When Pope Paul VI gave us Evangelii Nuntiandi, he did one thing which can sound like beating around the bush to some people. He is very general and abstract in his document, which might be why people would experience that. To me, this quote from the document is a very good example: >1. There is no doubt that the effort to proclaim the Gospel to the people of today, who are buoyed up by hope but at the same time often oppressed by fear and distress, is a service rendered to the Christian community and also to the whole of humanity. > >For this reason the duty of confirming the brethren - a duty which with the office of being the Successor of Peter we have received from the Lord, and which is for us a "daily preoccupation," a program of life and action, and a fundamental commitment of our Pontificate - seems to us all the more noble and necessary when it is a matter of encouraging our brethren in their mission as evangelizers, in order that, in this time of uncertainty and confusion, they may accomplish this task with ever increasing love, zeal and joy. Why did the Church make the decision to be very abstract and general in her communication in Evangelii Nuntiandi?

According to the Bible 'sin' by definition is anything that is against God! Which is why God cannot commit sin [Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2], not that He doesn't choose to commit sin. This is because God cannot do anything against Himself [2Tim.2:13]. In other words, it is impossible for God to sin. However, when we think of the creation we sin because we have the freedom to choose between good and bad. Adam and Eve committed sin because of that freedom. If we assume that they sinned because of the tempter then this is not the case when Satan sinned while being in the very presence of God! Therefore, a free being/entity can commit sin even when that being/entity has no sinful nature internally or a sinful tempter externally. All those who enter into Heaven or the presence of God and enjoy eternal life will have free-will. But the question is what makes them not to sin again like Satan or other angels that were sent out from God's presence because of their sin?

This was originally part of [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1478/do-we-have-free-will-or-is-it-an-illusion) However, it's really a separate line of logic (and therefore a different question, imo). If others prefer, I can remerge this into the original. ----- God is omniscient. He truly, literally knows everything. God knows whether or not I will sin. God can (and does) direct certain people to prevent them from choosing one way or another. [Exodus 4:21 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%204:21&version=NIV) >The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. Clearly, this is an instance where God stepped in and prevent Pharaoh from making the decision. Since he controls decisions and knows what decisions I will make, do I truly have free will? Or do I only have free will in the inconsequential things (which isn't really free will, after all)?

My understanding is that while it is permissible for a Catholic to attend Church services at a Lutheran church (assuming they're still meeting their Catholic obligations to attend Mass at a Catholic church on Sundays and holy days of obligations), a Catholic should not participate in the actual receiving of communion at the Lutheran church. Is this actually accurate, and is it documented somewhere (e.g. in canon law or other official teachings of the Catholic church)? And what are the stated reasons for this practice, assuming I'm correct in my understanding? As a concrete example, if a Catholic is married to a Christian of a denomination not in full communion with the Catholic church, what explanation might they give to their extended family as to why they abstain from Communion at their spouse's church? Or to their children, given the Catholic parent's responsibility to bring up their children in the Catholic Church (per [Can. 1125](https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html#CHAPTER_VI.)) .

For backstory, I've recently been looking for confirmation that I'm really saved. I've started to repent of all my sins (that I know of) about 1-2 weeks ago. I've pretty sure I've been saved since I was 8 years old, but I dedicated myself to God again, just to make sure. So I've recently been listening to an audio teaching about prayer, and the last little bit of the teaching is about healing yourself and others in the name of Jesus. I was having a bit of a headache, so I decided to try it out on myself when I got home instead of just using painkillers. I got home, and spoke to my body. I put my hand on my temple and said, "temple, you will stop hurting in the name of Jesus" or something along those lines. And it worked! That was the first time I've ever healed myself in Jesus name. Does the fact that God was able to heal me through myself mean that I'm saved for sure? Or could someone who isn't saved do exactly what I did? This is assuming they have faith that God will heal them as well.

There's a suggested duplicate to this question but that question deals with how the Jehovah's Witnesses explain the begotten divinity of Jesus while still maintaining that He is unequal to God. This question is directed toward the distinction between the Son and angels as portrayed in Hebrews chapter 1. I've included the entire chapter so that the context is plain in the reading (bold is added for focus): > Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. **For to which of the angels did God ever say**, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.” **Of the angels he says**, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.” **But of the Son he says**, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” **And to which of the angels has he ever said**, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? Hebrews 1:1-14 Twice the question is raised "To which of the angels has God ever said...?" and sandwiched between these questions is a direct contrast between angels and the Son. The answer demanded by any plain reading within context for these questions is 'God has never said any such thing to any angel.' In claiming that Jesus, the Son of God, is Michael the archangel Jehovah's Witnesses appear to be stating that God did, in fact, say such things to an angel. My question is, how do Jehovah's Witnesses explain this seemingly clear contradiction to the context?

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with... I know about James but what is reported in the later writings about the death of John?

> In short, open theism posits that since God and humans are free, > God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. Whereas > several versions of traditional theism picture God's knowledge of the > future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a > plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming > settled as time moves forward. Thus, the future, as well as God's > knowledge of it, is open. Open Theism states that, while God knows everything that can be known, the future free-will choices made by individual persons do not fall in the knowable category. In Isaiah 46 we find the following: > Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (vs. 9-10) There are no explicit or implicit limitations on God's foreknowledge contained in this passage: He declares (and therefore must know in advance) the end from the beginning. Open Theism declares that human, free-will choices are unknowable in advance by God. However it appears that, since the inception of any future circumstance is laden with, and even produced by, a myriad of human choices, declaring from ancient times the things that are not yet done would necessitate intimate knowledge of future human choices. On what basis does Open Theism limit God's possible foreknowledge? Of interest is this peer-reviewed article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (entitled Foreknowledge and Free Will) arguing against the assumption that perfect foreknowledge eradicates free will.

I know at various periods of history cardinals were split submitting to multiple competing popes. However as they die, eventually only one Pope is considered the 'real' infallible Pope, and the others labelled as 'anti Popes'. My question is aside from the view of each Popes view, that the others are not 'real', who finally determines the 'real' one and by what authority? I mean does a certain group decide? Do you just wait until there is only one Pope and then he determines how to label the other Popes because now only his word stands? Who decides which Pope is real and by what criteria? Does the moral behavior of the candidates have any relevance in the criteria?

I am wondering if there are any statements in the Old Testament which either: A) Foretell a time when the Law of Moses will be abrogated (in the way Christ does in the NT) or B) States that some of the Laws within Deuteronomy were given for the 'Hardness of Heart', as Jesus claims - or some paraphrase of that idea. Notes: I am Catholic, so I'll accept any references coming from Deuterocanonical books. The Laws I am most concerned about are the usual controversial ones which seem to our modern outlook violent or less than perfect.

Why is Sunday observed as holy day, instead of Saturday, as it was in times of Jesus and before? I've looked up Wikipedia, and remember some story about a Roman Emperor (3rd century?) installing that. But, looking it up again, I cannot find this any more. Obviously, this has to do on how to count the days of the week, resting on the seventh day. --- It was proposed that https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/52287/64221 would answer this question, but, no. Though it sheds some light, the question there is focused on "when", mine is on "why".

It is my understanding that after Joseph presented Jacob to Pharaoh, the king gave the Hebrews (Jacob and the rest of his party) some very fertile land (Goshen) in which to dwell by themselves. It seems that Egyptians held people who were shepherds in abomimation. QUESTION: Do we have a good idea of where exactly Goshen was located; or is the exact site pretty much conjecture?

What is the best history book on the Protestant Reformation from a Catholic perspective? While, I obviously want a truthful account, even if it exposes wrongs of the Catholic Church, I'd like to read a book from a Catholic perspective because Protestants and the non-religious seem to dominate the space.

What is the best translation of *The Ecclesiastical/Church History* by Eusebius? By best I mean, something that is accurate, yet written in modern English that's easily understood. I see translations by G. A. Williamson; Jeremy M. Schott; Arthur Cushman McGiffert; and Paul L. Maier.

Given various quotes and hymns from the mid 1700s onward, it seems some Reformed Protestants were showing how the Old Testament law only served to make it impossible to find the liberation that the gospel of Christ brings. From then, even till today, a popular claim in many Reformed Protestant circles is that the Law of Moses is the believers’ ‘rule of life’ – meaning the Ten Commandments which have the moral essence. One example of such a claim was a sermon preached on behalf of the Evangelical Association on 16th August, 1787 at a chapel in Artillery Lane. There it was stated from the pulpit that, *“The moral law is the foundation of all religion, both moral and divine.”* To substantiate it, the way Moses struck the rock so that water gushed out, was paralleled with Christians ‘smiting the law’ by keeping it, to get refreshing comforts from doing that. Another preacher of the time wrote at length about such claims. One instance was where he said, “A friend of mine once asked a certain divine in London what he thought of the law as the believer’s only rule of life. He replied, *"The believer must look with one eye to Christ, and with the other to the law."* (The author’s friend said to the divine that, then, every believer must be cross-eyed!) *Law and Grace Contrasted* William Huntington – Addresses, p.125, edited and abridged version published in 1999 **Was there something of a battle going on between two groups of Reformed Protestants on the matter of Mosaic law-keeping, and if so, why?**

Earlier this year, as part of the effort to normalize relations between the Vatican and China, the [*New York Times*](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/world/asia/china-catholics-vatican.html) reported that the Vatican asked one of its bishops to step down to make way for a state-approved individual. This individual had been previously excommunicated from the Church, perhaps simply for acting as a bishop without papal approval (per [Canon 1382](http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P52.HTM)) . It seemed strange to me that someone could go straight from being excommunicated to being a bishop, so I looked up the qualifications for bishops, and found [Canon 378](http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P1C.HTM) , which says that suitable candidates "must": > 1° be outstanding in strong faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues, and possess those other gifts which equip him to fulfil the office in question; > > 2° be held in good esteem; > > 3° be at least 35 years old; > > 4° be a priest ordained for at least five years; > > 5° hold a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred Scripture, theology or canon law... On the surface, numbers 1, 2, and 4 seem to be a bit tricky to apply to an excommunicated Catholic, except perhaps in the case of #4, if we're allowed to count years of service as a priest prior to excommunication. However, Canon 378 goes on to say, in §2: > The definitive judgement on the suitability of the person to be promoted rests with the Apostolic See. My question, then, is – **does the pope have the ability to disregard any or all of the requirements of Canon 378 with respect to the qualifications of bishops, in order to appoint someone of his choice?** That is, should §2 be read as saying that the pope may waive the age requirement, or the years of service requirement, at his own discretion? Or does his "definitive judgement" apply only to the more subjective requirements, like qualifications #1 and #2? I realize too that there are some circumstances in which the Pope can simply "violate" Canon Law, since he has the authority to amend it anyway, but I don't know if this is such an area.

Why do some denominations require parishoners to go get the bread and wine while others serve the congregation? I read bread broken and prayed for, given, then eaten. After this was done wine was prayed for and given then they drank. Would seem to me the items were passed.

Open theism posits that God possesses comprehensive knowledge of every possible future but is unaware of which particular future will be actualized due to human free will. Wouldn't this result in the same thing as Molinism? If God has exhaustive knowledge of every potential future, He knows precisely how each individual would act in any given situation. Thus, God would be aware of whether a person will ultimately be good or bad from the moment of their birth. Isn't this analogous to Molinism's concept of "middle knowledge"? One could argue that God's awareness of possibilities is so vast that He comprehends every conceivable outcome for an individual, not just every choice they might make. For instance, there exists a potential world where I become a terrorist, and another where I become a priest. God understands all these possibilities in perfect detail but is unaware of which one will unfold because it depends on my exercise of free will. However, wouldn't this contradict the Christian concept of the soul? This perspective seems to suggest that there is no inherent soul, and that a person's character is entirely contingent on circumstances. For example, if I had been born to strict Muslim parents, I might have become an extremist Muslim. If I'm not misunderstanding open theism, it appears to imply that a person's characteristics are solely determined by the random chance of their upbringing.

Some Eastern Patriarchs in the Catholic Church are also Cardinals. Given that they are otherwise eligible, they can participate in the Conclave to elect the pope. However, they specifically *cannot* elect the [Dean of the College of Cardinals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_of_the_College_of_Cardinals) . I was not aware that their voting rights were abridged in this manner. This led me to ask... What other positions in the College of Cardinals can the Eastern Patriarch Cardinals *not* vote for?

When a layman is elected Pope, they are first ordained deacon, then priest, then consecrated bishop, then become Pope. For laymen in the Western Rite, it's safe to assume that their Deaconite is under the Western Rite, and same for their Priesthood and Bishophood. However, for a layman in an Eastern Rite, is their intermediary deaconite, priesthood, and bishophood under the Eastern Rite that they were respectively baptized in? Or are their intermediary positions under the Western Rite?