Slavery exist in both the Old and the New Testament with God even regulating slavery in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:20-21, Deuteronomy 23:15) and St. Paul advocating for the freeing of slaves saying that Christians should receive them no longer as a slave but as a fellow brother in the Lord (Philemon 1:15-16), but **what was the Early Church Fathers view on slavery? (this can be from 50 AD to 900 AD)** > And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die > under his hand; he shall be surely punished. > > Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be > punished: for he is his money. **Exodus 21:20-21** > Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped > from his master unto thee: **Deuteronomy 23:15** > For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest > receive him for ever; > > Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, > specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? **Philemon 1:15-16**

Isn't the fact that [Thomas Cranmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cranmer) was validly ordained by the Roman Catholic Church certain proof that the Anglican Church holds valid apostolic succession? Why then is it denied by the Roman Catholic Church?

The 'Church of England' is 'considering' whether to stop referring to God as 'he' says an article today published by ITV.com . 'The Church' is to launch a 'new project' apparently. >Any potential alterations, which would mark ***a departure from traditional Jewish and Christian teachings dating back millennia*** , would have to be approved by synod, the Church’s decision-making body. The Rt Rev Dr Michael Ipgrave, Bishop of Lichfield and vice-chair of the liturgical commission responsible for the matter, said the Church had been “exploring the use of gendered language in relation to God for several years”. Again, the Bishop of Lichfield says 'the Church has been exploring'. Who are the actual people who are supporting, advising, and actively attempting to push through such language alterations ? Who publicly admits to being involved, apart from Michael Ipgrave ?

Just listened to Feb 2nd, 2023 episode of Pint With Aquinas. Fr. Vincent Lampert says that a voodoo doll or similar items should be blessed before being destroyed. Is it possible to bless something evil? Guessing this is something only a priest should do, but is it only an priest trained in exorcism. And why would something need to be blessed rather than just destroyed. Should these things be destroyed if it's easier to just throw it away, because it seems like sometimes a proper blessing/destruction would take longer and increase the likelihood of demonic infestation?

We read in Luke 24:31 (NRSVCE) how Jesus walked with two disciples on the way of Emmaus post-Resurrection and joined them for a meal: > When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. We go on to read in Verses 40-43: > And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their presence. It is implied that Jesus ate fish just in order to prove that he was not a ghost as had been feared by the disciples. But his partaking of the meal with the disciples at Emmaus was with a different purpose, and he may not have disappeared before eating the bread he had 'divided'. We also see in Jn 21:13-14 how the Lord joined the disciples for a hearty meal by the Sea of Galilee, after the Resurrection: > Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead. Going by the narrations of Luke and John, Jesus' physical body after the Resurrection had the attributes it had had prior to the event, more specifically, hunger and the need to consume food. But, St Paul has somewhat different view of resurrected body, as can be seen in 1 Cor 15:42-44: > So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. My question therefore, is: How does the Catholic Church reconcile the picture of the resurrected body presented by St Paul in 1 Cor 15 *vis-a-vis* the narrations in Luke 24 and John 21 ?

Another user made the comment: > What is undisputed is that the Fathers left no room for evolution. I'm aware that the Church Fathers for the most part believed that Earth was Created some time between about 3,000 BC and 10,000 BC (and certainly *not* billions of years ago). I'm also aware that "evolution" is a poorly defined term, but for this purpose, I think it's safe to use the sense of humans being descended from non-humans, i.e. Common Descent. It may need to be pointed out that "evolutionary" ideas are not new. Lucretius (b. 98 BC) wrote "the earth deserves the name of mother which she possesses, since from the earth all things have been produced" and "of herself she created the human race" (*On the Nature of Things*). Galen wrote that "certain things are impossible by nature [...] God does not even attempt such things at all but [we say] that he chooses the best out of the possibility of becoming" (*On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body*), which strongly suggests an early expression of directed evolution. **Which Church Fathers and/or Apostles, if any, specifically wrote against the idea that humans somehow arose from non-human animals?** Note that I am not interested in *implicit* denials arising from assertions that Earth is only some thousands of years old (which are trivial to find). I am looking for instances where Common Descent (or an equivalent concept) is *specifically* denied.

Someone I know made the following claim to me: > "The various branches of Christianity all claim to be representing the true content of the original foundation and original founder." (As opposed to saying that some of them claim [for example] to be rejecting the original foundations and replacing it with something superior). In order to make this a more focused question, I am only looking for the answer regarding; Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglicanism and Baptist. Is this true or not? Please source your answer.

**Premise of this question**: first of all, I'm basing this question on my common sense understanding that moral responsibility and judgement presuppose that human beings have the capacity to make **free choices** in the [*libertarian sense*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)) , meaning that every time a human being is faced with the options A = *sinning* and B = *not sinning*, he or she is morally responsible for choosing A instead of B because they could perfectly have chosen otherwise. In other words, the *counterfactual* situation in which the person chooses B instead of A was perfectly possible in principle, as there was nothing forcing the person to choose A, yet they still freely chose A, and so they are morally responsible for it. This runs contrary to the [*deterministic*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) view, in which *counterfactual* situations are impossible, meaning that a person couldn't have chosen otherwise. If a person chooses A, it means that it was *impossible* for them to have chosen B, and viceversa. In other words, a human being is not more morally responsible for choosing A than a rock is morally responsible for "choosing" to fall downhill or a light bulb is morally responsible for "choosing" to produce light when its switch is turned on. **Questions**: 1\) According to Christians who believe in libertarian free will, do ALL human beings have a genuine chance to make the right choice **every single time**? In other words, do ALL human beings, in principle, have the possibility to choose to live a perfect, sinless life? 1.1) If your answer is YES: then how come pretty much no one chooses to do that? 1.2) If your answer is NO: then doesn't this contradict the free will assumption? If people are free not to sin, shouldn't this imply that people are free to choose to *never* sin (i.e. to choose the right option *every single time*)? **Is there anything forcing people to sin at least once?** If so, what is it, and how can someone be held responsible for being forced to do something? Aren't rocks forced by gravity to fall downhill? Should we hold rocks morally responsible too? ___ Related questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/57626/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83687/50422

I was reading Bishop Robert Barron's article [Silence and the Meaning of the Mass](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/silence-and-the-meaning-of-the-mass-4213) and came across Aristotle's "transcendent third": > The Mass is the act by which the Son of God, in union with his mystical body, turns toward the Father in worship. Through our full, conscious, and active participation in this right praise, we become more rightly ordered, more completely configured to Christ and more thoroughly directed toward the Father. We do indeed experience heightened fellowship with one another during the Mass, but this is because we are realizing, not so much our mutual affection, but **our common love of a transcendent third, to use Aristotle's language.** The question: **How does Catholicism appropriate Aristotle's notion of the 'transcendent third'?** Did Aquinas use this concept in the *Summa* and does it have a place in Catholic theology today? If so, how does this philosophical concept be put to service for theology? Found this article [Fatherhood and the 'transcendent third'](https://nwcatholic.org/voices/eric-paige/fatherhood-and-the-transcendent-third) . Maybe this simply means 2 or more people appreciating *a particular aspect of God* through the 3 transcendentals, *together in the same space*, like the sunset when watching it together, Mozart's Requiem when appreciating a performance of it in the concert hall, or the beauty of Christ's sacrifice when celebrating the mass together? So the "third" refers to the common thing appreciated by 2 people?

Suppose for the sake of this question that Jephthah really did burn his daughter, and did not dedicate her as a virgin. Now I am guessing that Jephthah sinned at the moment when he made his oath, but did he sin at the moment he burned her? Or did he not sin at that moment, because he was merely following the oath he had previously made? Should Jephthah have refused to carry out his oath to God?

As far as I know, a mass said by a priest who has lost friendship with God (in the state of mortal sin) is valid by the principle of [ex opere operato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato#In_the_Catholic_Church) , justified by the resolution of the [Donatist controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism) deciding on the side of the sacraments performed are still efficacious. If my understanding is correct, it's Christ himself who is the author of the sacrament, who in principle can make the matter and the form of the sacrament (the *Sacramentum Tantum*) STILL be the causal instrument of grace to the recipient, making the sacraments efficacious. But if generally, a mortal sin causes the loss of not only the sacramental effects (*Res Tantum*) but also the *sacramental character* (*Res et Sacramentum*), doesn't this mean that the mortal sin also has an effect on Holy Orders? My question is: **How does Catholic Sacramental theology explain the efficacy of sacraments performed by a priest in the state of mortal sin?** Maybe I was wrong to say that the mortal sin affects the *sacramental character*. Maybe the sacramental character is never removed. One explanation is that mortal sin [introduces an obstacle](https://holytrinityelo.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Week-6-The-Tri-Partite-of-Baptism.pdf) (*obex*). But this introduces other questions: - If the sacramental character is never removed but there is an *obex*, **what exactly is blocked within the priest if the Eucharist / Baptism offered / performed are still to be efficacious**? - Similarly, if the sacramental character is never removed, does it mean that when we commit mortal sin, the life of the Holy Spirit given at Baptism never leaves us, but only the effects (virtues, gifts, actual grace, etc.) cannot flow to us? How do we reconcile the seemingly incongruent idea that the life of the Holy Spirit can coexist with the state of mortal sin? ----- For a background explanation of the Catholic tri-partite theory of sacrament, see attachment to a [related question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86611/10672) .

Most Nontrinitarian Christians accept the 66-book canon used by Protestants. However, the canon of Scripture was defined by the Church at around the same time that the Trinity was defined by the Church. So how do they justify accepting the Canon but not the Trinity?

One of the promises given by Mary to the people who pray the rosary is > Devotion to my Rosary is a special sign of predestination. Reference I read many things on predestination and can't really find a proper description of what it means in regards to this message. It's something that highlights we were predestined by God. We were predestined to receive his grace but not predestined, as Calvinists believe, to obtain his salvation after we die. Is there any explanation what it means to obtain a special sign of predestination according to the Catholic Church?

Historically, Creationists tended to fall into two broad categories, those who subscribe to the Day-Age theory (the idea that the days in Genesis 1 represent ages of indeterminate length, not 24 hour periods) or the Gap theory (the idea that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 was an indeterminate gap, but the days were 24-hour periods). At least up until WWII, these were the predominant Creationists views, with the idea of a young earth being vehemently attacked even by some Fundamentalists and Creationists. > Advocates of [creation science] read the first chapters of Genesis in a way that allows for no life on earth before Eden and no death before the fall. > Until the last few decades most creationists would have regarded such notions as unnecessarily extreme. By the late nineteenth century even the most conservative Christian apologists readily conceded that the Bible allowed for an ancient earth and pre-Edenic life. With few exceptions, they accommodated the findings of historical geology either by interpreting the days of Genesis 1 to represent vast ages in the history of the earth or by separating a creation "in the beginning" from a much later Edenic creation in six literal days. > -- Introduction to *The Creationists*, 2nd Edition, 2006, by Ronald L Numbers, p.7 Jump to 2016, and the theory of a literal 6-day creation has become very popular, and is certainly the most talked-about of the creationist theories. In comparison, the Gap and Day-Age theories get much less attention, even being considered heresy (or nearly so) by some literal 6-Day creationists. What accounts for this change in attitude, and when did it occur?

In the NASB, Romans 4:25 (emphasis mine) reads: > He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was > raised ***because of*** our justification. However, in the ESV (emphasis mine) it reads: > ...who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised ***for*** our > justification. The literal sense of the preposition διὰ in the Greek agrees with the NASB, but there are some alternate explanations that may favor the ESV reading. Textual and translation issues aside (those can be addressed over at BH.SE on this question ), does the literal reading presented in the NASB present any theological difficulties in the Reformed tradition? I'm trying to determine why many Reformed-influenced translations wish to avoid this causal sense.

We read in Jn 11:5-6 (NRSVCE): > Accordingly, though Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, after having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. We also read in Mark 5: > Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” So Jesus went with him........ While Jesus was still speaking, some people came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. “Your daughter is dead,” they said. “Why bother the teacher anymore?” Overhearing what they said, Jesus told him, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.” In both cases, Jesus recuses himself from praying for the persons (Lazarus and Jairus'daughter) while they are alive, knowing well that they are destined to die once. I have had some personal experiences when I forgot to pray for the physical well-being of some relatives, and would realize my forgetfulness only when they would suddenly die ! Occasionally, when I pray for the recovery of someone taken seriously ill at a far-away place, the prayer somehow turns into a prayer for the soul, before I am told of his/her death! Now, we believe in the intervention of Holy Spirit in our prayers, that He channelizes them. My question therefore, is: **According to Catholic scholars, does the Holy Sprit prevent one from praying for those, to whom the intended prayer is of no use?**

Is the Pentecostal cult in Romania affiliated to any international Pentecostal association or organization or movement? If yes, then which one? Do they have a website?

Our Lord is often referred to as *Jesus* by the writers of the Gospels; however, I cannot think of an instance where He is referred to, or called, *Jesus* by any of His enemies (or strangers). Can anyone point me to an instance (in a Catholic Bible) where our Lord is called *Jesus* by one of His enemies or a stranger? It seems that "Sir", or "Rabbi", or perhaps, "Master" are the more likely salutations.

I would like to know if Catholic church considers credo-baptism a heresy? And also what exactly there stance is on it?

The sites Got Questions and Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis don't really tell which churches/denominations its writers are part of. The only thing that's obvious is they're Protestants. I always wondered who their posters are. Presbyterians? Southern Baptists? Missouri Synod Lutherans?