Does the Pope Francis' moto proprio Spiritus Domini mean that pastors cannot limit servers to only boys? So it looks like a orders of lector and acolyte, which aren't that well understood in the church to begin with, are opened up to all lay people without respect to sex following the Pope's moto proprio.
It would seem that this would have no bearing on children being servers, as they're not permanently assigned, but is there something implicit in the wording that would make it seem that this is the case?
Currently, in the USA, it's just a matter of a priest sticking his neck out and explicitly disallowing girls from being servers or a more conservative parish implicitly doing it through tradition.
Does this mean that a Catholic parish would expect to have more lady MC's serving and coordinating the servers?

I mean this question in regards to a parish where the pastor's prerogative is that of denying volunteer girl altar servers and has the support of the ordinary of the diocese and the congregation.  I am also interested in how this might affect Tradition Latin Mass, but maybe it's a moot point?

Does the Pope Francis' Motu Proprio Spiritus Domini mean that pastors cannot limit servers to only young men?
Yes
That seems to be the gist of the document, but episcopal conferences will make their own legislative decisions on this matter.
This question concerns the Ordinary Form of the Mass only. If Pope Francis removed the word "vir" (man) from the code of canon law, them it means women can be acolytes and lectors. We can all see where this is going....
Girls have been allowed to be servers at the altar for a number of years already.
Pope Francis’ document, I believe elevates the possibility of women becoming officially instituted as acolytes and/or as instituted lectors by the local ordinaries (bishop). It is unclear if his intention is for permanent offices or simply on a yearly bases. Whether it is for one parish or the entire diocese.
Up until the 1990s girls did not serve at Mass. They have never been permitted in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass has retained it traditional norms governing the sacraments. Female servers are not permitted.

The Holy See provided two clarifications in the 1990s. On 30 June 1992, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts issued an authentic interpretation of that canon declaring that service at the altar is one of the "other functions" open to lay persons in general.[16] On 15 March 1994, the Congregation for Divine Worship affirmed that both men and women may serve at the altar, that each bishop has the discretion to determine who may serve, and that "it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar".
On 10 January 2021, Pope Francis ordered a modification to canon law and related norms to state explicitly that all baptized persons can be admitted to the instituted ministries of lector and acolyte. Where women and girls already had the ability to exercise these functions "by temporary designation", he indicated their eligibility for these roles "on a stable basis". - Female altar servers

Seminarians are generally instituted lectors and then acolytes for about a year as a steppingstone towards priestly ordination! Doubt this will change.

Accepting these recommendations, a doctrinal development has taken place in recent years which has highlighted how certain ministries instituted by the Church are based on the common condition of being baptised and the regal priesthood received in the Sacrament of Baptism; they are essentially distinct from the ordained ministry received in the Sacrament of Orders. A consolidated practice in the Latin Church has also confirmed, in fact, that these lay ministries, since they are based on the Sacrament of Baptism, may be entrusted to all suitable faithful, whether male or female, in accordance with what is already implicitly provided for by Canon 230 § 2.
Consequently, after having heard the opinion of the competent Dicasteries, I have decided to modify canon 230 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law. I therefore decree that canon 230 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law shall in future have the following wording:
“Lay persons of suitable age and with the gifts determined by decree of the Episcopal Conference may be permanently assigned, by means of the established liturgical rite, to the ministries of lectors and acolytes; however, the conferment of such a role does not entitle them to support or remuneration from the Church”. - APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED "MOTU PROPRIO" SPIRITUS DOMINI ((10 January 2021)

Generally speaking MC’s are priests, when the bishop is present at the cathedral! For the rest anyone’s guess is good.
The Master of Ceremonies is not necessarily a lector or an acolyte. They are distinct roles.
The Master of Ceremonies in parishes is technically not a Master of Ceremonies. They are called such in general terms, but in actuality they are not. In general, the MC may correct any person involved in the execution of a liturgical rite, including the celebrant himself. This is not done at the parish level by a so called MC.

Master of ceremonies
Definition
A male cleric who supervises and directs the proceedings in any formal observance of a religious rite. He has complete authority within the limits of his office, especially guiding the actions of the celebrant and his assistants according to the rubrics of the Sacred Liturgy. In general the person who directs the proceedings of any observance where specific procedure is required.

What is an instituted acolyte?

Acolyte
Definition
A ministry to which a person is specially appointed by the Church to assist the deacon and to minister to the priest. His duty is to attend to the service of the altar and to assist as needed in the celebration of the Mass. He may also distribute Holy Communion as an auxiliary minister at the Eucharistic liturgy and to the sick. An acolyte may be entrusted with publicly exposing the Blessed Sacrament for adoration but not with giving benediction. He may also, to the extent needed, take care of instructing other faithful who by appointment assist the priest or deacon by carrying the missal, cross, candles, and similar functions. The ministry of acolyte is reserved to men and conferred by the bishop of the diocese or, in clerical institutes of religious, by the major superior, according to liturgical rites composed for the purpose by the Church. Women may be delegated to perform some of the functions of an acolyte.

What is an instituted Lector?

Lector
Definition
One of the ministries adapted to present day needs in the Latin Church, otherwise known as reader. He functions partially as the subdeacon did previously. He is appointed to read the word of God in the liturgical assembly. Accordingly he reads the lesson from Sacred Scripture, except the Gospel, in the Mass and in other sacred celebrations; recites the psalms between the readings in absence of the psalmist; presents the intentions for general intercessions when the deacon or cantor is absent; and may also direct the congregation in the singing. If necessary he also assumes the responsibility of instructing any of the faithful called upon to read the Scriptures in any liturgical celebration.


Does a priest have to consume the Eucharist no matter the state of his soul? Can a priest decide not to consume the Eucharist during mass if in doubt whether he is in mortal sin?
We know he still has the power to change the host and wine into Christ's body no matter the state of his soul. Right after "Behold lamb of God" statement he consumes the host. Is he allowed not to do it if he thinks he is in mortal sin? I never seen this to happen so I was wondering if there is some kind of protocol prohibiting him to do so even though he might have had a mortal sin on his soul.

Does a priest have to consume the Eucharist no matter the state of his soul?
Can a priest decide not to consume the Eucharist during mass if in doubt whether he is in mortal sin?
The short answer is no.
The celebrant must always consume the sacred host at mass, in which he acted as a consecrator of the sacred species.

Moreover, the celebrant's Communion is required for the completion of the sacrifice of the Mass; Christ is present under the species of the eucharistic sacrifice after the manner of food and drink, and so is meant to be consumed.
Finally, the priest must receive Communion under both species: "So far as the sacrament itself is concerned it is most fitting that both the body and the blood be received since the perfection of the sacrament rests in both, and therefore, because it is the priest's duty both to consecrate and to complete the sacrament, lie should never receive the body of Christ without the blood" (Summa, Ilia, q. 80, a. 12; cf. also ad 1). The priest has a divine obligation in this respect. - The Priest's Communion

The priest in question must make a perfect act of contrition if he committed a mortal sin, as best he can and must go to confession as soon as possible. He may under some circumstances still say Mass. The Church has very clear guidelines on this subject:

When receiving or celebrating the sacraments, the priest is subject to the same requirements of sanctity and state of grace as every other Catholic; that is, the state of grace is required for fruitful reception of all sacraments except those that actually forgive sins.
Therefore a priest who is in a state of mortal sin should seek to confess as soon as possible and refrain from celebrating the sacraments until he has done so.
Normally, to celebrate Mass or receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin would be to commit a sacrilege. Yet, the sacrament would be valid; that is, there would be a true consecration and a true sacrifice.
The reason is: Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister. As St. Thomas Aquinas says: Christ may act even through a minister who is spiritually dead.
However, a priest who has fallen into mortal sin, but who is unable to make his confession despite his desire to do so, may celebrate Mass for the benefit of the faithful without adding a further sin of sacrilege.
Thus, as Canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law states: "A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible (see also Canon 1335)."
Note that the code requires a grave reason in order to avail of this exception.
One such grave reason is based on the principle of the good of souls. If a priest is required to celebrate Mass or a soul requests the sacrament of reconciliation, the anointing of the sick, or indeed any other sacrament from this priest that would have to be performed before he can avail of confession, then he may, and usually must, administer the sacrament.
A second grave reason stems from the danger of infamy by publicly revealing the state of one's soul.
This can occur in the case of a priest in isolated circumstances when there is no one else to perform the usual celebrations. There is no need for him to do anything that might lead people to suspect his lack of a state of grace.
Even in the case that the priest, or any other person, has secretly committed a grave crime, which would normally lead to his or her being automatically forbidden to receive the sacraments, Church law (Canon 1352) foresees the possibility of the penalty being suspended to avoid infamy or scandal, to wit:
"§1. If a penalty prohibits the reception of the sacraments or sacramentals, the prohibition is suspended as long as the offender is in danger of death.
"§2. The obligation to observe an undeclared 'latae sententiae' penalty which is not notorious in the place where the offender is present, is suspended totally or partially whenever the offender cannot observe it without danger of grave scandal or infamy."
While the possibilities of a layperson or a religious in a state of mortal sin being placed in a similar dilemma as the priest are far rarer, the same basic principles would apply should they occur.
Furthermore, while it is nobody else's business why somebody does not approach Communion, pastors should do all that they can to avoid creating public pressures that might induce a person in a state of mortal sin — or otherwise unable to receive Communion — to receive out of an objective fear of infamy or even out of human respect.
For example, when parish ushers move down the aisles during Communion to assure an orderly procession, it becomes very difficult for someone, especially if well known to the other parishioners and who for some hidden reason cannot receive Communion, not to go forward with the others because staying in the pew is often the equivalent of making a public self-denunciation.
In such cases, a less organized procession at Communion allows such people to pass unnoticed. - When a Priest Is in Mortal Sin

As a side note: I have known of cases in the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass (as we now call it) where a priest had forgotten to fast in the morning before Mass and did not say Mass that day because the fast was not observed.


Is Christianity just a belief system, or is it also a system for organizing and governing society? Works like "Mere Christianity" try and address common Christian beliefs and help recognize the diversity of belief systems within Christian sects.  The question is whether this is what all of Christianity is, or is there more?  Do Christian religious texts provide guidance on how to organize society and govern it with justice and fairness?

Added after reviewing comments through morning of 1/13/12:

Is it true that the family & social laws in the Old Testament texts are to be ignored?  Yes/No? (provide supporting information)
If OT laws are to be ignored by Christians, does God/Jesus provide substitute laws in the New Testament texts?  I.e., if God thought it important to provide laws (in addition to requiring certain beliefs) to guide people prior to the New Testament, why has He not deemed it important to either re-affirm these same laws in the New Testament, or provide substitute laws?

Christianity is not, "just a belief system", nor is it "also a system for organizing and governing society".
It is simply the way for imperfect people to get into an eternal relationship with a perfect God, not by our good works but by the gift of Jesus. John puts it better than I can:

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

Of course, there are consequences of this that affect the individual (e.g. a commitment to honesty and love) which then in turn affect society. (We are also instructed about our duty to society, e.g. "pay your taxes".) But that's a by-product, rather than the central aim.
More directly answering your question, the Bible does not explain how to organise society but it does contain some very light weight (by which I mean, not overly proscriptive) examples of how to organise a church (e.g. mentioning elders).


How would a Christian explain the contradiction of loving but calling homosexuality a sin? In the Bible it is said many times that homosexuality is a sin.

It is also said that love is the most important thing, and compassion is important as well; love your neighbor as yourself.

This appears to be a contradiction - in calling something a sin and yet being called to love.

How do Christians explain what seems to be a contradiction here?

No contradiction at all.  We are, indeed, commanded to love our neighbors.  We are also told that homosexuality is a sin.  How is there any contradiction in that?

Loving our neighbors does not require us to approve of everything they do.  Lying, stealing, adultery, profanity and greed are also defined as sins in the Bible.  If loving our neighbor demands we approve of everything they do, then we would need to approve of all of these.

We could go farther and include more heinous sins as well.

It is important to note that a biblical understanding of sin is that all sin is to our destruction and loss.  Loving someone would then require us to dislike anything that threatens to harm them, whether it be greed, pride, adultery, homosexuality or anything.

We don't allow our children to play in the streets because we love them and don't want them to be harmed.  It would only be if we hated someone that we would want them to experience harm.


What are the fruits of the Spirit? When I was young I remember a list on the wall that stated 12 points. The ones I can remember are love, joy, peace, patience, gratitude.

I'm certain these are straight out of the Bible.

What are the rest, and which part of the Bible are they from?

The fruit of the spirit are listed in Galations 5:22-23:

  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (NIV)


How do Protestants understand the blessedness of Mary in Luke 1:48? What are the common Protestant interpretations of Luke 1:48?

  Luke 1:48 (KJV) For he hath regarded the low estate of
  his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall
  call me blessed.

In each of their generations, how is Mary called blessed to the fulfillment of this scripture?

For most Protestants this is a matter of semantics. Protestants know full well that Catholics call Mary, the "Blessed Mother." They also know that if you ask a Catholic "Is Mary blessed?" They would surely answer "Yes, indeed she is." But the Catholic should understand that the Protestant, in general, would also answer the same. Mary is blessed. Mary received a blessing beyond compare to any other: She bore to us our Lord and Savior. The Son of God calls her Mother!

Protestants, however, do not venerate Mary as the Catholics do. In fact, Protestants mostly have a great disdain for veneration of any saint, thinking it akin to idolatry. As an effect, most are wary to assign such titles to any saint, living or dead. They typically stop at Pastor and other lesser priest-like titles, and naturally those are for persons actually holding the office. So what we have is that Catholics literally call her "Blessed" and Protestants call her blessed when describing the nature of her relationship with Christ.

Cynics, who may or may not be Protestant or even Christian, may also note that this might be a case of a self-fulfilled prophecy. Mary said people would call her blessed. People agreed, namely the Church, and started calling her blessed, literally.


How does the Catholic Church explain passages that seem to use culturally specific logic? In 1 Corinthians, Paul writes about women, prayer, and head coverings. As he often does, rather than simply laying down a law, he appeals to logic and well known facts. For example,

  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
  — 1 Corinthians 11:14, KJV.

The problem is that this particular well known fact is not as universal as Paul appears to imagine. In some cultures, it is not considered shameful for a man to have long hair.

One could say that this means that Paul is wrong. He’s building up a chain of logical reasoning from what he appears to imagine is a universal fact, but actually isn’t. This could be understood to invalidate the entire passage.
One could say that this means that Paul’s logic, and therefore the resultant rules, applies only where the facts on which it’s built are correct. In that case, though, what rules apply where Paul’s facts don’t apply? Can other rules be derived by applying the same logic to different underlying facts?

However, when Paul says that nature itself teaches us, he really does seem to think that this is a universal rule. And he’s wrong about that. To what extent is this a problem?

One could say that when Paul writes that nature itself teaches us, that this is a normative statement. He could be saying that it is universally wrong for men to have long hair, and that cultures in which it is acceptable are also simply wrong.

Does the Roman Catholic church take one of these positions, or another which I’ve not thought of?

The consensus seems to be that St. Paul was giving a specific norm for a specific cultural context.

The phrase translated “nature itself” here is ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ. It is true that in a philosophical context (in Aristotle, for example), the word φύσις means “nature” in the sense of “that which dictates what kinds of actions a given being is capable of (and, for personal creatures, also what it is permitted or obliged to do).”

However, in the common parlance of the time, it can simply mean “origin,” “birth,” “constitution” or even “appearance.”

It would be a mistake, therefore, to think that St. Paul is arguing in terms of natural law, as we usually understand that term. (For this view, see, for example, the notes on this passage in the Ignatius Catholic Catholic Study Bible, New Testament.)


Trinity (Christians) = Trimurti (Hindus)? I have heard about the concept ot Trimurti in Hinduism Wiki. One for construction (Brahma), one for protection (Vishnu) and one for destruction (Shiva). And somehow I feel it is related to Trinity in Christianity. Are there any relations?

One could do a great deal worse than quote another answer:

  There are several heresies that one needs to be careful of when discussing a topic such as this. For example, Modalism which declares that God is not three distinct persons, but that He merely reveals himself in three different forms. Or, Arianism which declares that Christ and the Holy Spirit are creations of the Father and not one in nature with Him. Or Partialism which declares that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct persons of the Godhead, but are different parts of God each composing a third of the divine.

Each of the different views of the Trimuti within Hinduism falls into one or more of those camps. My analysis (based on Wikipedia) may not be complete, but I posit this:—

Sauram: modalism
Vishaivism: Arianism
Shavism and Smartism: partialism

So: no, apart from both the Trinity and Trimurti being "three", there are no similarities. Specifically, the Trimurti denies that the three gods are wholly three and wholly one.


According to Reformed theology are the Psalms suitable preaching/prayers/songs for Christians? In other words, are the Psalms considered Jewish-specific or deemed equally useful as prayers and songs for Christians? For example, is the first Psalm a Christian Psalm as well as a Jewish Psalm?

  KJV Psalm 1: 1Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of
  the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the
  seat of the scornful.

  2But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he
  meditate day and night.

  3And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that
  bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not
  wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

  4The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth
  away.

  5Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in
  the congregation of the righteous.

  6For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the
  ungodly shall perish.

Reformed theology includes covenant theology, whereby the nation of Israel is understood to be the church of the Old Testament. In this light, there is no distinction between an Israelite Psalm and a Christian Psalm; they are one and the same.

Not only this, but the Reformers consistently sang almost only the 150 Psalms from the Book of Psalms (as well as the Songs of Simeon, Zachariah, and Mary, the Apostle's Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and a very small number of other hymns).1.2.3.4.

John Calvin, who was the single largest influence on the Reformed understanding on how to worship, said in his Letter to the Reader introducing the Genevan Psalter the following:

  But what St. Augustine says is true, that no one can sing things worthy
  of God unless he has received them from him. For when we have searched
  here and there, we will not find better songs nor ones more appropriate
  for this purpose than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit has
  spoken to him and made. Therefore, when we sing them, we are certain
  that God has put the words in our mouth as if they themselves sang in us
  to exalt his glory. Consequently Chrysostom exhorts both men, women
  and little children to learn to sing them in order that they may be like a
  meditation to associate them with the company of angels (Chrysostom,
  In Ps. 41.1,2).

Calvin was in the habit of preaching from either the New Testament or the Book of Psalms every Sunday afternoon, and it is from these sermons on the Psalms that we get his commentary on the Psalms.

In addition, the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 21 Article 5 says the following (emphasis mine):

  The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.

While this is not to mean the exclusion of non-Book of Psalms songs, certainly the creators and users of the Westminster Standards (a classic Reformed summary of what the Bible teaches) primarily sang Psalms and considered them to be appropriate for the Christian church.

I will also note that it is not completely precise to refer to the Book of Psalms as a Jewish book; it is an Israelite book, from before the splitting of the nation of Israel into two kingdoms.


Should we allow doctors or God to heal us? Inspired by this post regarding moving mountains by faith.

God has told us to rely on him (Matthew 6:25-34) for all things.

Also, James 5:15 says

  And the prayer of faith will make the indisposed one well, and Jehovah
  will raise him up. Also, if he has committed sins, it will be forgiven
  him.

So, since we should rely on God for all things and God will heal us, should we ever need to go to the doctor?

Similarly, since God is the source of all knowledge and wisdom, should we ever trust a doctor?

How does God heal?  Through whom does God offer healing and wholeness?

I know several health care professionals (including some physicians, nurses, and physical therapists) who chose  those demanding professions because they hope to serve as God's hands for the healing of their little part of the world.

So, my answer is "Yes, go to the doctor."


Does the New Testament override the Old Testament? Throughout the Old Testament there have been many laws laid down by the Lord, that are perhaps more harsh then we, as Christians, follow today. Many times in the New Testament it has been found to change the laws of the Old Testament. My question is does the New Testament override the Old Testament in creating laws, that we as Christians should follow.

Old Testament:
Exodus 21:24

  eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Then later in the New Testament: Matthew 5:38-48

  38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

These two obviously conflict each other. So I ask again.
Does the New Testament override the old?

You can find your answer a few verses earlier in the same chapter:

  Matthew 5:17-18

  17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

  18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The Law of Moses was given to point people's minds forward to Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah-to-come.  Once he did come, the Law's purpose was fulfilled, and it became obsolete.  It was not destroyed, but superseded by a higher law, the law of the Gospel.


Was Jesus crucified naked? Wikipedia's article on crucifixion says

  While a crucifixion was an execution, it was also a humiliation, by
  making the condemned as vulnerable as possible. Although artists have
  traditionally depicted the figure on a cross with a loin cloth or a
  covering of the genitals, the person being crucified was usually
  stripped naked.

Is there a scholarly consensus that Jesus was also crucified naked?

How have Christian traditions and scholars explained this?

He most likely was crucified naked - this is consistent with the biblical narrative of the guards casting lots for his garment and with standard historical practice.

In the paintings, the artists wanted to preserve some of the dignity and not turn the Lord's body into something that puerile youngsters might be titilated by. It is a condescension to the viewer, intentionally not in accord with the scriptures.

He was naked on the cross - that was part of the shame of crucifixion.

As J. Vernon McGee (Thru the Bible) says:

  He was crucified naked. It is difficult for us in this age of nudity and pornography to comprehend the great humiliation He suffered by hanging nude on the cross. They had taken His garments and gambled for ownership. My friend, He went through it all, crucified naked, that you might be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and so be able to stand before God throughout the endless ages of eternity.


Can you only have a sacramental marriage? I have tried to find an official ruling from the Catholic Church on this matter, but haven't had any luck and have only come across others asking the same question. This question is from the angle of an Australian and therefore Australian law and marriage law.

Is it possible to have a sacramental marriage only? And not be married in the eyes of the country's law?

This question is relevant on multiple fronts: not wanting to get 'legally' married because neither of you want to combine financial assets, not wanting to get 'legally' married because you disagree with the country's marriage laws, etc.

Another aspect would be, could you get sacramentally married if you are already seen in the eyes of the country's law as de-factos? Or do you need to get civilly married regardless of your de-facto status?

The Catholic Church recognises the laws of the countries in which it is present. An information booklet issued by the Australian Catholic Marriage and Family Council  for the Bishops Commission for Pastoral Life of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference - 'Getting Married in the Catholic Church: Frequently Asked Questions' - contains the following paragraph:

ARE CATHOLIC PRIESTS AUTHORISED MARRIAGE CELEBRANTS?
Most catholic bishops, priests and deacons are normally authorised marriage celebrants in Australia and its Territories under the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 and as such are legally authorised to solemnise marriages in accordance with Australian law. Note that each country has its own laws with regard to civil marriage requirements.

As well as being a registered marriage celebrant in order to perform any form of marriage ceremony. the priest must include prescribed words in the marriage ceremony and must officially register the marriage as soon as practicable. There are serious penalties for non-compliance.

In any case, why would you want to have a marriage ceremony that is recognised only by the Church and not by society at large? If you wish to maintain financial independence either during marriage or in the event of marriage breakdown, then talk to a solicitor about managing your financial affairs.


What manuscripts did people use to create the NIV and KJV? Are the manuscripts used to fashion the NIV older than those used for the KJV? What manuscripts did people use to create the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible and the King James Version (KJV)? Are the manuscripts used to fashion the NIV older than those used for the KJV? Are they the same manuscripts?

To elaborate more on my question; I basically am interested in knowing what manuscripts or ancient documents were used when authors were putting together the NIV Bible, and when are those documents dated to?

To follow on my elaboration above, the same question goes for the KJV Bible.

I'm thinking that the question of reliability of version(s) is irrelevant if one was fashioned by older documents than the other. Though I still find major problems with reading things like "thou houth shalteth" in the year 2016.

Thanks for your time.

Both versions use distinct sets of manuscripts for the Old Testament and New Testament.

One might say that the NIV uses an "older" Old Testament manuscript on occasion by deferring to the Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls (as explained below), but I am not sure this is significant.  There are rumors that the King James translators may also have done likewise, even if forbidden by the translation rules the King had put in place (see, e.g., Adam Nicholson, The Making of the King James Bible).

In the case of the New Testament, whereas the King James editors seemed to have consulted a single 1598 manuscript compilation, the NIV, which relies on the so-called "Critical Text", probably included some "older" manuscripts in its translation.  But it is very difficult to judge whether the underlying text is older or newer from the age of the manuscript.  A newer manuscript may actually hold a copy of a variant that had somehow been lost, for example.

With regard to archaic English language, some prefer the King James Version because it preserves a difference between singular and plural forms which has now been lost to the English language, but present in the underlying Greek.

In Mexican Spanish, for example, one uses the word "tu" for you if speaking to a single person, and "Ustedes" if one is speaking to a group.  This distinction has been lost in modern English (except, perhaps, in Texas, where "y'all" is used), but it was present in Jacobian English (i.e. "thou" for you singular, "ye" for you plural. There is a discussion of this here.

I try to set out the major differences between manuscripts below.

Old Testament

 NIV

The Introduction provided in the 2011 New International Version states:

  For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as
  published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used
  throughout. The Masoretic Text tradition contains marginal notations
  that offer variant readings. These have sometimes been followed
  instead of the text itself. Because such instances involve variants
  within the Masoretic tradition, they have not been indicated in the
  textual notes. In a few cases, words in the basic consonantal text
  [the original Hebrew used no vowels] have been divided differently
  than in the Masoretic Text. Such cases are usually indicated in the
  textual footnotes. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain biblical texts that
  represent an earlier stage of the transmission of the Hebrew text.
  They have been consulted, as have been the Samaritan Pentateuch and
  the ancient scribal traditions concerning deliberate textual changes.
  The translators also consulted the more important early versions—the
  Greek Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate,
  the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms, the
  Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions, the Dead Sea
  Scrolls and the scribal traditions were occasionally followed where
  the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of
  textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses
  appeared to provide the correct reading. In rare cases, the committee
  has emended the Hebrew text where it appears to have become corrupted
  at an even earlier stage of its transmission. These departures from
  the Masoretic Text are also indicated in the textual footnotes.
  Sometimes the vowel indicators (which are later additions to the basic
  consonantal text) found in the Masoretic Text did not, in the judgment
  of the committee, represent the correct vowels for the original text.
  Accordingly, some words have been read with a different set of vowels.
  These instances are usually not indicated in the footnotes.

The NIV Old Testament omits the so-called Deuterocanonical books that were included in the King James Version, as well as in other versions based on the Latin Vulgate (i.e. Douay-Rheims) and Septuagint (e.g. the 1851 English translation by Sir L.C.L. Brenton).

 KJV

The original 1611 King James Version and subsequent updates published by Oxford and Cambridge in the ensuing centuries included the Deuterocanonical books, which were written in Aramaic and Greek.  I have never seen anything identifying which particular manuscripts the translators consulted for these.  As far as I know, only Cambridge continues to publish a version of the King James Version with the Deuterocanonical books included.

The underlying Hebrew text is supposed to be a version of the Masoretic Text compiled by the Tunisian Jew of Spanish origin and later Christian convert Jacob ben Hayyim ben Isaac Ibn Abonijah, published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice sometime around 1525 (Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, tr. Christian Ginsburg, p. 2-7).

New Testament

 NIV

Again, according to the Introduction in the 2011 NIV:

  The Greek text used in translating the New Testament is an eclectic
  one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible
  Societies’ Greek New Testament. The committee has made its choices
  among the variant readings in accordance with widely accepted
  principles of New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call
  attention to places where uncertainty remains.

The Greek New Testament the authors refer to is a compilation of hundreds of different Greek manuscripts.  The editors essentially judged all of the variants available for each verse and made a decision as to which particular variant reading to select.  Bruce Metzger has published separately a Textual Commentary that explains each decision made.  The resulting text is sometimes referred to as the "Critical Text".

 KJV

Dr. Maurice Robinson claims in the introduction to a modern edition of the 1550 Stephen's Textus Receptus that there are actually several extant Greek texts published around that time frame that are similarly named.  He writes:

  The Stephens 1550 edition of the so-called “Textus Receptus” (Received
  Text) reflects a general agreement with other early printed Greek
  texts also (erroneously) called by that name. These include editions
  such as that of Erasmus 1516, Beza 1598, and (the only one actually
  termed “Textus Receptus”) Elzevir 1633. Berry correctly notes that “In
  the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred
  to as the Textus Receptus” (Berry, p.ii).

  All these early printed Greek New Testaments closely parallel the text
  of the English-language Authorized (or King James) Version of 1611,
  since that version was based closely upon Beza 1598, which differed
  little from its “Textus Receptus” predecessors. These early Greek “TR”
  editions generally reflect (but not completely) the “Byzantine
  Textform,” otherwise called the “Majority” or “Traditional” text,
  which predominated throughout the period of manual copying of Greek
  New Testament manuscripts.

Dr. Robinson also explains the key differences between the Critical Text (e.g. NIV) and the Textus Receptus (KJV):

  The user should note that the Stephens 1550 TR edition does not agree
  with modern critical editions such as that published by the United
  Bible Societies or the various Nestle editions. These editions follow
  a predominantly “Alexandrian” Greek text, as opposed to the Byzantine
  Textform which generally underlies all TR editions. Note, however,
  that 85%+ of the text of ALL Greek New Testament editions is
  identical.

He also points out that the New King James Version (NKJV), published by Thomas Nelson, footnotes verses where the CT and TR variants diverge.


What does The Father do? It seems like such a basic question: what does the Father do? It is said that the Holy Spirit is the life-giver and speaks through the prophets and everything is made through the Son, Jesus, and Jesus is also the way by which we are saved and will judge the world. According to Trinitarians, what is the role of the Father?

The Father is the source of everything.   (1 Co 8:6a).

   1 Corinthians 8:6 English Standard Version (ESV)
  6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist

Contra your question,  He is also the one who spoke through the prophets as per Hebrews 1:1-2.

He is also the maker of all things, and that through His Son at Hebrews 1:2.

  Hebrews 1:1-2 God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. (ASV)


Who disciplines who within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? Restricting as much as is possible to the Pope, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who disciplines who within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?

Does that change whether it is in the Western Church or the Eastern [particular] Churches?

Is it dependent on the type of discipline?

The answer will include examples such laicization of clerics and excommunication, and others for necessary illustration and clarity.

Related: How do the Pope, Bishops, Priests relate to one another in the Catholic Church's hierarchy?

For an understanding of this post, please see my answer to How do the Pope, Bishops, Priests relate to one another in the Catholic Church's hierarchy?

Disciplining Delinquent Clergy

I will consider the practice of the Western Church, governed by the Code of Canon Law, since it is the one I know best. Since the Eastern Churches are governed instead by the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, there may be some slight differences (for example, the patriarch or major archbishop would have some oversight over his dioceses), but the procedures are essentially the same.

It is the responsibility of the bishop or major superior to discipline priests who commit crimes (whether civil or ecclesiastical). The proper procedures are outlined in Book VI of the Code of Canon Law. (There is a similar situation in United States: it is generally the responsibility of state governments, not the Federal Government, to prosecute criminals.)

However, in the case of very serious crimes, the so-called graviora delicta, the matter must be referred to the Holy See. It should, however, be kept in mind that not every civil crime is also an ecclesiastical crime, and the Church considers delicts to be “graviora” when they are likely to cause serious harm to the faithful.

Examples of graviora delicta include desecration of the Eucharist, violating the seal of Confession, and attempting to celebrate a Sacrament that is reserved to a higher rank of Holy Orders (for example, if a deacon attempts to celebrate Mass or hear a confession; or if a priest attempts an ordination; or even if a bishop ordains a bishop without a papal mandate). In the wake of the scandal regarding child abuse by priests, in 2007, the crime of pedophilia and child pornography were also added to this list. (For an excellent overview, see “Considerations on the Delicta Graviora” by Cardinal William Levada, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)

It is the responsibility of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to process these more serious cases on the pope’s behalf. Of course, the CDF can only act when it is informed of a case, and so effective disciplining requires action on the part of the local church as well. Naturally, a bishop or major superior may (and should) act to remove a particularly dangerous priest or deacon from his assignment while his case is pending with the CDF.

In practice, at least in the United States, nowadays priests are removed from ministry as soon as credible allegations of child abuse of any kind are made, and their case is referred to civil authorities. They are not technically “suspended” unless they are found guilty. If they are found innocent (both by the civil authorities and by the internal Church investigation), they are generally reinstated to ministry; if guilty, they may be suspended—that is, permanently prohibited from exercising ministry—or laicized, depending on the seriousness of the crime. (Only the Holy See can laicize a priest, however, and so in that case the diocese would have to request it.)


Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed? Neither version of the Nicene Creed (325 or 381) contains the word "person," in the singular or in the plural.

Are there any extant writings that came out of, or are closely associated with, either the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD or the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD that explicitly state that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "persons," or that each of them individually is a "person"?

Later theologians view the Nicene Creed as affirming that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are persons of God. However, the creed itself does not actually state that they are persons.

Is there any documentary evidence from the time that the creed was formulated in 325 AD, or from the time that it was revised in 381 AD, that the writers of the creed meant it to be read as saying that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each individually persons of God?

I am especially looking for explicit language to that effect rather than language that could merely be interpreted to mean that their intent was to affirm that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "persons."

As a contrast and an example of what I am looking for, the Athanasian Creed explicitly identifies Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as persons of God:

  And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. (italics added)

The origin and authorship of the Athanasian Creed are disputed, but it was almost certainly composed centuries after the Nicene Creed.

Yes. I have been able to find two letters, one related to the calling of the Council of Nicea and the other related to the judgment of the Council of Constantinople, where the word "persons" is used to describe the relations within the Godhead.

Council of Nicea (325)

First, some background. Alexander of Alexandria's conflict with Arius was the impetus for the council, as described by Khaled Anatolios in Retrieving Nicaea (page 42):

  Arius and Alexander could not reconcile their differences over how to conceive the relation between the Father and the Son, however, and Arius was excommunicated from the Egyptian church sometime in the early 320s. Both Arius and Alexander appealed to surrounding bishops for support, and in response to the expanding controversy, the emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325.

One of Alexander's appeals mentioned above, a 324  letter to fellow bishop Alexander of Constantinople explicitly affirmed the personhood of the Son and implied the personhood of the Father:

  But that the Son of God was not made "from things which are not," and that there was no "time when He was not," the evangelist John sufficiently shows, when he thus writes concerning Him: "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father." [John 1:18] For since that divine teacher intended to show that the Father and the Son are two things inseparable the one from the other, he spoke of Him as being in the bosom of the Father. Now that also the Word of God is not comprehended in the number of things that were created "from things which are not," the same John says, "All things were made by Him." For he set forth His proper personality [another translation says, "He also shows that he is a unique person"], saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made." [John 1:1-3]

Later in the same letter, he appears to affirm the personhood of both:

  "I and My Father are one," [John 10:30] which indeed the Lord says, not as proclaiming Himself to be the Father, nor to demonstrate that two persons are one; but that the Son of the Father most exactly preserves the expressed likeness of the Father.

Later still, he strongly implies the personhood of the Spirit:

  Besides the pious opinion concerning the Father and the Son, we confess to one Holy Spirit, as the divine Scriptures teach us; who has inaugurated both the holy men of the Old Testament, and the divine teachers of that which is called the New.

Council of Constantinople (381)

A letter written by the bishops gathered at Constantinople uses the term "persons" and affirms its consistency with the original Nicene Creed:

  What we have undergone -- persecutions, afflictions, imperial threats, cruelty from officials, and whatever other trial at the hands of heretics -- we have put up with for the sake of the gospel faith established by the 318 fathers at Nicaea in Bithynia. You, we and all who are not bent on subverting the word of the true faith should give this creed our approval. It is the most ancient and is consistent with our baptism. It tells us how to believe in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit: believing also, of course, that the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit have a single Godhead and power and substance, a dignity deserving the same honour and a co-eternal sovereignty, in three most perfect hypostases, or three perfect persons. So there is no place for Sabellius's diseased theory in which the hypostases are confused and thus their proper characteristics destroyed. Nor may the blasphemy of Eunomians and Arians and Pneumatomachi prevail.

The above translation of the bishops' letter is originally from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils by Norman Tanner. Read the relevant pages for yourself (hat-tip to Susan), which include the original Greek along with a Latin translation.

Terminology

In the letters quoted above, the word "person" is a translation of the Greek prosopon. R.P.C. Hanson explains in The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (pg. 183) that "for at least the first half of the period 318-381," which includes the time of the first council, "and in some cases considerably later, ousia and hypostasis are used as virtual synonyms." This led to Nicea's anathematization of those who say that the Father and the Son are "of a different hypostasis." It took the genius of the Cappadocian Fathers to standardize the terminology so that "the distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular," and therefore that hypostasis would become synonymous with prosopon.


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

Did Matthew the Tax Collector author the Gospel?

If not, did someone author the Gospel under Matthew the Tax Collector's name?

Or was the author an entirely different man named Matthew?

The gospel now known as Matthew's Gospel was originally anonymous. According to Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, Papias attributed a gospel to Matthew early in the second century, but some scholars are uncertain whether the gospel of which Papias spoke was the same gospel as is now widely attributed to Matthew.

As Matthew was a disciple of Jesus, we can at least determine whether our gospel was written  by an apostle by establishing whether it shows signs of having been written by an eyewitness to the events portrayed. The late second century Church Fathers not only decided that Matthew's Gospel was really written by Matthew himself, but that it was written in the Hebrew language, which would help establish apostolic authorship.

Modern scholars say that the gospel was definitely written in the Greek language, and that it could not have been written by an eyewitness to the events portrayed. Whenever quoting or alluding to the Old Testament, the gospel uses the Septuagint (LXX) and not the Hebrew text. When a Greek version is laid in parallel with Mark's Gospel and Luke's Gospel, it soon becomes apparent that both Matthew and Luke were substantially based on Mark, with Matthew copying some ninety per cent of Mark, often using exactly the same words in the Greek language.  Uta Ranke-Heinemann says in Putting Away Childish Things, page 218, it is incomprehensible that an eyewitness (the Apostle Matthew) would choose to depend so radically on a non-eyewitness (the author of Mark). She adds that the real author of Matthew is unknown.


New Wine and Old Wine I am curious about the connection Jesus makes between fasting and New Wine. Many people relate it to the idea of appropriateness. It just strikes me as an odd comparison.

To understand the link between fasting and the parables Jesus gave in answer in Mark 2:18-22 (ESV), we need to note that the Mosaic Law prescribed only one fast on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:29, 31).  However, the legalistic Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist were following the traditions of men.

Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And people came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”  And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.  No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.  And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.” (Mark 2:18-22 ESV)

The ESV Study Bible makes these comments:

Jesus refers to himself as the bridegroom, who in the O.T. was the Lord (cf. Isa. 62:5; Hos. 2:19-20).  While Jesus is present with his disciples, they are to rejoice; when he is taken away from them, then they will fast.
Just as new, ushrunk cloth cannot coexist with an old garment, the kingdom of God cannot be regarded merely as a patch over the regulations of the Mosaic law and extra-biblical traditions.  New wine vs. old wineskins illustrates the same truth – that Jesus brings a new era with new ways.

The reason it is inappropriate to put new wine into old wineskins is that the wine will burst the skins, destroying both the wine and the skins.
These two parables illustrate the fact that you can’t mix old religious rituals with new faith in Jesus. Jesus’ disciples were not fasting along with the Pharisees and John’s disciples because they were now under the new covenant of grace and faith in Christ.


What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the eternal destiny of individuals who die never hearing the Gospel? Many individuals die never having heard the Gospel. Some illustrative examples are: pretty much everyone who was born before Jesus, individuals contemporary to Jesus but who were too far away at the time to hear about him (e.g. Native Americans and all tribes from the Pre-Columbian era during the first and many subsequent centuries), isolated jungle tribes in Africa and the Amazon, and uncontacted peoples in general.
How do different denominations across Christianity view the problem of individuals dying without ever having heard the Gospel's salvation message? What is the biblical basis in each case?
Note that this is an overview question: answers must summarise the positions of several different major Christian branches, and if possible even some of the smaller ones as well.

What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the eternal destiny of individuals who die never hearing the Gospel?
Many peoples have as yet not been evangelized and are considered uncontacted people!
At first glance, this question is basically straight forward, but it does not address the question of infant baptism or infants that die without the grace of baptism or the souls that died prior to Our Lord’s  first coming. I think that these souls should also be included in those souls who die never hearing the Gospel.
Catholicism
To all of the Catholicism believes that salvation is possible in some circumstances.

Issue:
What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (extra ecclesiam nulla salus)?
Response:
All salvation comes through Jesus Christ, the one Savior of the world (cf. Acts 4:12). His Holy Spirit dispenses those graces through His body, the Church. "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk. 10:16).
Response:
All salvation comes through Jesus Christ, the one Savior of the world (cf. Acts 4:12). His Holy Spirit dispenses those graces through His body, the Church. "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk. 10:16).
Quoting from various documents of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 776) explains:
As sacrament, the Church is Christs instrument. She is taken up by Him also as the instrument for the salvation of all, the universal sacrament of salvation, by which Christ is at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of Gods love for men. The Church is the visible plan of Gods love for humanity, because God desires that the whole human race may become one People of God, form one Body of Christ, and be built up into one Temple of the Holy Spirit. Discussion: There are two principal errors when it comes to the Churchs teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Some reject this teaching as both incorrect and arrogant. Others interpret this statement to condemn all those who are not visibly united to the Roman Catholic Church. To properly understand this teaching, we must examine it within the context of divine Revelation and Church history. This examination will reveal that the phrase was not formulated to express who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, for only God will judge that. Rather, the phrase expresses an understanding of the Church in relation to her role in the salvation of the world.
Quoting from various documents of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 776) explains:
As sacrament, the Church is Christs instrument. She is taken up by Him also as the instrument for the salvation of all, the universal sacrament of salvation, by which Christ is at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of Gods love for men. The Church is the visible plan of Gods love for humanity, because God desires that the whole human race may become one People of God, form one Body of Christ, and be built up into one Temple of the Holy Spirit. Discussion: There are two principal errors when it comes to the Churchs teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Some reject this teaching as both incorrect and arrogant. Others interpret this statement to condemn all those who are not visibly united to the Roman Catholic Church. To properly understand this teaching, we must examine it within the context of divine Revelation and Church history. This examination will reveal that the phrase was not formulated to express who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, for only God will judge that. Rather, the phrase expresses an understanding of the Church in relation to her role in the salvation of the world.
Translation or Interpretation?
Many people translate the Latin phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus as "Outside the Church there is no salvation." This translation does not seem entirely faithful to the Latin meaning, and contributes to the misunderstanding of the phrase.
The Latin word "extra" is both an adverb and preposition. Depending on its use in a sentence, the word has different meanings. When used to describe spatial relations between objects, the word is translated as "beyond" or "outside of" (e.g., Beyond the creek is a tree; or, James is outside of the room). When used to describe abstract relations between concepts or intangible things, the word is commonly translated "without" (e.g., Without a method, it is difficult to teach). Within the phrase in question, extra is a preposition describing the abstract relationship of the Church to salvation. Considering the Latin nuances of the word, a proper translation would be, "Without the Church there is no salvation." This translation more accurately reflects the doctrinal meaning of the phrase.
Scriptural Foundations
In the Gospel of Mark, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the Eleven and gave them the commission, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk. 16:15-16).
In order to accept or reject the Gospel, each person must have it preached to him. If acceptance or rejection of the truth were based on private revelations given to each man, woman, and child, there would be no need for Christ to commission the Apostles to preach the Gospel. Jesus desired to reveal Himself through His body, the Church. While this passage condemns those who reject the truth, it does not condemn those who have not had the truth offered to them as Christ intends.
The New Testament clearly teaches that salvation is a gift offered by God in various ways to all men. Adam, Abel, and Enoch lived between the first sin and the covenant of Noah. They were bound by original sin. All are considered to be in heaven. Enoch did not even die, but was taken to God before death (Heb. 11:4-5). These men were neither baptized nor circumcised, but nonetheless saved.
When the gentile centurion came to Jesus in Capernaum and asked for the healing of his servant, Our Lord agreed to go to his home, but the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed" (Mt. 8:8). Jesus replied:
"Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from East and West and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth" (Mt. 8:10-13).
Jesus makes a clear distinction between those who are sons of the kingdom (that is, those who have knowledge of and accepted the faith) and those who are not. He includes in the kingdom of heaven many of those who are not. Jesus graces us with His incarnation, and His presence is known through His body, the Church. The Church carries on the work of Christ here on earth. Those to whom the Church has not preached the Good News will be judged by God in a manner known to God and tempered with His mercy. As St. Paul explains:
"When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my Gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" (Rom. 2:14-16).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear on this issue:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

Infants are incapable of belief, yet the door of salvation may still be open to them.
Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The entrusts infants born without baptism to the mercy of God.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

As regards the Christian theology about the fate of the unevangelized, there seems to be basically four possible solutions amongst believers. However, some of these positions are fraught with serious biblical and theological challenges.

Views on the Unevangelized

Universalism: This is the view that God will ultimately save all people through Christ’s sacrifice regardless of whether they believed, disbelieved, or had never heard the explicit gospel message itself.

Also called universal salvation, this position reflects what might be defined as an extreme optimism concerning the redemptive grace of God. Its defenders, though always a minority in church history,1 nevertheless insist that various biblical verses can be understood to support this viewpoint.
Universalism has been described, at minimum, as a “revisionist challenge to orthodoxy” (including Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant) because a version of the teaching was condemned as a heresy in church history.3 Historic Christian orthodoxy has rejected universalism because Scripture indicates that some peoplewill suffer eternal divine judgment because they have rejectedGod and specifically Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (for example, Matthew 25:32–33, 41, 46; John 3:36; Revelation 14:11).

Inclusivism: This view holds that people (among other religions and among the unevangelized) can be saved by responding favorably to God even if they have never heard of Christ. The Catholic theology of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) said people of good will who never hear of Christ could be saved by Christ as “anonymous Christians.”4 Thus, the unevangelized are not excluded merely because they have never heard the gospel. However, this view has been rejected by many traditional Christians because it fails to recognize the depth of sin’s bondage on the human will and the potential idolatrous thinking of non-Christians. Also, Scripture clearly teaches that salvation comes through hearing the explicit preached Word (Romans 10:17).

Exclusivism: This position is the traditional Christian view. It asserts that the unevangelized are apparently lost apart from hearing and responding affirmatively to the gospel message because they have sinned in Adam. Therefore, theyhave no right to divine grace but will be judged by the general revelation God has given to all human beings. At this point of tension, exclusivism must account for the Jews and holy pagans who were saved in the Old Testament before hearing about the explicit message of Jesus Christ. Moreover, there appear to be three versions of exclusivism:5

Restrictive exclusivism affirms that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation and therefore the unevangelized are definitely lost.
Pessimistic exclusivism affirms that while the fate of the unevangelized is not known with certainty, there is no clear evidence in Scripture that God will perform an extraordinary work of grace to reach the unevangelized apart from the normal means of the preached gospel. So the unevangelized are likely lost.
Nonrestrictive (optimistic) exclusivism affirms that while the fate of the unevangelized is not known, Scripture seems to indicate that God may reach out to those who haven’t heard the gospel in some extraordinary way (dreams, after-death tests, etc.).

Agnosticism: On this view humans can not definitively know the state of the unevangelized and their fate is God’s prerogative.

Protestant interpretation
The doctrine is upheld by many in the Protestant tradition. Martin Luther, the foremost leader of the Protestant Reformation, spoke of the necessity of belonging to the church (in the sense of what he saw as the true church) in order to be saved:

Therefore he who would find Christ must first find the Church. How should we know where Christ and his faith were, if we did not know where his believers are? And he who would know anything of Christ must not trust himself nor build a bridge to heaven by his own reason; but he must go to the Church, attend and ask her. Now the Church is not wood and stone, but the company of believing people; one must hold to them, and see how they believe, live and teach; they surely have Christ in their midst. For outside of the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation.

The Genevan reformer John Calvin, in his Reformation-era work Institutes of the Christian Religion, wrote: "beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for". Calvin wrote also that "those to whom He is a Father, the Church must also be a mother," echoing the words of the originator of the Latin phrase himself, Cyprian: "He can no longer have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother."
Reformed scholastics accepted the phrase so long as the church is recognized by the marks of the church, which they defined as proper administration of the Word and sacrament, rather than apostolic succession.
The idea is further affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 that "the visible Church ... is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." Despite this, it is not necessarily a commonly held belief within modern Protestantism, especially within evangelicalism and those denominations that believe in the autonomy of the local church. The dogma is related to the universal Protestant dogma that the church is the body of all believers, and debates within Protestantism usually center on the meaning of "church" (ecclesiam) and "apart" (extra). - Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

Orthodoxy
For the Orthodox, the question is in God’s hands and thus is an open question.

Regarding God’s mysterious work outside the Orthodox Church, we have nothing to say. We make no judgments about what God is doing there, or about what happens to the souls of those who are not Orthodox or not Christian on earth. It is all we can do to try to “work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). - Do All Non-Orthodox People Go to Hell?

Anglicanism

The idea is further affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 that "the visible Church ... is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." Despite this, it is not necessarily a commonly held belief within modern Protestantism, especially within evangelicalism and those denominations that believe in the autonomy of the local church. The dogma is related to the universal Protestant dogma that the church is the body of all believers, and debates within Protestantism usually center on the meaning of "church" (ecclesiam) and "apart" (extra).

Thus extraordinary means of salvation would be at God’s disposal.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Notable because baptism is seen as necessary for salvation, but individuals who die never hearing the gospel are not automatically condemned since before the Final Judgement / Resurrection, there is still opportunity in the after-life for hearing the gospel, accepting Christ, and receiving baptism by proxy.

Does everyone need to be baptized? Yes. Jesus made it clear that being
born of water and of the Spirit is necessary to enter the kingdom of
heaven (see John 3:1–13).
What happens to people who die without baptism? God has provided a way
for everyone to receive all of His blessings—even after death.
Baptisms and other essential ordinances can be performed on behalf of
those who have died without the opportunity. The Apostle Paul spoke of
baptism for the dead in the Bible (see 1 Corinthians 15:29) and
members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continue
that same practice in temples today.
Here’s how it works: Latter-day Saints study their family history to
discover names of people who have died without being baptized. Members
are then baptized on behalf of those ancestors in the temple. This
service for others is offered in love—and because life continues after
death, those who have died are aware of the ordinances and can choose
whether or not to accept them. Common questions

All in all it seems rather interesting that many denominations hold that they hold as saints those who are mentioned in Sacred Scriptures (Bible) as being a saint and thus saved, yet did not know Jesus Christ on a personal level!
Many Old Testament Figures are recognized a saints in various denominations. Obviously, they could not have believed in the Gospels of Jesus Christ.
When we enter eternity, there will be many surprises.


How does open theology interpret 1 Peter 1:2? How do followers of open theology (open theism)1 interpret 1 Peter 1:2 (KJV), in particular the emphasized part?

  Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

In what sense was God's plan carried out according to his foreknowledge, in open theology? Note that it is foreknowledge that is in focus of my question.

According to Wikipedia there are four branches of open theism:

  Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents ...
  Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable ...
  Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false ...
  Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they 'will' obtain or that they 'will not' obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they 'might and might not' obtain ...

So followers of either Nescience branch believes that while there is a definite future, God does not know it (either voluntarily or involuntarily). On the other hand, followers of either Omniscience branch believes that the future is not (fully) settled, but that God has perfect knowledge as far as it makes sense to talk about it.

Optimally, an answer would deal separately with each branch, or provide an answer that all branches support.

1 Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. (quoted from linked reference)

1 Peter 1:2 KJV  Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace,
be multiplied.

This not a reference to an individual salvation but the plan of salvation. Obviously, God had foreknowledge of his own plan which was through the "sanctification of the Spirit" which we obtain when we obeyed and believed on our Lord's sacrifice. So, God foreknew, foreordained, predestinated, that all who would believe on His Son would be saved.

I am not sure this is the right question to respond with a definition of the different theological positions on foreknowledge, but I will be looking for one.


How do Arminians reconcile free will with God's omnipotence logically? I just finished reading Mere Christianity and was blown away by some of the statements Lewis makes. He mentions "even [God] cannot produce [a changed heart]  by a mere act of power...It is something they can freely give Him or freely refuse Him ." (Mere Christianity Book 3 chapter 10)

This brought up an interesting point in my mind: if you believe in the idea of Free Will with regards to Salvation or a changed heart, you indirectly believe that there is something God cannot do. This directly contradicts the scriptures including Matthew 19:26 and Luke 1:37 ( as well as many others, see http://www.openbible.info/topics/omnipotence) that talk about Gods omnipotence.

I grew up in a Calvary Chapel church where Free will was pushed ad nauseum and I was wondering how these Christians as well as other Arminians reconcile free will with something God cannot do.

Because some things cannot be accomplished by the application of power.

Suppose I asked you to draw a 4-sided triangle. You would presumably reply that this is impossible, because a triangle by definition has only 3 sides. Suppose I then say, Well, what if you had 10 really strong men to help? Then could you do it? Of course the logical reply is that it doesn't matter how much strength or power is available. It is not a question of power, but of logical impossibility.

When we make statements like, "God can do anything", we don't mean that literally. At least, not if we are thinking logically. I remember when I was a kid another kid once asked our Sunday School teacher, "If God can do anything, then can God sin?" The teacher replied, "God does not want to sin." So the kid asked, "But could he sin if he wanted to?"

God cannot make 4-sided triangles. God cannot sin and remain holy. One could come up with many things that God cannot do because they are logical impossibilities, and no amount of power makes them possible because power is irrelevant.

Lest you say, "But the Bible says God can do anything" ... May I point out that the Bible itself says that words like "all" are not always intended absolutely literally. 1 Corinthians 15:27 (NIV), "Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him [Christ], it is clear that this does not include God himself". I presume when Paul wrote, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me", by "all" he did not mean that he could fly or see through walls ... or wave his hands in the air and magically cause everyone in the world to come to Christ.


Why did Adam and Eve not die after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? I just began reading the Bible.

In Genesis 2, it says

  And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden
  thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and
  evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof
  thou shalt surely die.

Why did they, ultimately, not die? Instead, God punishes them in some other way.

Adam and Eve Suffered Spiritual Death

The death of which God spoke, "on the day that thou eatest thereof," was the spiritual death of Adam and Eve. (Physical) Death entered the world by that act, too (Romans 5:12). Before they had rebelled against God, there was no death, in any form. But to make sense of God's command, it makes more sense (to me) for him to be speaking of spiritual death.

Perhaps one could say that this is not the death of which God appears to be speaking, but which death is more serious, the death of the body or the second death (Revelation 20:14)?

If we assume that the Scripture is true and consistent, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that God was not speaking of their immediate physical death, since death clearly entered the world on that day, and both Adam and Eve earned spiritual death (Romans 3:23).


What is the earliest non-Judeo-Christian reference to Jesus? I am looking for the earliest references to Jesus that are not Biblical. I am looking to identify historical documents unrelated to the Christian church (at the time of the writing).  On the Jewish site, I asked What are the earliest reference to Jesus (Yeishu hanotzri) in Jewish texts/records? but there does not seem to be any early records of him in official Jewish texts.

The question and answers at External reference of Jesus's resurrection? suggest the earliest references are around 111 AD, but the question is specific to one event, not the first reference(s).

The following information is from John Dickson's The Christ Files, which is available as both a book and a DVD.

There are several early records which are thought by many historians to refer to Jesus. Here are three of the earliest. With only a sentence or two, sometimes the identifications aren't perfectly clear, and some of them are debated. As with Josephus, some people also argue that some records have been later tampered with by Christians, but as these ones are hostile to Christianity, that seems unlikely.

Mara ben Serapion, a Syrian stoic, wrote shortly after AD 73:

  What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished ... Nor did the wise king die altogether; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.

This is one of the less clear ones, but there are few alternative identifications than Jesus.
Tacitus, a Roman historian (AD 56-120), wrote in Annals 15.44:

  Christians derived their name from a man called Christ, who, during the reign of Emperor Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate. The deadly superstition, thus checked for the moment, broke out afresh not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but also in the City of Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world meet and become popular.

Pliny the Younger wrote in AD 110 to ask Emperor Trajan whether he should continue executing Christians. He said:

  The sum total of their guilt or error was no more than the following. They had met regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as to a god. They also took an oath not for any crime, but to keep from theft, robbery and adultery, and not to break any promise.


What is the present attitude of the Church of England towards the 39 articles and the 33 Homilies? The Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England, together with the Thirty Three Homilies were, at one time, accepted as the authoritative statement of doctrine and practice within the Church of England congregations.

What is the present day situation? Can they be reliably quoted as that which the Church of England now preaches and practices?

The Canon Law of the Church of England, in point A2, states:

  The Thirty-nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.

These articles are actually printed at the back of the Book of Common Prayer, the official prayer book of the CoE.

Finally, whenever a bishop is ordained, the following declaration must be agreed (based on the Ordinal for Australia):

  The Anglican Church of Australia, being an Apostolic Church, receives and retains the Catholic
  faith, which is grounded in Holy Scripture and expressed in the Creeds, and within its own history, in the Thirty-Nine Articles, in The Book of Common Prayer and in the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
  In accordance with the Canons of this Church, I now require you to make your Declaration and
  Assent to this faith.

Now, regarding the Thirty Three Homilies, notice that Article XXXV of the 39 articles, as currently in use in the CoE, states:

  THE second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.

In bold is the text referring to the first and second Books of Homilies, containing 12 and 21 homilies respectively. That amounts to the 33 homilies, endorsed by the CoE as authoritative.


What was the specific trap being set for Jesus by the Pharisees in John 8? In the story of the woman caught in adultery, John indicates that the question of the Pharisees was a "trap".

  2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people
  gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of
  the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They
  made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this
  woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded
  us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this
  question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
  John 8:2-6 (NIV)

What specifically was the trap they were trying to get Jesus to fall into?

At this time in history Israel was under the rule of the Romans. The Jewish law required that a woman caught in adultery was to be stoned to death.

  Leviticus 20:10 NIV

  “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of
  his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to
  death.

But under Roman law a person could only be put to death by the judge, otherwise it was murder. Much like our law today. Christ did not have the "authority" as a man under Roman law to sentence anybody to death.

Thus, if Christ had answered that the woman was to be stoned He would have be breaking the Roman law. Not only this, but the act of stoning this woman would have gone against the mercy, grace and forgiveness that He had been preaching about.

But if He answered to let the woman go, then He would not have been upholding the Jewish law. Christ himself had been teaching the people that whoever loves God will obey God. So to not Stone this woman would mean that Christ was not in obedience to God, which is also a sin.


How is Jesus' will in union with the Father's? (Catholic perspective) I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in
you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you
have sent me. (John 17:21)
Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will,
but yours be done. (Luke 22:42)

In Luke we can see that Jesus' will was or could be different from the Father's. According to the Catholic Church, in what sense is Jesus' will united (the same) with that of God the Father? Or what is the Catholic interpretation regarding Jesus' remark, "yet not my will" if their will is fully united?

This is the question dealt with by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (the Third Council of Constantinople). The council addressed the heresy known as monothelitism. The heresy held that Jesus Christ only had one will.

The orthodox position was defined at that Council: Jesus Christ had two natures, human and divine; he also had two wills, human and divine. If there was no human will in Christ, the Incarnation would have been incomplete, as he would not have adopted everything that belongs to humanity (cf. Gregory of Nazianzus: "What is not assumed is not healed"). This is the logical outworking of Chalcedonian Christology (the idea that Christ is both human and divine).

The Catholic (and Orthodox, and Protestant) position is that the "not my will, but yours, be done" refers to the human will in Christ.

This is dealt with directly in the writings of Maximus the Confessor (I will try to find the citation), indirectly in the definition of the Sixth Council, and directly several times in the Summa Theologica of S. Thomas Aquinas (third part, question 18).


Should Genesis 1:2 be translated "And the earth became without form..."? The Gap theory seems to be based largely on translating Genesis 1:2 differently from the usual translations, eg. KJV:

  1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

  1:2 And the earth was became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Is this a sound translation? Why is was the more usual one?

The Hebrew verb "was" is in the Qal (indicative) perfect tense.   "Became" is a fanciful translation.  There's nothing wrong with fanciful translations and midrasch.  But it's probably best to avoid basing tonnage of doctrine on midrasch or fancy.

There is an ambiguity in Hebrew about past or future actions, but that crops up when the IMperfect tense is used, not the perfect.