Jesus was not a pacifist, Jesus taught us to forego retaliation for any offense. I checked the history of the Catholic Church and discovered that they established a military force called the Order of the Templars, was this justified Biblically according to Catholics?

What are the requirements according to Vaticanologists to be considered papabile? If in fact such requirements actually exist. [Papabile](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papabile) is an unofficial term, first coined by Vaticanologists for someone is thought to be a possible candidate to be elected pope. I do not limit this question to Vaticanologists alone, but to all other Church officials or theologians who take into account the possibility of naming someone papabile seriously and gives reasons for doing so, especially now that the Holy See is in a moment of ***Sede Vacante***.

Eusebius in his *Historia Ecclesiastica 3.39.15* writes about Papias claiming Mark, an attendant of Peter, had written an account about Jesus: > And the elder would say this: Mark, who had become the interpreter of > Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he > remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he > neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, > who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an > ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin > having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made > one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or > falsify anything in them. > > Και τουθ ο πρεσβυτερος ελεγεν· Μαρκος μεν ερμηνευτης Πετρου γενομενος, > οσα εμνημονευσεν ακριβως εγραψεν, ου μεντοι ταξει, τα υπο του κυριου η > λεχθεντα η πραχθεντα. ουτε γαρ ηκουσεν του κυριου ουτε παρηκολουθησεν > αυτω, υστερον δε, ως εφην, Πετρω, ος προς τας χρειας εποιειτο τας > διδασκαλιας, αλλ ουχ ωσπερ συνταξιν των κυριακων ποιουμενος λογιων, > ωστε ουδεν ημαρτεν Μαρκος ουτως ενια γραψας ως απεμνημοσευσεν. ενος > γαρ εποιησατο προνοιαν, του μηδεν ων ηκουσεν παραλιπειν η ψευσασθαι τι > εν αυτοις. Could the phrase ου μεντοι ταξει refer to the concept of a rhetorical arrangement that is not in order, in that it skips over major sections of the life and ministry of Jesus? There are two references in the New Testament that are different, yet similar: > Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account > of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the > beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them > down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated > everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in > orderly sequence [καθεξῆς], most excellent Theophilus; so that you > might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1.1-4) > > But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them > in orderly sequence [καθεξῆς], saying.... (Acts 11.4) The early second century literary critic Lucian in his book, *How to Write History* uses ταξει in a broad sense when he writes: > As to the facts themselves, [the historian] should not assemble them > at random, but only after much laborious and painstaking > investigation. He should for preference be an eyewitness, but, if not, > listen to those who tell the more impartial story, those whom one > would suppose least likely to subtract from the facts or add to them > out of favor or malice. When this happens let him show shrewdness and > skill in putting together the more credible story. When he has > collected all or most of the facts, let him first make them into a > series of notes, a body of material as yet with no beauty or > continuity. Then, after arranging them into order [τάξιν], let him > give it beauty and enhance it with the charms of expression, figure, > and rhythm. (47-48) Of course, it is possible that Papias is making reference to an early version of Mark's Gospel. If so, it might be similar to how Tertullian in his work *Against Marcion* writes: > Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my > concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My > first edition [primum opusculum], too hurriedly produced, I afterwards > withdrew, substituting a fuller [*pleniore*] treatment. This also, > before enough copies [*exemplariis*] had been made, was stolen from me > by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who > chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly > [*mendosissime*], and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need > for correction [*emendationis necessitas facta est*]. The opportunity > provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus > this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third > from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the > work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or > another he comes across varying forms of it [*varietas eius*]. > (1.1.1-2) The target audience of Mark's Gospel appears to be Cæsar's equites . So, an abridged version of the life and ministry of Jesus might have deliberately been crafted to leave out certain events for rhetorical purposes such as memory retention, etc. For example, in the Fragments attributed to Clement of Alexandria it states (emphasis added): > Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel > at Rome before some of **Cæsar's equites**, and adduced many testimonies > to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to > memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely > what is called the Gospel according to Mark. As Luke also may be > recognised by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the > Apostles, and to have translated Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. So, what is a survey of the various views that Christians related to the question of what did Papias mean when he wrote how Mark did not write "in order" about what Jesus said or did?

I remember being taught in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church when I was in middle school that Satan took one third of the angels in heaven with him after being cast out of God's presence for rebellion. The only biblical reference I can locate that might be construed as support for this belief is **Revelation 12:4**: >Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. (NIV) I'm sure there are other scriptures that are commonly used in conjunction with this one to justify the belief, but I can't find any that seem to make sense in context, or that address the topic specifically. After discussing this and other issues regarding angels with conservative Baptist friends of mine, I found that some of them base a significant portion of their beliefs about angels, the nephilim, and other supernatural activity and beings on the Book of Enoch, but they always emphasized that they do not view Enoch as canon and as having much less authority than the scriptures. How do Baptists who hold this position defend it using canonical scripture? Also, are there any significant denominations or popular preachers who have maintained this belief?

Did early Christian writers teach apostolic succession or reject it? How do their teachings on this topic compare with contemporary and significant historical understandings of apostolic succession?

In order to prevent electromagnetic waves from entering or leaving the Sistine Chapel, has a Faraday cage been installed around it?

Recently, a good friend of mine posed the question: > What (or who) is Satan and how do we know? I answered him, saying that Satan is an evil angel because this is what I've been taught since I was a child. However, after further investigation (meaning looking through relevant portions of the Bible) I could not justify my claim. In fact, the only form that Satan is described as having, in my investigation, is the form of a dragon. So, that's my question: What is the form of Satan? Is he/it a dragon, human, angel, something else, or is his/its form indeterminate? Please use scripture to support your answer, and thank you.

Is acting as if God exist while not actually believing that God exists is functionally identical or is that a sacrilege? To rephrase: is it feasible/possible/morally right to stick one finger in to test the waters or you accept Christianity in it's entirety and there is no middle ground? The reason I'm asking is that from the agnostic fence I've been sitting for the last 20-30 years of my life it seems that the satanic crowd have become increasingly active in the last decade or so and I want to have nothing in common with the Anton le Vei wannabees so am pondering my options spiritually-wise.

We Christians say the devil is responsible for our sins and temptations. However, I don't see how this can coexist with scientific knowledge. Specifically, we know that life has adapted over time to surviving and reproducing as much as possible (after all, that is what causes more similar lifeforms to arise - it's called natural selection). This includes hormonal systems in the brain that create a positive response to things like reproduction (sex) or eating (gluttony), along with other behaviors like the challenging of authority, or the seeking of (evil) novelties to carry out, which positively impact the species' prosperity. However, this also extends to "rational" (non-chemical) sins as well. In the end, every lie, every insult and even every murder comes from an underlying reasoning (in the latter case, it comes from a reasoning which has been heavily corrupted by the conditions in which one has developed, but the point still holds). Bearing in mind all this, how can we say that there is an external influence "creating" these sins and temptations when it is the internal systems of the brain that are? Saying so would be like saying that demons are responsible for our survival, or like saying that they created these systems in the first place (which, inevitable as they are due to the conditions of the Earth, would imply that they would have created the Earth itself!) Where does this reasoning go wrong?

St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of *Opus Dei*, once said "God in his providence has two ways of blessing marriages: one by giving them children; and the other, sometimes, because he loves them so much, by not giving them children. I don’t know which is the better blessing." One [web article](https://surprisedbymarriage.com/2020/09/08/to-the-small-catholic-families-god-loves-you-too/) quotes this. I also read somewhere that Scott Hahn was quoting St. Josemaria Escriva saying this in his book on his journey with *Opus Dei*, which I put on hold at my local library, but don't have in my hands yet. I am trying to track down the origin of this quote. Was it something the Saint wrote and published? Was it part of a speech or homily? Was it something he just said off the cuff that someone happened to write down? If no one here knows, I will answer the question once I get Hahn's book in my hands and can track the source down.

Scriptures have clear evidence that God has already chosen some individuals for salvation. Here are some references... "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and **as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.**" (Acts 13:48) "And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, **for I have many people in this city**.” (Acts 18:9-10) "For those whom He foreknew, **He also predestined** to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30) The above verses provide us ample evidence that God in His sovereignty chooses some individuals for salvation. Them He justifies and glorifies. Then we also see in the Scriptures... "And He said to them, “Go into all the world and **preach the gospel to all creation.** The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16) “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that **everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.**" (John 3:16) According to the reformed theology how can the above both sets of verses be reconciled?

I live in a place where I can't find anyone to baptize me. Can I become a Christian on my own?

In John 8:1-11, Jesus forgives the women who was taken in adultery, but critical scholars, such as Dr. Bart Erhman, claim that no early or reliable manuscripts contain John 8:1-11, and that, thus, it was probably a later addition. How would you respond to this claim? I have included quotes from Erhman below: > "The story of the woman caught in adultery is not found in the > earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the Gospel of John, nor in > many of the important versions of the text... It appears to have been > added later, perhaps to fill in a gap in the narrative." (Misquoting Jesus) > > "The story, even though it may have been part of the oral tradition, > is not originally part of the Gospel of John, but rather was added > later by a scribe, perhaps because the story was well known in > Christian tradition and fit well with the themes of the Gospel." (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) > > "The story was eventually included in some versions of the Gospel, > likely because it was seen as a powerful teaching of Jesus’ mercy, but > its late inclusion suggests it was not part of the original Gospel." (A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings)

I noticed many questions about how to figure out or what exactly constitutes an infallible statement from the Pope of the Catholic Church. Since it is infallible Dogma within the Catholic church to believe that the Pope can make these infallible *ex Cathedra* statements on matters of faith, there must be a single agreed upon list of these statements... but I cannot seem to find one. The Vatican’s website or Denzinger’s *Sources of Catholic Dogma* compile key papal teachings, but they don’t explicitly label statements as *ex cathedra*... Are these statements just so rare that there are literally only 2 (making my search kinda silly?): 1. The Immaculate Conception (Pope Pius IX, *Ineffabilis Deus*, 1854), declaring that Mary was conceived free from original sin. 2. The Assumption of Mary (Pope Pius XII, *Munificentissimus Deus*, 1950), declaring that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. But... considering things like Vatican II which changed Mass significantly... or Pope John Paul II’s *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* (1994) on the male-only priesthood (which feels like just a reconfirmation of something that had existed for 1900ish years)... I'm not trying to poke holes in the concept of Papal infallibility, but is there really no list of infallible statements, if Catholics must believe in this Dogma?

In Catholicism, what is the difference between a [Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Nicene_Creed) , an [Encyclical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical) , a [Decretal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretal) , a [Canon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Laodicea#Biblical_canon) and a [Papal Bull](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull) ? Are there any other decrees or formal or informal outlines of official church doctrine used by the Catholic church and are any excluded from or exclusively used for inerrant revelation from God by the Pope?

I was intrigued by this May 2025 article from the *Time* magazine: [10 Surprising Facts about Papal Conclaves](https://time.com/7282265/papal-conclaves-surprising-facts-history/) where #2 is: > **Cardinals will be on a strict diet to prevent secret messaging** > >In an attempt to influence cardinals and establish communication between the conclave and the outside world, messages have previously been hidden in food coming into the Sistine Chapel during the voting process. > >Foods that could conceal messages such as pies and chickens, as well as cutlery and glasses, have been prohibited. Following tradition for the upcoming conclave, nuns will prepare local food such as lamb skewers, spaghetti, and boiled vegetables for cardinals. But the restrictive communication seems to *also* be in effect among the cardinal-electors themselves *during conclave*. Quote from the same article that implies the rule of non-communication between votes: > If a decision still has not been made after three days, a break of up to one day is permitted, allowing for prayer and discussion amongst cardinals. But this process can continue indefinitely, until a majority is reached. While I understand how they should be insulated from outside world (i.e. no smartphones), I don't understand the need to prohibit discussion among the current 135 cardinal-electors. Wouldn't discussion between votes (which I heard is at least 2 times per day) help them to reach the consensus? Or at least one discussion per day after a few rounds of votes? I also understand that there is a deliberate pre-conclave discussions which include the rest of the 252 members of the College of Cardinals, so that the wise input from those not eligible can be in the mind of the cardinal electors for factors of consideration. This is also for the cardinal electors to get to know the view of what they consider to be *papabile*. **My question**: What are the precise rules for communication among cardinal electors **during** (not before) the conclave, and what is the *rationale* for those rules? I'm specifically interested whether there are any restrictions of *oral* (not written / recorded) discussion between votes.

How is the Catholic Church officially reacting to Donald Trump's AI image of him dressed up like a pope? After all he is claiming that Catholics "loved" his fake AI image of him as pope. [Trump says Catholics ‘loved’ fake AI image of him as pope](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-catholics-loved-fake-ai-image-of-him-as-pope) Has the Catholic Church come out with an official statement about this? The Vatican may not issue a statement as Pope Francis is dead, the Church is in mourning and Cardinals are in the mist of preparing for the next conclave. Have any Episcopal Conferences issued any statements or rebukes by this act of religious indiscretion?

Specific situation: wife has mood swings, most of the times she treats me well but at night an occasional "Fiona mode" happens, and I don't mean the physical appearance. I tell myself she's exhausted breastfeeding a 30 month old toddler (of ours), but I vaguely remember the instances of mean reaction to my nightly advances before our second kid was born. And she regularly (a few times a week) lashes out at our older kid. So the question I ponder do we have a relationship. Is that a woman that's worth my while. And if we don't then why staying. Not sure if this is an opinion based question.

Why is the doctrine that a Christian subscribes to such as Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, Methodists, Baptists et cetera so important when someone like Abraham was justified on faith alone? God told him to leave and he did and it was accorded him righteousness: *Genesis 15:6* >Abraham believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. Paul also reinforced that salvation is by faith alone: *Romans 4:3* >Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” The two instances above actually seem to teach that believing in Jesus is what actually saves people and not whether or not they were Trinitarian or Unitarian since faith is universal to all Christian denominations. The Jewish saints of the OT who came after Moses did not seek a reason as to why God who is "one" uses the word "us" to refer to Himself; they did not care about doctrine yet they were saved, so why is it so important now?

I am researching *substantiated references to statements from Presbyterian Denominations* ; I am not seeking 'biblical responses' or individual opinions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Many Presbyterian Denominations uphold the Westminster Confession and other 'statements of faith' which follow on from it. As a result, many promote the law as being the 'rule of life' for the Christian believer. But this does not appear to me to be what Paul the apostle is advocating in Galatians 5:22-25. > But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: ***against such there is no law***. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also ***walk in the Spirit***. [Galatians 5:22-25 KJV] Paul, here, states that Christian believers have 'crucified the flesh'. Clearly this is a spiritual matter not a physical one. *Their faith aligns them with Christ.* Thus, as Paul says in another place, God ... hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, Ephesians 2:5,6. These things are not physical, but spiritual and a *matter of believing.* Thus, if their flesh is crucified (by faith in Christ) the law is no longer held before them. ***For the law has nothing to say to someone who is dead.*** The law has seen a just conclusion to sin, in that death. >For he that is dead is freed from sin. [Romans 6:7 KJV] Rather, in his epistle to the churches of Galatia, Paul points the Galatian believers to the working of the indwelling Spirit (not to an external rule of law). And he emphasises that the workings of the Holy Spirit produce in them : love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. If such is within them, says Paul, there is no law that will condemn them. Against such, he says, there is no law. As he says in yet another place : >There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [Romans 8:1,2 KJV] Or, if I remove the translated English ambiguity from the Greek text, and then translate the Greek word, *nomos*, with another one of the legitimate English word translations : >... the rule of the Spirit (of life in Christ Jesus) hath made me free from the rule of sin and death. What do Presbyterian Denominations say in regard to Galatians 5:22-25 to support their idea that the law is the 'rule of life' for the believer ? --------------------------------- EXTRACTS from the Westminster Confession, Chapter 19 : - The moral law doth **forever [sic] bind all**, as well justified persons [sic] as others , to the obedience thereof. - Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, **as a rule of life,** informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly ... - ... and **the threatenings of it** serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, Westminster Confession - Chapter 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- All scriptural quotes and references are to the KJV and the Received Text.