Does the Bible or Church tradition differentiate marriage from partnerships? Today "marriage" generally appears to be elevated over civil unions and other partnership relationships, has this been consistent throughout Church history?

Marriage appears to be about much more than sexuality, what stance do mainline Protestants hold regarding the sanctity of marriage?

Conservative pastor and OT scholar Gordon Hugenberger of Park Street Church in Boston argues that the biblical view of marriage is less formal and ceremonial than we view it today. It had more economic overtones, less romantic ones (at least at the outset), and generally speaking, engaging in sex automatically created the marital covenant. (See his dissertation published as Marriage as a Covenant and his sermon series on marriage -- MP3s here -- and subsequent Q&A, which calls out the titles of the sermons in the MP3 link.)

In short, I think he would say a male-female sexual relationship is viewed as itself creating a marital bond, whether formalized publicly or not, and dissolution of that relationship would amount to a divorce or breaking of the marital covenant. (A non-sexual partnership or an otherwise prohibited sexual relationship would not create such a bond.)

As a qualification on this, he notes that the issue of "premarital" sex was far less common than it is today in our wealthier, leisurely society with its delayed marriage age:

  Throughout the entire ancient Near East, men and women normally got
  married in their mid-to-late teens. For this reason, there were very
  few individuals around who were old enough to be sexually mature, but
  who were not yet married or at least "pledged to be married."
  (Engagement or "betrothal" gave couples the legal status of marriage,
  even though their marriage was not yet consummated.) This is why far
  more attention is given in the Bible to the problem of adultery than
  to the temptation of premarital sexual promiscuity. There was very
  little in the ancient world comparable to our practice of dating.

As for history, conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat argues that the Western, Judeo-Christian-derived ideal for marriage

  holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two
  sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the
  mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a
  uniquely admirable kind of relationship. It holds up the domestic life
  that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in
  intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely
  admirable approach to child-rearing. And recognizing the difficulty of
  achieving these goals, it surrounds wedlock with a distinctive set of
  rituals, sanctions and taboos.

Marriage in this understanding is "not some universal, biologically inevitable institution" but rather is

  a particular vision of marriage, rooted in a particular tradition,
  that establishes a particular sexual ideal [and] it was the Western
  understanding. Lately, it has come to co-exist with a less idealistic,
  more accommodating approach, defined by no-fault divorce, frequent
  out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy. [emphasis added]

On the whole Christian tradition has supported the idealistic vision thoroughly, until the mid to late 1900s when a "less idealistic" vision found some supporters among the more liberal members of various branches of the church and the culture at large. It has consequently seeped into more conservative churches in various ways (e.g., in how the church treats divorce), though most still hold out against some trends, such as premarital sex and cohabitation.

As for your updated question about mainline denominations' views: the mainline churches are hardly a monolithic whole, so generalization usually leads to some inaccuracies in comparing between groups (say, the UCC and the PCUSA). The mainlines tend to be relatively "big tent" operations with a wider variety of views than a more theologically conservative denomination, though there are often still a conservative subset within their tents. As a rule of thumb, the more conservative the group as a whole, the less variance there will be in their views.

Views on marriage can and do range widely even within on particular mainline group. Some progressives have abandoned any semblance of a traditional or biblical ethic in setting the parameters for marital relationships, preferring some less stringent "ethic of love" (or whatever). Votes on such matters at the denominational level are often very close, indicating that there is not a strong consensus within the group. Even when a view is adopted, there can be a large minority group within the denomination that does not agree with it.

All that being said, to my knowledge no mainline group officially recommends cohabitation, etc. They still prefer to see a public commitment in the form of marriage, even if their definition of marriage includes differences from the Western ideal described above, such as easy divorce or same-sex couplings.


Can a person be forgiven outside of confession? (Catholic) As a follow up to this question I'd like to ask if a person, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, can obtain God's forgiveness outside of the sacrament of confession.

I would imagine Protestants would say yes, but what is the Roman Catholic teaching? If the answer is yes, how can one be sure he was forgiven without a priest's absolution?

I know a Catholic would still be required go to confession, but I know Catholics who don't understand this theology but have sincere hearts, and they desire forgiveness outside of the sacrament.

Yes, if one has perfect contrition, which Fr. John Hardon, S.J., defines in his Catholic Dictionary as:

PERFECT CONTRITION
Sorrow for sin arising from perfect love. In perfect contrition the sinner detests sin more than any other evil, because it offends God, who is supremely good and deserving of all human love. Its motive is founded on God's own personal goodness and not merely his goodness to the sinner or to humanity. This motive, not the intensity of the act and less still the feelings experienced, is what essentially constitutes perfect sorrow. A perfect love of God, which motivates perfect contrition, does not necessarily exclude attachment to venial sin. Venial sin conflicts with a high degree of perfect love of God, but not with the substance of that love. Moreover, in the act of perfect contrition other motives can coexist with the perfect love required. There can be fear or gratitude, or even lesser motives such as self-respect and self-interest, along with the dominant reason for sorrow, which is love for God. Perfect contrition removes the guilt and eternal punishment due to grave sin, even before sacramental absolution. However, a Catholic is obliged to confess his or her grave sins at the earliest opportunity and may not, in normal circumstances, receive Communion before he or she has been absolved by a priest in the sacrament of penance.

cf. imperfect contrition (also called "attrition"):

IMPERFECT CONTRITION
Sorrow for sin animated by a supernatural motive that is less than a perfect love of God. Some of the motives for imperfect contrition are the fear of the pains of hell, of losing heaven, of being punished by God in this life for one's sins, of being judged by God; the sense of disobedience to God or of ingratitude toward him; the realization of lost merit or of sanctifying grace. Also called attrition, imperfect contrition is sufficient for remission of sin in the sacrament of penance. It is also adequate for a valid and fruitful reception of baptism by one who has reached the age of reason. And if a person is unable to go to confession, imperfect contrition remits even grave sin through the sacrament of anointing of the sick.

Protestants believe they always have perfect contrition, when the reality is most penitents do not (although they easily could, with God's grace), hence the necessity of Sacramental Confession to a priest.
See also the Council of Trent Session 14 on Penance and Extreme Unction, esp. ch. 4 "On Contrition" and the following canons condemning Protestant heresies regarding confession.
Perfect Contrition Implies Desire for Sacramental Confession to a Priest
Also, the Council of Trent session 14 chapter 4 on contrition notes that perfect contrition is incompatible with a lack of desire for sacramental (auricular) confession to a priest:

The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that [perfect] contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.


Is an out-of-the body-experience (OBE) possible according to the Catholic Church? If an OBE is the situation that the soul leaves the body for a while, could this be possible as the Catholic Church states that body and soul are actually one entity.

Etymologically, "ecstasy" means "to stand outside of oneself," which could be what's meant by "outer body experience."

Ecstasy is, according to Fr. John Hardon, S.J.'s Catholic Dictionary:

  In general, the state of being beside oneself through some overpowering experience. As a mystical phenomenon, it includes two elements, one interior and the other exterior. The invisible element consists in the mind being riveted on a religious subject. The corporeal aspect means that the activity of the senses is suspended, so that not only are external sensations unable to influence the soul, but these sensations become very difficult to awaken. Many saints have received ecstasies as a supernatural gift from God, although ecstasy of itself is not a criterion of holiness. (Etym. Greek ekstasos; from ex, out + histanai, to cause to stand: existanai, to derange.)

(cf. also the Catholic Encyclopedia's "Ecstasy" entry)

Many saints (e.g., St. Teresa of Ávila, St. Catherine of Siena, et al.) have experienced ecstasy where their bodies look as though they are dead, but they are really rapt in divine contemplation. St. Paul, for example, seems to have had an ecstasy, and he seems to have described a man who had ecstasies (2 Corinthians 12:2-4):

  I know a man in Christ: above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth): That he was caught up into paradise and heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter.

(cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on these verses)


Have Catholic views on Grace and Justification changed? At the council of Trent, the Catholic Church made several statements which seemingly reject the idea of Sola Gratia - Salvation by Grace alone. Examples include

  If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not
  increased before God through good works, but that those works are
  merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the
  cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

And

  If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and
  justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and
  justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes
  himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and
  justification are effected; let him be anathema

More recently however, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity released the "Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification" which seems to reverse this by saying that Lutherans and Catholics share "a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ."

Does this represent an official doctrinal position by the Catholic Church and does it represent a change in Doctrine?

No, the Catholic understanding of justification not occurring by grace alone has not changed. The 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification has not created any new doctrine, but restates Catholic doctrine on this point.
The Canons of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent include, among others, the following statements:

CANON I. If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. [This, note, is the very first statement made.]
CANON XXIV. If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
CANON XXXII. If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,—if so be, however, that he depart in grace,—and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

That is, the Council of Trent wanted to underscore that the teaching of the Church regarding justification includes the following points:

Good works alone, without the grace of God, are not sufficient to justify anyone before God.
However, good works are not merely "the fruits and signs" of justification, but activity which can, and must, be done by humans to merit further graces and ultimately salvation.
Furthermore, these good works, though inspired by the grace of God, are not solely attributable to God, but to the doer of good works as well; and these good works will ultimately (all other things being equal) merit for the believer "the reward of eternal life" in Christ Jesus.

All these things are still taught by the Church. The Church still believes that good works do not alone justify anyone before God; this is the work of the Spirit:

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1996)
And that good works are not just "fruits of justification" (though they are at least that), but work necessary for humans to participate in and merit salvation:

Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

(Catechism, paragraph 2010; emphasis added)
And, finally, that these good works we do are referable not only to God but more directly to us:

Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration.

(Catechism, paragraph 2025)
The Joint Declaration arrived at between Catholic and Lutheran theologians in 1999 extends to some very basic truths which both Catholics and Lutherans find acceptable; for example:

"All persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation." (paragraph 19)

"Good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit." (paragraph 37)

None of these statements (nor the others stated in the Joint Declaration) conflicts with current or past doctrinal statements of the Catholic Church.


What happens if the Pope is automatically excommunicated? Some actions incur automatic excommunication.  While it is debated whether a Pope can lose the office via heresy, what happens if a pope commits a sin other than heresy, such as abortion or violating the seal of confession, which carries an equal penalty?  Is the Pope subject to the automatic excommunication?  If so, would the election of a new Pope be called for?  What would then happen (in terms of the Papacy) if the excommunicated Pope repented and rejoined the church?

As the article here states (linked in the comments), the short answer is that the current legislation of the Church (i.e. the Canon Law) does not foresee such situation to occur. Perhaps it does not do so because under its own beliefs, God will never allow that to happen.

On the one hand, some excommunications (ferendae sententiae) are not automatic. They require a legal procedure in the form of a judicial investigation. One thing this investigation aims to find out is if all the conditions for an excommunication were met, e.g. that the person knew about the penalties of the sinful action to be conducted. These investigations are carried out by a judge, which is designated by the bishop. Canon Law states:

  Can.  1419 §1. In each diocese and for all cases not expressly excepted by law, the judge of first instance is the diocesan bishop, who can exercise judicial power personally or through others according to the following canons.

The bishop has himself the right to be the judge, and to reserve some cases to himself:

  Can.  1419 §2. The judicial vicar constitutes one tribunal with the bishop but cannot judge cases which the bishop reserves to himself.

Thus, ultimately it is the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, who can decide if he is to judge himself or not, as the matter cannot be delegated to a superior.

Now, recall that the purpose of excommunication is to make the person reconsider his/her error, and reconcile with God/Church. Thus, these types of excommunications could be quickly irrelevant if the Pope were to repent. All he need to do is to design himself as the judge for his case, and take notice that he repented, following the ordinary legal procedures (upon which he has full authority). Yet, if he were not to repent, it could well be the case that the Pope could block an excommunication process against him, or appoint himself as judge and dictate in favour of himself (e.g. that he was not aware of the penalties), and thus, there would be no excommunication. In other words, even if he committed a sin such a s to deserve excommunication, he might not excommunicate himself. Therefore, nothing will happen.

On the other hand, if the excommunication were to be automatic (latae sententiae), then, as point 1.3 of Canon 1331 states, an excommunicated person is forbidden:

  to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

This is the real conundrum. The See of Rome is de facto without a Bishop. More importantly, as explained in this answer, most of dioceses have an adjunct bishop, which takes office if the principal bishop leaves the place (e.g. if he dies). However, precisely because the See of Rome is the primus inter pares, and the see of the Pope, this one does not have an adjunct bishop! In other words, the See of Rome would be sede vacante! This means a new process for electing a pope must take place.

However, recall again that the excommunicated Pope (so no longer the Pope) can repent, and ask to the corresponding authorities (in order to make the process valid under the Canon Law) for reintroduction into the Church. Only if he is not willing to repent then the election process would go ahead. It would not be the first time in history where one "invalid Pope" claims to be the real Pope. Now, if a new Pope is elected and then the old one decides to ask for repentance, then that would be the ultimate bug in the software. Surely God will spare the Church from that ever occurring!


What is meant by a new heaven and new earth? I often hear people talking about going to heaven but it seems more like we are destined for a new earth..

From my understanding in John's revelation, the afterlife consists of a new heavens and a new earth, and we end up on the new earth, where God dwells.

  (Rev 21:1)  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
  heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more
  sea.

  (Rev 21:2)  And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down
  from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

  (Rev 21:3)  And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold,
  the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and
  they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be
  their God.

What did John mean when he said "new heaven" and "new earth" in this passage?

Because the Father is said to be in heaven, in the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9) and elsewhere. And in John 14:2 Jesus says:

  In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Thus it is rather reasonably assumed that Jesus went to prepare us a place in heaven itself.

Also Matthew's constant use of the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" plays a part in this, as probably does 1 Thess 4:17 "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

And because those who die before the New Jerusalem descends from the New Heaven to the New Earth in the book of Revelation, are probably in heaven in the meantime.  In Revelation itself, John places Christian martyrs in heaven by stating they are "under the altar" in heaven. (Revelation 6:9)

Also, Jude 1:14 "...Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,...."  but cometh from where?  2 Thess 1:7 "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,..."   So that would indicate these ten thousands of saints are with him in heaven prior to his second coming.


What, according to Catholic Church, does the name "Son of Man" signify? We see Jesus referring to Himself as "Son of Man" in all four Gospels (e.g., in Matthew 8:20, 9:6, 11:19; Mark 10:45, 13:26; Luke 5:24, 6:22, 7:34; and John 1:51, 3:14, 6:27, etc.). What, according to Catholic Church, does the name "Son of Man" signify?

According to the "Son of Man" entry in the Catholic dictionary by Fr. John Hardon, S.J., "Son of Man" is

  The most frequently used title of Christ in the New Testament, occurring eighty-two times and, all but once (Acts 7:55), in the Gospels. A messianic title (Daniel 7:2-14), it identifies the heavenly transcendence of the Savior while stressing his humanity, in contrast with the "Son of God," which emphasizes his divinity.


Whose hand wrote 'the document that listed my transgressions' ? (Colossians 2:14) This is a question in regard to Trinitarian, Protestant, reformed, baptist doctrine.
In Colossians 2:14 Paul states :

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; [KJV]

This I understand. God's writing (by the finger of God) on tables of stone, which was contrary to me (as born in Adam) was nailed to the cross and thus was taken 'out of the way'. The original states 'out of the midst of us' which I better understand for it alludes to the tree of life being present in the midst of the garden. With the removal of the commandments (which, like Paul, I found to be a 'ministration of death') Christ, himself, is in the midst.
But some versions translate χειρογραφον τοις δογμασιν [TR undisputed] - instead of 'handwriting of ordinances' as ' the certificate of debt consisting of decrees', or 'the record of the charges against us '.
By this addition (instead of 'the decree', they are adding 'the debt against that decreed') they are disputing that the decrees themselves are nailed to the cross, only the debts of transgressions against those decrees (they say) being so nailed.
This translation supports the idea that Christians, once converted, are to keep the law. Whereas many scriptures state that, for example 'we are dead to the law by the body of Christ'. In order to retain the law, this translation cannot allow the law to be nailed to the cross.
They must translate the text in such a way that something else (other than that which God wrote by hand) is nailed to the cross.
What mystifies me is the matter of 'handwriting'. These translations are saying that there existed, somewhere, a handwritten copy of all the sins and transgressions I ever committed. And that this handwritten copy of my sinful deeds was nailed to the cross - before I existed and before I had committed the deeds which were written (by hand).
The 'handwriting of ordinances' (written by the finger of God) I can understand being nailed to the cross, as it is a spiritual expression of the body of Jesus and what he represents in his death. It clearly expresses what was actually written down (on earth) and what was actually written by hand (the finger of God). And then sees that item, spiritually, involved in Christ's death.
But the idea of a handwritten copy of my own deeds is not clear.
Whose hand wrote it ?
Where was it kept, before being nailed ?

The word "cheirographon" (χειρόγραφον) appears only once in the Bible.
A literal translation is "handwriting", but that's not necessarily what it means in practical usage.
(cf. "chairman" or "pineapple" or even "carpet" in English).
Its meaning must be understood from other sources.
The Outline of Biblical Usage says that the word can mean:

a note of hand or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be returned at the appointed time

Strong's says it can mean:

a manuscript (specially, a legal document or bond (figuratively))

Thayer's Greek Lexicon says:

specifically, a note of hand, or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to he returned at an appointed time (Tobit 5:3 Tobit 9:5; Plutarch, mor., p. 829 a. de vitand. aere al. 4, 3; Artemidorus Daldianus, oneir. 3, 40);
metaphorically, applied in Colossians 2:14 ((where R. V. bond)) to the Mosaic law, which shews men to be chargeable with offences for which they must pay the penalty.

The common element is not whether it was written by hand (and 2000 years ago they didn't have typewriters or laser printers, so how else could it be written), but that it refers to a legal document.
In English we have "writ of execution", which is a legal order issued by a court.
The word "writ" literally means "written", but that it is written is irrelevant to the meaning, and in fact it could be machine-printed from digital data on a computer.
The obvious conclusion is that "cheirographon" should be understood as meaning "IOU" or "certificate of debt".
There is no justification to attaching significance to the individual parts of the word.
Saying that it was "nailed to the cross" is simply a metaphor.
The idea is that in being literally nailed to the cross, Jesus took that IOU and paid it for you.
By no means does it mean that you can now continue to take money from the moneylender without incurring new debt.


What indication is there that the famous census under Quirinius is the first-ever done in the region? Besides Luke's Gospel (which is grammatical difficult and may not mean "first" chronologically, but rather "most prominent/important"), is there any evidence that the famous census conducted by Quirinius in c. 6 AD was the first census taken in Judea under Roman rule?  Do any extant documents from antiquity state this or is the conclusion drawn largely from Luke and an argument from silence.  (Certainly there are known Roman registrations that could have extended into Judea (and don't necessarily relate to taxes), but we don't have a document that says they did.)

The reason I ask is that people sometimes emphatically state that the 6 AD census was the first and thus Luke must be wrong to tie it to Jesus' birth.  (Whereas grammatically it is possible that Luke is saying "the census before that one".) I am just wondering if there is any hard data behind this statement, or if it as exactly as it appears - an overstatement of the confidence with which we know this "fact".

Until the time of Quirinius, Rome certainly had the power to impose a census in Judea, but to have done so would not have made any sense, being a waste of resources and an imposition on King Herod who ruled autonomously on Rome's behalf. After Herod's death, his empire was broken up, in accordance with his will, and Archelaus inherited Judea, Samaria and Idumea. Archelaus proved to be both unpopular and incompetent, so was deposed by Rome in 6 CE, with Rome taking direct control over the former kingdom. Rome now needed to know what taxes could be raised in its new provinceand therefore conducted a first Roman census in Judea. Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian,  reports as follows on Quirinius and his census:

  Jewish Antiquities , XVIII, i, 1: Quirinius, a Roman senator who had proceeded through all the magistracies to the consulship and a man who was extremely distinguished in other respects, arrived in Syria, dispatched by Caesar [Augustus] to be governor of the nation and to make an assessment of their property.  Coponius, a man of equestrian rank was sent along with him to rule over the Jews with full authority.  Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to make an assessment of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it ...

We can be certain of the date of this census, because Josephus actually mentions the year 6:

  Jewish Antiquities , XVIII, ii, 1: Quirinius had now liquidated the estate of Archelaus; and by this time the registrations of property that took place in the thirty-seventh year after Caesar's defeat of Antony at Actium were complete. Since the high priest Joazar had now been overpowered by a popular faction, Quirinius stripped him of the dignity of his office.

Luke 2:2 says that the census first (πρώτη) took place when Quirinius was governing Syria. The straight-forward reading of this, accepted by most scholars, is that Luke is saying this was the first census in the region.

Luke confuses things a little, by saying (Luke 2:1) that the census was necessary so that the whole world could be registered, thus intimating that the census involved the entire Roman Empire. However, there never was a census of the entire Roman Empire. In any case,  people throughout the Roman Empire, apart from residents of Rome, were already taxed long before the New Testament events.  Judea was being brought into the empire and preparations were being made to tax its population.


According to Catholicism, is it permitted for a priest to employ the Benedictio Deprecatoris prayer to stop the spread of the coronavirus? In our daily living, the Church has given us a treasury of prayers from everything to blessings of various object such as holy water to exorcisms against the evil spirits that possess people. There is also a blessing ad omnia, for things not having a proper blessing unto themselves.

I have been wondering through the Rituale Romanun the other day and caught myself thinking if it were liturgically permitted for a priest to pray the  following prayer in order to put an end to the coronavirus within his region (diocese or city) with the bishops consent: Benedictio Deprecatoris contra mures, locustas, bruchos, verities et alia animalia nociva (page 396). This prayer is in fact a minor exorcism.

In the Tridentine Rite a priest must have the permission of the local bishop to recite this prayer. In th Ordinary Form, I am not sure.

An English version in the Ordinary Form also exists: “Deprecatory Blessing Against Pests” that can be prayed by a priest. So when the pests won’t seem to go away, call the exterminator … and the priest.

  Here is a spiritual way to drive out pests

  There are times we need help from God to get rid of mice and rats, locusts, worms, rats, etc. A deprecatory prayer expresses to God –the Creator of all things– our negative or disapproval of one His guests. The prayer speaks for itself.

It seems reasonable that this prayer could be used in this circumstance, since viruses can be considered to be a life form and thus a pest.

  The origins of viruses are unclear: some may have evolved from plasmids, others from bacteria. Viruses are sometimes considered to be a life form, because they carry genetic material, reproduce and evolve through natural selection. - Viruses

Are viruses liturgically speaking considered pests (alia animalia nociva)?

My question remains thus: Is it permitted for priests to pray this particular prayer to help stop the spread of the coronavirus?

The exorcism prayer begins (Roman Ritual vol. 3 p. 164, PDF p. 1272):

  Exorcízo vos pestíferos (-as) mures (vel locustas, vel bruehos, vel vermes, vel alia animalia), per Deum ✠ Patrem omnipoténtem…I exorcize you pestiferous mice (or locusts, or grasshoppers, or worms, or any other animal), through God ✠ the Father Almighty…

The English (bottom of page here) translates this (sans the parenthetical remarks): "I cast out you noxious vermin, by God ✠ the Father almighty…"

Thus, I suppose it would be a question of whether a virus is an animal, as to whether this prayer is applicable to viruses.

The prayers from the Votive Mass for the Deliverance from Death in Time of Pestilence (a.k.a., "Mass on Occasions of Public Plague" or Missa pro vitanda mortalitate, vel tempore pestilentiæ) have been permitted to be said during the COVID-19 plague.


What is the LDS meaning of the New Jerusalem? The LDS (Mormon) Church has a visitor's center in Independence, MO, which area is apparently related to New Jerusalem. What is the significance of this in LDS theology and what is the LDS belief on this matter?

The tenth Article of Faith, given by Joseph Smith to a newspaper as a brief overview of LDS beliefs and later accepted by the church as canonical, states:

  We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration
  of the Ten  Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon
  the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the
  earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its
  paradisiacal glory.

(Note: The original text stated that it will be built upon "this, the American continent."  The word "this" was removed after the worldwide growth of the church caused it to no longer make sense for a lot of church members.)

This article deals with LDS eschatology, and touches on both the Old and New Testaments.  As the Wikipedia article notes, the New Jerusalem is mentioned in Ezekiel, and in the Book of Revelation it describes that the city would not simply be established on earth, but would descend from heaven, already built.  It is frequently equated with Zion by scholars, and as the text of the tenth Article of Faith makes clear, Latter-Day Saints agree with that interpretation.

Genesis chapter 5 tells us of Enoch's surprisingly short lifespan compared to his contemporaries, cryptically stating that Enoch eventually "walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."  Many Bible scholars interpret this as meaning that he was taken up to heaven without tasting death, much like Elijah.  The Latter-Day Saints accept this interpretation, but also believe that Enoch was not alone.

Moses chapter 7, (part of an excerpt of Joseph Smith's unfinished project to produce an inspired translation of the Bible that would restore truths that had been lost and correct the errors of history,) tells of Enoch's work and ministry, describing him as a great prophet and a leader of men. He established a city which was named after the concept that it embodied:

  18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one
  heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor
  among them.

  19 And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people
  of God. And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was
  called the City of Holiness, even Zion.

The chapter closes with a description of the city's fate, just before the Flood:

  68 And all the days of Zion, in the days of Enoch, were three hundred
  and sixty-five years.

  69 And Enoch and all his people walked with God, and he dwelt in the
  midst of Zion; and it came to pass that Zion was not, for God received
  it up into his own bosom; and from thence went forth the saying, Zion is Fled.

Joseph Smith taught that the location of Zion, the city of Enoch, had been upon the American continent, and that it was to return from heaven as the prophesied New Jerusalem at the beginning of Christ's millennial rein, and be established upon its original site, in modern-day Missouri, and be joined with the righteous community that was established there in modern times.  He explained that this was an important part of the meaning behind Isaiah 2: 3 (emphasis added):

  3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the
  mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will
  teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion
  shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Joseph Smith taught that the last part of this verse was not simply parallelism; it literally referred to two distinct places, and during the Millennium, there would be two world capitols, a political capitol at Zion (the New Jerusalem) and a spiritual center in Jerusalem.

For a more in-depth treatment of the topic, see Talmage's "The Articles of Faith", lecture 20 (covering Zion) and lecture 21 (covering Christ's millennial reign.)


What does Lumen Gentium 25 mean about submission? Lumen Gentium 25 states in part:

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (religioso animi obsequio). This religious submission of mind and will (religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium) must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium (authentico magisterio) of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

What does this "submission" amount to? Does that mean assuming the Pope is correct and not questioning that? How does it differ from the obligation towards infallible statements generally?

Exegetical Commentary on the [1983] Code of Canon Law (PDF pp. 3271-2) describes what obsequium* religiosum means:
*p. 916 (PDF p. 948) of New Commentary on the [1983] Code of Canon Law: "An exact translation of obsequium is difficult, but 'submission' is not the best one because it exaggerates the force of the Latin. Such English terms as 'respect,' 'deference,' 'concurrence,' 'adherence,' 'compliance,' or 'allegiance' would be better translations of obsequium."

2. Clarification of the response of the faithful using positive and negative terms
If classifications of the magisterial acts being studied here cannot avoid using negative terms to distinguish them from infallible magisterium, the same thing arises in describing the attitude with which the intellect and will of the faithful are to receive teaching presented in a universal and non-infallible magisterium: the faithful are to accept it with religiosum obsequium, which is not exactly the same as the assent to the divine and Catholic faith with which the faithful, under c. 750, are to accept the infallible acts of magisterium described in c. 749.
In order to grasp the exact meaning of obsequium religiosum, which is the [new] term used by Vatican II (LG 25) to describe how the faithful should receive teaching expressed in the acts of magisterium in question, it is necessary to appreciate both the similarity and differences between obsequium religiosum and obsequium fidei.
The Church, since St. Paul's teaching in 2 Cor 10:5-6, which describes the faithful's personal response to God who reveals Himself as "in captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi ['bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ']," has found no better way to express the loving and submissive acceptance by the intellect to divine revelation and to the dogmas of the magisterium than to repeat the Apostle's words, i.e., by plenum intellectum et voluntatis obsequium. By this reception, the obedience and submission of the intellect and will to revelation, "se totum libere Deo committit ['freely commends all to God']" (DV 5), and the body of the faithful glows brightly "per commune omnium obsequium erga Ecclesiæ mysterium ['through the common obsequium of all with respect to the mystery of the Church']."
Unlike obsequium fidei, obsequium religiosum, with which the faithful are to receive doctrine expounded in non-infallible authentic magisterium of universal scope, means that it "must be accepted reverently as supreme magisterium and the faithful must sincerely obey it in their intellect and will" (LG 25).
As can be seen, sincerely obeying with one's intellect and will does not imply "bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor 10:5-6) as does obsequium fidei. Yet acceptance of this authentic, universal, and supreme magisterium as such requires obedient assent, i.e., a loving and submissive acceptance by one's intellect, will, and conduct, "with one's mind and will in accord" (LG 25) with a non-infallible act of magisterium. Obsequium religiosum "cannot be just external or a matter of discipline, but must be seen with logic and from the perspective of faith."8 Doctrine expounded in these magisterial acts is not only consistent at all times with doctrine taught in dogma, but also, by virtue of divine assistance with which these magisterial acts always have an intimate relationship with the truth. Therefore, the hallmark of religious assent is obedience.
Religious assent recognizes that the universal non-infallible magisterium exercises a divinely assisted function, that it protects the deposit of revelation by promoting and unifying its teaching and application to certain historical and cultural circumstances. The constant flux in circumstances ensures that the type of magisterium described here (unlike statements of dogma) cannot and should not avoid so many historical, local, and ephemeral references. This is the "original limitation"10 of the non-infallible magisterium and at the same time its special usefulness, so that each Christian generation may find up-to-date guidelines to direct their apostolic acts in their own times and places.

Obsequium religiosum does not mean one is free to dissent:

In contrast to the obedient assent to be given this type of magisterium in submission and love, there have been a number of opinions over the last several decades that take the "original limitation" of this type of magisterium as grounds for an alleged right of the faithful to dissent from such a magisterium. By equating "original limitation" with an alleged possibility of "error," they claim that the faithful may dissent from it out of an alleged maturity acquired by better and surer ways. The model of protesting governmental authority taken from civil society would express the attitude of the faithful to this type of magisterium.
This perversion of obsequium religiosum is not acceptable even for an attitude on the part of those who dedicate themselves to the sacred sciences whose just liberty to do research and express an expert opinion in their areas of expertise should still be duly submissive to the magisterium of the Church (c. 218). This type of magisterium is still open to possible definitive statements in the future and needs the special contributions of students of the religious sciences whose assessments, made in accordance with the principles and methods of each discipline, are awaited and invited by the magisterium itself, "received with an accepting mind and will" (LG 25; cf. VSp 109-113).

cf. Humani Generis §20, quoted in this answer to "What does 'authentic magisterium' entail in Lumen Gentium?"


Is John the Baptist the same John who wrote the Book of John in the New Testament? I am confused about whether or not it was St. John the Baptist who wrote the Book of John in the New Testament.  I thought this was a different John who was one of the apostles.

You are correct in that the author of the Gospel of John was definitely not St. John the Baptist, but called himself the "Beloved Disciple", who testified to the truthfulness of the eyewitness account about Jesus and his ministry on earth (John 21:24).

The identity of the Beloved Disciple has been associated with St. John, son of Zebedee, one of the 12 apostles called by Jesus Himself (Mark 3:13-19).  For more on the identity of the "Beloved Disciple", you can read Who Wrote the Gospel of John? written by Dr. Gary M. Burge for the blog of the publisher Zondervan, which is academically responsible, or the wikipedia article.


Did Arianism survive as Islam? St. John of Damascus (676 - 749) writes on his Critique of Islam:

  From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy.

Could Arianism have influenced Islam? What are the similarities and differences between Arianism and Islam? Did Arianism survive to the current day as Arianism, with Islam being a branch-off based on Arian beliefs?

Like @curiousdannii pointed out in his comment, Arian influences do not equal an Arian viewpoint or verbatim parroting. In Qur'anic teaching, worship or veneration of anything besides God is strictly forbidden, or haram. This helps define what a Muslim (or a Christian or Jew or Sabean for that matter) can be and cannot be.

"Say: 'O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah.' And if they turn away, then say, 'bear witness that we are they who have surrendered unto him [Muslims].'"
— Surat al-Imran 3:64

Here the authors sought to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of who is and is not submissive to God's will; they understood that a polytheist couldn't care less about their al'Ilah, and they also knew that Catholics venerated saints (take others for lords)and placed Jesus at the right hand of God (ascribing a partner to God). Such a practice was unacceptable to them, and it was here that the line was drawn in the sand.
According to Arian schools of thought, worship of the Logos/the only-begotten Son was not rejected in favor of a strictly monotheistic faith. Arius' initial issue was not with worship of Jesus, but with semantics over what exactly the terms 'only-begotten' and 'one substance' implied. One faction believed that Christ was of one-substance, and that the Logos had not been created by the Father. Arius' followers instead posited that in eternity past, the Father created a lesser divinity through whom the creation would arise and would act as our reflection of the deity, meaning that the Logos was technically a created being.

"But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and ages as perfect as God, only-begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not."
— Arius of Alexandria's Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (circa AD 300)

Here you can see that Islamic perspectives on God are very much distinct from Arianism, perhaps more compatible with the Adoptionism that was popular in early Christianity or Paul Samosatene's theology.


What is the prayer roll at an LDS temple, and how is it used? Latter-day Saints sometimes talk about "putting a name on the prayer roll" at their local temple. This practice is mentioned in Church magazines and on LDS.org, but is never explained in detail.

What is the purpose of the prayer roll at an LDS temple, and how is it used? When did this tradition first come about?

A name is written down on a piece of paper by a patron, or office worker (if the name is called in), and placed in an envelope of sorts.  This is put on the alter during the prayer circle.   The words of the prayer is up to the officiator but generally speaking a generalized prayer that their needs will be met is said along with other things.

We believe that putting a name on the "prayer roll" will enable that individual with greater blessings from Heaven based on their needs.

As for the tradition, I don't know, but I did learn some things from @Daniel's link.


For what purpose were the "Chosen People" chosen? I have a good friend who is Jewish, and he often refers to being one of the "Chosen People".  I understand that God "chose" Abraham and his descendants.

With a New Testament perspective, as the answer to this question indicates, Christians are "chosen people" as well.

However, for what specific purpose were Abraham and his descendants chosen?  Being chosen seems to have no meaning unless we know the reason and purpose for which they were chosen.

So, that's my question.

From Scripture, they are chosen to do a number of things, for several reasons, all of which serve God's purpose.

They were chosen to produce the Messiah.
They were chosen to demonstrate God's power, as demonstrated in his dealings with Egypt, and throughout Scripture.
They were chosen to record Scripture
They were chosen to be the example, to teach us about God's nature.  We learn almost everything we know about God through His dealings with His chosen people

His attributes and nature
His attitude toward sin
We learn that he blesses those who love and obey Him, and judges those who rebel, and grants forgiveness when His people repent,  as seen throughout the history books. (Kings, judges

I'm sure the list could go on and on.


According to Catholicism, does reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit protect against demon possession? A Catholic answer to this question regarding instances of animal-like behaviors in spiritual movements in history included reference to the Loudon possessions in 1634 in France in which a group of nuns were possessed:

The nuns claimed the demon Asmodai was sent to commit evil and impudent acts with them. During questioning about the supposed evil spirit thought to be possessing them, the nuns gave several answers as to who caused its presence: a priest, Peter, and Zabulon.
The nuns' increasingly extreme behavior: shouting, swearing, barking, s etc. drew a considerable number of spectators.

A comment questioned the implications for the salvatory state of the nuns:

An interesting thing is that the Scripture strongly indicates that born-again believers (indwelt by the Holy Spirit) cannot be possessed by demonic spirits, so what does that indicate for the Nuns?

The responding comment was that Catholic exorcists and Catholic hagiography indicate differently:

Catholic exorcists would genuinely disagree with that opinion. This is not the place to start an argument, on this subject. Catholic hagiography actually supports it, as happened to even a few canonized saints. The Devil hates the truth!

My question is: Does the Catholic Church actually teach that believers who are indwelt by the 3rd person of the Trinity can still be demon possessed?  Do Catholics have reason to fear that they might get possessed?

According to Catholicism, does reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit protect against demon possession?
Actually Catholics believe anyone could be possessed by evil if the circumstances are there. That includes Catholics and any other Christians.
First of all let us clear up the notion of “born-again” in the mind of Catholic thought. I do this not out of desire to create an argument, but rather to stress how Catholicism sees things, after you quoted my comment here.
The Early Church Fathers understood born-again as having being baptized. This is the way my comment should be interpreted, and was my though when I responded to it. Has the term “born again” always been synonymous with baptism with the Christians of the Early Church? It is basic Catholic theology that when one is baptized, he or she receives the graces of sanctifying grace and becomes an dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. This holds, in Catholic thought, for anyone baptized whether Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant or any other validly baptized Christian.
Historically, we know that the Devil has possessed Catholics, even canonized saints have been possessed through no fault of their own.
Most diabolical possessions occur because someone is dealing with the occult, or has been cursed by someone. Possession may occur because of any number of reasons. In fact, one of the few questions an exorcist must ask the Demon is the reason for the possession itself.
As a title of example there is Saint Mary of Jesus Crucified who was possessed by the Devil twice. The last time was for 40 days. In her biography, it read almost like the Book of Job, where the Demon asks Jesus to possess this nun in order to make her fall into sin. It failed! In fact the Devils wanted to leave before their time was up. In the end, St. Mary of Jesus Crucified gained more graces and her love of the Divine Saviour increased.

She continued to experience supernatural events. She fought off a demonic possession for 40 days, received the stigmata, was seen to levitate, had the gift of prophecy and knowledge of consciences, and permitted her guardian angel to speak through her. Helped found the missionary Carmel of Mangalore, India. Returned to France in 1872. Built a Carmelite monastery in Bethlehem in 1875. Supernatural gifts aside, she was known for her devotion to the Holy Spirit, even sending word to Pope Pius IX that the Spirit was not emphasized enough in seminaries. - Saint Mary of Jesus Crucified

Here follows how most causes of demonic possession are achieved (The Source is not the best and this list is not the best in it’s English explication, but for the present moment it will do. It basically is what the famous exorcist Gabriele Amorth states in his books):

Causes of Demonic Possession
According to the Catholic Church, the chief causes of possession are the following:
• making a Pact with the Devil or Demons
• participating in occult or spiritualist rites, including playing with divination devices such as a Ouija™ or doing automatic writing
• offering or dedicating a child to Satan
• being the victim of a witchcraft spell or Curse
Engaging in these activities, as well as leading a deliberately sinful life, give Demons the right and license to take up residence, according to the church. Mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder are not considered to be caused by Demonic possession.
The church teaches that God allows possession to happen for a variety of reasons:
• to Demonstrate the truth of the Catholic faith
• to punish sinners
• to confer spiritual benefits through lessons
• to produce teachings for humanity

Any Christian, whether a Catholic or a “Born-Again” Christian who deliberately plays around with the occult, is in serious threat of being diabolically possessed. We are all human and capable of doing very serious offences against God and our neighbour. We are all able to bless those who bless us, but one bad egg in the group could actually curse another.
Therefore, let us live up to St. Paul’s desire and become saints in all our ways.

Throw Out the Evil Person!
5 It is actually reported that there is sexual sin among you. I’m told that a man is sleeping with his father’s wife. Even people who don’t know God don’t let that kind of sin continue. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you be very sad instead? Shouldn’t you have thrown out of your church the man doing this? 3 Even though I am not right there with you, I am with you in spirit. And because I am with you in spirit, I have already judged the man doing this. I have judged him in the name of our Lord Jesus. 4 So when you come together, I will be with you in spirit. The power of our Lord Jesus will also be with you. 5 When you come together like this, hand this man over to Satan. Then the power of sin in his life will be destroyed. His spirit will be saved on the day the Lord returns. - 1 Corinthians 5:1-5

St. Augustin of Hippo warns the faithful to keep a good distance from the Devil.

He (the devil) is tied up like a dog on a chain, and can only bite someone who, deathly sure of himself, goes near him. Wouldn’t you think a man a fool who let hiimself be bitten by a chained up dog?
He can only bite those who willingly let him. It is not by force, but by persuasion, that he harms: he asks for our consent, he does not drag it from us. Augustine on the binding of the devil


Why was Lot's wife judged for looking back? Was the warning from the angel to not look back solely a test of obedience or may there have been more of a reason? Ex.33:20 says “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"
  God (Son of God) is seen in veiled form in His interactions with Abraham just prior to this. When veiled, He is able to be in the presence of fallen man. In Gen.19:20, Jehovah (God in His glory, not veiled) authors the destruction.
"Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven".
  Could it be that God's presence was going to be manifested and the warning & judgment were in relation to Ex.33:20?

God punishes people for one reason: disobedience.

  And there came two angels to Sodom at even; (Gen 19:1)

I will not debate the question of what or who is an angel.  For the purpose of this answer, let us assume that whomever these two people were, they had authority.

  ...the Lord hath sent us to destroy [Sodom]. (Gen 19:13)

After all the shenanigans in Sodom, the angels decided it was time for Lot to leave, and leave quickly.  They gave him some last instructions:

  And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.  (Gen 19:17)

There are the commandments and the punishment for disobedience.

Do not look behind you.
Do not stay in the plain.
Escape to the mountain.

Lest thou be consumed.

Lot negotiated a bit, being old and not believing he could live through the run to the mountains, and the angels agreed the he could flee to the town of Zoar instead.  They actually arrived.

  The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.  (Gen 19:23)

It was then that Lot's wife made a choice.  She choose to disobey, and she was punished for it.

  But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.  (Gen 19:26)

Why Lot's wife looked back is a completely different question.

Why looking back was a big deal is also a completely different question.

But why Lot's wife was punished for looking back is explained in scripture.  She was commanded not to, and told she would be consumed if she did.  She disobeyed and received the indicated punishment.


According to Catholicism, is the blessing of food by a lay person different from that of a priest? I am a bit puzzled. On the one hand, it is common practice among families to ask God to bless the food to be eaten. According to this very related question, the Catechism states:

  every baptized person is called to be a "blessing," and to bless. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).

Yet, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  [in a] strictly liturgical and restricted sense, blessing may be described as a rite, consisting of a ceremony and prayers performed in the name and with the authority of the Church by a duly qualified minister, by which persons or things are sanctified as dedicated to Divine service, or by which certain marks of Divine favour are invoked upon them.

The same article states that from very early times, the Church has considered blessing an ecclesiastical institution.

Later on, it says:

  Priests, then, are the ordinary ministers of blessings, and this is only in the fitness of things since they are ordained, as the words of the Pontifical run: "ut quæcumque benedixerint benedicantur, et quacumque consecraverint consecrentur" (That whatever they bless may be blessed, and whatever they consecrate shall be consecrated). When, therefore, laymen and women are represented as blessing others it is to be understood that this is an act of will on their part, a wish or desire for another's spiritual or temporal prosperity, an appeal to God which has nothing to recommend it but the merits of personal sanctity. The ordinary greetings and salutations that take places between Christians and Catholics, leavened by mutual wishes for a share of heavenly grace, must not be confounded with liturgical blessings.

Does this mean that the blessing of food given by a priests (say, if you invite one to your house) is of a different nature that the blessing of food given by a lay person?

In my view, the different sources are, if not contradictory, rather imprecise, in particular when it comes to the comparison of the nature of both priestly and lay blessing.

Naturally, my question refers to blessings of things in which lay persons are traditionally involved (like food or family members), but not things which are traditionally reserved to priests (like holy water).

If I understood your question correctly, you are asking what the difference between a priests and a normal persons blessings are, right? Well, you almost found the right spot in the Encyclopedia, since, in the very same article we find:

The inquiry will be confined to the Blessings approved of by the Church. As has been said, the value of a blessing given by a private person in his own name will be commensurate with his acceptableness before God by reason of his individual merits and sanctity. A blessing, on the other hand, imparted with the sanction of the Church has all the weight of authority that reaches to the voice of her who is the well-beloved spouse of Christ, pleading on behalf of her children. The whole efficacy, therefore, of these benedictions, in so far as they are liturgical and ecclesiastical, is derived from the prayers and invocations of the Church made in her name by her ministers. (emphasis mine)

So, a blessing from a priest does have a special meaning, although your food usually is not thanked for in mass or some other sacramental rite(this is possible at home, but I do not think a priest would call thanking for food sacramental).
Should this - for whatever circumstance - be the case, however, the Encyclopedia has the following benefits that may come from such a blessing and states that they are more likely to happen due to the authority of the church which is far larger then that of men:

1.Excitation of pious emotions and affections of the heart and, by means of these, remission of venial sin and of the temporal punishment due to it;
2.freedom from power of evil spirits;
3.preservation and restoration of bodily health.
4.various other benefits, temporal or spiritual.


Is Levi from Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 referring to the apostle Matthew Both Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 mention a tax collector named Levi:

  27 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name
  of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him,
  28 and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.

  14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the
  tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up
  and followed him.

It sounds like these could be referring to Matthew and I've seen some footnotes that offer that as a possibility (or even as likely) but are there any good reasons to believe that this is or is not referring to Matthew?

It is almost certain that this person is Matthew. In the parallel account of this narrative in the Gospel of Matthew, we see that Levi appears to be "renamed" Matthew.

Matthew 9:9 (NIV)

  9As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

It is unknown why Levi is called Matthew in this gospel. Like all the gospels, Matthew is actually an anonymous document, and our attribution of it to Matthew is based on the consensus of Church Fathers in the 2nd century. However, it appears that whoever wrote the gospel (hereafter called the evangelist) wants to show that Levi is the Matthew listed in the Twelve (cf Matthew 10:3).

This could be "...because the writer believed that Levi was or should have been one of the twelve, or is it perhaps because in writing of himself he preferred the name Matthew to his own pre-conversion name, Levi?" [Hagner, Introduction, lxxvi].

Though there are theories that claim the evangelist is playing with names, it must be said that it is very unlikely that he would get away with substituting the name Levi for Matthew if they were not the same person. It is not unusual for individuals in 1st century Israel to have more than one name. For example, it seems that another member of the twelve is known by two names: Jude, was also known by the name Thaddeus. (See Mark 3:16-19 vs Luke 6:14-16)

Suffice it to say, that the vast majority of scholars suggest that the "Levi" of Mark 2 and Luke 5 is indeed the Matthew of Matthew 9. Why the evangelist sought to enlighten his readers to this is speculative.

Sources:

Hagner, D. A., Word Biblical Commentary - Matthew 1-13, Nelson, 1993.

Cole, A., Mark, IVP, 2008

Nolland, J., Word Biblical Commentary - Luke 1-9:20, Nelson, 1989


Would reading "The Street Bible" help me understand the KJV Bible? I've not read the Bible yet but I'm planning on purchasing the KJV Bible, once I've got the money. But I've came across a book called The Street Bible: would reading this first help me to understand KJV Bible? How different are these versions?

First of all, these two translations are extremely different.  Here's Genesis 1:1 in The Street Bible:

  First off, nothing. No light, no time, no substance, no matter. Second off, God starts it all off and WHAP! Stuff everywhere!

And in the KJV:

  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

There's obviously a significant difference between these two in both translation philosophy and style.  The Street Bible is a paraphrase that attempts to use "the language of the modern urban reader."  On the other hand, the KJV is a fairly literal translation that uses Elizabethan English, which can be practically incomprehensible to some modern-day readers.

That said, though the language is very different, The Street Bible tells the same stories as the KJV and other Bibles.  Reading it will therefore increase your understanding of the Bible, and allow you to make connections to the stories in the KJV or other translations.

Ultimately, however, the best approach is to compare a variety of translations and choose the one that is most comfortable for you. BibleGateway.com does not include The Street Bible, but it does allow side-by-side comparison between dozens of popular bible translations, such as more readable ones like the NLT and NIV and more literal ones like the NKJV and ESV.


Does the Catholic word Priest actually mean "Presbyter?" Or is it a conflation of roles? The problem as I understand it is a combining of roles.. not confounding or mixing  but fusing the roles into something different. The role of the priest doesn't seem to match the role of the Presbyter. But if they are the same, then why the difference.

Priest (sacerdos)

Sacerdos literally means "a giver of the sacred". St. Jerome, in his Vulgate Latin translation, uses sacerdos to translate ἱερεύς, for example in Hebrews 7:17:

  μαρτυρεί γαρ ότι συ ιερεύς εις τον αιώνα κατά την τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ

  Contestatur enim : Quoniam tu es sacerdos in æternum, secundum ordinem Melchisedech.

  For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.

Presbyter (senior)

The OED says this regarding "presbyter":

  The Vulgate regularly renders Greek πρεσβύτερος ["old man"], πρεσβύτεροι  by Latin senior [from senex], (plural) seniores ["ancients"], except in Acts 20:17, 22:5, where it has majores natu ["ancients"], and in Acts 14:22, 15:2, 1 Timothy 5:17, 19, Titus 1:5, James 5:14, where the Greek form is retained as presbyter, presbyteri ["priests"]. The same men who in Acts 15:2 are called apostoli et presbyteri ["apostles and priests"], are called in verses 4, 6, 22, 23 apostoli et seniores ["apostles and ancients"]; the Greek having uniformly ἀπόστολοι και πρεσβύτεροι.


What are lunar sabbaths? I know about the 7th day Sabbath and I know about SUNday but I cant quite understand lunar Sabbaths. What are these and who observes them?

Lunar Sabbaths are an idea some groups - mostly Messianic Jewish branches - hold to that claim the Sabbath does not happen every 7 days, but on a cycle based upon the New Moon. There is an article that deals with them at http://csda-adventistchurch.to/lunar.html


Does the RCC permit Catholic laity to answer exegetical questions (i.e., interpret scripture) on a forum or website? For example, suppose a forum member asked, "What is the meaning of the phrase 'this mystery...which is Christ in you, the hope of glory' in Col. 1:27? (You can replace this with any scripture, the point being that the forum member is asking for the interpretation of scripture, or a phrase therein.)

Is a Catholic layperson (laity) permitted to answer such a question, and therefore interpret scripture? If so, what guidelines must he/she follow when interpreting scripture (i.e., answering a question asking for the interpretation of a scripture, or a phrase therein)?

Primary reason for the question: I get the impression that the interpretation of scripture is reserved for the magisterium. If so, wouldn't that also prohibit or restrict the laity from interpreting scripture on blogs, forums, and websites?

First, I strongly recommend you read this article, which addresses this common concern among young Catholics.

Addressing your specific question:

Of course we can answer these questions!

Any time anyone is in need of help we are, in fact, called to provide that assistance if we are capable.  This is a fundamental part of Christian charity.  Furthermore, answering these kinds of questions when they are asked by Christians has a special place for us as Catholics, as it is one of the primary means by which we are to evangelize.  Please do not think that by Christians I here refer exclusively to the heretical protestant sects.  Evangelization is not something we do external to the Church but rather something we do within it, incorporating others more fully into the body of Christ, whether they currently profess our faith or not.  Pope Paul VI writes about this with much more detail and accuracy in his encyclical On Evangelization in the Modern World.  This continual evangelization of each other and the unbaptized requires engagement with others in whatever way they now know God, from which one progresses to the truer ways of the Church.  Protestants, by and large, put great stock both in private interpretation (the bad/self contradictory kind) and literalist interpretation of the Bible.  In order to help those unfortunately born into a Protestant environment reach the fullness of the Christian faith it is necessary that a certain level of Bible-centered discourse be engaged in.  In my personal evangelization of Protestants I have found it important to be willing to talk about the Bible with them and to give Biblical support for the errors in their beliefs, in order to be able to move onto more important topics.  You are right to treat such engagement seriously, however, and a set of additional things I have found useful and important responding to Biblical inquiries (almost exclusively fielded by Protestants, so if your mission field is different these may be of less use to you) based on my experience as a catechist and evangelist within the Catholic church follows:

Always remember that you are not officially the final authority, and can only share your expert opinion on such topics.  Make sure the people you are communicating with understand that you are not a priest, perhaps opening your post with a little bit about yourself so people know what the basis for your authority is.
Always remember that you are for all intents and purposes the final authority as God has chosen you to receive this specific opportunity and it is quite possible the person with whom you speak will receive no further information on the subject, albeit through their own fault.  Consider not only the veracity but also the relative impact of everything you say.
Matt 7:4-5
Neh 8:13-17
Tit 2:7-8
Jam 3:1-12
1 Pet 4:10-11
Saint Patrick's Breastplate
Be sure to discuss your teaching frequently with God in prayer.
The intercession of the Saints is of great assistance to all Catholics in all walks of life.  Discuss your teaching with your patron saint as well.  St. Isadore of Seville is the patron saint of the internet, btw.
If you start to make a ministry of it, be sure to talk with your priest.  If you know a good priest it's probably a good idea to talk these kinds of things over with him in most any circumstance.
Seek ye not to destroy or offend without cause, but rather to reform, create, raise, restore, bless, edify, love, give, trust, and shape-- and these too not just for their own sake but for the greater glory of God.
When engaging in Bible-centered discourse, supplement your statements with non-Bible-centered support when possible and appropriate.

Again, these are things I have found useful in forming myself to be ready to engage in Bible-centered discourse with Protestants both online and elsewhere, not specifically things the Church says you have to know/do.

The most important things to take from this are 1) Laypeople are in no way to be discouraged from reading and interpreting the Bible, nor in discussing the Bible or interpretations thereof with each other and/or outsiders, nor even in teaching on or explaining the meaning of Biblical passages. 2) Teaching always confers great responsibility.  Teaching theology confers even more responsibility.  Responding to these sorts of questions should not be done lightly.


Is the global Christian population increasing? Is the total Christian population of the world increasing each year? Where can I find the official statistics? How about population by country? Is there any statistic that shows the increase/decrease of Christian population of all the countries in the world?

To answer your first question, yes, the total Christian population is growing, by about 1.5% per year.  This number comes from one of several excellent studies of Christian populations, a 2013 report published by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. (full report)

This particular study focuses on the growth rate of Christian populations, and provides details by country, so it's particularly suitable for the questions you pose.  It compares the number of Christians in 1970 to the number of Christians in 2010 and the projected number in 2020, and provides rates of growth, for each country.  For example, here's a table showing countries with the most Christians:

And here's the growth data for Central African nations (similar tables are available for other groups of nations):

It also provides some growth data by faith tradition and continent:

There are other excellent reports out there, which focus on different things.  The 2011 report published by the Pew Research Center (full report) focuses less on the growth rate but has some helpful graphics showing the shifts in global Christianity.  For example, a comparison of regional distribution between 1910 and 2010:

And a map of Christianity by country in 2010:

Note that this is only a small sampling of the data available in these two reports; the full versions go into a lot of detail about individual countries and faith traditions.


What are Christian theologeans referring to when they talk about "God's glory"? What is God's "glory" in Christian theology? (If it differs based on which branch of the church is using the term, give me a brief summary of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant views.)

Are we talking about God's "glowing radiance" when we speak of His glory, or does it have more to do with other peoples' "recognition and honor" of Him?

The Hebrew word for Glory -  'Kabod'   means weightiness. In the Old Testament this was the Shekinah Glory that filled the temple visibly
Exo_33:22  When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and will cover you with my hand while I pass by.
Deu_5:24  You said, "The LORD our God has shown us his great glory and we have heard him speak from the middle of the fire. It is now clear to us that God can speak to human beings and they can keep on living.

In the New Testament, after the Messiah's work of deliverance was complete, we see God's glory as a spiritual essence until the Second coming of Christ:
Rom_3:7  For if by my lie the truth of God enhances his glory, why am I still actually being judged as a sinner? Here, humans give glory (or all due respect and credit) to God.

Mat_16:27  For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. Here, Messiah comes again as God who is full  of the Father's Glory.

So, there is consistency in the use of Glory in scripoture wherein it describes God's omniscience and omnipotence, and is manifested is His radiance.


Do Mormons have Sunday services?/What does the regular Mormon liturgy look like? I've gone past a mormon church near my house quite a few times now and I'm keen to give it a visit. However I am prevented by the fact that I can't find any website which lists their service times or any other related information. This got me wondering, what do mormons actually get up to? I'm not even sure that they actually have a Sunday (or other day) service which is comparable to mainstream evangelical churches.

After a bit of research, I've discovered that mormons have a variety of liturgies and sacramental rituals which they perform in special circumstances, and it all seems rather secretive. What I'm wondering about, is if they have some sort of "anyone is welcome" regular meeting similar to mainstream protestants. If so, what happens during this meeting? For example does it follow the usual evangelical format of

song
bible reading
sermon
(optional) Communal confession
(optional) apostles/nicene creed
(optional) lords supper
song
announcements
conclusion
song
informal mingling, doughnuts and coffee/tea and biscuits"?

First, a point of terminology.  Do you live near a Mormon temple (a large and spectacular building, recognizable by a distinctive golden statue of an angel with a trumpet on top) or a Mormon church (an ordinary church building, usually with a spire)?

Temples are very special and sacred places that are only available to members of the church in good standing.  The worship ceremonies that are performed inside are not often discussed outside of the temple, not because they're secret, but because they're sacred.  But churches are open to the public, and usually have a sign either on the side of the building or on the grounds near the entrance to the parking lot that explicitly says "Visitors Welcome."

Church services are a 3-hour block on Sundays; exactly which 3 hours can be found by putting your address into the church's online meetinghouse locator tool.  They consist of three meetings, which each last approximately one hour.

Sacrament Meeting is the common congregation meeting in which everyone meets together to pray, sing, take the Sacrament [also known as Communion or Lord's Supper in other faiths], and listen to talks by members of the congregation.  (Latter-Day Saints have a lay clergy, so the leaders have professional responsibilities outside the church and don't prepare a sermon every week, instead sharing that responsibility with the rest of the congregation.)

The other two hours are Sunday School classes, where people split up to meet with others based on various criteria.  If you were to drop by, you would certainly find someone willing to show you around.


What is the process within the Catholic Church to get a clarification on Church teaching? From this Meta discussion, the post presented the case that on C.SE, one may find irreconcilable answers to the question What is the Catholic Church's position on the scientific theory of evolution?

The question is what is the process within the Catholic Church which will enable a person to get a clarification on Church teaching?

Write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). That commission addresses doctrinal questions.

From the profile page of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

  E-mail: cdf@cfaith.va

For an example, which is relevant to the current discussions in the Church, please see this CDF October 22, 2014 response to the Question of a French Priest: "Can a confessor grant absolution to a penitent who, having been religiously married, has contracted a second union following divorce?"


How do you know someone is in heaven? How do you know that a person is in heaven?
I just read the very thoughtful answers/comments to a question about praying to someone outside the trinity and have a follow up question.  Most of the comments assume that you are asking a person who is in heaven to intercede for you. In spite of any evidences we see while people are living, only God knows the heart of man when it comes to someones motivations, beliefs, faith-in-action.

How do you know someone is in heaven?
The short answer is that it is impossible to know!
Generally speaking, we can not tell one way or another, unless God reveals this information to us in some form or another as He deems fit.
As a Catholic, we have a process of canonization to help determine is someone is in Heaven. The ultimate proof is that the Church requires a miracle, to be done through the intercession of one believed to be in Heaven.
St. Thomas Aquinas has a few words on true and false miracles.

Whether the wicked can work miracles?
Some miracles are not true but imaginary deeds, because they delude man by the appearance of that which is not; while others are true deeds, yet they have not the character of a true miracle, because they are done by the power of some natural cause. Both of these can be done by the demons, as stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 2).
True miracles cannot be wrought save by the power of God, because God works them for man's benefit, and this in two ways: in one way for the confirmation of truth declared, in another way in proof of a person's holiness, which God desires to propose as an example of virtue. On the first way miracles can be wrought by any one who preaches the true faith and calls upon Christ's name, as even the wicked do sometimes. On this way even the wicked can work miracles. Hence Jerome commenting on Matthew 7:22, "Have not we prophesied in Thy name?" says: "Sometimes prophesying, the working of miracles, and the casting out of demons are accorded not to the merit of those who do these things, but to the invoking of Christ's name, that men may honor God, by invoking Whom such great miracles are wrought."
In the second way miracles are not wrought except by the saints, since it is in proof of their holiness that miracles are wrought during their lifetime or after death, either by themselves or by others. For we read (Acts 19:11-12) that "God wrought by the hand of Paul . . . miracles" and "even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs . . . and the diseases departed from them." On this way indeed there is nothing to prevent a sinner from working miracles by invoking a saint; but the miracle is ascribed not to him, but to the one in proof of whose holiness such things are done.

Some go out of their way to ask such people they believe to live very holy lives these types of questions. See: here.
The Curé d'Ars (Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney) had the following written down in his biography about a man who had committed suicide:

"...a woman...told....Vianney that she was devastated because her husband had committed suicide. She wanted to approach the great priest but his line often lasted for hours and she could not reach him. She was ready to give up and in a moment of mystical insight that only a great saint can receive,...Vianney exclaimed through the crowd, “He is saved!” The woman was incredulous so the saint repeated, stressing each word, “I tell you he is saved. He is in Purgatory, and you must pray for him. Between the parapet of the bridge and the water he had time to make an act of contrition.”

As for the opposite, the Catholic Church has not named a single person as having been known to be in hell. Guess it is best not to know.
Here is a little lighthearted story on this.

Biagio Martinelli(Cesena 1463 – Rome 1544), better known as Biagio da Cesena (meaning "from Cesena", his native city), was a 16th-century Italian official who served as Papal Master of Ceremonies. He is widely known for his negative reaction to the nude figures presented in Michelangelo's painting of The Last Judgment.
In 1518 da Cesena became Papal Master of Ceremonies to Pope Leo X. He would also act in this role to Popes Adrian VI, Clement VII, and Paul III.
After the completion of The Last Judgment da Cesena said of the fresco, "it was mostly disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully". Da Cesena went on to say the painting was more suitable "for the public baths and taverns" than a Papal chapel. In response, Michelangelo worked Cesena's face into the scene as Minos, judge of the underworld with donkey ears, while his nudity is covered by a coiled snake. It was widely said that when Cesena complained to Pope Paul III, the pontiff joked that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell and the portrait would have to remain.


Why did Jesus use the expression, "very truly I tell you"? I used to think nothing of it until someone said, "it makes you wonder what he was saying the rest of the time".

Now I don't believe for one moment Jesus was a liar, but why did He use that strange expression?

One of 26 examples exists here:

  John 16:7 (NIV)
  But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

It was likely a common expression in that day to emphasize the importance of what would be spoken immediately after that.

And, to tell you the truth, we have a similar phrase in English.  We don't mean that we weren't telling the truth before and are only now beginning to do so.

So, can I be honest with you?  I wasn't being dishonest with you before, but now my degree of openness is greater and I'm being more transparent than I would otherwise be in the course of conversations with acquaintances.


Style of referring to a cardinal As I grew up, I was accustomed to referring to a cardinal by inserting his title between his first and last names. Thus, for example, I was confirmed by the then-archbishop of St. Louis, John Cardinal Carberry. This was distinct from the usage in the case of an archbishop (so, for example, the next archbishop of St. Louis, Archbishop John May).

More recent usage that I've seen indicates that this usage seems to have been discontinued, or at least fallen out of favor.. The official biography of the current archbishop of Newark refers to him as "Joseph Cardinal Tobin". But other carefully written sources such as the American Catholic magazine Crux or the political journal The American Conservative use the phrasing "Cardinal Joseph Tobin".

Is there a usage preferred or designated by the Vatican or a more local group of bishops? Or does it depend on a given style book?

How does one address a Cardinal?

When I grew up, we always referred to a cardinal in a formal way with the salutation as follows (as an Example): His Eminence, Joseph Cardinal Tobin. In the seminary this would have been the way to address a Prince of the Church. In fact this is still quite popular and I still employ it.

In an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia which deals with ecclesiastical addresses admits that other countries do have varying rules on the subject of how to address ecclesiastic dignitaries and cardinals are no exception. The Article starts with the rules which apply to Italy only and then moves on to other Catholic nations.

  It is from Italy that we derive rules as to what is fitting and customary in the matter of ecclesiastical correspondence. These rules the different Catholic nations have adopted with greater or lesser modifications, according to local conditions, resulting in differences which will be here dealt with.

Since the article in now somewhat outdated, I will use a more up to date site to show the differences in addressing a cardinal in English speaking counties in our own times.

  A person would greet a Cardinal, for instance Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore, by saying, "Your Eminence" or "Your Lordship" (which is very British). In addressing a letter to Cardinal Keeler, one would write, "His Eminence, William Cardinal Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore" with the salutation, "Your Eminence," "Most Eminent Cardinal," or "My Lord Cardinal." Lately, some people will reverse the word order, saying, "Cardinal William Keeler" instead of "William Cardinal Keeler." The formal word order originated in the time when last names were not common, but individuals were known by occupations or even places. For example, "John, the Smith" (or Blacksmith) eventually became "John Smith." The same evolution occurred with Cardinals: What would have been "William, the Cardinal" would now be, with the use of family names, "William Cardinal Keeler." - How Do We Address Church Officials?

It is interesting to note that during the the Church's Habemus Papam! ("We Have a Pope!") ceremony, the Cardial Protodeacon  uses the former method in annoucing the newly elected pope:

  Habemus Papam! ("We Have a Pope!") is the announcement given in Latin by the Cardinal Protodeacon, the senior Cardinal Deacon, upon the election of a new Roman Catholic pope.

  The announcement is given from the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. After the announcement, the new pope is presented to the people and he gives his first Urbi et Orbi blessing.

  The format for the announcement when a cardinal is elected Pope is:

  Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum:
   HABEMUS PAPAM!
   Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum,
   Dominum (first name) Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Cardinalem (last name),
   Qui sibi nomen imposuit (papal name).

  In English, it can be translated as:

  I announce to you a great joy.
   WE HAVE A POPE!
   The Most Eminent and Reverend Lord,
   Lord (first name), Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church (last name),
   Who takes to himself the name (papal name).

  Habemus Papam (Wikipedia)

Here is the 2005 Habemus Papam of Pope Benedict XVI found on YouTube: Habemus Papam: When Cardinal Medina introduced the new Pope.

I personally like traditions and on that note I would like to add the following: As with a Patriarch, you should stand when he enters a room in which you are present (until he invites you to sit) and again when he leaves it. Remove your hat in his presence, and you may kiss his ring during a greeting and/or as he leaves. You are free to kiss his ring out of respect for his office. You may kneel when kissing the ring (though bowing at the waist is also acceptable); however, do not do either if the Pope is present.


Prior to the scientific consensus regarding the age of mankind, were there any theologians who argued that the date of Adam's creation was unknowable? Prior to modern scientific consensus regarding the age of mankind, were there any theologians who argued that the chronology in Genesis 1-11 could not be used to calculate the date of Adam's creation?

Between AD 389-417 Augustine wrote three commentaries on Genesis and discussed the early chapters of Genesis in The City of God.  Augustine believed the genealogies given in Genesis to be literal chronologies and that the pre-Flood patriarchs lived to be around 900 years.  He stated:

  “Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.”

Augustine believed that the original creation happened in an instant of time and that Genesis 6–8 describes a literal, global Flood.  Augustine clearly had old-earth views to contend with in his day—from the Greeks and from other pagans—but he did not accept them and did not try to fit those ideas into Genesis.

Although Augustine reckoned it was possible to calculate the time from the creation of Adam based on biblical chronology and genealogies, he was not an orthodox young-earth creationist, rejecting the seven-day creation beliefs of Ambrose, who was instrumental in Augustine’s conversion to Christianity.

On the patriarchs’ ages see Augustine, The City of God, Book 15, Chapters 11–12, pp. 436–440.

Augustine. The City of God, translated by G. G. Walsh and G. Monahan (1952), Book 12, Chapter 11, p. 263. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.

Augustine. The City of God, Book 12, Chapter 10, p. 263; Chapter 11, pp. 264–265.

Primeval Chronology by Dr. William Henry Green (1825-1900) Professor of Old Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary Published in Bibliotheca Sacra April, 1890 (pp. 285-303):

  “On these various grounds we conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.”

Source: http://www.genevaninstitute.org/syllabus/unit-two-theology-proper/lesson-5-the-decree-of-creation/primeval-chronology-by-dr-william-henry-green/

While doing research into this subject, I came across an article about the concept of a pre-Adamic race. The idea is that God created a race of humans who lived on the Earth before He created Adam, the first man. This hypothesis has been promoted by various scholars at various times throughout history. Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate (circa A.D. 331–363) and Calvinist theologian Isaac de La Peyrère (1596-1676) are two notable examples.

It is perhaps not directly related to your specific question, but allow me to leave you the link to the article: https://www.gotquestions.org/pre-Adamic-race.html

Although I am unable to do justice to your question, I have learned new things while looking into it so my time has not been wasted! I hope someone else will come forward with insights into the views of theologians prior to Ussher regarding the biblical genealogies being used to fix a date for the creation of Adam.


What was the basis for saying that 11th-century Greek churches were "rebaptizing" Latins? In the run-up to the fateful excommunications of 1054, accusatory letters were exchanged between the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, and Pope Leo IX.  Each had issues with the other's practices, but one in particular mentioned by Leo IX stands out to me – the "rebaptism of Latins by Greeks," in the words of Everett Ferguson (Church History, I, 19.V.A).

This claim strikes me as odd, because I don't believe that that's the current practice of the Eastern Orthodox.  Were the Greeks actually "rebaptizing" Latins at this point in history?  If so, why?  And if not, where did Leo IX get this idea?

Some Greeks were rebaptizing Latins. While this does not seem to have been the universal position of the Orthodox Church in XI Century, some of the Eastern clergy objected to the Latin method of baptism. In particular, it was believed in the East that the West baptized by single immersion. The East used triple immersion. Some in the East appealed to Canon 7 of the First Council of Constantinople:

  But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, ... all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen ... and then we baptize them.

Note that Canon 7 diffentiates some heretical groups to be reconciled through Confession and Chrismation:

  Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, [more groups], we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

So it seems that the canon was concerned with the method of baptism in addition to heretical beliefs. Canon 95 of the Quinisext Council in Trullo is similar. Whether this canon was appropriately applied is debatable, but it was used as an excuse.

Some other Greeks objected to that Latin formula "I baptized you in the Name...." as it was perceived to emphasize the action of the priest. They preferred the formula "The servent of God is baptized in the Name...." as it was seen to emphasize the work of God. I don't know if they asserted canonical support for this argument, but it caused some Greeks to question the validity of the Latin method.

The filioque does not seem to be directly involved here. While the Greeks considered it to be heretical, rebaptism would not be required. Canonically, a heretic is reconciled by Confession and Chrismation.