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.

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.

In the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church's Old Testament canon, they include three books of Maccabees , which are unrelated to the three Greek books of Maccabees in the Eastern Orthodox OT canon (two of which are in the Catholic canon). I'm curious how this situation came about. Are there ancient or pre-modern sources which note the difference? Wikipedia floats a hypothesis that the Ethiopian Maccabees were composed in the late medieval period. Is there good evidence for this? Why would someone create these books and put them in the canon?

I'm curious why all the Catholic churches (with the exception of the ones named sacred/immaculate heart) are named after Saints. Why is this?

Irenaeus, in a letter addressed to Victor, the Bishop of Rome, pleads with him to him to not cut off unity on the Asian dioceses that celebrated Easter with a different tradition: > For the controversy is not merely as regards the day, but also as > regards the form itself of the fast. For some consider themselves > bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while > others [do so during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they > measure out together as their [fasting] day. And this variety among > the observers [of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long > before in that of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not > very accurate in their observance of it, handed down to posterity the > custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been > [introduced among them]. And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace > one with another, and we also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the > difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our > common] faith. And the presbyters preceding Soter in the government of > the Church which you now rule — I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and > Telesphorus, and Sixtus — did neither themselves observe it [after > that fashion], nor permit those with them to do so. Notwithstanding > this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully > disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which > it was [so] observed although such observance was [felt] in more > decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with > it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On > the contrary, those presbyters who preceded you, and who did not > observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses > who did observe it. And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in > Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen > among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined > towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing > that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither > could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own > way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John > the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been > conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in > persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he > maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters > who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship > with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the > celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that > they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the > whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who > did not. Contained within the previous quote, there is a statement mentioning earlier presbyters that had diverse customs that remained in communion and shared in the Eucharist despite these differences. In 1964 the Second Vatican Council published the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio , where this statement is made: > Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose > certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in > subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their > appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full > communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of > both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these > Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of > the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces > upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe > in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the > Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The > differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the > Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or > concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many > obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. > The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But > even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified > by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right > to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by > the children of the Catholic Church.(22) The Magisterium admits that there are "brothers" in the faith, as they share in the essentials of the faith. Despite this admission, the Catholic church practices closed communion where they do not offer the Eucharist to these fellow "brothers". How does the Catholic church interpret Irenaeus' more ecumenical approach to sharing in the Eucharist? I am aware that there are many other denominations that practice closed communion, but I'd like to narrow this down to a Catholic response.

I ask this in Christianity (rather than in Hermeneutics), because I want answers to reflect the whole Bible, not Matthew 25:31-46 in isolation. > All the nations will be gathered before him, and he [Jesus] will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats - Matthew 25:32 > Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world" - Matthew 25:34. **Point of View** I am looking for responses from the point of view of those who believe that those who reject Jesus in this life will be condemned. **Non-Issues** 1. I believe that *ethnos* in Matthew 25:31 means Gentiles rather than all nations including the Jews; but if you disagree, I still would appreciate your answer to my question. (Please also see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/106035/does-hebrews-11-teach-that-jews-who-never-heard-about-jesus-during-their-lifetim ) 2. I am not interested in whether or not the sheep would need to accept Christ after death. 3. I am not interested in whether condemnation is eternal punishment or annihilation. (This question is similar to Jon Schneider's question of 8/26/11, but I have added four limitations which I hope will result in more focused answers).Jon Schneider's question

**I ask Reformed Protestants** because at a time of worship with Reformed Protestants two days ago, I heard the preacher twice say that “Christ perfectly kept the law on our behalf”. Once during his prayer, and again during his sermon, making the claim that when believers do sin, Jesus having perfectly kept the law means that we will be pardoned due to that. I have searched the phrase “the blood of Christ” (and what it does for believers), but **nowhere can I find any phrase about Jesus perfectly keeping the O.T. law to ensure forgiveness for their later sins**. I list 12 verses on the blood of Christ to illustrate the importance the Bible gives to it: Acts 20:28; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14 & 20; Hebrews 9:12 & 14 & 22, & 12:24; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5 & 7:14. (Not an exhaustive list.) But nowhere do I read anything about Jesus keeping the law perfectly so that we can have (daily?) sins after conversion ‘covered over’. So, ***can anyone give me any such scriptures***, please? I am concerned in case such an idea implies that the blood of Christ is not entirely sufficient.

The English translation of 2 Thes. 2:3 according to New American Bible, Revised Edition : >3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition, NAB, 2011 The Greek text of 2 Thes. 2:3 according to the Textus Receptus states, >Γ μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας TR, 1550 For the purpose of this question which requests an answer from Catholics, let us assume Catholicism represents the true Christian faith. 1. Has the “the apostasy” (ἡ ἀποστασία) already occurred? If so, what is it, and when did it occur? 2. If not, what criteria would the Pope and magisterium use to identify the apostasy when it occurs? 3. Has “the man of sin, the son of perditionÌ (ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας) been revealed? If so, who is he, and when was he revealed? 4. If not, again, what criteria would the Pope and magisterium use to identify this individual when he is revealed? *Note*: The text seems to imply that “the apostasy” is not simply one individual’s apostasy, as individuals have been apostasizing since the beginning of the Church. Rather, it appears more evident, easily discernable, not *en masse*, but certainly more than a handful of individuals apostasizing from the Catholic Church (assuming the Catholic Church is the Church, the body of Christ).

I've often heard of the concept of Omniscience which is based on scripture that states God **knows all things.** > Isaiah 46:10 10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ > 1 John 3:20 in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things. > Psalm 139:4 Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, You know it all. Does this quality of God include knowledge of everything that does not yet exist nor has yet occurred on the earth? More specifically: ***Does God already know every action and decision every human will choose to make in the future? How does this correlate with the objective truth that He has included free-will in the design of His creation?*** Please provide scriptural support.

In [*Evangelii Nuntiandi*](https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html) we read: >31. Between evangelization and human advancement- development and liberation- there are in fact profound links. These include links of an anthropological order, because the man who is to be evangelized is not an abstract being but is subject to social and economic questions. They also include links in the theological order, since one cannot dissociate the plan of creation from the plan of Redemption. The latter plan touches the very concrete situations of injustice to be combated and of justice to be restored. They include links of the eminently evangelical order, which is that of charity: how in fact can one proclaim the new commandment without promoting in justice and in peace the true, authentic advancement of man? We ourself have taken care to point this out, by recalling that it is impossible to accept "that in evangelization one could or should ignore the importance of the problems so much discussed today, concerning justice, liberation, development and peace in the world. This would be to forget the lesson which comes to us from the Gospel concerning love of our neighbor who is suffering and in need." It uses very tricky and difficult terminology. This is a document for people who have studied lots of philosophy, it seems. What did the pope mean when he used the terms anthropological order and theological order?

People don't seem to believe in the firmament as a literal barrier of water up in the sky that collapsed at Noah's flood. I want to say they don't believe in the firmament *anymore*, but I am doubtful most creationists did. Why? Is it because it is too fantastical? The problem is that such a notion seems to correlate with Genesis and seems to make a lot of other considerations more swallowable, such as the feasibility of centuries old lifespan, adequate conditions to sustain large animal life (dinosaurs, etc), and adequate water for a sudden flood. The only "scientific" model I've heard, coming from Dr Carl Baugh, asserts that waters from the deep under the earth came up and cracked open the firmament; his model is the only creation model that solves so many fundamental problems for creationism I am literally, truly perplexed as to how his model has been seemingly abandoned by the creationist community. I know of no direct arguments against this sort of firmament, except only alternative interpretations of its mention in Genesis. What am I missing? -- It is the "canopy theory", I believe, that I had in mind in posting the question. My own only exposure to this was from a presentation by Dr Carl Baugh and by reading his old book, Panorama of Creation. I have had difficulty finding *anyone* endorsing his model, and his model is the only one that answers several questions. My frustration comes out of watching modern depictions via illustrations, 3D graphics, and simulated film artwork, attempting to use fine detail to tell what Genesis earth was like but not filling in these gaps. Blue skies, clouds, rainbows, all post-Noah, all completely against Baugh's model. Does it matter? In an age when modern illustrations like Hollywood are referenced in dialogue with apologetics and truth seekers, yes, I believe so.

According to Catholic moral theologians, does voting for a pro-abortion candidate constitute formal cooperation in the politician's crime of promoting child killing? My question is very similar to "Does the Catholic Church teach that it is sinful to vote for a pro-abortion politician? ", but I am more interested whether such an action is formal or material cooperation .

Ever since his election on March 13, 2013, Pope Francis has electrified the world and is a media sensation But among Catholics, who it is said tend to love their Popes to a fault, the reception of him is divided cf. [Watch out Pope Francis: the Catholic civil war has begun ]. This is by no means limited to Catholics among Christians (e.g. Lee Duigon , Russell D. Moore , and Baptist Press ). For Catholics who have expressed concern about Pope Francis and are wary of his pontificate, what are the key issues?

The Bible uses the phrase "son of God" or "sons of God" many times. This same phrase has also been used to refer to Jesus Christ. Therefore, can we deduce from the phrase itself that Jesus Christ is same as the other so-called sons of God? Or is there a difference between Jesus as the son of God and all the others who are referred to as sons of God in the Bible? If so, what's the difference? **What is the general view of the Protestant Christians on these questions?**

I’ve been exploring Panentheism (not to be confused with *Pantheism*) and certain elements speak to my own experience of God. I also understand that this theology is embraced by some contemporary Christian thinkers. I just wondered if this was considered a heresy by the established church (Anglican or Roman Catholic)? Panentheism, in simple terms and as far as I understand it , is the idea that God is within and interpenetrates the whole of creation, but is at the same time above and beyond it in space and time. In other words, God is both immanent and transcendent. Pantheism, in contrast, is the idea that the universe IS God, and that God is the universe. There is no other than the created order. Contemporary Christian panentheists include - Richard Rohr - Ilia Delio - John Polkinghorne - Cynthia Bourgeault - Jurgen Moltmann - Phillip Clayton

What is the significance of discrepancies between the four Gospels? Some will argue that there are differences but not discrepancies. But I only ask this in order to share my answer with the few people who will see it before it is closed.

The Bible testifies that God has preordained many events or roles much before they came to pass. Likewise, the same Bible testifies to the fact the God knows the future events and roles. One of them or both of them give rise to the prophecies mentioned in the Bible. Preordination is obviously what God proactively plans or determines. Whereas foreknowledge implies that God is passively aware of what would transpire in the future. Either way, prophecies make sense because of these two qualities of God. Here is the question to protestant Christians, which one precedes the other?