How do "Sola Fide" adherents reconcile with the three aspects of faith? Historical Protestantism (particularly in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions) have since the Magisterial Reformation held to two doctrines relating what is required of an individual for salvation.

The first is the doctrine of Sola Fide, meaning "by faith alone". This principle states that salvation is not by works of man, but by faith in Christ. In fact, not only are works insufficient to merit salvation on their own, they account for not even a portion of our salvation--it is, rather, wholly through faith in Christ.

The second doctrine was worked out by Luther and put into its present form by his collaborator and successor, Melancthon. This doctrine is simply a definition of faith, or sometimes known as the three aspects of faith--as such, it is intended to explain what is required of the "faith" for salvation "by faith alone". The doctrine has three steps:

notitia One must know the basic information (or "content") such as Christ's death and resurrection.
assensus One must agree that the basic information is correct. In other words, he/she must not only have heard that Christ died and rose again, but they must believe that he did do that.
fiducia One must trust in Christ, and rest on the knowledge that the content to which he/she assented is sufficient to save.

It is this last piece--fiducia--that I struggle with reconciling with the concept of Sola Fide. Scripture makes clear that these first two points are insufficient (James 2:19), and on the face of it, it makes sense that we must trust in Christ for our salvation.

Where I struggle is that fiducia puts faith in functional terms. This means that, although in theory, I trust in Christ for my salvation, I don't always do so in practice.

Here's an example: I'm can be a bit of a control freak, and sometimes yell at my wife in trying to assert my control. I am not loving her as I'm commanded to do so, and it stems from my pride. Although I think I trust in Christ for my salvation, my actions show that I am considering another functional 'gospel' (control) of 'salvation' and another function 'god' (myself) that will effect that 'salvation'.

When I stop and think about it, I know that I am no god, and that my gospel is no gospel, but I do stumble and my actions reveal my heart. In fact, I would argue (and Luther has) that every sin follows such a pattern.

To come at the problem more directly, this notion of fiducia makes my faith dependent upon my works, whereas "Sola Fide" asserts that salvation is through faith and not works. How does this puzzle fit together?

The apparent contradiction stems from a misunderstanding of "works," and specifically of what Paul wrote about them.  Two passages in particular tend to cause a lot of confusion:

  Romans 10:9

  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
  believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
  shalt be saved.

  Ephesians 2: 8-9

  8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

  9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Some people have taken this to mean that salvation comes by some simple act of claiming faith and that after this, the person is saved and salvation is not affected by a person's works.  This is a very bad notion, because of what you get when you take it to its logical conclusion: "I have free license to sin because I'm saved and what I do doesn't matter!"

This isn't a hypothetical problem, either.  Here's what Richard Hill, an 18th century Wesleyan theologian, had to say on the subject:

  "God sees no sin in believers whatever sin they commit... adultery, incest and murder shall, upon the whole, make me holier on earth and merrier in heaven."

This notion is in direct contradiction to the words of the Savior, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, where he taught that not only do sinful actions put us in spiritual danger, but also sinful thoughts.  Of particular interest are his words at the conclusion of the sermon:

  Matthew 7: 21-23

  21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

  22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

  23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

In verses 22 and 23, the Savior reaffirms that works of righteousness do not bring salvation if the person's heart is not in the right place and they do not truly know Jesus, but in verse 21, we see what appears to be a direct contradiction of Romans 10: 9.

James 2, which has already been quoted, states that faith without works is dead and cannot bring salvation.  Peter warned his readers about misinterpreting Paul and wresting the scriptures to their own destruction.  And John, in Revelation, makes it clear that in the resurrection we will all be judged according to our works.

So here we have Jesus himself, and also Peter, James and John, the three most trusted of his apostles, all contradicting the simplistic notion of salvation by faith alone and without works.  Faced with this, we must either condemn Paul as a heretic, or seek an alternate interpretation, and I don't particularly think Paul was a heretic.

Let's look at Romans 10: 9 first.  Remember that he was writing to Roman Christians, subject to Roman law, which wasn't all that favorable to Christianity at that point, to put it mildly.  Being willing to confess belief in Christ with your lips was no simple thing the way it is today; it was exposing yourself to persecution and possibly even death simply for the sake of your religion. That's quite a difficult thing to do, even for someone with a lot of faith!

Then we have the passage from Ephesians, where Paul states that salvation comes from faith and the grace of God, and "not of works, lest any man should boast."  Reading the context makes it clear that the works he is talking about are the works of the Law of Moses, through which Jews could find a focus for their faith and obtain salvation before it was fulfilled in Christ.  The explanation in verse 9 can be understood in that context by reading Luke 18:

  Luke 18: 9-14

  9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

  10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

  11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee,
  that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or
  even as this publican.

  12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

  13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as
  his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be
  merciful to me a sinner.

  14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than
  the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he
  that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

There were those in Jewish society then, as there have always been and still are in every civilization, who boasted of their piety and outward good works and thought that what they did made them better than others.  Paul is making it clear that that attitude will score you zero points with the Lord, that even with good works and acts of righteousness, you are still a sinner and nothing you do can undo your past.  Only through God's grace can you find forgiveness for your sins.

So we see that good works do not bring salvation in and of themselves, but also that professions of faith that are not backed up with actual righteous living "is dead, being alone," as James put it.  Fiducia is a principle that bridges the gap, basically equivalent to the Savior's exhortation, "if you love me, keep my commandments," or James's explanation that we show our faith by our works.  A person with true faith will not simply sit around believing that they believe, but will go out and live the Gospel, doing good works out of love for God and love for their fellow men and striving to come always a little bit closer to fulfilling the ultimate commandment, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)


How do Catholics interpret Isaiah 2:4? I quote the verse:

  He [The Lord] shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

The chapter this verse comes from seems to describe an earthly reign of God, in contradiction with the Catholic doctrine.

Any idea how the verse could be interpreted?

A Catholics Answer

Isaiah's prophetic warning was for Judah and Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:1 It was fulfilled with the Babylonian captivity. It was again fulfilled when the Romans toppled Jerusalem. Isaiah's warning is for all God's children, even today. Do not allow your gluttonous desire for things of this world kill your desire to worship and serve the LORD your God, by doing His will among you.

There is no mention what so ever in Isaiah Chapter 2 of an earthly reign of God.

Pre-melenialism Rapture Theology is a man made tradition and a false doctrine.


What does it mean "...blood that will be shed by many of you for the forgiveness of sins"? The priest during Mass, always says this while on the Eucharist, Holy communion time, when the bell rings, and one kneels.
What exactly does this mean for people?

The phrase you quoted is part of what Jesus said to His apostles at the Last Supper, when He instituted the Eucharist. The part about "shed for the forgiveness of sins" is Jesus's prediction of what was going to happen the next day at Calvary.


What is "your peace" in Matthew 10? In Matthew 10, Jesus is instructing his disciples, whom he is sending out to preach to the children of Israel as follows:

  11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you

What does it mean to "let your peace rest on it", and even more curiously, how would one let his peace return to him?

A similar passage in Luke:

  Luke 10:5-6
  5 Into whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this household.’
  6 If a peaceful person lives there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you.

See also Mark 6:8 . Here is the whole passage:

  Matthew 10:12
  12 As you enter a house, wish it peace.
  13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you.*
  14 Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet.

The note says: "The greeting of peace is conceived of not merely as a salutation but as an effective word. If it finds no worthy recipient, it will return to the speaker." Consider what happened after St Paul and St Barnabas were driven out of a city, and shook the dusk from their feet:

  Acts 13:51
  51 So they shook the dust from their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium.
  52 The disciples were filled with joy and the holy Spirit.

See also:

  Luke 2:14
  14 “Glory to God in the highest
  and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

Peace is effectively a blessing, the favor of the Lord. If the blessing finds no worthy recipient, it will fall back on those who gave it. Those who St Paul and St Barnabas gave peace to would not have that peace, so the peace of the Lord fell back on the two men, and they were "filled with joy and the holy Spirit".


According to Protestants what transpired when Mary was "overshadowed" in Luke 1:35? [Luk 1:34-35 ESV]
  (34) And Mary said to the angel,
  "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"
  (35) And the angel answered her,
  "The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
  and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
  therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God.

According to the Bible:

“What is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20).
The Virgin Mary “was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18).
“God sent His Son, born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4).

That’s what Protestants believe transpired.  We don’t speculate; we just believe what the Bible says.  If the Bible doesn’t provide any additional information, then we don’t need to know.  God, through the Holy Spirit, was responsible for Mary becoming pregnant.  However, I did find an article on the subject that expresses the Protestant view, part of which says this:

From these passages, it is certainly clear that Jesus’ birth was the result of the Holy Spirit working within Mary’s body. The immaterial (the Spirit) and the material (Mary’s womb) were both involved. Mary, of course, could not impregnate herself, and in that sense she was simply a “vessel.” Only God could perform the miracle of the Incarnation.
However, denying a physical connection between Mary and Jesus would imply that Jesus was not truly human. Scripture teaches that Jesus was fully human, with a physical body like ours. This He received from Mary. At the same time, Jesus was fully God, with an eternal, sinless nature (John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 2:14-17.)
Jesus was not born in sin; that is, He had no sin nature (Hebrews 7:26). It would seem that the sin nature is passed down from generation to generation through the father (Romans 5:12, 17, 19). The Virgin Birth circumvented the transmission of the sin nature and allowed the eternal God to become a perfect man.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-birth.html

Jesus, fully human (through being born of a woman) and fully God (through the Holy Spirit).
No doubt you will receive more learned and scholastic answers, but this is the best I could come up with before I shut down my laptop and serve up our evening meal.


What does "give that which is holy to dogs" mean? What does this mean?

  You must not give that which is holy to dogs. Do not cast your pearls before swine, or the swine may trample them under foot, and
  then turn on you and tear you to pieces.

  (Matthew 7:6)

In context, Jesus just taught his disciples not to judge in Matthew 7:1-5. The kind of judgment Jesus meant is the judgment of a critical and censorious spirit. That kind of judgment seeks to impute motivations to behaviors one person observes in another person. Since quite frequently, people have a tendency to project their own failings onto other people, Jesus had to teach his disciples that that kind of judgment is wrong.
On the other hand, there are times when Christians are to USE good judgment, particularly since they have a mandate to preach the gospel and make disciples. Times come, however, when the audience to our witnessing to the truth in Christ Jesus will confront us with hostility, hatred, and even occasionally violence. In situations such as those, Jesus does not expect us to continue being his witnesses to such hostile audiences.
The analogy Jesus uses is phrased in chiastic form (i.e., A-B-B-A, or A-B-B'-A', a form of inverted parallelism). In other words, in the form of a Miller's analogy, holy is to dogs which turn and tear you to pieces, as pearls are to swine who trample (i.e., holy:dogs that tear::pearls:swine that trample).

the dogs are analogous to people who are antagonistic to a disciple's witness for Jesus. Since dogs in Jesus' day were primarily of the wild, feral type, if you were to throw them a scrap of meat, they would eat the scrap, and when they had finished it they just might turn and attack the source of the meat! So it is with a person (or group of people) whose reaction to the gospel is not only antagonistic but even borders on being violent. From such a one, Jesus warned, steer clear.

the pigs are also analogous to people who are antagonistic to a disciple's witness for Jesus. Instead of expressing violence toward the Christian, they treat with contempt the pearls of wisdom they hear coming from the lips of Christians. A modern pig of this sort would be Bill Maher, who instead of "playing fair" when debating Christians will "fight dirty," calling the Christians names (the old ad hominem fallacy), making Christians' pearls of wisdom sound narrow-minded, old-fashioned, outmoded, outdated, stupid, idiotic, irrational, and on and on and on. Instead of debating issues intelligently, rationally, and fairly, he simply casts aspersions on people of faith.

Jesus used this kind of good judgment, for example, when his reading of Isaiah and his brief commentary on that reading in the synagogue in his home town caused his audience to be "filled with rage." Rather than letting the mob have their way with him--they wanted to throw Jesus to his death from the brow of the hill on which Nazareth was built, Jesus simply vanished!

"But passing through their midst, He went His way. And He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and He was teaching them on the Sabbath; and they were amazed at His teaching, for His message was with authority" (Luke 4:301-32).

What a difference between Jesus' audience in Nazareth and his audience in Capernaum! Matthew gives us some additional information about Jesus' experience in Nazareth:

"And they took offense at Him . . .. And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief" (13:57-58, excerpts).

Regarding these two kinds of audiences, the receptive audience and the hostile audience, Jesus told his disciples to use good judgment when they see they are getting nowhere with a hostile audience. That is, they are not to stick around and get into a harangue with an obviously hostile audience. Rather, they are to go to another audience who might be more receptive to the gospel of Christ.
Elsewhere in the Gospels, prior to sending his disciples out two by two, Jesus encouraged them to "shake the dust off their feet" as they left a town if the townspeople would neither receive them nor listen to what they had to say (see Matthew 10:14; Mark 6:11; and Luke 9:5).
In conclusion, judging people for their motives and for their faults as we see them, is the kind of judgment Christians are to avoid. On the other hand, using good judgment is the kind of judgment Christians (and churches, for that matter) are to use, whether in their interactions with unbelievers outside the church, or in their interactions with fellow believers within the church. The "sinners" outside the church, God will judge one day. The sinners inside the church, the leaders of the church are to judge, particularly is there are two or three witnesses to the sinful behavior of a brother or sister in Christ (see 1 Corinthians 5, especially verses 12 and 13).


John 3:5: "Of water" refers to physical birth from amniotic sac --- who first proposed that theory? Amen, amen, I say to you — if a man is not born of water and Spirit,
  he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Some say that the phrase "of water" refers to physical birth. Thus, one must be born in order to be born again, a logical progression of sorts. But, who first proposed this interpretation of John 3:5?

Disclaimer: This is not my belief. I'm asking who first proposed it because I'm writing a paper on the topic. Thank you.

Short Answer: I was unable to find anything in support of this view prior to 1989.

D. A. Carson's commentary on John (generally considered to be the best available commentary on this book of the Bible) explains the following: (See p. 191)

  Noting that v. 6 describes two births, one from flesh to flesh and the other from Spirit to Spirit, some interpreters propose that 'born of water and the Spirit' similarly refers to two births, one natural and the other supernatural. . . . To support this view, 'water' has been understood to refer to the amniotic fluid that breaks from the womb shortly before childbirth, or to stand metaphorically for semen. But there are no ancient sources that picture natural birth as 'from water', and the few that use 'drops' to stand for semen are rare and late.

Thus, it would seem that there are no ancient sources to cite for this view. This is confirmed by The NIV Application Commentary: (see p. 115)

  The chief problem here is that this culture did not refer to natural birth as birth "by water" (although we may do so today, thinking of water as either amniotic fluid or semen.)

For a defense of the natural birth view, Carson points us to two sources:

Ben Witherington III, New Testament Studies 35, (1989), 155-160
L. Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John, (IVP, 1989), 150-151

Andreas Kostenberger's commentary on John (which is ranked #2 on the aforementioned site) suggests two additional sources for a defense of the physical birth view:

B. Witherington, John's Wisdom, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox., 1995), 97
J. C. Laney, Moody Gospel Commentary: John, (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 78

Here is some additional information that I came across which may be helpful:

The New American Commentary also supports Carson's claim: (see p. 173-174)

  These two words also should not be bifurcated as in some inadequate folk interpretations of the text where water is equated with the water of natural birth (either that of the sack in which the baby floats or the male fluid of the sex act).

Two sources are suggested for further research (although I am not sure if they are defenses or refutations):

Beasley-Murray, John, 48
H. Odeberg, The Forth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relations to Contemporaneous Religious Currents (1929; reprint, Amsterdam: B. RR. Gruner, 1986), 63

Note that The New International Commentary on the New Testament identifies Odeberg as a proponent of the "water = semen" view, which suggests that the latter citation may not be relevant to the amniotic fluid view. (see p. 191-192) The citation given appears to be the same source:

Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, (Uppsala, 1929), 48-71

I also learned from this commentary that Calvin viewed "water and Spirit" as synonymous, and that Luther said that "water" refers to water baptism, which I thought was interesting.

Anyway, I hope that helps point you in the right direction.


What are the Twelve Tribes of Israel? The Bible frequently refers to the twelve tribes of Israel. Which tribes constitute this list? Jacob had twelve sons, but Joseph's two sons each got a land inheritance and Levi got none. So do the twelve tribes refer to those who had territories (thus excluding Levi) or to the sons of Jacob (combining Manasseh and Ephraim)?

When the names of the tribes were written, for example Exodus 28:21, how would the list appear? Would Joseph be written in place of Manasseh and Ephraim or would Levi be omitted?

Jacob had twelve sons by four women. They are:

From Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun
From Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin
From Bilhah (Rachel's maid): Dan and Naphtali
From Zilpah (Leah's maid): Gad and Asher

Joseph, of course, had two sons - Manasseh and Ephraim.

The tribe of Levi was not given an inheritance, as we see in Joshua 13:14:

  But to the tribe of Levi he gave no inheritance, since the offerings made by fire to the LORD, the God of Israel, are their inheritance, as he promised them.

We see the separation of the 'House of Joseph' into the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in Joshua 14:4 (and a repetition of the Levite's inheritance)

  for the sons of Joseph had become two tribes--Manasseh and Ephraim. The Levites received no share of the land but only towns to live in, with pasturelands for their flocks and herds.

We can read in the rest of Joshua 13 the particular land each tribe was given (note that Manasseh actually became two half-tribes. One half was beyond the Jordan, and eventually disappeared from Israel).

The basis for Ephraim and Manasseh being full tribes is given in Genesis 48:5-6, as Jacob adopts them as if they were his own sons (as Reuben and Simeon):

  And now your two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine. Your offspring whom you beget after them shall be yours; they will be called by the name of their brothers in their inheritance.

So the twelve tribes can be listed as:

Reuben
Simeon
Judah
Issachar
Zebulun
Ephraim
Manasseh
Benjamin
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Asher

We see this listing clearly in Numbers 1, and a final note on the separation of the Levites (v47-49):

  The ancestral tribe of the Levites, however, was not counted along with the others. The Lord had said to Moses: “You must not count the tribe of Levi or include them in the census of the other Israelites."


What is the Catholic view of Matthew 18:20 in this technology age? Matthew 18:20 (NET):

  For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.

There is so much technology now.

Does the Catholic Church have a view on whether or not it has to be a literal physical gathering of two or more?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays down some precepts:

2042 The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.”) requires the faithful to participate in the Eucharistic celebration when the Christian community gathers together on the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord.82
82 Canons 1246–1248

Note the use of the words participate, community, gather together. The use of this language precludes the solitary “participation” of viewing from afar. That’s not gathering in community.
Pope Francis mentions this in Evangelii Gaudium:

87. Today, when the networks and means of human communication have made unprecedented advances, we sense the challenge of finding and sharing a “mystique” of living together, of mingling and encounter, of embracing and supporting one another ... To go out of ourselves and to join others is healthy for us. To be self-enclosed is to taste the bitter poison of immanence, and humanity will be worse for every selfish choice we make.

To answer the inevitable supplementary question, “What about two or three people gathered around a screen?”, it is only necessary to say that they are not participating in what they are watching. It is still a vicarious experience.
This precept doesn’t mean that attending a church service, having to stand outside and watching what is happening inside is not participating, particularly when those inside involve those outside, for example by administering communion to them. That’s participation because there is community; a gathering together; mingling and encounter; embracing and mutual support.


When did sin and evil in the universe first appear? According to Catholicism and Protestantism (I am not aware of any division over this) When did evil in the universe first appear and what was the originating cause of it?

Note: I mean the immediate cause not the predetermined purpose that God had in allowing its appearance. Aside from any possible sense of a cause in God's sovereignty, when was the immediate and original appearance of evil in the universe?

When sin is defined as moving against God's will and evil is defined as the absence of God's presence it seems that sin and evil were first made when Lucifer rebelled against God and was cast from his position of glory and out of God's presence. The story is somewhat detailed in Isiah.

  “How you are fallen from heaven,
  O Lucifer, son of the morning!
  How you are cut down to the ground,
  You who weakened the nations!
  For you have said in your heart:
  ‘I will ascend into heaven,
  I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
  I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
  On the farthest sides of the north;
  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
  I will be like the Most High.’
  Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
  To the lowest depths of the Pit.  Isiah 14

From the verses we see that Lucifer first sinned when he claimed that he would ascend to God's glory and usurp Him from His throne. He was removed from God's presence which then created evil.

This is the oldest account of sin and evil. It must have preceded the fall of man because it was Lucifer who tempted them to take and eat the fruit. Before we know assuredly that mankind was not in sin nor removed from God's presence, therefore, sin and evil must have originated with Lucifer, or at least not with mankind. Such is Lucifer's infamy that he is called the father of lies and Satan which mean adversary, which implies that he moves against God's will always.

It is possible that sin and evil originated elsewhere but they are not detailed in the 66 book version of the Protestant Bible. The other seven that Catholicism takes does not say anything on the topic either.

These verses in Revelation may be relevant:

  Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Revelation 12

Here we see that Satan is permanently cast from heaven. Most scholars would argue that this event has not happened yet, and will occur shortly before the Second Coming. What may also be relevant is the passages in Job where Satan is actually conversing with God.

  One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?"
  Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” Job 1

The conversation continues but what is noteworthy is in the first few verses. It is clear here that Satan can still enter God's presence, but he can also leave it. This supports the idea that he was 'cast' from heaven already, in some respects. How is a bit of a mystery. The issue with Job is that a good portion of scholars, but not near the majority, would say that it is poetry and cannot be taken as a literal event.


Why does Humanae Vitae not mention involuntary celibates/singles? I was reading Humanae Vitae today and noticed that there's no section for people who want to date and get married (involuntary singles/celibates), but women never give them a chance to go on a date with them. Why does the Catholic Church seem forget about this group? The Catholic Church says that marriage is a choice of free will, but some are not given a chance to meet someone and go on dates despite how hard they try to meet someone, when beyond their inability to date they're normal completely.

To answer the first question, I don't think the choice to leave out single people in a document about marriage was unfair. Humane Vitae necissarily leaves out a large number of people, including people who are divorced, widowed, same-sex attracted, single-parents, consecrated religious, etc, just because they aren't the focus of the encyclical. I agree that the Church could say more about a lot of people, but that's another conversation.

In response to your comment about marriage being a "choice of free will", remember marriage is two people freely choosing to be together. It is not the choice of one person, because that wouldn't be marriage. Even if someone really, really wanted to get married, they couldn't just will a vocation to marriage. The vocation to marriage is not being called to an abstract idea, it is being called to a particular person, a particular person who feels the same call and also wants to be married. Unless you meet that person, you can't make a free will choice to get married. Not being married might be frustrating because it's not your choice, but not everyone gets the vocation they want. There were plenty of saints who wanted one vocation and got another, so you have a lot of heavenly friends to turn to.

Edit/Re: what if no one by free will chooses to even give you a chance to win their heart (date, or court)? –

On one level, the answer is simple. If no one chooses to date you, then it probably means that, at least for now, you are called to singleness. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or anything; I don't mean it as a put-down.

How you view singleness is completely up to you. It doesn't have to be seen as a bad thing. It doesn't mean that you are unlikeable, ugly, unworthy, defective or a bad person. It literally only means that you aren't in a romantic relationship. There are millions of factors at play; you don't have 100% control here.

People say no for all kinds of reasons. It might seem like they "aren't giving you a chance" or are rejecting you unfairly, but that isn't always the case. Maybe the person is interested in someone else or feels like they are called to religious life. Maybe they are other impediments to a potential relationship that they are aware of, but you aren't. A lot of times people aren't saying no to be mean, it's just that they don't want to hurt you by pretending that they want to be in a romantic relationship with you when they actually don't. Sure, some people in the world are actually mean, and genuinely like putting people down. But not everyone is like that, and you'll be much happier if you appreciate honesty.

Finally, it's not true that no one is offering you their heart. If you are Catholic and believe in the Eucharist, you know God literally is freely offering His heart and His whole life to you in the Mass/Eucharistic adoration, hoping you'll say yes and give Him a chance. I'm not a spiritual director, just a random person on the internet with zero credibility, but I'd be presumptuous enough to guess that God cares more about your well-being than you do, and that He cares more about whether or not you'll be a saint than whether or not you'll get married. Maybe, just maybe, He's letting you be single so you have a chance to find out how much you're loved by Him, instead of being completely distracted with trying to substitute it with human love.

Maybe try spending more time with Him. Focus on friends and family. Try offering your talents and time to others in service/volunteering. Spend time learning/enjoying life. That won't necessarily fix all the problems or find you a significant other, but you'll be happier with life as it is now.


so few churches acknowledge singles in light of 1 Corinthians 7: 6-9 is this an oversight? In the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.,) we really don't see Matthew & Rose, Mark & Betty, Luke & Beatrice, John & Sally, etc.

Why do churches put so much emphasis on couples, inferring that singles who have chosen celibacy really don't have a place (of course unless they are teen or twenties)?

I gave my life to Jesus at 16, and now am 61, and chose a path of singleness, according to the ability God gave me. I am confused because there seems to be such heavy emphasis on couples (nothing wrong with couples; I had extra-terrific parents for example). However, it is hurtful to feel like singles are the "low end of the totem pole"in Christian service and responsibility.

My parents had two girls (one married, and one single...me).

Do pastors cater to couple images because they presume tithing is higher? Is there cultural etiquette persuading the church more than templates of the New Testament church?

Churches/Pastors should never discriminate or cater to any specific group. This is especially true with a group that appears to be elevated in the heart of God.

The Bible speaks of a group, yes those that Paul identifies with:

  1 Corinthians 7:7,8 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I

How amazing that this group would be shunned as less significant.  It does not appear that this was always so.

  Isaiah 56:4,5 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off

Jesus speaks to this same group:

  Matthew 19:11,12 …he said unto them, "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb”.

Who are the eunuchs spoken of by Isaiah? Are they those to whom it is given, those born to live a celibate life?  Are they those like Paul, unencumbered by a physical marriage, wholly united to Christ?

This group should be elevated, set apart, and sought out for their insight into the things of God.

We are in an age where "herd mentality" is very strong and unfortunately a celibate life in an age of hyper-sexuality is not likely going to be understood.  Rest-assured, your Heavenly Father esteems those so born.


Where does the thought 'we were not even fit to eat the crumbs from under your table' originate, in the Anglican communion service? Does anyone know if there is a scripture reference for this, if not what is the thinking behind it?

We see at Luke 16: 19-21:

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.   And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores,   who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores."

There was presumably a custom among the rich, of cleaning one's  fingers between one course of meal and another  with some inferior kind of bread, which would then be discarded , as we do with tissue papers today . (I am sorry I am unable to quote any reference in support of the prevalence of such a custom at the time of Jesus.)


Why do some seek 'two beginnings' in scripture? There are arguments which I have observed which would seek to assert different occasions, or times or phases (depending on how the argument is worded) regarding Genesis 1:1 :

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [KJV]

and John 1:1 :

In the beginning was the word ... [KJV].

From my childhood, I have accepted these two as synonymous. At school, I vocally resisted the attempts of my Chemistry teacher to teach me of previous ages not spoken of in scripture and I vocally resisted the attempts of my biology teacher to teach me Darwinian evolution. I made my own inclinations quite clear.
Rather I read, as a schoolboy, in 1969, and accepted almost fully, Morris and Whitcomb's book 'The Genesis Flood, in which is set forth, in considerable scientific detail, what is now termed 'young earth creationism'.
In adulthood, I have continued to make myself clear, now as a Licentiate of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and now also as one with further training in Molecular Biochemistry, within the Pharmaceutical Industry.
To me, there is no valid need or reason to see the Genesis statement 'in the beginning' and John's statement 'in the beginning' as being anything other than synonymous.
And I am led to suspect (though nobody is actually admitting to it, thus far) that the unspoken need and reason for these two statements to be parted one from another in logic is that there might be inserted, between the two, a period of time - possibly a period of 'geological ages' - in order to satisfy the requirements of those who do not accept 'young earth creationism'.
In fact, I do not assert any age for the earth, for the first three 'days' (when no sun, moon or stars existed and when there was no intelligent being on the earth to observe, record or document any events) cannot, in my own view, be asserted to be any period of 'time' as we know it. And I am aware, having studied radioactivity and worked with many isotopes, that the age of the earth cannot be asserted by 'backward extrapolation' of current 'relative abundances'.
What I do assert, most strongly, is the fact of seventy generations from Adam to Christ (as made clear by Luke) ; the fact that evolution is not the reason for the existence of distinct species ; and the fact that the Flood was global and catastrophic, as is evidenced in contemporary geology, in unbiased archaeology and in many aspects of human history.
But I am curious as to the motivation of those who see 'two different beginnings'. Am I correct in my suspicion or is there other valid reason or motivation for this ?
My question relates to the two major divisions of 'young earth creationism' and 'old earth creationism' and is not a matter of denominations. I am interested in answers from both of those factions, for I, fundamentally, belong to neither.

EDIT (in response to answers regarding 'Ruin Reconstruction Theory' or 'Re-creation Theory') :
In answer to re-creation or re-construction theories, please see my own studies of 'waste and void' in pp 18-29 of the following link. This is a complex study and cannot be abbreviated.
(Requires sign-in to Google Docs.)
The Gates of Pearl

Gap theory (Ruin Reconstruction Theory) is an attempt to reconcile those who wish to take the Bible literally with a scientific view of a very old Earth.

The universe—heaven and Earth—was originally ("in the beginning") created aeons ago; life flourished for millions or billions of years. But this world (perhaps just Earth and not the entire universe) grew to be evil, and God destroyed it in a gigantic cataclysm. Earth became "without form and void" as a result of this destruction. (Gap theorists hold that the verb in the second verse is more accurately translated as became or had become rather than as was. The familiar six-day creation—a re-creation really—then followed, mere thousands of years ago, upon the ruin and chaos of this ancient former world.
Gap theory advocates, by this maneuver, are able to reconcile the
scientific evidence for an old Earth and universe and for life itself.
They, just as much as the young-Earth creationists, reject evolution;
to them, the re-creation six thousand or so years ago was not entirely
ex nihilo (although humans may have been created out of nothing) but
was certainly by divine fiat. Therefore, although they differ markedly
from "strict" creationists regarding the age of Earth, their
antievolution attitudes and arguments are virtually identical. - [NCSE  Creation/Evolution Journal, vol.8, no.3, Fall 1988 1

This insertion of a vast expanse of time between the first two verses of Genesis is undertaken without any reference at all to the first verse of John's gospel.
A similar attempt to reconcile Scripture with modern science posits a day/age scenario in which each of the six days of creation are not literally 24 hour periods but are, instead, periods of hundreds of millions or even billions of years.  Again there is no mention of John 1:1 in the formulation of this theory.
Difficulties in or refusal to accept the "In the beginning" of Genesis and John as referring to the same instance are usually driven by a theological need to strip Jesus, the Son of God, of His pre-incarnate divinity.  A common theme includes the notion that "the Word" was God's first, and only, direct creation after which everything else was created by God through the Word.
In this paradigm if Genesis 1:1 is the beginning of the creation of all that there is then John 1:1 has already occurred and if Genesis 1:1 can be widened to implicitly include the creation of the Word then "in the beginning" of John 1:1 is not equivalent to Genesis 1:1 but merely one aspect which is less than the whole.


Hosea 2:16-17 or Hosea 2:14-15? Should the following scriptures be Hosea 2:16-17 or Hosea 2:14-15 Complete Jewish Bible:

  “But now I am going to woo her —
  I will bring her out to the desert
  and I will speak to her heart.
  I will give her her vineyards from there
  and the Akhor Valley as a gateway to hope.
  She will respond there as she did when young,
  as she did when she came up from Egypt.

The Complete Jewish Bible you are looking at (notably, not a Jewish translation at all) is following the numbering scheme of the Masoretic Text where that text corresponds with 2:16-17. In most Christian English translations, this is labeled 2:14-15. (JPS Tanakh and Judaica Press Tanach also use the Masoretic numbering.)

The difference arises because the numbering system of the Masoretic Text ends Chapter 1 after verse 9, whereas in Christian translations it usually ends after verse 11. The shift in mood between 1:9 and 2:1 (MT; 1:9 and 1:10 in English) has been the subject of much commentary, and some consider 2:1 to be the beginning of a 'rhetorical unit,' making the numbering of the MT appealing. But that is beyond the scope of the question.


Does the Pope's encyclical Laudato si' have a Latin version? Looking at the Vatican's website it seems Laudato si' is the first encyclical that has no official Latin version, while the previous one, Lumen Fidei, had. Is this true?

There is now an official Latin version. Encyclicals are always published in the Holy See’s official journal, Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Laudato si’ can be found in volume 107, no. 9, published in 2015.


Where and/or when did the tradition that Methuselah died seven days before the Flood (for a period of mourning) originate? A few answerers to the question Significance of Methuselah's death year replied with the claim that Methuselah died seven days before the Flood began, thus leaving Noah and his family as the only remaining righteous people on Earth. (Most of these answers are deleted as they weren't sufficiently high-quality.) Furthermore, two of them also said that the 7 days between Methuselah's death and the Flood was for a period of mourning. At least one commenter said that they had heard of this tradition before, but did not know of any support for it, and a request for references did not get a response.

I've never heard of this tradition anywhere else other than these answers. Where and/or when did it originate? Specifically, the tradition that 1) Methuselah died 7 days before the Flood and that 2) the 7 days were for a period of mourning.

Not all extant versions of the Book of Genesis say that Methuselah died the year of the Flood. Wikipedia gives the following:

In the Masoretic text, he died at 969, in the year of the Flood
Septuagint (Alexandrinus), he died at 969, six years before the Flood
Septuagint (Vaticanus), he died at 969, fourteen years after the Flood
Samaritan text, he died at 720 years, in the year of the Flood

Of these, only the Masoretic text and the Samaritan text have Methuselah die in the year of the Flood. I believe the Samaritan text is not original, because neither his age when his son was born (67 years) nor his age at death is divisible by the 'magic' number 17, whereas in the Masoretic they are.

The Septuagint (Vaticanus) can be ruled out because there is no mention of Methuselah on the ark, and he could not have survived otherwise. This seems a pious attempt to avoid the appearance that a righteous man died in the Flood. The Septuagint (Alexandrinus) is technically possible, but is more likely another pious attempt to avoid the appearance that a righteous man died in the Flood. So, the Masoretic text is probably original.

Wilfred Shuchat explains in The Creation According to the Midrash Rabbah, page 124, that according to this midrash, the Flood was delayed by seven days to allow a period of mourning for Methuselah. Midrashim are a Jewish method of interpreting biblical stories, and were written down in the early centuries CE.


Why does God ask Abraham to walk blameless? This question is an offshoot from this question and it’s comments.  The question is:

Why does God remains silent for 13 long years after Hagar gives birth to Ishmael and then suddenly commands Abraham to walk blamelessly before Him. Was God annoyed with Abraham for some reasons?

There are several accounts in the scripture where we can find Abraham lacking in the uprightness God desires of His children.

Although a man of faith as we know, there were times Abraham doubted the ability of God to provide, deliver and fulfil His promises. In Gen. 12, after God led him to the land of Cannan and famine struck, he didn't trust God for provision. This indeed is lack of faith although it was the early stage of his conversion. Hence, Abraham travelled Egypt to be confronted with a circumstance that made him engage in conspiracy to deceive the Egyptians (vs 12). Although many believers have called Abraham a liar and all sorts, words which I'm very careful to use because the scripture didn't explicitly say so. I rather stick to the point that Abram doubted God and deceived Egyptians. Thereafter, the doubt of Abraham and Sarah took a different dimension resulting in the extra- marital union with Hagar which preceded the birth of the troublesome Ishmael.

These are not blameless life God wants. Morever, a lot of other things that might not have been recorded in the scripture because they won't be necessary for our learning might had taken place necessitating God's rebuke. What this tells us is that Abraham was a man just like us and wrestled with challenges of life and sins as we do today. Another thing to learn is that God's standard has always remained the same: ' walk before me and be thou perfect'.


How have Eastern liturgies changed in the past century? In the Latin Church, the Liturgical Movement and the Second Vatican Council resulted in broad liturgical changes.
To what extent has liturgy changed in the Eastern churches during the past 50 to 100 years? I am interested in any or all of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Eastern Catholic.

If we take liturgy, the customary public worship performed by a religious group, to include public worship practices originating in the laity in stead of the clergy, then in Russian Orthodoxy the most similarly obvious and controversial change in liturgy would be the popular worship and iconography of Stalin.

The Bolsheviks oppressed the Orthodox Church after seizing power in Russia in 1917. In 1943, during WWII, Stalin met with three chief hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, allowed the clergy to perform religious services, celebrate Easter and Christmas, and even promised to give the church back some of its monasteries (confiscated after 1917) and release imprisoned priests.
The three hierarchs, led by Sergius Stragorodsky, thanked Stalin after their meeting in a letter:

“In each of your words… we felt the heart that burns with paternal
love for all his children... The Russian Orthodox Church venerates you
feeling with your heart that it lives together with all Russian
people, by the will to victory and sacred duty to sacrifice anything
for the sake of the Motherland. God save you for years to come, dear
Iosif Vissaronovich.”

The reason underlying Stalin's actions was the invading Nazi army, who in an attempt to gain support with the population, re-opened churches that were closed by the Bolsheviks, is obvious: the only way to keep the nation united against the Nazis was to do the same.
This act of "re-legalization" made the dictator immensely popular with the laity, resulting in religious iconography, calendars and hero worship that permeates to this day. The last petition to declare Stalin a saint dates from 2015. It was rejected by the church patriarchs. Since the fall of the USSR, the Russian Orthodox leaders have vehemently denounced Stalin and other Bolsheviks, but the laity to this day retains the practice of iconic veneration of Stalin and Putin.

The Kremlin has been using the politics of memory regarding Soviet times (in particular the victory over fascism) as a fundamental instrument of legitimization of its power and control over society, thus ensuring continued social support and the preservation of the present model of power. You can find similar iconography for Putin throughout modern Russia.


What is Timothy's role in the early church? It's pretty obvious to me that Paul was mentoring Timothy in the new testament, but what was Timothy's role within the church?  Was he an assistant to Paul, Paul's representative, or was he actually a young church leader such as a pastor?

Apparently Timothy was a traveling preacher like Paul, who Paul mentioned in several of his epistles, as well as writing two epistles directly to Timothy.  Paul called Timothy his own "son in the faith" in both epistles to Timothy, and they did a lot of traveling together,  (Acts 20: 4, 1 Thessalonians 1: 1, 2 Corinthians 1: 1), and he did a lot of traveling and preaching on his own.  He was imprisoned and released at least once (we're not told why), and Paul considered him his most capable and most trusted assistant.


What is the basis of the LDS teaching that the angel Michael became Adam? The answer to another question referenced a website that discusses the LDS endowment ceremony.  I was looking through the part about creation and was a bit surprised to see that the angel Michael actually takes on flesh and becomes Adam.  I had read that Brigham Young had once taught the so-called "Adam-God" theory, but I had never heard the "Adam-Michael" concept.

  JEHOVAH: Brethren and sisters, this is Michael, who helped form the earth. When he awakens from the sleep which we have caused to come upon him, he will be known as Adam and, having forgotten all, will have become as a little child.

So, my question is, "What specifically is the basis for the LDS teaching that Michael took on flesh and became Adam, the first man?"  Is this in the D & C or anywhere else in particular?

With apologies to anyone who might be offended by this question... I understand that this is from the sacred endowment ceremony.  However, I am asking just about the doctrine itself, which happens to appear in the endowment ceremony.  I am assuming that the basis for the doctrine is not the ceremony itself, but comes from elsewhere.  That is what I am asking about.

Doctrine and Covenants 107:53-56

  53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos,
  Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high
  priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into
  the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last
  blessing.

  54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed
  Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.

  55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.

  56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.


What is the Biblical support for praying for the dead? In the question Absolution for a daughter an answer was posted that started by saying:

  The Rites of the Church do include prayers for the dead. It's not
  possible actually to absolve sins after death, but the dead are
  effectively helped by the prayers of the living.

  (emphasis added)

There is Biblical support that supports the idea of death sleep:

The dead do not know anything:

  For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And
  they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten.

  Ecclesiastes 9:5

The dead cannot do anything:

  Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there
  is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you
  are going.

  Ecclesiastes 9:10

The dead cannot praise God, or hope in His faithfulness:

  For the dead cannot praise you; they cannot raise their voices in
  praise. Those who go down to the grave can no longer hope in your
  faithfulness.

  Isaiah 38:18

There is no mention of God by the dead:

  For there is no mention of You in death; In Sheol who will give You
  thanks?

  Psalms 6:5

Jesus mentions that Lazarus, who was at the time dead, was simply sleeping:

  11 These things He said, and after that He said to them, “Our friend
  Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up.”

  12 Then His disciples said, “Lord, if he sleeps he will get well.” 13
  However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was
  speaking about taking rest in sleep.

  14 Then Jesus said to them plainly, “Lazarus is dead. 15 And I am glad
  for your sakes that I was not there, that you may believe.
  Nevertheless let us go to him.”

  John 11:11-15

Paul says that those who sleep, or died in Christ, simply wait for His return and their resurrection.

  13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those
  who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14
  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will
  bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.[b]

  15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are
  alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede
  those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven
  with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of
  God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive
  and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet
  the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18
  Therefore comfort one another with these words.

  1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

In light of these texts, and many others not shown, what is the Biblical support which Catholics might adduce for praying for the dead or that our prayers help them in any way? And if so, does it contradict the texts presented? How would a Catholic convince a sola scriptura Protestant?

Catholics and Orthodox do not subscribe to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is the doctrine that says that the only source of authoritative teaching is Sacred Scripture. Instead, we rely on Apostolic Succession to show that the doctrines we hold onto are those that the Apostles taught, by tracing the teachers and the teaching in an unbroken chain back to the Apostolic era. Regarding the specific issue of praying for the Dead, we have both the Sacramentary of Serapion and a Homily from St. John Chrysostom attesting to the antiquity of the practice already in the Fourth Century.
However, since the question asks for specifically Scriptural support for prayers for the Dead, the most important passage is the end of 2nd Maccabees 12:

39 And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves.
40 Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.
41 All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,
42 Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.
43 And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
45 And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

Here, part of Judas Maccabeus's army died fighting the Gorgias, military governor of Idumea. It was found that those who died had kept Jamnite idols, which is a sin. However, they had fought for Israel and to defend their homeland, so the people prayed that the Lord might forgive them this offense so that they might be raised when the Resurrection came. As verse 44 says, "for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead." But because he hoped for the Resurrection, it is not vain to pray for them.
Of course, your argument is that prayer for the dead is vain because they are all asleep. In fact, the doctrine of Mortalism (sometimes known as "soul sleep") is postulated exactly to justify the vanity of praying for the dead, or of intercessory prayer by the dead. But there are passages in Scripture where we see the dead specifically not sleeping. Particularly, in the passage of the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1–13; Mk 9:2–13; Lk 9:28–36) Moses and Elijah are standing together with Jesus and talking.

Mt 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
Mk 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
Lk 9:30–31 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

Also, in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19–31), the deceased are shown awake and concerned about things on Earth:

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

In Revelation, too, nowhere are the dead in Christ described as sleeping. Particularly, the twenty-four Elders in Revelation 4:4.10–11:

4 And round about the throne [were] four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.
10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

In the Psalms, a few references to the state of souls after death, for example:

Ps 16(17):9–11 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. 10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence [is] fulness of joy; at thy right hand [there are] pleasures for evermore.

In conclusion, there are many different positions on the nature of the soul and their destination after death in the Old Testament; and in the New Testament, the wide use of the verb κοιμάω "to sleep" to stand for θνῄσκω "to die" causes a misunderstanding (which unfortunately Luther was party to, which caused it to become a widely-held opinion among Protestants) that death is a literal sleep. This was not taught by the primitive Christian communities, as any review of the praxis of these communities will attest.


Why does the Roman Catholic church allow girls to serve the altar? I once knew a classmate who told me that she belonged to the Coptic Orthodox church. Out of curiosity, I asked her whether she had ever served the altar, because I figured that serving the altar was what many Christian families would push their kids for or want them to do. She told me that serving the altar was for boys.

Just recently, I made frequent visits to the local Catholic church just for fun. I noticed that the Roman Catholic church not only had female altar servers, but also had female singers that led the congregation to sing hymns, even though I do remember reading that the Roman Catholic Church did prefer to use castrati instead of real women. I know the Roman Catholic church is about as old as the Orthodox churches, so why would the Western church and Eastern church differ in their views of the inclusion of females in certain positions?

The Catholic Church did not used to allow girls or women to be altar servers. In his Allatae Sunt on July 26, 1755 Pope Benedict XIV explicitly cited Pope Innocent IV:

  Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.

He also referenced Pope Gelasius who stated that women serving at the altar was one of the "great evils" which had spread during his time.

In Canon 230, the Code of Canon Law reserves the role of acolyte, one who lights the candles in the Mass and prepares the Mass before the procession, to men. It is only in the necessary absence of acolytes, who are in fact clerics-in-training themselves, that 'altar boys' were permitted as temporary 'fill-ins'. These 'altar boys' were truly not 'boys' though, but rather typically adult laymen. The need of these temporary laymen was relevant during the Middle Ages in which clerics were attending seminary schools and were as such not able to assist the priest with preparing the Mass.

Due to the changing of times, the system of seminary schools has changed, and 'minor orders', to which clerics-in-training were devoted, passed somewhere into the abyss of times lost. While the participation of laypeople, as in laymen, in the Mass might have persisted for quite sometime, it is only of late, around the 1960's actually, that certain churches simply started to include girl altar servers not as in an act of need, but as in an act of regularity. The Vatican responded disapprovingly with the text Liturgicae instaurationes, written in the 1970. Despite this exercise of clarification, many churches still insisted on the practice, and so in 1980 the Vatican again affirmed a traditional position on the matter in the 1980 Inaestimabile donum. Granted the absence of the traditional 'minor orders' and the traditional definition of a 'cleric', the secularization of the Church urged Church leaders to interpret differently Canon 230, as though it were providing room for the inclusion of women in the liturgy as a regular practice. Not taking such a drastic step, which would be misinterpreting the role of laypeople in the Mass,the Pontificial Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (it's a mouthful, I know) was submitted a doubt in the common interpretation of Canon 230. It was to this official council that the Canon would be left to interpretation. The Canon to be discussed, Canon 230.2, read as the following:

  Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law

Traditionally, 'other functions' did not include altar serving, and if so, only in the most odd of cases. But the Council found otherwise. Furthermore, that the Latin term 'laici' used in the second paragraph in reference to the various functions that could be performed was in contrast to 'viri laici' used in the first paragraph to refer to the official titles of acolyte and lector implied that the former was referring specifically to men while the latter was referring to all laypersons, including women. So it was that the 'official' stance regarding whether women can be involved in altar serving became a definitive 'yes'. But the Council left such a decision ultimately up to the bishops. Furthermore, Church leaders including St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict continued to express support for traditional Mass rites rather than the contenporary practice. What is interesting is the progression of how girls came to be altar servers. The Church went from official clerics as the assistants of the priest, to layperson men, to layperson boys, to finally layperson girls.

Many traditionalists argue that laypeople serving Mass and fulfilling the roles of lector, cantors, and acolytes (the list goes on) were not intended by the early Church. If one reads the Canon one in fact finds that such instances were expressed as being only present when the Church did not have available official clerics present, who were likely in training to be priests. As such, many traditionalists interpret the Canon as being inherently conditionally true, in which such examples, laypeoples' roles are only in cases of great need. But the modern churches, now with little resistance from Pope Francis, quite obviously participate in such practices as though they were always meant to be regular, and if not, that are at least to be considered regular now. Only two diocese in the United States currently do not allow women participation in the process of Mass, and they are often looked at funny. For this reason, this issue has caused somewhat of a divide in the Church with several Catholics becoming perhaps overly zealous traditionalists and other Catholics becoming perhaps overly willing seculars.


Will men be circumcised after the Resurrection? Not sure exactly why I thought of this while taking a shower this morning, but I was wondering if the Catholic Church has ever weighed in on whether the bodies of men will be resurrected circumcised or not.

I've read that a glorified body would be free from any imperfection, impairment.  That if one had a received a scar in this life, it would be gone in the next.  If you lost an arm in this life, that it would be present in the next.  So if you lose some foreskin in this life, will it be present in the next?

I've also read St. Augustine used as his rationale for many of his ideas about the Resurrection the notion our bodies would conform to Christ (He had some caveats as to whether we would all be men or all have beards).

So, for the sake of deeper theological understanding, has the Catholic Church weighed in on this subject?

We won't know until the afterlife; the answer looks to be "no1"

The Fourth Lateran Council rules lean toward "no", as explained by Father Paul A Deffner, O.P.

  THE SAME BODY

  Not only will our body be brought back to be reunited with the soul,
  but it will be the same body to which the soul was united before
  death.  As St. Paul declared (I Cor. 15:33):

  This corruptible body must put on incorruption, and this mortal body
  must put on immortality.

  Speaking on this point, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
  declared:

  All men appear before the judgment seat of Christ with their own bodies, to give an account of their deeds."

  During this life, whatever one has done (good or bad), the whole man (body and soul) has shared.  It is right, therefore, that both body and soul should share in the reward or punishment in the life to come.

  ... When we say that the risen body will be the same body we had in this
  life, we mean this in the same sense as the body I have now is the
  same body I had 20 years ago.

St Thomas Aquinas' on the glorified body

St Thomas Aquinas Summa presents that Christ's glorified body was his own body, glorified.  (Thus, if we are to be "like Him" our own body (glorified) is what we'll have at that point.)

  Christ's body fell by death; namely, inasmuch as the soul which was
  its formal perfection was separated from it. Hence, in order for it to
  be a true resurrection, it was necessary for the same body of Christ
  to be once more united with the same soul. And since the truth of the
  body's nature is from its form it follows that Christ's body after His
  Resurrection was a true body, and of the same nature as it was before.
  (Summa Theologiae III, 54, 1)
  But Christ's body after the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires, and therefore it could naturally be handled. (Summa Theologiae III, 54, 2 ad 2)

St. Thomas Aquinas at Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 86 summarized, referring to the glorified body.

  Thus also will his body be raised to the characteristics of heavenly
  bodies — it will be lightsome (clarity), incapable of suffering
  (impassible), without difficulty and labor in movement (agility), and
  most perfectly perfected by its form (subtlety). For this reason, the
  Apostle speaks of the bodies of the risen as heavenly, referring not
  to their nature, but to their glory.”

And scriptural references ...

  Matthew 13:43: “The just shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of
  their Father,”
  Wisdom 3:7: “The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds.”  (Here clarity refers not being “clear” but to being “bright.”)

The four qualities of the glorified body are taught as Impassability, Subtlety, Agility, Clarity.  "Trimmed" and "not trimmed" didn't make the cut for that list.

About Subtlety

How does "most perfectly perfected by its form" address circumcision, if at all?   Will scars be healed?  Maybe, or maybe not.  Depends on if a scar is a "trophy of victory" for a given person.

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Questoin 1, Objection 4, Response 1

  On the contrary, Our Lord said to Thomas (John 20:27):

  Put in thy
  finger hither, and see My hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it
  into My side, and be not faithless but believing.

  I answer that, It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection to
  resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ's own
  glory. For Bede says on Luke 24:40

  that He kept His scars not from inability to heal them, "but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of His victory."

1 If one was circumcised while alive, one's glorified body would likewise be ... but your question seems to be about a change due to becoming a glorified body as part of the glorification process


What is the distinction between a sacrament and an ordinance? I have observed that Catholics and some other denominations call certain things they do "sacraments", and Protestants call certain things they do "ordinances".  I am not a Christian, but as an outsider, it seems that these things (like the symbolic drinking of wine in church) appear very similar.  What is the difference between "sacraments" and "ordinances"?

It is not only Catholics who believe in sacraments. All Orthodox and most Protestants believe in them as well, but with some differences between them. It is only Baptists and their offspring which eschew the word sacrament and prefer ordinance.
The word sacrament comes from the Latin sacramentum, which is itself a translation of the Greek mysterium. These words mean "mystery," which is a concept in the Bible too complex and controversial to get into adequately here, but the way it relates to the word sacrament is that the sacraments of the church mysteriously and invisibly convey grace to the recipients. Catholics, Lutherans, and Presbyterians all define "sacrament" similarly:

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1131).
Sacraments [are] rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added. (Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article XIII. (VII)).
Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 27).

Catholicism considers the following to be sacraments: baptism, Eucharist, confirmation, penance, anointing of the sick, marriage, and Holy Orders (ordaining priests and such). Presbyterians only consider baptism and the Lord's Supper (what Catholics call the Eucharist) sacraments, and Lutherans consider, baptism, the Lord's Supper, and penance to be sacraments. Protestants believe in marriage and confession of sins and may or may not believe in the other things Catholics call sacraments -- they just don't call them sacraments.
According to one Eastern Orthodox source, "Usually seven sacraments are counted: [the same seven as in Catholicism.] The practice of counting the sacraments was adopted in the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholics. It is not an ancient practice of the Church and, in many ways, it tends to be misleading since it appears that there are just seven specific rites which are 'sacraments' and that all other aspects of the life of the Church are essentially different from these particular actions. The more ancient and traditional practice of the Orthodox Church is to consider everything which is in and of the Church as sacramental or mystical."
Baptists call baptism and the Lord's Supper "ordinances" because they are rites "ordained" by God in the Bible. This is a difference in terminology but it signals an underlying difference in theology. If you call it a "sacrament" you are confessing it to be an act done by God through his church which confers grace on the participants. If you call it an "ordinance" you are confessing it to be an act done by you the participant as a statement of your faith (in the case of baptism) or as a memorial of Christ's death (in the case of the Lord's Supper). Note that there is some overlap in these definitions, and that Presbyterians for example wouldn't object to calling the sacraments "ordinances" as well as "sacraments." But those who object to the word "sacrament" do believe that no grace is conferred objectively by the act itself.


Are there any Christian sects that believe in "curative intercourse"? A lot of episodes from the Law and Order franchise seem to draw inspiration from real life events, however, with a recent episode (Law & Order: SVU Season 18 Episode 19: Conversion), I'm wondering whether the writers "jumped the shark": they portrayed a weird "Christian" sect that actually believe in something they call "curative intercourse" - in the words of the character Rollins, they believe "you can rape the gay out of someone".

It seems a little far-fetched to me that this would actually be taught by any group that claims to be Christian, but with groups like Westboro, I suppose anything is possible - is there any group that identifies as Christian that actually teaches any doctrine that resembles this?

There is such a thing as corrective rape that is practiced in parts of Africa, India, and Thailand. However, it is generally rooted in cultural ideas of heteronormativity and is most often used as a form of retribution or punishment for perceived lewdness rather than any specific curative religious ideology.  While anything is possible in the world of fringe cults, I have never heard nor could I find any evidence of any Christian sect or cult that practices it as a tenet of their faith.

A quick Google search of the phrase "curative intercourse" just leads to a few pages of links referring to that episode of SVU before veering off-topic. It looks like the writers of SVU coined the phrase themselves.


Is it known which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of Catholic priests who were accused of sexual abuse in the USA? Is it known which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of Catholic priests who were accused of sexual abuse in the USA?
The Catholic Church has suffered from the unfaithful and immoral priests within her ranks since the outbreak of the Sexual abuse scandals of 2001.
As concerns the seminaries within the United States of America do we know which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of priests who were accused of and\or convicted of sexual abuse in the USA?
I am also interested in the particular time period, either of accusation, conviction of the offences in question!

Is it known which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of Catholic priests who were accused of sexual abuse in the USA?
I remember when this sexual abuse scandal first hit the Church. At that time, I was living in the USA and asked several higher ranking churchmen where the majority of abusive priests were coming from? The only answer I got was St. John’s Seminary!

Any examination of the sexual abuse crisis afflicting the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles leads inevitably to a bell-towered campus in the rolling hills of Camarillo: St. John’s Seminary.
The 66-year-old institution has trained hundreds of clerics for the archdiocese and smaller jurisdictions across Southern California and beyond. It is the alma mater of Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, Diocese of Orange Bishop Tod Brown and other prominent prelates. Former San Francisco Archbishop William Levada, now the Vatican’s chief enforcer of doctrine, taught at the school.
But St. John’s, the only seminary operated by the archdiocese, also has produced a disproportionate number of alleged sexual abusers as it prepared men for a life of ministry and celibacy, records show.
About 10% of St. John’s graduates reported to have been ordained in the Los Angeles Archdiocese since 1950 -- 65 of roughly 625 -- have been accused of molesting minors, according to a review of ordination announcements, lawsuits, published reports and the archdiocese’s 2004 list of alleged abusers. In two classes -- 1966 and 1972 -- a third of the graduates were later accused of molestation.
The St. John’s figures are much higher than the nationwide rate of alleged molesters in the American priesthood, as calculated by a church-commissioned survey. The John Jay College of Criminal Justice study found that 4% of priests and deacons between 1950 and 2002 have been accused of abuse.
“The numbers get scary,” said Patrick Wall, a former monk who works for an Orange County law firm that represents alleged abuse victims suing the church, including about 100 who have accused St. John’s graduates. “I don’t think it’s coincidental.”
Archdiocese officials deny that the seminary was in any way responsible.
Spokesman Tod Tamberg blamed intense publicity over sexual abuse in the church for the higher rate of accusations involving St. John’s graduates, and noted that a California law temporarily lifting the statute of limitations for molestation lawsuits brought a flood of allegations against Los Angeles priests.
But J. Michael Hennigan, a lawyer for the archdiocese, conceded that exaggerated claims alone cannot account for the large numbers of alleged abusers in some graduating classes.
“There were a couple of years at that seminary where lightning struck,” Hennigan said. “I doubt we’ll ever figure out why.”
Spokesman Tod Tamberg blamed intense publicity over sexual abuse in the church for the higher rate of accusations involving St. John’s graduates, and noted that a California law temporarily lifting the statute of limitations for molestation lawsuits brought a flood of allegations against Los Angeles priests.
Several former students recall a licentious atmosphere at St. John’s that might have accommodated a range of sexual behavior, especially in the years before the 1990s.
The John Jay survey determined that the quarter-century from 1960 through 1984 was particularly troublesome for alleged abuse by clerics nationwide. At St. John’s, about 15% of priests who graduated during that period and served in the Los Angeles Archdiocese were accused of sexual abuse, records show.
Some of the allegations have resulted in criminal convictions or civil settlements. Most are unresolved. The accusations lodged in civil complaints have not been formally denied because the suits are the subject of a court mediation, Hennigan said.
Typically, the suits focus on incidents that allegedly occurred after a priest left the seminary. But in a 2003 suit, Esther Miller alleges that a seminarian sexually abused her at St. John’s in the mid-1970s. - Trail of Abuse Leads to Seminary

It has to be equally true that St. John’s Seminary is not an isolated circumstance of producing a certain number of sexually abusive priests, but it is on top of the list.
Bad eggs will be found here and there, but the tentacles of St. John’s Seminary students are far reaching.


Do (or did) any Protestant denominations believe in apostolic succession like Catholics do? Do (or did) any Protestant denominations believe in apostolic succession? If so, who do they consider the most recent valid Pope?

Yes a number of churches other than the Roman Catholic Church believe in the Apostolic succession. A good example is the Church of England, which also follows the commonly accepted definition of Protestant (though it considers itself somewhat different from most other Protestant churches, largely because of the belief in Apostolic Succession). Specifically they believe that the leaders of the Church of England also follow the Apostolic Succession (there is not necessarily only one Apostolic Succession - the Apostles appointed many leaders, and they in turn appointed many leaders etc.)

The situation is that the Anglican church does not deny the validity of the Pope's Apostolic Succession, or of his leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. It does (and more importantly, did in 1534) deny his status as a wordwide leader of all Christian churches. This is in effect the theological difference that led to the English Reformation and the formation of the independent Church of England, and eventually the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The difference of opinion in 1534 was that the Roman Church believed that all (Western) churches should owe their (earthly) allegiance to the worldwide church, which happened to have its seat in Rome. The founders of the Church of England believed that a national church should be independent. (I'm leaving out a lot of things that aren't relevant to the immediate question).

Therefore: the last Pope that Anglicans recognize as the leader of the Church of England would be the one immediately before the Act of Supremacy came into effect - Pope Paul III. However they would not deny the validity of all subsequent Popes, up to and including the current one, as leaders of the Church of Rome.


Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Unfaithful Wife In Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on Numbers 5:11-31 (The Test of the Unfaithful Wife) there are several references to Luke 5:18-32 (Jesus Heals a Paralytic Man). How does the Old Testament test of an unfaithful wife relate to the New Testament healing of a paralytic man?

It would appear that the two don't relate at all. I suspect that these verses in the resource that you've linked to are as a result of a transcription error as they don't appear at all in this version nor even in the version that studylight claims for it's source.


Do Catholics believe everything in the bible is true as written? I thought I remember at some point learning that Catholics believed everything that was mentioned int he bible actually happened. Things like Noah actually having 2 of every animal on one ark, Jonah living inside of a whale, etc.

Is this true? Are there groups that believe things in the bible happened as written?

OP asks:

  Do Catholics believe everything in the bible is true as written?

<meme>You keep using that word, "true". It does not mean what you think it means.</meme>

The short answer is "Yes, and not quite", if by "true" is intended a flatly literalistic understanding of everything written in the Bible. (On the problem of "literalism", not restricted to Catholic interpretation of Scripture, see James Barr, "Literality", Faith and Philosophy 6(4) (1989): 412-428.)

Dei Verbum

A good way to get a handle on Catholic understanding of Scripture is to read the document from the Second Vatican Council (which met throughout 1962-1965) entitled Dei Verbum (which also has a helpful article on Wikipedia). That document both affirms that

  the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation (Ch. III ¶ 11).

It also immediately goes on to acknowledge that

  since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words" (Ch. III ¶ 12).

[Emphasis added by me.] In practice, then, one needs to consult approved teachers of the church to know in any particular case whether such-and-such a case is to be taken as literally true. (And the church has a teaching office in this regard: "It devolves on sacred bishops 'who have the apostolic teaching' to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and above all the Gospels" [Dei Verbum, Ch. VI ¶ 25].)

Examples

OP gives two examples: "...Noah actually having 2 of every animal on one ark, Jonah living inside of a whale...". Between them, they suggest the scope of possibilities open to Catholic "belief" about the Bible, as displayed by the Jerome Biblical Commentary, published in the wake of Vatican II, and having the nihil obstat (explanation) and imprimatur  (also explained):

Noah - The article on Genesis describes its stories as "history", but in a heavily qualified way, since this "history" has a divine origin, purpose, and unity:

  Because it is supernatural, the purpose is beyond the effective control of modern scientific history. Therefore, the ultimate meaning of Genesis, like that of the other books of the Bible, will always elude the historian who works outside its religious postulates. (p. 8)

Meanwhile, the events of the "primitive history" (Genesis 1-11) are "facts", "events of a cosmic order that affected universal man", so that the "first 11 chapters of Genesis present truths based on historical facts" (p. 8). In practice, for the flood story, the composite nature of the biblical account -- made up of material from "J" and "P" -- is a given, and the source of the story found in Mesopotamian flood accounts, with parallels noted and discussed: "The non-biblical versions reflect pagan mythology... In the biblical story, the one God, supreme lord of the situation, decrees the flood because of man's sin" (p. 15). The "cosmic" nature of the whole story is repeatedly stressed.

There is no special consideration given as to the pairs of animals (6:20; nor the tension with there also being "seven pairs" instructed in 7:2-3).
Jonah - is taken to be a product of the period 400-200 BC (p. 633; and roughly Hellenistic, then), and asserts

  Although scholars differ as to the term that should be used in determining the literary form of Jonah, they would agree that the book is not to be classified as history. ... Jonah is to be classified as a didactic narrative, satirical in tone with a profound theological purpose. (p. 634)

Conclusion

Hopefully this makes clear how it is that Catholic teaching affirms that the Bible is true, but that at the same time, this is not to be understood in terms of taking all its statements "literally".


Are there any Christian denominations that incorporate Odinism? Are there any Christian denominations or specific churches that incorporate Odinism or Odinistic cultural traditions?

Perhaps, as a way to show that the original religion of northern Europe was not to be destroyed but revealed through Christ?

For example, Odinists state:

  The calendar in use by Odinists in this country today is based on some
  of the festivals most widely celebrated by our ancestors, especially
  those which have survived as part of our people's folklore. Many
  church festivals have incorporated elements of heathen customs; and it
  is now our task to 're-paganise' them.

All About Odinism

We don't know as much about the German religion as the Greek and Roman ones, because the Germans used less permanent materials in their society, and didn't really write things down. What we have regarding them now is whatever Romans and Greeks decided to write down, and whatever elements were, as you pointed out, incorpated into the culture after Christianization.

"Odinism" is polytheistic, while Christianity is ruthlessly monotheistic. At most a Christian could believe that the German gods were demons misleading people, or angels whose message was misunderstood. Most just say they were idols, or, for those like C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton, saw the myths as factually false, but true in that they revealed a need of the human heart, a need that was fulfilled by Christ. Just as a boy might daydream about what his future wife might be like, and then later on in life meet her in reality, so the pagan myth makers were daydreaming about their Bridegroom, who they met Him for real by the Incarnation. For more detail regarding this, I highly, highly, recommend reading G. K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man, especially the chapter "Man and Mythologies," which is one of the best essays he has ever written. You can find it here: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html#chap-I-v*

There are many elements of German belief in our society that were incorpated into culture practiced by later Christians. For example, our English weekday calendar, except for Saturday (who is a Roman god), are all Anglo-Saxon deities. The name "Easter" refers to the Old English name for the month of April, who was a fertility goddess (just as April is itself named after the Greek fertility goddess Aphrodite). Santa Clause might be based on an Old Norse legend involving Odin/Wodin. Just because things were pagan, doesn't make them wrong per se, because paganism is the religion of humanity, or at least of a fallen humanity. When Christ came, He didn't come to reject all of paganism, for that would be to reject humanity. Rather, He, and the Church, took what was good, and rejected what was bad, based on the doctrines of faith, just as the Israelites savaged the spoils from Egypt. The spoils weren't wrong and evil per se, they were just in the hands of the pagans and the evildoers.

Think about it. The New Testament is written in common Greek, a language created by pagans and used by pagans. Do you really think the Apostles should have rejected the pagan language just because it was pagan?

Christi pax.

*Here's an audio recording: https://archive.org/details/EverlastingMan (pick Book I, Chapter V). I got all this from this website ultimately: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/index.html


Were Annanias and Saphira guilty of the "unforgiveable" sin? In Acts 5 we are presented with the account of Annanias and Saphira.
Summary

they sold a piece of property, and then determined to lie to the Apostles and the Holy Spirit about its value, and give only a portion of the sale to the church
they were struck dead for conspiring to lie to the Holy Spirit
they were NOT struck dead for giving only a portion of the sale to the church

Question
Were Annanias and Saphira guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and thus ineligible to be saved and/or "lose" their salvation?
I ask not to try to determine if they will be in heaven (the record does not give an indication), or to try to speculate too much, but because I wonder if there is a Biblical argument to be made that this is a prime example of the unforgiveable sin (which, as a Calvinist, I would say meant their "salvation" was never "real" in the first place, and it was only an act).
If it is not, are there any given examples of such a sin in the Bible?

I don't believe that they necessarily did, though it is certainly possible.

The unforgivable sin, in my understanding, is living your life without remorse or repentance to God for your sins. Annanias and Saphira sinned just before they died (were killed), but that doesn't mean they weren't previously saved. After all, all Christians sin after being saved, but the difference is that we do not continue to have unrepentant sin patterns which control us.

It is possible that God was just using Annanias and Saphira as an example, as Paul writes to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. The Corinthians in this case were sinning by profaning the practice of communion with gluttony, and as a consequence God made them sick to the point of death.

  Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

John Piper has a good talk on the unforgivable sin.


Does the text of the 13th Century Vita of St. Dymphna still exist today? The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says the following about St. Dymphna:

  The earliest historical account of the veneration of St. Dymphna dates from the middle of the thirteenth century. Under Bishop Guy I of Cambrai (1238-47), Pierre, a canon of the church of Saint Aubert at Cambrai, wrote a "Vita" of the saint, from which we learn that she had been venerated for many years in a church at Gheel (province of Antwerp, Belgium), which was devoted to her. The author expressly states that he has drawn his biography from oral tradition.

Does the text of this Vita still exist today?

The Acta Sanctorum is an official collection of saints' lives by various authors used for their processes of beatification or canonization.

St. Dympna's vita is pp. 475-495 of Acta Sanctorum vol. 16; p. 476 says the author is the canon regular Peter of St. Aubert of Cambrai (Cameracensis):

  Vitam S. Dympnæ scripsit Petrus Canonicus Regularis S. Autberti Cameracensis

Also, according to Fr. Butler's biography of her, this is another vita of her:

  Molanus, Miræus, the Roman Martyrology, Henschenius, t. 3, Maij. p. 477