Their official website is [The Society of Saint Alphonsus Marie de Liguori]( https://trcatholics.org) . They seem to be located in New Jersey, and call themselves "The Traditional Catholic Church." But I am skeptical; for example, because they also claim to be "ALPHONSIAN REDEMPTORISTS" and show lots of pictures of St. Alphonsus Liguori. However, they do not (as far as I can tell) belong to the true *Redemptorists,* which was founded by St. Alphonsus Liguori and is officially named, the *Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer.* QUESTION: Can anyone tell me who these people are? They clearly are trying to give the impression that they are Catholic, but I have my doubts. It is not clear from their website that they are in communion with the Pope. Moreover, a Google search of their address: 300 Peach Street, Hammonton, New Jersey 08037 identifies them as [*St. Mark's Episcopal church*](https://www.waze.com/live-map/directions/us/nj/hammonton/saint-marks-episcopal-church?to=place.ChIJQc-iExkowYkRjJk5jVueonk)---but I could not such an identity on their website. (Maybe the link is outdated.)

The [2020 PhilPapers Survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4842) includes the following result: # God: Atheism or Theism? As shown, the majority of philosophers are non-theists, with only 18.93% accepting or leaning toward theism. From a purely statistical perspective, it seems that engaging in philosophy is more likely to lead one away from theism than toward it. **Does Christianity consider philosophy a threat to the faith?** --- **Question:** > Were the total number of respondents 1,770? That's literally that the website says. Screenshot below: --- **Question:** > Did the target group include all 30 plus branches of philosophy? The target population is described [here](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/population) : > ## Target Population > > The Survey's target population includes 7685 philosophers drawn from > two groups: (1) From Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, > and the US (6112 philosophers): all regular faculty members > (tenure-track or permanent) in BA-granting philosophy departments with > four or more members (according to the [PhilPeople > database](https://philpeople.org/departments)) . (2). From all other > countries (1573 philosophers): English-publishing philosophers in > BA-granting philosophy departments with four or more > English-publishing faculty members. An English-publishing philosopher > is defined as someone with one or more publications in the [PhilPapers > database](https://philpapers.org/) in a wide range of English-language > venues, including English-language journals and book publishers. > > For meaningful longitudinal comparisons, we also designated a > [100-department target > group](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/comparison-departments) > in the same regions as the 2009 survey, based largely on rankings (all > Ph.D.-granting departments with a 2017-2018 Philosophical Gourmet > Report score of 1.9 or above, plus two leading departments with MA > programs and a selected group of European departments based on expert > recommendations). This group of 2407 philosophers was used only for > longitudinal comparisons. > > We also allowed any PhilPeople user to take the survey, regardless of > whether they were in the target populations. These populations cannot > be considered controlled, but results for all respondents and for > graduate students are given in some tables on this site. > > > Lists of departments > * [Target departments for the survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/target-departments) > * [2020 departments used for longitudinal comparison](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/comparison-departments) > * [2009 departments used for longitudinal comparison](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/comparison-departments?old=true)

I understand why pornography is wrong in marriage. However, why is it wrong before marriage?

According to Catholic doctors or Fathers of the Church, if Adam hadn't sinned, would we wear clothes? Or are clothes a consequence of Original Sin? St. Thomas Aquinas asks such speculative questions regarding the condition of Adam's offspring had he not sinned (*Summa Theologiæ* I q. 99 , q. 100 , q. 101 ); cf. "If there were no Original Sin, would everyone have been married? ".

I've read this quote by Augustine several times over the years. Can you give me any examples of both parts of the quote to clarify it for me?

Say that a Pope becomes bedridden and so he cannot go out in public and does not have the stamina to perform other duties. Or he begins suffering from Alzheimer's and thus cannot remember that he is the Pope. At that point, the Pope is unable to continue his duties due to physical or mental illness. Assuming that the Pope does not voluntarily resign due to his health (as Pope Benedict XVI did in 2013), would the Pope be removed from office and a new election be called? Or would he still nominally hold the role while others perform the duties of his office?

For example, I understand that paradoxes of God include the trinity, and the fact that Jesus is both God and man. Are there any other paradoxical traits about God?

Covenant Eyes is software that helps monitor your devices against explicit material like pornography. What are arguments for and against the use of this being a requirement for Christians?

The Eastern Orthodox Church values Scripture and the non-Scripture parts (hence denoted subsequently in this Q as simply "Tradition") of the **Holy Tradition** with equal importance. This is most quickly seen on the OCA website. > Sources of Christian Doctrine. > - Revelation > - Tradition > - Bible > - The Liturgy > - The Councils > - The Fathers > - The Saints > - Canons > - Church Art The above are easily divided into "Scripture" and "Tradition" for the Eastern Orthodox Church, "Tradition" here denoting all non-Scripture parts of the Holy Tradition hinted in the list above. The Eastern Orthodox Church puts equal importance on Tradition as Scripture. Why and on what basis? --- ### For anyone who doubts the axiomatic statement that is presented in the question above, see evidences below: - **The Orthodox Church of America Website** > **None of them stands alone. None may be separated or isolated from the other** or from the wholeness of the life of the Church. - **The orthodox confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church** by Mogila, Peter, Metropolitan of Kiev, 1596-1646 - **The Scripture’s Teaching on An Authoritative Apostolic Tradition** on **orthodoxchristiantheology.com**, written by Craig Truglia with the blessing of Bishop Luke of Syracuse >Conclusion. In review, **the Gospels attest to Christ teaching extra-biblical tradition to the Apostles.** This tradition was, in effect, the interpretation of these teachings in the parables. One must infer from this that Christ gave the interpretation of many other things, especially the Old Testament (cf Acts 24:32, 45), **without these interpretations being committed to writing.** > >In the writings of Saint Paul, it is simply taken for granted that this **“tradition” is a doctrinal understanding that Christians in absence of the Apostles ought to be faithful to.** The fact that this idea finds its way in three different letters whose composition are separated by several years shows that it was not some minor idea, but **central to Paul’s thought.** - **My orthodox study Bible** - **Scripture is part of Tradition**

Can a confession be spread over multiple sessions, if for example it's not feasible to do it at once due to time constraints? If so, would this be allowed for anonymous confessions or would they have to be face-to-face? Update: I asked a priest from the FSSP and he said yes; it can be.

There are two events in the Bible where God orders the servant not to write some of the events they saw in the visions they were given. Daniel in the Old Testament and John in the new testament, Daniel is ordered to shut up the words until the time of the end. *Daniel 12:3* >But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge. In the New Testament, John the revelator hears some shocking things and is ordered not to write those things. *Revelation 10:4* >And when the seven thunders had sounded, I was about to write, but I heard a voice from heaven saying, 'Seal up what the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down' What could have been the reason why Daniel and John were ordered not to write these things? Were they so shocking as to affect our faith and hope?

### Motivation of the question I find out that many debates about "Scripture", "tradition", and "authority" result in **cross talk** because each of the 3 main branches don't sufficiently define what they mean by those 3 key terms. At the same time all 3 main branches acknowledge much commonality, which more or less coalesce under the banner of "rule of faith", "apostolic tradition", or "Apostle's Creed". In the spirit of **Peacemaking** (Matt 5:9), this question asks for VERY PRECISE **common core** definition of "tradition" **that all 3 branches can *first* AGREE**. Only then can each branch propose: 1. their own meaning of "tradition" (which has to be related precisely with the common definition) 1. their own precise location of authority and its relationship to tradition and Scripture ### Evidence of the existence of a common core "tradition" in all 3 branches 1. Eastern Orthodox Churches can say that their authority is centered on the relatively "frozen" **"Holy Tradition"** which includes BOTH Scripture and Tradition (defined by EO as an extension of the common core "tradition" asked for in this Q). "Tradition" in EO's extended sense (which includes all non-Scripture parts of the Holy Tradition) is of equal importance to Scripture, both exerting equal authority to believers. This extended EO "Tradition" includes proper interpretation of Scripture. 1. The Roman Catholic Church can say that their authority is centered on the **Magisterium** who interprets the current meaning and the current application of BOTH Scripture and "Tradition" (defined by RC as an extension of the common core definition of "tradition" asked for in this Q). 1. Protestantism can say that their authority is centered on **Scripture** (said by *sola scriptura* as the *norm*, but not the *exclusion*, of everything else), but they have to account for *how the various interpretations are related* to the common core definition of "tradition" asked for in this Q. I realize this may require a paradigm shift for Protestants, but if we are honest: - EACH interpretation **IS** a part of a denomination's "tradition" **which includes** a certain *orthodox* interpretation that ALL 3 main branches agree to (thus giving substance to the common core "tradition" asked for in this Q), that would yield an agreement on the doctrine of the Trinity for instance (let's not worry about the *filioque* here), and on the majority of the propositions in the Apostle's Creed. - This common core definition of "tradition" has a Biblical basis in 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and Jude 1:3 (see Note #2 below). - Although some Protestants claim that "it's obvious" (under the banner of perspicuity) that John 1:1 implies the pre-existence of Christ, this interpretation (that was subsequently fought over until today) counts as part of the common core "tradition" asked for in this Q, which **can even be argued** to be included in the "tradition" referred to by the 3 verses above. ### Ways to answer the question 1. For RC and EO, specify a *criteria* on HOW to **delimit** the common core subset out of their respective (more expansive) Traditions. On the other hand, Protestants can come up with a Biblical exegesis of ALL verses that imply the existence of an apostolic "tradition" (such as 3 verses mentioned above) and specify a *criteria* to **populate "tradition"** so that we know what the apostles meant by "tradition" in those verses. 1. For each branch, list the common interpretation / common doctrines to populate the common core definition of "tradition". Examples: the Chalcedon definition of the dual nature of Christ, the necessity of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, justification by grace only, Pre-existence of Christ, etc. 1. Cite elements of statement of faith from an ecumenical Christian organization (such as World Council of Churches). 1. List common doctrines in each branch's confessions / documents, even if you have to notate slight differences such as how each branch deals with Original Sin, which was clearly articulated for the first time by Augustine and since then *handed down* to us today (thus part of "tradition" by definition) with minor variations. 1. List common features of all 3 branches' theology. For example we can argue that Divine Simplicity ***is*** a tradition, so are Resurrection of the Body and how one's decision *for* or *against* God is frozen at death. Or cite books such as C.S. Lewis's *Mere Christianity*. 1. Etc. (Come up with your own strategy so that the definition is agreeable by all 3 branches) ### NOTES 1. I don't want debate on the various canons. For the purpose of this question, it's already a given that each branch has their own canon. What matters is Scripture's relationship to the common definition of "tradition". 1. "tradition" as a lexical definition means "that which is handed over"; but it is too general and too vague to explicate - what 1 Cor 11:2 refers to ("maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you") - what Jude 1:3 refers to as what was "delivered to the saints" - what 2 Thess 2:15 means by "traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" all 3 verses are Biblical hint to the **existence** of the **common** core definition of "tradition" asked for in this Q. On the other extreme, definitions of "tradition" can include accretions since the writing of the Book of Revelation. 1. WARNING: Answers which do not include common *core* definition of "tradition" *ACCEPTABLE* to all 3 branches will be rejected. 1. The answer's own proposal of how the common *core* definition of "tradition" relates to Authority and to Scripture can be added as a bonus. I prefer that the answer attempts to isolate the common core of "authority" *first* before fleshing out the branch's more extended definition of "authority".

I also first published this question in BHSE, but it’s relevant to historical investigations into Christianity, can anyone help me to understand this below? Mark’s Gospel is often considered the earliest gospel written by scholars. We read: > “Immediately the king[*Herod*] sent a soldier of the guard with orders > to bring John's head. He went and beheaded him in the prison,” ‭‭Mark‬ > ‭6‬:‭27‬ ‭NRSV‬‬ But British scholar F.F. Bruce records this information: (A Baraitha from the period of 70A.D.-200A.D. named "TJ Sanhedrin 1.1" says:) > "forty years before the destruction of the temple the right to inflict > the death penalty was taken away from Israel." > -Source: "Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament" by F.F. Bruce (page 56, footnote 5). **Question:** How is Mark 6:27 historically reliable given that Herod killed John the Baptist in Prison but likely didn’t have authority to execute capital punishment given the information in the Baraitha?

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ according to the Catholic church. > A vicar (/ˈvɪkər/; Latin: vicarius) is a representative, deputy or > substitute; anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior > (compare "vicarious" in the sense of "at second hand"). According to Papal teachings, what happens to the Pope when Jesus Christ returns? What if the Pope (who is human and can/does make mistakes) doesn't believe that he has returned?

Hebrews 1 is a chapter that is addressed to the Son, which is Jesus himself. In context, if you read it, there is another person narrating what God says to/about/of Jesus. But one interesting verse addresses Jesus as the Creator, this is verse 10: And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; Note that it is God here saying to Jesus these words see ESV . Throughout the Gospel book, the only Lord that was mentioned is Jesus. Moreover, the title of the Hebrews 1 says it so. In Genesis its known that God is the creator. Is this a strong evidence of the Trinitarian concept, that both Jesus and The Father **IS** God himself? (Note i used the word "IS" not "ARE" cause the bible repeatedly mentions that there **IS** only one God but is infinitely complex and not that easy to grasp) There is an non-Trinitarian answer here . I would like to know more about the Trinitarian concept on this matter.

1. Do Pentecostals teach that only people who speak in tongues are baptized with the Holy Spirit? 2. Do Pentecostals teach that we should all strive to pray in tongues? Or is this something that Pentecostalism is divided about?

This question, addressed to Trinitarian Protestants, regards the *nature* of the incident related by Luke, Acts 2:3, when a manifestation of fiery tongues was seen in association with the eleven, after the ascension of Jesus Christ. It is notable that the only manifestation of the Holy Spirit, *himself*, is when, in a direct involvement between Father and Son, he is seen bodily descending, Luke 3:22, in a dove-like form, upon the newly baptised Jesus. I suggest that the manifestation of tongues is not that of the Person, himself, but rather of *what is being gifted*, as a *result* of the Person’s indwelling. Most Protestant Trinitarian commentators of whom I am aware have viewed the manifestation of the Angel of the Lord, or of other angelic presences (such as the three coming to Abraham, the one with whom Jacob wrestled, the angel seen going up in a flame by Manoah and his wife, and the presence in the fiery furnace) as *temporary manifestations* of He who would, later, be fully incarnate. None, that I know of, attribute any such manifestations as being of the Person of the Holy Spirit, making the visibility of the descent, as a dove, a *unique event*. And I have never heard or read any suggestion that such would ever be expected to happen again to any other person. The Head has been anointed and the body shall receive the anointing via the Head and within that body. Then the fact of tongues only ever being seen to visibly descend upon the eleven, and those directly associated with them and nobody else, might therefore suggest that this event is, also, unique, the only other comparable occurrence being, Acts 19:2, in the case of twelve who, since they had never even heard of the Holy Spirit, could not have been aware of either of the above events and therefore were granted an experience similar to, though differing from, that which was unique. Does the *unique character* of these events not point to a non-repetition of them and point to a considered and balanced attitude that such things have, indeed, ceased ? I am interested in hearing argument, to the contrary, from a Protestant and Trinitarian standpoint. -------------------------------------- As stated below in comment : the unique character of the tongues incident (similar to the uniqueness of the descent) suggests to me a non-repetition and I am looking for reasoned arguments to the contrary.

The gift of interpretation of tongues is mentioned in chapters 12 and 14 of the apostle Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians: > 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, **to another the interpretation of tongues**. [1 Cor 12:10, ESV] > > 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? **Do all interpret?** 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. [1 Cor 12:29-31, ESV] > > 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, **unless someone interprets**, so that the church may be built up. [1 Cor 14:5, ESV] > > 13 Therefore, **one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret**. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. [1 Cor 14:13-15, ESV] > > 26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, **or an interpretation**. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, **and let someone interpret**. 28 **But if there is no one to interpret**, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. [1 Cor 14:26-28, ESV] Besides these two biblical chapters, are there any other extra-biblical documented occurrences of the gift of interpretation of tongues in the history of the Church?

[Xenoglossy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoglossy) , the ability to suddenly speak a language one has never learned or studied, is reported to have taken place at Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. Are there any other independent sources that claim something similar to have happened during the early stages of Christianity? Any other reports of xenoglossy apart from Acts 2 during, say, the first 300 years of Church history? Note: there is a similar question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/57350/50422 , but the question itself and its single answer so far appear to be focused on glossolalia, not xenoglossy. ____ Similar question constrained to modern times: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80486/50422

I have yet to see anyone speaking in tongues in a Southern Baptist church. Having said that, the lack of speaking in tongues does not necessarily mean that Southern Baptists *never* speak in tongues or that they do not believe in it as a general rule. Clearly they seem to avoid it. Nonetheless, what is the Southern Baptist belief regarding speaking in tongues?