The following is from a Binitarian answer to a question on the nature of the Holy Spirit: > Instead, the term "holy spirit" could refer directly to the Father and Son, as they are each holy and are each spirits, but more commonly, it simply refers to the medium by which the Father and Son interact with humans and other parts of the physical world. At baptism, the human spirit (which distinguishes us from other animals by providing self awareness and free will (Job 32:8)) combines with some of God's holy spirit to create an embryonic spirit being that someday can be reborn as a full spirit being (John 3:7–8), a literal child of God. It is sensible to talk of the spirit of a man because man is more than just spirit (a man *has* a spirit) but the Scripture plainly states that God *is* spirit: > God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. - John 4:24 So when God says "I will pour out my spirit" in various places, Acts 2:17 for instance, or when He says things like: > Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts. - Zechariah 4:6 what exactly is being said if the Holy Spirit is not distinct from the Lord? According to Binitarians, is this just a roundabout and awkward way of God referring to Himself; as in "I will pour myself out on all flesh" or "Not by might, nor by power, but by myself"? If, most commonly, the Holy Spirit "simply refers to the medium by which the Father and Son interact with the physical world" why is this power sometimes referred to as Holy Spirit, other times as power (Ephesians 6:10), and why do both terms appear in Luke 1:35 making what appears to be a distinction between the two? > And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. - Luke 1:35

According to [*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_à_Kempis) Thomas à Kempis, the presumed author of *The Imitation of Christ*, is venerated in the Catholic Church. I surmise that his cause for canonization must have been brought up at least two hundred years after his death, as his body was (I am assuming the story is true) exhumed, upon which scratch marks on the wood of the coffin were discovered, as well as some remnants of the wood under his fingernails. Confusion purportedly arose and his cause for canonization seems to have been dropped. Question: **Was Thomas a Kempis ever officially declared a *Servant of God* in the Catholic Church? Was he ever officially declared *Venerable* or *Blessed*?** I am guessing that he must have been at least declared a Servant of God, but I am not sure.

(NOTE: I am aware that a similar question has been asked on this site before, but I have first hand experiences which seem to contradict the one answer - at the time this question was asked - to that other question.) The standard practice of the western churches which make use of the **sacrament of confirmation** - e.g. the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion - is that this sacrament is only to be conferred by a bishop - except where a bishop delegates this responsibility to a priest for some practical reason. Those, as I understand it, are the requirements for the conferring of the sacrament to be **licit**, but might a conferral of the sacrament under different circumstances still be **valid**, even if it was illicit? This might seem to be one of those silly brainteasers, but I ask for a very concrete, personal reason. I was born into a relatively observant Anglican family, was baptised and later confirmed according to the rites of that church, in which I spent the first thirty years of my life, until, in 2021, I was received into the Roman Catholic Church. As part of the process of my being received, I had to provide my baptismal certificate; there was, of course, no question of my being re-baptised, since, in principle, anyone can baptise anyone else. I was pleasantly surprised to be told that I wouldn't have to be re-confirmed either; the opinion of the diocese was that the Roman Catholic and Anglican sacraments of confirmation were 'the same'. In the service in which I was received, I simply recited the Nicene Creed solo, and then received the bread and wine shortly after. Unfortunately for my brain, I've never been able to stop wondering why the Roman Catholic Church viewed my Anglican confirmation as valid! I understand the logic regarding baptism; again, anyone can baptise anyone else. But, to be valid, doesn't confirmation have to be performed by a bishop, or at least a priest acting on a bishop's behalf? And doesn't the Roman Catholic Church view Anglican ordinations as null and void? Or is it that a confirmation performed by a non-priest could be valid, at least in principle, but would be illicit? Some short specific questions which summarise the issues I raised above: 1. Who can validly confer the sacrament of confirmation according to the Roman Catholic Church? 1. Is the sacrament of confirmation as practied by Anglicans recognized as valid by the Roman Catholic Church? 1. If a priest conferred the sacrament of confirmation without a bishop's approval, I imagine that would be illicit, but would it also be invalid, with the person in question needing to be re-confirmed? 1. What is the impact of this issue on Christians who move between sacramental traditions - Eastern Catholic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc, etc - each of which has slightly different views on how the sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred?

Suppose a sinner confesses his sins to a priest, receives absolution, completes the penance, but the priest talks about his confessed sins with others. Is the absolution still valid?

We see Jesus authorizing St. Peter in Mtt 18:18: > Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. But, we also see Jesus telling in Mtt 12: 31-32: > And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Catholics look at the confessional as a place where they can seek and get forgiveness for their sins. But there are situations in which the priest at the confessional can deny to stand as a mediator for absolution to the person confessing before him. My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, which are the situations in which the priest at the confessional can refuse to stand as a mediator of absolution?

In many places, [here](https://www.translationdirectory.com/sense_of_life/article_en_0630.php) for example, I have seen (pretty much verbatim): > Father Leopold often said that whatever we do on earth, we should do it in the presence of God, then our whole life will be a constant prayer. QUESTION: Does anyone know of an online site, or perhaps a book, which puts forth the *actual quote* of [St. Leopold Maria Mandić, OFMCap](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Mandi%C4%87) , which is only indirectly attributed to St. Leopold above?

I recently heard someone who describes themself as an ardent Christian state that Christianity is "a fighting man's religion". They backed this up by claiming that when Jesus sent the disciples out he sent them armed. Is this - the arming of the disciples - a widely held belief and if so, on what basis is it argued? I certainly don't recall reading it that way.

***First, to explain where I am coming from with this question.*** I believe that Jesus prayed "not for the world" "but for them which you have given me" John 17:9,20. Then Romans 8:28-30 shows that those who love God are “called according to his purpose”, being predestined for conformity to the image of his Son. That’s the essence, but by no means the full explanation! I’m not here to explain my beliefs, but to ask questions based on them. ***Second, to specify what I mean by “elect”*** – basically, it means chosen – chosen by God. And chosen for the purpose of becoming conformed to the likeness of the Son of God. ***Third, what this question seeks to dig into*** - the reason why some people never believe in Jesus Christ as the Saviour of lost, repentant sinners. Consider what Jesus did NOT say in John 10:24-30 – He did NOT say, “You are not my sheep because you do not believe”. He said: > “I told you [that I am the Christ], and ye believed not… But ye > believe not because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you, ‘My > sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give > unto them eternal life” etc. John 10:2-30, K.J.V. extracts – please > read the entire section. Does this mean, then, that to be saved, a person has to be one of Christ’s sheep, and that all of Christ’s sheep are elect – chosen to be Christ’s sheep? Is it for those ones only that Christ died? Does this mean that some will never believe because they were never Christ’s sheep? Someone on this site once said, ***“You don't have to be Calvinist to be one for whom Christ died, but you do have to be elect!”*** That is what has inspired this question (but I don't want anyone sounding off about Calvinism, which is why I have deliberately avoided using that as a Tag).

The website of the University of Dayton has a page dedicated to the dogmatic status and meaning of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. In it we find means by which the Church may have assurance of the infallibility of certain teachings: > There are other norms by which the Church may have assurance that a teaching has been infallibly revealed by God: **consensus fidelium** (i.e. general agreement among the entire body of believers "from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" [Lumen Gentium #12]); and "**universal ordinary magisterium**" (i.e. frequent authoritative teachings affirming one perspective on a topic given by the Pope alone, or by the episcopate in general). Later on in the article we see this applied to the teaching of Mary's Perpetual Virginity: > On the topic of Mary's perpetual virginity, we have **double assurance** that the teaching may be considered as infallibly revealed in light of the statement of the fifth Ecumenical Council and **by virtue of its constant use in the life of the Church afterwards** (i.e. consensus of the faithful and universal ordinary magisterium). So, one of the means by which the Church may be assured that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is an infallible teaching is *by virtue of it's constant use in the Church* following it's statement in the 5th Ecumenical Council. However there are anathema's associated with denying the perpetual virginity of Mary which were announced, not only at that council, but in councils which followed. The official acts of the 5th council contain an anathema condemning those who deny "that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her.". The Lateran Council of 649, convened by Pope Martin I contained this condemnation associated with denying the Perpetual Virginity: > If anyone does not, according to the Holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that **holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate**, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and **gave birth to Him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned**. A teaching is given to the Church, if you deny the teaching you are condemned, and then all the believers in the teaching are pointed to as proof of the infallibility of the teaching! What choice did they have when the only ones who get to stay in the Church are those who accept the teaching? * It has been clarified to me elsewhere that a denier of a doctrine has separated themselves from the church rather than having been expelled but there appears to be no practical distinction as regards this question as they are, in either case, recognized by the Church as separated and their opinion is excluded from 'consensus fidelium'. My question is, How can the universal acceptance of a teaching within the Roman Catholic Church stand as assurance of that teaching's infallibility when the teaching itself assigns condemnation to deniers of it and considers them to be separated from the Church and, therefore, removed from consensus fidelium?

The Roman Catholic church claims that the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome, that he was the leader of the other apostles/bishops, and that since the pope is the rightful heir of Peter's title (according to the Church), the pope would also be the leader of the bishops. What is the biblical basis for this claim? Does the Church take any specific verse as evidence for this claim?

Who said that the smallest spiritual progress of a religious merit s more than that of a thousand laymen? I seem to remember it was by or about St. Teresa of Ávila.

In [entry **(774)** of her Diary](http://www.seraphim.my/divinemercy/diary/text/DiaryII(751-800).htm) , *Divine Mercy in My Soul*, St. Faustina writes: "... in the spiritual life, suffering is the thermometer which measures the love of God in a soul." The complete entry is: > **(774)** *+* O my Jesus, I understand well that, just as illness is measured with a thermometer, and a high fever tells us of the seriousness of the illness, so also, in the spiritual life, suffering is the thermometer which measures the love of God in a soul. QUESTION: Does the "love of God" refer to God's Love for the soul, or the soul's love for God? Or something else? Does anyone know, with a fair degree of confidence, what St. Faustina means by this statement? *Remark:* She had previously noted in [**(343)**](http://www.seraphim.my/divinemercy/diary/text/DiaryI(301-350).htm) that: "True love is measured by the thermometer of suffering."

**If 95% of Catholic bishops today can trace their line of apostolic succession through Cardinal Scipione Rebiba; who are the 5% remaining lineages traced through?** > [Who was Scipione Rebiba?](http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art385.htm) > > Sicilian-born Scipione Rebiba would be remembered no more than any other sixteenth-century bishop of the Roman Catholic Church did he not boast a particular historical distinction which arose long after his death. Over ninety-five percent of the bishops serving the Church today trace their line of apostolic succession through this cardinal. This is the so-called ***Rebiban Succession***, and it descends through numerous bishops to every pope elected since 1724. In truth, Scipione Rebiba wasn't particularly zealous in consecrating bishops, but some of his successors were.

Has any Catholic exegete ever noted the parallel between St. Mary Magdalene's meeting Jesus in a garden (cf. her mistaking Him as a gardener in Jn. 20:15 ) with the garden of Solomon's Song of Songs? Or where Jesus is like the Bridegroom of Song of Songs and St. Mary Magdalene like the Bride?

Why did Jesus forbid his disciples to say goodbye to their families? Luk 9:59-62 NKJV >**59** Then He said to another, "Follow Me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." **60** Jesus said to him, "*Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.*" **61** And another also said, "Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go [and] bid them farewell who are at my house." **62** But Jesus said to him, "*No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."* Yet Elijah permitted Elisha to go back to his own family to say his farewells? 1Ki 19:19-20 NLT >**19** So Elijah went and found Elisha son of Shaphat plowing a field. There were twelve teams of oxen in the field, and Elisha was plowing with the twelfth team. Elijah went over to him and threw his cloak across his shoulders and then walked away. **20** Elisha left the oxen standing there, ran after Elijah, and said to him, "First let me go and kiss my father and mother good-bye, and then I will go with you!" Elijah replied, "**Go on back**, but think about what I have done to you."

I was reading about radiosotopes this morning in the kindle book "Thousands not Billions " by Donald DeYoung, and it suddenly occurred to me...Why would God create such elements? Did He create them or are they corrupted as a result of sin? *perhaps i may have to separate the questions below into separate topics, however, they seem related to me (I am happy to edit if it is felt they should be separated)* In a perfect creation as narrated by Moses in Genesis Chapter 1: > 4And God saw that the light was good > > 10God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He > called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. > > 12The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to > their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their > kinds. And God saw that it was good. > > 18to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light > from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. > > 21So God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that > moves, with which the waters teemed according to their kinds, and > every bird of flight after its kind. And God saw that it was good. > > 25God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, the > livestock according to their kinds, and everything that crawls upon > the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. > > **31And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good.** If the world that God created was sinless and it seems to me that many of the Christians i have associated with over the years generally say that in a sinless world there is no death and destruction: 1. would God have created elements that decay and why or why not would He have done this? Was it a defense mechanism just in case the world sinned, did he need these destructive elements to help facilitate the flood catastrophe nd its aftermath (eg limiting the age of humanity)? 2. Are the existence of these elements in such a manner that they decay a consequence of sin? 3. From a perspective outside of the philosophical, what is the purpose (scientifically) of radioactive decay, what function does it perform in the natural world that is useful to the environment given that alpha, beta and gamma particles are usually harmful when humans(as one example) are exposed to them?

In America, our judicial system is built on the idea that a man is assumed innocent, and then proven guilty with evidence. In contrast, Paul wrote: > Romans 9 10-18: ...there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” > > 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. One way to defend the Christian God here is to say Paul is just speaking of Jacob and Esau's relative stations in earthly life, and that only that aspect of their lives was predetermined. But that idea is invalid with regard to verses 14-18 which connect Jacob and Esau's example to Pharaohs, in which Pharaoh's damnation was predetermined. Also, the declaration "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" contradicts that idea. It is clear then, from these verses, that Paul is boasting that God judges people based on his whim, not a trial. Another way to defend the Christian God, which I've heard, is "God doesn't have to sound fair by human reasoning." But human reasoning is all we have, to use to make decisions about what we believe. Also what's fair or not is known by everyone by instinct. We all know judgement cannot happen without considering some action which is being judged. Not requiring God's judgement to be just according to us is forgoing any understanding of God.

Is there a difference between: 1. God's Will and the Commands of Jesus 2. God's Will and the 10 Commandments 3. The Commands of Jesus and the 10 Commandments

The Wikipedia article on Emanuel Swedenborg mentions his revelations, but doesn't use the term "prophet" even once. Did Swedenborg not see himself as a prophet? What is a prophet, according to Swedenborg, other than someone receiving divine revelation and preaching it?

I wonder what the precise timeline of the observance of the Passover would look alike. The following chart shows a basic interpretation I have put together as a starting point. I would like to hear your qualified feedback / additions / corrections. Had the Passover consistently been observed during the Intertestamental period? When after 70 AD did the Jews / Christians start again to observe the Passover (in limited form without the temple)?