Did the early church accept lifelong, faithful concubinage? In Bryan Litfin's book, Getting to Know the Church Fathers, I was surprised to read the following about concubinage in the early church, in the context of Augustine's life before conversion:

  In Roman society, the practice of concubinage was widely accepted.  Even the Christian church was prepared to accommodate it as a kind of common law marriage so long as there was lifelong fidelity. (220)

In Augustine's case, he had no intention of lifelong fidelity, so the point is rather moot.  But in many places around the world, both historically and currently, government restrictions make it difficult or impossible for some men and women to be officially "married."

My personal response might be to disregard the government's restrictions and consider a man and woman publicly committed to faithful monogamy as married, and not fornicating, particularly if they have a "church wedding."  But in the Dominican Republic, at least, where I periodically do some ministry, the church I work with insists that those living together while not officially (legally) married are committing adultery, despite the legal barriers preventing some from marrying.1

All that to say, this isn't idle curiosity.  Did the early church "accommodate" faithful concubinage, as Litfin says?  In what sense – was it in the musings of a single church father, or set down at an ecumenical council?  And if so, under what circumstances would it be allowed?

1. For more on these barriers, see this documentary or its trailer.

Pope Calixtus I, who died around 222, permitted the marriage of  high born women to men of a lower class, and even to slaves. This was contrary to Roman law, so the Pope was recognising as validly married people who by law were not married, and could not be married.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia comments:

  Here again Callistus was rightly insisting on the distinction between the ecclesiastical law of marriage and the civil law, which later ages have always taught.

Calixtus was unfortunate in that his principal biographer was his worst enemy, and rival, the antipope Hippolytus. In Book IX, chapter VII of his Refutation of All Heresies  he wrote

  For even also he permitted females, if they were unwedded,  and burned with passion at an age at all events unbecoming, or if they were not disposed to overturn their own dignity through a legal marriage, that they might have whomsoever they would choose as a bedfellow, whether a slave or free, and that a woman, though not legally married, might consider such a companion as a husband. Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs  for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth.  Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time!

It is clear that Hippolytus felt able to say that these "marriages" allowed by the Pope were adulterous, presumably as not legal, and also as a matter of consequence often  led to abortions. In deeming Calixtus a pope, and a saint, and Hippolytus an antipope, the later church may be said to have supported  Calixtus.

The seventeenth canon of the first Council of Toledo,(see Edward Landon) near Madrid, in the year 400, forbade any married man, whose wife was faithful, from also having a concubine, on pain of excommunication. However if a man was unmarried, then he could have a concubine. The thrust is restrictive, rather than permissive, it bans having a wife and a concubine, but this does not (of course) apply to single men.

Pope Leo the Great (pontificated from 440 to 460) wrote many letters, including one to the French bishop Rusticus, in which he answers a number of questions put to him, the sixth of which was:

  Concerning those who leave the women by whom they have children and take wives.

and the answer was:

  Seeing that the wife is different from the concubine, to turn a bondwoman from one's couch and take a wife whose free birth is assured, is not bigamy but an honourable proceeding.

It seem that, although lifelong commitment to a concubine was acceptable, it was not required. A single man could keep a concubine and, if he chose to turn her out and marry a wife, then this was an honourable thing for him to do. Still, one woman at a time was the limit. Nevertheless it is clear there was uncertainty and variety of practice during the first few centuries.


What is the verdict on an unjust judge? In order to ask this, let me set a stage. This is just a scenario that will be recast in a second.

As Christians we believe that God is good. We trumpet his justice, rightness, holiness, and so on and so forth. We say that he is the true standard of what goodness and justice are. When we make judgement calls we claim to use his character as the standard of right and wrong.

And yet ... we ascribe to him something so wicked that it should make us shiver to think of it! If an earthly judge --charged by the state to uphold the laws of the state in a fair manner and himself known to be a good and upright judge-- were to knowingly acquit a guilty party we would rage against him. If a criminal proven to have committed every crime in the book from common theft to rape and murder of children, not just once but over and over and over every day of their lives, were to stand before a bench and say "your honor, guilty as charged" -- and the judge were to say "Why thank you, since you know you're guilty you are free to go and here is some money for dinner," how would we react?

Say that your child was one of those that were abused and killed by this criminal. Would you not cry out and scream about the injustice of it all and then write to the papers and get interviewed and do everything in your power to have the evil judge himself brought to justice?

Do you get the picture? We somehow inherently know that what was done was un-just. We also say that our standard of justice is God himself. And yet as Christians, instead of protesting this scenario when the scenario is cast with God as the judge, we celebrate it!

Let us recast the story.

According to our own doctrines we claim that all men are indeed guilty (Romans 3:10). We also claim to that God is a perfectly just judge. When we go on to say that he has indeed acquitted some wicked men (us) we don't even blink, as if there was no problem with this scenario. Yet according to our own inherent sense of justice, this should make him an evil judge worse than the criminals he acquits.

So here is the question: How is it that God can be truly just and yet justify wicked men?

God is in the dock. Is he defensible?

Alright, here's the non-trivial answer.

The idea is that we are all guilty.  It's pretty hard to deny this one:

Romans 3:23 (NIV)

  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Furthermore, while we are all guilty of sin, the punishment for this sin is death:

Romans 6:23a (NIV)

  For the wages of sin is death

If we go on in Romans 3, we see that the Jesus was the atonement for our sin.

Romans 3:25 (NIV)

  God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

Definition of atonement

  satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.

So, we can see from Romans 3:25 above that Christ was the sacrifice of atonement for our sins.

In essence, we are guilty of the sins that we commit (Romans 3:23 at top).  Because of those sins, a price has to be paid (Romans 6:23a).  Since the price had to be paid, Jesus was presented as the atonement sacrifice. (Romans 3:25).  We can receive this atonement by faith (Romans 3:25 again).

Furthermore, this debt had to be paid to show that he is just.  God is both just and righteous--being the one who deals the justice as well as the one who justifies (through the atonement for the sin).

Romans 3:26 (NIV)

  he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Summary

God is a just God; He requires a penalty be paid for the sins we commit; and Jesus is that atonement for those sins.

Tying this in to my trivial answer, our sins create a debt that must be paid (just as our breaking the law creates a debt to society).  However, this debt has been paid already if we have faith to accept the grace given to us.


Is murder allowed if God tells you to do it? The Bible pretty clearly says not to murder (Exodus 20:13).

But if we examine Numbers 25 or 1Kings 18:40, we see God (or more accurately, his prophets) telling us to kill people.  Indeed, entire groups of people were murdered because of their mistaken beliefs.

So, is it alright to murder if God or one of his prophets tells you to?

I would think that this concept against murdering would be against all Christian doctrine.  However, how does the mainstream Protestant groups (Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) reconcile these two concepts?

Murder and killing are not necessarily the same thing. The King James Bible adds confusion to this debate by translating Exodus 20:13 as:

  Thou shalt not kill.

Which historically has been interpreted to mean a commandment against all forms of killing, including capital punishment, war, and in some cases, even against killing animals.  In the context of the rest of the Law, this is clearly not what was meant. (See especially Leviticus 20).

The same holds for your examples--they are examples of killing, but that does not mean they are examples of God-ordained murder.

EDIT

In response to Richard's comment below:

According to dictionary.com, the relevant definition of murder is:

  Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder),  and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

So here, legal killing is differentiated from illegal killing, and it is only illegal killing that is "murder."

In ancient Israel, since God was the giver of all laws, then any God-ordained killing (whether in the form of the Law, as I mentioned previously in Leviticus, for example), or by way of his prophets, would be "legal", and therefore not murder.

It may sound a bit like a cop-out, but in a nut shell, "If God says to do it, it's not murder." It can probably be boiled down to a question of "Where does morality come from?" But that's obviously not the specific intent of this question. :)

Numbers 35:16,  35:18, and 35:21 also provide Biblical examples or definitions of a "murderer".


At what time of day was Jesus crucified? Mark 15:25, 18 KJV

  And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

and

  And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!

John 19:14-16 KJV

  And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
  But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
  Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

How can Jesus be crucified on the 3rd hour but Pilate asked for his crucification at the 6th hour?

John operates on a different chronology than Mark.

Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7-9 all have the disciples asking Jesus where to prepare the Passover supper on first day of the feast of unleavened bread, with the crucifixion the next day.   But John 19:14 has the crucifixion itself taking place on "the preparation of the passover" which is the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.   So the day that Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us Jesus had the disciples prepare the Passover, is the day he was crucified according to John.  So John makes the whole thing take place a day earlier than the Synoptics.  Once you realize that, it won't seem so important to be stuck on a difference of 3 hours.

There's an obvious theological reason why John does this. We are told in Mark 14:12 that the passover lamb is killed on the preparation day

  "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?"

In the Synopics, then, Jesus' death does not correspond directly to the killing of the Passover lamb.  Rather, on the day the lamb is killed, the disciples are preparing for the Last Supper, and Jesus then eats an actual Passover seder with the disciples that night.

But John, who alone among the gospel writers speaks of Jesus as "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29, 1:36), wants Jesus' death to correspond exactly to the time that the Passover lamb is killed.   So John moves the Last Supper to a day earlier, thus having Jesus' crucifixion on the day of preparation when the lamb is killed.  Or does he?

The question is which is historical and which is merely theological spin.  Its possible the Synoptics are historical here and John is the spin because he wants Jesus' death to correspond exactly to the Passover lamb.  However, its also possible that John is historical and the Synoptics are spinning because they wanted Jesus to eat a real Passover meal as his last meal. [In John he's crucified while Passover is being prepared, so he doesn't get to eat a Passover meal.]  You will note that in John, there is no institution of the Lord's Supper (Communion, Eucharist) at the Last Supper as in the Synoptics.  Rather, John deals with this subject in John 6 when he has Jesus declare in the Synagogue at Capernaum that he is the bread from heaven.  It could be that the Synoptics moved the date of Jesus' crucifixion in order to accommodate having Jesus institute the Lord's Supper at the Last Supper during a real Passover, or it could be that John moved the date in order to have Jesus' death correspond to the killing of the pascal lamb, and we'll never know this side of heaven which it is.


What do the Nicene, Apostles, Chalcedonian, Creeds add to the concept of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost that is not found directly in the Bible? There were opposing views especially on the nature of God and His relationship to Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. That was in part the reason for the councils. To try to unify the church and come to some form of consensus on the many points of doctrine that were in conflict. I would assume that the discussions were similar in nature to the ones we are having here on this site. What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity? and... Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity Both sides using the scriptures in support of their beliefs. Some how they were able to come to some sort of consensus and the resulting creeds were deemed infallible by the church. Those who disagreed with them were often excommunicated and even exiled. That is the reason for my question. What did the Non-Trinitarians believe was being added to the concept of God by these creeds that they could not accept and risked their lives to oppose?

When framed in terms of what can't be found in the Bible: Almost nothing can't be found in the Bible / You can find almost anything in the Bible. A wide variety of established beliefs are "Biblical" because, like most any non-technical document, it's vastly multi-interpretable. (And even technical language is multi-interpretable.)

The creeds primarily clarify which interpretations were presumably authoritative [and correct].

Taking a "simple" example, in John 10:30, Jesus says, "The Father and I are one." That could mean anything from Jesus really "digs" the Father to Jesus shares Father's mission to Jesus and the Father are the same essence and being. Not to mention the gnostic understanding, which may have interpreted the statement as an indication of the godliness of "any enlightened person."

The creeds document in technical language the beliefs that the Biblical texts were written to illustrate, among them a belief in a Trinity God of co-equal, co-eternal Persons. The range of Non-Trinitarian and Trinitarian beliefs is vast. Many believes can be pretty convincingly presented as "Biblical." The key point here is that scripture was written to assist with the promulgation and poetry surrounding existing beliefs. Widespread Misinterpretation of that scripture, amongst other ambiguities and "belief drift", was largely the fuel for firing up the councils and documenting the intended beliefs in more technical language.

And while each council had some foci, some specified heresies to address, there just a lot of variation in belief that scripture cannot in itself pass judgement on.


St. Francis de Sales overcame a temper problem? I heard that St. Francis de Sales struggled with a temper problem for many years, but he overcome it. What is the source of this biographical information?
Loiuse M. Stachoople-Kenny's biography, for example, seems to only mention his sweet temper, but nothing about how he fought to overcome his naturally choleric temperament:

Francis never lost his temper, was always patient and good-humoured, submitting with a smile to the constant rebukes of his old tutor, and treating him always with unfailing gentleness and kindness. As a matter of fact, M. Déage really worshipped the very ground his beloved pupil walked on, but like many people, ready to die for those they love, he tantalized and tormented with constant pinpricks, growls and grumbles, the man he loved most on earth; indeed, his affection and his temper would have made life unbearable to anyone less sweet-tempered and kind-hearted than the gentle Bishop of Geneva.

Yes, St Francis did struggle with a temper problem for many years but overcame it. The source of this biographical information is presented in Introduction to Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales (Author), Allan Ross (Editor, Translator):

St Francis by the very constitution of his body was of a lively
character and inclined to anger. But having proposed to himself to
imitate that Jesus who had said: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and
humble of heart" (St. Matt. xi 29), he was able, thanks to the
continuous vigilance that he exercised and the violence to which he
subjected himself, to repress and curb the motions of the soul to such
an extent as to become a living copy of the God of peace and
sweetness.

Fr. Alban Buter's biography of him says:

He was indeed naturally of a hasty and passionate temper, as he himself confesses; and we find in his writings a certain fire and impetuosity which renders it unquestionable. On this account from his youth he made meekness his favourite virtue, and by studying in the school of a God who was meek and humble of heart, he learned that important lesson to such perfection, as to convert his predominant passion into his characteristical virtue. The Calvinists ascribe principally to his meekness the wonderful conversions he made amongst them. They were certainly the most obstinate of people at that time, near Geneva: yet St. Francis converted no less than seventy-two thousand of them.

From St. Jane of Chantal's deposition of him for his beatification and canonization, "32nd Point: Gentleness" (ref:1571.7 of The Saint Francis de Sales Collection):

I have never heard that our Blessed Founder was seen to lose his temper. Once I entreated him to be a little roused by some opposition which was troubling our Convent of the Visitation. He answered: “Would you have me lose in a quarter of an hour the small stock of gentleness which I have been painfully amassing for the last twenty years?” It was, therefore, a common saying that he had actually no gall, and indeed, after his death the surgeons found none, but in its place numbers of little triangular-shaped stones, showing plainly the constraint and force which he had put upon himself to conquer the passion of anger. Indeed he told me once, on an occasion of most justifiable wrath and indignation, that he was obliged to rein in his anger with both hands in order to stop it.

That he had been "painfully amassing" a "small stock of gentleness" "for the last twenty years" (since at least the foundation of the Visitation order in his later adulthood, 1610) shows that since until his 30's or so he had not been "amassing" gentleness.


From an LDS perspective, what is the difference between feeling the influence of the Holy Spirit and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit? What is the difference between the two? What scriptures are used to best explain the differences? How does one receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Joseph Smith taught:

  There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy
  Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which
  was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel,
  but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was
  baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy
  Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him.
  [See Acts 10:1–48.] Until he obeyed these ordinances and received the
  gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, according to the
  order of God, he could not have healed the sick or commanded an evil
  spirit to come out of a man, and it obey him; for the spirits might
  say unto him, as they did to the sons of Sceva: ‘Paul we know and
  Jesus we know, but who are ye?’ [See Acts 19:13–15.]

History of the Church, 4:555; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Mar. 20, 1842, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff.


How does the Bible teach us to direct our prayers? In a recent Pentecostal prayer meeting I attended, one member, who was a leader in the church, began his prayer with "Holy Spirit, please...", offering up requests for healing, instruction, and gracious distribution of faith.

I was a bit surprised, as I'm familiar with Biblical instruction for (and myself say) prayers directed to "Our Father in Heaven."

What is an overview of the practices of Christian denominations regarding the proper direction of prayer?

How does the Bible teach us to direct our prayers?

In Scripture we read in the Lord's Prayer that we should pray in this manner, "Our Father which art in heaven..." (Matthew 6:9) and in John 16 that we should pray in Jesus' name. We can also mention 1st Peter 1:17 in this context, "And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:" which assumes that prayer is offered to the Father. There is nothing else taught on this subject. However, both Stephen and John do make a short exclamatory sort of prayer to Jesus after seeing a vision of Jesus, namely in Acts 7:59 "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." and Revelation 22:20 "Even so, come, Lord Jesus." There are no prayers addressed to the Holy Ghost in scripture that I can see (correct me in the comments if you know of one).

  What is an overview of the practices of Christian denominations regarding the proper direction of prayer?

I don't think the difference in practice today breaks down by denomination so much as the different views on the Trinity.

In the church of Christ we pray only to the Father in Jesus' name (although I've heard some in public prayer throw in a "Jesus we love you"). But we aren't credal, so we don't accept or enforce any creed like the Athanasian Creed. We go by that motto "no creed but the Bible."  As a result there are different views on the Trinity held among us, but in the mainstream I'd say nobody is an Athanasian Trinitarian but only Subordinationist Trinitarians.  That is, rather than holding the Father and Son to be "coequal" (as in the Athanasian Creed) or that "in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another" (again, the Athanasian Creed) we acknowledge that the Father is greater than the Son and higher in order or hierarchy, as we read in 1st Corinthians 11:3 "the head of Christ is God," and as Christ says in John 14:28 "My Father is greater than I." Paul also says "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father" in 1 Corinthians 15:24, which shows a sort of hierarchical relationship between the Father and Son.  This is one obvious reason why the practice of praying to Jesus or the Holy Spirit has not gained much currency.

Strict Athanasian Trinitarians, however, who hold to that creed, because they believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be "coequal" and that there is no hierarchy in the Trinity, will have a much higher tendency to pray to each Person of the Trinity independently, especially since the creed says "we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord".  If you hold to that, you are likely to end up considering it unfair to pray to only one Person of the Trinity, and thus would pray to all three.

Now Oneness Pentecostals, being modalists (that is, believing that God is only one Person, namely Jesus Christ, and that he goes by the names of Father and Holy Ghost sometimes) will not see praying to Jesus or the Holy Ghost as at all different from praying to the Father, since in their mind, all three are one and the same person.


Why are Catholics singled out from "Christians"? I've noticed that some people would single out "Catholics" from "Christians". Belief.net is one website that separates "Catholicism" from "Christianity", and the website does not claim to be affiliated with any religious organization. Sometimes, a public university's student health center may classify "Catholic" and "Christian" into two separate categories under "Religion".

Assuming that everyone has benign intentions, why are Catholics singled out from "Christians"?

There are a couple main reasons, some of them I believe subconscious, for why Catholics are singled out.

They believe themselves to be exclusively the Church that Christ established, and other Christian sects (with a few exceptions) as adhering to heresies which bar them from ecclesiastical unity with them. This is an example of the Catholic Church drawing a distinction between themselves and other Christian sects.
The "Protestants" are called Protestants because they formed out of "protest" against perceived corruption in the policies, praxis, and theology of the Roman Catholic Church. This is an example of the Protestant sects drawing a distinction between themselves and the Catholics, although most still would graciously assert that, as Catholics believe Jesus is God, Catholics are saved despite their theology and praxis.

Another point:

Every main branch of Christianity is in some sense "singled out". It may simply seem that the Catholics are "singled out" because their branch of Christianity is united as a single sect under the Pope, while the Protestants are 40,000+ (or something) fragmented sects of Christianity existing in large numbers in most of the countries where Catholicism has a big presence, but are united only in in the confession that Jesus is God (a union through the least common denominator, choosing to name all other doctrines as secondary in importance when it comes to unity and, in most cases, also salvation).

There are also, however, other branches of Christianity which are also separate, or "singled out".

For instance, the Eastern Orthodox (Calcedonian) Communion, the Oriental Orthodox (non-Calcedonian ) Communion, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the modern-day Arians (Jehova's witnesses, Unitarians, Mormons, etc.).

It's just what happens when there is a major departure in theological understanding in a religion - those who believe one way need some way of differentiating themselves from those that believe another way that is deemed improper or incorrect by some adherents of the same religious umbrella (in this case, Christianity).

At the end of the day, the Catholics single themselves out as the only true Christians because they believe any non - Catholic sects to be in heresy, and therefore, not a 100% true expression of Christianity.


Did the sun and the moon really stop rotating? Or, the better question is: did the earth really stop rotating?

  Joshua 10:12-14

  New International Version (NIV)

  12: On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

  “Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
      and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

  13: So the sun stood still,
      and the moon stopped,
      till the nation avenged itself on[a] its enemies,
  as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

  The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

  14: There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!

Obviously, if the earth really did stop spinning for extended period of time, it would have severe implications.

For one, rotation velocity is 1,674.4 km/h at the equator. This means that if the Earth suddenly stopped spinning everything would be launched in a ballistic trajectory sideways. All of the masses would be scoured clean of anything. This means rocks, trees, buildings, warriors fighting right then and there, and etc, would be swept away into the atmosphere.

And/or, Earth would be torn apart by the gigantic deceleration forces. Seismic waves will flow through the earth causing massive earthquakes. The atmosphere would possibly boil over. Also lets not forget the 2.58x10^29 Joules of rotational energy. all that energy has to go somewhere.

Why do I feel like I am writing xkcd what-if article? Anyway...

Unless by some miracle God was able to stop the Earth from spinning without the consequences, this act would be impossible.

So did he really stop the Earth from spinning? Or was it only an illusion?

Yes it was a miracle. It is clearly stated that God did this for Israel. There is no need to fall back on "illusion" if this is marked as a miracle. When a miracle happens, "natural laws" might as well no longer apply, because God applies. That is part of what "miracle" means.

You've made a number of assumptions that I think are unwarranted. The passage states that both the sun and the moon stopped moving. Their orbits around the earth are not synchronized, so we can rule out the possibility that God only stopped the rotation of the earth. Though even if He did stop its rotation, why would there be a problem? Imagine the even application of a force to every single particle on the entire planet.

He might have stopped the rotation of the earth and then moved the moon as well. Or He might have turned space around the earth to counteract its rotation, and then turned space again at some point past the moon, to counteract its rotation.

Alternatively, God may have swung the sun and moon and stars around the earth. This would have caused the distant galaxies to move at far, far, far beyond the speed of light. Again, no acceleration forces if God were "putting His hand on" every particle. This would have been trivial for God, who created everything and is infinitely powerful. That's not mathematical infinity. It's Divine infinity.

Or He might have done it in some way far, far, far beyond our comprehension. It is a miracle, and marked as such. What's the problem, again?


How could Stephen be stoned without a trial and conviction in front of the Roman Governor? I heard in a sermon that it was not allowed for the Jewish leaders to convict a  person without permission from the Roman governor. My question is: how did they stone Stephen (Acts 7:58) without a trial in front of the Roman governor?

The Bible does not reveal the the legalities or illegalities of all the killings it records.  From the scanty histories available, most scholars seem to think that at the time of Pontius Pilate, only the Roman governor had the authority to order capital punishment .  We must remember, however, people back then did not enjoy the equal protection of the law we enjoy today in a democratic nation.
Politically, Rome would not have had any interest in this case, so the murderous mob may have had little to fear.  On the other hand, many people knew and admired Jesus, so there may have been some political motivation for Rome to take notice of this case and assume the duty of legal arbitration.  From Pilate's perspective, however, he may have thought that in this matter, being forgiven for an error in judgment was better than obtaining permission to make a judgment. Then, too, the crowd in its demonic hate gave Pilate a not-so-veiled threat,

"'If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be king opposes Caesar'" (John 19:12).

By referring to comments by Josephus, some of the better commentaries try to work out a scenario in which the lack of interest by Rome was only natural in this instance. From the Baker New Testament Commentary, p280, we read,

The question of the legality of Stephen’s death is a difficult one. By all appearances, his death is the result of mob action that the Romans did not prevent. Nevertheless, the Roman governor could conduct an inquiry, because the Jews might not administer capital punishment (John 18:31) . . .. That power belonged to the Roman governor. To illustrate: Josephus states that the Roman procurator (governor) Coponius, sent to Judea by the emperor, was “entrusted by Augustus with full powers, including the infliction of capital punishment.”
If we assume that Stephen died in A.D. 35, Pontius Pilate was still the governor of Judea. At that time Pilate’s troubles, resulting from his slaughter of numerous Samaritans at Mount Gerizim, were sufficient evidence to demand his recall (A.D. 36) at the request of Syria’s governor. . . . In this political climate, the Jews would not fear repercussions for killing Stephen. To be sure, in his last year in office Pilate had lost influence and authority in Judea.


What is the opposite of sin? We have:

Good - Evil
Love - Hate
Virtue - Vice
Bless - Curse
Righteous - Wicked
Obedience - Disobedience
_____? - Sin

I don't mean sin as a general disposition, or original sin. I mean a deed contrary to God's eternal law:

  Sin is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law (St. Augustine, Faust 22:PL 42, 418). It is an offense against God. It rises up against God in a disobedience contrary to the obedience of Christ. Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man's nature and injures human solidarity. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1871,-1872)

  Sin is the breaking of God's law. (CARM, What is sin?)

  Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Sin)

What are those things that are done in accordance with God's will, reason, and eternal Law? Would we call these acts of obedience? sacrifice? praise? Are they discussed specifically?

Please note: I'm not asking for anyone to coin an antonym for sin. I'm not asking for examples of individual acts that count as "not being sins". I'd like to know if the Bible or any well-established teaching deals with this sort of deed, and what such deeds might be called. I am not claiming that performing such deeds will grant anyone salvation, that discussion may be set aside. Also, please don't just say something like "the opposite of sin is love" unless there's a good explanation: I'm not asking for dynamic non-equivalence.

Edit: The answer should make it obvious (somewhere) what is the most appropriate way to fill in the following blanks using a single term or concept, and also why (theologically) that term is best:

What Cain did was a sin, but what Joseph did was a _____
Offering up a sacrifice, visiting someone in prison, and praying are all examples of _____
_____ is an utterance, a deed, or a desire in accord with the eternal law.
_____ is the keeping of God's law.
_____ is nothing more than a morally good act, an act in accord with reason informed by the Divine law.

What is the opposite of sin? When someone does something good, what do I call that?

Sin comes from the Greek Hamartia, which carries with it the idea of an archer missing his mark. The opposite of that would be to hit the mark- to succeed.

I would argue thus that obedience would be the opposite of sin, as it "hits the mark" to which we aim.

Alternatively, telos - the purpose or aim for which we are destined would be pretty good too.

Augustine in particular was well known for describing evil as not a thing in and of itself, but rather as a lack of good. It is the lack of substance to the thing that is its nature, not an essence of its own. The same could be said of sin - that it is a lack of the nature of God's desire for us that characterisizes Sin. As such, the opposite of Sin would be the nature of God evident in the life of the person in question.

And, btw, it totally is fair to say that the opposite of Sin is love- for as Jesus himself said, "if you love me, keep my commandments."


Resources in Helping Choose an Orthodox Patron Saint I'm currently a catechumen in the Orthodox Church and am trying to decide on a Patron Saint.  I've done some research in regards to Saints on or close to my birthday however I am curious as to whether there are any suggested resources, books or otherwise to assist me in this process.

Thanks.

There are a few different approaches one could take in choosing a patron saint for yourself.

You could choose a saint by what is your profession, need, desire (devotion) or name's day.

  A name day is a tradition in some countries in Europe, Latin America, and Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries in general. It consists of celebrating a day of the year that is associated with one's given name. The celebration is similar to a birthday.

  The custom originated with the Christian calendar of saints: believers named after a saint would celebrate that saint's feast day, or in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the day of a saint's death. Name days have greater resonance in the Catholic and Orthodox parts of Europe. - Name Day [Saint] (Wikipedia)]1

A patron saint in the Orthodox Church is regarded as the intercessor and advocate in heaven of a nation, place, craft, activity, class, or person. Since the time of the early Christians up to the present, a vast number of patron saints have been recorded.

  Christians have long chosen the names of Saints to proclaim their link with their spiritual family, the Church. The name may be of a Saint commemorated on or near to the day of the child's birth, or for whom the family has a special devotion. Likewise, an adult received into the Orthodox Church chooses a Saint's name to whom he/she has a strong attachment. In days past, this was often a costly witness for believers living in a non-Christian society, as their very names (Nicholas or George, Elias or Barbara) labeled them as Christians.

  Each day of the year, the Church honors a number of Saints. The day the Church honors one’s Saint is one's "Name Day," an occasion to honor the memory of the Saint whose name we bear, and to give thanks for his/her daily intercession on our behalf. Individuals whose names are not found on the Calendar of Saints celebrate on All Saints Day, the Sunday after Pentecost.

  We are to pray and have a special devotion to our Patron Saint. His or her life should be read and studied so that we learn how our lives should be directed. Our Patron Saint becomes a true hero/heroine for us to emulate. - Celebrating Our Patron Saint's Day

A list of Orthodox saints and their feast days may be perused at the following sites:

Calendar of Saints: Lives of the Saints by month
Patron saint (Orthodox Wiki)
Orthodox Saints Calendar]5


Why didn't God reveal all the answers to life? Is there scripture that supports why all these questions have not been revealed to us?
As a Christian, I do not ponder on unanswered questions, however I would have to believe, somewhere within the bible there has to be an answer to this simple question.

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. (Proverbs 25:2, NIV)

There's a sense in which mysteries bring glory to God and solving them bring glory to us. It's no accident that so many people enjoy puzzles and riddles or exploration and experimentation, it's just another way in which we reflect the God whose image we are made in.


Pope says Heaven apart from Christian faith? In this article, ‘Is my dad in heaven?’ little boy asks pope is a heart wrenching story and would be a very difficult question to field admittedly.

A young boy asks if his recently departed Unbelieving Father is in heaven. The pope does a line of reasoning that even though he was unbeliever, he had his children baptised which pleased God, and he asks the children if God would abandon such a man. the Children shout "No!" and the pope confirms their answer.

  “There, Emanuele, that is the answer.”

Implying very clearly that the unbelieving father will be saved presumably on the basis of having his children baptized.

Later in the same article he is said to have told the children:

  “We are all children of God. Everyone. Everyone.”

These comments seem to very strongly be pointing towards universalism (the idea that everyone will be saved one way or another).

This is not the first such comment from this Pope either, but I just picked one specific example.

Now for the questions

Does the Catholic church officially recognize baptizing one's children as a good work that qualifies you for salvation?
If the church does not recognize this, then Pope Francis is speaking apart from the teachings of the church. Is that allowed?
Is it official now just because he has said such?
Is Universalism accepted by Catholics

To address your questions in order.

  Does the Catholic church officially recognize baptizing ones children as a good work that qualifies you for salvation?

Not by itself.  Heck, as a parent, the Church more or less expects if of you.  If you don't have your children baptized, you're doing it wrong.  That's a very terse summary of the Church's position.  (I speak as both a Catholic and a parent).

As for "what qualifies for salvation" that's a huge topic and a slightly loaded question.  The nuts and bolts of it is Baptism into the Church; remaining in communion with Christ/The Church/God; remaining free of the stain of mortal sin (and repenting from such sin and returning via the sacrament of reconciliation when it happens); those three are an incredibly brief summary of what the Church teaches as the path to salvation.  It does not do the topic justice.  And while you are at it, don't forget prayer and selfless service in His name.  (Aside: when Jesus told his disciples to "pick up your cross and follow me" the subtext of that message was not "this is gonna be easy."   There is no Easy Button).

  If the church does not recognize this, is Francis speaking apart from the teachings of the church. Is that allowed?

While The Holy Father is being a little glib (and IMO sloppy) in his public relations appearance there, he is speaking to his audience: children. It is worthwhile to consider the context and setting of his remarks.  That said:

A document issued from Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, presents an offer
of hope (beyond general human understanding) of salvation due to
God's mercy.  It is unknowable when God's mercy enters into such a
path to salvation.  This was controversial when it came out, and
remains a topic of some disagreement.  (It is not dogma, and as our
friend @Geremia here at Christianity.SE might remind us, it makes
statements at odds with the pronouncement at the Council of Trent
that there is no salvation outside of the Church; a pronouncement
that has not been repealed). You can, however, view his recent remark
as being consistent with this article.

  {Extracted from Lumen Gentium article 16}
  Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the
  dictates of conscience.  Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.   Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.  She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair.  Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

Is it allowed?  Well, he's the Pope.  What he's supposed to do is lead the church.  He is also human, and can be careless.  Nobody but his own conscience can govern his decisions on what he says.  (As my wife has asked me to stop making comments about this particular Pope, that's as far as I'll go).

  Is it official now just because he has said such?

No.  This is not an ex cathedra pronouncement.  There is a particular form for making such statements in matters of faith and morals.  Such utterances are rare; the last one I recall covered the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.  That was the dogma explicitly conveyed in 1950, written/issued by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 in his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus.  This off hand remark was no encyclical, nor any other form of ex cathedra utterance.

  Is Universalism accepted by Catholics

That is a separate question, please ask it separately.


Debtors vs. Trespassers I converted to the Presbyterian faith from a Catholic upbringing a while back and have always wondered - but never had anyone to ask - why Catholics use "Trespassers" in the Lord's prayer (Please forgive our trespasses, as we forgive our Trespassers) and the Presbyterians use "Debtors".  I'm sure someone has to have asked this question somewhere before me :-)

There's a great analysis by Dave Armstrong that goes into a lot more detail, but it comes from trying to best capture the point of the Lord's Prayer—as it's rendered in the Bible—in English.

There are two forms of the Lord's Prayer found in the Bible: one in Matthew and another in Luke.

In Matthew 6:9–13, the Lord's Prayer is rendered as (emphasis mine):

  9“This is how you are to pray:

  Our Father in heaven,
  hallowed be your name,
  10your kingdom come,
  your will be done,
  on earth as in heaven.
  11Give us today our daily bread;
  12and forgive us our debts,
  as we forgive our debtors;
  13and do not subject us to the final test,
  but deliver us from the evil one.

But in Luke 11:2–4, it's rendered as (emphasis mine):

  2He said to them, “When you pray, say:

  Father, hallowed be your name,
  your kingdom come.
  3Give us each day our daily bread
  4and forgive us our sins
  for we ourselves forgive everyone in debt to us,
  and do not subject us to the final test.”

Given it's more fleshed out, most Christians favor Matthew's version. In the original Greek, the word used in Matthew 6:12 is ὀφειλήματα, which means "debts". The word used in Luke 11:4 is ἁμαρτίας, which means "sins".

So, to be in line with the original manuscript, "debts" is the correct word, and indeed, most Christians (including all non-English Catholics) use "debts".

In English, however, "debts" and "debtors" usually refer to a loan: a monetary debt to a bank, for example. But later on in Matthew, it says:

  14If you forgive others their transgressions1, your heavenly Father will forgive you
  15But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions1.

So while the actual word is "debts", it's clear the point of the Lord's Prayer is to say that one ought to forgive those who wrong us, just as God forgives us our sins and transgressions, not that we ought to forgive loans made upon us (i.e., God doesn't "loan" us sins).

To make clear the point of the prayer,"debts" was replaced with "trespasses". This translation became popular in 16th century England, even making it into the Book of Common Prayer. The Roman Catholic version of the Lord's Prayer is almost identical to the Book of Common Prayer's version at the time, and has not been changed since then.

Interestingly, the English version of the Missal recently underwent a fairly dramatic change as things were retranslated to better correspond to the original meaning of words, but the Lord's Prayer was skipped. I could not find any explicit justification for the omission, which suggests to me that the Vatican still considers the use of "trespasses" to accurately convey the intent of the prayer.

Note 1: Also translated as trespasses, depending on the translation.


Has a study been done on the "Power of Prayer"? Has a controlled, scientific study of the "Power of Prayer", ever been performed? Can one, or two, of the results be breafly explained?

Yes, at least for intercessory prayer. In 2005, the John Templeton Foundation conducted a carefully designed, double-blind trial of the effect of intercessory prayer on the outcome of surgery. The intention was to evaluate whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. It was felt that previous trials showing a benefit had used sub-optimal methods of data analysis, non-standard methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and untested outcome measures, while those showing no effect had insufficient statistical power to reach this conclusion.

Patients were enrolled between January 1998 and November 2000. Of 3,295 eligible patients, 1,493 did not wish to participate and 1,802 patients enrolled (Oklahoma–548; Massachusetts–492; Washington DC–284; Tennessee–256; Minnesota–200; Florida–22) (Figure 1). Intercessory prayer was provided according to the protocol to 1,192/1,205 (99%) of patients randomized to Group 1 and Group 3, over the course of the study period (1,046 days). The overall daily mean of intercessors was 33 (range 10–58). Intercessors reported praying from 30 seconds to several hours, from 1 to 4 times per day.

The study had 2 main findings. First, intercessory prayer itself had no effect on whether complications occurred after CABG. Second, patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them had a higher rate of complications than patients who were uncertain but did receive intercessory prayer. It is suggested this anomaly may have resulted from anxiety that resulted from knowing that others were praying.


Is God of Anger or of Love? Numbers 25 shows God as a god who destroys and kills anyone who aligns him/herself with the wrong deity.  However, Matthew 5:39 talks about how we should "not resist an evil person".

How can we reconcile God of Numbers 25 with the God of Matt 5:39?  To put this another way, is God a god of Anger or a god of Love?

I LOVE THIS TOPIC!!

God is a God of Love. God is also a God of Hate. If you love you must also hate. If you love children then you will hate abortion. God is angry with those enemies of his that practice sin. Here is a verse that describes the anger that God has towards sinners.

  Hebrews 10:26-27 (NIV)

  26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the
  knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a
  fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume
  the enemies of God.

In Numbers 25 God is specifically talking to Israel. He tells Israel that he has set them apart from the other nations. I can't find the verse right now, but God also tells the Israelites to follow specific commands regarding separation in order that Israel will remain Holy.

  Leviticus 20:26 (NIV)

  You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set
  you apart from the nations to be my own.

In the New Testament this author is upholding the understanding of of the Old Testament, that we should be a Holy people. But this author tells us to not associate ourselves with unholy people, instead of just killing the unholy people.

  1 Corinthians 5:9-11 (NIV)

  9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral
  people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are
  immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you
  would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that
  you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or
  sister[a] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer,
  a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

God is unchanging, He does not want wicked people corrupting you. The reason that he commanded these wicked people to be killed in Numbers is because God wanted Israel to be a Holy land, a nation that could not put up with even the smallest Sins.

God does not dwell with us today like he dwelt with the Israelites, in the temple. God is teaching us how to love these days, when before He was forcing the Israelites to be Pure and Holy. Don't get me wrong we still have a responsibility to be Pure and Holy, but the land we live in is not.

In Mathew 5:39 God is talking to His obedient children, He's teaching them to forgive their enemies. A completely different context from the previous situation of holiness.

Edit: to show that God is also a God that Hates.

  Psalm 5:5 (NIV)

  5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence.  You hate all who do
  wrong;

  Psalm 7:11 (NKJV)

  11 God is a just judge,
           And God is angry with the wicked every day.

  Psalm 11:5 (NKJV)

  5 The LORD tests the righteous,
           But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.

  Psalm 15:4 (NKJV)

  4 In whose eyes a vile person is despised,
           But he honors those who fear the LORD;
           He who swears to his own hurt and does not change;


According to the Catholic Church is it sinful to address someone who is transgender by their biological sex? As a Catholic, is it considered an offense against charity to refer to a person in a way they wouldn't want to be referred to (such as calling a trans woman "he")?

Detraction & Railing
In other words, is it

backbiting/detraction (detractio)"the blackening of another's good name by words uttered in secret"—St. Albert the Great, Sum. Theol. II 117, quoted in St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II q. 73 a. 1 arg. 1

or

railing/reviling (contumelia)the same, but done openly, to his face (ibid.)

to call someone other than what he or she would wish to be called?
Examples where it is not sinful
Directly to their face and certainly against their will, Jesus Himself truthfully called the

"Pharisees and Sadducees" a "brood of vipers" (Mt. 3:7);
"scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" and "whited sepulchres" (Mt. 23:27);
and even the disciples themselves "foolish and slow" (Lk. 24:25).

St. Paul called the Galatians "senseless" (Gal. 3:1) and the Romans (Rom. 1:29-31) as

Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains why these name-callings were not sinful (II-II q. 72 a. 2 ad 2):

Just as it is lawful to strike a person, or damnify someone in his belongings for the purpose of correction, so too, for the purpose of correction, may one say a mocking (conviciosum) word to a person whom one has to correct. It is thus that our Lord called the disciples "foolish," and the Apostle called the Galatians "senseless." Yet, as Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 19), "seldom and only when it is very necessary should we have recourse to invectives, and then so as to urge God's service, not our own."

Fraternal correction is an act of charity.
In the case of those who wish they were the other sex, it would not be a sin to correct them with words they'd consider offensive. Fraternal correction is an act of charity; cf. "Whether fraternal correction is an act of charity?" (II-II q. 33 a. 1).


Is it a good guess that Heaven's joy surpasses even the keenest felt here? Jonathan Edwards said terms like 'joy' and 'ecstasy' were too meager to describe the greatness of the happiness in Heaven. Was Edwards right in saying our strongest words come nowhere near the reality? Are there levels to happiness (as Thomas of Aquinas thought) or is utter bliss available- but short lived and tainted by sin- here? For instance, romantic love is fairly spectacular- can we guess it is beyond even that? I guess it's the difference between the idea that Heaven as ineffable, versus the idea that Heaven is basically a problem- and sin-free Earth.

Obviously this is all guesswork and we won't truly know until death. Yet can we make an educated guess?

There is some verses in 2 Corinthians 2 that say,

  9 but just as it is written,
  “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
  And which have not entered the heart of man,
  All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
  10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. (vv.9,10).

In light of these verses, the second of which is often not quoted with the first, it seems that God may have revealed some aspects of the things He has prepared for those who love Him. If so, what are some of these things? Are they perhaps mentioned in other scriptures? Am I perhaps misinterpreting 2 Cor 2:9 and 10?

The only person capable of answering your question is someone who has been there, and that person is Jesus. So here is what the Bible says and what Jesus said.

Satan offered Jesus all the Kingdoms of the Earth and all their Glory:

  Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (Mat 4:8,9,10 KJV).

So if there were more joy in the Earth than in Heaven why would Jesus "pass" on the devil's offer of all the world's kingdoms and choose instead a cruel, torturous death on a Roman cross?

Here are the things he said concerning the subject:

  I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance (Luke 15:7 KJV).
  Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets (Luke 6:23 KJV).

Remember Heaven does not exist for our edification, it is the home of God!

  Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created (Rev 4:11 KJV).


What practical effect do stock worship phrases, like "God be magnified", have? In our worship to God many times we utter phrases like "God I magnify you" or "God be magnified". I used to wonder, is God really magnified by saying those words? How can we really magnify God or have him magnified?

Clearly, those phrases can't mean that we have the ability to alter God in any way.  I don't think that the definition of "magnify God" in these phrases means to actually make God "bigger" or "greater". I understand them to mean "Make God more prominent in my life, our culture, etc."

Magnification doesn't make objects bigger, it alters our perception of an object, making it appear bigger to us.

Similarly, magnifying God doesn't make Him bigger, it means He becomes more prominent to us.

The phrase "God, I magnify you" simply means "I am making you greater (more important) in my life, and putting you first, because you are my focus and priority."


What arguments would you give to teenagers who are unconcerned about eternal life? So the kids in my catechism class aren't all that into the notion of living forever.

That's kind of depressing, but I don't think its anything we can't get around.  However, what do you tell a kid, who is just starting their life, to invest all this time and energy in learning about Christ and His Church in order to go to Heaven at some far off date when all they want to do is grow up and live out their mortal life?

Their attitude reflects what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Spe Salvi

  Perhaps many people reject the faith today simply because they do not find the prospect of eternal life attractive. What they desire is not eternal life at all, but this present life, for which faith in eternal life seems something of an impediment. To continue living for ever —endlessly—appears more like a curse than a gift. Death, admittedly, one would wish to postpone for as long as possible. But to live always, without end—this, all things considered, can only be monotonous and ultimately unbearable.

But even the notion of living forever is lost on them.  They were literally surprised that the point of going to Church and begin good, having a strong faith, etc... is so that we can live again with Christ.  I called it "living forever", maybe there's a better way to explain it.  I think they thought I was crazy, but I didn't think it was necessary to say, "well, you have to die first".

Somehow the sweetness and succor of heaven is lost on the young.  So how do you help to instill in kids a desire to be with Christ forever?

Unfortunately, some things that are professed in Christianity simply cannot be proven by any known scientific methods that I am aware of.  It is, for the most part, a mystery to those of us who are still living.  If the students are in a Catechism class, I would suggest simply teaching what is part of the catechism and referencing what the catechism says while also providing scriptural references.

An appreciation of the belief of eternal life that Christianity adheres to will likely come naturally in time, especially since even the young are prone to experiencing the passing of their relatives.  However, there are some activities that can be taken to nurture that appreciation.  For example, the corporal and spiritual works of mercy include such things as visiting the sick.  Prayers for the faithful departed at a cemetery may also be something that can open people's eyes to the realities of the world and help people come face-to-face with their own mortality and grow in knowledge of themselves.  Hopefully a better understanding of it comes through study and research.  All a teacher can do is instruct about what it is that is believed, not necessarily change individual beliefs.


What evidence is there that the thief on the cross was not baptized? In Luke chapter 23, there is an interaction between Jesus and two thieves on the cross. One of the thieves mocks the Savior, telling him to save himself. The other thief rebukes the first, and confesses that he deserves to be on the cross, but Jesus doesn't:

  “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying,
  If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

  “But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear
  God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

  “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy
  kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:39–43, KJV).

This passage is frequently referenced (sometimes along with others) as evidence that baptism isn't a prerequisite for salvation. However, it's not clear to me how this passage can be used to make that assertion.

What evidence is there that the penitent thief was not baptized? (He already knew who the Savior was, so it would make sense that he had followed him at some point during his ministry.)

There is no biblical evidence to support any suggestion that the repentant criminal on the cross had ever been baptised, or not.  The Bible doesn’t say.  However, the fact that he knew about Jesus coming into his Kingdom may suggest he was thinking of the resurrection at the end of the time, when Jesus would be raised up and vindicated by God.  The Pharisees believed in a future resurrection, although the Sadducees did not (Matthew 22:23).

It is significant that Jesus used the word translated “paradise” which was used in Jewish literature for the Garden of Eden and also as a reference to heaven, the place of eternal bliss for God’s people.   The New International Version Study Bible says this by way of explanation:

  In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) the word designated a garden (Genesis 2:8-10) or forest (Nehemiah 2:8), but in the New Testament (used only here and in 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7) it refers to the place of bliss and rest between death and resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22; 2 Corinthians 12:2).

If the repentant criminal next to Jesus was a circumcised and practising Jew, then he may have practised Jewish ceremonial cleansing by water.  As to whether he had ever been baptised by full water immersion by someone like John the Baptist, we shall never know.  Neither does Scripture say if he had heard the gospel message.  All we know is that this criminal acknowledged he was a sinner and deserved his punishment, but that Jesus did not.  When he asked Jesus to remember him when he came into his Kingdom, it was a request for mercy and a declaration of faith in the Kingdom to come.  Jesus, knowing the innermost thoughts and motivations of people, knew that this man was sincere and that is why he promised that he would enter into paradise.

Christian baptism (by full water immersion) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is first recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, after the death of Jesus.  Jesus did not issue this instruction till after his resurrection (Matthew 28:19).  It is therefore impossible that the repentant criminal experienced such a baptism.  And the Holy Spirit did not come till after Jesus’ resurrection, at Pentecost (Acts 1:5).   The New Living Translation Study Bible makes this comment on Jesus’ post-resurrection instruction to make disciples:

  A disciple is one who repents of sin, trusts in Jesus for salvation and obeys his teachings.

There is no evidence that the repentant thief had heard the gospel message and obeyed Jesus’ teachings.  But his words to Jesus indicate repentance and trust in Jesus for salvation.  That was sufficient.


What distinguishes Christian meditation from the Catholic tradition from non-Christian meditation? There are many different kinds of meditation or prayer, Christian and non-Christian. However, I am confused regarding actual difference because these varieties, both Christian and non-Christian, seem largely to be arbitrarily constructed.

This question asks specifically about the rosary vs a mantra while I am interested in all methods generally. This one asks about sharing Bible references on the correct way to meditate but I think falls short as I do not believe the Bible is a meditation textbook. I also think none of the answers address my question as they seem to straw-man eastern meditation as harmful, demonic, or dulling.

That said, what are the qualitative differences between, for example, practicing the exercise outlined in The Cloud of Unknowing and counting your breaths? The author of The Cloud of Unknowing suggests repeating short, single-syllable words such as 'God' or 'sin' for the purpose of removing all thoughts and imaginings in order to be as receptive to God's grace as possible.

On the other hand, counting your breath seems to me to be an excellent way to remove all thoughts and images and, for the Christian, increase personal receptivity to the Lord's grace. Worth noting is that I am considering long-lived meditative traditions from mature non-Christian spiritual systems which have been providing benefit for at least a thousand years. I will not argue that the majority of new age spirituality is, at best, useless.

Is there a clear, defining line between meditations that are acceptable for Christians and those that aren't? If so, what is it? If I don't yet have the opportunity to learn from a Catholic priest, should I learn eastern meditation from a righteous man who believes it will lead Christians toward God? As far as I can tell, the answer is yes because it is the intention, correctness of practice, and unending goodness of our Lord that determines results.

However, I would much rather admit my own fault than attempt to outsmart two-thousand years of great saints. Answers should reference official statements from authority figures in the Catholic church. Thank you very much!

I think the Biblical model of meditation is not to do with emptying your mind, but on filling your mind with the good things of God.

There are plenty examples in Psalms:

Ps 119: 15  I meditate on your precepts . . .
Ps 119: 97  Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long.

Ps 77: 12 I will consider all your works and meditate on all your mighty deeds.

There are more.


Is there an explanation for pre-humans from a biblical point of view? Does the bible/ Christians / the church (any church) say anything about pre-humans, not just neanderthals, but all the other kinds of pre-humans?

Points to consider.

I read in a National Geographic magazine that Neanderthals actually buried their dead ceremoniously, possibly hinting that they had a religion/after-life belief.
These other people existed, there have been bones found that prove that, so any answers saying that they didn't exist are not valid.
These pre-humans were people. They had cultures (however primitive) and possibly,
very likely, language.

My question is this- Is there anything at all that tries to explain these "other" people in biblical terms?

I am very interested in finding an answer to this question. If there are any problems with it please let me know.

There is the classic question of where Cain's wife came from and who the people he feared would kill him were. One answer to that question is that they were other hominids alive at the time.

Some, like Hugh Ross and his ministry Reasons to Believe (RTB), suggest that God used hominids to prepare the way and help other species adapt and that if he had not done so, homo sapiens would have burst on the scene and wreaked havoc with the ecosystem balance.

Here's a blurb from RTB:

  RTB’s biblical creation model views the hominids found in the fossil
  record as animals created by God’s direct intervention. These
  creatures existed for a time and then went extinct. RTB’s model
  considers the hominids to be remarkable creatures that walked erect
  and possessed some level of limited intelligence and emotional
  capacity. This ability allowed these animals to employ crude tools and
  even adopt some level of “culture” much like baboons, gorillas, and
  chimpanzees. While the RTB creation model posits that the hominids
  were created by God’s divine fiat, they were not spiritual beings made
  in His image. The RTB model reserves this status exclusively for
  modern humans.

  The model treats the hominids as analogous to, but distinct from, the
  great apes. Because of this, the RTB model predicts that anatomical,
  physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities will exist among
  the hominids and modern humans to varying degrees. But since the
  hominids were not made in God’s image, they are expected to be clearly
  distinct from modern humans, particularly in their cognitive capacity,
  behavior, “technology,” and “culture.”

Their more detailed speculations are in the book Who Was Adam? (I should note I don't buy all of RTB's views about creation, but I'm just reporting what they say.)

Theistic evolutionists typically see God as working in and through the natural world to bring about his desired end, viz. humans who are in his image. Some think God did something new and special with Adam or that Adam crossed some evolutionary threshold that distinguished him from his predecessors, while others think there was no historical Adam at all, often identifying the first eleven chapters of Genesis as mytho-poetic rather than strictly historical. (Biologos.org has readings on both of these views.)

Young Earth Creationists typically see the hominids as not so different from us, or no more different than, say, an Aborigine from New Guinea is from Shaquille O'Neal.


Have any married couples been canonized at the same time? There are countless saints in the Catholic Church, and while many of them have been celibate, some have been married (e.g. Thomas More, Elizabeth Ann Seaton).

Have any married couples been canonized at the same time? Specifically, I'm looking for saints who:

Were formally canonized by the Apostolic See, rather than a local authority (so anyone following Ulrich of Augsburg in 993 AD)
Were not recognized as a saint before that time (so Mary and Joseph don't count)
Were not automatically classified as saints due to their martyrdom alone (something that is not possible under the current rules established in 1983)

Yes, Louis (1823-1894) & Zélie Martin (1831-1877), parents of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, were jointly canonized in October 2015.


Is the LDS's view of Trinity/Godhead considered monotheistic or polytheistic? With the LDS view that the Trinity is three beings would that mean they (LDS) are monotheistic or polytheistic?

There is more to polytheism than simply believing in multiple divine beings.  One of the hallmarks of polytheism is multiple gods, each with their own domain and their own agenda.

To use a culturally familiar example, in the Greek pantheon, Zeus was the father of the gods, god of the sky and thunder and lightning. Hera was his consort, and she was constantly squabbling with him because he was constantly cheating on her with mortals. From one such indiscretion sprang a great hero who Zeus named Herakles (aka Hercules), meaning the glory of Hera, to try to appease her wrath. (It didn't work. She hated him.)  Meanwhile, they had Ares (God of War,) Hades (God of the Dead,) Poseidon (God of the Oceans,) Aphrodite (Goddess of Love and Beauty,) Athena (Goddess of Wisdom,) and several others.  And they were constantly fighting with each other, either directly or by proxy through meddling in the affairs of mortals.  Similar social interactions are seen in polytheistic systems all over the world, throughout history.

By contrast, Latter-Day Saints believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are each individual divine beings, each with different roles in administering God's plan, but their "domain" is all of creation, and they act in perfect harmony and agreement.  Together, they are our (single) God, in much the same way as various forms of governing councils work and act together here on Earth.  (And the more harmonious such governing bodies are, the more efficiently their agenda tends to be accomplished.)

The fact that we say that each of the three is a God (a divine being) and that together, they are one God (the ruling body of Creation) is more a failing of the language than a bad description, much like the way a man could say "I love my wife" and "I love chocolate" and mean two different things by the word "love".


Does Christianity claim that the Bible is God's only Word? If yes, what is the reference for this?

By this logic, any book before the Bible like the Torah is not the word of God.

According to Islam, Torah is the book of prophet Moses and Bible is the book of prophet Jesus and Quran is the book of prophet Muhammad.

The assumption that you make is that the Bible is "Jesus' book." It may or may not be the "Injil." In fact, Jesus neither wrote nor actually authored any piece of the book. Indeed, unlike Muhammed, Jesus did not even receive the Word, but rather was the Word of God.  As John 1 tells us:

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.  ... 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

This is picked up in Hebrews, where the author states:

  1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

Indeed, while the Bible is our perfect guide to the nature of God, it is to be understood that the Word points us to God because God is holy.

That Jesus is the exclusive way of salvation is made clear by Jesus' first disciples, Peter and John.  When the Jewish High Priest brought them up on charges, they said of Jesus:

  Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Furthermore, Jesus himself was clear that he was the exclusive one and only Word, saying in John 14:6:

  Jesus answered, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

The fundamental distinction I am making is this - Christians do not believe Jesus to be a prophet or a teacher. Christians believe him to be God. As God, he was "the Word" (a Greek term Logos that brings the fundamental idea of being the one through whom all things are created and given meaning.) Muhammed did not claim to be God. Jesus did. The exclusivity of the "Bible" as God's Word doesn't make sense, because Jesus is the point, not the book. Unlike Islam, we do not restrict our understanding of God's Word to a single language, nor do we venerate the Scriptures as Islam does. Instead, we believe that God is "the Word" and that Jesus is God, not a prophet

The Bible (and I say this as one who has an exceedingly high view of the authority of Scripture!) is not the "ONLY" word of God, because Jesus is the Word. Any would-be Scripture that denies this fundamental tenet of who Jesus is, is by definition, not a Christian Scripture. Jesus, being the fundamental Word, is the only test.

Unlike a prophet who merely is God's servant, as Christians, we make the audacious claim that God became flesh, dwelt among us, loved us, and saved us.  Jesus is not a messenger, but God.


If Eastern Orthodoxy sees marriage as an eternal and unbreakable bond, why do they permit divorce? The Wikipedia article for Marriage in Eastern Orthodoxy describes in almost poetic terms how marriage cannot be dissolved, even by death, because Christ has defeated death. If I'm interpreting all this correctly, it seems to be saying that marriage is an eternal bond which cannot be broken by anything, similar to how a persons baptism, confirmation, and holy ordination leave indelible marks on the soul of that person, none of which can be revoked.

If this is the case, then why is divorce permitted? What is the theology that makes eternal marriage and divorce consistent with each other? Is "divorce" just another way of saying "annulment"? That is, when an Eastern Orthodox says that two people are "divorced", is this just a way of saying that there was never a valid marriage in the first place? (Similar to Catholics)

First, it is important to give some context to the allowance in the Orthodox Church for remarriage. Subsequent marriages are always considered "penitential"; only the first marriage is considered to have the high esteem that the Wikipedia article mentions.  In terms that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church would use, only the first marriage is sacramental.  Theologically speaking, the Orthodox Church doesn't approve of subsequent marriages, but merely tolerates them, as a concession to our fallen and broken human nature.

Why does the Orthodox Church tolerate subsequent marriages?  It is hard to escape the conclusion that this practice was foisted upon them by the Byzantine Empire's law, and simply continued to exist to the present day because of historical practice.

But the question doesn't ask about remarriage.  Instead, it asks about divorce.  I think it can be argued that generally the reason why divorce is sought most of the time is precisely so that one of the parties may remarry, and thus my answer above stands: divorce that was a precursor to remarriage was foisted upon the Orthodox Church by an Emperor who wanted to divorce his first wife, and then simply expanded from there.

However, it must be admitted that even the Catholic Church allows divorce in some extreme cases.  One such instance might be if there is significant physical abuse between the spouses and/or their children --- and divorce is the only way to protect innocent lives (or their physical health).  Christian charity demands that in such extreme cases one does what is possible for the protection of innocents.  In such cases, all Christians (including the Orthodox Christians) would have allowances for separation, and even civil divorce if that is the only way to secure important legal rights --- such as child support, etc.  But in the eyes of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches the civil divorce has no effect in the "mystical" marriage itself.  Where the Catholic Church parts ways with the Orthodox Church is in the latter's allowing of remarriage.

So, a partial answer as to why the Orthodox allow divorce: as a precursor to remarriage --- which they have historically allowed, even if grudgingly; as necessary for self-protection --- just like the Catholic Church --- for sure; and what else?  I am sure they would have jurisprudence on what other circumstances would count as serious enough to break the visible union of husband and wife (even if not the sacramental marriage bond between them).


Is there a generally accepted term for "Christians in Communion with the Bishop of Rome"? Roman Catholic is a title given to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

By this definition, therefore, the term Roman Catholic explicitely excludes the Eastern Rites of the Church, even though these are fully part of the same religion, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, and are distinguished only by a different structure to their prayers and services. They have the same beliefs. However, the Anglican Ordinarates, which also have a different liturgical calendar and worship structure, nonetheless count as part of the Latin Rite (and therefore, presumably, as Roman Catholic):

While the personal ordinariates preserve a certain corporate identity of Anglicans received into the Catholic Church, they are canonically within the Latin Church and share the same theological emphasis and in this way differ from the Eastern Catholic churches, which are autonomous particular churches.

Hmm. So what is a generic term for this religion? We can’t call it simply Catholicism, because that has a broader meaning, including Christians who definitely do not accept the authority of the Pope:

I am an Anglican. Specifically, I am an Anglo-Catholic, which means that I believe the Anglican Church is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that its threefold ministry is the threefold ministry of the Catholic Church, and that I am just as Catholic as you are. If you say “Catholics believe the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra”, I’m going to be in the corner with my hand in the air jumping up and down shouting “excuse me, I don’t”.

We seem to have come to an impasse.
Wikipedia resolves the impasse by saying that Roman Catholic is not in fact a synonym of Latin Rite Catholic.

Catholic Church most often refers to:

The Roman Catholic Church, i.e. the Latin Rite (Western) and the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope)
Those churches which, collectively, claim apostolic origins and historical traditions of Catholicism, but not necessarily in the Roman tradition, including the Orthodox and Anglican churches
Most broadly, the Christian Church in general (in English the uncapitalized form of “catholic” is used in this sense; this is the sense that some attach to the phrase in the Apostles’ Creed)

By this definition, the Roman Catholic Church includes both the Eastern and Western branches of the church in communion with the Pope. This contradicts the opening quote. It also gives us an answer to the question: Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome are Roman Catholics. This makes sense, but is it how the language is actually used? Certainly Peter Turner seems to disagree: he uses the term differently. Perhaps a well-referenced dictionary would be the best source for this. I certainly wouldn’t take the Wikipedia definition as definite fact, not least because it’s hotly disputed on the article’s talk page.
For what it’s worth, Collins gives:

Roman Catholic Church: the Christian Church over which the pope presides, with administrative headquarters in the Vatican Also called: Catholic Church, Church of Rome
Catholic Church:

short for Roman Catholic Church
any of several Churches claiming to have maintained continuity with the ancient and undivided Church

This seems unhelpful.

Perhaps a bit of history concerning the label "Roman Catholic" will serve us well by shedding light upon (if not answering) this very good question.

The term "Roman Catholic" appears to be directly connected to the Reformation in England, and was originally an imposed derogatory term of condescension.

The Catholic Encyclopedia references the Oxford English Dictionary:

  In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority
  upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is
  given under the heading "Roman Catholic".

  The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist,
  or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have
  arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory
  reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish
  Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this
  printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally
  adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized
  legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone
  is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

One of the earliest appearances of the term "Roman Catholic" is in a book written by Robert Crowley called "A Deliberat Answere", printed in 1588. Though preferring to use the terms "Romish Catholike" or "Popish Catholike", he also writes of those "who wander with the Romane Catholiques in the uncertayne hypathes of Popish devises" (p. 86). A study of these and other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic. In Germany, Luther had omitted the word Catholic from the Creed, but this was not the case in England.

It is noteworthy that by the 17th century the label of "Roman Catholic," although a term of condescension, began to be subordinately accepted by both the Catholic clergy, as well as the laity, most prevalantly in heavily persecuted Ireland.

  ...[T]he use of the term Roman Catholic continued to be a mark
  of condescension, and language of much more uncomplimentary character
  was usually preferred. It was perhaps to encourage a friendlier
  attitude in the authorities that Catholics themselves henceforth began
  to adopt the qualified term in all official relations with the
  government. Thus the "Humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment,
  Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland" in
  1661, began "We, your Majesty's faithful subjects the Roman Catholick
  clergy of Ireland".

Up until the turn of the 20th century, Catholic clergy were "strongly advised" to maintain the official title of "Roman Catholic" for the sake of separation from the Church of England.

  In 1897 at the Diamond Jubilee of the accession of Queen Victoria, and
  again in 1901 when Edward VII succeeded to the throne, the Catholic
  episcopate desired to present addresses, but on each occasion it was
  intimated to the cardinal that the only permissible style would be
  "the Roman Catholic Archbishop and Bishops in England". Even the form
  "the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Catholic and Roman Church
  in England" was not approved. On the first occasion no address was
  presented, but in 1901 the requirements of the Home Secretary as to
  the use of the name "Roman Catholics" were complied with, though the
  cardinal reserved to himself the right of explaining subsequently on
  some public occasion the sense in which he used the words (see
  Snead-Cox, "Life of Cardinal Vaughan", II, 231-41). Accordingly, at
  the Newcastle Conference of the Catholic Truth Society (Aug., 1901)
  the cardinal explained clearly to his audience that "the term Roman
  Catholic has two meanings; a meaning that we repudiate and a meaning
  that we accept." The repudiated sense was that dear to many
  Protestants, according to which the term Catholic was a genus which
  resolved itself into the species Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Greek
  Catholic, etc. But, as the cardinal insisted, "with us the prefix
  Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply
  declaratory of Catholic." The prefix in this sense draws attention to
  the unity of the Church, and "insists that the central point of
  Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter."

All things considered, I believe its safe to say that all English speaking countries refer to Christians in union with the Pope (both Eastern and Western) as "Roman Catholics" mainly because of the trickled down term that has been imposed on papal subordinates by the British Crown.

Of course there are many other reasons...

Long story short - the Reformation complicated things terminologically for English speaking Christians, as with many other aspects within Christianity.

  It is noteworthy that the representative Anglican divine, Bishop
  Andrewes, in his "Tortura Torti" (1609) ridicules the phrase Ecclesia
  Catholica Romana as a contradiction in terms. "What," he asks, "is the
  object of adding 'Roman'? The only purpose that such an adjunct can
  serve is to distinguish your Catholic Church from another Catholic
  Church which is not Roman"

I would like to reiterate that, although this may not answer your question satisfactorily, it may at least shed some light...

Personal experience/opinion...

I wish the label of Roman Catholic would be done away with altogether. I remember the first time I encountered this term. I was going through confirmation (around the mid '90s) and had only been taught by friends, family, and fellow parishioners that we were all simply "Catholics." I attended a youth retreat with thousands of other teenagers. I noticed someone wearing a shirt that said "Proud to be a Roman Catholic." I asked my youth leader, "What is a Roman Catholic?" He responded, "Well I guess it is just an emphasis on the fact that the Pope is our Pope and he happens to be the Bishops of Rome. Maybe that shirt is to signify to Protestants that he is marked by the Anti-Christ." (He was joking of course)

The label is self contradictory. If what we say is true...that the Church is all inclusive...then we shouldn't confuse people by clinging to an archaic label that was forced upon us in the first place. Perhaps "Petrine Catholics" or something of that nature would be more fitting. This question should not exist.

Maybe we should all write a letter to his Holiness suggesting a better label for the world to recognize.


Who is the author referred to in the Pope's 4 April 2014 homily? I'll keep my question short. Does anyone know to whom Pope Francis was referring in today's homily, when he discussed an author whose books were initially banned by the Church, but now this person is celebrated as Blessed?

  Many thinkers in the Church were persecuted, as well. I think of one, now, at this moment, not so far from us: a man of good will, a prophet indeed, who, in his writings reproached the Church for having lost the way of the Lord. He was summoned in short order, his books were placed on the index [the list of works that were banned or restricted to experts because of their problematic, erroneous and even heretical content], they took away his teaching positions – and thus, this man’s life ended – and it was not so long ago. [Now] time has passed, and today he is Blessed. How is it, though, that he, who yesterday was a heretic, is today a Blessed of the Church? It is because yesterday, those who had power wanted to silence him because they did not like what he was saying. Today the Church, who, thanks be to God knows repent, says, ‘No, this man is good!’. Moreover, he is on the way to sainthood: He is a Blessed.

Homily in Santa Marta, 4 April 2014

I don't know for sure who the Pope meant, since he did not give very many clues, but I think he was referring to Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (1797-1855). His writings criticising the church were placed on the Index during his lifetime, but he was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007. The biography fits the way that Pope Francis describes events, with the possible exception of "not so long ago", depending on how wry he was being (and of course, from the point of view of Church history, it's comparatively recent).
A decree of Pius IX on 30 May 1849, reproduced here as a supplement to an 1841 edition of the Index, lists:

Delle cinque piaghe della Santa Chiesa trattato dedicato al Clero Cattolico etiam con Appendice di due lettere sulla elezione de'Vescovi e Clero e Popolo.
La Costituzione secondo la Giustizia sociale, con una appendice sulla unità d'Italia.
-- Di Antonio Rosmini Serbati. Decret. 30 Maii 1849. Auctor laudabiliter se subjecit.

That Latin remark at the end commends Rosmini for submitting to the listing of his books. The same books are listed in the 1900 recension; I haven't tried to trace the history any more closely than that.
These works carry the English titles Of the five wounds of the Holy Church and The Constitution of Social Justice respectively. Wikipedia summarizes the first as follows:

Of the Five Wounds of the Holy Church presupposes an analogy between the Holy Wounds suffered by the Lord's natural Body pierced on the cross, and His mystical body, the Church, pierced by the sins and errors of men in the ages of Christian history.
The five main evils of his contemporary Italian Church correspond, in Rosmini's view, to the five wounds of the hands, feet, and side of the Divine Redeemer. Beginning with the wound in Jesus' left hand, he likens it to the lack of sympathy between the clergy and people in the act of public worship, which he sees as a result of a lack of adequate Christian evangelical teaching. This is to be accounted for by the wound in the right hand — the insufficient education of the clergy, their secularisation and their alienation from scripture and their bishops. This again was both caused and perpetuated by the great wound in the side, which pierced the Heart of the Divine Sufferer, and which Rosmini sees as a parallel for the divisions among the Bishops, separating them from one another, and also from their clergy and people, forgetting their true union in the Body of Christ. The wound of the right foot is compared to the civil power of the Bishops making them into worldly schemers and politicians, more or less intent on selfish interests. The wound of the left foot is compared to events of the feudal period, when the freehold tenures of the Church were treated as fiefs by an overlord, or suzerain, who saw in the chief pastors of the flock of Christ only a particular variety of vassals or dependants.

As indicated above, Rosmini's contested reputation was eventually rehabilitated. Some recent documents of interest:

Note on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and Work of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1 July 2001. Cardinal Ratzinger of course became Pope Benedict XVI, and was the one to declare Rosmini to be Venerable and later Blessed.
Homily of Cardinal José Saraiva Martins at the Mass for Rosmini's beatification, 18 November 2007.

Aside from the clear continuing interest on the part of Benedict XVI, it's interesting to speculate whether Pope Francis might have found something appealing to him in Rosmini's writings, on social justice and the reform of the church.