Today, in some Christian churches, there is the practice of confession . The penitent – person who feels remorse for sins – goes to a priest, to whom one confesses one's sins, and the priest might possibly grant absolution, that is forgiveness of sins. Was that something *St. Augustine of Hippo*, was doing/practicing himself as a priest (aka listen to other people's confessions, and also confess his sins)? I'd appreciate some evidence, citing why this would be **or** not be the case.

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 **Protestantism**. Furthermore, I would like to **exclude** Pentecostalism/Charismatics from the scope (I understand that those denominations have more controversial supernatural beliefs, and therefore I've asked a specific question for them [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97638/61679)) . Do Protestant 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 some or all Protestant Churches that denominations outside Protestantism 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*

The [Threefold Office of Christ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_office) is an ancient way of understanding the work of Christ: that he fulfilled the three Old Testament roles of Prophet, Priest, and King. While it's very easy to see in the New Testament how Jesus performs each of those roles, I was wondering if there's any actual basis for seeing these specific roles as part of a specifically threefold office? Because there are some other roles from the Old Testament which Jesus also fulfils. The most prominent one I can think of is the Shepherd/Pastor. While this was a title given to the priests and kings in the OT, it really looks at leadership in a very different way than the intercessory and ruling nature of those roles. Jesus as Shepherd can't be completely subsumed into Jesus as Priest and King. Another minor role could be Patriarch. I'm thinking of this mainly because Jesus is called the ["Last Adam"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Adam) . I can't think of anything else in the NT that really pictures Jesus as a patriarch, but there might be some other obscure allusions. Teacher could be another minor office. There may be some other roles I haven't thought of too. So my question is whether we're Biblically justified to see the three roles of Prophet, Priest, and King as not only the primary roles fulfilled by Jesus, but also that the three fit together as a whole in a way that other roles do not? Or in other words, does the idea that these three roles form a set originate from God, or are they a human construct? Note that I'm not interested in this question for the basis for each role (that's been adequately covered by [another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/5624/6071)) , but instead only for the basis that the three belong together in ways that Jesus's other roles do not.

I'm Eastern Orthodox, but this question can be answered by catholics and any denomination that accepts icons. I went today to my local church and I saw a painting on a wall that I never noticed. It was Jesus Christ, depicted as an old man with white hair and a white beard. The title of this painting roughly translates to "Jesus Christ, the One of the old days". I searched online when I returned home and didn't understand it very well. As far as I understand it is a depiction of God, The Son before He became a human being born from the Virgin Mary. Apparently, in the Orthodox world (it might be in the Catholic Church as well), there is a whole debate about the aspect of God The Father can and should be depicted in icons. Many say that The Father can't be drawn because of Exodus 33:20: "But,” He said, “you cannot see My Face, for no one may see me and live.”. Some say that the icon I mentioned earlier is actually God The Father, not Jesus Christ. I really don't understand what is all about, and why we need a version of Jesus Christ as an old man and a version of Jesus Christ as a young man. This icon raises some questions I always asked myself: - Where was Jesus Christ before His earthly birth? We know that the Trinity dogma states that The Son was born before eternity, so He pretty much existed forever and doesn't have a start. But 2000 years ago He became a human through the Virgin Mary. The question it begs is where and what did Jesus do from eternity to His earthly birth. Did He stay at the right side of The Father as He did after Ascension? - Why didn't He explicitly show Himself to the promised people? We, Christians often seem to believe that every time God showed Himself on the surface of the earth, as when He wrestled with Jacob, or when He came to Abraham at the Mamvri Tree, it was actually The Son, not The Father. But then why didn't Jesus in general show Himself explicitly to the Jews before? Why didn't Jesus tell Abraham or Moses explicitly: "I am Jesus, The Son of God, I am different than My Father, but I am also the same as My Father"? - When did the man Jesus on Earth realize He is The God Jesus that lived for eternity? The Baby knew He was Jesus, and knew His life in heaven before birth for eternity.
"Cel vechi" from the left side translates to "The Old" and "De zile" translates to "of days", and "IC XS", as you already know is the greek-byzantine acronym for Iesous Cristos(Ιησουσ Χριστοσ).

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 **Mormonism** (LDS). Do LDS 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 LDS 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*

In many languages, countries when people pray rosary they insert the mysteries in the Hail Mary after saying "Jesus". It is used officially in public places by everyone. For example: > Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus **"who was scourged at the pillar,"** Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Why wasn't this custom adopted in English-speaking countries? This makes praying the rosary to go faster and easier to forget the mystery you are currently praying, or it can even turn the prayer into vain repetition. Some asked for an example of the phrases commonly used (provided here via *Google Translate*): 1. Joyful mysteries: >Jesus, whom you conceived by the Holy Spirit Jesus, with whom you visited Elizabeth Jesus, whom you bore in Bethlehem Jesus, whom you presented in the temple Jesus, whom you found in the temple 2. Sorrowful Mysteries >Jesus, who sweated blood for us Jesus, who was flogged for us Jesus, who was crowned with thorns for us Jesus, who carried a heavy cross for us Jesus, who was crucified for us 3. Glorious Mysteries >Jesus, who rose from the dead Jesus, who ascended to heaven Jesus, who sent the Holy Spirit Jesus, who took you to heaven, O Virgin Jesus, who crowned you in heaven 4. Luminous Mysteries >Jesus, who was baptized in the Jordan Jesus, who revealed his divine power in Cana Jesus, who proclaimed the kingdom of God and called for repentance Jesus, who revealed his glory on the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus, who instituted the Eucharist [List of resources edited in by @GratefulDisciple] - Common English names of the 20 mysteries from the USCCB website: [How to Pray the Rosary](https://www.usccb.org/how-to-pray-the-rosary)] - [thanks, @njuffa] lightly edited *Google Translate* of the seemingly official German phrases, since it is published in **katholisch.de** (a news and information portal for the Catholic Church in Germany, operated by a non-profit company in cooperation with 27 German dioceses) in the article [*Das Rosenkranzgebet, so wird es gebetet*](https://www.katholisch.de/artikel/41-das-rosenkranzgebet) ("The Rosary, how it is prayed"): > **The Joyful mysteries**: 1 ... Jesus, whom you, O Virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit 2 ... Jesus, whom you, O Virgin, carried to Elizabeth 3 ... Jesus, whom you, O Virgin, gave birth to in Bethlehem 4 ... Jesus, whom you, O Virgin, presented in the temple 5 ... Jesus, whom you, O Virgin, found again in the temple > > **The Luminous mysteries**: 1 ... Jesus, who was baptized by John 2 ... Jesus, who revealed himself at the wedding in Cana 3 ... Jesus, who announced the kingdom of God to us 4 ... Jesus, who was transfigured on the mountain 5 ... Jesus, who gave us the Eucharist > > **The Sorrowful Mysteries**: 1 ... Jesus, who sweated blood for us 2 ... Jesus, who was scourged for us 3 ... Jesus, who was crowned with thorns for us 4 ... Jesus, who bore the heavy cross for us 5 ... Jesus, who was crucified for us > > **The Glorious Mysteries**: 1 ... Jesus who rose from the dead 2 ... Jesus who ascended into heaven 3 ... Jesus who sent us the Holy Spirit 4 ... Jesus who has taken you, O Virgin, into heaven 5 ... Jesus, who has crowned you, O Virgin, in heaven

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

Being a Syrian Orthodox, I have a doubt... Will my sind be forgiven if I get HUSOYO/(***absolution prayer only with no confession***) instead of confession of sins? I usually confess once in a month but the weeks in between, if I get HUSOYO will it forgive my sins?

I was driving past [the Monastery of the Cross in Jerusalem](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastery_of_the_Cross) today and — well, I was driving, so I couldn't look too closely, but there appeared to be both [a Greek](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Greece) and [an English](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_England) flag flying from it. A Greek flag I understand (it's a Greek Orthodox monastery), but I was befuddled by the English flag. I tried a Web search later, and couldn't find any information. (I did find [a picture of what appears to be _another_ Greek Orthodox site in Israel](https://previews.123rf.com/images/felker/felker1610/felker161000118/66315960-the-bell-tower-with-a-cross-and-flags-on-mary-s-tomb-orthodox-christian-church-in-jerusalem-israel.jpg) which is _also_ flying Greek and English flags. But I'm not sure what site this is — searching for the image gets me conflicting answers — nor that it's Greek Orthodox.) Why does the Monastery of the Cross (and possibly other Greek Orthodox sites) fly the English flag? Stock photo of *Monastery of the Cross*:

The beliefs of Catholics are Catholicism; the beliefs of Lutherans are Lutheranism; the beliefs of Presbyterians are Presbyterianism; etc. What about the beliefs of Baptists? It "should" be "Baptism," but that would be confusing. "Baptistism" is more understandable, but sounds wrong ("-ist" changes to "-ism"; they aren't normally combined).

Creationists, if I understand it correctly, claim that the genes for Vitamin C production got corrupt in monkeys and humans independently after the Fall of Man (whenever the Fall of Man might be: Young-Earth Creationists believe that was thousands of years ago, Old-Earth Creationists believe it was hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of years ago). But there seems to be an easy way to prove that wrong: if that were true, we would expect there to be different mutations preventing the monkey's liver and the human's liver from producing Vitamin C. But, in reality, it's the same mutation in both monkeys and humans. So, what do creationists think, why is that reasoning faulty?

Why do many Christians believe that heaven is the eternal home of the righteous; but in Matt 5:5 Christ stated that the meek will inherit the earth. And in 2 Peter 3:13, apostle Peter made mention of "a new heaven and a new earth". Now, if all faithful worshippers of God go to heaven, who will be on the new earth?

I'm currently interested in learning what American psychological anthropologist [Tanya Marie Luhrmann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Luhrmann) has to say on the topic of [religious experiences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience) . Specifically, I'm planning on reading two of her books: [*How God Becomes Real: Kindling the Presence of Invisible Others*](https://www.amazon.com/How-God-Becomes-Real-Invisible/dp/0691164460) and [*When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God*](https://www.amazon.com/When-God-Talks-Back-Understanding/dp/0307277275) . Here are the book descriptions: > ***How God Becomes Real: Kindling the Presence of Invisible Others*** > How do gods and spirits come to feel vividly real to people―as if they > were standing right next to them? Humans tend to see supernatural > agents everywhere, as the cognitive science of religion has shown. But > it isn’t easy to maintain a sense that there are invisible spirits who > care about you. In How God Becomes Real, acclaimed anthropologist and > scholar of religion T. M. Luhrmann argues that people must work > incredibly hard to make gods real and that this effort―by changing the > people who do it and giving them the benefits they seek from invisible > others―helps to explain the enduring power of faith. > > Drawing on ethnographic studies of evangelical Christians, pagans, > magicians, Zoroastrians, Black Catholics, Santeria initiates, and > newly orthodox Jews, Luhrmann notes that none of these people behave > as if gods and spirits are simply there. Rather, these worshippers > make strenuous efforts to create a world in which invisible others > matter and can become intensely present and real. The faithful > accomplish this through detailed stories, absorption, the cultivation > of inner senses, belief in a porous mind, strong sensory experiences, > prayer, and other practices. Along the way, Luhrmann shows why faith > is harder than belief, why prayer is a metacognitive activity like > therapy, why becoming religious is like getting engrossed in a book, > and much more. > > A fascinating account of why religious practices are more powerful > than religious beliefs, How God Becomes Real suggests that faith is > resilient not because it provides intuitions about gods and > spirits―but because it changes the faithful in profound ways. > ***When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God*** > A bold approach to understanding the American evangelical experience > from an anthropological and psychological perspective by one of the > country's most prominent anthropologists. Through a series of > intimate, illuminating interviews with various members of the > Vineyard, an evangelical church with hundreds of congregations across > the country, Tanya Luhrmann leaps into the heart of evangelical faith. > Combined with scientific research that studies the effect that > intensely practiced prayer can have on the mind, When God Talks Back > examines how normal, sensible people—from college students to > accountants to housewives, all functioning perfectly well within our > society—can attest to having the signs and wonders of the supernatural > become as quotidian and as ordinary as laundry. Astute, sensitive, and > extraordinarily measured in its approach to the interface between > science and religion, Luhrmann's book is sure to generate as much > conversation as it will praise. Before delving into these two books, I'm curious to hear other perspectives on the concept of engaging in spiritual practices that lead to experiencing the divine in everyday life. Is this idea commonly encouraged in most branches of Christianity, and to what extent? Does it differ among denominations?

It is my understanding that the Eastern Orthodox can get married a second time after a separation when their first wife is still living. It is also my understanding that Catholics do not permit this in the Catholic Church. I also believe Catholics recognize Orthodox first marriages as both valid marriages and valid sacraments. Assuming all of the foregoing is accurate, how do Catholics view Eastern Orthodox second marriages? Valid as both a marriage and a sacrament? Invalid for both? Some other thing? For example, if that couple wanted to convert to Catholicism, would the Church accept them as married?

A minister at my church insists that we are only permitted to carry up to 3 hosts at a time. Is there any regulation on this?

Do Messianic Jews accept the entire New Testament as a base of their belief? What is the position of Messianic Judaism (if there is a common position) on passages in the Gospel of John and the letters of Paul that can be understood as that Jesus was a form of God? ---------- Addition, as asked to say more about what are the passages that can be understood as that Jesus was a form of God. John 1:1 > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word > was God. John 1:14 > And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; > we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. Stating «the Word was God» and «the Word became flesh» he sets the base for the thought that God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus *are the same*, which is not the Jewish (and Muslim) concept of God. Numbers 23:19 > God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should > repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will > he not fulfil it? Hosea 11:9 > I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy E'phraim; > for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not > come to destroy.

5th November is the 31st Sunday in Ordinary Time in the Liturgical Calendar of Roman Catholic Latin Rite . Some Oriental Rites eg. Syro Malabar Rite divide the Calendar into ' seasons' and do not serially number the Sundays.So, what is meant by Ordinary Time ? Is there any other system of numbering of Sundays in the Catholic Liturgical Calendar ?

If I understand correctly (and I might be wrong). When it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity, as **opposed** to the Cappadocian Fathers (or at lest against Basil), Torrance believed that not just God the Father *alone* should be identified as the Godhead, but rather, the undivided Trinity. I know there are different trinitarian models that modern Christians subscribe today like: Social Trinitarians , Subordinationism , etc. I was wondering if Torrance's views fall under one category, if it has a name, namely the idea that the Godhead is to be identified with all three persons.

In [canto 20 of Dante's _Paradiso_](https://archive.org/details/paradisoverseren00dant/page/n225/mode/2up) , Dante describes what Ciardi's [footnotes on lines 106-117 say](https://archive.org/details/paradisoverseren00dant/page/n233/mode/2up) is a pious tradition that Pope Gregory (540-604) prayed for the salvation of the Emperor Trajan (53-117) and he was revived, preached to (by Jesus Himself), converted and went to Heaven. > Dante follows a legend that Gregory I prayed so ardently for the salvation of Trajan that God's voice replied "I grant pardon to Trajan" Since God so granted, it was, of course, predestined that he should so grant. Trajan therefore, could never have been truly damned, for no prayer can help the damned. But since none may go from Hell to Heaven ( with the exception of those souls Christ took with him in the Harrowing of Hell), it was necessary to restore Trajan to the flesh long enough to permit his conversion to Christ This would appear on the level to be against what Our Lord said in the parable of Lazarus and the rich guy, that "None Shall Pass" from one side to the other. However, it also seems to be skirting around the very real and miraculous notion of revivification (i.e. where was the other Lazarus's soul when he died; did he receive particular judgement?). So, maybe it stands to reason that our more virtuous ancestors may yet ascend to Heaven before the last day? In any event, is that the mode of ascent promised at the end of time? 1. revive 2. preach 3. convert 4. ascend if it happens at the end of time, is a second (or third) death required? Note, I tried putting a bounty on [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16528/did-dantes-divine-comedy-describe-or-define-christian-views-on-the-afterlife) so I could get an answer to my question, but didn't get what I was looking for.

From a theological standpoint, does Christianity prescribe either of the following: 1. that one needs to have a religious experience *first*, and as a *consequence* one may attain belief in the truth of Christianity, or 2. that one needs to attain belief in the truth of Christianity *first*, and as a *consequence* one may have a religious experience? The dilemma can also be more succinctly posed as "experience to believe" vs. "believe to experience". Supporting the "experience to believe" view I have in mind conversion stories like that of Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9. But then there are statements in the Bible like *"faith that moves mountains"* that seem to suggest that belief (faith) must precede experience (*the other way around*). Are people expected to convert first (i.e. believe) and then have religious experiences, or are people expected to have religious experiences first and then believe, or are there no expectations either way? Perceiving in advance that this question might be a bit controversial, I would like a high-level summary of major theological/denominational views on this dilemma. --- As a definition of *religious experience*, here is the introduction from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience) : > A religious experience (sometimes known as a spiritual experience, > sacred experience, or mystical experience) is a subjective experience > which is interpreted within a religious framework. The concept > originated in the 19th century, as a defense against the growing > rationalism of Western society. William James popularised the > concept. In some religions this may result in unverified personal > gnosis. > > Many religious and mystical traditions see religious experiences > (particularly the knowledge which comes with them) as revelations > caused by divine agency rather than ordinary natural processes. They > are considered real encounters with God or gods, or real contact with > higher-order realities of which humans are not ordinarily aware. > > Skeptics may hold that religious experience is an evolved feature of > the human brain amenable to normal scientific study. The > commonalities and differences between religious experiences across > different cultures have enabled scholars to categorize them for > academic study.