On what basis does the Catholic Church teach that women cannot be ordained? The Catholic Church maintains that it does not have the authority to ordain women. I.e., the Church can't ordain women. It's assumed then that God set a precedent or gave a mandate to ordain only men.

According to the Church, in what way, how, and when was this mandate or precedent given? What [sound] theology and Patristic writing supports the Church's interpretation of that mandate and/or precedent?

To clarify: I'm looking for the justification the Catholic Church does/might give, which I expect is supported by Patristic writings, theology, and scripture.

When Pope John Paul II definitively reaffirmed the teaching in 1994 he referred back to the doctrinal document Inter Insigniores of 1976, which, he says, "recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching". Without attempting to go through Inter Insigniores in depth here (it's not really that long to begin with), here are some quick excerpts that summarize the main points it covers:

Constant and universal tradition: "up to our own time ... the practice has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance. ... The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in the course of the centuries that the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a law which was not challenged. ... The same tradition has been faithfully safeguarded by the Churches of the East"
Practice of Christ himself: "Jesus Christ did not call any woman to become part of the Twelve"
Practice of the Apostles: "The apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus towards women"
These practices not a sign of conformity to the social mores of antiquity: "an examination of the Gospels shows ... that Jesus broke with the prejudices of his time, by widely contravening the discriminations practised with regard to women. ... [S]ocial and cultural conditioning did not hold back the Apostles working in the Greek milieu, where the same forms of discrimination did not exist. ... there is no reason for accusing [St. Paul] of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate"
Clarity of the sacramental sign: "when Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this 'natural resemblance' which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man"
Ministry in the Church a vocation, not a right: "to consider the ministerial priesthood as a human right would be to misjudge its nature completely: baptism does not confer any personal title to public ministry in the Church. The priesthood is not conferred for the honour or advantage of the recipient, but for the service of God and the Church; it is the object of a specific and totally gratuitous vocation: 'You did not choose me, no, I chose you, and I commissioned you' (Jn 15:16; cf. Heb 5:4)"
Vocation to public ministry not purely subjective: "Since the priesthood is a particular ministry of which the Church has received the charge and the control, authentication by the Church is indispensable here and is a constitutive part of the vocation: Christ chose 'those he wanted' (Mk:13)"

Finally, John Paul II seemed keen to put the notion to rest that there was some sort of unjust discrimination happening here:

  Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe. (Ordination Sacerdotalis 3)


Why is "We Three Kings" a Christmas hymn, and not a Lenten one? I'll admit, when I was a young'n, I thought "We Three Kings" was a silly song.  I mean, it was just about a star, right?  After all, since I only knew the chorus, and the first verse:

  We three kings of Orient are / Bearing gifts we traverse afar.
  Field and fountain, moor and mountain, Following yonder star.

  O star of wonder, star of night,
  Star with royal beauty bright,
  Westward leading, still proceeding,
  Guide us to thy perfect Light.

I figured, what a tame song.  I kinda wondered what separated this from your standard, pithy 7-11 chorus (seven words, eleven times).

Then, I started singing the whole song:

  Born a king on Bethlehem's plain,
  Gold I bring to crown Him again,
  King forever, ceasing never
  Over us all to reign.

  Frankincense to offer have I.
  Incense owns a Deity nigh.
  Prayer and praising all men raising,
  Worship Him, God on high.

  Myrrh is mine: it's bitter perfume
  Breaths a life of gathering gloom.
  Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding dying,
  Sealed in the stone-cold tomb.

  Glorious now behold Him arise,
  King and God and Sacrifice.
  Alleluia, alleluia!
  Sounds through the earth and skies.

Now, as I read through through this amazingly, deep, insightful sermon of a text - reading the crucifixion into the gifts of the wise men, I'm kinda blown away.  In five short verses, we have the entire life story of Jesus, prefigured in the verses.

Given that understanding, then, why is this hymn restricted to Epiphany, and not also pulled out during the Lenten preparation for the cross?

Just noticed this during Mass today (Feast of the Epiphany). After the gospel is read, the proclamation of dates for the movable feasts can be read

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/christmas/announcement-of-easter-and-the-moveable-feasts.cfm

So, We Three Kings, although often thought of as a Christmas hymn is really the only popular English Epiphany hymn that I know of. And that event may have taken place 2 years after Jesus' birth for all we know. Anyway, it's a pretty good bridge for the end of the Christmas season to the beginning of Lent.

Oh, and nobody but Lew Wallace is still thinking about the three kings when Lent comes around.


Did King James really have his name put into the Bible? I have heard it said that the name book of James would more properly be translated as something such as Joshua.

As James is a name of apparent Germanic decent, is it true as I have heard that the King, when the Bible was being translated, had them put his name as the translation instead?

As a matter of fact, it appears from two etymological entries (in Etymonline.com) that "James" comes not from "Joshua" but from "Jacob":

  masc. proper name, name of two of Christ's disciples, late 12c. Middle English vernacular form of Late Latin Jacomus (source of Old French James, Spanish Jaime, Italian Giacomo), altered from Latin Jacobus (see Jacob).

(entry James)

The entry on Jacob adds:

  masc. proper name, name of Old Testament patriarch, son of Isaac and Rebecca and father of the founders of the twelve tribes, from Late Latin Iacobus, from Greek Iakobos, from Hebrew Ya'aqobh, literally "one that takes by the heel" (Gen. xxviii:12), a derivative of 'aqebh "heel."

Looking at the beginning of the letter of James, I see:

  Ἰάκωβος Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ Διασπορᾷ χαίρειν.

that is (transliterated):

  Iakobos Theou kai Kyriou Iesou Christou doulos tais dodeka phylais tais en te Diaspora khairein

  Iakobos a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.

It therefore seems that King James did not put his name into the Bible; he simply happened to have (accounting for transformations) the same name as the (nominal) author of the letter.


How could God's form be seen prior to His incarnation? In a seeker's Bible discussion last week, I had explained that God created the physical world and, therefore, existed outside the physical world.  I stated that He entered into the physical world in His incarnation.  It seemed that God would not have a physical form until then.

However, Adam and Eve are said to have walked with God in the garden.  Furthermore, it would seem that God spoke to Abraham regarding the destruction of Sodom.  It is also believed by many that the fourth person in the fiery furnace was the pre-incarnate Christ.  Moses also saw the glory of God.  Jacob wrestled with God.  Isaiah saw the throne of God.

However, this brings up the question of how God could have a physical appearance prior to His incarnation.  Were the instances where people were enabled to see spiritual things with physical eyes?

Methinks that the problem lies with this statement:

  I stated that He entered into the physical world in His incarnation.

Your multiple examples demonstrate that God did manifest a physical form before He was incarnated in Jesus. However, this physical form wasn't necessarily human flesh and blood. Quite possibly a human appearance, like the angels (Mark 16:5-6 as an example), but not necessarily human "material", so to speak.

So, in essence, God may have had a flesh-and-blood body only after the incarnation, but there's no reason He couldn't have had a physical form (that looked like a human) before the incarnation.


What is the purpose and basis for the special garments issued to temple-going Mormons? I understand that there are certain garments which temple-going Mormons are obliged to wear after going through their initial Temple Ceremony.  My question is regarding the basis for this.  When did it originate?  Was it a new revelation from God?  Is it recorded in any LDS Scriptures or the Doctrines & Covenants?  Does it have any relation to the priestly garments worn by Levites in the Old Testament?

I also understand that there are various symbols on them.  What are the specific purposes of those?

I do not wish to be irreverent here.  That would not be constructive, so please observe the same tone in any answers.

The "temple garments," as they're commonly known, serve as a constant physical reminder of the covenants that the person wearing them have made.  They are associated with the temple ceremonies, as you noted in the question.  These ceremonies were revealed to Joseph Smith, and as they are not meant for the world in general, the details have not been published in works of scripture meant for the world in general, such as the Doctrine and Covenants.

I have not heard of any doctrine that directly equates them to the Levitical priestly garments, though Boyd K. Packer, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, gave an explanation along those lines at one point, in the spirit of analogy and explanation rather than as solid doctrine:

  On one occasion one of the brethren was invited to speak to the faculty and staff of the Navy Chaplains Training School in Newport, Rhode Island. The audience included a number of high-ranking naval chaplains from the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish faiths.

  In the question-and-answer period one of the chaplains asked, “Can you tell us something about the special underwear that some Mormon servicemen wear?” The implication was, “Why do you do that? Isn’t it strange? Doesn’t that present a problem?”

  To the chaplain who made the inquiry he responded with a question: “Which church do you represent?” In response he named one of the Protestant churches.

  He said, “In civilian life and also when conducting the meetings in the military service you wear clerical clothing, do you not?” The chaplain said that he did.

  He continued: “I would suppose that that has some importance to you, that in a sense it sets you apart from the rest of your congregation. It is your uniform, as it were, of the ministry. Also, I suppose it may have a much more important place. It reminds you of who you are and what your obligations and covenants are. It is a continual reminder that you are a member of the clergy, that you regard yourself as a servant of the Lord, and that you are responsible to live in such a way as to be worthy of your ordination.”

  He then told them: “You should be able to understand at least one of our reasons why Latter-day Saints have a deep spiritual commitment concerning the garment. A major difference between your churches and ours is that we do not have a professional clergy, as you do. The congregations are all presided over by local leaders. They are men called from all walks of life. Yet they are ordained to the priesthood. They hold offices in the priesthood. They are set apart to presiding positions as presidents, counselors, and leaders in various categories. The women, too, share in that responsibility and in those obligations. The man who heads our congregation on Sunday as the bishop may go to work on Monday as a postal clerk, as an office worker, a farmer, a doctor; or he may be an air force pilot or a naval officer. By our standard he is as much an ordained minister as you are by your standard. He is recognized as such by most governments. We draw something of the same benefits from this special clothing as you would draw from your clerical vestments. The difference is that we wear ours under our clothing instead of outside, for we are employed in various occupations in addition to our service in the Church. These sacred things we do not wish to parade before the world.”

  He then explained that there are some deeper spiritual meanings as well, connecting the practice of wearing this garment with covenants that are made in the temple. We wouldn’t find it necessary to discuss these—not that they are secret, he repeated, but because they are sacred.

  -- Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple

Likewise, the symbols on the garment are meant to serve as reminders of specific spiritual truths.  Exactly what they represent cannot be effectively discussed in a setting such as this, where objectively correct answers are desired above all else, because those who have been through the temple ceremonies are under a strict covenant obligation to not reveal the knowledge gained therein to the world.

This means that anyone who claims to explain their meaning either have not actually received the ceremony and so they are just making it up, or they have received it and, in telling, are willing to break a solemn vow made to God, and thus their explanation cannot be trusted, especially as in practice, those who do are almost invariably doing so for the specific purpose of trying to make the church look bad, which should automatically call their objectivity into question.


According to Mormonism, how does a person get saved? My question is pretty straightforward; I'm just wondering how a person gets "saved" according to Mormons.

By "saved" I'm referring ultimately to entrance into the "third heaven" of Mormon doctrine, which as I understand it, would correspond to the place that Chalcedonian Christians call "Heaven" (i.e. the "New Earth" of Revelation 21).

I know Mormonism teaches that all non-Mormons will go to "a heaven", but as they are considered apostate, they don't make the cut for getting into "the third heaven" (i.e. what the rest of us mean when we say "heaven".)

So what does a person have to do to make the cut? If the answer varies based on gender, race, etc., please indicate this in your answer.

The simplest answer to this is given in the Articles of Faith:

  3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be
  saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

  4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel
  are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third,
  Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of
  hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."

An additional principle made clear in scripture but not cited in this summary is that it is necessary to "endure to the end" in exercising faith, repenting,  and obedience to the commandments of God. The LDS consider salvation to be a process more than an event, a process which is usually not complete until one has died. (This is why they typically have difficulty giving a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question "Have you been saved?")

Race and gender do not matter. The degree of accountability or responsibility  a person has does. In addition,

Doctrine and Covenants  137:7-10

  "All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel who would have
  received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the
  celestial kingdom of God. Also, all those who shall die henceforth,
  who would have received it with all their hearts,  shall be heirs of
  that kingdom. For I, the Lord, will judge all man according to their
  works, according to the desire of their hearts. And I also beheld that all
  children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved
  in the celestial kingdom of heaven".

Most references in the scriptures to salvation refer to salvation in the celestial kingdom.  Two other degrees, and the requirements for each of these degrees, are described in Doctrine and Covenants section 76. There is also a state of no salvation described there.

Faith in Jesus Christ is understood to include acceptance of his latter-day prophets and apostles (Joseph Smith and successors) and the additional Testament he has given (the Book of Mormon) as well as the Old Testament and the New Testament. Anyone may repent and all are commanded to, but repentance must be genuine and involve a permanent change of conduct, not lip service only. The ordinances of baptism and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost must be performed by those who have been ordained to the same priesthood given to Joseph Smith and according to the order of the Church.


Are we unaware of something that God foresaw in appointing Paul as apostle? I have seen many question and views here on the apostleship of St. Paul. Questions like  this, this,  this and  Most recently this.  All seems to basically ask why Paul was chosen as apostle or whether he was really an apostlen. Are we unaware of what  God foresaw in appointing Paul as apostle?

One possible explanation that God might have done this could be:

There would be no meaning and no purpose fulfilled by Jesus dying on cross, if the events in New Testament are not LINKED to the Old Testament.  And who will be in a better position to link these two Testaments, than a learned Jews Scripture Scholar, that was St Paul. St. Paul was in the best and ideal position to know and understand clearly the Plan that God had since the fall of the first men.

So possibly, it was God’s divine plan to mould St. Paul into what he was before his conversion and impart in him, the  in depth knowledge of Jewish Scripture and then convert him so forcibly and not through the preaching from disciples of Jesus but by His own power by striking him down when he was travelling to prosecute more of Christians population.

Whatever that he has written in the New testament would not have been possible for any other disciples of Jesus and  there would have been no clear understanding about the purpose of Jesus coming in such a manner and dying a kind of death despised very much at that period of time.

Jesus disciples were master in the message taught to them by Jesus but were lacking in  in-depth knowledge of Jewish scripture as they were just ordinary people prior to hearing the message from Jesus. So it was like a double edged sword-- Paul with a thorough knowledge of Old Testament and  Jesus’ original disciples with thorough knowledge of message from Jesus.

So God’s plans are truly marvellous and at time we are unable to understand them and only start to understand them as the time passes.

PS: I have provided an answer to my own question but some body can improve this answer or post another  answer.


If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are patriarchs, then what are Adam, Abel, Enoch, and Noah? If I understand correctly, the people in Genesis 12-50 are known as patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc...), but not the people in 1-11 (Adam, Enoch, Noah, etc...)

Is there a term that refers collectively to these primeval/pre-history type characters from Genesis 1-11?

The men you name are commonly referred to as antediluvian patriarchs, though Abel is not a patriarch, since Abraham was in Seth, not Abel. Antediluvian means "before (the) flood".


Is holding hands and forming a circle around the altar during eucharistic prayer allowed? We have a new priest in our parish who does things differently. Today in Mass he invited all children to form a circle around the altar with him and hold hands. I know that some priests do this while the Lord's Prayer but he did this during the whole eucharistic prayer. This action is really new to me and seems very unreasonable and unworthy towards the Holy Eucharist. So my question is: Does the Canon Law allow this?

Sorry for my poor English. Please feel free to ask if something is unclear.

Is it permitted to form a circle around the altar and hold hands during the Eucharistic Prayer?

The short answer is: No.

When I was in the major seminary, we would gather around the altar once a week (Saturdays) during the Eucharistic Prayer, but we did not hold hands. Apparently Canon Law is silent on this subject, which is sometimes considered a local custom. The seminary, later abandoned this custom, when a rather traditional student refused to join in and remained in the pews. The rector tried to encourage the seminarian to make some gesture of fellowship with the others, but to no avail.

The student in question thought the custom mimicked the actions of the priests at Mass and stayed firm in his resolve not to join in.

Today, he is a priest in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and is highly respected by his former seminary professors, even though the seminary at that time was not a traditional one.

If the priest is holding hands with the Children during the Eucharistic Prayer than that might pose more serious problems, because the priest is obliged to perform certain gestures like laying his hands over the gifts to be consecrated, to make the sign of the cross and to elevate the Body and Blood of Christ at the appropriate times. These gestures are non-negotiable and must be performed uniquely by the priest only.

It may not be in Canon Law, but Rome has spoken against it:

  Although there is no precedent in Catholic liturgical tradition the question of whether it is permissible for children, youth or adults to stand around the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer continues to be asked. The argument often given by those who encourage this practice is to foster "community". In 1981 the Congregation for Divine Worship addressed this question in its official journal Notitiae. In an official interpretation of no.  101 in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) it responded as follows:

    Query: At the presentation of gifts at a Mass with congregation, persons (lay or religious) bring to the altar the bread and wine which are to be consecrated. These gifts are received by the priest celebrant. All those participating in the Mass accompany this group procession in which the gifts are brought forward. They then stand around the altar until communion time. Is this procedure in conformity with the spirit of the law and of the Roman Missal?

    Reply: Assuredly, the Eucharistic celebration is the act of the entire
    community, carried out by all the members of the liturgical assembly. Nevertheless, everyone must have and also must observe his or her own place and proper role: "In liturgical celebrations each one, minister or layperson, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to that office  by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy." (SC art. 29). During the liturgy of the eucharist, only the presiding celebrant remains at the altar. The assembly of the faithful take their place in the Church outside the "presbyterium," which is reserved for the celebrant or concelebrants and altar ministers. [Notitiae 17 (1981) 61]

  The necessity of preserving the proper distinction of roles was again addressed in 1997, as part of a larger problem of growing confusion between the roles of the ordained and the non-ordained. In that year, the Roman Congregations of Clergy, Doctrine of the Faith, Bishops, Divine Worship, Religious, Laity and Evangelization, as well as the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, jointly issued a document intended to recall the Church to the practice of a clear distinction between the role of the laity and that of the clergy. Called the Instruction On Certain Questions Regarding The Collaboration Of The Non-Ordained Faithful In The Sacred Ministry Of Priest it noted the confusing practices present in the Church today which do not respect the theological distinction between those in Holy Orders and those who are not. On the one hand the activity of the laity is a sign of the vitality of the Church in attempting to live the teaching of Vatican II, which calls us to an active role in the liturgy and a greater role in the mission of the Church. On the other, it is a sign that some have forgotten necessary and basic distinctions that reflect the different sacramental meanings of different vocations in the Church. - Standing Around the Altar

Her are a few more sources on holding hands at Mass and the Our Father in particular:

Holding Hands at Mass During the “Our Father”

Should people hold hands during the Our Father at Mass?


Was Jesus in unity with the Holy Spirit? I read this scripture: Matthew 10:5

New International Version

  These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not
  go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.

Later I read in Colossians 3:11

  Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised,
  barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Or in Romans 10:12

  For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is
  Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

What is the explanation that Jesus was preventing his disciples to preach the gospel to gentiles? Does this show that Jesus was not in line with the Holy Spirit who was directing Peter and others to accept them?

Please don't give me just your opinion but back-up with your church teaching. I'm mostly interested in the Catholic teaching but open to the other explanation just to see what others think.

Jesus said to a Samaritan women:

  Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
  -- John 4:20-23 (KJV)

"salvation is of the Jews. But, ...", is a clear indication that what began with the Jews would not stop there. Jesus' statement of the great commission at his last meeting with the Apostles confirms that the scope of his vision was not confined to the Jews only, but would extend to the ends of the earth. (Acts 1:4-8).

Paul says:

  For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
  -- Romans 1:16 (KJV)

Paul repeats the expression "the Jew first, and also to the Greek" again, twice in Romans 2:9,10. He also gives an elaborate illustration of it in his olive tree analogy in Romans 11.

Conclusion

It seems pretty clear what Jesus' game plan was: first, give the natural olive branches an opportunity to bear fruit (dig & dung Luke 13:6-9; vine & branches John 15:1-8); second, prune out the branches that continue not to produce fruit, and graft in the wild olive branches.

Jesus is the husbandman, and the Apostles, including Paul, are his workers. Jesus assigned the Apostles the task of trying to get the natural olive branches to bear their fruit. Having limited success with the natural branches, however, Jesus then assigned Paul the task of grafting in the wild olive branches.


In 1 Corinthians 1, who were Crispus and Gaius? 1 Corinthians 1:14

  14  I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

In the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue at Corinth.  He is understood to be the same Crispus that is mentioned in Acts 18:8:

  And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and
  were baptized.

He is believed to have later become the bishop of the Greek Island of Aegina and, by some accounts, is understood to have been one of the Seventy Apostles.1

Gaius may have been the same Gaius who is mentioned in Romans 16:23:

  Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.

If so, he was, again according to Orthodox tradition, Bishop of Ephesus after Timothy.2

1 Life of Apostle Crispus fo the Seventy
2 Life of Apostle Gaius of the Seventy


Is there a Christian name of the Destroyer Angel? In 2 Samuel 24:15 a destroyer angel come and strike Jerusalem with the Plague.

If I understand correctly, the accepted name for this angel is Azrael in Islam and Samael in Judaism. What is his accepted Christian name ?

I know he is never named in the bible itself, but perhaps later Christian literature have agreed on a name for him or perhaps you can help me have an educated guess as to who he might be.

Is there a Christian name of the Destroyer Angel?

No Christian Traditions have a Christian name for the Destroyer Angel named such in the texts of Sacred Scriptures.

The destroying angel is also commonly referred to as the angel of death. On numerous occasions, God used angelic beings— heavenly messengers of some kind—to bring judgment to sinners on earth. Various Bible translations refer to this being as a “destroying angel.” There is no clear biblical evidence that any one particular angel was given the title “destroying angel” or “angel of death.” The most we can say is that the Bible’s mentions of a “destroying angel” are references to a heavenly being or beings that came to destroy those under God’s judgment.

  The destroying angel or angel of death in the Hebrew Bible is an entity sent out by Yahweh on several occasions to kill enemies of the Israelites. In 2 Samuel 24:15, he kills the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In I Chronicles 21:15, the same "angel of the Lord" is seen by David to stand "between the earth and the heaven, with a drawn sword in his hand stretched out against Jerusalem." Later, in II Kings 19:35, the angel kills 185,000 men of Sennacherib's Assyrian army, thereby saving Hezekiah's Jerusalem.

  The angel (malak) is referred to under various terms, including Mashḥit, meaning "destroyer" (pron. mash-heet(h) or -kheet(h)) (Mashchit(h), מַשְׁחִית and Ha-Mashchit(h)/Ha-Mashḥit, הַמַשְׁחִית), "destroying angel" (מַלְאָך הַמַשְׁחִית, malak ha-mashḥit or in the plural מַשְׁחִיתִים, mashchitim/mashchithim/mashḥitim—"spoilers, ravagers"), Angel of the Lord, (מְמִיתִים, memitim—"executioners", "slayers") is found in Job 33:22 and in Proverbs 16:14 in the plural, "Messengers of death". - Destroying angel (Wikipedia)

Of all names given to angels in God’s service, only three are found in Scriptures: Michael, Raphael and Gabriel.

In fact it is tradition, in the Catholic Church not to give names to angels.

  The practice of assigning names to the Holy Angels should be discouraged, except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael and Michael whose names are contained in Holy Scripture. - Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (217)

The thought of an angel that brings death is an ominous one indeed, and it's small wonder such a figure might be associated with an evil nature given many people's fears about what happens after life ends. This has led some people to a belief that there is a close link between the death angel and the figure of Satan. However, there is no Christian biblical reference that Satan and this figure are one and the same. Rather, the Angel of Death is portrayed as someone doing God's work to help people as they reach fated end of their lives.

Allegorical skeletal representation of the Angel of Death (created in the XVII. century) in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli

Historical Note:

The Nazi Josef Mengele (16 March 1911 – 7 February 1979), a German Schutzstaffel (SS) officer and physician in Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II was also known as the Angel of Death.


When are the various assorted labels for Catholics - see body - applied and how are they related? This question arises from: For Catholics who object to Vatican II, what are the key issues? | MonicaCellio, and as a complement to it.

From the Catholic Church's Credo Chart, Catholics believe in the holy catholic Church. However there are  any number of labels being used for various groupings, apparently under the "Catholic" umbrella. In what context are all these labels used, what do they signify, and what is their canonical status according to the RCC? Are some or all of them considered schismatics by the RCC?

It seems after Vatican II, there appeared those who identified themselves as Traditional Catholics ('I am a Trad,' as Hilary Jane Margaret White blogs). Then there are organizations like the SSPX - Society of St. Pius X.
Another Catholic Institution that came into public consciousness with Dan Brown's the Da Vinci Code, is Opus Dei, that is described as 'Ultra-Conservative'.
When the Pope was elected, we came to learn that he is a Jesuit.
Then, especially in America, one hears of Conservative and Liberal Catholics. Perhaps mirroring the country's political divide?
Adding to these, a new term has emerged: 'Neo-Catholic'.
Our fellow user AndrewLeach tells us that he is 'a  Roman Catholic in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in the UK'.
Finally, in a reply to a comment under an online article, one lady wrote, '[p]lease do not condemn the Orthodox church - an Eastern Rite Catholic lady'.

The question is seeking an answer to who all these Catholics are - and how does the Roman Catholic Church view those who are identified or identify themselves as Traditional, Ultraconservative, Conservative, Liberal, and Neo-Catholic?

Understanding the question as asking:

1) In what context are all these labels used? 2) what do they signify? 3) and what is their canonical status according to the RCC? 4) Are some or all of them considered schismatics by the RCC?

About the following groups/labels:
1.Traditional Catholics [Catholics who identify themselves as Trads] 2. SSPX - Society of St. Pius X. 3. Opus Dei 4. 'Ultra-Conservative'. 5. Jesuit. 6. Conservative 7. Liberal 8. 'Neo-Catholic'. 9. [Roman Catholic in the] Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in the UK 10. Eastern Rite Catholic.

Answering first

The Eastern Rite Catholic lady belongs to one of the Eastern Rites [Churches] of the Catholic Church;

Mr. Andrew Leach belongs to an ecclesiastical structure called a Personal Ordinariate in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church;

Opus Dei is a Catholic Institution that is a type of an ecclesiastical structure called a Personal Prelature in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church; and

Pope Francis belongs to the Religious Order of the Jesuits in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

As regards, their canonical status, all of the above are Catholics - the expression more Catholic than the Pope comes to mind - in the Catholic Church. The Eastern Rites and the Roman Rite are Catholic Rites in the Catholic Church, the ecclesiastical structures were conceived and created by the Catholic to further the mission of the Catholic Church, and the Religious Orders are approved by the Church as ways for individuals to achieve sanctity and serve the Church.

SSPX - The Society of St. Pius X, is an international priestly society founded in 1970 by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the diocese of Fribourg, Switzerland. The members are all Catholics but currently, the society does not have a canonical status within the Catholic Church. During the pontificate of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, SSPX was offered the canonical status of a Personal Prelature as part of a deal to heal the group’s rift with the Catholic Church. The deal fell through. It is unclear whether they are in schism since there appears to be no formal declaration from the Vatican in this regard. A Catholic ought to consult with their Ordinary regarding SSPX.

The labels do not have any significance  and meaning in the Catholic Church. One is a [faithful] Catholic or not, and that includes the Pope.

Understanding the Church terminology above

The various Rites [A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men], are or have arisen from the three major groupings of Rites based on this initial transmission of the faith, the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). I personally see the stamp of St. Peter, the first Pope on these first three Rites.

The Church sets up ecclesiatical structures to futher her mission. The Personal Ordinariate was erected to enable (groups of) Anglicans to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church, and a Personal Prelature is a juridical structure introduced by the Second Vatican Council. The Council decree Presbyterorum Ordinis stated that, among other institutions, “special dioceses or personal prelatures” could be established “to carry out special pastoral tasks in different regions or among any race in any part of the world”.

Within the Church, there are innumerable ways as there are individuals or stars in heaven to achieve sanctity and express holiness within the Church, the ways to manifest the holy in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and that's why there has arisen over the course of the life of Church religious orders [cf. Religious Life | New Advent] like the Jesuits.

This variety and diversity in the Church, in its Rites, in its Ecclesiastical Structures, and in the Vocations/Callings of her children, can best be summarized by:

  “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things,
  charity.” - St. Augustine of Hippo.

We are now left with the Labels - There isn't a 'page and line' for any of these in the Catholic Church!

As for the labels Conservative and Liberal (and the others in the spectrum: ultra-conservative, moderate, progressive, etc.), these seem as from the US sociopolitical landscape and a lens through which those familiar with them, attempt to understand and thereafter apply to individuals and groups in the Church.

Traditionalist/Trad is the label some Catholics identify with. They describe themselves as being or wanting to be the Catholics of the pre-conciliar Church.

Note: Wikipedia applies this label to SSPX and SSPX speaks of itself as 'firmly embracing a traditional, Catholic worldview'.

A Neo-Catholic as a term coined by Mr. Gerry Matatics and popularized by Mr. Chris Ferrara in his book The Great Facade, is:

  [A] combination of conservative and liberal elements representing a
  progressive tendency overall. They are not usually the cause of
  liberalism but enablers of the liberalism in the Church [...].

Further reading:

Catholic Rites and Churches | EWTN.
Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite | Pope Pail VI, November 21, 1964.
Q&A | Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter and FAQ | Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.


How do opponents of Penal Substitution explain God's declaration that He "will not leave the guilty unpunished"? In referring to opponents of Penal Substitution theory, I'm referring specifically to those who view it as a false view of the Atonement, not merely that it is incomplete (eg those who hold to alternative theories of Atonement may assert their theories are more holistic, but will not necessarily deny that penal substitution is a contributing element within them).

Consider:

  ... the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished. - Nahum 1:3b NIV

  Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—
      the Lord detests them both. - Proverbs 17:15 NIV

  Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty. - Exodus 23:7 NIV

If Christ doesn't bear the penalty or punishment for our sins by taking our guilt upon himself, where does the condemnation and punishment go? What is the specific mechanism by which, a sinner can be saved from their sins without making nonsense or lies of the preceding declarations?

The following answer shall be largely influenced by my Roman Catholic faith, so be aware of such a fact while reading. With that said, here we gooooooooo!!!

Penal Substitution And Its Failures

The problem with the penal substitution theory is that it confuses many points that need distinction in order to understand the nature of Christ's sacrifice. For example, under the penal substitution theory there is a reduced consideration of the theological specifications between original sin, committed by our first parents, and actual sin, committed by the individual. The supporters of penal substitution theory simply hold that Christ died for all of our sins, and bore the punishment due to each and every sin. Another point of distinction that is necessary to make that penal substitution theory seems to overlook is the difference between satisfactory punishment and penal punishment. Satisfactory punishment is voluntary and not necessary for the individual undergoing it to undergo it. It thus earns penitential merit for the individual, a merit that by its nature has the opportunity to be shared (hence the Catholic understanding of a Treasury of Merit). An example of what satisfactory atonement theory proponents would hold to be satisfactory punishment is the punishment that Christ went through on the cross and in His death. Penal punishment is not voluntary, for it is accorded by God to souls for a sin that was specifically committed. It thus has no merit opportunity, for it is solely serving to bring about God's justice. It is penal insofar as it is necessary for the sinful soul to undergo the punishment. An example of penal punishment is the fall of man following original sin. Another example is eternal damnation accorded to actual sin that is mortal. These distinctions being stated, it might be easier to understand satisfactory atonement theory more clearly, and to specifically understand its proponents when they state that Christ could not undergo penal punishment.

The major problem with proposing that Christ underwent every single punishment for every single sin is rather obvious; if such were the case Christ would be suffering eternally in hell right now, for the punishment of actual sin is eternal damnation. Penal substitution theory also holds, as you might have guessed, a penal consideration of the nature of Christ's sacrifice. In other words, under penal substitution Christ 'became' a sinner and 'became' the guilty in the eyes of God the Father. An obvious objection to this idea is in the fact that if Christ were to be considered a sinner in the Highest Courts, God would be divided against Himself. Christ could not justly be condemned, for as you said yourself in Proverbs 17:15, God detests condemning the innocent. Also, Christ suffering such punishment would achieve no merits anyway, since as we have discussed penal punishment brings about no merit opportunity. So the matter of Christ's sacrifice thus is not in Christ the innocent being condemned by the Father, which suggests a division within God Himself and no merit opportunity, but in Christ the Perfector of the human race offering some value to humanity that every human, bound by original sin, could not offer. Satisfactory atonement theory proponents suggest that what Christ offered is a satisfactory, or voluntary, penance for original sin. Original sin is understood to be the prison by which all mankind was (is) held, for it was (is) an inescapable inclination to commit actual sin, which condemns men to hell. While we could pay penance for actual sin, it was meaningless without the penance of the more primary matter of original sin. So satisfactory atonement theory holds that Christ offered perfect penance (which included suffering, since penance is a punishment by nature) for original sin. Since this perfect penance was satisfactory, it produced merits that could be shared by those who share a love with and for He who obtained them. Christ suffering a satisfactory punishment for original sin, which implies He remained perfect before the eyes of the Father and that He did not as such suffer every conceivable punishment for every sin, in no way takes away from the glory or power of Christ's Passion. It simply upholds the consistency of God and the coherency of sin and punishment.

I think I have addressed the verse of Proverbs that you used in pointing out that it actually supports satisfactory atonement theory more than penal punishment theory. Now on to the other two verses.

Nahum 1:3

  The Lord is slow to anger but great in power; the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet.

To suggest that this verse supports an entire theological theory is perhaps incorporating a bit of question begging. But to answer to the objection, I might note that the verse in no way specifies what it means by 'punishment', and my guess is that it doesn't mean 'punishment' in the way that is going to add up to a feasible defense for penal substitution theory. The problem with this line of argumentation is firstly in its assumption regarding those who don't hold to penal substitution theory. Most would not reject the notion that all men are punished for their sins. But we must accept the notion that not all men are punished in the way they could be, or to the full extent that they could be. But for the sake of argument let's assume that this verse is speaking of the full extent of punishment being unavoidable. The second assumption read into it by penal substitution theory supporters is what is meant by 'guilty'. The 'guilty' could very well mean those who are opposing God's will, in which case the matter becomes difficult to address how this correlates to Christ. For Christ would certainly not be opposed to God's will. More so Christians would not be considered 'guilty' because they have faith in Christ, even though they were opposed to God's will at certain points. Obviously Christians do not suffer the 'full extent of God's wrath' so long as they are faithful and justified in their deeds. So we can see with close analysis that this verse truly doesn't get past being relativistic, especially if you try to bend it to a certain position. The better biblical approach is to not pull verses out of context but rather read them as they are.

Exodus 23:7

  Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.

Again, this verse seems to resonate the verse in Proverbs that you posted. As I noted in Proverbs briefly, this verse seems to be not supporting penal substitution, for it notes that God detest condemning the innocent while sparing the guilty. How much more so is it improbable that God would detest Himself, who is the Highest Good and Innocence? The notion that He would suffer a penal punishment as though He were a sinner, at His own bidding mind you, has rather obvious problems, one such example being proven in the verses you posted. To post verses that presuppose satisfactory atonement theory I might add the following:

Leviticus 17:11

  For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life

Genesis 4:4

  ...and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering...

Genesis 22:2

  He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

Proverbs 21:3

  To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.

All of these verses support the idea that a sacrifice is firstly focused on the notion of offering something to God, albeit amending a debt, that is meant to cleanse us. I might also note that Cain and Abel offering a sacrifice is interesting because it only further interlinks the closeness of sacrifice (penance, punishment, etc) with original sin. It was only after the fall, and probably for the fall, that these sacrifices came to be, carried out for the old notion that we as a race owe something to God. But God does not 'require' sacrifices in a legal sense. This fact is seen in the last Proverbs verse. The nature of these sacrifices are an embodiment of the perfection that is owed to God but that is not achievable through fallen man. Thus is it that we see God being more pleased with more meaningful sacrifices; these sacrifices were predecessors to the true and perfect Sacrifice of Christ, who offered full penance in His perfection for original sin.


How did Thomas Aquinas view grace as opposed to the church fathers? I talked to a teacher at a theological seminary here in Sweden today, and we discussed the nature of grace: Fulfillment of natural potential or completely otherworldly? His idea was that with Thomas Aquinas (and probably "et al" in his era) there was a change in how grace is viewed: It became detached from our natural potential and God's work in creation. can anyone weigh in on this?

First, I must state that I am, by no means, authoritatively/formally trained on the subjects of Thomistic theology, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, nature and grace, or any combination of each.  I only hope that this might be somewhat of a starting point for much more expansion.  This is such a massive subject and could easily fill the pages of many books. I am being as brief as possible with the hope that someone more qualified will (and should) supplement or replace this answer.

Many Church Fathers taught about the relationship between nature and grace, and to compare St. Thomas to individual teachers of the early Church would take a tremendous amount of labor. There are, however, 2 “Champions of Grace” that rise up above the rest in the eyes of both secular and Christian scholars – St. Gregory of Nyssa in the East, and St. Augustine of Hippo in the West.  These 2 Fathers seem to epitomize their own eastern and western schools of thought. St. Gregory was influenced by Origen and St. John Chrysostom, whereas St. Augustine studied under St. Ambrose.

SS. Gregory, Augustine, and Thomas all viewed nature through the “lens” of Aristotle’s “categories.”  However, there are apparently 2 closely related characteristics between SS. Thomas and Augustine that drastically differ from St. Gregory in the East.

Both view Grace and Nature as intertwined due to necessitated contingency.
Both view Nature as corrupt from the fall of Man, and therefore must be redeemed by God’s Grace.

  Gregory, like Aristotle, distinguished between the category of
  substance and the other categories–relation, quality, quantity, place,
  time, action, passion (Categories 1 – 9). In themselves, qualities are
  ideas in the mind of God. But they can also be projected out from God;
  and when that happens, they become visible. Now Gregory observes that
  although we ordinarily speak of these immanent qualities as inhering
  in substances, all we really perceive are the qualities of things, not
  their substances. It is but a short step to the conclusion that a
  physical object is nothing more than the convergence of its qualities.
  Thus matter as such doesn’t really exist; bodies are really just
  “holograms” formed by this convergence of qualities. Consequently
  there is no problem of how an immaterial God could have created a
  material world, for the world isn’t material at all. (1)

St. Gregory explicitly uses the term “energies” to cover those qualities that are immanent in the physical world. Energies are the “powers” and “movements” by which substances are “manifested”; the energy of each thing is its “distinguishing property” (idioma).  Gregory goes so far as to assert that apart from its energies a nature not only cannot be known, but does not even exist.

  Even the inquiry as to that thing in the flesh itself which assumes
  all the corporeal qualities has not been pursued to any definite
  result. For if anyone has made a mental analysis of that which is seen
  into its component parts, and, having stripped the object of its
  qualities, has attempted to consider it by itself, I fail to see what
  will have been left for investigation. For when you take from a body
  its color, its shape, its hardness, its weight, its quantity, its
  position, its forces active or passive, its relation to other objects,
  what remains that can still be called a body, we can neither see of
  ourselves nor are taught by Scripture. . . . Wherefore also, of the
  elements of this world we know only so much by our senses as to enable
  us to receive what they severally supply for our living. But we
  possess no knowledge of their substance . . . . (2)

St. Gregory diverged from SS. Augustine and Thomas by viewing nature as nothing more than “qualities” emanating from the mind of God.  SS. Augustine and Thomas believed that God purposely creates material elements, such as wine, bread and water, to convey supernatural grace.

St. Augustine’s view of Grace was heavily influenced by his correspondence with Pelegius .  Pelegius taught that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, in contrast to 1 Corinthians 15:19-22 (especially verse 22), Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to original sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins.

St. Augustine fought against the Pelegian heresy by developing the doctrine of grace and free will, therefore earning the title, “Doctor of Grace.”  Contrary to what was taught by Pelegius, St. Augustine said that Man’s nature was “at first faultless and without sin,” but through the sin of Adam, became corrupt so that nature was “darkened and weakened.”

  Man's nature, indeed, was created at first faultless and without any
  sin; but that nature of man in which everyone is born from Adam, now
  wants the Physician, because it is not sound. All good qualities, no
  doubt, which it still possesses in its make, life, senses, intellect,
  it has of the Most High God, its Creator and Maker. But the flaw,
  which darkens and weakens all those natural goods, so that it has need
  of illumination and healing, it has not contracted from its blameless
  Creator— but from that original sin, which it committed by free will.
  Accordingly, criminal nature has its part in most righteous
  punishment. For, if we are now newly created in Christ, 2 Corinthians
  5:17 we were, for all that, children of wrath, even as others,
  Ephesians 2:3 but God, who is rich in mercy, for His greatlove
  wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has quickened
  us together with Christ, by whose grace we were saved. Ephesians 2:4-5
  (3)

St. Augustine’s development of grace and nature foreshadowed that of St. Thomas’ in the sense that Man’s nature had to be redeemed.

  This grace, however, of Christ, without which neither infants nor
  adults can be saved, is not rendered for any merits, but is given
  gratis, on account of which it is also called grace. Being justified,
  says the apostle, freely through His blood (Romans 3:24). Whence they,
  who are not liberated through grace, either because they are not yet
  able to hear, or because they are unwilling to obey; or again because
  they did not receive, at the time when they were unable on account of
  youth to hear, that bath of regeneration, which they might have
  received and through which they might have been saved, are indeed
  justly condemned; because they are not without sin, either that which
  they have derived from their birth, or that which they have added from
  their own misconduct. For all have sinned— whether in Adam or in
  themselves— and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) (4)

Here, St. Thomas seems to be echoing the Doctor of Grace:

  It is befitting Holy Scripture to put forward divine and spiritual
  truths by means of comparisons with material things.  For God provides
  for everything according to the capacity of its nature.  Now it is
  natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible
  things, because all our knowledge originates from sense. (5)

For a more in-depth exposition on St. Thomas' emphasis on the necessary perfection of nature by grace click here.

Augustine upheld the early Christian understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, saying that Christ's statement, "This is my body" referred to the bread he carried in his hands, and that Christians must have faith that the bread and wine are in fact the body and blood of Christ, despite what they see with their eyes. St. Thomas’ doctrine of Transubstantiation only builds upon and clarifies the importance of the roles of nature and grace propounded by the Western fathers.

In my mind, if there was ever a divergence by St. Thomas from any of the Fathers, it would be due to the trickled down differences of the Eastern and Western Fathers on the subject of substance and matter.  Perhaps if we could look back into the history of the early Church with the Summa Theologica as our guidebook, we would be pointed more in the direction of the West than of the East.

Frank Sheed summarizes the similarities of SS. Thomas and Augustine in his great work Theology and Sanity:

  Religion is the act of man — the whole man, soul and body. It is not
  the act of the soul only, for man is not only soul . . . The
  supernatural does not ignore the natural or substitute something else
  for it. It is built upon or built into the natural. Sanctifying grace
  does not provide us with a new soul; it enters into the soul we
  already have. Nor does it give the soul new faculties but elevates the
  faculties that are already there, giving intellect and will new powers
  of operation. God-as-Sanctifier does not destroy or bypass the work of
  God-as-Creator. What God has created, God sanctifies. (7)

I am, by no means, in a position to make conclusions about the differences and similarities of St. Thomas and the Church Fathers.  However, it appears to me that St. Thomas didn’t fall too far from the Western tree.  He does, in certain passages, seem to echo what St. Augustine taught. Like Augustine and Ambrose before him, St. Thomas further develops the idea that grace does not destroy nature, but efficaciously redeems it.  Both SS. Augustine and Thomas emphasized the necessity of the sacraments, which by definition are natural channels of supernatural Grace.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/
Against Eunomius II [949]
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm.
Hyman, Arthur, and Walsh, James J.  Philosophy in the Middle Ages : The Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Traditions.  Indianapolis:  Hackett Publishing Co., 1973.  Second Edition.
Theology and Sanity, 300-301


Are there any Protestant denominations that have specific requirements for baptism? In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for example, everyone who desires to enter the waters of baptism must first be interviewed to see if they qualify for baptism.

The Catholics also have requirements for baptism, which are defined in the Code of Canon Law

Are there any Protestant denominations that have specific requirements for baptism?

Generally speaking, many Protestant churches have no other requirement outside of a statement of faith by the individual seeking baptism.  This practice corresponds to various accounts in the book of Acts, and the baptism happens immediately after the people believe.

But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.  Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.  Acts 8:12-13 NASB
And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.  Acts 8:38 (Ethiopian Eunuch)
“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”  Acts 10:47 NASB  (Cornelius)

Some denominations, however, practice infant baptism.  For these, of course, the only requirement is that the parents bring the children to be baptized.
I know the International Churches of Christ once required a certain level of discipleship prior to baptism, as they held to the concept of "disciples baptism" rather than "believers baptism".  Oddly enough, they believed that baptism was essential for salvation, but would encourage some people to delay their baptism until they were really ready for that commitment, which seems counter-intuitive if eternity is, indeed, at stake.
There may be other denominations that require something akin to confirmation prior to baptism, but I think it would be difficult for anyone to know the baptismal requirements for any and all groups.


According to Catholicism, how should one read the Catholic Bible? Is there any order that we should follow to read the bible?
Like whether we should follow some chronological order or just read randomly.
I am just starting to read the Catholic Bible and don't know where and how to start.

There is no general rule for how to read the entire Catholic Bible. I have done it from beginning to end, by reading the Sacred Scriptures for a little over a half hour each morning until I finished with the book of Revelation.

Personally, I chose at least a half an hour of reading each day because the Church permits one to gain a plenary indulgence if one reads Scriptures devotedly for a half an hour a day.

  Some ways of obtaining a plenary indulgence include:

  Praying the rosary in a church or oratory, in a family gathering, within a religious community or canonical association of the Christian faithful, or in any context in which the faithful come together for this purpose;
  Spending at least half an hour in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament;
  Praying the stations of the cross at a location where they are legitimately erected (e.g. a parish or shrine);
  Participating in a preaching mission at a parish (e.g. during Advent or Lent);
  Reading the Bible for at least thirty minutes.
  Visiting a special site of pilgrimage. In the Archdiocese of Toronto, the Shrine to the Martyrs in Midland has been a site where pilgrims can obtain a plenary indulgence since 1644. - What is an indulgence?

Reading the Bible from beginning to end can be quite a challenge to some of the faithful. What I found helpful is to incorporate the biblical readings of major feasts into the equation...

For example, one could read the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the Gospel of St. John on Good Friday.

At Christmas one could read the those passages concerned with the Birth of Our Lord.

Many more examples could be mentioned as follows:

Transfiguration of Jesus (August 6) - (Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36)
The Assumption of Mary into Heaven (August 15) - the reading of the Mass of the Assumption

As I have already mentioned, there are no general guidelines on how to read the Bible. It is hard to read it from cover to cover without a little deviation in the course of its entirety, so break it up if necessary in order to persevere.

One could also read 15 minutes from the Old Testament and 15 minutes from the New Testament if desired. The choice is yours.

Another way would be to read 10 minutes from the Old Testament, 10 minutes from the Psalms and then 10 minutes from the New Testament.


The original number of The Beast is 616 not 666; previous Bible prophesies effected? The actual Number of The Beast is only mentioned in Revelation 13:18; In the Greek manuscripts, the number is rendered as χξϛ or "six hundred and sixty-six".

In 2005 Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum revealed the discovery of the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 which gave The Beast's number as 616 χιϛ.

How this discovery will effect bible prophesies based on number 666?

If we assume copying 666 as 616 is an unlikely scribal error, and I believe this to be the case, then it means there must be an explanation as to why in some manuscripts it is written as 616. If we understand the reason as to why it might have been re-written as 616, then this reason would be hugely influential in our understanding in biblical prophecy.

If the reason for the discrepancy is a result of (for example) Nero's name having two different potential spellings, and it can be shown that these two different spellings add up to either 666 or 616, then it would be very difficult for anyone (on TV or otherwise) to argue that that prophecy finds it's fulfilment in anything other than (for example) Nero. Except for perhaps an argument that shows that the scriptures were changed as a result of encountering a new "anti-christ" who's name added up to 616. What I mean by this is, for example, a line of copies that were deliberately changed to 616, which the readers would have recognised as a deliberate change, indicating to them that someone is conveying that a later "anti-christ" is being deemed as fulfilling this prophecy as well.

That however is a big if. If instead it can be shown to be scribal error, then there is obviously no impact on biblical prophecy except that someone has made a copying mistake.


How many children did Adam and Eve have? I recall someone suggesting to me one time that Adam and Eve had a total or twenty of so children, and that this came from some Jewish writings.  Is there any indication, then, from history regarding how many children they had?
It seems they would have likely had at least seven, as Cain, Abel and Seth are named.  Seth was considered to be in place of Abel, and it is said that after Seth, Adam and Eve had other sons (plural) and daughters (plural).  Thus, Cain (1) + Abel (1) + Seth (1) + other sons (2+) and daughters (2+) would equal at least seven children.

And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.  Genesis 4:25 ESV
The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.  Genesis 5:4 ESV

So, again, is there any indication from tradition or historical writings regarding how many sons and daughters Adam and Eve had altogether?

Less than 1011. More than 7.

Assuming that:

Adam only had one wife (Eve), which is an argument based strictly on a lack of evidence
That Eve's normal gestational period was 9 months and had twins no more than average (1 in 86).
That Eve lived approximately the same amount of time as Adam (again an argument from lack of evidence),

then we can say:

800 years / 9 months per child (assuming no rest between children) = 1000
Twins appear in 1 out of every 86 births = 11

I think we can then establish an upper limit for Adam and Eve having a maximum of 1011 children.

Beyond that, one can only speculate.


What specific scholarship is there behind the New World Translation? The New World Translation of the Bible was produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses.  I'm wondering what specific scholarship is behind the translation.

Who were the translators?  What Greek Manuscripts were used?  What were the credentials of the translators and their training in Biblical Languages?  Was the Latin Vulgate referenced?  Was it intended to be a word for word translation or thought for thought?

From the Watchtower Organization's own "Reasoning From the Scriptures":

"As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel's 'Biblia Hebraica' editions of 1951-1955, was used.  The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the 'Biblia Stuttgartensia' of 1977.  Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted.  For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numberous early versions in other languages."

So they used multiple sources in order to refine their translation to where they wanted it.  Regarding the translators (also from "Reasoning From the Scriptures"):

"When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous.  The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request.  The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures."

Since the translators are anonymous, we cannot state whether it is a scholarly translation.

"It is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages.  It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful." (Source)

Now this is the quote from the same book that all Jehovah's Witnesses have when they go door to door.  I'd like to rebut the above quote -- The New Testament translation in the New World Translation has taken out the Greek words 'Theos' (God) and 'Kurios' (Lord) in over 60 places within the NT and replaced them with 'Jehovah'.  Jehovah occurs nowhere in the Greek, in fact the word was only popularized in the 18th-19th century.  It's extremely important to understand this point when considering if the NWT is 'true' to the original language.


Reading through Ephesians 5 - is there any record of what Paul is quoting? This is a quote recorded by Paul in Ephesians 5, regarding a saying about Christ. Was it something He heard when Christ came to Him or does the early Church record this quote originating elsewhere?

I've Googled the quote and came up with a commentary from St. John of Chrysostom. He compares them to John 3:20 (and naturally 21) and Matthew 22:32.

I'm curious if anyone knows if this is from an epistle or gospel that is not in the 66 Protestant books of the Bible?

  (Ephesians 5:14 NKJV)  Therefore He says: "Awake, you who sleep, Arise
  from the dead, And Christ will give you light."

My copy of "The Comprehensive New Testament" (Edited by T E & J Clontz, published by Cornerstone) lists a number of cross-references for Eph 5:14.

Isa 26:19, 51:17, 52;1, 60:1
4 Ezra 2:31
Odes of Solomon 15:2
Sibylline Oracles 1.371
Archelaus, Disputation with Manes 43
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen 11
Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies Book V.2; Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 65
Nag Hammadi - Gospel of Truth 33

Note that these do not mean that all these are sources for Eph 5:14, far from it.  The OT references are probably the sources.  It simply means that all these references have similar wording or ideas.  This means that some of the later references could be quoting or alluding to Ephesians; or, they could both be quoting from a common (now lost) sources.  We cannot be sure.


Has the Catholic Church or any large Christian organization ever had a policy of paying people to not have abortions? Has the Catholic Church, or any large Christian churches or denominations, ever had a policy of paying money to people to not have abortions?

For example, paying $10,000-$40,000 for a mother to complete her pregnancy without alcohol, drugs or smoking and give the child up for adoption?

This takes the long route to coming to the actual answer. Unfortunately, the ultimate answer is purely speculative.  Whether any given entity would do something is all speculative compared to asking whether a given entity has done that thing.  The best we can do is look at what has been done, what has been said, and use logic applied to the complexity and uncertainty of human behavior, and say, "based on the evidence this is the most likely answer."  That's not an approach that will give us "the correct" answer, which is the typical StackExchange requirement, but I'll give it a go.

My approach will be to document what has been or is being done and draw the most likely conclusion based on that evidence.

Establishing an answer to whether the desire exists.

Evidence 1: Many Churches do pay for programs that help women in this situation. My own Church, with less than fifty adults old enough to work and earn money to give, partners with other area Churches to support a local organization called the Agape Center.

The Agape Center is founded, staffed, and financed by other like-minded Churches with no aid from anyone other than the members of these Churches.  In essence, it is an extension of the Church for the Churches that have banded together to create this center.

The center offers information, counseling, support, and care for women with "crisis" pregnancies. We wish we could provide the type of financial aid you reference. We simply don't have the financial resources to do so, but we would if we could.

And we are not alone. Many Churches have similar outreaches. Some are better funded and are able to do more.

I honestly don't know of any Church or Church organization that wouldn't foot the bill to save lives, if it had the resources.  I can't imagine a Church that would be so cold to those in need. It goes against basic, near-universal Christian principles of love and recognizing the value of life.

LDS, Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, and many other Churches I've been involved with, attended, or otherwise dealt with have all had programs to help unfortunate women in this situation, and every single one would love to be able to do more.

Summing up the above, most Churches have a strong desire to do what they can to prevent and end abortions, and are willing to contribute financially.

The logical conclusion is, if they thought it were feasible I'm sure plenty of Churches would do it.

But that's pure speculation. So I'm marking this as a community wiki, expecting it to be deleted.


According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by the phrase "in the age to come"? We read at Matthew 12:31-32 (RSVCE):

31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Here,  Jesus does not appear to be referring to the generation of His time and the generation(s) to come. Prima facie, He is referring to one's present life and the life after one's death. Since there are different schools of thought in relation to a phase of purification after one's death, I would like to know how exactly the saying of Jesus is interpreted by the Catholic Church.

Catholics see this passage as evidence for the existence of Purgatory (i.e. there are sins that will be pardoned after death).

  1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

  1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of
  the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the
  damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory
  especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the
  Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a
  cleansing fire:

  As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that
  whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we
  understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but
  certain others in the age to come.

CCC on Purgatory


Can humans become angels in Heaven? Possible Duplicate:
  Can Humans become Angels?

I have always wondered if in the afterlife humans can decide to become angels, and I have always wondered what is the difference between an archangel and an angel?

I have always wondered if in the afterlife humans can decide to become
  angels

No.  Angels are entirely different than humans, created for a different purpose.

  what is the difference between an archangel and an angel

Archangels are simply angels with a higher rank.


Is there any biblical support for the Church to allow Governments to close churches and prevent public worship? There is a basic Bible principle for Christians to obey the laws of the authorities that govern them:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. (NIV Romans 13:1-3)

The purpose of governing authorities is to establish laws to protect each member of society from destructive behaviour which might threaten the survival of the whole society.  But what about situations where government imposes laws which prevent Christians from coming together to worship publicly or to preach the good news of the Gospel?  When the apostles disobeyed the religious leaders and refused to stop preaching the gospel, they were thrown in jail.  Did that shut them up?  No!
>Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29)
This earned them a flogging, but at least Gamaliel’s intervention spared them from being killed.
But what about situations where government law prevents Christians from coming together to worship, pray, sing and partake of communion in church?  King Darius issued a decree that any man who prayed to any god other than himself was to be thrown into a den of lions (Daniel chapter 6).  Daniel broke that decree by continuing to pray three times a day in front of an open window, where he could be seen praying to God.  I realise that isn’t quite the same situation as churches in England (for example) during the current lockdown, but it’s got to the stage where police have authority to prevent public worship in situations where the laws are being disregarded.  They did this recently and stopped a baptismal service from taking place.
The motivation for preventing public gatherings is well understood – it’s to prevent the spread of the Covid pandemic.  There is no suggestion that social distancing should be ignored by Christians and this question is not about civil disobedience.  It’s about the line that may have to be drawn if government authorities introduce laws that ban public worship, which includes preventing Christians from partaking at the Lord’s Table – Communion.

Jesus commanded us to “do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).

What Bible principles apply in 2020 (and presumably for some time to come) with regard to how Christians should respond to any legislation that results in the closure of Churches thereby preventing like-minded believers from gathering together for worship, prayer, singing hymns and partaking of Communion?
A precedent has already been set which could result in churches becoming impotent. No, this isn't about "persecution" from governments. It's about "where do we go from here" now that Catholic and Protestant churches have seemingly caved in from the word go and are only now waking up to the consequences of being unable to function as God intended them to.
P.S. Last week 120 UK church leaders (from a variety of denominations) asked for a judicial review on the basis of unlawful closure of religious buildings.
P.P.S. With regard to the Church of England, it seems that Justin Welby is going to take a year out (a sabbatical) in spring 2021.  I wonder if any other church leaders are contemplating similar action.  More to the point, I wonder how that will help church members who are isolated, alone and distressed.

From your comments you are asking about the case where governments have made regulations in response to a pandemic (Covid19) preventing in-person meetings, or limited their size, and not given churches specific exemptions from those regulations.
Many church leaders have explained their response to Covid19 regulations, and most are very similar so I will explain them in general terms.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities. It is the Biblical duty of all Christians to obey secular authorities where they do not conflict with God's laws. In most traditions and teachings there has to be a serious reason for any disobedience. The Biblical examples almost invariably relate to a total ban on teaching about God or worshiping him. More recent examples include laws aimed at persecuting some section of society, or significant injustices. These are not the situation with Covid regulations.
Covid regulations are not preventing Christian meetings or Christian activity. There is no prohibition on Christian meetings, as long as they are appropriately distanced, or online, or in some other way safe. There is no prohibition on broadcast of Christian material, Christian teaching. Christian schools continue to function under the same rules as non-Christian, and Christian meetings are not treated differently from non-Christians. Most churches have transitioned adequately to distanced or online meetings, with no more than a certain amount of inconvenience.
Continuing to meet in person in defiance of medical precautions is an offence against Jesus teaching to "love your neighbour". Meeting restrictions are intended to prevent people from becoming sick or dying. Defying them increases the likelihood of infecting others, causing them serious harm or death. Those harmed are not just the Christian community but anyone they interact with as well. Christians should not be taking action that actively harms their neighbours.


Why does God forbid Aaron's descendants with "defects" from offering food? Leviticus 21:16-23

  16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to
  come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer
  the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no
  man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a
  crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has
  any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged
  testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is
  to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a
  defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may
  eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet
  because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the
  altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them
  holy.’”

Why would a loving God, who loves all people equally, seemingly discriminate against Aaron's descendants with these "defects"?

From context, we get this command was given to Aaron and his descendants, those ordained for Priesthood. It mentions there these are considered "defects"; an imperfection. It's a symbol of sanctification; God setting apart, and also what is acceptable to God (perfection, purity, holiness). Similar to why sacrificial lambs are to be without blemish. Also why Jesus had to be without sin to be an acceptable atonement for our sins.


According to LDS teaching could Adam and Eve have children before the fall? 2 Nephi 2:23 states

  And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have
  remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no
  misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

Often, it is said that Adam and Eve could not of had children, based on this verse. But the verse says would, not could.

Are there any other verses or latter day saint doctrine explaining whether or not they could have children?

In Doctrines of Salvation, 1:108, Joseph Fielding Smith stated:

  Things were not changing as we find them changing in this mortal existence, for mortality had not come.  Today we are living in a world of change because we are living under a very different condition from those which prevailed in the beginning and before the Fall of man.

Sometimes we focus too much on a single word, such as would vs. could.  I presume what you're asking is, was there anything physiologically stopping Adam and Eve from conceiving children?

Taking Pres. Smith at his word, the answer is "yes."  The time of the Garden of Eden was static.  Nothing grew, nothing died, nothing changed.  The moment you allow (e.g.) a child to be born you have something changing and that change must somehow stop when they become, what, 20 years old?  30 years old?  But, worse than that, you need to start dealing with the concept of (e.g.) dead skin flaking away from a growing child's body.  (Not to mention the changes to a woman's body when conception occurs, or the change of conception itself.)

Except nothing changed.

Therefore, no, Adam and Eve could not have physiologically conceived children in the Garden.  The physiological change that occured to them as a consequence of the Fall was necessary for conception.


God appearing to non-believers I just want to know what bible verse is it that talks about God appearing to a group of non-believers and even after seeing God they still didn't believe.

Here is a text - Rom 1:18-25 that describes people who know God but refuse to obey him and thus become depraved.  V21, 22 summarises this:

  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give
  thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their
  foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became
  fools

Here are three more (radical) suggestions that answer the question but may not satisfy the question(!?!)

Judas Iscariot met and knew Jesus (while on earth but who was still God, John 1:18, 5:17, 18, 20:28, etc) but later, betrayed Jesus and then went out and hanged himself.
The rich young ruler, Matt 18:18-25, who went away very sad because he loved his riches more than Jesus.
There is also the instance in Rev 6:15-17 where the wicked see Jesus (the "Lamb" on the throne) and ask to be destroyed because they do not want to be in His presence.

In all these cases, the people know and recognise God but refuse to have Him as their God.


Why doesn't God have to keep his own commandments such as "Do not murder"? In the Bible God gives many commands, but he doesn't seem to have to keep all of them himself.

For example in the Ten Commandments God instructs his people not to murder (Exodus 20:13). But God frequently executes people himself, such as when he killed Korah and his 250 followers in Numbers 16.

Why doesn't God have to keep his own commandment not to kill?  To disobey any of God's commandments is sinful. So how can God ignore them? Does the Bible explain why?

This question is about authority. It is wrong for you to discipline children unless you are their parent, or their teacher, or their sports coach etc. The relationship you have determines what authority you have over someone.

As our creator, God has complete authority over everyone. It is entirely right for him to kill any creature he made at any time for any reason. But we do not have that authority or right. We're not God.

Through the Bible you can see that at times God gives up his prerogative to kill. God's promise to Cain in Genesis 4 suggests that before the flood there were no situations when God allowed people to kill each other. After the flood in Genesis 9 God instructs his people to execute murderers and animals who kill people. In the Mosaic law he prescribes executions for many more crimes and sins. Fast forward to the New Testament, and Romans 13:1-5 says that God has given our civil rulers the right to punish wrongdoers. But in all of these cases a human's authority to kill people is always derived from God's own authority. None of us have that right in and of ourselves.

(And just for the record, the commandment is not "do not kill", but instead "do not commit murder". See this other question for an explanation of why the KJV says 'kill'.)


Is there Biblical support for Christians basing their beliefs on extra biblical texts? Considering the prominence of the works of popular authors like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and prominent theologians like Augustine and others in various Christian circles. Is there Biblical support for basing your beliefs on those who've come before?

Said another way, what different perspectives are there among notable Christian groups regarding the use of non-Biblical works for informing beliefs, and what Biblical support do they give for their perspective?

When you think about it, this question is based on circular reasoning.
Is there Biblical support for basing your beliefs on those who've come before?
The Bible authors "came before." So lets imagine that there's an imaginary Bible verse that says:

Thou shalt base thine opinions on those whom came before.
2 Chemicals 8:15

Who wrote 2 Chemicals? Saint Heisenberg.  Why should we trust Saint Heisenberg?
"But the Bible is canon!" you might say.  Yes, that's true... Christians, by and large, agree that the Bible is "special." But why?  Because other Christians decided they were, and we agree with them.
So even believing the Bible is inherently basing our beliefs on those who came before.


What is the significance of the four laws given to early Christians who were not ethnically Jews? In the early years of Christianity, there was a lot of debate whether people of non-Jewish origin should follow the strict Mosaic laws, especially circumcision.

A consensus was made that for pagans who wish to become Christians, no circumcision or other old Jewish traditions and laws should be compulsory, with four exceptions, as described in Acts 15:20.

The KJV translation says:

  But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of
  idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from
  blood.

My non-English translation effectively says:

do not worship idols. (this is, of course, self-explanatory)
no adultery (still clear)
do not consume the flesh of animals who died by drowning (why? Of course, it makes sense in a sanitary way, but why make it a condition of being allowed to become a Christian?)
do not consume blood. (was that meaning ritual sacrifices that pagans might have done in that time? What about blood sausage, a common food in many parts of Europe, even among the strongly religious, except maybe a few small groups. Or was that, according the translations where the word "consuming" is missing, just "thou shalt not murder"?)

The prohibition from eating the meat of strangled animals is essentially the same thing as the prohibition from eating blood.  If an animal was strangled, that means its blood was not drained from its body.  Therefore, eating the meat of strangled animals was another method of consuming their blood.  The Mosaic Law outlawed the consumption of blood.

Lev. 17:10-11 (NASB)  And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.  For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.
Deut. 12:16 (NASB)  Only you shall not eat the blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water.
Deut. 12:23 (NASB)  Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

Since eating blood was so detestable to the Jews, and presumably associated with pagan rituals, the Apostles felt that it was important for the gentile Christians to abstain from eating blood, even though they were not following the rest of the Mosaic Law.  By doing so, they would not cause offense to Jews and weaker brethren.

1 Cor. 10:23-33 (NASB)  All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?  Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.

Some people take this command further and believe that, even today, it is a sin for Christians to eat blood.  They believe that, since God outlawed the consumption of blood prior to the Mosaic Law, it is a general moral law which applies to all people for all time, not just those subject to the Mosaic Covenant.

Gen. 9:4-5 (NASB) Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man.


What was the earliest Papal condemnation of slavery? Could someone tell me what the earliest Papal statement or encyclical was where the Church condemned the institution of slavery? A Magisterial document would also be accepted if there are earlier teachings by the magisterium.

Condemnation of 'unjust' slavery came somewhat earlier than papal condemnation of 'just' slavery. The legitimacy of slavery was recognised in the Corpus Iuris Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX, and this implicit acceptance of slavery was not removed until 1913. Jean Allain (The Legal Understanding of Slavery, page 20) says the Corpus Iuris Canonici was not as explicit in its treatment of the issue as were the civil laws, but that students of the canon law would have found no contradiction.

According to Wikipedia, Cardinal Avery Dulles makes the observations that no Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist, and that no pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such, but that they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.

Nevertheless, there were some papal pronouncements that provided qualified condemnation of slavery. Pope Eugene IV issued a Papal bull, Creator Omnium on 17 December 1434, excommunicating anyone on the Canary Islands who enslaved newly-converted Christians, but offering no protection to those who declined to become Christians.

Further on, Wikipedia tells us that in 1888, Pope Leo XIII issued a letter to the Bishops of Brazil and another in 1890, Catholicae Ecclesiae (On Slavery In The Missions). In both these letters the Pope singled out for praise twelve previous Popes who had made determined efforts to abolish slavery. Five of the Popes praised by Leo issued documents that authorized enslavement as an institution, as a penalty for ecclesiastical offences, or when arising through war, but Leo's letters make no distinction between "just" and "unjust" forms of slavery and have therefore been interpreted as a condemnation of slavery as an institution.

The Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes ('Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World', 1965) stated:

  The varieties of crime are numerous: all offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where people are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons: all these and the like are criminal: they poison civilization; and they debase the perpetrators more than the victims and militate against the honor of the creator.

Pope John Paul II said, in Fidei Depositum, "May the light of the true faith free humanity from ignorance and slavery to sin in order to lead it to the only freedom worthy of the name ..."  In 1993, he apologised for Catholics' involvement with the African slave trade.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1994 sets out the official position of the modern Church:

  CCC 2414 The Seventh Commandment forbids acts or enterprises that ... lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit ..."