvinists) or was the representation uneven and unfair against the Remonstrants? Thanks!

It is my understand that John Calvin arrived at Geneva in 1537; and then, because of various theological disagreements and conflicts, was exiled a year later. Then, some years later (1541 I think it was), he not only returned to Geneva, but had been *invited* to do so. QUESTION: Why was John Calvin invited to return to Geneva?

While walking on a road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, two disciples encountered a man whom they later recognized to be the risen Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ then, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded (διηρμήνευεν ) to them the things about himself in all the scriptures."1 Furthermore, the disciples later said that the Lord Jesus Christ "...opened (διήνοιγεν ) to us the scriptures."2 In addition, it is written that the Lord Jesus Christ "opened (διήνοιξεν ) their understanding, so that they would understand the scriptures."3 According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the Lord Jesus Christ entrusted and delivered the faith (i.e., the *depositum fidei*) to his apostles whom later entrusted and delivered it to their successors, and so forth. Accordingly, if the Lord Jesus Christ opened the understanding of his disciples (students) by thoroughly expouding the scriptures, wouldn't Jesus' disciples have likewise taught their disciples, and so forth? If so, wouldn't the bishops (apostolic successors to the apostles) in the Catholic Church also possess a thorough understanding of the scriptures about the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament? Would that be part of the *depositum fidei*? **Footnotes** 1 Luke 24:27 2 Luke 24:32 3 Luke 24:45

In the story of the woman caught in adultery, John indicates that the question of the Pharisees was a "trap". > 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people > gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of > the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They > made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this > woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded > us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 **They were using this > question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.**
> [John 8:2-6 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:2-6&version=NIV) What specifically was the trap they were trying to get Jesus to fall into?

**Acts 21:25** **25 And as to the Gentiles who believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing,** save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” Thanks in advance.