Is there a term for children whose parents' marriage ends with nullity? In its discussion of marriage, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states, "The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element"(CCC 1626) that seals the covenant of matrimony. "If this freedom is lacking, the marriage is invalid." (CCC 1628)

The CCC goes on to say, "For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void), the Church ... can declare a nullity of marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed." (CCC 1629)

In consideration of this, it lends to question what the nature of the sexual relations were if the marriage never existed. However, that's an aside; it's the children of such a union I'm asking about. Presumptively, these are children baptized in the Church with godparents.

Is there a term for children born from what was thought to be a valid Catholic marriage whose parents then go through legal divorce and the Church delclares the marriage null? Please no derogatory answers, but if there's something "you've heard somewhere," feel free to add as a comment with some context.

Yes, there is a term: legitimate children

Canon 1137 of The Code of Canon Law:

  “The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are
  legitimate.”

Canon 1061 of the Code of Canon Law

  “An invalid marriage is called putative if it has been celebrated in
  good faith by at least one of the parties, until both parties become
  certain of its nullity”.

There is no stain, and no fault, laid upon any child under canon law due to a decree of nullity.

Beyond that simple term, based on your presumption

  Presumptively, these are children baptized in the Church with godparents.

there is another term for those children:  Baptized Catholics.


What is the difference between these versions of the KJV? I found those versions of the King James Version:

King James Version (1769) including Apocrypha
King James Version: Pure Cambridge Edition
American King James Version

Is there any difference between them?

The American King James Version seems to be a fairly new revision of the King James to update the spelling and vocabulary of the KJV to match modern usage and remove archaisms. In that sense, it's similar to the more popular NKJV (New King James Version). The AKJV looks to be the hobby project of a single person of unknown qualifications, so it's reliability is questionable.

(source: http://www.crosswire.org/sword/modules/ModInfo.jsp?modName=AKJV)

The other two are far less substantial revisions of the original 1611 text, mainly fixing spelling, grammar, and glaring errors. Virtually nobody uses the 1611 text anymore, most KJV bibles you find are using one of the later editions. The 1769 version you have there is the Benjamin Blayney's edition, which was the standard text for quite some time. In 1873 the Cambridge Paragraph Bible came out, edited by F. H. A. Scrivener. Scrivener reformatted the text into paragraphs (and formatted poetry to look like poetry), and he meticulously corrected errors in the text and noted changes from the 1611 version in an appendix. Unlike Blayney, Scrivener made changes that affected the meaning of the text when he thought the original translators were in error.

It seems that most KJVs published today are based on the 1900 Pure Cambridge edition, but I can't find much information about its origins. Most sources online are from KJV-only apologist websites, which are about as far from reliable sources as they come.

Sources:

http://www.crosswire.org/sword/modules/ModInfo.jsp?modName=AKJV

https://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/religion/biblical-studies-new-testament/textual-history-king-james-bible-and-new-cambridge-paragraph-bible

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/religion/biblical-studies-new-testament/king-james-bible-short-history-tyndale-today


Are there any non-pacifist traditions that object to military chaplaincy? I'd like to know if there are any non-pacifist Christian traditions or denominations, either historical or contemporary, that object to individual participation in the military as a non-combat chaplain, or to military chaplaincy in general.

I see several possible reasons why Christians might not serve as chaplains:

A view of pacifism that forbids any connection with the military
A view of the state that forbids association with the military in this particular capacity (e.g., concerns over state establishment of religion)
Moral opposition to a particular action that is required of chaplains (such as performing same-sex marriages)

I'm most interested in #2, but also #3.  I imagine that there are multiple examples of #1, but that's another question.

Regarding #3, I'm aware that there is ongoing fighting in the U.S. between Christian groups and the Pentagon over what chaplains can and can't do.  I'm not looking for an example of one that is fighting, but one that has rejected the idea entirely.

In 1918, the Southern Baptist Convention produced a Resolution on Chaplains that called on the US Congress to abolish chaplaincy and allow denominations to serve soldiers independently:

  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, By the Southern Baptist Convention assembled, [...] that the Congress of the United States be memorialized to consider the propriety and rightfulness of abolishing the Army Chaplaincies leaving the religious services to the discretion and election of the different Christian denominations.

They affirm the importance of sharing the gospel with soldiers, but argue that "[r]eligious liberty cannot be absolute where any of its appointments or appropriations are by authority of the state."  They also note the expense incurred by the government by paying chaplains.

They would replace state-sponsored chaplaincy with voluntary provision of religious services by each denomination, claiming that "[t]he different Christian denominations of this republic can and would send voluntarily through their agencies, religious teachers to all departments of the army and navy."

It does not appear that the Southern Baptists prevented or prohibited their members from entering the chaplaincy, so this is simply an example of general objection to military chaplaincy, not necessarily a condemnation of those working as military chaplains.


Was Emperor St. Justinian an Aphthartodocetist? Ss. Eutychius of Constantinople and Anastasius of Antioch were deposed and exiled because they openly opposed Emperor St. Justinian's edict in 564 on Aphthartodocetism, the belief that Christ's body, from the incarnation, was incorruptible.

In the Hagiography of Eutychius of Constantinople we read:

  After the death of the holy Patriarch Menas, the Apostle Peter
  appeared in a vision to the emperor Justinian and, pointing his hand
  at Eutychius, said, 'Let him be made your bishop.' At the very
  beginning of his patriarchal service, St Eutychius convened the Fifth
  Ecumenical Council (553), at which the Fathers condemned the heresies
  cropping up and anathematized them. However, after several years a new
  heresy arose in the Church: Aphthartodocetism or imperishability which
  taught that the flesh of Christ, before His death on the Cross and
  Resurrection, was not capable of suffering. St Eutychius vigorously
  denounced this heresy, but the emperor Justinian himself inclined
  toward it, and turned his wrath upon the saint. By order of the
  emperor, soldiers seized the saint in the church, removed his
  patriarchal vestments, and sent him into exile to an Amasean monastery
  (565).

  Hagiography of Eutychius of Constantinople.

The surviving extant about that edict is preserved by Evagrius Scholasticus:

  At that time Justinian, abandoning the right road of doctrine, and
  following a path untrodden by the apostles and fathers, became
  entangled among thorns and briers; with which wishing to fill the
  Church also, he failed in his purpose, and thereby fulfilled the
  prediction of prophecy ; the Lord having secured the royal road with
  an unfailing fence, that murderers might not leap, as it were,
  upon a tottering wall or a broken hedge. Thus, at the time when John,
  named also Catelinus, was bishop of the elder Rome, after Vigilius;
  John from Seremis, of New Rome; Apollinaris, of Alexandria;
  Anastasius, of Theopolis, after Domninus; and Macarius, of Jerusalem,
  had been restored to his see; Justinian, after he had anathematized
  Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, issued what the Latins call an Edict,
  after the deposition of Eustochius, in which he termed the body of the
  Lord incorruptible and incapable of the natural and blameless
  passions; affirming that the Lord ate before his passion in the same
  manner as after his resurrection, his holy body having undergone no
  conversion or change from the time of its actual formation in the
  womb, not even in respect of the voluntary and natural passions, nor
  yet after the resurrection. To this, he proceeded to compel the
  bishops in all quarters to give their assent. However, they all
  professed to look to Anastasius, the bishop of Antioch, and thus
  avoided the first attack.

  Evagrius Scholasticus, Church History, 4:39, Departure of Justinian from Orthodoxy.

Fr. Asterios Gerostergios in his book Justinian the Great: The Emperor and Saint, rejects the assertion that Justinian succumbed in his last years to the heresy of aphthartodocetism.

Eutychius himself later lapsed into the same heresy before renouncing it on his death bed. Was Justinian for a time temporarily fell into this aphthartodocetic heresy and repented shortly before his death bed similar to what happen to Eutychius latter? This question is not made to defame a holy and pious saint venerated by both Catholic and Orthodox. I ask this question to study a historical event in the Church history.

Historians widely agree that Justinian did indeed issue an edict imposing aphthartodocetism (the idea that Jesus's body was always incorruptible), citing the testimony you quoted from Evagrius Scholasticus.
One of the primary theological issues that Justinian faced was related to the nature of the incarnation of Jesus – advocates of the Chalcedonian Definition on one side,
and those supporting Monophysitism (or, more charitably, Miaphysitism) on the other.  Justinian made various efforts to achieve unity during his rule (cf. the Three-Chapter Controversy), and it seems that near the end of his life, he thought that one way to achieve that might be by imposing aphthartodocetism.  Adolf von Harnack writes:

[Justinian] could not find the right dogmatic formula for the World-Empire which he created; what he did settle was the specific formula for the patriarchate of Constantinople and its immediate belongings.  He, however, saw that himself; he wished to sanction Aphthartodoketism (564) which was in harmony with his own dogmatic views and which might perhaps win over the Monophysites.  His policy was a logical one, and the Emperor set about carrying it out with his wonted energy, beginning as usual by deposing the patriarch of the capital. (History of Dogma, IV, 251)

Similarly, J. A. S. Evans attributes political motives to Justinian on this matter, and traces several efforts to resolve the controversy leading up to the edict:

[Bishop Theodore Askidas] reminded the old emperor that there was more than one Monophysite sect, and if he could not win over the followers of Severus, why not approach the Aphthartodocetists?  The suggestion must have piqued the emperor's interest.  In 557, he had convoked Jacob Baradaeus and a large selection of his monks in Constantinople in another effort to solve the Monophysite problem, but the meeting had been fruitless.  On the eve of the rededication of Hagia Sophia, he issued an edict proclaiming the orthodoxy of Chalcedon.  But then, near the end of 564, he promulgated an edict affirming the incorruptibility of Christ's body. (Age of Justinian, 262)

Other historians more readily attribute this change to a mental decline; J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, II (393), indicates that it "is generally considered an aberration due to senility."
Others hold that the change was compatible with his long-held beliefs:

[Justinian's] edict on the incorruptibility of Christ's body (564 or 565) is difficult to understand.  Even though the emperor's aphthartodocetic views most likely had a place within his Chalcedonian convictions, they show once again how until his very last breath he attempted to describe the union of the natures in Christ in a language that would be acceptable to (a major segment of) the anti-Chalcedonians. (Lucas Van Rompay, in Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, 254)

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, though calling him a "wonderful" and "great" man, is largely negative regarding his ecclesiastical polity.  The aphthartodocetism edict is not explicitly mentioned, but his various interventions in the Monophysite controversies earn him the labels "semi-Monophysite" and "a persecutor of the Church."
Despite all this agreement, there is at least one prominent dissenter, Asterios Gerostergios, an Eastern Orthodox thinker.  He defends Justinian's reputation, casting doubt on the reliability of Evagrius and arguing that such a significant edict would have been mentioned in a variety of other contexts if it actually existed.  For details, see this summary, or Gerostergios's book, Justinian the Great.
Summary
The argument from silence of Asterios Gerostergios does seem to have some merit, and as in many questions of early medieval history, we might desire that more evidence survived.  Nonetheless, while recognizing that absolute certainty is impossible, it is difficult to reject the consensus view – that Justinian did indeed issue an edict imposing aphthartodocetism.  What his mental condition and motives were at the time, however, is less certain.
As for the possibility of a deathbed rejection of aphthartodocetism, we lack evidence of events immediately surrounding his death.  But all indications suggest that Justinian pursued the enforcement of his edict until his death.


Are crucifixes used in Protestant churches in Germany? I want to know if Protestant churches and chapels in Germany have crucifixes with Jesus depicted on them, or just empty crosses.

Correct me if I am mistaken, because I am ignorant of christian theology and practice: a cross is not an object of worship, and is preferred by many Protestants because it is not an "idol", whereas a crucifix is considered by many Protestants to be an idol, and is therefore objectionable.

I am asking all this because someone wishes to visit a Protestant church/chapel in Southern Germany (Karlsbad), but objects to the presence of "idols".

A cursory review of images posted on the internet shows that there are indeed some Protestant churches and chapels that contain one or more crucifixes. An example of this is in the Stiftskirche in Stuttgart, Baden-Wuertemberg, as shown.

[

I would say though, that in my experience is that the reason Protestants tend to prefer an empty cross to a crucifix, is that the Gospel (that is, the "Good News") that we are called to proclaim is not the suffering represented by many Crucifixes, but rather, the Easter message that "The Lord is Risen". Further, whether or not a particular object, whether a cross with or without a corpus, is an idol is not so much the presence of absence of a body, but the degree to which a person considers some particular object to be in and of itself, god, as opposed to the person who knows that some object is being used as an assist to worship of the True God.

If the person you are writing about wants to find Protestant Churches without crucifixes, I suspect they exist, though I can't give specific locations. Those who belong to the churches which do happen to have crucifixes as part of the religious decor, though, do not consider them idols.


How can the translators of the New World Translation say that their version is near what was originally written? The New World Translation of the Bible says much concerning the original Bible writings. As none are known to exist, how can the translators of the New World Bible, JWs, say that anything is anywhere near what was originally  written?

Jehovah's Witnesses base their faith in the preservation of the Bible on the merits of scholarly studies of thousands of manuscripts, as well as on the reasoning that if the Bible is truly inspired of God, Jehovah will not allow its message to be lost (Isaiah 40:8). The New World Translation was translated using the same master texts that many other Bibles use.
Jehovah's Witnesses have published many articles about the subject. Some central resources on the subject are the Insight book and Appendix A of the NWT. The appendix states:

Not all copies of ancient Bible manuscripts contain identical wording. How, then, can we know what the original text contained?
The situation could be likened to that of a teacher who asks 100 students to copy a chapter of a book. Even if the original chapter was later lost, a comparison of the 100 copies would still reveal the original text. While each student might make some errors, it is highly unlikely that all the students would make exactly the same ones. Similarly, when scholars compare the thousands of fragments and copies of ancient Bible books available to them, they can detect copyist error and determine the original wording.
How confident can we be that the thoughts contained in the original Bible texts have been accurately transmitted to us? Commenting on the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar William H. Green stated: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.” Regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures, or so-called New Testament, Bible scholar F. F. Bruce wrote: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of  questioning.” He also said: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”

Some sources from the Insight book can be found here and here.


In which country is the Garden of Eden located? Genesis 2:15(NIV)

  The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it
  and take care of it.

I'm curious to know, now, in which which country is the Garden of Eden located? (which is mentioned in Genesis)

Per Genesis 2:

  10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

While Mesopatamia (i.e. Iraq) is where the Tigris & Euphrates are, the remaining two rivers (Gihon is in Israel, and the Pishon is, I believe unknown, though some scholars think it is the Nile) are not.

There are thus two possibilities:

The Flood altered where these rivers flowed
The location is not meant to be literal

In any event, the Flood probably did wipe out the Garden of Eden, and even if it didn't, there was an angel (in Genesis 3:24) who is guarding the entrance.

Update: For an interesting excursion into the idea of "mapping" Eden, check out this article showing maps of Eden from 1914.  They are highly speculative, but show the diversity of thought around where Eden might be.


Why do most Bible translations bowdlerize the Tetragrammaton? The Hebrew text of the Bible contains the Tetragrammaton many many times. This is used as a name, not as a title. And yet, the vast majority of Bible translations render this as LORD, not as a name. Prominent exceptions are the Jerusalem Bible, which uses Yahweh, and the New World Translation, which uses Jehovah, the traditional rendering in English. There are very few translations which transliterate or otherwise retain the Tetragrammaton in their text.

I believe that the intent of most translators is to imitate Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Divine Name; however, Jews do write the name in their holy texts. Similarly, Catholic practise is not to pronounce the Name, but the Catholic Jerusalem Bible still contains it in written form. Why do most translations omit it?

Using the word ‘bowdlerize’ gives a misleading impression, that only a very few Bibles retain an English rendition of the Divine Name; that the vast majority have expunged this word, that is, erased and omitted it from the Bible. If that was the case, then the Authorised Version and very many more recent translations would have failed to include the Tetragram at all, yet they have it in several places in the Hebrew scriptures, the most common places being Exodus 6:3 and Psalm 83:18. It is also the case that many old hymns have God’s name pronounced as Jehovah in some verses. Many times in church sermons I have heard God addressed as Jehovah when the Covenant God of Israel is being referred to. Given that many English translations retain Jehovah in a few places, it is misleading to say they have bowdlerized that word.

Now, it is undeniably true that the Tetragram was initially written 6,961 times in the ancient Hebrew scriptures (including 134 times where the Masoretic text shows that ancient copyists called Sopherim had changed the primitive Hebrew text to read ‘Adho.nay’ or ‘Elo.him’ instead of Yehowah’.) Yet Jewish believers themselves began to ‘lose’ the use of the Divine Name during and after their many years in captivity commencing particularly after the third Babylonian deportation of Judah in 586 B.C.  Colonies of Jews were established in various areas of the Mediterranean world. Alexandria (Egypt) became an important center for expatriate Jews – a leading center of learning and Greek culture until it was conquered by Rome. Gradually, many Jews lost their ability to read and understand the Hebrew scriptures. Thus, around 280 B.C. a group of Hebrew scholars began translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.  The translation became known as ‘the Seventy’ (LXX) with a Latin name of the Septuagint.

An important point about this translation into Greek was that the Divine Name was rendered as YHWH in some Septuagint versions. Although many manuscripts of the Septuagint are available today that contain the word Kyrios [LORD] rather than the Tetragram, a discovery in Cairo of Aquila’s Greek text clearly shows the four Hebrew letters of the Tetragram. However, his translation was done during the second century C.E., so was not available to Jesus or the Apostles. Yet not all versions of the Septuagint retained the Tetragram, so eventually the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.

Thus the way in which the Divine Name became less and less common was a process that started before 280 B.C. and continued until, by the time the Christian church was well established, the Tetragram was not understood by the majority of scripture readers. You need to go back centuries to discover this gradual reduction in use of the Tetragram in scripture translations. Nevertheless, it should be used nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew scriptures, although a problem preventing that is not knowing an accurate word to translate it with, given that the vowel points remain missing. Rather than guess, (perhaps wrongly) many prefer to use the respectful LORD in the Hebrew scriptures. Erring on the side of caution is no bad thing when dealing with holy scripture. For example, given that the letter ‘J’ was not introduced into the English alphabet until the early 15th century A.D., ‘Jehovah’ is not the best attempt. I would personally be happy to see Yahweh written nearly 7,000 times in English translations of the Hebrew text, but I do not have a problem with ones that have LORD, because when capitalised, we all know that it refers to the one true God, the Creator.

Finally, when you say, “Jews do write the name in their holy texts” it needs to be pointed out that they still do not pronounce it.

Source: The Divine Name in the New World Translation, released for worldwide internet distribution in 2001 with no copyright. http://www.tetragrammaton.org


Is the Gospel book censed, or the reader, or both? I attended a service of the Episcopal Church (USA) which happened to come from a more high-church tradition than I'm used to. During the service, quite a lot of incense was deployed at various times - over the celebrant and his assistants, the altar, etc. Before the reading of the Gospel, the thurible was also swung towards the deacon who was holding the Gospel book. It was not clear to me whether the intention was to cense the reader, the book, or both. (The thurifer was rather enthusiastic about her mission, and I was grateful that the chain looked sturdy.)

Can anyone explain what was happening? It would be helpful if answers could mention why incense is used at all, and then explain the specifics here with reference to that general pattern, rather than only quoting a rubric.

(If the answer is the same for Catholics, Orthodox, etc. as for Anglicans, then answers from those perspectives are welcome.)

[Answer from high-church Anglican/Catholic perspective.]

The deacon is not censed — or should not be censed — at the reading of the gospel. The thurifer should hand the thurible to the deacon, who censes the book. The thurifer generally remains while the gospel is read, and indeed the gospel may end up proclaimed from within the cloud.

Incense is

a ceremonially purifying agent
a symbol of honour (incense was given to the Christ-child and used in Temple worship)
a symbol of prayer rising (cf Ps 141:2)
a pleasant smell (the smell of heaven, as opposed to sulphur, the smell of The Other Place)

The deacon is not censed at this point because he is not the Word, he is merely the agent. The point of censing the gospel is to show it honour; it is the Word proclaimed.

As to “official sources” (from the comments), that’s surprisingly difficult. The modern documents of the Roman Church such as the General Instruction of the Roman Missal don’t lay down the ceremonial; it’s all tradition.

The English Missal is just about the most authoritative extant English source for high ceremonial, is available and more accessible. It was published in 1921, and probably reflects what was laid down at the Council of Trent, which carried out the last major revision of Catholic worship.

  Thurifer While the responsory is in singing the Deacon shall place the Book of the Gospels on the Altar: and the Priest, the Deacon ministering the incense-boat, shall place incense in the censer. Then shall the Deacon say the prayer: Cleanse my heart, and taking the book from the Altar ask a blessing of the priest. Afterward, the Subdeacon holding the book between two Acolytes with lighted candles, the Deacon shall sign and cense the book, and sing the gospel in the customary manner, whereafter the Subdeacon shall bear the book to be kissed by the priest, who is also censed by the Deacon.

The book was (is) censed before to show honour to the proclaimed Word; the celebrant was censed afterwards because he is acting in Persona Christi, which I can see might raise all sorts of other questions.

While this level of ceremonial can be found these days if you look hard enough, most celebrations nowadays are simpler; some actions have been removed. In particular, the book of the gospels is kissed by the person who reads it unless the celebrant is a bishop; and the celebrant is not censed after the reading. The Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani published in 1969 lays down what should happen now, in the absence of specific directions in the 2010 version.

  131 Dum Alleluia vel alter cantus profertur, si adhibetur incensum, ad impositionem thuris secerdoti ministrat, deinde, ante sacerdotem inclinatus, benedictionem petit, submissa voce dicens, Iube, domne, benedicere. Sacerdos eum benedicit, dicens: Dominus sit in corde tuo, etc. Diaconus respondet: Amen. Deinde librum Evangeliorum, si est in altari, sumit et ad ambonem pergit, ministris, si adsunt, cum candelabris et incenso pro opportunitate eum praecedentibus. Ibi populum salutat, librum incensat et proclamat Evangelium. Quo finito, librum osculo veneratur, secreto dicens, Per evangelica dicta etc., et ad celebrantem redit. Si vero homilia non fit neque symbolum dictur, potest manere in ambone pro oratione universali, recedentibus ministris.

Ceremonial is never added, it's only simplified. Between 1921 and 1969, the ceremonial changed so that the book is no longer routinely processed to be kissed and the celebrant is no longer censed. The deacon himself has never been censed at the gospel.


What was the Birthright? What, specifically, did Esau lose when he lost the birthright, and what did Jacob gain? What did the birthright represent, and why was it so highly prized by Jacob?

When Esau lost his birthright, he lost a greater ownership of his father's property, as well as the position of leader of the family (thinking of family as a whole tribe of people). Jacob may have prized the birthright out of greed, but it's worth mentioning that God spoke to Rebekah in Genesis 25:22-23 and told her that the younger of her sons would rule over the elder. While it doesn't say that this is the case anywhere in the Bible, If Rebekah had told Jacob of this, perhaps he felt he was doing the will of God. This might also explain why Rebekah helped him in deceiving his father (Genesis 27). Again, this is only speculation on my part. You can read more about the Hebrew birthright here: http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BIRTHRIGHT/


Does the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and Son infringe on the co-equality of the Trinity? The following is intended to correlate to classical scholastic terminology, to whit:

Nature = essence, as in "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have the Trinitarian 'nature' of God."

Person = mode of particular operation, as in "the Son is the second "person" of the Trinity, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made..."

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all co-eternal and co-equal.

Question

If the the persons of the Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - are co-eternal and co-equal, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son...

Wouldn't the Father and the Son need to proceed from the Spirit as well in order to maintain the triad of equal procession from all three?

It seems as though, since the Holy Spirit doesn't have the faculty of bestowing procession upon the Father and the Son, then that gives the Holy Spirit one less faculty than the rest, which in turn subordinates the Holy Spirit to receive procession only.

Doesn't this infringe on the Spirit's co-equality?

This question derives from my study of the and drawn out debate concerning the validity of the filioque.

Brief Historical Introduction

The Nicene Creed originally did not include the words "and the Son" (called the Filioque clause) because it was based on the words of Scripture in John 15:26 (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον). It was added later, and not by an ecumenical council (it was originally inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo). Not to mention, even previous Roman popes resisted its addition to the Creed (e.g. Leo III). It adds nothing to the Creed that isn't already said elsewhere in it. Writing in the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus wrote concerning the Holy Spirit:

  The Holy Ghost is truly Spirit, coming forth from the Father indeed,
  but not after the manner of the Son, for it is not by Generation but
  by Procession (since I must coin a word for the sake of clearness);
  for neither did the Father cease to be Unbegotten because of His
  begetting something, nor the Son to be begotten because He is of the
  Unbegotten (how could that be?), nor is the Spirit changed into Father
  or Son because He proceeds, or because He is God— though the ungodly
  do not believe it (Oration 39:12).

The Greek Church Fathers were careful not to use the verb ἐκπορεύομαι to describe the relation of the Holy Spirit from the Son, this term was exclusively for how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and is directly from the mouth of Jesus as recorded in John's Gospel).1

In contrast, Western Christians had begun using the Latin verb procedere to translate ἐκπορεύομαι and to describe the Holy Spirit's relationship to both the Father and the Son. History shows that some Christians were indifferent to this and others took issue with it. Controversies ensued that I won't go into as you can read the history in more detail elsewhere. The Roman Catholic Church has even officially admitted that the Holy Spirit does not proceed (ἐκπορεύομαι) from the Son, but rather from the Father through the Son, however it maintains the current verbiage of the creed with caveats to explain this distinction (with the exception of Eastern Catholic churches, which it encourages to omit the Filioque).

Does the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and Son infringe on the co-equality of the Trinity?

Yes. John 15:26 says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται / who from the Father proceeds). That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father is straight from Jesus' mouth as recorded in Scripture. Jesus didn't say, "and from me." The Filioque makes the Holy Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. The procession of the Holy Spirit is now no longer unique to only one Person of the Trinity nor shared by all Persons, thus compromising the co-equality of the Persons of the Trinity.

1 This is evidenced by the Alexandrian fathers' use of προϊέναι and προχεῖσθαι rather than ἐκπορεύεσθαι, as an example.


How do those who believe in a works or works + faith based salvation interpret Jesus' words to the criminal in Luke 23:43? Luke 23:39-43 tells of Jesus' interaction with the two criminals being crucified on either side of him:

  39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
  40 But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
  41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
  42 And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
  43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:39-43, ESV)

After the second criminal acknowledges Christ's sinlessness in contrast to their own sinful ways, and fear of condemnation from God, Jesus tells him that he will be saved.

How do those who believe in a works based salvation (either in whole, or in part along with faith) interpret this statement by Jesus in light of the thief's inability to perform good works?

According to Emanuel Swedenborg, faith without works does not save a person
(Note: This section can be skipped by those who are interested only in the Swedenborgian interpretation of Luke 23:39-43. The purpose of this section is to establish that Swedenborg, and Swedenborgians, reject justification by faith alone, and believe that good works are also necessary for salvation.)
Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) utterly rejected Martin Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone, commonly known as salvation by faith alone.
For example, Swedenborg says:

People who suppose that salvation lies in faith alone, and not at the same time in the life of faith, that is, in the life of charity, believe that anyone can enter heaven and come to the Lord, irrespective of the life he has led. They do not know what the life of man is; and not knowing what this is they imagine that the life is of no importance at all. Consequently if they are asked whether a bad person is able to be among the good, they say that by God's mercy he can be, since it is the work of an almighty power. Indeed if they are asked whether the devil is able to become an angel of heaven, they say Yes, provided that he wishes to receive faith. Nor are they in any doubt about his ability to receive it. But if they are told that evil is not able to be turned into good, nor thus hell into heaven with a person, and that such a conversion is impossible because it is contrary to order, therefore contrary to God's truth, and so contrary to God Himself who is order, they reply that such ideas are false reasonings about salvation that do not interest them. All these and countless other considerations go to show how great a blindness regarding salvation and eternal life is caused by teachings about faith alone. (Arcana Coelestia #8765:2)

And even more pointedly:

It is due solely to the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone that, in accordance with the above prediction, there is at this day such thick darkness in the Christian Churches that there is no light from the sun by day nor from the moon and stars by night. For this doctrine teaches that the only means of salvation is faith; the influx, progress, indwelling, operation and efficacy of which no one has hitherto seen any sign, and into which neither the Law of the Decalogue, nor repentance, nor concern for newness of life, nor charity, nor good works, enter; nor are they in any way connected with it. For it is asserted that these things follow spontaneously, without being of any use either for preserving faith or for procuring salvation. (Brief Exposition #79)

And relevant to the story of the thieves on the cross:

Take as another example a person who believes that faith alone saves and that the works of charity contribute nothing to salvation, a person who also believes that he can be saved even in his final hour before death, no matter what kind of life he has been leading throughout the whole course of his life. If on the basis of these ideas he leads a life devoid of any charity and is filled with contempt for others, enmity and hatred towards anyone who does not pay him respect, the desire for revenge, the craving to deprive others of their goods, lack of pity, trickery, and deceit, these evils too are evils of falsity. They are such because he convinces himself on the basis of a falsity either that they are not evils or that even if they were evils they would nevertheless be purged, provided that before he breathed his last he declared with apparent trust his belief that the Lord is the Mediator and that sins are purged through His passion on the Cross. (Arcana Coelestia #7272:2)

Here Swedenborg rejects the idea that a person can be saved by faith alone through deathbed repentance of the sort that is commonly attributed to the second thief on the cross.
There are, in fact, few traditionally Christian doctrines that Swedenborg assails more frequently and more thoroughly than he does the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Looking from the positive side of what Swedenborg does teach as the essentials of Christian faith and practice, here is his own brief summary of those essentials:

For our part, the specifics of faith are these: (1) There is one God, the divine Trinity exists within him, and he is the Lord God the Savior Jesus Christ. (2) Believing in him is a faith that saves. (3) We must not do things that are evil - they belong to the Devil and come from the Devil. (4) We must do things that are good - they belong to God and come from God. (5) We must do these things as if we ourselves were doing them, but we must believe that they come from the Lord working with us and through us.
The first two points have to do with faith, the second two have to do with goodwill; and the fifth has to do with the partnership between goodwill and faith, the partnership between the Lord and us. (True Christianity #3:2)

Accordingly, the members of the various "New Church," or Swedenborgian, denominations believe that salvation requires not only faith, but also good works done in accordance with the Lord's commandments in the Gospels and throughout the Bible. For more on this, see my articles, "Faith Alone Does Not Save . . . No Matter How Many Times Protestants Say It Does," and "Christian Beliefs that the Bible Does Teach."
Swedenborgian commentary on Luke 23:39-43
Swedenborg comments on Luke 23:43 primarily in the context of arguments for the immediate resurrection into the spiritual world of people who have died, against common traditionally Christian beliefs in a future general resurrection and Last Judgment.
However, in his work Apocalypse Explained #600 he does provide a brief commentary suggesting the meaning and significance of the two thieves:

The two robbers who were crucified, one on the right, and the other on the left of the Lord, have a similar signification to the sheep and the goats; therefore it was said to the one who acknowledged the Lord, that he should be with Him in paradise (Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:39-43). And in John:

Jesus said to His disciples who were fishing, "Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and were no longer able to draw it for the multitude of fishes" (John 21:6).

This brief commentary is picked up and expanded upon by the Rev. William Worcester (1859-1939), a Swedenborgian minister and Bible commentator, in his work The Sower, vol. 5, p. 386:

The thieves crucified with the Lord in a manner represent mankind whose trials and temptations the Lord shares. One thief represents those who are not humbled by temptation and do not receive the Lord's help so mercifully offered; the other thief represents those who do receive His help, and through Him find victory and peace. This is consistent with the statement in Apocalypse Explained #600, that by the two thieves crucified with the Lord the same is meant as by the sheep and goats on the King's right and left (Matthew 25:33).

So the primary Swedenborgian interpretation of Luke 23:39-43 is that the two thieves on the cross represent the two general classes of humanity:

Those who do not accept salvation from the Lord
Those who do accept salvation from the Lord

Further, from a Swedenborgian perspective, Luke 23:39-43, seen in its context as a conversation taking place while the three (Jesus and the two thieves) were being crucified, represents the two different ways that human beings respond to the trials, temptation, pain, and suffering of life. Specifically, the two thieves represent:

Those who, despite much trial, pain, and suffering in life, reject God and salvation, vs:
Those who, through the trials, pain, and suffering of life, come to repentance and an acceptance of God and salvation

So the thief who thought only of saving his own skin, and shouted derisively, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" (Luke 23:39) represents people who have no interest in repentance and spiritual rebirth, and therefore no interest in the salvation offered by the Lord.
Meanwhile, the thief who recognized that he was a sinner, witnessed to the other thief, and asked Jesus for mercy represents people who recognize that they have thought, felt, and acted wrongly and sinfully, repent of their wrongs, do good works instead, and turn to the Lord for salvation.
The second thief on the cross is not an example of faith alone
From a Swedenborgian perspective, there is a basic fallacy in thinking that the second thief on the cross is an example salvation, or justification, by faith alone. Understanding this fallacy, and what was really taking place, requires looking more deeply and realistically not only at the vignette presented in Luke 23:39-43, but at its wider context.
Jesus, as Christians universally believe, was "tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin" (Hebrews 4:15). His crucifixion was his final and greatest temptation, and even its terrible agony did not induce him to sin in any way.
The two thieves, by contrast, were quite human, and definitely sinners. Perhaps they were common thieves. Or perhaps, as some believe, they were insurrectionists against Roman rule, who committed violent crimes in the course of their rebellion. Either way, they broke the Ten Commandments and committed evil and sinful actions.
Now they were facing the punishment for their crimes.
And of course, they didn't just suddenly pop up on crosses beside Jesus. They had been caught, arrested, and tried for their crimes, and now their sentence was being carried out.
How did each thief respond to the terrible trial and temptation that he had already gone through, and was now suffering?

One thief remained defiant to the end. Rather than repenting of his
evil actions, he derisively called on Jesus to save them, despite
the fact that he was not at all sorry for what he had done, and
would likely do it all over again given the opportunity.
The other thief had clearly been brought to repentance by his
arrest, trial, and punishment. Yes, all we see of him is what he
said on the cross. But human psychology tells us that this did not
just happen all of a sudden. There was prior thought, and a change
of heart, involved in what he expressed to the other thief and to
Jesus.

The reason the second thief was saved, while the other was not, is that he, unlike the other, repented of his evil deeds. In so doing, he took his first step toward salvation, just as John the Baptist, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples preached many times in the Gospels and the Acts: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven (or God) has come near" (see, for example, Matthew 3:1-2; 4:17; Mark 1:14-15).
Further, the second thief not only repented, but he also acted on his repentance by witnessing to the other thief, even as he himself was enduring the agony of crucifixion:

But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." (Luke 23:40-41)

Witnessing to non-believers, even if it is done through words rather than physical actions, is a good work. It is an action of reaching out to others and offering them the salvation that comes from Jesus Christ.
So the second thief is not an example of justification, or salvation, by faith alone. Rather, he is an example of:

Repentance: in that he recognized that he had done evil and was being justly punished for his sins,
Good works: in that he witnessed to the other thief even in the midst of his own agony, and
Faith: in that he turned to the Lord and asked the Lord to remember him when he came into his kingdom.

It was on the basis of his repentance, good works, and faith, and not on the basis of mere "faith" by itself—especially if this is thought of as mere intellectual belief and verbal profession—that Jesus said to the second thief, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).
So for members of the various "New Church" or Swedenborgian denominations, the story of the two thieves on the cross is a confirmation of the belief that in order to be saved, we must repent of our sins, do good works instead, and have faith in the power of Jesus Christ to save us and bring us into God's kingdom.


What is the origin of the story that the Apostle John taught only "love one another"? I've heard in a sermon that there is a story about Apostle John's last days, when he was working in Ephesus.

The story tells that usually, at the Lord's Supper, John was invited to give a little speech about the church life, and his words was almost always: "Little children, I tell you to love one another".
When a fellow worker asked him "Brother, I think we've already understood that. You have walked with the Lord, don't you have another teaching from him?" he answered something like "If, one day, you understand that, there is nothing else you need to learn about the church life".

Firstly, I don't think that the very preacher I've heard it from have made up the story, because he is trustworthy and almost always theologically accurate.

Secondly, I don't remember if the words I used was exactly the same from the story.

That being said, someone know a story like that from any source? Maybe from Irenaeus, or Polycarp, or Tertullian or Justin Martyr?

It's from Jerome's Commentary on Galatians, 6:10:

  The blessed John the Evangelist lived in Ephesus until extreme old age.  His disciples could barely carry him to church and he could not muster the voice to speak many words.  During individual gatherings he usually said nothing but, "Little children, love one another." The disciples and brothers in attendance, annoyed because they always heard the same words, finally said, "Teacher, why do you always say this?" He replied with a line worthy of John: "Because it is the Lord's commandment and if it alone is kept, it is sufficient."

Andrew Cain, the translator of this edition of Jerome's commentary, suggests that "the source for this story was possibly Hegesippus's Memoirs via either Clement of Alexandria or Origen."  However, none of the works of Hegesippus survive, so this is speculation.


Refutation of Chizzuk Emunah, Part II, Ch. XII: "Doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Examined" Yitzchak ben Avraham of Trakai, Lithuania, also known as Isaac ben Abraham of Troki, was a Karaite Jew who wrote a polemic against Christians known as Chizzuk Emunah (חזוק    אמונה), which translates into English as "Faith Strengthened."

I would like to offer some of the arguments he makes (each in a different thread) to the Christianity.SE forum so we may engage them.

Here is the first argument I am offering from Chizzuk Emunah.

  Matthew 8:19-20, "And a certain scribe came and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath nowhere to lay his head." The same saying is recorded in Luke 9:57. This passage we deem a strong proof of the consciousness of Jesus that he was not God. For, if he had really been filled with such a conceit, why should he have called himself the Son of Man? And moreover, why should he have dissuaded others from relying on him? Perhaps he bore in mind the admonition given in Psalm 146:3, "Do not rely on princes nor trust in the son of man, for salvation belongeth not unto him." Or perhaps the words of Jeremiah in chapter 17:5, "Cursed is the man who relieth on man." Had he imagined he was God, why should he have said he had nowhere to lay his head? Would he not have considered the whole earth to be his own resting-place; for does not the Psalmist remind us in Psalm 24:1, "That the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof, the world, and the inhabitants therein?" [bold added]

What is the refutation of Yiztchak ben Avraham's argument?

My first reaction is that this is simply not the accepted understanding of the passage, and that this understanding can only come from a person determined to find fault in it.  But that hardly seems to do it justice, so here's a better, more complete answer:

One obvious response to the idea that Matthew 8:20 refers to Jesus acknowledging that He isn't divine is that it's odd that a Jew would not know their own Scripture.   Although the phrase "Son of Man" was a phrase of "humilation and debasement", the phrase actually points to His divinity, as the foretold one, right from the book of Daniel 7:13(KJV)

  I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came
  with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they
  brought him near before him.

Moreso, the fact that Jesus would come in humility is right out of Psalm 8:5.

  For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast
  crowned him with glory and honour.

As for why Jesus would want to discourage this person from following Him, a common understanding is that this scribe expected material gain, and Jesus was just giving him a realiztic expectation of the life he would lead if he followed Christ.

From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  ...So that though he was Lord of all, as being the mighty God; yet as
  "the son of man", a phrase, expressive both of the truth and meanness
  of his human nature, the most despicable of creatures in the earth and
  air, were richer than he. This he said, to convince the Scribe of his
  mistake; who expected much worldly grandeur and wealth, by becoming
  his disciple.

As a matter of fact, Gills Exposition refutes he entire argument put forth by Yitzchak ben Avraham

  When Christ styles himself "the son of man", it is no contradiction to
  his being God; nor any objection to trust and confidence in him, as
  the Jew (z) suggests; for he is truly and properly God, as well as
  really man, having two natures, human and divine, united in his
  person; so that he is, as was prophesied of him, Emmanuel, God with
  us, in our nature, God manifested in the flesh: and since he is so, it
  cannot be unlawful to trust in him; which it would be indeed, was he a
  mere man. The Jews ought not to object to this name and title of the
  "Messiah, the son of man": since he is so called, as their own writers
  and commentators acknowledge, in (a) Psalm 80:17 and (b) Daniel 7:13.
  And whereas it is further urged against these words of Christ, that if
  he was God, why does he complain of want of place? Is not the whole
  world his, according to Psalm 24:1? It may be replied, that it is very
  true, that the whole world is his, nor could he be in want of
  anything, as God; but yet, as man, for our sakes he became "poor",
  that we "might be rich": nor should this be any difficulty with a Jew,
  when they themselves say, as some have thought, if he (the Messiah)
  should come, , "there's no place in which he can sit down" (c). Unless
  it be understood of Nebuchadnezzar, as the gloss explains it; let the
  learned inspect the place, and judge: the coming of the Messiah is
  immediately spoken of.

As does Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

  8:18-22 One of the scribes was too hasty in promising; he proffers
  himself to be a close follower of Christ. He seems to be very
  resolute. Many resolutions for religion are produced by sudden
  conviction, and taken up without due consideration; these come to
  nothing. When this scribe offered to follow Christ, one would think he
  should have been encouraged; one scribe might do more credit and
  service than twelve fishermen; but Christ saw his heart, and answered
  to its thoughts, and therein teaches all how to come to Christ. His
  resolve seems to have been from a worldly, covetous principle; but
  Christ had not a place to lay his head on, and if he follows him, he
  must not expect to fare better than he fared. We have reason to think
  this scribe went away. Another was too slow. Delay in doing is as bad
  on the one hand, as hastiness in resolving is on the other. He asked
  leave to attend his father to his grave, and then he would be at
  Christ's service. This seemed reasonable, yet it was not right. He had
  not true zeal for the work. Burying the dead, especially a dead
  father, is a good work, but it is not thy work at this time. If Christ
  requires our service, affection even for the nearest and dearest
  relatives, and for things otherwise our duty, must give way. An
  unwilling mind never wants an excuse. Jesus said to him, Follow me;
  and, no doubt, power went with this word to him as to others; he did
  follow Christ, and cleaved to him. The scribe said, I will follow
  thee; to this man Christ said, Follow me; comparing them together, it
  shows that we are brought to Christ by the force of his call to us, Ro
  9:16.

The idea that Jesus "knew He wasn't God" doesn't hold water in light of other Scripture, either.  It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.  The question "Did Jesus claim to be God?" has been answered and addressed so thoroughly, and is such an established teaching, that it's simply ridiculous to try to claim otherwise. One example here.

The whole argument ignores the basic orthodox Christian teaching that Jesus assumed a humble nature willingly, for His purpose, but knew full well of His divinity.


What is the argument for papal succession? First off, I do not mean for this question to sound as an attack on the Catholic Church. I would like to know the stance of the church regarding this.

I found this resource, which documents the succession of the Pope, but there appear to be some significant holes (258 AD, 304 AD, etc).

I guess some related questions are:

Who is St. Linus and why did He succeed St. Peter when St. John was still alive?
What is the basis for voting for a pope when the only documented evidence of choosing a successor is election by casting lots (Acts 1:26, see wikipedia)?
Why don't popes do the same thing as Peter (heal people, write epistles, etc)?
Why is there a pope if it isn't mentioned in the Bible (while apostles, pastors, etc. are)

As far as I can tell, the Catholic Church holds edicts and creeds to be of equal or similar weight as the Bible, and there are books in the Catholic canon that do not exist in most other churches' canon (considered to be part of Apocrypha).

Note:

I am not looking for a debate, and I do not mean for this question to be inflammatory. I only want to know the Catholic position and the basis for it.

The issue here is Apostolicity and the succession thereof; from the Nicene creed (emphasis mine):

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church

The doctrine rests on the central tenants that in Matthew 16:18-20 Jesus invested apostolic leadership and kingdom authority in Peter and the apostles and Matthew 18:18 via the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and the power to "bind" and "loose", and finally that Peter ended his ministry in Rome, bringing the principle seat of the church's authority to Rome when he died.

Matthew 16:18
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 18:18
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

That Peter came finally to Rome appears to be a settled question, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

As soon as the problem of St. Peter's coming to Rome passed from theologians writing pro domo sua into the hands of unprejudiced historians, i.e. within the last half century, it received a solution which no scholar now dares to contradict; the researches of German professors like A, Harnack and Weiasticker, of the Anglican Bishop Lightfoot, and those of archaeologists like De Rossi and Lanciani, of Duchesne and Barnes, have all come to the same conclusion: St. Peter did reside and die in Rome.

And Peter's martyrdom in Rome seems to be upheld by the early church fathers and it forms their own claim for apostolic authority; from the above linked article:

Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a universal consensus as to Peter's martyrdom in Rome; Dionysius of Corinth speaks for Greece, Irenaeus for Gaul, Clement and Origen for Alexandria, Tertullian for Africa. In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St. Peter's successors, and no one objects to this claim, no one raises a counterclaim.

It's seems, at least in my reading of early church writings, that the Roman church may have reached a place of significance within the wider church body by the 3rd or 4th century.  The church in Rome is either called on or preemptively steps in to arbitrate disputes in other churches.  The council of Sardica, 343, agreed that to "honor the memory of the Apostle Peter" they should "provide that letters be sent to Julius, Bishop of Rome" regarding any legal case involving a Bishop which is in dispute, for the Bishop of Rome to possibly hear the appeal. In 376 St. Jerome calls the "chair of Peter" the "Rock on which the Church is built".  And in about 401 Pp. Innocent I claims the authority of the Roman See such that "any just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of [the Roman] See".  (Documents of the Christian Church, in the section entitled The Authority of the Holy See).
Who is St. Linus and why did He succeed St. Peter when St. John was still alive?
The bishop Linus who succeeded Peter is believed to be the one mentioned in the letter to Timothy:

2 Timothy 4:21
20 Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus. 21 Do your best to get here before winter. Eubulus greets you, and so do Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers and sisters.

Linus would have succeeded Peter as the bishop of the Roman congregation; John's responsibility was another church body.
Note that much of what we understand about the happenings of this time were lost in antiquity with only church traditions passing on details from one generation to the next.  Several of the Roman persecutions made concerted efforts to wipe out Christianity, including burning as much of her writings as they could.
What is the basis for voting for a Pope?
The process by which the Pope is selected by the conclave of bishops has its roots in a simple consensus of church leadership which is believed to reflect the will of the Holy Spirit.  It is based on the idea of wise counsel, the idea being that with many seeking the will of God on a particular matter, some might miss it but the majority will not.  It is not supposed to be a political or popularity contest, but a genuine seeking of the Holy Spirit's leading.  What actually happens in practice is hard to say (but I would certainly not base my perceptions on Hollywood depictions like Angels and Demons).
Why don't Popes do the same things as Peter (heal people, write epistles, etc)?
On the miracles, the question of why they are so relatively rare in the modern church is a separate issue, for a separate question.
As for epistles, this is precisely the big bone of contention between Catholic and Protestant Christians.  The Catholic church teaches that the apostolic authority to teach with authority via the Holy Spirit continues to this day, via the Papal letters and encyclicals and exercise of the church's "magesterium" to pronounce doctrines as being infallible, making them dogmas (the latter being the only time, contrary to popular misconception, which the Pope is considered infallible).
Why is there a Pope if it isn't mentioned in the Bible (while apostles, pastors, etc. are)
Pope is simply the Latin word for "father", similar to and root of "papa" in other modern Romantic languages.  Judeo-Christian culture has a long established history of referring to respected elders and teachers as "father", as a term of simple endearment and respect (actually, Asian cultures do this also).  The moniker "Pope" simply stuck, over time, as the title for the Bishop of Rome.  In fact, it's not clear to me if there is any difference in Italian for the general title for a priest, bishop or the Pope, other than perhaps capitalizing the 'P'.


Did the Annunciation and Good Friday coincide? As we know, Good Friday falls on March 25 (2016) this year. In Catholic and Orthodox Churches, March 25 is also the Feast of the Annunciation.

A priest friend of mine, told me there was once a popular belief  in the Middle Ages that the Annunciation coincided with Passion of Our Lord.

Can anyone point out to any other sources that support such a popular belief did in fact exist?

I have found two sources that seem to support this idea.
The 2nd-century writer Irenaeus of Lyon regarded the conception of Jesus as 25 March coinciding with the Passion.

The second piece to support this idea comes from the Liturgical Calendar of the Sarum Rite.One can see on page 3 that Annunciation and Good Friday are on March 25th. The Sarum Rite is a variation of the Roman Liturgy in use in England, up to 1559.

Addendum: The Roman Martyrology commemorates the Feast of St Dismas on the 25th of March! St Dismas is the traditional name given to the Good Thief, who died on the cross next to Jesus at Golgotha.

The Golden Legend, by Archbishop Jacobus de Voraigne of Genoa, published between 1260 and 1275,  and printed many times (once printing was invented), was a medieval best seller. It included the lives of many saints and much other information.  It states that the Annunciation and the Crucifixion, and several other events, happened on March 25th. The popularity of this book would be sufficient to account for the popularity of this belief in the later Middle Ages. There may, of course, have been other sources too.

This  passage is translated:

  This blessed Annunciation happened the twentyfifth day of the month of March, on which day happened also, as well tofore as after, these things that hereafter be named. On that same day Adam, the first man, was created and fell into original sin by inobedience, and was put out of paradise terrestrial. After, the angel showed the conception of our Lord to the glorious Virgin Mary. Also that same day of the month Cain slew Abel his brother. Also Melchisedech made offering to God of bread and wine in the presence of Abraham. Also on the same day Abraham offered Isaac his son. That same day S. John Baptist was beheaded, and S. Peter was that day delivered out of prison, and S. James the more, that day beheaded of Herod. And our Lord Jesu Christ was on that day crucified, wherefore that is a day of great reverence.

So, according to this legend, the Creation of Adam, the Fall of Adam, the murder of Abel, Melchisedech's offering of bread and wine, Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac, the Annunciation to Mary and Conception of Christ,  the decapitation of John the Baptist, the Crucifixion  of Christ,  James' killing and Peter's escape all occurred on March 25th.

The matching dates for Annunciation and Crucifixion are referred to , around 400,  by Augustine in Book 4, Chapter 5, of his work on the Trinity:

  For He is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also He suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which He was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which He was buried, wherein was never man laid,  neither before nor since.

This is likely the source for the dates in the Golden Legend.

It is said that there was a tradition that great prophets were conceived and died on the same day. Moses announced on what appears to be his last day :

"I am an hundred and twenty years old this day". Deuteronomy 31 2.  This is known as the integral age concept, which however does not seem well corroborated.

With regard to the Sarum calendar, this article states that the inclusion in liturgical calendars of several historical dates was very common in the middle ages. The most common listing is for the Resurrection, which if listed is always on March 27th. This is further corroboration of the popular belief that the Crucifixion and the Annunciation took place on the same day, and that this belief was recognised in church calendars.

March 27th was listed as the historical date that the Resurrection occurred. It had no effect on the date of the Easter celebration.

Some additional  support may possibly be inferred from the old Scottish Quarter Day on May 15th which was known as Whitsunday. May 15th is exactly 7 weeks after March 27th. The usual meaning of Whitsunday is Whit Sunday (known in some countries as Pentecost), as mentioned here, but for various purposes in Scottish law (e.g. moving house) was formerly regarded as fixed. If the Resurrection occurred on March 27, the Descent of the Holy Ghost, which is the event marked at Whitsun, would have been May 15th.


Has a pope ever visited Macau? Has any pope ever visited Macau? I can't seem to find any information on it. If a pope hasn't visited Macau before, why not? The Catholic Diocese of Macau is directly administered by the Holy See so it would make sense to at least show once.

Has a pope ever visited Macau?

The short answer is no.

Macau is under Chinese administration. No pope has ever visted China or it's specially administrated regions such as Macau. The reason is quite simple: The Vatican has no diplomatic relation with the People's Republic of China. Even prior to 1999, when Macau was under Portuguese administration, Pope John Paul II never visited Macau. See Wikipedia's list of pastoral visits of Pope john Paul II outside of Italy.

In fact, Pope Francis wants to be the first pontiff to visit mainland China — but it won’t be easy.

  There have been no official People's Republic of China – Holy See relations since 1951.

  The Beijing government broke off diplomatic relations with the Holy See in 1951 after a complicated incident. Throughout 1950 and 1951, China had been putting pressure on the Vatican by threatening a breakaway of "independent Catholics", but many priests opposed the movement, and Zhou Enlai sought a middle ground. A deadly controversy was then manufactured: a priest working at the Holy See internunciature (legation) had thrown out an old 1930s-era mortar in a trash pile out of his home. A businessman named Antonio Riva discovered the mortar and took a non-functioning piece of it back to his house to display as an antique. When Communist officials saw Riva's curio in his home, they arrested him for conspiracy to assassinate Mao Zedong, which Riva denied. Riva was executed and the Holy See's diplomatic mission was banished from the country for "espionage". Tarcisio Martina, the regional apostolic prefect, was sentenced to life in prison and died in 1961, while four other "conspirators" were given shorter sentences.

  The Beijing government has set two conditions for reestablishing the relations: that the Holy See "not interfere in religious matters in China" and that, in line with Beijing's One-China policy, it break the ties with the Taipei government that it established after the expulsion of Archbishop Riberi, ties that, since the United Nations' recognition of the Beijing government as the government of China, it now maintains only at the level of chargé d'affaires. - China–Holy See relations (Wikipedia)


Is it true that Martin Luther never considered the works of the early Church Fathers? Is it true that Martin Luther never considered the works of the early Church Fathers while he was developing and defending his teaching?

Here is the list of some of those Fathers (from Wikipedia):

1 Apostolic Fathers

1.1 Saint Clement of Rome
1.2 Saint Ignatius of Antioch
1.3 Saint Polycarp of Smyrna

2 Greek Fathers

2.1 Saint Irenaeus of Lyons
2.2 Saint Clement of Alexandria
2.3 Origen of Alexandria
2.4 Saint Athanasius of Alexandria
2.5 Cappadocian Fathers
2.6 Saint Cyril of Alexandria
2.7 Saint John Chrysostom
2.8 Saint Maximus the Confessor
2.9 Saint John of Damascus

3 Latin Fathers

3.1 Tertullian
3.2 Saint Cyprian of Carthage
3.3 Saint Hilary of Poitiers
3.4 Saint Ambrose of Milan
3.5 Saint Jerome of Stridonium
3.6 Saint Augustine of Hippo
3.7 Saint Gregory the Great
3.8 Saint Isidore of Seville

No, it is not true. Luther was widely read in many works of theology and church history and and if you take into consideration his commentary on various church Fathers and the merit or  issues with their theology it is ridiculous to make such a claim.

It is true that he was sometimes critical of their works, but he clearly used them in his own studies. Sometimes he made favorable remarks about things that he had learned from them. For example he seems to have prefered Epiphanius over Jerome:

  Epiphanius compiled a history of the church long before Jerome; his writings are good and profitable, and, if separated from dissentious agruments, worth printing. -- Martin Luther

In Augustine's writings he seems to have found a friend and ally:

  Augustine was the ablest and purest of all the doctors, but he could not of himself bring back things to their original condition, and he often complains that the bishops, with their traditions and ordinances, troubled the church more than did the Jews with their laws. -- Martin Luther

However he didn't seem to think too highly of Chrysostom:

  I will not presume to criticize too closely the writings of the Fathers, seeing they are received at the church, and have great applause, for then I should be held an apostate; but whoso reads Chrysostom, will find he digresses from the chief points, and proceeds to other matter, saying nothing, or very little, of what pertains to the business. When I was expounding the Epistle to the Hebrews, and turned to what Chrysostom had written thereupon, I found nothing to the purpose; yet I believe that he at that time, as being the chief rhetorician, had many hearers, though he taught without profit; for the chief office of a preacher is to teach uprightly, and diligently to look to the chief points and grounds whereon he stands, and so instruct and teach the hearers that they understand aright, and may be able to say: this is well taught. When this is done, he may avail himself of rhetoric to adorn his subject and admonish the people. -- Martin Luther

For further study you could check out the book The Table Talk of Martin Luther, a collection of misc writings by Martin Luther that includes lots of mentions of works he read and either profited from or objected to.

  We must read the Fathers cautiously, and lay them in the gold balance, for they often stumbled and went astray, and mingled in their books many monkish things. Augustine had more work and labor, to wind himself out of the Father’s writings, then he had with the heretics. Gregory expounds the five pounds mentioned in the Gospel, which the husbandman gave to his servants to put to use, to be the five senses, which the beasts also possess. The two pounds, he construes to be the reason and understanding. -- Martin Luther


Do Calvinists believe that God does not love the world, but only the elect? I seem to remember hearing somewhere that at least some Calvinists believe that, contrary to what seems to be a literal reading of John 3:16 and other verses, that God, in fact, does not love the world, but only the elect.

So, is there a certain group of Calvinists (denominations) that hold to this belief?  If so, which ones?  Also, what is the explanation for verses like John 3:16 that seem to indicate that God loves not only those who come to Him, but also those who reject them.

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

  And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one
  thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will
  have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”  Disheartened by the
  saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.  Mark
  10:21-22 -> The rich young ruler who doesn't seem to have been one of
  the elect.

  The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness,
  but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but
  that all should reach repentance.  2 Peter 3:9 ESV

  And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
  Luke 23:34 ESV Jesus asks for the forgiveness of the ones that were rejecting
  Him and crucifying Him.

If any famous Calvinist could be accused of not believing God loved everyone it would be John Owen one of the foremost Calvinistic theologians. Owen (like Calvin as well) can be misunderstood as those 'who did not believe Christ died for all'. However the more I have read of their works the more I have become convinced that actually nobody has ever-believed that God does not love all men (that is nobody 'truly Calvinistic')

This is really confusion over terminology. It has to do with the way we think of the elect.  Since God is some sense sent his Son for the elect only, as they alone will benefit by his death, we must define 'love' in different senses.  God may love sinners who reject him, but in what sense is that love present when the sinner is bound under everlasting burnings? It is with this in mind that different Calvinists and in some way all Christians grapple with different meanings of the word love, and some accuse others of not believing in love based on the way they define this 'universal love'.  In my case I would simply say as a Calvinist, God loves all men equally but from His eternal planned salvation only loves the elect effectually. But I am not fixed on my current expression. Faith believes in God's love so does not desperately seek exact terms for everything but can repose and rest in faith.

In any case here is what Owen say's when accused on believing God did not love all: (All quotes from John Owen's Works, P555-557, CHAPTER XXXI Of election and universal grace—Of the resurrection of Christ from the dead)

He notes the following verses implies a general love for all in some sense: John 3:16, 17, 6:33, 4:42; 1 John 4:14; John 12:46, 47; Mark 16:15, 16; Col. 1:23, 28; 1 Tim. 2:1–4; 2 Pet. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:1, 2.

Then he says:

  That God is good to all men, and bountiful, being a wise, powerful, liberal provider for the works of his hands, in and by innumerable dispensations and various communications of his goodness to them, and may in that regard be said to have a universal love for them all, is granted; but that God loveth all and every man alike, with that eternal love which is the fountain of his giving Christ for them and to them, and all good things with him, is not in the least intimated by any of those places of Scripture where they are expressed for whom Christ died, as elsewhere hath been abundantly manifested.

Then he says that actually it is our faith in God's general love for all that that we are saved by not our faith in his love for the elect, because the Bible does not give us faith in who is exactly elect (not saying that after we are saved we do not have full assurance that we are inn deed elect):

  This is indeed the only true and solid ground of coming unto God by Christ, that God hath infallibly conjoined faith and salvation, so that whosoever believes shall be saved; neither doth the granting of the pretended universality of God’s love afford any other ground whatever; and this is not in the least shaken or impaired by the effectual love and purpose of God for the salvation of some...We say, though God hath chosen some only to salvation by Christ,—yet the names of those some are not expressed in Scripture, the doing whereof would have been destructive to the main end of the word, the nature of faith, and all the ordinances of the gospel,—yet God having declared that whosoever believeth shall be saved, there is sufficient ground for all and every man in the world to whom the gospel is preached to come to God by Christ, and other ground there is none, nor can be offered by the assertors of the pretended universality of God’s love. Nor is this proposition, “He that believeth shall be saved,” founded on the universality of love pleaded for, but on the sufficiency of the means for the accomplishment of what is therein asserted,—namely, the blood of Christ, who is believed on.

But after establishing God's love for all Owen reminds us of some facts about those predestined to glory which might lead some to the confusion:

  Some are chosen from eternity, and are under the purpose of God, as to the good mentioned. Those some are some only, not all; and therefore, as to the good intended, there is not a universal love in God as to the objects of it, but such a distinguishing one as is spoken against: Eph. 1:4, 5, “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Here are some chosen, and consequently an intention of God concerning them expressed, and this from eternity, or before the foundation of the world, and this to the good of holiness, adoption, salvation; and this is only of some, and not of all the world, as the whole tenor of the discourse, being referred to believers, doth abundantly manifest.

He also reminds us that others are predestined to hell:

  Yet farther to evidence that this purpose of God or intention spoken of is peculiar and distinguishing, there is express mention of another sort of men who are not thus chosen, but lie under the purpose of God as to a contrary lot and condition: “The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil,” Prov. 16:4. They are persons “whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb,” Rev. 13:8; being “of old ordained to condemnation,” Jude 4; being as “natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed,” 2 Pet. 2:12. And therefore the apostle distinguisheth all men into those who are “appointed to wrath,” and those who are “appointed to the obtaining of salvation by Jesus Christ,” 1 Thess. 5:9

Conclusion: Nobody really believes God does not love the whole human race:

  As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. (John Calvin on John 3:16)

Notes:

All of John Owen's works can be found here.
Here are a couple posts I have made before about this subject before but when I wrote them I had never found these little nuggets posted here:

"God desires all men to be saved" from a Calvinist perspective?

Does God hate unborn children?


What is the Law of Moses comprised of? We see a number of references both in the Old Testament and the New Testament to the "Law of Moses" (for example Lk 2:22; Jn 1:45 and Jn 7:19).

I wish to know as to which "laws" are referred to by the said term. Are the Ten Commandments included in the Law of Moses?

Good question.  There is confusion in some quarters that it refers solely to the 10 commandments, but it is clear from scripture that it refers to all of God's commandments as given in the Torah (first five books of the OT).  This would comprise the 10 commandments, the ceremonial aspect, and the sacrificial decrees.

This is easily observed from Luke 2:22.

  And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

The article "the" is in the original.

  2:22  Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωσέως ἀνήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα παραστῆσαι τῷ κυρίῳ

In turn Luke 2:22 refers to Lev 12:2-6.  Obviously this command is not one of the 10 commandments, yet it is considered part of the Law of Moses.

And as if to make this very point, Luke then writes the following regarding the law of the Lord as the same as the law of Moses.

  2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

Likewise we find the same Torah reference in Joshua 8:31, the first book after the books written by Moses.

  As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.

In turn this command refers back to Ex 20:25 and Deu 27:6.  Again neither of those commands refer to the 10 commandments.

So, the "Law of Moses" or "law of the Lord" refer to the same commandments given in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Some will say there are 613 commandments therein.  As Peter said in Acts 15:8-11 about this issue.

  And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.  ow therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?  But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.


How do Wesleyan theologians define omnibenevolence? The term omnibenevolance is not used in my quarter of Protestantism, and after reading the Wikipedia article it is entirely unclear to me what the term means and how it relates to the God of Christianity. I quote:

  The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.

After stating that the term is basically meaningless, it goes on to note that the attribute is considered by some to be a "an essential foundation in traditional Christianity", then calls out a specific group as depending on this attribute for their other ideas about God's character.

  Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute.

My question is two-fold.

First, is this claim about it being a primary-attribute true or those quotes a poor representation of 'traditional' Christianity?
Secondly, how is this attribute defined in light of the common usage of the word being so ambiguous?

Answers may be specific to the Wesleyan tradition or delineated as belonging to any other tradition that holds this as an important attribute.

As I understand it, this needs to be taken in the context of Arminian/Calvinist debate. Calvin held that God's primary attribute was his sovereignty. All other attributes of God, including his love, must be understood in light of his sovereignty. From this idea springs the entire TULIP paradigm.

Arminius (and Wesley following him) disagreed and held that God's primary attribute was his goodness. All other attributes of God, including his sovereignty, must be understood in light of his goodness. Because God is perfectly good, he can never sin or cause anyone to sin.

This led Arminius and Wesley to reject the "U" ("Unconditional election") of TULIP on the grounds that it implies God is the author of sin. That, in turn, caused them to reject the "I" ("Irresistible grace") because if God doesn't foreordain people to hell, there must be a way for people to reject God's grace and separate themselves from God.

In short, to the extend that Arminian/Wesleyan theology differs from Calvinist teaching, it is due to being grounded in the belief that God's primary attribute is his goodness rather than his sovereignty.


Did Oliver Cromwell ban Christmas or is this an unfounded rumour? I've read various articles/questions/answers that claim Oliver Cromwell took it upon himself to ban Christmas in the U.K.  The Puritans were also implicated.  Is this true, or is it an unfounded rumour put about by the "Bah! Humbug!" brigade?
Source: When Christmas Carols were banned.

I didn't dare post this question till now for fear of upsetting people.  Personally, I don't do the feasting, drinking and gift-giving stuff, but then again, I'm not a Puritan.

By the way, this is a light-hearted post-Christmas question and is not intended to offend anybody.

Is there any evidence to suggest Oliver Cromwell was a complete "Scrooge"?

According to the Oliver Cromwell Society, he personally didn't ban Christmas:

  There is no sign that Cromwell personally played a particularly large or prominent role in formulating or advancing the various pieces of legislation and other documents which restricted the celebration of Christmas, though from what we know of his faith and beliefs it is likely that he was sympathetic towards and supported such measures, and as Lord Protector from December 1653 until his death in September 1658 he supported the enforcement of the existing measures. — Oliver Cromwell - Faq 4

He just happened to be there, and went along with the will of the people, though I doubt reluctantly.

But the Puritans (and other Protestant groups) were definitely more than just implicated:

  Christmas has at times been the subject of controversy and attacks from various sources. Historically it was prohibited by Puritans when they briefly held power in England (1647–1660), and in Colonial America where the Puritans outlawed the celebration of Christmas in 1659. The Parliament of Scotland, which was dominated by Presbyterians, passed a series of acts outlawing the observance of Christmas between 1637 and 1690; Christmas Day did not become a public holiday in Scotland until 1958. — Christmas - Wikipedia

One of the reasons the Puritans fled England was to free themselves from the paganism within contemporary Christianity:

  Christmas celebrations in New England were illegal during parts of the 17th century, and were culturally taboo or rare in former Puritan colonies from foundation until the mid-18th century. The Puritan community found no scriptural justification for celebrating Christmas, and associated such celebrations with paganism and idolatry. — Christmas in Puritan New England - Wikipedia

It doesn't take much research to determine that almost everything we, in the 21st century, associate with Christmas has nothing to do with the Biblical record.  It's all paganism and recent invention.

The Puritans had problems with that other pagan holiday too:

  The early Puritans didn’t like Easter any more than they liked Christmas. They banned Christmas in 1659, fining anyone five shillings for celebrating the holiday. They ignored Easter, Whitsunday and other holidays. May Day celebrations, which included the hated Maypole, were punished severely. — Puritan Easter, or The Devil's Holiday - New England Historical Society

UPDATE:

Some comments have disagreed with my "almost everything we, in the 21st century, associate with Christmas has nothing to do with the Biblical record.  It's all paganism and recent invention" statement.

  It is not all paganism as you so simply declare.
  virtually none are pagan.

No, the vast majority of things associated with Christmas really are a result of Roman Catholic syncretism and of the modern advertising industry.

All I can suggest is to pick almost anything associated with Christmas and do a little research.  There's a lot of information available in almost any encyclopedia, including religious encyclopedias.

E.g. this is from "The Catholic Encyclopedia":

  Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism, see … . — CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Christmas

Here are just a few examples:

Many traditions predate Jesus's birth:

Celebrations are a continuation of the Roman Saturnalia, with partying and gift giving.
Evergreen wreaths were used to decorate houses during Saturnalia.
Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun, was celebrated by Romans on December 25.
Mithras and the Sun God were born on December 25.  Jesus was born a few months earlier.
It was not Jesus, but Mithras that was born in a cave.
Nativity scenes with madonna and child are directly taken from Egyptian images of Isis nursing Horus.

Nordic and German paganism:

Winter was celebrated with evergreen trees.
Holly, ivy, and mistletoe were used for decorations.
Yule logs were burned for 12 days.

Slavic:

The Koliada festival celebrated death and rebirth, with people wandering from house to house greeting the inhabitants with songs.

Catholic:

December 25th wasn't associated with Jesus until the 4th century.
Saint Nicholas, whose name was corrupted to Santa Claus, was a 4th century Roman Bishop famous for gift giving.

American:

Much of the modern western Christmas was introduced to North America by Pennsylvania German settlers, with enthusiastic celebrations, Christmas trees, Yule logs, and other Germanic traditions.

Secular:

Office parties, street decorations, parades, lavish gifts, etc. are all recent innovations.
Christmas cards date back less than two hundred years, following the development of regular postal delivery systems.
Rudolph the reindeer was created by a Jewish copywriter as advertising for Montgomery Ward.
The current image of Santa Claus was largely created for by Coca Cola advertising, and has nothing to do with Christianity.


Is there a different way (without spoon) to receive Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church? Orthodox Churches (including Greek Catholics) distribute Holy Communion with a single spoon used without cleaning for the whole community. I find this practice unhygienic. Are there different ways that I can receive Communion in Orthodox Churches and how can I ask to introduce them in my parish? E.g. Roman Catholics can receive Holy Communion in their hands or on their tounges, the chalice is cleaned after use and so on.

Well, technically, yes. If you are very sick and can't stand from your bed, you can invite a priest to give you Communion personally, so you'll be the only person to Commune this day. However, lying to the priest to receive Communion is pretty bad idea.
So, as Abbanoob said in the comments, you'd better rethink your concerns about this, maybe talking to the priest himself.


How many mortal sins did/does Satan do? How many mortal sins did/does Satan do? Did Satan commit just one mortal sin? Does the number of mortal sins increase as he tempts people to commit sin? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.

How many mortal sins did/does Satan do? Did Satan commit just one mortal sin?

Satan lost sanctifying grace by committing the sin of pride alone (not envy,  disobedience, or any other sin; cf. Hugon, O.P., Tractatus Dogmatici vol. 1 p. 693, PDF p. 353).
Suárez's De angelis lib. 7 cap. 15 (pp. 897-910) goes into much depth regarding the question of "Whether, besides pride, Lucifer committed other sins in via" and whether these were "by diverse acts or by diverse ill-wills of the same [act]."

Does the number of mortal sins increase as he tempts people to commit sin?

cf. Summa Theologica I q. 63 a. 2 "Whether only the sin of pride and envy can exist in an angel?" co.:

omnia peccata in Dæmonibus esse contingit, quia dum homines ad omnia peccata inducunt, omnium peccatorum reatum incurrunt.
all sins are in the demons; since by leading men to sin they incur the guilt of all sins.


How does uniting to Christ's suffering work? What is the Catholic teaching on uniting with Christ's suffering?

Specifically when we go through some kind of suffering and we acknowledge it as God's will and converse it with Christ. It reminds us of His suffering and helps us to realize what Christ did for us.

My question is: Does it also subtract from his suffering? When he went through his passion Jesus saw all sins of past, present, and future. But he also saw the fruit and the saint's responds which gave him comfort. Does uniting to Christ's suffering only comforts the heart of Jesus or also subtract his suffering during crucifixion where he would otherwise have gone through them?

For example: If I suffer some pain and take it as sharing Jesus's suffering, was that sharing now split between me and him and now Christ doesn't need to suffer as much(back in time) because I took some part on myself?

  "In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ raised
  human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his
  sufferings, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of
  Christ" (Salvifici Doloris).

In his commentary on St. Paul's letter to the Colossians, St. Thomas Aquinas says the following regarding v. 1:24 ("…fill[ing] up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church"):

  – … At first glance these words can be misunderstood to mean that the passion of Christ was not sufficient for our redemption, and that the sufferings of the saints were added to complete it. But this is heretical, because the blood of Christ is sufficient to redeem many worlds: “He is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn 2:2). Rather, we should understand that Christ and the Church are one mystical person, whose head is Christ, and whose body is all the just, for every just person is a member of this head: “individually members” (1 Cor. 12:27). Now God in his predestination has arranged how much merit will exist throughout the entire Church, both in the head and in the members, just as he has predestined the number of the elect. And among these merits, the sufferings of the holy martyrs occupy a prominent place. For while the merits of Christ, the head, are infinite, each saint displays some merits in a limited degree. This is why he says, I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions, that is, what is lacking in the afflictions of the whole Church, of which Christ is the head. I complete, that is, I add my own amount; and I do this in my flesh, that is, it is I myself who am suffering. Or, we could say that Paul was completing the sufferings that were lacking in his own flesh; for what was lacking was that, just as Christ had suffered in his own body, so he should also suffer in Paul, his member, and in similar ways in others. And Paul does this for the sake of his body, which is the Church that was to be redeemed by Christ: “That he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle” (Eph 5:27). In the same way all the saints suffer for the Church, which receives strength from their example. The Gloss says that “afflictions are still lacking, because the treasure house of the Church’s merits is not full, and it will not be full until the end of the world.”

So, to answer your questions:

  Does it also subtract from his suffering? … Does uniting to Christ's suffering … subtract his suffering during crucifixion where he would otherwise have gone through them?

No, there is no subtraction of His suffering. He could've redeemed us with one drop of his most precious Blood or even without suffering at all, but He chose* to suffer to the extent He did to pay our debt to sin superabundantly, to show His immense love for us.

*cf. Is. 53:7: "He was offered because it was his own will"