Which U.S. bishops are unfaithful to Church teaching on homosexuality and LGBT ideology?

Scientists say that fire, in the form as we have it on planet earth is hardly seen in any other part of the universe. One of the earliest references to fire in OT is Gen 22:6 : > And Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and laid it on his son Isaac, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. < Of course, fire has been and is vital to the survival of human life, whether in the form of light or heat. But then, we do not find Genesis mentioning the creation of fire . How do Bible scholars interpret the absence of such a reference ?

In Romans 13:3, the scriptures state that the authorities hold no terror for those who do right. Considering all the martyrs who have been persecuted for doing right, then how can this scripture be true in every situation?

A senior citizen couple I know were married in a Greek Orthodox church ceremony without ever obtaining a marriage license. The priest agreed to do this. Is this allowed by the Church? I know several Greek Orthodox people and we have never heard of such a thing. The couple reside together but keep separate finances and the wife retained her own name.

On 5 July 2024, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) , in an "Extrajudicial Penal Process", simply declared Viganò as having incurred a *latæ sententiæ* excommunication , but was he even given a trial? Or does an "Extrajudicial Penal Process" mean he is sentenced as guilty without a trial?

Why is Abp. Viganò's (supposed ) excommunication for schism *latæ sententiæ* (automatic), not *ferendæ sententiæ* (declared juridical sentence )?

Christianity has always opposed any religion that considered the soul purer or holier by nature than the body, as some eastern religions or Gnosticism did. At the same time Christianity through new birth introduced two natures in a man, at war with each other calling, one the flesh and the other the Spirit. (Gal 5:17) Most biblical commentators I have read make sure it is understood that the term ‘flesh’ in scripture is not just referring to the physical body but by the word ‘flesh’ it means the whole evil nature, soul and body, to make sure the idea of a false Gnostic conflict between soul and body is avoided. To muddy the waters slightly, there is a general admission through the Lords prayer that Christians still need to pray daily: give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. There may be some that think they might not sin a whole day but most Christians, at least the ones I have met, would agree with the concept that they are still very much guilty of daily sins against God’s perfect law after conversion. Only that by the blood of Christ are they cleansed and forgiven by their confession. But even those that believe in some kind of Christian perfectionism and imagine to be sinless for several days or longer would still understand that they frequently sin, just as James says in James 3:2. I personally feel I perpetually fall short of obeying the Law fully as I doubt I have ever loved God more than half as much as I ought to. But that is just my own persuasion along with several famous Protestants mind you. On the other hand, there is a general belief that after we die physically, that we will never sin again. In summary, common Christian beliefs. While in the body: 1 John 1:8-9 (ESV) > If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is > not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to > forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. After we die, in heaven Revelation 21:4 > He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be > no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain > anymore, for the former things have passed away.” So the question is: if the word ‘flesh’ is not highly linked to the physical body, why is this the case (without promoting any kind eastern religious or gnostic ideas) that, while we live in the physical body, we can’t avoid sin and after our soul leaves the body into heaven (or rather with a new body) we are sinless forever? Why does this shift in imperfect-to-perfect, occur, exactly when the physical body dies?

I'm an evangelical myself (Anglican) and I wonder how could we deal with this apparent contradiction. The question is whether there is a clash between the concept of predestination and 1 Timothy 2:4. Predestination, especially as articulated in certain interpretations of Calvinism, suggests that God has foreordained some people to salvation and others to damnation. In contrast, 1 Timothy 2:4 states, "God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth". ### Predestination Predestination, as understood in Calvinist theology, is the doctrine that God has chosen certain individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world. This choice is not based on any foreseen merit or action on the part of the individual but solely on God's sovereign will. This is often coupled with the doctrine of election, which holds that God's grace is extended to those He has chosen, and they will inevitably come to faith. ### 1 Timothy 2:4 1 Timothy 2:4 is often cited by those who argue against the Calvinist interpretation of predestination. The verse suggests a universal salvific will, indicating that God's desire is for all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. This seems to conflict with the idea that God has only predestined a select group for salvation.

In the Latin Church, the [Liturgical Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_Movement) and the Second Vatican Council resulted in broad liturgical changes. To what extent has liturgy changed in the Eastern churches during the past 50 to 100 years? I am interested in any or all of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Eastern Catholic.

**Did any early church Christian writers ever place Origen in a early martyrology or menologium ?** There are many early Church Fathers . Some are canonized saints, while some are not. Origen is not without controversy in his writings, motivations and actions. Yet one can not deny that he genuinely believed in Jesus Christ and was more than willing to suffer death for his belief in God. > Origen, most modest of writers, hardly ever alludes to himself in his own works; but Eusebius has devoted to him almost the entire sixth book of "Ecclesiastical History". > > Finally, at a much later period, under Pontian of Rome and Zebinus of Antioch (Eusebius, VI, xxiii), he journeyed into Greece, passing through Caesarea where Theoctistus, Bishop of that city, assisted by Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, raised him to the priesthood. Demetrius, although he had given letters of recommendation to Origen, was very much offended by this ordination, which had taken place without his knowledge and, as he thought, in derogation of his rights. If Eusebius (VI, viii) is to be believed, he was envious of the increasing influence of his catechist. So, on his return to Alexandria, Origen soon perceived that his bishop was rather unfriendly towards him. He yielded to the storm and quitted Egypt (231). The details of this affair were recorded by Eusebius in the lost second book of the "Apology for Origen"; according to Photius, who had read the work, two councils were held at Alexandria, one of which pronounced a decree of banishment against Origen while the other deposed him from the priesthood (Biblioth. cod. 118). **St. Jerome declares expressly that he was not condemned on a point of doctrine**. > > Age did not diminish his activities. He was over sixty when he wrote his "Contra Celsum" and his "Commentary on St. Matthew". The persecution of Decius (250) prevented him from continuing these works. Origen was imprisoned and barbarously tortured, but his courage was unshaken and from his prison he wrote letters breathing the spirit of the martyrs (Eusebius, Church History VI.39). He was still alive on the death of Decius (251), but only lingering on, and he died, probably, from the results of the sufferings endured during the persecution (253 or 254), at the age of sixty-nine (Eusebius, Church History VII.1). His last days were spent at Tyr, though his reason for retiring thither is unknown. He was buried with honour as a confessor of the Faith. **For a long time his sepulchre, behind the high-altar of the cathedral of Tyr**, was visited by pilgrims. Today, as nothing remains of this cathedral except a mass of ruins, the exact location of his tomb is unknown. - Catholic Encyclopedia There are claims that Origen may have castrated himself, but the claim seems somewhat dubious. > Eusebius claims that, as a young man, following a literal misreading of Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus is presented as saying "there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven", Origen went to a physician and paid him to surgically remove his genitals in order to ensure his reputation as a respectable tutor to young men and women. Eusebius further alleges that Origen privately told Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, about the castration and that Demetrius initially praised him for his devotion to God on account of it. Origen himself, however, never mentions anything about having castrated himself in any of his surviving writings and, in his exegesis of this verse in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, written near the end of life, he strongly condemns any literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12, asserting that only an idiot would interpret the passage as advocating literal castration. > > Since the beginning of the twentieth century, some scholars have questioned the historicity of Origen's self-castration, with many seeing it as a wholesale fabrication. Trigg states that Eusebius's account of Origen's self-castration is certainly true, because Eusebius, who was an ardent admirer of Origen, yet clearly describes the castration as an act of pure folly, would have had no motive to pass on a piece of information that might tarnish Origen's reputation unless it was "notorious and beyond question." Trigg sees Origen's condemnation of the literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12 as him "tacitly repudiating the literalistic reading he had acted on in his youth." Alleged self-castration Wikipedia goes on to say this about his last years: > In c. 249, the Plague of Cyprian broke out. In 250, Emperor Decius, believing that the plague was caused by Christians' failure to recognise him as Divine, issued a decree for Christians to be persecuted. This time Origen did not escape. Eusebius recounts how Origen suffered "bodily tortures and torments under the iron collar and in the dungeon; and how for many days with his feet stretched four spaces in the stocks". The governor of Caesarea gave very specific orders that Origen was not to be killed until he had publicly renounced in faith in Christ. Origen endured two years of imprisonment and torture, but obstinately refused to renounce his faith. In 252, the emperor Decius was assassinated and Origen was released from prison. Nonetheless, Origen's health was broken by the physical tortures enacted on him and he died less than a year later at the age of sixty-nine. A later legend, recounted by Jerome and numerous itineraries, places his death and burial at Tyre, but little value can be attached to this. - Origen (Wikipedia) Although Origen was a controversial figure in the Early Church . It seems that he may have been honored as a true martyr within the community of some of the faithful, being buried behind the high-altar of the cathedral at Tyre. His father, St. Leonides of Alexandria , is recognized as a martyr in the Catholic Church (April 22). Thus once again I ask: **Does the name of Origen appear on any early martyrology or menologium and if so does it assign a date for his feast?**

Since being stuck up on a pillar intentionally entails missing mass, did this saint commit a mortal sin according to Catholics / Orthodox Christians? Update: this question was targeted primarily at Catholics for answers. Orthodox is tagged due to them also revering the saint for some perspective, with the understanding that "mortal sins" aren't the same concept in Orthodoxy

Ive noticed that some King James Bibles that look several decades old don't have a date of any kind. How can one get an idea of how old a Bible is or when it would have been published?

How does Eastern Orthodox view the lake of fire and “eternal judgment“ (Hebrews 6:2)?

In some of Joseph Smith Jr.'s last speeches, he mentioned a German translation of the Bible which he was fond of. E.g., he says in the King Follet discourse (emphasis added): > I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. **I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years.** ([History of the Church 6:307](https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-6-chapter-14)) Later on in this same speech, he says (emphasis added): > **In the German, the text bears me out the same as the revelations which I have given and taught for the last fourteen years on that subject.** I have the testimony to put in their teeth. My testimony has been true all the time. You will find it in the declaration of John the Baptist. (Reads from the German.) John says, "I baptize you with water, but when Jesus comes, who has the power (or keys), he shall administer the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost." Where is now all the sectarian world? And if this testimony is true, they are all damned as clearly as anathema can do it. I know the text is true. I call upon all you Germans who know that it is true to say, Aye. (Loud shouts of "Aye.") ([History of the Church 3:316](https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-6-chapter-14)) In another address shortly before he was murdered (dated May 12, 1844), he says: > **The Germans are an exalted people. The old German translators are the most nearly correct -- most honest of any of the translators; and therefore I get testimony to bear me out in the revelations that I have preached for the last fourteen years.** The old German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew translations all say it is true: they cannot be impeached, and therefore I am in good company. ([History of the Church 6:363](https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-6-chapter-17)) Which German translation is Joseph referring to? I am not familiar with the different translations of the Bible, having only ever read the King James Version in English. [According to Wikipedia,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_German) there are several German translations of the Bible. I am interested in this specific version which Joseph owned. Which version is he referring to and where can I get a copy?

I found very good information on this site where the author logically and according to the **Catholic teaching** explains certain parts of sexual behavior. I agree and practice what is written, just in case if someone wonders if it's even possible. But I don't want to discuss whether the site or the author is correct on the subject so please avoid any comments on the authenticity of the site. There is a statement: > Now the emotion of sexual passion is a result of the fallen state, and > so neither Jesus nor Mary experienced sexual passion or sexual > arousal. What is the source of this knowledge or where does the author bases this information from?

I was wondering in which religious order did Viganò got ordained as a priest (is he Franciscan, Jesuit, Dominican)?

I heard that some things (like getting an abortion or attacking the pope) have the penalty of *latæ sententiæ* excommunication. What is that?

The whole verse of Acts 7:2, "And he said, Hear me, brethren and fathers! "The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran." God ask Abraham to "Depart from your country and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you." (Acts 7:3). At Acts 7:8, God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve partriarchs." This event occurred at Genesis 17:1-10. Genesis 17:1-2, "Now when Abram was ninety-nine year old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless, vs2, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Genesis 17:10-11, "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you; every male among you shall be circumcised. vs11, And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you." My question is geared to those who deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Since Genesis 17:1-2 clearly states that God appeared to Abraham what form did God take? I fully understand that the Bible teaches that God (the Father) cannot be seen even according to Jesus Christ Himself at John 5:47 and at John 6:46. So how is this "seemingly" contradiction reconciled?

The Ligonier Ministries' [2022 "State of Theology"](https://research.lifeway.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Ligonier-State-of-Theology-2022-Full-Report.pdf) contains some interesting things. One such thing is that over half of those surveyed agreed (some strongly) with the following statement: > Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God. What's even more interesting to me is that the percentage agreeing with this statement across all denominations surveyed goes up as their frequency of church attendance goes up. Links to *The State of Theology* Data Explorer on the above question (#6): - [All respondents](https://thestateoftheology.com/data-explorer/2022/6?AGE=30&MF=14®ION=30&DENSITY=62&EDUCATION=62&INCOME=254&MARITAL=126ÐNICITY=62&RELTRAD=62&EVB=6&ATTENDANCE=254) : 40% strongly agree, 15% somewhat agree, 13% not sure - [Beliefs: Evangelicals](https://thestateoftheology.com/data-explorer/2022/6?AGE=30&MF=14®ION=30&DENSITY=62&EDUCATION=62&INCOME=254&MARITAL=126ÐNICITY=62&RELTRAD=62&EVB=2&ATTENDANCE=254) : 70% strongly agree, 3% somewhat agree, 5% not sure Excerpt from an article that focuses the data on evangelicals: [The State of Theology: What Evangelicals Believe in 2022](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/state-theology-2022/) : > Almost three out of four (73 percent) agree with the claim that Jesus is the “first and greatest being created by God.” Hypothesizing a bit on this: let's assume these numbers accurately represent the state of theology in the U.S. (I know they might not). Are over half of the Christians in the U.S. *anathema* for believing this? Will they not attain to salvation? I'm looking for a Biblical answer to this question (all denominations and translations welcome).

Many denominations affirm the doctrine of the [real presence of Christ in communion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist) , that in the communion Christ is in some sense really present in a way that is distinct from his general presence in the world and the church. In contrast, [memorialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorialism) is the position that communion is a purely symbolic act of remembrance, such that Christ is not present any more than usual. Different denominations have different versions of the doctrine of real presence. The Westminster Confession explains the Reformed Protestant version of real presence as follows: > WCF 29.7: Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed,  yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death:  the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine;  yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance,   as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. This seems to me to be quite a measured statement: far from the doctrines of trans/con-substantiation, and emphasising that the benefits of Christ's death are only received by faith. So do memorialists actually oppose this version of real presence, as explained in the Westminster Confession? If so, what exegetical or theological arguments lead them to reject it?