Has there ever existed a Catholic local church feast at Rome in honor of the Domine Quo Vadis? The Church of St. Mary in Palmis at Rome, originally was called the Church of Domine Quo Vadis. The title of this church takes its' name from a pious tradition that St. Peter one day decided to leave Rome because of the persecutions. As he was leaving the city Jesus appeared to Peter. The apostle then asked Jesus, "Where are you going" (Domine quo vadis)? To which Jesus responded, "To Rome to be crucified again!" After this courage was restored to St Peter and he returned to Rome. Has there ever been a feast celebrated in the honor of this pious legend?

Traditionally, if a Local Church has a particular title to it, it should have a feast day associated with it!

Quo vadis? (on Wikipedia)
Church of Domine quo vadis (on Wikipedia)

Has there ever existed a Catholic local church feast at Rome in honor of the Domine Quo Vadis?
This is going to be answer by way of deduction, rather than one supported by an actual source. It should perhaps have been put in the comments, but it would be too long.
Some time ago I asked this question: What date to place the patronal feast day of St. Mary’s Church? Geremia‘s answer truly fit the bill.

Your hunch "that it is the Feast of the Assumption" appears correct, at least according to
Rev. W. J. Wiseman, “The Titular Feast,” The Pastor 3, no. 5 (March 1885): 129–36.
In the § "Practical Directions" (p. 131), he writes:

Blessed Virgin is a general title. […]
(a) If the titulus is simply B. M. V., the titular feast is to be celebrated on the feast of the Assumption, where everything remains as now in the Ordo.

Given that fact that churches dedicated to the Virgin Mary with any fixed date for a patronal feast day are to be that of her Assumption.
It seems logical that the feast day for the Church of Domine Quo Vadis would be that of the major feast day of St. Peter on June 29 (his martyrdom): Feast of Saints Peter and Paul.
Seeing that there is also a direct link to this episode and the martyrdom of the Prince of the Apostles, it again makes sense that it patronal feast day was June 29, until the title of the church changed and became Santa Maria in Palmis.

Chiesa del Domine Quo Vadis is a tiny church near the start of the Appian Way. It was built on the site where St. Peter saw a vision of Jesus while St. Peter was fleeing the persecution of Nero in Rome. Peter asked Jesus, "Lord, where are you going?" (latin: Domine quo vadis?). Jesus answered "I am going to Rome to be crucified again." Peter returned to Rome, where he was crucified in about 64 AD by the emperor Nero in the Circus of Nero, which became the site of St. Peter's Basilica. Inside the nave of the Domine Quo Vadis church, you can see a stone with the footprints of Jesus worn into it. - Domine Quo Vadis

The story seems more legendary than fact, but it remains a sacred place for many pilgrims in Rome.

Church of Domine Quo Vadis?*
Chiesa di Santa Maria in Palmis, better known as Chiesa del Domine Quo Vadis is a small Church southeast of Rome. It is located about 800 m from St. Sebastian Gate (Porta San Sebastiano), where theVia Ardeatina branches off the Appian Way.
There has been a sanctuary on the spot since the 9th century, but the current church is from 1637. The current façade was added in the 17th century.
It has been supposed that the sanctuary might have been even more ancient, perhaps a Christian version of some already existing temple: the church is in fact located just in front of the sacred Campus dedicated to Rediculum, the "God of the return" (his name comes from the Latin verb redeo = to come back); this campus hosted a sanctuary for the cult of the god, that received devotion by travellers before their departure, specially by those who were going to face long and dangerous journeys, towards far places like Egypt, Greece or the East (and the travellers who returned, always stopped to thank the god of the happy outcome of the journey).
The position of the sanctuary in Campus Rediculi was not accidental, first of all because the ancient Appian way was the most important among the Roman "consular" roads, secondarily because from this location the traveller could give the last look to the walls of Rome. In the sacred field there was also the tomb of a famous talking crow, buried at the time of emperor Tiberius with a great popular funeral. Besides, the god Rediculum had a terrible reputation: a legend remembers that Hannibal, after the Battle of Cannae, arrived in front of the doors of Rome following this road; here the god appeared to him in a frightful way, in order to suggest retreating with all his army. This legend lets us suppose that Romans held Rediculum in deep consideration. At the moment we still do not know with precision where exactly the sanctuary was; however an error by some authors of 17th century caused many commonly to think still today that the temple of Rediculum was the sepulchre also said to be of Annia Regilla, toward the inner side of the Caffarella park.
The presence of the Apostle Peter in this area, where he is supposed to have lived, should however find a confirmation in an epigraph in the catacombs of Saint Sebastian, that recites "Domus Petri" (house of Peter) and in an epigram by Pope Damasus I (366-384), in honor of Peter and Paul, in which we can read: "You that are looking for the names of Peter and Paul, You must know that the saints have lived here".
The two footprints on a marble slab at the center of the church (copy of a relief conserved in the near basilica of San Sebastiano) would be the miraculous sign left by Jesus: it is actually a draft of an "ex voto" paid for the good outcome of a travel, what would confirm the supposition that some connection might link the two temples.
The real name of the church, very little known, indeed, is Chiesa di Santa Maria in Palmis, where palmis stands for the soles of Jesus.
It has to be noted that the Roman Catholic Church admits the legend, after Pope Innocent III declared the fact was true; his decree is included in the Decretali di Gregorio IX book IV, tit. 17, cap. Per Venerabilem.
There was an inscription above the front door on the façade, saying: "Stop your walking, traveller, and enter this sacred temple in which you will find the footprint of our Lord Jesus Christ when He met with St. Peter who escaped from the prison. An elemosina for the wax and the oil is recommended in order to free some spirits from Purgatory". Pope Gregory XVI found it so inappropriate (effectively being a sort of advertising) that he ordered its removal in 1845.
In 1983 Pope John Paul II defined the church "a place that has a special importance in the history of Rome and in the history of the Church".

About the foot prints of Our Lord and the in Palmis of the title change:

The church of the “Domine Quo Vadis” is one of the first churches located on the Via Appia Antica, about 800 meters beyond Porta San Sebastiano. The Church has medieval origins, but was rebuilt in 1600. It takes its name from the oral tradition according to which the apostle Peter, fleeing from the city to avoid martyrdom, meets Jesus to whom he addresses the following words “Domine quo vadis (Lord, where are you going)?” And the Lord replied “Venio Romam iterum crucifigi (I am coming to Rome to be crucified again)”. Peter, aware of the rebuke, turns back to face his destiny and Jesus disappears but, in disappearing, he leaves the impressions of his footprints on the road.
As evidence of the incident, within the Church there is a stone with the imprints “of His holy feet”,  left by Jesus precisely on the site where the Church now stands. The stone is actually a copy: the original is in fact preserved in the Basilica of San Sebastiano. The second name with which the church is known: Santa Maria “in Palmis” derives from this episode. - “DOMINE QUO VADIS” - SANTA MARIA “IN PALMIS”

In the Early Church only Martyrs were honoured as saints. For this reason the original title of All Saints Day was Sancta Maria ad Martyres. This is in a sense reflected in the title of Sancta Maria ad Palmis.


Does the Catholic Church teach that we can choose when to use an indulgence? Let's say you've done what is necessary to get an indulgence, but you're pretty clean most of the time and want to use it only after having accumulated a significant amount of venial sins.

Whether it be asking priests to activate it at a certain point in time or even being given the authority to activate it yourself when you see fit, could you choose when to use an indulgence?

Maybe you're on some kind of trip and you can't take the Eucharist, but need the spiritual assistance. Of course, extraordinary grace is out of the question; that would be too easy for this scenario.

Can we choose when to use an indulgence?

The short answer is no.

Here is the thing: Indulgences are applied to the soul at the moment that all the requirements of gaining a particular indulgence (partial or plenary)  are accomplished.

  The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power." - Myths about Indulgences

What an indulgence is not:

  It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject. - Catholic Encyclopedia

Here are a few points on indulgences from the Vatican:

  To gain indulgences, whether plenary or partial, it is necessary that the faithful be in the state of grace at least at the time the indulgenced work is completed.

  A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day. In order to obtain it, the faithful must, in addition to being in the state of grace:

  — have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin;

  — have sacramentally confessed their sins;

  — receive the Holy Eucharist (it is certainly better to receive it while participating in Holy Mass, but for the indulgence only Holy Communion is required);

  — pray for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff. - THE GIFT OF THE INDULGENCE.

Now if the faithful have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin there is no reason to save up points for a rainy day since they are in earnest about remaining in the state of grace at all times.


Is punishment for sins forgiven by baptism? (Catholic perspective) After reading this question there is a notion that after the baptism of an adult person all sins are forgiven even all the punishments.

In the sacrament of penance, our sins are also forgiven but not our punishment. We still need to do reparation for our sins. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm

Are the people who were baptized still required to do penance for their sins they committed before baptism? Does the baptism remove the punishment for sin too? Like indulgences remove all or partial punishment. Does the baptism remove all punishments and allow a person enter heaven directly if dies right away?

There is a story of a bad mafia guy who converts on deathbed and gets baptized. I heard that is believed he went directly to heaven which means all punishments were forgiven through the baptism. Is this the catholic teaching?

Yes, baptism removes all punishment for sin.  If a person died immediately after baptism they would enter heaven directly without a need for purification in purgatory.  They would not be required to do penance.  From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.


How do I clean, iron and fold purificators? I have taken on Sacristan duties at an Anglican place of worship. What are the best techniques for cleaning, ironing and folding purificators - the clothes used to wipe the chalices/cups when wine is served at Holy Communion/the Lord's Supper/the Mass?

Here is a traditional Catholic way of looking after altar linens.

  Purificator

  The size of purificators are generally 12″ x 12″ with an embroidered center cross. Purificators are folded in thirds and placed over the chalice and under the paten. These small linens are the most frequently laundered of all the linens in liturgical use. Purificators are used to clean out the chalice and paten after communion. Purificators are washed preferably by hand in the Sacristry following the service.

Here are some instruction for washing altar linens by Sr. Mary of the Visitation. I am putting down those pertaining to purificators only.

  WHAT YOU WILL NEED

  Your own washer and dryer.

  An ironing board and iron. It’s easier to work with a full sized ironing board, but a smaller, table top ironing board is sufficient. You don’t need any special features with your iron. The iron only needs to heat to a linen setting, usually the hottest setting.

  A container large enough to hold all of the purificators and corporals to presoak these items. I use two small, square dish washing tubs, placing one in each side of my kitchen sink.

  A drying rack for air drying the linens after they’ve been ironed. The drying rack should be able to hold up to thirty folded purificators, each about four inches wide.

  SEPARATE AND PRESOAK PURIFICATORS AND CORPORALS

  My preference is to first, separate the hand towels, dish cloths and dish towels from the purificators and corporals. The hand towels, dish cloth and towels can be set aside until you’ve finished the next two steps.

  The linens need to be presoaked to allow all crumbs and remnants of the Precious Body and Blood of Christ to dissolve into the water. During the presoak and removal of the linens from the presoak water, you need to be very careful not to spill or splash this water around, because it contains the Precious Body and Blood of Christ. Because this is the True Presence of Christ this water must be handled carefully and disposed of properly. DO NOT allow this water to spill, splash around or run down any household drain!

  Place the purificators and corporals together in your container to
  presoak. Fill the container with water, hot, warm or cold,
  whichever you prefer. Allow the linens to soak for at least ten
  minutes. The purple stains will disappear if the linens are allowed
  to soak for 90 minutes or more. If you aren’t able to allow them to
  soak for this long, you can remove the purple stains at a later step.
  After the presoak, remove and wring as much water as possible
  out of each linen, being very careful to let the water fall back into
  the container, not run down a drain. Place the linens into another
  container. At this point, I place them into one side of my kitchen
  sink.

  After all of the linens have been removed from the water, this water must be taken and poured out onto the ground outside. Regardless of rain, snow, ice or other weather, this water must be poured out onto the ground outside.

  LAUNDERING THE LINENS AND TOWELS

  Once you have completed the presoak and put soap onto any stains, the purificators and corporals can be combined with the hand towels, dish cloths and dish towels. All of the laundry can then be washed in your washing machine, just as you would do your own laundry, using hot, warm or cold water.

  At the end of the wash cycle, the hand towels, dish cloths and towels may all be placed into the dryer. The purificators and corporals are taken directly from the washer to be ironed while still wet. After drying, the hand towels, dish cloths and towels are folded in any way that you like to fold such items. They can be placed back into the same bag sor container you used to bring them home.

  Ironing Purificators

  Place the purificator flat onto the ironing board, face down. Iron out all of the wrinkles and creases. The moisture from washing will provide steam and make this step easier than if the purificator were dry. If your washer spins out most of the water, you may want to add water to the purificators before ironing. More moisture makes ironing more effective. The purificators may also lose moisture as they wait to be ironed. They will iron more easily if you rewet them. Once the purificator is ironed flat, fold opposite edges inward lengthwise, folding the linen into equal thirds. Try to fold so that each
  edge lines up with the fold that you are making, as shown in the pictures on the next page. Iron these folds into crisp creases. Then fold the corporal in half, neatly aligning the ends. Iron this crease firmly into place. Set the purificator aside, stacking them as you go, or place the purificator directly onto your drying rack to dry overnight, or for at least an hour or so to be sure they are completely dry.

  Folding purificators

  First, folding lengthwise into even thirds. Then folding in half. When done, all of the hems should be hidden inside the folds.

For more detailed information on a very traditional Catholic way of washing linens for the liturgical service, you can find some help here: INSTRUCTIONS FOR LAUNDERING ALTAR LINENS.


Is civil divorce OK for Catholics, are there mitigating circumstances? This is not a pastoral advice question, I'm happily married.  I just really don't know the answer to this question to help a friend, so I guess it's pastoral pastoral advice, but I definitely don't want a 'try to work it out' answer, just the facts please.

Sacramental marriage cannot be undone by civil divorce, that much is clear from scripture and Church teaching. However, what does civil divorce mean for the sacramental marriage?

If it is OK, what factors should a person take into account when forming their consciences to up and leave (for instance there could be a case where the laws in a particular region require someone to serve divorce papers in order leave their spouse with their kids and not be accused of kidnapping them) and if it is not OK then what recourse does one have to protect themselves and their children against their spouse, that does not constitute a grave sin?

As usual the Catholic Encyclopedia is helpful here.

  The Catholic doctrine on divorce may be summed up in the following
  propositions:

In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ
Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never
be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been
consummated;
Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute
divorce under certain circumstances in favour of the Faith;
Separation from
bed and board (divortium imperfectum) is allowed for various causes,
especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy
on the part of husband or wife.

I would take that last part to indicate that if the marriage is unlivable in (for example if there is violence or other abuse), then civil separation is a viable option. In most jurisdictions civil separation does not need to be followed by a divorce - I have known people who lived in a state of separation for decades. The only practical difference is that a separated person cannot remarry. As I'm sure you are aware, sacramental marriages can be annuled.


Did Judas Iscariot know that Jesus would be killed when he turned Jesus over to the Pharisees? The scriptures show that Judas betrayed Jesus, but did he positively know what the outcome was to be? Even the apostles did not understand fully what Jesus was trying to teach them.

References: Luke 22:3,4 | Acts 1:6,7

It is difficult to believe that Judas Iscariot would not have known the priests intended to have Jesus killed. After all, their willingness to pay thirty silver coins, a small fortune at a time when peasants generally only used the lesser bronze coins, was clear evidence of foul intent.

However, Matthew's Gospel portrays Judas as suffering considerable remorse after the death of Jesus, suggesting that he might not have known that this would be the outcome of his betrayal:

  Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.  And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
  Matthew 27:3-5

On the other hand, Acts of the Apostles shows Judas as well pleased with himself, using the blood money to buy a farm, although by misadventure he was unable to enjoy the fruits of his betrayal. Since he displays complete unconcern that Jesus had been crucified, we could say that in this account, Judas was also unconcerned at the time of the betrayal whether this would be the outcome, whether or not he knew:

  Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
  Acts 1:18


Is there consensus between Christian commentators about how Jesus came to be atop the temple when being tempted by Satan in the wilderness? After his baptism we read that Jesus went off into the wilderness fasting for 40 days and being tempted by the devil.
Matthew 4:1-11 NIV:

  1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
  4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
  5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
  He will command his angels concerning you,  and they will lift you up in their hands,
      so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
  7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
  8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
  10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”
  11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

For this temptation to hold to the pattern of a man being tested the danger of a deadly fall would need to be a reality.
What explanations do Christian commentators offer for how Jesus came to be standing atop the temple during this temptation?

To answer the question from a Jehovah's Witnesses perspective, this question was asked by a reader of the Watchtower, and it was answered in the following way in the March 2016 study edition of the Watchtower "Questions From Readers" section:

Did Satan physically take Jesus to the temple when tempting him?
Put simply, we cannot be certain whether Jesus actually stood in the temple or he did so only by means of a vision. At times, both possibilities have been presented in our publications.
Consider first what the Bible record says. In his Gospel account of this event, the apostle Matthew was inspired to write: “Then the Devil took him [Jesus] along into the holy city, and he stationed him on the battlement  of the temple.” (Matt. 4:5) Luke’s parallel account puts it this way: “He then led him into Jerusalem and stationed him on the battlement of the temple.
Some have stated that, as a non-Levite, Jesus was not authorized to stand on top of the temple sanctuary. So it was assumed that Jesus may have been ‘taken along’ to the temple by means of a vision. That is similar to what happened centuries earlier to the prophet Ezekiel.—Ezek. 8:3, 7-10; 11:1, 24; 37:1, 2.
However, if this temptation occurred only in the form of a vision, the following questions arise:

Was the temptation real or imaginary?
If the other temptations were efforts to lure Jesus into carrying out physical actions such as turning literal stones into bread or performing a real act of worship before Satan, would not this temptation have been similar—requiring Jesus physically to jump from the temple?

On the other hand, if Jesus did stand physically on the battlement of the temple, other questions arise:

Did Jesus violate the Law by standing on top of the sanctuary?
How did Jesus get from the wilderness to Jerusalem?

Further research helps us to see some possibilities that may answer these last two questions.
First, Professor D. A. Carson notes that the Greek word hi·e·ron’, translated “temple” in both accounts, “probably refers to the entire complex, not the sanctuary itself.” So Jesus would not necessarily have had to stand on top of the sanctuary itself. He could have stood, for example, on the southeastern corner of the temple area. From that location, there was a drop of some 450 feet (137 m) to the floor of the Kidron Valley. The southeast structure had a flat roof with a parapet and was the highest in the temple. The ancient historian Josephus stated that if a person stood there and looked down, he “would become dizzy” because of the height. As a non-Levite, Jesus would have been allowed to stand in that location, and his doing so would not have caused any commotion.
But how could Jesus have been taken along to the temple when he was in the wilderness? The basic answer is that we cannot know for certain. The brief description of the temptations does not state how long a period was involved or where Jesus was in the wilderness. We cannot rule out the possibility that Jesus may have walked back to Jerusalem, even though doing so may have taken some time. The account does not specifically say that Jesus remained in the wilderness throughout the time of the temptations. Rather, it merely says that he was taken into Jerusalem.
What, though, of the temptation wherein Jesus was shown “all the kingdoms of the world”? Obviously, he did not literally see all the kingdoms; there is no literal mountain from which all of them can be seen. So Satan may have used some sort of vision to show these to Jesus, similar to the way a projector and a screen can be used to show someone pictures of various places on earth. However, although a vision may have been used, the “act of worship” would have been real, not imaginary. (Matt. 4:8, 9) It could be argued, then, that the temptation to jump off the battlement of the temple involved a real action with real consequences—adding a greater seriousness to this temptation than would be the case were it a mere vision.

The Jehovah's Witnesses position on the question seems to agree with other religious commentaries on the subject. Basically, we can't say for certain that this temptation actually happened atop the temple or not, but it is certain that, as was the case in the other 2 temptations, Jesus would have had to take some real action that would have been contrary to almighty God's purpose and would have constituted a sin. We can be inspired by the fact that Jesus was able to conquer the Devil on each occasion.


Meaning of 1 Peter 4:17 According to Calvinists 1 Peter 4:16-18 (ESV) Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And “If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”1

A few things there should be no meaningful contention over:

"Judgement" refers to punishment here ('if judgement ... then how much more ... [evil people]')
He does not say that it is scarcely true that anyone is ever saved (for example), but, specifically, it is scarcely true that the righteous are saved.
"Scarcely" corresponds to the implied "definitely not" of "the ungodly," whence we know that "scarcely" means 'with great difficulty; unlikely.'

Question

How do Calvinists interpret this passage, which claims that the righteous will "scarcely" be saved, if God elects people unconditionally, and works (read: anything on the part of the man) cannot endanger a man's salvation who has been saved ("the righteous")? (After all, it cannot be that God can/would have difficulty saving someone.)

(The Catholic interpretation, e.g., would say one can be righteous, like Adam, and choose not-God at any time after being saved from their sin.)

(If you dispute any of these rather neutral observations, please ask for clarification in the comments, rather than answering, please!)

Thanks in advance.

1 St. Peter is alluding to/paraphrasing/adapting Proverbs 11:31 which concerns the retribution God gives for workers of evil, yet "all the more" to the wicked, who are defined by their sin. He then ties it in (γαρ "for") with "[salvation]."

From Calvin's Commentary on the Bible:

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/1-peter/4-18.html#cal

I have bolded relevant passages.

  When the faithful see that it is well with the wicked, they are
  necessarily tempted to be envious; and this is a very dangerous trial;
  for present happiness is what all desire. Hence the Spirit of God
  carefully dwells on this, in many places, as well as in the
  thirty-seventh Psalm, lest the faithful should envy the prosperity of
  the ungodly. The same is what Peter speaks of, for he shews that
  afflictions ought to be calmly borne by the children of God, when they
  compare the lot of others with their own. But he takes it as granted
  that God is the judge of the world, and that, therefore, no one can
  escape his hand with impunity. He hence infers, that a dreadful
  vengeance will soon overtake those whose condition seems now
  favorable. The design of what he says, as I have already stated, is to
  shew that the children of God should not faint under the bitterness of
  present evils, but that they ought, on the contrary, calmly to bear
  their afflictions for a short time, as the issue will be salvation,
  while the ungodly will have to exchange a fading and fleeting
  prosperity for eternal perdition.

  But the argument is from the less to the greater; for if God spares
  not his own children whom he loves and who obey him, how dreadful will
  be his severity against enemies and such as are rebellious! There is,
  then, nothing better than to obey the Gospel, so that God may kindly
  correct us by his paternal hand for our salvation.

  18 And if the righteous It has been thought that this sentence is taken
  from Proverbs 11:31; for the Greek translators have thus rendered what
  Solomon says,

  “Behold, the just shall on the earth be recompensed; how much more the
  ungodly and the sinner?”

  Now, whether Peter intended to quote this passage, or repeated a
  common and a proverbial saying, (which seems to me more probable,)
  (51) the meaning is, that God’s judgment would be dreadful against the
  ungodly, since the way to salvation was so thorny and difficult to the
  elect. And this is said, lest we should securely indulge ourselves,
  but carefully proceed in our course, and lest we should also seek the
  smooth and easy road, the end of which is a terrible precipice.

  But when he says, that a righteous man is scarcely saved, he refers to
  the difficulties of the present life, for our course in the world is
  like a dangerous sailing between many rocks, and exposed to many
  storms and tempests; and thus no one arrives at the port, except he
  who has escaped from [a] thousand deaths. It is in the meantime
  certain that we are guided by God’s hand, and that we are in no danger
  of shipwreck as long as we have him as our pilot.

  Absurd, then, are those interpreters who think that we shall be hardly
  and with difficulty saved, when we shall come before God in judgment;
  for it is the present and not the future time that Peter refers to;
  nor does he speak of God’s strictness or rigour, but shews how many
  and what arduous difficulties must be surmounted by the Christian
  before he reaches the goal. Sinner here means a wicked man (52) and
  the righteous are not those who are altogether perfect in
  righteousness, but who strive to live righteously.


If I steal money, what does the forgiveness of Jesus cover? I steal money from someone. I ask for Jesus for forgiveness. I receive forgiveness (yet keep the money).

What happens to the person I took the money from?

Do I make out with forgiveness from God, and money from the other person? Are they just out some money?

True repentance involves repairing damages done (where possible). In this case, it would mean returning the money.

  Leviticus 6:2-7 (KJV)

  2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;

  3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:

  4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,

  5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.

  6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:

  7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.

If you don't return the money then you haven't truly repented.

Notice Numbers 5:7 even suggests you should return more than you take.

  Then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed.

See also Ezekiel 33:15, Luke 19:8.


Do Priests, Cardinals, and Popes have a confessional to which they themselves can/should/must go? The confessional is a standard practice of the Roman Catholic Church where church members may (or must) go to confess their sins to a priest.  As I understand it, the priest then decides whether or not the person's sins will be forgiven and, if so, what is required of the person in order for that to take place.

However, it seems that priests themselves are subject to sin like anyone else.  So, I'm wondering if the Catholic Church has confessionals to which priests may or must regularly attend.  Also, do Cardinals attend confessionals, and then lastly, does the Pope himself ever confess his sins to anyone.  For priests, cardinals, and popes, who determines whether or not their sins will be forgiven and, if they will be, what they must do in order for that to occur?

Any priest, or any level of priest, can hear confession from anyone.  A priest will go to another priest for confession.  Similarly, bishops, cardinals, and the pope can (and do) go to priests for confession.  Apparently priests and the pope often have a specific confessor and are encouraged to visit him with "some regularity."

As for whether a priest can deny forgiveness, I can't find much information except that they can do it although it's apparently rare and usually only happens in cases where the person does the same thing repeatedly (like an ongoing affair).  I don't see any reason why a priest confessor to a cardinal/pope would not be able to deny forgiveness.


What is the difference of icon veneration between various Christian confessions? What is the difference of icon veneration between various Christian confessions?

It will be interesting to hear view of point from representative of each confession, and finally create comparative table of this act.

It seems, that most interesting and fuzzy difference is between east orthodox and catholic Christians. Furthermore, it seems that official doctrines of each confession can differ from how Christians of that confession really do veneration of the icons.

From catholic perspective, an icon is a symbol, nothing more. you do not pray to it, but ask for the intersession (of the depicted individual perhaps) for you.

@Andremoniy, I think there is already a lot of good summaries of this on the web, you can probably compile a smaller summary, and ask people to verify if it seems accurate to them.


How do Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 2:1? 2Pe 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
  2Pe 2:2  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

In 2 Peter 2:1 there are a group of people called false prophets who engaged in damnable heresies and deny the Lord but are also bought by the Lord. Most Arminians use this verse as an example of unsaved people who were purchased by the Lord. How does the Calvinist respond to that interpretation of this verse?

Calvinism relies heavily on the following statement:

  Grace (specifically the grace provided via Christ's death) is sufficient for the salvation of all, but it is efficient for the salvation of some.

This is essentially all that stands between Calvinism and Universalism. The idea behind Calvinism is that Christ's grace is so powerful that if one is elected the pull of this grace cannot be ignored. And once applied this grace is too powerful to be removed. That's Calvinism in a nutshell.

So the question ultimately comes down to: if we believe that Grace is more powerful than sin than what do we do with people who are "Bought" but don't stay. There are two conclusions that a Calvinist may come to

These folks were not among the elect and were instead people attracted to the church for some other reason. Their conversion was not true.
These folks are among the elect but have strayed from the path for a time, but will in fact return in full grace.

Doing a bit of research the Calvinist consensus here is that the subject of this passage is the first. These folks claim to be be bought by Christ but are in fact lying, and prove it by their false teachings:

  So to summarize the point here: false teachers are “saying” they are Christians, and “saying” they have been bought, but in fact are not bought at all. “Denying the sovereign Lord who bought them” is what they are saying about their lifestyle, though it is not true from the rest of the immediate context of the passage. The word “bought” means they are either saved (which we know false teachers are not saved so that cannot be the meaning of the passage) or they are “saying” they “they believe themselves to be saved” and ultimately are self-deceived. But it cannot mean that Christ bought them with His blood, and they reject that “offer” to eternal life.

This is far more consistent with the power, sufficiency and efficiency of grace than any other argument.


When did the LDS church start teaching that God the Father had a beginning? As per the question here "Why is God the Father referred to as "Eternal Father" in LDS writings when He is not believed to be eternal?" and in other places, it seems that the LDS church indeed teaches that God the Father had a beginning. When did the church start teaching this? Because for example in their addition to the scripture called the book of Moses, chapter 1 verse 3 states:

  " And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?"

I can't find the reference, but I also seem to recall somewhere in Joseph Smiths other writings where he stated something similar substituting endless for eternal. So when did they start saying that God the Father had a beginning, and have they tried to explain how that is not a contradiction to what their scripture says?

I'm new here. I see that this post has no answer by an actual LDS member, and those answers that are given are not really representative of our beliefs (due mostly to lack of familiarity with the beliefs in question). So even though this is late, I’m going to try to answer it.

First of all, we absolutely believe that God’s existence is eternal—as is the existence of all of us, and indeed just about everything that exists. Doctrine and Covenants 93:29 says “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” (emphasis added)

This reflects the LDS concept that there is a core part of us, called the intelligence, that God did not create and whose existence is eternal. See Abraham 3:22-25 (as well as a source I am about to quote) for more information on this concept.

Where you are confused is when we get to statements made by Joseph Smith that God the Father was not always God the Father. These ideas, as far as I know, were first presented in coherent form by Joseph in the King Follett Discourse, which he gave a few months before he died (the date is April 7, 1844). If you want to know what JS actually said about this, you can find the original text here (all right, it's not the original text, but we don't have the original text in its entirety):

First half

Second half

In your question, you're probably thinking about the following:

  "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another."

You can take this to imply that God has a beginning, but on the whole what Joseph Smith has to say refutes that idea. The following is a quote from the sermon that is sufficient for my purposes:

  “I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven…. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.

  The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.”

Here’s a summary to tie this all together. Yes, we believe that God is eternal. No, we do not believe that He was God in the sense that we know Him now during the first phase of His (eternal) existence.

A few notes at the end here. One is that President Joseph Fielding Smith explains this issue somewhat differently than I just did in Doctrines of Salvation, which is not official Church canon per se (and I don’t agree with all of it!), but it is a monumental work which touches almost every aspect of our doctrine. He argues that for us, God’s existence might as well be eternal, since this time when God was not God falls outside of our experience, and it is in that sense that the word “eternal” is used in our scriptures when referring to God. (Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1, Chapter 1, pp 9-12)

Another thing that should be noted is that Joseph Smith never had time to really expound on and clarify these ideas very well. As I already noted, he was dead within a few months of giving that sermon. So most of the commentary that you may hear on what he actually meant is probably wrong. It is LDS doctrine that men may become “gods” after being saved, but exactly what that entails (aside from the same personal perfection that the Father and the Son possess) is not really defined. And most authoritative statements by LDS leaders have tended to shy away (perhaps deliberately?) from clearly defining it. As John says, “Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2, KJV, emphasis added)

My very last note is that the question asks "When did the LDS church start teaching that God the Father had a beginning?" with the apparent connotation that, since there was a time when the LDS church did not teach this, that we're revising our doctrine. This is true, but not in the way that (it seems to me) it's implied. We believe that although Joseph Smith restored many important ideas about our relationship with God, as well as the authority to legitimately perform actions like baptism, our understanding of true doctrine is still necessarily incomplete, and is therefore undergoing a continuous process of revision. This was even more true in Joseph Smith's time than it is now. Articles of Faith 9 states: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (emphasis added)


What do the words Catholic and Protestant mean? Also, what is the history of use and what languages do they come from? Is it a fitting name today or is it outdated? How do the two relate to each other?

Catholic can have a few different meanings. It could refer to:

The Roman Catholic Church
Eastern Catholic churches in communion with the Pope
The universal church

The Nicene creed which is used in a lot of Christian churches that have broken away from the Roman Catholic church still say that they "believe in one holy and catholic". (note the lower case letter 'c' in catholic.) Catholic in this context does not refer to the Roman Catholic church, but to a holy Universal church.

Protestant refers to churches and/or individuals who call themselves Christians, but disagree with the Roman Catholic Church.

  The word 'Protestant' derives from the protests made by German princes
  at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. The Diet voted to end the
  toleration of those who followed the teachings of Martin Luther within
  Germany (source)

They generally follow the teachings of leaders of the reformation (e.g. Luther). They are called Protestant because they protested the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. The original Protestant movement came from within the Roman Catholic church. The teachings of the protestant movement disagree with Roman Catholicism and a number of the reformers were put to death because they taught these things.

Do these terms still fit today? I don't think this can be answered objectively, but I feel that they are still a correct fit. Mainstream Protestant denominations still hold to the Five Soli. From my understanding, these beliefs do not fit with the Roman Catholic church teachings and so Protestants are still protesting the Catholic Church


What is the scope of John 3:16? I have never heard of any verse more quoted and memorized than this one. Many people know it without knowing a single other thing about Christianity.* If there was one verse we don't need to quote in a post this would be it, but  here it is for reference anyway:

  John 3:16 (ESV)
  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

In fact you almost certainly didn't recognize those words since that's a new-ish translation. The one you memorized as a kid was probably NIV or KJV:

  John 3:16 (KJV)
  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

So what does it mean? Are there different interpretations or is the breadth of Christian tradition pretty much united on this one? Is the meaning so clear that people with no other context are able to understand it? Is it a secret code that you need a legend to understand?  Most specifically what is the scope of the concepts of love, belief, and the world in this verse?

* True story. I asked a guy one time if he'd read the Bible. His answer was quote: "Oh ya you mean like the John 3:16 thing? Ya I've heard of it." When pressed if he knew what what the three and the sixteen had to do with it, he was shocked to learn that it was just a fragment of a larger text.

OK, you wanna go deep?  Here we go.
From the Apostolic Bible:

Love
The word being translated as "loved" here is ἀγαπάω (agapao).
Definition from Strong's Concordance (25):

to love; in the NT usually the active love of God for his Son and his people, and the active love his people are to have for God, each other, and even enemies
to love, value, esteem, feel or manifest generous concern for, be faithful towards; to delight in, to set store upon,

World
The word being translated as "world" here is κόσμος (kosmos).
From Strong's Concordance (2889)

world: earth, world system, whole universe; adornment. In some contexts, the world is simply the place where people live, in other contexts (especially in John), the world is a system opposed to God

Interesting points:  kosmos can be translated as the "whole universe".  Also, note that in John it's considered a "system opposed to God" in some contexts.
Believe
The Apostolic Bible translates this as "trusting", as you can see.  The actual word is πιστεύω (pisteuo).
From Strongs (4100)

to believe, put one's faith in, trust, with an implication that actions based on that trust may follow; (pass.) entrust

(emphasis added)
This is the key that I think you might be looking for.  This isn't just as simple as saying "Yeah, I believe that Jesus died for me."  This is to "put one's faith in".  This is a more active belief.
Nonetheless, I believe that if someone truly has faith in Jesus that their life will be impacted by it.  That's what separates out shallow "belief" from deep "belief".  It's that deeper belief/faith/trust that is what God wants from us.


Why are Biblical names not translated? Why is in not common practice that Biblical translators also translate the names of characters?
I have found that translating Biblical names into English has added layers of depth to the stories.
Here are a few examples of my above claim:
Genesis 3:20 - KJV

"And Human (Adam) called his wife's name Source of Life (Eve); because she was the mother of all living."

Genesis 17:5 - KJV

"Neither shall thy name any more be called Exalted Father (Abram), but thy name shall be Father of Nations (Abraham); for a father of many nations have I made thee."

Genesis 32:28 - KJV

"And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Heel-grabber (Jacob), but He Who Contends With God (Israel): for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed."

John 3:28 - KJV

"Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Anointed One (Christ), but that I am sent before him."

Matthew 16:18 - KJV

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Rock (Peter), and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Which reads even better when paired with Matthew 7:24-25

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."

Because name forms in Hebrew, are not exactly the same as their literal counterparts, even if the names denote a phrase. Thus, it's not fitting to conflate phrase with name in the English (target language) translation of the Hebrew. Names are a special word in any language, and aren't the same as saying a phrase which denotes what the name is intended to. If not in form, then in syllabic emphasis - and thus in perception.
Case in point: Yahweh (יהוה) (as I tend to think, 'Yehowah'). The name of God is a form of the Hebrew verb "to be" (ehyeh) yet doesn't exactly translate to any particular first, second, or third person form, or tense,  of the verb. It is a name. "He who is" (arguably translated into Greek "ο ων").1
For example, you cite the name Eve (Hawwah). Yet, this would be thought of as neither "Life," nor literally  "Source of Life" (but something approximating a mixture of both) by native speakers of the Hebrew language, since it does not conform to normal verbal or noun forms of "Life." The name Hawwah was given to Eve because she is the mother of "all the living" (kol Haii), just as Yeshua is given to Jesus because "he shall save (yoshia) his people from their sins." It's not the word "Saviour," nor the verb "He shall save," yet conveys identity; even though the best meaning translation is "Saviour."
Thus it's not fitting to translate names into literal meanings where neither the target (e.g. English)  nor source (i.e. Hebrew) language conflates the two, because this betrays, rather than portays, the original language.

1 Cf. Wis. 13:1


What is the relationship between God the Father and the Holy Spirit? Jesus clearly identifies His relationship with God the Father; he is the “only begotten Son of the Father”.  What Biblical evidence do we have identifying the relationship between God the Father and the Holy Spirit?  How does the Bible differentiate the Holy Spirit from the Father?

1Jn 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

  Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

  Act 10:38  How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Let me introduce you to God as described in the New Testament by Jesus through John and Paul. So to start briefly with 1st John 5 and Acts 10. In John 5 we see the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit all called God or those which bear record in heaven and they are called three are one in the same sentence. No man accurately understands what that means and that's ok.

  Joh 14:9  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
  Joh 14:10  Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
  Joh 14:11  Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

The Father is God and one with Christ Jesus and worked through Christ on the Earth. The Father is revealed to us throughout the Old Testament using many different Names which reveal attributes of His personality. This is an edited version of the links semi-exhaustive study on the names of God focusing on those which had a clear translatable meaning.

Elohim (Mighty Ones) 2606x  Genesis 1:1
El (Might, Power) 245x  Genesis 14:18
Eloah (Mighty One) 57x  Nehemiah 9:17
Adon (Lord, Ruler) 335x Joshua 3:11
Adonai (Lords, Rulers) 434x Genesis 15:2
El-Elyon (Supreme Might)    Genesis 14:18
El-Shaddai (Might of the Powerful Ones) Genesis 17:1
Cela (craig) Tzur (rock or strength)    Ps 18:2 (used interchangeably)
YHWH-sabaoth (Lord of Armies) 285x  1 Samuel 1:3
YHWH-jireh: will see or provide    Genesis 22:14
YHWH-rapha: heals  Exodus 15:26
YHWH-nissi: our banner or victory  Exodus 17:15
YHWH-m'kaddesh: sanctifies Exodus 31:13
YHWH-shalom: peace Judges 6:24
YHWH-raah: my shepherd Psalm 23:1
YHWH-hoseenu: creator  Psalm 95:6
YHWH-tsidkenu: righteousness   Jeremiah 23:6
YHWH-shammah: Present and available when

Any of these words can describe God the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit however lets assume the focus of the revelation in the Old Testament was on the Father and these words are used with preference to describe Him.

  Psa 139:7  Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
  Psa 139:8  If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
  Psa 139:9  If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
  Psa 139:10  Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
  Psa 139:11  If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
  Psa 139:12  Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

  Heb 6:18  That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Again the following attributes apply to God the Father, God the Son before and after His earth ministry (Php 2:8) and God the Holy Spirit. God is omnipresent as Psalms 139 goes into great lengths to describe. We also know God is not omnipotent as he cannot lie and cannot do evil like temptation (James 1:13) or be afraid (1 John 4:18). The Lord God is omniscient (Psalm 147:5,1Jn 3:20,Psalm 147:5).

John 14-16 is the dissertation on the Holy Spirit. Here Christ describes the Holy Spirit in clarity which is not seen again till the Pauline epistles. I don't pray to the Holy Spirit because in the farewell sermon Jesus never mentioned us expressly praying to the Holy Spirit. I do not condemn you if you do.

  Mat 6:9  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

  Joh 14:16  And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Superficially the first thing one would notice about the difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit is: The Father's primary residence is in Heaven; The Holy Spirit's primary residence is on Earth. They are however both everywhere.

  Joh 17:16  They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
  Joh 17:17  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

  Joh 14:17  Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

  Eph 3:16  That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
  Eph 3:17  That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

  1Jn 3:9  Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
  1Jn 3:10  In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

God's Word Jesus Himself is truth. The Holy Spirit is not the Word which is truth He is the Spirit of truth. Christ and His Spirit dwell in our Hearts according to the scripture. According to 1st John 3:10 God the Father's seed is in us.

  Joh 15:26  But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

  G1607
  ἐκπορεύομαι
  ekporeuomai
  ek-por-yoo'-om-ahee

  From G1537 and G4198; to depart, be discharged, proceed, project: - come (forth, out of), depart, go (forth, out), issue, proceed (out of).

The Holy Spirit proceed from the Father. The word proceed has many sub words in Strong's Greek dictionary number G1607. Each of them describe the action of the Holy Spirit beginning His work on the earth.

Joh 16:7  Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

What we experience with the Holy Spirit is better than having Jesus who was and is one with God the Father present with us on the earth today. It is unknown exactly why Christ is at the right hand of Majesty on High and the Holy Spirit was sent here. The Holy Spirit is very kool to be able to fill the void of Christ in a better way than Christ Himself. So here we notice the Holy Spirit is better for us than Christ physical presence on the Earth.

Joh 16:8  And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Joh 16:9  Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Joh 16:10  Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
Joh 16:11  Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

  Joh 3:19  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

The primary work of the Holy Spirit on those in the world is to reprove or you could say convict of sin, righteousness and judgement. To be convicted means to be pronounced guilty.  It is often thought that the Holy Spirit condemns people to hell or bring condemnation but that is an act of the individuals heart caused by the law.

  Joh 16:12  I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
  Joh 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
  Joh 16:14  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
  Joh 16:15  All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Here is a very high density amount of the word he. However it is important to note that the Greek word translated he here really is gender neutral however the word translated Comforter is indeed masculine.

The Holy Spirits work in the Church today is to complete the scripture in the lives of the believers. The primary way He did this was through the apostles, Luke and Mark writings after He arrived on the Earth. However He guides us into all truth not just those expressly written in the Word. He is able to enlighten the eyes of our understanding so that we know. He does not speak of Himself which is why we only know Him through the writings in the word and what we have experienced of Him. He does not speak from his omniscience. He speaks what he hears the implication is what he hears through your ears. The Holy Spirit also primary function in the Church today is revelation while in rare situations this can mean visions and dreams the majority of the way people experience God is through supernatural knowings one of the manifestations of the spirit. This is not hearing voices but experiencing the enlightenment from the scripture for your situation. Again Jesus says that the Holy Spirit is glorifying Christ and revealing the nature of Christ in and to us.

  1Co 12:4  Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
  1Co 12:5  And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
  1Co 12:6  And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

Again we see the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit in unison benefiting of the Church. God the Father is said to work all in all and to head the operations. God the Son administers and God the Holy Spirit is the Spirit behind the endowments.

  1Co 12:7  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Every instance of the endowments is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, administered by Christ and worked by God the Father's Power. I follow the Pentecostal pioneer Howard Carter division of the Holy Spirits manifestations which I will briefly relate bellow. He divides them into three manifestations which know something, three manifestations which do something and three manifestations which say something.

1Co 12:8  For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

Word of wisdom is a knowing about the future. Like if you knew you shouldn't go to work on 9/11. This is not fortune telling it is just a word a single element conveying understanding about a situation. It is not a paragraph or a book. Likewise work of knowledge is a single element conveying present or past tense knowledge about a situation. Combined with discerning of spirits these are the three gifts which know something.

  1Co 12:9  To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

The gift of faith is often called special faith as it is what is necessary to receive that which is beyond what a person may normally believe for on their own. Gifts of healing is plural. This is not going to a doctor but God working with the doctor to heal your aliment of body or mind. Spirits are not healed in the New Testament they are saved.

  1Co 12:10  To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

The working of miracles are miraculous healings (like arms growing back) and other wonders (like supernatural provision or walking on water) which defy nature. Special faith, healing and miracles are the three gifts which do something.

Discerning of spirits is disliked because many people who claim to see spirits or hear spirits are in fact are sick and need help from doctors. However that does not change that the Holy Spirit sometimes chooses to reveal a spirit to a person. The good sense you cannot explain when you go to church is a right example of discerning of spirits.

  1Co 12:11  But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Every time one of these manifestations is rightly expressed the Holy Spirit is rightly getting His will and work accomplished in the earth.

  Gal 5:22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
  Gal 5:23  Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
  Gal 5:24  And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Finally because everything is cross referenced in the word. We are able to discern whether what someone calls the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is in fact a manifestation of the Holy Spirit based on the attributes of the Spirit Himself as described in Galatians 5. If it does not meet the criteria of these verses people are just imagining that the Holy Spirit is manifesting Himself.

So in summery to differentiate the Father from the Holy Spirit you take all the things which are known to be directly attributed to the Father and all the things which are directly attributed to the Holy Spirit and you compare and contrast them. I briefly gave you several names of God describing his personality and several names of the Holy Spirit. Then I described the Holy Spirit manifestation's in the earth which the Father works. Finally I list the attributes of the Holy Spirit at work in the individual believers life to give you an idea of what a believer should show evidence of when inspired by the Holy Spirit directly.


Was the serpent in the wilderness a foreshadowing of Jesus? The Lord sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. So the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and you; intercede with the Lord, that He may remove the serpents from us.” And Moses interceded for the people. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live.” And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived. (Numbers 21:6-9)

Someone recently told me that this was symbolic, and that the serpent is a symbol for sin, and that this was foreshadowing Jesus becoming sin for us and being lifted up and crucified so that we would live.

My question is, how do we know that this is the right interpretation, and not just an interesting idea that someone had?

The snake that Moses raised up, symbolized the snakes that God sent into the Israelite camp as punishment for Israel's sin.

  Numbers 21:6
  The Lord sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. So the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and you; intercede with the Lord, that He may remove the serpents from us.”

So snake == punishment. And as the Israelites looked up at the snake they were saved.

In the same way Jesus was lifted taking on the punishment for our sin and all those that believe in him will be saved. As Jas3.1 points out, Jesus actually draws the connection.

  John 3:14
  And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up


Can a bishop excommunicate a retired bishop? Can a bishop excommunicate a retired bishop? Of course, we suppose that the retired bishop is living in the diocese where the new bishop came.

Only the Pope can excommunicate bishops because only he has jurisdiction over them.

  Who can excommunicate?

  Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has jurisdiction in the forum externum, properly so called, can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be a jure (by the law) or ab homine (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from the pope alone or a general council for the entire Church; from the provincial council for an ecclesiastical province; from the bishop for his diocese; from the prelate nullius for quasi-diocesan territories; and from regular prelates for religious orders. Moreover, anyone can excommunicate who, by virtue of his office, even when delegated, has contentious jurisdiction in the forum externum; for instance, papal legates, vicars capitular, and vicars-general. But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty nor even declare that it is incurred, i.e. he cannot do so in an official and judicial manner. The subjects of these various authorities are those who come under their jurisdiction chiefly on account of domicile or quasi-domicile in their territory; then by reason of the offence committed while on such territory; and finally by reason of personal right, as in the case of regulars.

It makes no difference where the retired bishop lives. A retired bishop doesn't suddenly become subject to the diocese's new bishop. He remains subject directly to the Pope. A bishop cannot lose his episcopal consecration.

Also, retired bishops are titular bishops, even if they remain residents of their same diocese:

  1983 Can. 376 Bishops to whom the care of some diocese is entrusted are called diocesan; others are called titular.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law (can. 401) is the first to legislate the novelty of retired bishops. Can. 401 doesn't strictly require resignation at age 75, but asks for voluntary resignation:

  Can. 402 §1. A bishop whose resignation from office has been accepted retains the title of emeritus of his diocese and can retain a place of residence in that diocese if he so desires, unless in certain cases the Apostolic See provides otherwise because of special circumstances.


How does the Catholic Church reconcile the holy Catholic Church with (the) Pope(s) asking for forgiveness? In the Creed, the profession of Christian Faith, an article of Faith is I believe in [...], the holy catholic Church/We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

How does the Catholic Church reconcile the holiness of the Church, with the Pope apologising and the clerical sex abuse scandal?

  cf. Ephesians 5:27
  (RSVCE)
  27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without
  spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without
  blemish.

Note: An article of Faith is not optional. It is belongs to the deposit of Faith that one must believe in order to be saved.

'[The Church] is a Mother, through whom we are born to a new life in God. A mother should be loved. She is holy with regard to her Founder, her works and her doctrine, but she is, nevertheless, composed of sinful men. It is our duty to make a positive contribution to the life of the Church, to help her progress along the way of faithful renewal. This is not accomplished by negative criticisms.' - Pope St. John Paul II [the Great], Homily in Barcelona, 7 November 1982.

'If we love the Church, there will never arise in us a morbid interest in airing, as faults of the Mother, the weaknesses of some of her children. The Church, the spouse of Christ, does not have to intone any 'mea culpa'. But we do: 'mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa'. The only true 'mea culpa' is a personal one, not the one which attacks the Church, pointing out and exaggerating the human defects which, in this holy mother, result from the presence in her men whose actions can go far astray, but which can never destroy - nor even touch - that which we call the original and constitutive holiness of the Church' - St. Josemaría Escrivá, In Love with the Church, quoted in In Conversations with God, 4/37.2 | Francis Fernandez

The Church is holy, but it is an institution which is populated by human beings, who can and do sin. This can be seen in the first few chapters of the book of Revelation where the Angel catalogs the sins of the seven churches.

In his apology, the Bishop of Rome is merely acknowledging the sinfulness, individually and collectively, of members of the church, even though the Church itself, as the Body of Christ is preserved Holy by the Spirit of God.

Perhaps this is a novel analogy. In my "day job", I work with shipping pallets, those devices constructed of wood (and other materials) which are used to unitize freight to make for easier handling. Now, some constituent parts of some wood pallets are defective: incomplete, broken, or rotten. But a Master Carpenter can take broken, defective, incomplete, and rotten members, and construct a pallet which, notwithstanding the apparent inadequacy of the parts, still performs the function it is intended to perform. So it is with the Church. The Master Carpenter takes the materials at hand, and combines and attaches them in a way to make a creation that admirably performs the mission to which it is called because the strong parts of one member compensate for the weak parts of another. Or, to put it another way, a fully functional pallet is made from less than functional parts.

In just the same manner, the Master Carpenter takes human sinners, and uses them to make a Holy Church.


What is the premise from which "the greater works" promise was made by Jesus? If kenosis is the reason why the glory of the incarnate Son of God was veiled, is that also the reason why He made the statement of John 14:12?

  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father

His earthly works were magnificent and glorious, yet He presents for us to experience after His exit from the scene a greater works era.

Does that suppose that He just barely exhibited sufficient part of His divinity required just to effect our redemption?

The answers would be fitting if given in the light of these three scriptures;

John 14;12
Hebrews 10:19-20
Philippians 2:5-11

Simply put, the "greater works" of which Jesus spoke encompass the good deeds of the saints of God worldwide. Although Jesus' works were remarkably awesome (and the apostle John insists that his gospel included only a small portion of them--see John 20:30), the "greater works" are accomplished in the power of the Spirit by the members of the church universal, which of course is spread throughout the entire world.

With very few exceptions, Jesus limited his working to the tiny country of Israel, and as far as we know he never ventured abroad with his message of the kingdom of God/heaven and repentance. He left that work, and the various signs and wonders which often accompany it, to his disciples throughout the world as they obeyed his "Great Commission":

  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matthew 28:19-20 NASB).

In other words, Christians since the first century have been the hands, feet, and tongue of Jesus in the world. As they obey Christ in making disciples, those disciples will in turn make disciples themselves. In so doing, the works of Christ proliferate among more and more Jesus-followers.

Lest Christians think that only the showy, spectacular, and awe-inspiring works (e.g., healings, resurrections, and other sign gifts) are the "greater" ones of which Jesus spoke, they need remind themselves of two things. First, the greatest of all works was our Lord's cross-death and resurrection. And second, our Lord made crystal clear that the primary work of his disciples on earth was making disciples, through preaching, baptizing, and teaching obedience to his commands, the greatest of which is to love one another (see John 13:35).

Some food for thought . . .. During Jesus' public ministry, including the 40 days following his resurrection, Jesus (and followers of "The Way") numbered in the thousands. In heaven, thanks to the "greater works" of Christ's body worldwide, there may well be scores of millions--or more--of Christ followers in heaven!


What mainstream denominations (if any) hold a Young Earth Creationist view? As the title asks, which mainstream denominations hold a YEC View?

Typically, any congregation professing the YEC viewpoint are going to be non denominational. Though the name implies there is an unspecified disagreement among non denominational churches, the vast majority are biblical litetalists. This means they will naturally take the YEC view.

As Mawia pointed out in a comment, the date of the creation, and even the very process, is considered a matter of opinion in most denominations and not a doctrine.

Specifically, 7th Day Adventists are biblical literalists and therefore young earth creationists. They are the only denomination that I know of that explicitly holds that view.

Considering their shared roots with 7th Day Adventism, some think that Jehovah's Witnesses are Young Earth Creationists. Instead, it seems they are not. They are Progressive Creationists, which is a variety of Old Earth Creationism that excludes Evolution.


Does the Bible suggest that there would be a literal apostasy of the early Christian church? In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and Acts 20:29 I interpret them to mean that there would be a literal apostasy of the early Christian church or is there another meaning to them that I am missing?

  2 Thessalonians 2:3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

  Acts 20:29: For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

In traditional Christian theology, Apostasy, yes.  Total Apostasy, no.

The first verse is commonly understood to be part of end-times prophesy.  There is no indication that it relates to the early Church, and to try to make it fit there ignores the context of the surrounding verses.

  3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,
  except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be
  revealed, the son of perdition;

The "man of sin" a.k.a the "son of perdition" is commonly believed to be the Antichrist.

  Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on 1 Thessalonians

  2:1-4 If errors arise among Christians, we should set them right; and
  good men will be careful to suppress errors which rise from mistaking
  their words and actions. We have a cunning adversary, who watches to
  do mischief, and will promote errors, even by the words of Scripture.
  Whatever uncertainty we are in, or whatever mistakes may arise about
  the time of Christ's coming, that coming itself is certain. This has
  been the faith and hope of all Christians, in all ages of the church;
  it was the faith and hope of the Old Testament saints. All believers
  shall be gathered together to Christ, to be with him, and to be happy
  in his presence for ever. We should firmly believe the second coming
  of Christ; but there was danger lest the Thessalonians, being mistaken
  as to the time, should question the truth or certainty of the thing
  itself. False doctrines are like the winds that toss the water to and
  fro; and they unsettle the minds of men, which are as unstable as
  water. It is enough for us to know that our Lord will come, and will
  gather all his saints unto him. A reason why they should not expect
  the coming of Christ, as at hand, is given. There would be a general
  falling away first, such as would occasion the rise of antichrist,
  that man of sin. There have been great disputes who or what is
  intended by this man of sin and son of perdition. The man of sin not
  only practises wickedness, but also promotes and commands sin and
  wickedness in others; and is the son of perdition, because he is
  devoted to certain destruction, and is the instrument to destroy many
  others, both in soul and body. As God was in the temple of old, and
  worshipped there, and is in and with his church now; so the antichrist
  here mentioned, is a usurper of God's authority in the Christian
  church, who claims Divine honours.

And Acts 20:29 is understood to be speaking of those who claim to be Christian, but preach a false gospel, which has been happening since the early Church, and continues to this day.  It does not speak of a total Apostasy, it speaks of people being led from Truth into false doctrines.

A Catholic rebuttal is found here.

A Protestant perspective on what to watch for, as far as these ravenous wolves are concerned can be found here, along with an orthodox (small "o") view on Apostasy.

And as God is not a liar, there could not have been a total Apostacy.

He Himself promised that he would always keep a remnant - there would always be those who walk in His truth.  A Total Apostasy is impossible, because God himself promised it, and His power is enough to prevent it.

At least that's how "Mainstream Christians" see it.


What is the theological justification for only the priest drinking the wine in a Catholic Mass? I recently attended a Catholic Mass for a funeral.  When it came time for the observance of the Lord's Supper, only the priest drank the wine.  There may be some protestant churches which also follow this practice, but any church I've attended always handed out both the bread and the wine to all of the partakers.

It would seem, from a natural reading of the Biblical account, that both the bread and the wine were intended to be part of the observance.  So, my question is, what is the basis, scriptural or otherwise, for only the priest needing to drink the wine?

I found this other question, which was helpful in understanding the logistical reasons for not wanting to have to do both.  It also explained how either is optional, as long as you take one.  But it failed to answer my question regarding the theological reasoning and explanation.  Does anyone know when this practice first became accepted?  What is the theological basis for only one or the other (body and blood) being necessary?

Communion under Both Kinds article at Catholic Encyclopedia has answer to both of your questions

Does anyone know when this practice first became accepted?

During early times public Communion in the churches was received under both kinds. But side by side with the regular liturgical usage of Communion, there existed from the earliest times the custom of communicating in certain cases under one kind alone. Examples of receiving communion in one kind alone can be seen as early as 3rd century in the writings of Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius and others. In these writing we can get an idea of why this practice might have been started. Some primary reasons are:

That Communion of the sick is easier to transport and administer under the species of bread alone
In the Early Church the Holy Eucharist in the species of wine alone was given to children even before they attained the age of reason. Probably because it is easy to swallow and risk of children spitting it out is considerably reduced
During the Mass of the Presanctified and all fast days during Lent, the faithful received Communion only under the species of bread.

What is the theological basis for only one or the other (body and blood) being necessary?

Catholic Church does not say it is necessary to receive Communion in one species alone. It says it is sufficient to receive Communion in one species alone.

  There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.)

  By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii).

1 Corinthians 11 : 27-29 states 'if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood.' Here St. Paul attaches the same guilt "of the body and the blood of the Lord" (copulative) to the unworthy "eating or drinking"(disjunctive). In its article The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Catholic Encyclopedia points out that based on this verse Catholic church believes that Jesus, in the species of bread alone, is fully present with his entire body, blood, soul and Divinity.

Hence as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation.

The main reason for the Catholic faithful not to partake in the cup is because of practical purposes. It is quite impossible to provide the cup for hundreds of people in a mass and protect the sacred species from spilling to ground. This is the only reason for which currently faithful are not required to receive in both forms on any given day.

As pointed out by @curiousdannii and @Andrew Leach, Theologically speaking preventing the sacred species from spilling to ground is a big deal because of what the Church believes it it be. That is Christ himself. So spilling the species (desecration) is among the gravest of sins. (Such actions, if done willfully, can be forgiven only be the Pope on the recommendation of the concern Roman curia. This shows the gravity of the matter in the Catholic Church) Hence it must be avoided whenever possible.

You might now ask: When can the faithful receive Communion under both kinds? The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 283 and Eucharisticum Mysterium - 32 points out that apart from the priests who celebrate/concelebrate the mass following can receive communion in both species :

  To newly baptized adults in the Mass which follows their baptism; to confirmed adults in the Mass of their Confirmation; to baptized persons who are received into communion with the Church;
  To bride and bridegroom in the Mass of their wedding;
  To newly ordained in the Mass of their ordination;
  To abbesses in the Mass of their blessing; to virgins in the Mass of their consecration; to professed in the Mass of their first or renewed religious profession, provided that they take or renew their vows during the Mass;
  To lay missionaries, in the Mass in which they are publicly sent out on their mission, and to all others in the Mass in which they receive an ecclesiastical mission;
  In the administration of Viaticum, to the sick person and to all who are present when Mass is celebrated in the house of the sick person, in accordance with the existing norms;
  To deacon, subdeacon, and ministers, who carry out their ministry in a solemn or pontifical Mass;
  When there is a concelebration:

  a) to all who exercise a genuine liturgical function in this concelebration, including lay people and to all seminarians who are present;

  b) in their churches, to all members of institutes practicing the evangelical virtues and of other societies in which the members either through religious vows or offering or a promise dedicate themselves to God; and also to all those who normally live in the house of the members of these institutes and societies.
  To priests who take part in large celebrations, but are not able to celebrate or concelebrate;
  To all groups which are making retreats or following spiritual exercises, in a Mass which is celebrated during the retreat or exercises for those who are taking part; to all those who are taking part in the meeting of some pastoral commission, in the Mass they celebrate in common;
  To those listed under nos. 2 and 4, in their jubilee Masses;
  To the godfather, godmother, parents and spouse of a baptized adult, together with the lay catechists who have prepared him, in the Mass of initiation;
  To the parents, relatives and special benefactors, who take part in the Mass of a newly ordained priest.

But as with most disciplinary regulations of the Church, the diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese permitting the parish priest to decide on whether to administer the sacrament in both kind (GIRM 283), as long as there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.


Why are Jesus' sayings about the poor concentrated in Luke? I've been researching Jesus' thoughts on poverty and the needy, and I've noticed that Luke's Jesus makes many more pronouncements concerning the poor than the others. What, if anything, do scholars say about this?

Edit: I'm interested in knowing what any scholar has to say about the preponderance of mentions in Luke. If you know of any scholar who is saying anything about it, please let me know.

Attending to the interest in "what any scholar has to say" about teaching on poverty (and, necessarily I suppose, wealth -- the two themes tend to come together) in Luke...

For general context, see Martin Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church: Aspects of a Social History of Early Christianity (Fortress, 1998). Hengel was one of the foremost scholars of the Second Temple Judaism and nascent Christianity, but known as a New Testament specialist.
More specifically, the broad social context for Luke's writing is set in the volume edited by Jerome Neyrey, The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Hendrickson, 1991). None of the chapters are directly on poverty/wealth, but lots about social location which informs this theme.
And more directly yet, see Walter Pilgrim's recently reprinted book: Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts (1981; reprinted Wipf & Stock, 2011). It has been widely cited by later scholars.
A published doctoral dissertation (Glasgow), covers this theme in some detail: Kyoung-Jin Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke's Theology (Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
In shorter compass, here are some articles and/or chapters that address this theme:

a starting point for many recent discussions was provided by J.R. Donahue's survey, "Two Decades of Research on the Rich and Poor in Luke-Acts", in Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor of Walter Harrelson, ed. by D.A. Knight and P.J. Paris (Scholars, 1989), pp. 129-144. [no online sources I can find]
Joel Green, excellent orientation in a section on "The Economy of the Kingdom" in his (very readable) The Theology of the Gospel of Luke (Cambridge, 1995), pp.  112ff.
Peter Liu, "Did the Lucan Jesus Desire Voluntary Poverty of his Followers?", Evangelical Quarterly 64 (1992): 291-317.
Tim Kelley, "Renounce my Possessions? What does Luke 14.33 Mean?", Leaven 6/3.8 (1998): 131-135 [a more popular presentation, but still drawing on scholarly sources]
Thomas E. Phillips, "Reading Recent Readings of Issues of Wealth and Poverty in Luke and Acts", Currents in Biblical Research 1/2 (2003): 231-269 [this one would be a good place to start, in fact]

While that should be enough to provide an orientation to the scholarly discussion, the "Why?" question remains. And that's difficult to answer.

Many note the clear context of poverty out of which Jesus' ministry emerges: this is the clear signal of the offering of "two turtle doves" provided in Luke 2:24 (compare Leviticus 12:8). Not only does Luke use some distinctive Greek vocabulary for "poverty", he uses the standard Greek term (πτωχός = ptōchos, the "beggarly poor"), with ten occurrences, double that of either Matthew or Mark. And the general theme runs into Acts, too, so it is clearly a pronounced theme in Luke's writing, although obviously shared in many ways with the other gospels, Paul, and James in particular.


When and where did Pope Paul VI say the "Mass is the most perfect form of prayer"? I was trying to source this quote,

  The Mass is the most perfect form of prayer - Pope Paul VI

but the Google, in her wisdom, seems to think I only want to see what my fellow zealous Mary lovers have to write in their circa '96 tabular/framed web pages.

Usually when someone attributes something to a Pope, they say, "at such and such an audience on the feast of St. So and So" but not this quote, it's just left out there.

What I really want to know is, if the Catholic Church considers Mass to be a Prayer.  I've always heard, and taught, that Mass is the greatest prayer and the Rosary somehow eeks out Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction for the #2 spot (although that logic is troublesome).

I can't find this tidbit in the Catechism, and my personal collection of wonderful Catholic texts are somewhat older that Pope Paul VI, so please, if anyone has his breviary wherein he scrawled this magnificent truth, please let me know!

James T has identified that the sentiment expressed is Thomist.

I can't find anything positively identifying Paul VI either, but I did find something of Benedict XVI:

  The Eucharistic Celebration is the greatest and highest act of prayer, and constitutes the centre and the source from which even the other forms receive "nourishment": the Liturgy of the Hours, Eucharistic adoration, Lectio divina, the Holy Rosary, meditation. All these expressions of prayer, which have their centre in the Eucharist, fulfil the words of Jesus in the priest's day and in all his life: "I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep" (Jn 10: 14-15).

[However, see also CCC 2763; I'd be interested to know how that apparent contradiction is resolved.]


In heaven, will we have desires (Catholic)? St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote that in heaven, our desires will be completely at rest. This sounds to me that we will not have any desire in heaven, as there is nothing to desire for. But at the same time he also said that we will continue to seek God in heaven, which seems to imply that we will "desire" God in heaven (also there could be many other things in heaven that will make us to have "desire").

Will we have desires in heaven (please answer according to Catholic understanding)

Catholic theology speaks of The Satiety of the Blessed in the following manner:

  This state of satiety is always new and never passes away. St. Augustine writes: "All our life will be one Amen, one Alleluia. Sadden
  not yourselves by considering this truth in a carnal manner, as if in
  heaven, just as on earth, we could become weary by repeating the
  words: Amen, Alleluia. This heavenly Amen, this Alleluia, will not be
  expressed by sound which passes away, but by the emotions of love, the
  emotions of the soul embraced by love. "Amen" means "It is true."
  "Alleluia" means "praise God." God is the immovable truth, who knows
  neither defect nor progress, neither decline nor growth. He is truth,
  eternal and stable: truth forever incorruptible.

  "We shall sing our Amen forever but with a satiety that is insatiable. With satiety, because we live in perfect abundance, but
  with an insatiable satiety, because this good, while it satisfies
  completely, produces also a pleasure ever new. Insatiably satiated
  by this truth, we shall repeat forever: Amen. Rest and gaze: that is
  our eternal Sabbath."

And St. Josemaría Escrivá writes:

  Think how pleasing to God Our Lord is the incense burnt in his honour.
  Think also how little the things of this earth are worth; even as they
  begin they are already ending. In Heaven, instead, a great Love awaits
  you, with no betrayals and no deceptions. The fullness of love, the
  fullness of beauty and greatness and knowledge... And it will never
  cloy: it will satiate, yet still you will want more. - The Forge,
  995.

Therefore Catholic theology speaks of the satiety of the blessed in heaven that is always new, never passes away, is full and complete, yet still wants more i.e., it is an insatiable satiety.