Demographics-wise, **has the number of global Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome** (called "Catholics" for convenience in this Q) **been always the majority in *every* generation since the church in Rome was established**, compared to the number of Christians of all ["Great Church"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Church)-compatible denominations? **Criteria for the accepted answer**: - References to scholarly estimates / reputable statistics are needed in the answer. - If the answer is no, then the statistics need to include a historic trend line with a point showing the years when the number lost majority. - If the answer is no, then please consider answering a related question of whether the "Catholic" percentage has always been greater than the percentages of other 4 major groups: Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Churches of the East + Nestorian Asian churches. ### Method of calculation and the rationale "Majority" is defined as more than 50% share of all Christians who subscribe to the key doctrines of the Great Church. The purpose for this answer is to figure out whether in light of post-Nicene schisms, **the numbers of adherents that remained in communion with Rome** from the time of the [Great Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Church) until today ("Great Church" understood as the mainstream that survived various pre-Nicene heresies) **can be interpreted to indicate that the Holy Spirit ***also*** assisted the ecclesial leadership of the Bishop of Rome by numerical strength**. That is why the criteria below excludes Christian movements that are outright incompatible with the key doctrines of the Great Church. This question may not be as straightforward to answer because at one point in the history of global Christianity, the Nestorian Eastern churches were very active in evangelism, widespread, numerous, and consisted of hundreds of bishoprics that mostly have perished and forgotten (except in the academia). See a fascinating 2009 book by historian Philip Jenkins [The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061472816) . ### Criteria for group inclusion **For the sake of identifying who **ARE** "Catholics"** (the numerator of the ratio): 1. The only criteria is **the number of Christians in full communion with the [Bishop of Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope)** throughout history. In the modern period, a good starting point would be all the churches listed in the [Pontifical year book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuario_Pontificio) . 2. Protestant congregations who started afresh OR who broke communion with Rome (such as the [Church of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England)) should *NOT* be counted. 3. Eastern Orthodox adherents are counted before the [1054 Great schism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism) , but not afterwards. 4. [Oriental orthodox churches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches) churches (such as the [Armenian Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Apostolic_Church)) are counted before they broke off from the Great Church. 5. [Eastern *Catholic* churches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#List_of_Eastern_Catholic_churches) in communion with Rome (both Eastern / Oriental Orthodox) such as the [Armenian Catholic Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Catholic_Church) SHOULD be counted **starting at the year of their recognition by Rome**, so should ex-Protestant churches who are recognized by Rome such as parishes wishing to be part of [Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Chair_of_Saint_Peter) . 6. [Church of the East](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East) are counted, but not *after* the [Nestorian schism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorian_schism) . 7. [Ancient churches in Asia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Asia#Early_spread_in_Asia) (some of them Nestorian) are counted, but not after losing contact with the Great Church since after the AD 325 Nicene council. 8. Historic Arian factions (before 8th century) SHOULD be counted because (as far as I know) the centuries-long dispute was resolved without schism (see [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Struggles_with_orthodoxy)) . Similarly, during the 4th-5th century [Donatist controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism) Donatist dioceses should *also* be counted because (as far as I know) Rome never break communion with them (but *they* were the ones who broke from Rome because of their stricter doctrine). 9. A [rough historical schema](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Christian_denomination_tree) of the major schisms and reconciliations is shown below. **Only the solid gray and red lines are counted**, plus those not in the picture such as the Personal Ordinariate. 10. Christians who were forced to belong to a non-"Catholic" denomination or externally belong out of political / social expediency, should be counted **according to their external membership** for feasibility of demographics study, even though this makes the study imperfect. For example: - High church Anglicans or British Catholic sympathizers who chose to remain in the Church of England out of fear of political persecution between the [Act of Supremacy (1534)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Supremacy) and the creation of the [Apostolic Vicariate of England (1623)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Vicariate_of_England) should *NOT* be counted. - But Christians who chose to belong to the Vicariate after 1623, especially after the [Catholic Emancipation Act (1829)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Relief_Act_1829) , and those who moved to one of the 12 official Roman Catholic dioceses created after the [Restoration of the Catholic Hierarchy in England (1850)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalis_Ecclesiae) SHOULD of course be counted in the numerator. **For the sake of identifying who **ARE** "Christians":** (the denominator of the ratio): 1. All of the numerator (Christians in full communion with either the Great Church or the Bishop of Rome) 2. All Nicene and Chalcedonian Protestants 3. All Eastern Orthodox churches 4. Historic [Non-Chalcedonian Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Chalcedonian_Christianity) (such as [Coptics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church) , [Syriac](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Christianity) , other Oriental Orthodox churches, [Nestorians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism) , etc.) who trace their roots to *before* c. AD 500 **ARE** included because: - they were *organic* schisms of the Great Church: they affirmed the common heritage except certain aspects of Christology - they never denied the divine hypostasis of Christ but disagreed only on the relation between the divine nature and the human nature of Christ (see [Christological comparison chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism#/media/File:Christological_spectrum-o2p.svg)) - they baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 5. Non-Nicene or non-Chalcedonian [restorationist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism) movements that started *after* c. AD 500 such as LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, are **NOT** included because unlike Protestants (who also started after AD 500), they repudiated the core beliefs of the Great Church in one or more of the following ways: - deny the orthodoxy of the Great Church by labelling it the "Great Apostasy" which they dated to happen very early (1st to early 2nd century): [LDS reason](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-restoration/the-great-apostasy?lang=eng) , [JW reason](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993005) - deny the divine hypostasis of Jesus (see the [Unitarian narrative](https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2017/08/02/once-upon-a-time-there-was-a-unitarian-god/)) - baptize [only in the name of Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_in_the_name_of_Jesus) ([Oneness Pentecostal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism#Baptismal_formula)) 6. Proto-Protestants such as the [Lollards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollardy) and the [Hussites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussites) **ARE** included as they would have been part of the orthodoxy of the Great Church. They should *NOT* be counted in the numerator (when feasible). 7. Those who as a group were forced to convert to Christianity (thus subjectively do not identify as Christian), such as the plight of Spanish Jews between 1391 (or earlier) and 1492, (see [article here](https://www.pbs.org/wnet/exploring-hate/2022/07/26/expelled-from-spain-july-31-1492/)) are **NOT** included (when feasible), because their free will have been violated. Although I think it is safe to assume that were they to be included in either the numerator and/or the denominator, it would not change the majority ratio. ### Criteria for individual inclusion Considering [this congregation involvement statistics](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/16/church-involvement-varies-widely-among-u-s-christians/) (thanks to @OneGodTheFather for the discussion), **why are non-practicing Catholics included while the high-involvement JW/LDS members do not even count in the denominator**? This is because the purpose of this Q is to measure whether the Latin Church (later known as the Roman Catholic Church) has always been the church **which most orthodox Christians choose to teach the most "correct" doctrines** about Christianity compared to other valid descendants of the Great Church. The numbers should approximate the number of those who would answer "Yes" to this survey question: > Regardless of your level of faith in Jesus, your participation in church, the church in which you were baptized, how certain you are of the correctness of your church's doctrines, or the church you are attending (eg. if you are attending the church for family reason, not out of conviction), **which denomination would you *choose* as the one that teaches the most correct Christianity**? - Most non-practicing Catholics and C & E Catholics don't go to church more often out of laziness, backsliding, or agnosticism. They don't outright deny the authority of the Catholic church to teach the right doctrines even though they may not agree 100%. That is why they are *included* in the numerator. - Most non-practicing Christians and most of the "Nones" also don't go to church for the same reason, but when asked "which denomination would you most trust to teach the right doctrines of Christianity should you be a practicing Christian again" would STILL be able to choose one of the denomination as the one they would most likely trust over the others, even though they could be in the process mulling over whether to go to another religion. *Until they decide* to practice a non-orthodox form of Christianity (by going LDS, for example) or to practice another religion, they are still *included* in the denominator.

Some people believe that if you have not been baptized, you cannot be saved. Others (including myself) believe that it is merely the outward declaration of what has already happened in the heart. Given that Jesus baptized no one, and that one of the most famous conversions involved no baptism (the thief on the cross), what Biblical basis is used by those who believe that baptism is a prerequisite to salvation?

According to this page , it briefly describes this: > Queer theology begins with an assumption that gender non-conformity and homosexual desire have always been present in human history, and are present in the Bible. It is a way of unraveling structures and stories that have been oppressive. It is also a way of understanding the Bible as a source of stories about radical love. It seems to me that this type of theology is strictly limited to academia; however, I may be wrong. Are there any denominations that follow "queer theology", and who are they? I know denominations that are open to LGBT Christians, but they do not seem to be focused on this style of interpretation of the Bible.

On the cover of Charles Hartshorne's *Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method* published by SCM Press (London 1970) there is this symbol A Google image search suggests that this is called a Christus Rex, made up of a crown at the top, the cross and a circle below (my interpretation). Am I correct in saying this? What does each part mean, especially the circle? Does anyone know the origin of this symbol? I could not find any direct documentation of this symbol. Any reference highly appreciated

Where to read about: Church Fathers discussing the unwritten traditions of the church before year 400 AD. I read that Epiphanius of Salamis has said something about the unwritten traditions in his book - Ancoratus I found this https://dokumen.pub/ancoratus-0813225914-9780813225913.html But I can not find something relevant in this book by searching by keywords. Do you know other church fathers discussing the unwritten traditions and the explanations about these unwritten traditions before 400 AD? Thanks in advance. ---------------------- **Looking to find answers on these traditions and more, from ancient writers:** Both catholic and orthodox may be in strange position for some of these traditiosns. What can be the explanations. 1. The catholics with the **Clerical celibacy**. Is this apostolic unwritten traditions that the apostles taught 2 Thes. 2:15; Peter was married Matt. 8:14-15; 1 Corinthians 9:5-7; Also 1 Titus 1:6-9; Timothy 3:2-5; 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife.... About forbidding marriages 1 Timothy 4:1-3; The catholic teaching of the Clerical celibacy seems not to align with scripture or I may not understand it properly, please correct me if I am wrong, not sure how to understand this. If the scripture say Timothy 3:2-5; If this is not apostolic teaching, how can I be 100% sure that the other claimed unwritten traditions are apostolic teachings? Since while researching I learn that there are indeed traditions in the churches that are not apostolic, even borrowed from older pagan traditions like the halo on the icons. 3. Leavened or Unleavened Bread - which one is apostolic and who evt. changed the apostolic tradition and when? As far as I know catholic and orthodox condemn each other on this. 4. If Purgatory is apostolic traditions why do Eastern Orthodox do not accept it? Did ancient writers from East or West mentioned it? Both churches claim to accept "the unwritten traditions" of the apostles. 5. Orthodox do not accept - (Original Sin) but accept Augustine since he is mentioned in ecumenical councils. This is also strange, accepting the person as church father, but not accepting his teachings. 6. Saturday fasting - Orthodox do not do it, if I am not wrong they condemn it. Is this apostolic tradition? 7. Filioque - the original Creed did not include it, it is known to be later addition, so this can not be directly said to be apostolic, also I do not find it in the scripture, even that I have heard, some protestants claim that. The other strange thing is that, Augustine seems to have the filioque and again the orthodox accept him because he was accepted in some of the ecumenical councils, but reject some of his teachings.

I am looking for the name of the cathedral that contains the following mural. What I know for sure is: - That it has been done between 2004 and 2008, more likely in 2008. - It was made in a Catholic cathedral of a Spanish speaking country. - The original file name is "2B CS.jpg" What I think I know is: - It was a city in Latin America. - The city is on or near the seashore.

In 1598 the Edict of Nantes was passed allowing Protestants to worship in Catholic France. But this Edict was revoked in 1685, and under the reign of King Louis XIV, there was extreme persecution of the Huguenots in southern France. Among the Huguenots were the charismatic Camisards known for their visions, prophecies, and speaking in tongues. There was a time of great fighting, with many Protestants fleeing the country of France...until emigration was outlawed, too. And much of the Camisard settlements were destroyed. Many were massacred by the French dragoons. Some were able to flee to England. Are there any existing charismatic Camisards that still meet in Protestant (Reformed) churches today, and practice the charismatic gifts? In France? In other nations? Or have they disappeared from the Church landscape?

Inspired by a thought-provoking comment section discussion about an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/86261/50422) to my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86233/50422 , I would like to ask a follow-up question: According to those who believe in the inexorable damnation of the unreached, why is punishing the unreached in Hell (possibly for all eternity) a better deal than other more merciful and compassionate alternatives, such as having the unreached go through an afterlife rehabilitation program, preaching the gospel to the unreached in the afterlife so that they may at least have a genuine chance to decide if they want to get saved or not, etc. I mean, any alternative other than being born in the wrong time and place, only to be surprised at the time of death with a boarding pass to eternal damnation, without any chance to revoke it whatsoever.

[*Mater Populi fidelis* - Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles Regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Salvation (4 November 2025)](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20251104_mater-populi-fidelis_en.html#_Toc201667039) This publication addresses the problem of excessive and inappropriate "Marian devotion". > … there are some **Marian reflection groups**, publications, new devotions, and even requests for Marian dogmas that do not share the same characteristics as popular devotion. > Rather, they ultimately propose a **particular dogmatic development** and express themselves intensely through social media, often **sowing confusion** among ordinary members of the faithful. > Sometimes these initiatives even **involve reinterpretations of expressions** that were used in the past with a variety of meanings. > This document considers such proposals to indicate how some respond to a genuine Marian devotion inspired by the Gospel, and how others **should be avoided since they do not foster a proper contemplation of the harmony of the Christian message as a whole**. Misuse of the titles "Co-redemptrix" and "Mediatrix" is specifically addressed: > *Co-redemptrix* > > 18. Some Popes have used the title “Co-redemptrix” without elaborating much on its meaning. > Generally, they have presented the title in two specific ways: in reference to Mary’s divine motherhood (insofar as she, as Mother, made possible the Redemption that Christ accomplished) or in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross. > **The Second Vatican Council refrained from using the title for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons.** … > > 19. In the Feria IV meeting on 21 February 1996, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was the Prefect of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked whether the request from the movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici to define a dogma declaring Mary as the **“Co-redemptrix”** or **“Mediatrix of All Graces”** was acceptable. > In his personal votum, he replied: “**Negative.** > The precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. > A defined doctrine of divine faith belongs to the Depositum Fidei — that is, to the divine revelation conveyed in Scripture and the apostolic tradition. > However, **it is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.**” > Later, in 2002, he publicly voiced his opinion against the use of the title: “**the formula ‘Co-redemptrix’ departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings…** > Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. > **The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.**” > While Cardinal Ratzinger did not deny that there may have been good intentions and valuable aspects in the proposal to use this title, he maintained that they were “being expressed in the wrong way.” > > 21. On at least three occasions, Pope Francis expressed his clear opposition to using the title “Co-redemptrix,” arguing that **Mary “never wished to appropriate anything of her Son for herself. > She never presented herself as a co-Savior. > No, a disciple.”** > Christ’s redemptive work was perfect and needs no addition; therefore, > “Our Lady did not want to take away any title from Jesus… > **She did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no.** > There is only one Redeemer, and this title cannot be duplicated.” > **Christ “is the only Redeemer; there are no co-redeemers with Christ.”** > For “the sacrifice of the Cross, offered in a spirit of love and obedience, presents the most abundant and infinite satisfaction.” > While we are able to extend its effects in the world (cf. Col 1:24), **neither the Church nor Mary can replace or perfect the redemptive work of the incarnate Son of God, which was perfect and needs no additions**. > > 22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, **it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation**. > This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and **can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith**, for “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). > When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, **it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful**. > In this case, the expression “Co-redemptrix” does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for **it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ** — the Son of God made man for our salvation, who was the only one capable of offering the Father a sacrifice of infinite value — which would not be a true honor to his Mother. > Indeed, as the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38), Mary directs us to Christ and asks us to “do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5). > *Mediatrix* > > 24. **The biblical statement about Christ’s exclusive mediation is conclusive.** > Christ is the only Mediator, “for there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:5-6). > The Church has clarified this unique place of Christ in light of the fact that he is the eternal and infinite Son of God, hypostatically united with the humanity he assumed. > This is exclusive to Christ’s humanity, and the consequences that derive from it can only be properly applied to him. > In this precise sense, the Incarnate Word’s role is exclusive and unique. > Given this clarity in the revealed Word of God, special prudence is required when applying the term “Mediatrix” to Mary. > In response to a tendency to broaden the scope of Mary’s cooperation through this title, it is helpful to specify the range of its value as well as its limits. > > 27. The Second Vatican Council’s terminology regarding **mediation primarily refers to Christ; it sometimes also refers to Mary, but in a clearly subordinate manner**. > In fact, the Council preferred to use a different terminology for her: one centered on cooperation or maternal assistance. > The Council’s teaching clearly formulates the perspective of Mary’s maternal intercession, using expressions such as “manifold intercession” and “maternal help.” > These two aspects together define the specific nature of Mary’s cooperation in Christ’s action through the Spirit. > Strictly speaking, **we cannot talk of any other mediation in grace apart from that of the incarnate Son of God**. > Therefore, we must always recall, and never obscure, the Christian conviction that “must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church’s faith” regarding “the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Savior, who through the event of his incarnation, death, and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfillment, and which has in him its fullness and center.” Given these clear statements about the inappropriate use of these titles (and condemnation of other aspects of their faith) what do Marian-centered groups see as their future? - Reducing their use of these titles and their extreme devotion to Mary to conform with Church doctrine and practice? - Separating from the Mother Church? - Being excommunicated? - Something else?

In Job 40, God describes to Job a creature called "behemoth" which has been a bit of an enigma to interpret. Some interpretations I've encountered include: a hippo, a mythological animal, an allegory, or a unique animal of which only one ever existed. In modern Young Earth Creationist circles, it is very common to see it as a sauropod dinosaur. (Examples: Answers in Genesis holds this theory , it's suggested by GotQuestions as a possibility , it's "probable" according to CMI ). I'm trying to track down the origin of this idea. Specifically, the identification of Behemoth as a **sauropod**, and not generally as dinosaurian or dinosaur-like. *Note: The correct interpretation of the behemoth is irrelevant to this question. I am only asking about the history of the interpretation that it is a sauropod.*

**Do any denominations that believe Jesus rebuked his mother believe Jesus committed a sin by violating the commandment of God to honour one's parents?** Looking at the posted answer here, it claimed that Jesus rebuked His beloved Mother, and worst, Jesus did it infront of a crowd. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/112936/mary-is-a-sinner-looking-for-significant-passages-with-exegesis-to-support-the/112953#112953 The answer claimed, the following biblical passages: >1. Matth. 12:43-50 and Mark 3:31-35, St. John Chrysostom: Mary's sin of vainglory These passages are, in my opinion, the clearest if one wants to find a Biblical passage with a specific instance of Mary's imperfection. Quoting from Mark: >Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone to call him. A crowald always sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." >"Who are my mother and brothers?" he asked. >Then he looked at those seating in a circle around him, and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!" Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother. **It might not be clear precisely what Mary has done wrong here, but Jesus' response certainly has the character of a rebuke**. Apparently, she was trying to leverage her familial relationship with Jesus for some kind of gain. >2. John 2:1-4 and John Calvin: Mary's sin of unreasonable haste >John Calvin (contrary to your supposition in the OP) drew a similar conclusion from John 2:3-4: >When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” >“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.” >Calvin's commentary on John 2:4, while careful to emphasize that Mary's sin here is of a minor nature, says "she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds." From the above citations and interpretation, Jesus would appear to have committed the sin against the commandment of God. >**The Commandment**: > >**"Honor your father and your mother,**" is a foundational principle in Abrahamic religions, commanding respect, gratitude, and care for parents, extending beyond childhood obedience to include supporting them in old age and recognizing legitimate authority figures like teachers, leaders, and country, forming a basis for social order and lasting blessings like long life and prosperity. It signifies honoring God's gift of life and involves actions like obedience (when not sinful), providing for needs, praying for them, and avoiding disrespect, even when parents are difficult. And Paul repeated the call to honor thy Mother and Father >**Children and Parents** 1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. **2“Honor your father and mother” (which is the first commandment with a promise),** 3“that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life on the earth.”… - Ephesians6:2 **Is Jesus guilty of committing a sin by rebuking His beloved in two occasions, one was infront of the crowd, and the other was in Wedding at Cana?** Looking for answer from Protestant and any denominations or non-denominations who interpreted the passages cited, as a rebuke and dishonor to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I am attempting to explore the differences in theology between various western theological christian positions. And I would like to know according to the Catholic Church’s perspective, what teachings or beliefs of the Presbyterian Church are considered heretical and in what way. I would like to get a list of these in an easy to read list or table. An entry could be something like this example: - The denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (sacramental symbolism) is deemed heretical because it rejects the belief that the bread and wine become Christ’s actual Body and Blood during Mass. This matters because the Eucharist as a central sacrament for salvation and communion with Christ according to the Catholic Church.

I was reading *What is the Trinity* by R.C. Sproul, where he writes on page 18: > One of the most striking things that I encountered during my graduate work in the 1960s was the evidence that was emerging from the work of theological anthropologists and sociologists who were examining the religious views of various primitive tribes in the world. They were finding that while animism was outwardly prevalent in those cultures, the people frequently spoke about a god on the other side of the mountain or a god who was distantly removed from them. In other words, they had a concept of a high god who was not at the center of their daily religious practices. This god was like the unknown god of the Greeks, a god with whom they were not in contact but who nevertheless was there. This is extremely interesting. I am not very familiar with the study of anthropology. What examples of this are there around the world?

On April 8, 2021, during a debate between [Matt Dillahunty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) and Catholic Apologist [Trent Horn](https://www.trenthorn.com/) titled [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) , hosted by [Pints With Aquinas](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClh4JeqYB1QN6f1h_bzmEng) , Matt Dillahunty said: [20:56](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM?t=1256) : > It's important for people to recognize **there is a difference between verification and falsification**. Verification is the concept that we should produce the thing. If we were to say that all intelligent beings are on planet earth, verification you could run around "hey, there's an intelligent being on earth, there's one on earth and there's one on earth, there's one on earth", but verifying it exhaustively could be completely impractical because you would have to search every planet at all times in order to determine in fact that all intelligent beings are on planet earth. But falsification is a separate issue. Falsification is whether or not it is theoretically able to be shown to be false. And so, whole we may never be able to verify that all intelligent beings are in fact on planet earth, we could at least in theory falsify it because if we produced an intelligent being that wasn't on earth, that would falsify the claim. Now that would show that the claim is wrong. **But if we have a claim that is unverifiable, unfalsifiable, it is essentially untestable**. **And my foundation is that if you have an untestable claim, it'd better be mundane, trivial and consistent with the facts of reality before you should ever risk believing that it is in fact the case**. **Well, we can't really believe, or we can't argue that it's rational to believe something that we can't test at all**. So we do the best we can when it comes to history, **and so when we take a look at history all we have are reports**. Somebody said they saw this, somebody said they knew this person, somebody said this other thing. That's all well and good when we're trying to put together the best understanding of history we can. **But we shouldn't be proclaiming it as truth, and we shouldn't be necessarily saying that this particular version of history is particularly reasonable**. As history tends to be written by the victors. **So history is always suspect**. And there are two quotes from David Hume that are the cornerstone how and why I go about determining if something is or should be considered reasonable ... [Matt then proceeds to quote/paraphrase David Hume on why miracle claims are unreasonable to be believed on insufficient evidence.] [24:56](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM?t=1496) > **So if a claim isn't falsifiable and there's no way to show it's wrong, we can't reasonably accept that it's correct**. **And if we're left with no physical evidence about the existence of Jesus, or the interactions of Jesus, or his death and resurrection, what we are left with is ... testimony**. Now, I'm not willing to dig in on whether or not the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. I don't think they were, I don't think that most reasonable scholars aren't going to say these are witnesses but it doesn't matter to me because even if they were all eyewitnesses, **we already know that eyewitness testimony is unreliable under the best circumstances**. In this case we don't know whose testimony, eyewitness second or third hand, and we can't investigate it at all. **All the things they say happened don't have corroborating evidence. They don't have supporting physical evidence. We don't have any way to question them about their reliability. We don't have any way to talk to them to determine**, you know, **are these stories accurate**, you know, **do they overlap**. [...] [27:29](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM?t=1649) > [...] I have a hard time going through some of these things and saying "yes, that's being reported as this has actually happened". **So what evidence do we have? Copies of copies of translations of copies from unknown sources that may have been but probably weren't eyewitnesses, and if they had been eyewitnesses it wouldn't be sufficient to confirm that someone actually rose from the dead**. What sort of evidence would we expect for a claim that someone rose from the dead? Depends on the time frame. Sure, back in 1st century Judea, probably not a lot! You don't have a way to test for sure that somebody's dead. You don't have like x-rays, you don't have DNA. Well, the question is: if this story is true, then Jesus was divine, and God exists. **And what sort of evidence could a God provide? God could provide the best evidence possible such that there would be no reasonable debate to be had at all** [...] [49:32](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM?t=2972) : > And I'm not here for interesting. I'm here to find out what's reasonable. And here is the crux of it, which we can have this discussion afterwards because I don't have any follow-up questions after this. And that is this: **you are willing to accept that an extraordinary miraculous event occurred based only on testimony, and I'm not. That's it! That is the foundational difference between our epistemology. I will not accept that the physical understanding of the universe was suspended for an individual based only on testimonial accounts. It is unreasonable. That is how you get conned. That is how magicians fool you [...]** How do Christians rebut Matt Dillahunty's objection that the resurrection of Jesus is unverifiable, unfalsifiable, untestable, lacking supporting physical evidence beyond mere reports, and therefore unreasonable to believe? ___ **Note**: my question is about Jesus' resurrection, not about Jesus' existence. One could concede that Jesus existed and still be skeptical of his resurrection and other related supernatural claims. For Dillahunty's position on the existence of Jesus, see [Did Jesus Exist? | David - Oklahoma City, OK | Atheist Experience 21.25](https://youtu.be/apS_679ru50) . Here is the transcript of an excerpt from the video in case it gets taken down: > Caller: *Well, what do you believe? Do you believe he actually existed in history or not?* > > Matt: *I think it's very likely that there was a historical figure that the stories are tied to, but we don't know much at all about him and there may actually have been a number of different people molded into one after the fact. I don't ... I have no idea*. > > Jen: *I'm unconvinced that there was a single individual on which the stories are based.* > > Matt: *And even if we were convinced that there was a single individual. I don't know how we would know anything about that person specifically because if you, if you go through for example the gospel stories and ... there is no way to verify anything right down to, you know, the name or the date or anything.*

Many moons ago, I was surfing through the ocean of Wikipedia and found the page for "[Great Lent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent) ." While reading, I found [this quote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent#:~:text=The%20Church%20Fathers%5Bwhich%3F%5D%20have%20referred%20to%20fasting%20without%20prayer%20as%20%22the%20fast%20of%20the%20demons%22%5Bcitation%20needed%5D%20since%20the%20demons%20do%20not%20eat%20according%20to%20their%20incorporeal%20nature%2C%20but%20neither%20do%20they%20pray.) : > The Church Fathers[which?] have referred to fasting without prayer as "the fast of the demons"[citation needed] since the demons do not eat according to their incorporeal nature, but neither do they pray. I have absolutely fallen in love with this idea but have completely failed to find where it came from. I have a feeling it is hidden somewhere in the depths of the [PG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrologia_Graeca) or [PL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrologia_Latina) and even the most advanced AIs can not find it. Does anyone happen to know where this quote has come from?

To me, it would be a profound irony and tragedy—if one of the wisest men in history (1 Kings 3:12; 4:29–31), famed for building the temple (1 Kings 5–6) and writing Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, a foreshadowing type for Jesus (Matthew 12:42), yet potentially missing out on the Kingdom. One of his last mentioned acts is trying to kill Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:40; Exodus 20:13) before his death and burial is shortly described next in 1 Kings 11:42-43. This raises doubtful concern for me, about his standing in terms of salvation (Ezekiel 18:24; 1 Corinthians 9:27) or if counted among the “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11. Albeit, not denying the possibility of him yielding to God's profound transformative power and healing over his faith walk in the last parts of his life (Psalm 103:8–12; 136; 145:8-18). "Solomon tried to kill Jeroboam, but he fled to King Shishak of Egypt and stayed there until Solomon died. The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including all his deeds and his wisdom, are recorded in Solomon ruled in Jerusalem over all Israel for forty years. When he died, he was buried in the City of David, named for his father. Then his son Rehoboam became the next king." Given that Scripture never clearly affirms or denies Solomon’s salvation, and considering his extraordinary wisdom and accomplishments (1 Kings 11:41), what does his life reveal about the relationship between human achievement, divine judgment, and authentic or saving faith in God (Ecclesiastes 1:16–17, 2:4–9; Hebrews 11)?

I recently learned that Song of Solomon, which is included in Jewish and Christian Old Testament canons, is not considered divinely inspired by the Latter Day Saints (colloquially known as Mormons). As it is described on the LDS website : > A book in the Old Testament. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the Song of Solomon is not an inspired writing. However, it is included in the "Scripture" section of that same website, as well as included in LDS Bibles. **My question is, if Song of Solomon is not counted as inspired by Mormons, how *do* they use it?** I don't mean "how" in an incredulous way here - I mean: What is it used for? In practice, in what ways is it treated differently from the divinely inspired Scriptures? This reminds me somewhat of Protestant attitudes towards the Apocryphal works (Tobit, Ben Sirach etc.), which are not considered inspired but may be considered instructive or historically valuable. However, it is different in some important respects: Protestants do not list these books among Scripture and very seldom print them in our Bibles.

**Is the SSPX still in full communion with Rome?** The Society of Saint Pius X is a traditionalist Catholic priestly fraternity founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Monsignor Lefebvre was a leading traditionalist at the Second Vatican Council with the *Coetus Internationalis Patrum* and Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers until 1968. The society was originally established as an Association of the Christian faithful of the Roman Catholic Church with the expressed permission of the Swiss Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg, François Charrière. This Catholic Association was in full communion with Rome until 1988 with the Écône consecrations: Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without the Apostolic Mandate and against a personal warning by Pope John Paul II, resulting in the Vatican declaration that the bishops who consecrated or were consecrated had incurred Latæ Sententiæ (automatic) excommunication. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications on the remaining living bishops whom Lefebvre had consecrated back in 1988. However certain sanctioned remained in place. On February 12 2026, [the head of the Society of St. Pius X will meet with Vatican officials](https://www.osvnews.com/sspx-leader-to-meet-cardinal-fernandez-after-announcing-unauthorized-bishop-consecrations/) after [announcing (on Feb 2)](https://fsspx.news/en/news/interview-superior-general-priestly-society-saint-pius-x-57064) their intention to consecrate bishops (seemingly without papal approval) in July 2026. I know this is treading on thin ice according to Catholicism, as unsanctioned consecration will provoke an automatic excommunication. Is this society really in full communion with Rome when they actually threaten Rome with open disobedience to get their way? Excommunication remains a ecclesiastical penalty against Catholics. [“Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholic. Bad Catholics, sure; but Catholics.”](https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/11/20/excommunicated-catholics-are-still-catholic/)

Adam was created in the original state of justice and holiness, he have a pure heart originally, a sinless creature. >The concept that Adam was created in a state of original justice and holiness is a doctrine rooted in the biblical narrative of Genesis 1-3 and supported by New Testament reflections on the image of God. >Key Bible verses and theological points supporting this doctrine include: Ecclesiastes 7:29: "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (KJV). This verse is widely cited as direct scriptural evidence that humanity’s original condition was one of moral integrity, righteousness, and innocence. Genesis 1:26-27, 31: God creates man in His own image and likeness and declares all of creation, including humanity, "very good." This state is interpreted as original justice—a harmonious relationship with God, oneself, and creation. >Ephesians 4:24: While referring to the "new self" in Christ, this verse highlights the original state intended for humanity: "...put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (NIV). This implies that the restoration of humanity brings them back to the original holiness Adam possessed. >Colossians 3:10: Speaks of being "renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator," referencing a return to the original righteous state. >Genesis 2:25: "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." This describes a state of innocence, internal harmony, and lack of sin before the Fall. >**Key Aspects of Original Justice:** >Original Holiness: Friendship with God and sharing in God's own life (sanctifying grace). >Original Justice: Harmony between Adam and Eve, inner harmony of the human person (reason, will, and desires were aligned), and harmony with creation. >Preternatural Gifts: Freedom from sickness, suffering, and death. >The Council of Trent (Session V, 1511) formally affirmed that Adam lost this "holiness and justice" through disobedience. It would seems that Adam was created with a pure heart before the fall, and there's no obstacle for him to see the face of God. **Did Adam saw the face of God before the fall?** This question is open for Catholicism, Protestant and Christians who have a source or writings that stated, Adam had seen the face of God before the fall.

Moses 8:25-30 >25 And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart. > >26 And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life. > >27 And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. > >28 The earth was corrupt before God, and it was filled with violence. > >29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. > >30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth. VERSUS Genesis 6:6-13 >6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. > >7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. > >8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. > >9 ¶ These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. > >10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. > >11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. > >12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. > >13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. My question is why was the wordage changed around who was "repented". In Moses it makes it seem like because of Noah's sorrow and the dangers against his life God who was already angry at the world flooded the earth because of Noah's faith. Whereas in Genesis, it seemed to be Gods decision to flood and the earth and Noah was an innocent bystander who God decides to save. But the Pearl of Great Price being a collection of extras a retranslations of the bible maybe the mormons decided Genesis was incorrect. Or do these two sections go hand in hand. Let me know your thoughts from an LDS perspective and outside perspective.