Which sacraments can an intersex individual receive in the Catholic Church?

Has any formerly excommunicated person who later repented been canonized as a saint after their death?

We see in John 13:1-17 Jesus washing the feet of his disciples prior to the Passover meal as an example to be followed by them. He then institutes the Holy Eucharist. While the second part is celebrated as Holy Mass every day, the Foot Washing ceremony is restricted to Maundy Thursday in most of the denominations. In fact, *foot washing* was practiced in the early centuries of post-apostolic Christianity, with Tertullian (145–220) mentioning the practice as being a part of Christian worship in his De Corona (Courtesy: Wikipedia). That implies that Foot Washing was a part of regular Liturgy and was not restricted to a once-in-a-year ceremony. Of course, there are practical difficulties in the celebrant washing the feet of some of the faithful, during the day-to-day Mass. But then, the example set by Jesus could have been remembered through reading from John 13, or by short prayers. My question is: **Was Foot Washing practiced in early Christianity as a part of Liturgy on regular basis?** Inputs from scholars of different denominations are welcome.

From an LDS article on marriage: > The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4). It is unclear to me if only the highest of the three heavens described here is considered as exaltation or if the "other two" are lesser degrees of exaltation. It appears, from the first statement, that the unmarried cannot be exalted at all. From what appears to be a catechism of sorts : > What must we do in order to obtain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom? (Students should identify the following doctrine: In order to obtain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, we must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. This catechism puts the "highest degree of the celestial kingdom" into the same category as Joseph Smith's statement puts "exaltation". Can an unmarried LDS be exalted and, if so, is their exaltation of a lesser degree than the married?

Book of Mormon 9:9-10 states, > 9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? > 10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles. This seemed to me, on recent pondering, to be in some conflict with the idea of eternal progression taught by the Church--the idea that, rather than eventually just sitting on our laurels and singing in a celestial choir for the rest of eternity, we must always continue to learn, grow, and improve ourselves. Implicit in this is the idea that God Himself is also on this path of eternal progression, though I welcome correction if I am reaching beyond where there is sure doctrine. Is there any statement or argument to reconcile these concepts of unchangeability and progression? ***I would prefer a response that is absolutely, unequivocally doctrine accepted and taught*** by all the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, but since that is frequently unavailable for questions as esoteric as this, I'm also interested in other quotes, theories and musings from earlier Apostles, logical arguments--whatever I can get.

We all are familiar with several of the largest denominations of Christianity: the Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, etc. Several sources claim that there are approximately 45,000 denominations in Christianity, 200 denominations in the U.S. alone. Do a quick Google search and you'll see what I mean. If this is true, this is certainly astonishing and quite worrying as a Christian. Jesus sincerely desired to unite all believers as one body under God. As you read about His prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane, you could tell that Jesus wouldn't be quite pleased with the massive number of denominations we have today. >**John 17:20-23 (NKJV)** > >20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; **that they also may be one in Us**, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, **that they may be one just as We are one**: 23 I in them, and You in Me; **that they may be made perfect in one**, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. Every denomination differs in terms of doctrine, rituals, eschatology, style of music for worship, Bible translation -- if they are all given the same Bible passage, every one of them will give a different interpretation. Is the Christian community truly so fragmented?

Somewhat related to [Does Jesus have a last name?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14482/45603) . In Forrest Gump (1994)'s scene where private Gump is assembling his weapon (during a drill exercise in the army) unusually fast, his drill sergeant says (emphasis mine): > **Jesus H. Christ**! That's a new company record. Is this a totally fictional saying? Part of script editor vision? Or has it any relation to Jesus actually having second name?

The contemporary Christian interpretation of the passage found in Mark 7:19 seems incompatible with the greater context of the chapter as a whole. How can this be about unclean meat? Mark 7:19 NASB >because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach and is eliminated. (*Thus He* declared all foods clean) Is it true that the latter clause is missing entirely in the oldest manuscripts, (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex B, et al.) and is a marginal note that made its way into the Textus Receptus? There seems to be a tremendous amount of liberty taken to translate three Greek words. It begins (Mark 7:2 & Matthew 15:2) with the Pharisaic criticism of the Disciples for not keeping the traditions (Gk. *Paradosis*) of the Elders when eating **bread** without ceremonial cleansing. (Emphasis mine.) There is no mention of pork, shellfish, or any unclean creature in the entirety of the Chapter. Moreover, the *only* mention of swine in the entire Book of Mark is associated with the cleansing of the demoniac in chapter 5! How do Christians reconcile Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees for "neglecting the commandments" (vs. 8), "setting aside the commandments" (vs. 9), and "invalidating the Word of God" (vs. 13) with a view that *contradicts* Leviticus 11? Wouldn't Jesus be guilty of doing the very thing he rebukes the Pharisees of? Namely, setting aside the commandments of God? If the Christian interpretation was so straightforward as to undermine the Torah of Moses, why are all of the Disciples so confused? Peter is present for the explanation (ref. Matthew 15:15). Surely he would have received the correction the second go around. Yet we find Him quite dogmatic in Acts 10:14 regarding eating "what is unholy and unclean". Wouldn't this instead be tied to the Pharisaic traditions and interpretations of the Levitical Purity Code? (i.e. Oral Law)

What denominations believe in a universal bodily resurrection? If it's easier to answer which denominations DON'T believe in a universal bodily resurrection, then that is a valid answer as well. By this I mean 1) resurrection grants an immortal, physical body (as opposed to either just reviving the mortal body, and also opposed to a "spiritual" immaterial "body") 2) universal in that regardless of being saved from sin, being jugded worthy of heaven or anything else, even sinners destined to eternal separation from God are resurrected.

**My Question:** Does the real presence of the Eucharist persist even after digestion to the point of being taken out of the body by defecation? Yes this is a serious question. In case the answer is no, where does the real presence go then? Is it integrated into our bodies like vitamins? I realize that Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. I understand that there are spiritual advantages to taking the Eucharist, but what I would like to now understand is also how those advantages are communicated to us when we eat Christ. **The process.**

Bishop Strickland was recently deposed by Pope Francis, ostensibly because he tweeted something about the Pope "undermining the deposit of faith". Is that a technical term or just a euphemism for heresy? Is it licit, under the auspices of Vatican I, to suspect that the Pope could be doing such a thing?

We see in Mtt 25:1-13 Jesus presenting the Parable of Ten Virgins. Of the ten, five are wise , anticipate delay in arrival of the groom, and stock enough oil to last through the ceremony. Five are foolish and are not prepared for unanticipated events. The ratio of wise and foolish virgins is one to one. Elsewhere, Jesus says that a few out of the many invited, are chosen for the reward of eternal life ( Mtt 22:14). My question is : According to Catholic scholars, does the ratio of wise virgins to foolish ones have any significance ?

I'm interested in understanding the specific ways in which God's presence and intervention are consciously experienced by Christians in their daily lives. In this question, I'm narrowing the scope to **Catholicism**. Do Catholic teachings provide specific guidelines for how Christians should or could experience/encounter God in everyday life? Moreover, are there particular types of divine experiences accepted by the Catholic Church that other denominations would be more reluctant to accept or actively promote? For context, I'm asking this as a follow-up to my previous question, *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97604/61679*

I am studying the book, *Sacred Bond,* Michael G Brown and Zach Keele, Reformed Fellowship Inc. Second Edition reprint 2018, on the topic of what Reformed Presbyterians call “The Covenant of Redemption”. It says on page 26 that “this is sometimes referred to by its Latin title, *pactum salutis*.” Although I’ve uncovered loads of material on the Reformed understanding, and the history of this doctrine in Protestant circles, I want to know if there is any Catholic ‘counterpart’ which might have preceded the first emergence of this in Protestant circles. Apparently the Puritan, John Owen, wrote at length about “the rule of law” in connection with the “active obedience of Christ” in a “Covenant of Redemption”. These phrases are inextricably bound up in the Presbyterian concept / doctrine of ‘The Covenant of Redemption’. Owen seems to be the originator of the phrase “the rule of law”, ***first appearing*** in The Savoy Declaration, drawn up at a conference of English Congregationalists who met at Savoy Palace, London ***in 1658***. That post-dated the Westminster Confession, of 1646, although in matters of doctrine it was primarily a restatement (with some modifications) of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Savoy-Declaration I’ve also searched other sources, such as *The Cavity in the Covenant: George Whitefield’s Use of the Pactum Salutis* Joel D. Houston www.churchsociety.org › wp-content › uploads Yet all the many sources I’ve checked only mention this in relation to Protestantism. What I desire to discover is ***whether this Latin phrase, Pactum Salutis, occurs anywhere in Catholic theology, and if it does, the earliest date that could be attributed to Catholic theology relating to this.*** Any information on a Catholic ‘take’ of this theology is what I’m hoping to find. I’m *not* interested in etymology, or the related idea, “my word is my bond”, or details of the Protestant view (I’ve got reams of stuff on that.) **Does Catholicism have any concept of a theology of *Pactum Salutis* and, if so, when did this first arise?**

Are there any church father who rejected Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch?

I'm interested in understanding the specific ways in which God's presence and intervention are consciously experienced by Christians in their daily lives. In this question, I'm narrowing the scope to **Pentecostalism/Charismatics**. Do Pentecostal/Charismatic teachings provide specific guidelines for how Christians should or could experience/encounter God in everyday life? Moreover, are there particular types of divine experiences accepted by Pentecostal/Charismatic churches that other denominations would be more reluctant to accept or actively promote? For context, I'm asking this as a follow-up to my previous question, *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97604/61679*

Upon reflecting on the answers to this question, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80507/61679 , I noticed that Romans 1:18-20 leaves interpretative space to still think there is hope for the unreached/unevangelized. | Romans 1:18-20 ESV | | - | | For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. | If my interpretation of what Paul says here is accurate, then it seems to me that the unevangelized would be able, at least in principle, to infer the existence of the Creator from creation, by exercising some elementary, layman, common-sense version of [natural theology](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/) . If this is the case, then why would it be unreasonable to think that at least some of these unreached/unevangelized individuals would be able to react favorably to this insight, by becoming a worshiper of said Creator? Another way of phrasing my question is as follows: Is it possible for a human being to become a true worshiper of God by inferring His existence based solely on natural theology? Does this view have a name?

Protestantism reject the idea of a *sacerdotal priesthood*, embracing instead the idea of *priesthood of all believers*(cf. 1 Peter 2:9). Protestant Reformers like *Martin Luther* and *John Calvin* also claim these ideas are not an invitation but actually represent historical Christianity. However if one looks at early *Church Fathers* such as *Cyprian of Carthage* seem to believe in the sacerdotal priesthood. Consider Cyprian’a words: > Does he think that he has Christ, who acts in opposition to Christ's > priests, who separates himself from the company of His clergy and > people? He bears arms against the Church, Treatis 1, 17 How are these two reconciled? Did the apostles see themselves as priests?

There seems to be a contradiction between these two verses. > So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created--and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground--for I regret that I have made them." Genesis 6:7 > “He paid for you with the precious lifeblood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose Him for this purpose long before the world began, but now in these final days, He was sent to the earth for all to see. And He did this for you.” 1 Peter 1:19-20 In Genesis, God judges mankind and destroys them, seemingly thinking that will fix them. In 1 Peter we're told that salvation through Jesus was the plan since the very beginning. So the motivation for the flood doesn't make sense in this light. How is this apparent contradiction typically explained?

John 5:24 >Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. KJV. > Verily, verily, I say unto you, that he that hears my word, and > believes him that has sent me, has life eternal, and does not come > into judgment, but is passed out of death into life. Darby. This tells me that believers will have an eternal life but that other people also might be worthy the eternal life due to: Matthews 25:31-46 >When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. > >Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. > >Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. > >And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. KJV. Your answer should explain why there is a day of judgement when some people are judged as righteous in spite of that believers qualifies without a judgement. ---------- I'm disappointed how this question has been received. I could have accepted an answer from John 3:15-21: > That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal > life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, > that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have > everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn > the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that > believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is > condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the > only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is > come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because > their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, > neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he > that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made > manifest, that they are wrought in God. Even though it is unclear why people who have never heard of Jesus would be sentenced to punishment.