What verified, uniquely Christian principles support scientific approach? In several books (incl. those written by atheists) there is the statement that Christianity gave a boost to science in the West. Allegedly, there are statements in the Christian teaching that promote scientific approach.

What are these statements in Christian literature (specific to Christianity, i. e. not appearing in other religions)?

I only have anecdotal (unconfirmed) evidence.

Example 1: One of the Christian thinkers (Thomas Acquinas?) stated that

God created the nature,
the nature works in an ordered way (i. e. is not chaotic), and
God does not micromanage most of the time (i. e. when he does, it's a miracle; at all other times nature works without divine intervention).

In other words: Gods creates a self-regulating system (like an ocean) once, then it works on its own in an ordered way.

From these statements it follows that it is possible to understand how nature works by finding out the laws that govern them (empirically finding out the nature of the order from step 2).

Example 2: Allegedly, one of the Russian priests once said that Christian teaching does not contradict the theory of evolution. The statement that God created the universe in seven days can be understood as a metaphor (like many parts of the Christian literature). These are not calendar days, but may last for billions of years.

I want to find publicly accessible, verifiable parts of the Christian teaching that support the scientific approach. I am not interested in cases where Christians made scientific discoveries or advanced the science in other ways. Rather, I want to know what parts of Christian literature formed their thinking and allowed to make those discoveries.

Ideally, these statements are peculiar to Christianity (i. e. are not part of Judaism) and do not appear in other religions. I want to find out whether or not the fact that science succeeded most in Christian countries can be attributed to the Christian doctrine (hence if some statement appears in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, it does not help validate the thesis).

Update 1 (2018-06-15): I will accept an answer that confirms or refutes the statement in example 1 above. That's a good starting point.

A couple things come to mind with this, and I will need time to get quotes and references.

First is the scientific method was founded and formulated by Catholic monks.  This is often attributed to several groups (some non Catholic and not monks) depending on the method and such.  I know it was in the 1600s that the scientific method was perpetuated.  It makes sense that some orders of monks had been doing the same thing for centuries before and continue to this day regarding rituals and routines and such.  There is a method to their reasoning. So it is conceivable that a group this dedicated to order and regiment that was tough such through the Bible and Christian teachings to only extend that in other things they do like studies and research.

Along those lines, the Catholic Church had most of the education institutions for a long time.  The education system as we know it is the foundation for research, sceintific  findings and process, deeper knowledge and more, which is established by the Catholic Church.  Before Christianity and in other non-christian countries you don't see the same education system by a long shot.  The overwhelming majority of private schools (college and grade schools) are Christian or were originally Christian.  They are often regarded as having better education standards and being more knowledge based and can somehow still compete with public schools at a college level from a financial standpoint.

My last thought is split into two, kinda.
First is that I know there were debates before Christianity and through Socrates, Plato and other philosophers those debates would become the foundation for some general thoughts.  This was also the case for early Christians, but with heresies and debates they needed to settle these disagreements and have one line of thought for some things.  The need to settle meant a different approach and a different finish than philosophers.
Also, the Catholic Church started the whole Devil's advocate thing.  To prove a deceased member was a saint would mean to prove beyond reasonable doubt and a Devil's advocate would help do just that.  The process wasn't democratic or a vote.  Rather it was a heated debate with someone saying the opposite or to "prove it" all the time.  If the debate didn't get past the devil's advocate phase, then the person was probably not a saint.  Those people who were devil's advocate were also very faithful and devout and often didn't necessarily believe in the counter points they made but wanted to push things forward and prove it.  We still see that today with devil's advocate and people trying to prove it beyond a doubt in order to practice science in any form.


According to Catholicism, does the depositum fidei include the proper interpretation of scriptures about Jesus? While walking on a road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, two disciples encountered a man whom they later recognized to be the risen Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ then, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded (διηρμήνευεν) to them the things about himself in all the scriptures."1

Furthermore, the disciples later said that the Lord Jesus Christ "...opened (διήνοιγεν) to us the scriptures."2 In addition, it is written that the Lord Jesus Christ "opened (διήνοιξεν) their understanding, so that they would understand the scriptures."3

According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the Lord Jesus Christ entrusted and delivered the faith (i.e., the depositum fidei) to his apostles whom later entrusted and delivered it to their successors, and so forth.

Accordingly, if the Lord Jesus Christ opened the understanding of his disciples (students) by thoroughly expouding the scriptures, wouldn't Jesus' disciples have likewise taught their disciples, and so forth? If so, wouldn't the bishops (apostolic successors to the apostles) in the Catholic Church also possess a thorough understanding of the scriptures about the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament? Would that be part of the depositum fidei?

Footnotes

1 Luke 24:27

2 Luke 24:32

3 Luke 24:45

Yes, absolutely.
The depositum fidei is the fullness of God's Word contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Christ has entrusted to the shepherds of God's people the task of interpreting His Word for the Church:

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.

(Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, article 10; emphasis added)
This teaching office, exercised in the name of Christ, is known as the Magisterium, and is part of the gift of the Word to Christ's Church. It is guided by the Holy Spirit to preserve it from error:

This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

(Dei Verbum, article 10)
To address your last question more specifically, yes, the Church (through its pastors, that is, the pope, the bishops, and the pastors of parishes) does teach authoritatively about the understanding and foreshadowing of Jesus Christ given us in the Old Testament:

The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this coming by prophecy (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:12). Now the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy. These same books, then, give expression to a lively sense of God, contain a store of sublime teachings about God, sound wisdom about human life, and a wonderful treasury of prayers, and in them the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way. Christians should receive them with reverence.
God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. For, though Christ established the new covenant in His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up into the proclamation of the Gospel, acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 14:16) and in turn shed light on it and explain it.

(Dei Verbum, articles 15–16; emphasis added)
The Church, as the authentic interpreter of all of Sacred Scripture, declares the true meaning of the Old as well the New Testament.


Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists? The title is a bit tongue in cheek, but according to Christianity, is it necessarily right to have to make arguments starting from atheism? It seems obvious to me that God exists. However, in both causal arguments, or public policy, this seems the default position ingrained in our culture and to make an argument otherwise is ridiculed.

Is this a legitimate premise (that atheism is the default position) to reason from? I think not, but what are the arguments against it? With what methods of reasoning does Christianity approach this issue?

Christian apologetics often employ a form of presuppositional logic. In fact, the wikipedia page for Presupposition (philosophy) specifically addresses this issue:

  A variety of Christian apologetics, called presuppositional apologetics, argues that the existence or non-existence of God is the basic presupposition of all human thought, and that all men arrive at a worldview which is ultimately determined by the theology they presuppose. Evidence and arguments are only marshalled after the fact in an attempt to justify the theological assumptions already made.

It is difficult or impossible to coherently reason with someone who makes different presuppositions than you, and sometimes the best course is to first lay out your presuppositions. After you have a place to stand on, you can look back and defend those views.

The Biblical witness on this point is fairly straightforward. God exists. In addition to this testimony it claims that there is no possible excuse for men not knowing at least some basic facts about his identity.

  Romans 1:20-21 (ESV)
  20  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21  For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

After asserting in verse 20 that there is clear evidence in the world pointing to some attributes of God, verse 21 goes on to state that all men knew God and that it is through willfully not honoring him As God that they become unable to reason properly. Without a worldview informed by the presupposition that God exists, as well as certain attributes about him, men are unable to see clear reason.

The writer C.S. Lewis applies this idea to practical belief and frames it in layman's terms rather graphically when he wrote:

  "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

To Christian reason, no further proof of God's existence is required but that, knowing he does exist, we can finally make sense out of the world around us.


What substitutes for prayers for the Pope's intentions during sede vacante? One of the requirements one must meet to obtain an indulgence is to pray for the intentions of the pope. When there's no pope, what's the substitute? I guess it's the conclave and the next pope, but I don't know the exact rules on this.

It's not a prayer for the Pope; it's a prayer for the intention of the Pope.

From the Enchiridion of Indulgences issued on 29 June 1968:

  26. To acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill the following three conditions:

  • sacramental confession,
  • Eucharistic Communion,
  • and prayer for the
     intention of the Sovereign Pontiff.

  It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent.

  If the latter disposition is in any way less than perfect or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be partial only.

  29. The condition of praying for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff is fully satisfied by reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary; nevertheless, each one is free to recite any other prayer according to his piety and devotion.

Although certain functions of the Papacy are carried out during a vacancy under the Cardinal Camerlengo, there is no "Sovereign Pontiff".

Given that a prayer for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff cannot be properly fulfilled in a vacancy, it would appear that any indulgence will be partial only.


What is the biblical basis for specifically associating armageddon with fire from heaven? Imagine a bunch of people running from a city scared, the ground is cracking beneath their feet and fire is coming down from heaven. I'm sure you've seen the picture(s).

Traditionally we think "Armageddon!" with imagery such as this. Yet the only reference to Armageddon I'm aware of involves armies meeting together at the place called "Har-Magedon" to duke it out in one final war, which doesn't seem the same as "fire from heaven." Interestingly, within a paragraph of the Har-Magedon we see not fire coming from heaven, but ice!

On the other hand, Revelation mentions false prophets calling down fire from heaven! And false prophets are known to proclaim messages in our day regarding fire from heaven! Jesus of course condemned his disciples for even having the idea of calling down fire from heaven on a city. (Luke 9:54, 55)

So the question is: What is the biblical basis to say Armageddon has anything to do with fire from heaven?

The Biblical basis for the belief that fire will fall from heaven during the end times

For Christians that take some or all of Revelation literally, Revelation 20 covers the Battle of Armageddon and includes the following verse:

  They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
  Revelation 20:9 (NIV)

The wicked were just raised up and have assembled to make war with the people of God, the righteous who just ruled for a thousand years. But God destroys them with fire from heaven.

Revelation 8:6 - 9:6 contains quite a few portions that refer to the Earth, sky, and fire in interesting ways as well.

This section of Revelation covers the first five of seven Trumpets, which when sounded by the angels carrying them, horrible plague-like travesties befall the Earth and mankind.

  The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.
  Revelation 8:7 (NIV)

8:7 is probably the most definitive verse of them all. Very clearly, the verse says that hail, fire, and blood are "hurled down on the Earth", then a third of it is burned up.

  The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea.
  Revelation 8:8 (NIV)

Again, something involving fire is hurled at the Earth, specifically the sea in this case.

  The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water
  Revelation 8:10 (NIV)

This is a bit more ambiguous, but still, something on fire falls from the sky.

  The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark.
  Revelation 8:12

This doesn't speak about fire from heaven, but the Sun is 'a great fire in the heavens'. It is keeping with the theme of the previous three, involving fire and the sky.

  The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth.
  Revelation 9:1 (NIV)

Another star falls. People tend to imagine that including fire.

Who believes this?

The Christians who would believe there will be a literal fire from heaven falling to the Earth during or around the Battle of Armageddon are mostly the ones whose eschatology is a very short, premillennial, LaHaye style tribulation. Revelation 13:13 and 20:9, however, could be taken by pretty much any literalist. The Seventh Day Adventists are the first that come to my mind (SDA eschatology is unique and very interesting.)

There's quite a few issues with that belief, but that is outside of the scope of this question.

Sources

The Old Testament includes a lot of Holy Fire too.
Some believe there will be meteors and comets that make this fire.
Here's a random blogger who takes this interpretation.
Another random blogger.

A similar event

Less about the same thing, the Beast from the Earth purportedly makes great signs to show its power. Fire from heaven is one of them:

  And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people.
  Revelation 13:13 (NIV)

If I took this literally, I would envision fire in small quantities coming down and lighting a pile of wood, much like Elijah did. That's different than a sort of cosmic event like you were describing, but similar enough that it is worth mentioning.


Jesus marks on Paul's body I don't understand quite well Galatians 6:17.  What are Jesus marks on Paul's body?   Does he want to talk about his strips after being beaten up for the gospel or spiritual marks?  Do we believers also bear the same marks and what are they exactly?

  From now on, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. (Galatians 6:17)

The "marks of Jesus" refer to the whippings on Paul that had also been applied to Christ.

The Law commanded that a trouble maker be beaten or whipped not more than 40 times.

  Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.
  Deut 25:3

This punishment was applied to Christ.

  And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
  Mar 15:15

So too were 39 lashes applied to Paul.  They applied 1 less than 40 lest they accidentally break their Law.

  From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
  Gal 6:17

This apparently aligns to Luke's recording in Acts.

  And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely:
  Acts 16:23

From Christ's point of view, this is a witness against them.

  But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
  Mar 13:9

So, Paul was preaching the Gospel and was punished like Christ for doing so, having the same marks.


Why were Anabaptists called Anabaptists? Anabaptism, according to the OED, means "a second baptism, re-baptism", but the answer to this question says that Anabaptists only baptize once. Why were Anabaptists called Anabaptists, then?

Anabaptists do not consider themselves to be 'rebaptizers'. Their view is that baptism is only valid if it is done as a result of a personal faith and particularly they consider that baptisms of people too young to understand what is happening are invalid. Their members are required to be baptized as adults (or at least to be 'of an an age of understanding').

The start of the Anabaptist movement was at a time when virtually everyone would have been baptized as an infant. Anabaptists would require members to be baptized 'again' (as an adult), not because they believe two baptisms are required but because they believe the first (as an infant) was invalid. Similar situations happen fairly frequently today.

The name 'anabaptist' (rebaptizers) was applied to the group by detractors, who would have considered infant baptism valid and seen the Anabaptists as baptizing 'a second time'. Members of the groups came to accept the name, and use it to this day.

See: http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-28/1525-anabaptist-movement-begins.html


Old Roman Catholic Bibles having indulgence charts? I just listened to a podcast of an Orthodox priest talking about his conversion into the Eastern Orthodox church. He mentioned something about how he once courted an irish Catholic girl who had a big old coffee table Bible from the early 1900's. In the front of the bible there was a chart for how to obtain specific indulgences for specific amounts of "time" in purgatory.

As a grandson of Vatican II, I've always understood purgatory as a process and not a place.

Benedict XVI does an amazing job of clearing up misconceptions.

At any rate, I am curious as to whether or not these "indulgence charts for time reduction in purgatory" were ever actually inserted into catholic bibles...obviously erroneously?

I would prefer answers from Catholics...or non-Catholics who are very knowledgeable about this, rather than anti-Catholic exaggerationalist.

I would imagine that the Orthodox priest, his interlocutor, or both, misinterpreted what they were seeing.

As you know, the Church has a concept of "partial indulgence", historically often associated with a specific amount of time. The intention, as I understand it, is that gaining the indulgence corresponds not to that amount of time off Purgatory, but to a remission equivalent to what one would get from performing "old-school" penance for that duration. In effect, the counts in days and years are units of measure of the penance that is being done, not the results. I have also seen indulgence lists where the measure was given not in terms of time, but something like "all the remissions one would gain if one were to make a pilgrimage to the shrine of St Genericus in Exampleton".

Lists of indulgences have been published for a long time. There are books that reproduce every prayer, etc., in full detail. I have also seen leaflets and prayer cards which give very abbreviated reminders, like "Benedictus qui venit - 500 days". The big books will obviously include much more explanation of the doctrine. If summaries of this kind were printed in a Bible, or a devotional book other than a Bible, in early 1900s Ireland, I'd assume that such a book would only be produced with the nihil obstat and imprimatur of the local bishop. That approval would certainly be required from the perspective of the Church, and anyone producing a book for Catholics in Ireland would be pretty motivated to follow the rules. I don't know what process is required for more ephemeral materials, but in that case it's certainly more likely that someone would just print the thing on their own account.

Therefore, I think that any official list of this kind would not be intended to refer to "time off Purgatory". That does not stop it being read that way, especially if it's one of the highly abbreviated reminder lists. I imagine that this sort of confusion lies behind the abolition of temporal measures for partial indulgences (Paul VI, Indulgentiarum Doctrina, 1967; section 12 and norm 5).

In this case, I suspect that the "list" may not have been an actual list, but just a reproduction of the specific indulgences related to the reading of Scripture. I have found a few Catholic Bibles on Google Books which include this text; for example, a 1914 Douay-Rheims Bible from the USA. After the approbations by three American cardinals, and before the preface and table of contents, there is a single page with the following text:

  An indulgence of three hundred days is granted to all the Faithful who read the Holy Gospels at least a quarter of an hour. A Plenary Indulgence under the usual conditions is granted once a month for the daily reading. 13 December, 1898. LEO XIII.

This reference must be to the edition of Enchiridion indulgentiarum, the official indulgence manual, published on that date. There is no further explanation of the doctrine of indulgences, the "usual conditions", and so forth. It is followed by a 1778 letter of Pius VI commending the translation of the Bible into the vulgar tongue, and a suggested prayer for the reading of Scripture.

It seems quite likely to me that the Bible in question was one like this, and the reference to "three hundred days" - in the absence of any text explaining the doctrine - was misinterpreted by the readers.


Looking for references from the early Church Fathers on Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: [Galatians 3:13, KJV]

...As it relates to a Luther(esque) view of justification... which largely hinges on this verse.
 I have found some good stuff from John Chrysostom, but besides that, I am having a difficult time.

Clement of Rome and Polycarp are the earliest church fathers and are known as the Apostolic Fathers.  After them came Irenaeus, Ignatius and Justin Martyr, the Ante-Nicene Fathers (pre 325 A.D.)  Clement’s first letter to the Corinthians (circa 96 A.D.) makes reference to several canonical books including Genesis, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 Corinthians and Philippians.
Although I could not find a specific reference to Galatians 3:13, in 1 Clement 32:4 there is possibly one of the earliest patristic references to the biblical doctrine of justification through faith alone:

1 Clem 32:4: And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.  Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

I hope this may be of some use to you.


Is there something in Sirach that caused it to be considered Apocrypha? My limited research on the topic suggests the only reason Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus or Ben Sira, etc.) was put in the Apocrypha was because the Jewish canon excluded it.  As for why the Jewish canon did not include it, I couldn't find any reasoning that involved the content of the book.

Is there something theologically problematic in Sirach that prevents it from being classified as Scripture (from a Protestant view)?

William Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture is a classic Reformation-era work that goes into great depth regarding the reasons that the apocrypha were rejected.  He deals with Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) beginning on page 90.

He begins by arguing that the "common" reasons for rejecting the apocrypha also apply to this book, such as not being part of the Jewish canon, lack of early acceptance, and a lack of an original Hebrew version.  He also notes a number of deficiencies, such as the author seeking pardon for his translation:

  He asks pardon, if he should seem in some places to fail of an adequate power of expression. By all which he sufficiently proves that he is neither a prophet nor endowed with a prophetic spirit.  For the Holy Spirit asks pardon of no one, hesitates not in the choice of words, and ever reaches the mark he aims at.

But Whitaker focuses on the book's explanation of the events of 1 Samuel 28, in which Saul, following Samuel's death, goes to a medium in an attempt to speak to Samuel's spirit.  Sirach 46:20 reads:

  Even after he had fallen asleep, he prophesied
      and made known to the king his death,
  and lifted up his voice from the ground
      in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people. (NRSV)

Whitaker contends that "the souls of the saints cannot be evoked by magical arts or incantations," and notes that in several places Augustine argued that Saul rather spoke with a mere "phantom and imaginary illusion produced by diabolical devices."  Thus Sirach 46:20 is in error and cannot be scripture.

Other Protestants have raised issues with other portions of the text, such as Sirach 15's discussion of free will. E. J. Young also writes:

  Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon inculcate a morality based upon
  expediency. [...] Ecclesiasticus teaches that the giving of alms
  makes atonement for sin (3:30). ("The Canon of the Old Testament" in Revelation and the Bible Contemporary Evangelical Thought)

It's not clear to me, however, if such issues with the text were raised during the Reformation.  Martin Luther did deal with Sirach 15 is his Bondage of the Will, and, though not accepting the book as canonical, nonetheless contended that it did not say what Erasmus argued. (see §46ff. of Bondage of the Will, and The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West, 584 for a summary)

So we can safely conclude that while Sirach was excluded primarily for the more general reasons the apocrypha was rejected, it was nonetheless found to have at least some theological issues in itself.


Why does a priest say "The Lord Be With You” and a bishop say "Peace Be With You" as a liturgical greeting? One option for the liturgical greeting at the beginning of the Mass is:

Priest: The Lord be with you.
[or Bishop: Peace be with you.]
All: And with your spirit.

The phrase "The Lord be with you /  And with your spirit." is used in other parts of the Mass too without that difference.

Where does this difference between bishop and "ordinary" priest come from?
Are there theological and/or historical reasons?

In the context of liturgy (in the beginning of Mass), only the bishop is allowed to say “Peace be with you” in the beginning of Mass. As to why it is so, we can speculate that it’s likely because the bishop has the fullness of the priesthood, and thus being so like Christ in his office, he is thus authorized to say it. I have yet to pore into the rubrics to be sure.

As far as scripture goes, the salutation is from Ruth 2:4 and 2 Chronicles 15:2 in the Vulgate.

In Ruth, the phrase appears in the sentence, "Et ecce ipse veniebat de Bethlehem dixitque messoribus: 'Dominus vobiscum'. Qui responderunt ei: 'Benedicat tibi Dominus'." ("[Boaz himself] came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters, 'The Lord be with you!' and they replied, 'The Lord bless you!'").

II Chronicles recounts that Azariah said, "Audite me, Asa et omnis Iuda et Beniamin! Dominus vobiscum, quia fuistis cum eo. Si quaesieritis eum, invenietur a vobis; si autem dereliqueritis eum, derelinquet vos." ("Hear me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin! The LORD is with you when you are with him, and if you seek him he will be present to you; but if you abandon him, he will abandon you.")

The phrase additionally appears in Numbers 14:42: "Nolite ascendere: non enim est Dominus vobiscum: ne corruatis coram inimicis vestris.”

It is also a clear instruction from the Liturgiam authenticam (De usu linguarum popularium in libris liturgiae Romanae edendis) dated 28 March 2001. The document instructs the requirement that translations of the liturgical texts from the official Latin originals, or Sacred Scripture from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek must be:

  Insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.

More into speculating why only bishops are authorized to say Pax Vobiscum:

  Pax vobis (or pax vobiscum) are the words Our Lord used in John 20:21 to give peace to his apostles and to send them out to give His peace to others. It seems initially to have been used only by the Pope, a usage transfer to the bishops in the middle ages, as more or more areas of the West adopted the "pontifical" Mass. The Missal of bishops is called the Pontifical Missal to this day. This greeting seems appropriate to the Pope and the bishops, as the successors of the apostles.

Pax Vobiscum reserved to bishops


What is The Second book of Homilies mentioned in the Anglican 39 articles of faith? In the 39 articles of faith, article 35 says the following:

  XXXV. Of the Homilies.  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. (Articles of Religion)

It then goes on to list the name of the homilies.

What is "The Second Book of Homilies" that it is referring to?

As per Wkipedia, the Second Book of Homilies is a book of twenty-one sermons written mainly by Bishop John Jewel and published in 1571.

  Thomas Cranmer and other English reformers saw the need for local congregations to be taught Christian theology and practice. Before the English Reformation, the liturgy was conducted entirely in Latin, to which the common people listened passively [...]. Since parsons, vicars and curates often lacked the education and experience needed to write sermons and were often unfamiliar with Reformed doctrine, scholars and bishops wrote out a collection of sermons for them, which were appointed to be read each Sunday and holy day.

In short they were an exposition of Anglican doctrine intended for the general congregation. They are no longer read out, largely because Anglican clergy no longer "lack the education and experience needed to write sermons" and are not "often unfamiliar with [Anglican] doctrine".


How do Young Earth Creationists explain the teeth of animals if there was no death before the fall? Before the fall of man, did lions and tigers and other sharp-toothed animals have the flesh eating type of teeth? After looking at their teeth structure it seems that their teeth would have a terrible design to eat only plants and herbs. I know the bible doesn't address this but I was wondering how this can be explained if one's theology leaves animals with carnivorous teeth, but no desire to eat carnivorously.

The explanation is quite simple. They had the same teeth, but they ate plants. Whether they struggled to eat plants is another question and mostly opinion based.

Generally, Young Earth Creationists when challenged with this point, will note that there are examples of animals with carnivorous teeth, yet they are herbivorous.

The most common example is the Panda Bear. The Panda clearly has very sharp, carnivorous teeth. But anyone who knows a little about the species knows that it is fully herbivorous and consumes almost exclusively bamboo. Consider this article from Answers in Genesis for reference.

There are other examples often given as well, including fruit bats, crocodiles and piranha.

They will sometimes point to curious cases, like a lion eating only vegetables throughout its life, yet being in full health and living an average lifespan.

As a final reference, consider this very typical YEC theology regarding the "impossibility" that death existed before the fall. In my opinion, this is the driving force for YEC's to keep their ground and literal interpretation of Genesis' creation story. If there was death before the fall, then the whole of Christianity no longer makes sense or has any value.

The Bible itself seems to be quite silent on the issue, save for Genesis 1:30, where God gives all the animals "every green plant for food". However, regarding what humans may or did eat is discussed quite a bit. See: What does the Bible say about vegetarian diets?


Godparents in Protestantism Without infant Baptism, do Protestants have godparents?

Furthermore, are there any traditions common to most Protestant denominations concerning who should see to it that a child is raised in the Faith in lieu of the parents?

Protestantism is too big and diverse to so make any sweeping statements about it.  According to Wikipedia, Lutheran, Anglican, and some Calvinist churches still have godparents.  Generally, if a denomination still practices infant baptism, its more likely to also have formalized godparent roles.  (Of course, Orthodox and Catholic churches retain the role.)

However, in my experience, most protestant denominations do not regularly include the formal godparent relationship.  Once in a while, I've seen family friends stand with the parents at an infant dedication, but it's more of an ad hoc sort of deal.  Instead, as I mentioned in a related answer, the entire congregation commits itself to assisting the natural parents in raising children.

But as vsz mentions in the comments:

  It depends. In my region most Protestants are Calvinists, and being a godparent is a very important role that binds the two families together, not just an "ad hoc" act.

The Reformation was such a complicated mixture of cultural, religious, intellectual, and national conflicts that making sweeping generalizations rarely covers all the bases.

From the perspective of a parent, I've found that many people in our church have legitimately taken a hand in training our son both spiritually and naturally.  And as a member of the congregation, I take my commitment to other people's children seriously whether they have been formally dedicated or not.  My wife and I would rather be rebuked for overstepping the boundaries (we have been) than to allow our friend's children to lack outside, Christian, adult interactions.

Many Christian parents organically seek out others who serve many of the same functions of godparents.  Some don't.  There's a risk of a congregation not responding to cries for help because of the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility.  Perhaps re-instituting the godparent relationship will help.


What version of the bible do Greek speaking Christians use? Do Greek speaking Christians still use the Septuagint and original New Testament text? Or do they have a "modern Greek translation"? I ask because the New Testament is 2000 years old, presumably the Greek language has changed and evolved a lot in that time and so the original NT might not even be understandable to a modern Greek speaker.

I'm interested in what Greek speaking Christians use in general (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant), but I'm also very interested in the Greek Orthodox church in particular. I'm curious what version of the scriptures they draw upon in their liturgy: the originals? or a modern paraphrase/translation?

The language has certainly changed. As such, translations into modern Greek are used.
Today's Greek Bible is often used, and translations by the Hellenic Bible Society have the Blessing and Approval of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Holy Synod of the Greek Church and the Patriarchates. There are other translations of the Bible into modern Greek, and it must be noted that the underlying manuscript(s) used vary just as they do in English translations, but perhaps more so because of Greek Orthodox distinctions. Going beyond this into the realm of what every Christian group in Greece prefers is too broad. Given that Eastern Orthodoxy is the predominant Greek religion, I've stuck to this.
The history of translating the Bible into modern Greek is fascinating and filled with lots of controversy, but such a review is beyond the scope of this answer. I refer you to this Wikipedia article for some additional context, but it is quite biased and often unsourced. The Greek version has a list of translations.
The type of Greek used in Divine Liturgy varies by jurisdiction and local conventions. Increasingly, Greek Orthodox churches use the predominant language of the country where services are held. Where Divine Liturgy is in Greek, it is often a mixture of modern and biblical (Koine) Greek (similar to how English-speaking churches retain some archaic English phrases in their liturgies).


What are the reported effects of a pilgrimage to Saint James of Compostela? In Catholic traditions, pilgrimages are sometimes undertaken with a view that specific effects may adhere to the pilgrim.  For St. James of Compostela, are there specific traditions about what a pilgrimage to this site in particular can expect to happen that would be different from other pilgrimages?

Though not as holy as Rome or Jerusalem, the Cathedral of Santiago, believed to be the resting place of St. James, did confer special status.

Specifically:

Pilgrims who completed the journey in a Jubilee Year were often given a plenary indulgence, forgiving them of the (earthly) consequences of a crime.

Additionally:

  There is still a tradition in Flanders of pardoning and releasing one prisoner every year under the condition that this prisoner walks to Santiago wearing a heavy backpack, accompanied by a guard. (from Wikipedia)


Praying to people outside the Trinity I understand that the Roman Catholic church direct some prayers to Mary, the mother of Jesus. For me it would be strange to address my prayers to anyone outside the Holy Trinity. Do Catholics pray to any other individuals other than God?

Is praying 'to' individuals other than God widely practiced in any other denomination? If so, who do they pray to and why?

The phrase "pray to" confuses most people as it gives the impression that anyone who asks a saint to "pray for" them is actually praying to the saint as if he/she was God.  This isn't true and is probably an artifact of language.

The word "pray" also has the meaning to "make an earnest petition" so Catholics, and, I think, other Christians, call upon any saint, past or present, to pray for us.

Just as I might ask my friends to pray for me I might also ask a saint in Heaven to pray for me.


Have any Orthodox clergy expressed a belief in an impending doomsday/judgment? For a few months now, I have been receiving unsolicited letters, pamphlets, and bulletins regarding the 'end times', 'coming prophetic storm', 'God's impending judgement', etc.

I have family members who are extremely concerned about Jonathan Cahn's bloodmoon judgement literature (he says the four recent lunar eclipses are a sign from God telling us something crazy is about to happen, I can't distinguish this from astrology).

It seems that a significant percentage of the Protestant church in America believes God will produce some type of upheaval, whether it's the Second Coming or a smaller-scale judgement event, very shortly. Have any Orthodox priests or deacons expressed this belief?

What @Adam Heeg said.

Matthew 24 is Jesus' description of things to pass before the end times (Ex: [verse 7] "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.").

But these are things that have been happening for a very long time.

And that same chapter (verses 35 - 37) states we won't know until it actually happens: "[35] Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. [36] But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. [37] But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

The point is to be presently alert and keep your soul prepared by doing things in the now that God commanded us to do.

BTW, Orthodox Priests do not read from Revelation as part of the yearly Liturgical readings.  Nor do they discuss their own interpretations of it or "end times" in their homilies (sermons).  Though Revelation may be quoted, or groups may have a bible study on it.


What was the literal meaning of the term 'stone rejected by builders'? Matthew 21:42 (NASB) says:

  Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone
  which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone; This
  came about from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

I am curious to know the literal meaning of the expression, 'The stone which the builders rejected '. I wish to know what  qualities of the stone would be tested by the  masons of Jesus' time in order to assess its suitability for being used for construction. Which were the implements that enabled the testing ?

Views of any denomiation are welcome.

While this is not a biblical source, according to an article on the Freemason website yorkriteofcalifornia.org,

Foundation Stones, Cornerstone Ceremonies and other Masonic Stones

Submitted by Jerrold A. Wohlfarth
Grand High Priest 2007/2008
Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of California

the following is said of a cornerstone in ancient times:

"We know that the cornerstone, or foundation stone, of an edifice in ancient times was a perfectly squared stone from which the remainder of the building could be plumbed, squared and leveled. It provided the builder a point of departure, or reference, which insured that the structure would be properly built. If the first stone, the foundation stone, or cornerstone was not plumb, square, and level, the error would become more and more exaggerated the further the builder went from that corner stone. We know that examination of still standing structures built in ancient times disclose the perfection and exactness required of the stonemasons who constructed the buildings of the time. The stones had to be perfect."

While this does not say anything about the composition of the stone it does address it's attributes and Masons would certainly be a good source of information.


How should Selah be read? Many of the Psalms feature the word "selah" which as I understand is a musical or liturgical term.  When the Psalms are read aloud, how should selah be uttered?  I've heard it both said aloud, or left as a pause for empahsis.

Roger Ellsworth in "Opening Up the Psalms" says not to pronounce the word:

The word ‘Selah’ appears seventy-four times in forty psalms. This word signifies a pause or interlude. It may have been used to inform musicians to change instruments or to call for both musicians and listeners to ponder the truth that had been sung. In the public reading of the psalms, we honour each ‘Selah’, not by actually saying the word, but rather by pausing.

The Believers Church Bible Commentary has a really good summary.  Key points:

The original meaning has been lost
It has been translated as "Interlude" or "Pause and Reflect"
It could be a voice signal for louder or raised - in any event, it would be like 'crescendo' or 'rotando' - some form of musical notation.
Martin Luther, in particular, thought this a signal for deeper meditation.

SELAH Selah (selâ), appearing 71 times in 39 psalms and three times in Habakkuk 3 as a marginal note, is likely a musical instruction. With few exceptions, the term is used in psalms that have titles. The majority of the titles identify the psalms containing Selah with David or the Levitical singers, and about 75 percent of the titles also make reference to the “musical director” or “choirmaster” [Superscriptions].
Translated “interlude” in the LXX, the original meaning is unclear. The three basic interpretations focus on the root sll “lift up”; slh “repetition”; and the Aramaic root ṣl’, “to bow” or “to pray.” Thus, interpreters have suggested that Selah might call for the instruments to enter, raise the pitch or volume, affirm what has been said, or serve as a breath marker.
In addition to suggestions that Selah might signal raising the voice, changing the voices, or increasing the volume, scholars have offered other possibilities. It could be a unit marker in some contexts, as in the paired Psalms 9 and 10. Selah appears at the ends of Psalm 9:16 and 20, marking off verses 17–20 as a unit, almost exactly in the center of the two psalms when they are read as one (Tate, 2004:410–11). Michael Goulder (103–5) has offered the suggestion that it means “recitative,” marking a pause at which there should be the recitation of a prayer or story from Israelite tradition (68:7, 19, 32). Martin Luther referred to Selah as a sign that we are to think more deeply and at greater length what the words to which it is attached mean to say. He called Selah “a punctuation mark of the Holy Spirit. Whenever we find it in the Psalter, the Holy Spirit wants us to pause and ponder; there he wants to touch and enkindle our heart for particularly deep meditation” (Luther, 1956:37).
References: Craigie, 2004:76–77; Goulder: 103–5; Luther, 1956:37; Tate, 2004:410–11.

Finally, The Eerdmann's Dictionary of the Bible points out:

The 'pause' translation came from the LXX.
Some scholars via Jerome have suggested it derives from "forever":

Selah (Heb. selâ)
Likely a musical or liturgical notation, occurring 71 times in 39 Psalms and 3 times in the psalm of Hab. 3. In the LXX Selah is rendered as Greek diápsalma (“pause in singing”), suggesting some type of caesura. According to the Targ., followed by Jerome, the term means “forever” or “everlasting.” Perhaps this was a directive to insert a benediction, refrain, or prayer collect at that point. Proposals based on etymology include “voice modulation,” “increase in volume,” “prostration,” and “prayer ritual.” Others have suggested that the consonants of Selah form an acronym for “voice modulation” or “repetition.”
Gerald M. Bilkes


Do Mormons consider participating in game shows to be gambling? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are opposed to gambling. From their official website:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is opposed to gambling, including lotteries sponsored by governments. Church leaders have encouraged Church members to join with others in opposing the legalization and government sponsorship of any form of gambling.
Gambling is motivated by a desire to get something for nothing. This desire is spiritually destructive. It leads participants away from the Savior's teachings of love and service and toward the selfishness of the adversary. It undermines the virtues of work and thrift and the desire to give honest effort in all we do.

This answer also states that the LDS Church will not accept monetary donations earned from gambling (although unfortunately that part is unsourced).
Is participating in a game show considered gambling? Does it matter if it is a trivia show, like Jeopardy!, or one with a great deal of random chance, like Deal or No Deal?
This question is inspired by Ken Jennings, who had a 75 game winning streak on Jeopardy! in 2004, and professes to be Mormon.
Related: What is the baptist view on "gambling" in scenarios like "Jeopardy!"?

No.

First I'll refer you to the Law SE which mentions that game shows are not gambling. Because technically game shows aren't gambling there doesn't seem to have been any doctrine from the LDS church on game shows.

In D&C 58:26 it says:

  26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Some LDS members may believe stronger beliefs on game shows, raffles, stock market, or house buying but there is no right answer for everyone. Each member and family can receive personal revelation for

  our specific personal needs, responsibilities, and questions and to help us strengthen our testimony.2

Several Mormons have participated in game shows besides Ken Jennings including

Donny Osmond, who hosted Pyramid
Ray Combs, who hosted Family Feud
Al Harrington, who appeared on To Tell the Truth
Daniel LeFevre, who won six figures on Millionaire1

1 http://www.ldsliving.com/Mormons-on-Game-Shows-5-Fun-Facts/s/79637?page=1#story-content

2 https://www.lds.org/topics/revelation?lang=eng


Where did the Petrine title of "First Among Equals" originate? Contrary to the Roman Catholic assertion that Peter and his successors are the Supreme Pontiff, the Orthodox Catholic Churches assert that Peter and his successors hold the honorary title of the First Among Equals.

When was the actual title of First Among Equals used to define the Petrine bishopric?

I'm curious as to whether the Orthodox Churches began asserting this title specifically after the Schism began to take shape, or if it was something that the Latin Church decided to reject that was there from the beginning.

I assume that your question is not about the exact usage or origin of the phrase First Among Equals rather the primacy of the bishop of Rome. i.e., The office of the bishop of Rome is considered preeminent.

The Orthodox Churches did not begin to assert this title after the Schism nor did the Catholic Church reject it after it. Both the churches always agreed that the bishop of Rome is first among the Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). The problem was on whether this primacy is just a honorary title or does it have functions/privileges attached to it (which is in and of itself a completely different question).

There has been many instances before the Schism which shows that the papal supremacy was an accepted fact.

"For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its more powerful preeminence that every other church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree, inasmuch as in this church the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who come from everywhere."  St. Irenaeus ("Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.)
The first bishop to claim primacy in writing was Pope Stephen I (254-257)
Where Peter is, There is the Church - St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan ("Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David" c. 389 A.D.)
"'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was founded' [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division."  St. Jerome ("Against Jovinian," c. 393 A.D.)
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church."   St. Augustine of Hippo ("Sermon 295," c. 411 A.D.)
Edicts of the Emperor Theodosius II and of Valentinian III proclaimed the Roman bishop as "Rector of the whole Church". The Emperor Justinian, who was living in the East in Constantinople, in the 6th century published a similar decree.
First Council of Constantinople decreed: "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.

They might have used different words, but neither the Catholic church nor the orthodox church has ever refused the primacy of the Bishop of Rome till today. They always considered him to be First Among Equals. It is whether this primacy has extra function is what is been questioned after the east-west schism.


Why are all angels masculine? Nowhere in the Bible are angels feminine.  If angels are messengers from God, why do these messengers always manifest themselves as masculine?  Is it because they assume the gender of their Divine dispatcher?

As far as I know, angels are different beings from us as they do not procreate. Matthew 22:29,30 says:

  Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of
      God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be
      like the angels in heaven.

Because they do not procreate, gender really is irrelevant.

EDIT: I will add; I believe that in the Bible they take the shape of a man, but as in human shape. We know not if this is a female or male shape. Just like in the Garden of Eden:

  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and
      female created he them.

So man can be used to refer to mankind, instead of just male.


How do you equate Christian teachings with certain worldly(non Christian) achievements/attitudes? So there are wars/conflicts raging on all around the world, that would be compatible with Biblical teachings, 'the lost worldly people, dead in sin and unable to do anything good' etc, I would assume.

However, how would a Christian teach(or view) about (so called) peaceful countries, for example, I am watching the Commonwealth games, I see fit and healthy looking athletes how seem humble, gracious, kind, etc.  I see hundreds(or thousands) in the crowd who all seem a peaceful, enthusiastic, applauding, mature audience. I see a system of authority and, I assume, morality, yet I would take a guess that maybe 3% maximum went to church or claimed to believe in God.

This is the same for many countries/events we see, so how do we equate this with, 'if you don't believe you will go to hell etc'. Especially with the Calvinistic theory that basically says that man can do no good(or very little) and is dead in sin, so how do we relate to the peaceful, educated, apparently moral people/crowds we see.

We see mankind build cities, create amazing scientific theories and devices that cure diseases, see all kinds of creative amazing things yet most of these people would not claim to believe in God.

Now I am not having a go, but how does this work...?

This question, as worded, might might not be best for this site, but I see an answerable question that can be answered by some of the most fundamental Christian thinking.

The question is essentially, "Why do Christians insist that everyone is a sinner even though a large portion of people are decent people?"

It is clear through out the Bible that everyone, even the most righteous, except Jesus Christ, were sinners as much as any other person, whether believers or not. Paul even plainly states it for us in Romans:

  There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
  Romans 3:23 (NIV)

"But they are good people. What difference does it make?"

The difference is in the standards between two parties. Not that Christians have better standards, practically speaking, or that they have a better understanding of morality than anyone else. The difference is even more fundamental than that. It is the difference in standards between all mankind and God Almighty. In Isaiah we read:

  “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    neither are your ways my ways,”
      declares the Lord.
  Isaiah 55:8 (NIV)

God has a righteousness that we can only hope to understand (Luke 18:19). It one of the reasons Christians praise Him. The Bible is filled with praises about His righteousness. We just cannot compare to His standards, even when we are doing our best.

Further, Genesis tells us that God made everything (the method being irrelevant to this point) and that when He was done, it was very good. God made everything and it was all good. James also tells us that every good thing comes from God:

  Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
  James 1:17 (NIV)

So, confidently, Christians insist that all mankind, past and present, are sinners.

To continue in the same thought, the question is now "Why do Christians think they go to Heaven?"

The same verses in Romans 3 plainly tell us (emphasis added):

  But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

God demonstrated his righteousness, His justice and judgement on all mankind, by sending Christ to the cross. Accepting that Jesus paid the price for your transgression is the central message of salvation that spares you from Hellfire.

God is truly merciful, as we see in the same verses in Isaiah 55 (emphasis added):

  Seek the Lord while he may be found;
      call on him while he is near.
    Let the wicked forsake their ways
      and the unrighteous their thoughts.
    Let them [the wicked] turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
      and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

Repent and turn from your evil ways and God will give you mercy. Accept the free gift of God, Christ's death on the cross, which pays your sin debt, and God will give you grace, eternal life in heaven (Romans 6:23).

This is the fundamental message that all Christians bring to the world.


How did Martin Luther see Israel? Did Luther think Israel and the Church were two different things? Did he believe in the promises made for Israel as a nation? Was he anti-Semitic when he reformed the church? Did he become one later?

Like most of his contemporaries, Luther understood the Jews to be evil.  Anti-semitism was common in that era and was unremarkable. Jews, as spawn of the Devil (and I'm purposely getting into character here, not espousing this!) were creatures to be pitied at best and disposed of when they got in the way.

The title of his book On Jews and Their Lies gives away his attitude on the subject.

To Luther, the fact that God had originally given the law to Jews was interesting, but irrelevant. Jews and Christians clearly came from the same place, but had diverged so long ago as to be irrelevant. Christ-Killer rhetoric was acceptable, and since error has no rights, there was no problem with putting them to death.

At best, Galatians 3:24 would have summarized the relationship:

  So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

Christ having come, the guardian was no longer necessary, and the people to whom the guardian was first introduce had clearly been forsaken by their maker, so no particular privilege was seen.  Jews were infidels and heretics on the level of Mohammedans.

A modern person, of course, would (or at least should!) be completely appalled at such a characterization. Tolerance was not a virtue in Luther's day, for the simple reason, it was unnecessary.  You were a Christian if you lived in Christendom. If you weren't, you were inviting God's wrath upon the community, were a degenerate and a rabble rouser, and you threatened the entire order of society and impaired its ability to look after its welfare.

Within that world view, however, Luther was remarkably open to seeing that anti-semitism was not their fault - rather it was the fault of the Catholic Church.  He wrote:

  If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian. They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and mockery...If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles

To be fair, however, the American concept of Individuality is much, much more modern and western thing.  It is a byproduct of modernization - and to judge Luther for it is anachronistic. It would be akin to judging Galen for supporting the concept of imbalances of the humors as the cause of disease. Knowledge changes over time, and Luther, like his contemporaries, simply had a worldview shaped by the lack of much outside of the Church.  In the same way Rome was pagan and the West is modern, Europe in the time of the Reformations was Christendom-focused.

Note: The nation of Israel did not exist as a political entity from 70AD until 1948.  Living in the early 1500s as he did, it was a long way in either direction.


Assuming the Book of Mormon is historically accurate, does this necessarily imply the Great Apostasy? Note I am asking this question as someone who has not actually read the Book of Mormon.

I guess my real question is, could I affirm the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon as a Catholic? But to explain the question title: One of the core convictions of the Catholic Church is that it is the one true church and the gates of hell will never prevail against it, which completely rules out the idea of a "Great Apostasy".

However one of the core tenets of Mormonism is that the church rapidly apostatised and become corrupt, and that the Mormon Church is a "restoration" of the pure, early church. This is obviously incompatible with the Catholic doctrine.

What I am wondering is, does assuming the historical accuracy of the BoM necessitate a belief in such a "Great Apostasy"? Is there anything written in there which compels such a belief? Or is this just something which is foisted upon the Mormon faithful by the church leadership?

If not, there would be a slim ecumenical possibility that one day the Catholic Church could recognise the BoM as historical, which would be an interesting development.

First, you should be aware that not all of Mormon doctrine, or even of the things that are generally considered "the stuff that makes Mormons unique among Christianity," is contained in the Book of Mormon.  A lot of it is found in the Doctrine and Covenants, a compilation of revelations and historical context from the early days of the modern-day church.

Having said that, the answer is yes.  2 Nephi chapter 28 describes the latter days, before the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the the church, as a time of universal apostasy, when "the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when the one shall say unto the other: Behold, I, I am the Lord’s; and the others shall say: I, I am the Lord’s; and thus shall every one say that hath built up churches, and not unto the Lord," and states "Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted."

Likewise, Mormon chapter 8 speaks of the same time period as a time of corrupted and apostate churches.

Also, even if such prophecies were not contained in the Book of Mormon, it seems that acceptance of the book implicitly requires acceptance of the concept of the Great Apostasy:

To accept the Book of Mormon necessarily requires accepting its origin: that it is an ancient record that was found and miraculously translated--by a farm boy with very little formal education--through the power of God.
To accept this requires accepting that Joseph Smith was called of God as a prophet, given the power to translate the record, and shown where it was located.
To accept this requires accepting his story of what happened, including the part where, when Joseph prayed to God to know which of the many churches of his day was the correct one that he should join,

  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Therefore, accepting the Book of Mormon necessarily implies accepting the Great Apostasy.


What is the biblical basis for defining 'atonement’ as 'at-one-ment with Christ'? I’m looking for answers from Protestant Trinitarians as this seems to be a fairly recent explanation, currently in vogue in some groups (mainly evangelical, I would suppose).
The basis for my query is the following scripture texts (all A.V.):

“And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” Romans 5:11
“And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year
with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year
shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations : it is
most holy unto the Lord. …when they give an offering unto the Lord, to
make an atonement for your souls, and thou shalt take the atonement
money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint if for the service
of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto
the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your
souls.” Exodus 30:10 & 15-16
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood : and I have given it to
you upon the altar to make an atonement for your soul : for it is the
blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” Leviticus 17:11

I note that modern translations use the word ‘atonement’ more frequently. However, I am not looking for simple agreement with what those texts say, or any subjective opinion as to what atonement means to individual Christians, but of what this one word, ‘atonement’ actually means, in context, and whether it could be misleading to say it means ‘at-one-ment’ (not least because that phrase of cobbled-together words explains nothing, in and of itself.)

I first came across the idea of “at-one-ment” with Christ after I become a Christian (as a mature adult).  It seemed a simple explanation but later I came to see it more as a ‘dumbed-down sound-bite’.  It conveyed the notion that, because Christ had done something, people could then become ‘one with Christ’.  Oh, but what danger lurked behind that view!  Christians are people who have died WITH Christ, for if that never happens, they can never be at one with him. 2 Timothy 2:11 says:

For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him. If we suffer, we shall also reign with him.

According to the ‘at-one-ment’ pseudo-explanation of the word ‘atonement’ the impression is given that because Christ has done something, we are sorted.  Jesus has done it all.  Well, so he has – he has achieved a finished work via the cross and we can do nothing to add to that completed salvation. But the danger lies in then thinking we can just verbally agree with the wonder of what Christ has done for us, thank God for it, and that’s us united with Christ.  Is it really such a passive matter for believers?  Is this not the sort of shallow thinking behind the notorious “Sinner’s Prayer”?
Over the five years I spent in a U.K. Baptist church I learned much more, and the depth of meaning behind the enormity of what is involved in reconciling sinners to God began to dawn.  That, however, did not nullify the fact that I had become a Christian at the outset.  It just took a while for me to appreciate the significance of what being crucified prior to being raised with Christ, meant. But the way some believers used dumbed-down sound-bite explanations really hindered my grasp of matters.
It took me a while to understand the significance of Romans 6 but a key point came from verses 8 to 12:

Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him…  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Let no sin therefore reign in your moral body. (NIV)

Jesus explained what is required of all Christians in Matthew 16:24-25:

If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

That was my ‘lightbulb moment’.  Verbally agreeing with the wonder of what Jesus did by dying on the cross was not my dying to sin.  That was not me disowning myself, picking up my cross daily, and losing my life for Christ’s sake in the process.  It had to get personal, not just be something done in the past by Christ which, two thousand years later, moved me intellectually or emotionally into a statement of verbal agreement.
My answer is that claiming biblical atonement means “at-one-ment with Christ” explains nothing and may even prevent sincere people grasping the enormity of what it means to enter into the death of Christ, which has to happen before we can be raised with Christ.


Offering Indulgences to the Poor souls in Purgatory Obviously this Question is strictly for Catholics.

When all conditions are met from those being granted an indulgence, particularly a plenary indulgence for the souls in Purgatory.  Is it necessary that the individual be named or can the indulgence be offered by mode of suffrage to an unknown soul suffering the punishments of forgiven sins?

I have been unable to find a source for this, so by default have assumed that the indulgence can be issued to the unknown soul.

A soul in purgatory is a soul in purgatory. No where does the Church define that an indulgence for particular soul in purgatory has to be named in order to receive an indulgence when we meet the requirements on their behalf. Thus the faithful may apply an indulgence to a particular member of their family, any soul in purgatory or even for the poorest soul in purgatory.

There are more ways to relieve the sufferings of the souls in purgatory than obtaining an indulgence in order to release them from their pains. Obtaining an indulgence for them is very common, especially during November. I was taught in the seminary that when we pray for a particular soul in purgatory and that that soul is no longer in need of our prayers that God will apply the merits to another soul in need. Prayer is never in vain.

  Visit a Cemetery

  An indulgence, applicable only to the Souls in Purgatory, is granted to the faithful, who devoutly visit a cemetery and pray for the departed. The indulgence is plenary each day from the 1st to the 8th of November; on other days of the year it is partial. Besides benefiting the Holy Souls, visiting a cemetery is a healthy reminder of our own mortality, realizing that we too will pass from this life to the next. - 5 Ways to pray for the Holy Souls in Purgatory

If the faithful can only gain one plenary indulgence for themselves once a day, it stands to reasons that a plenary indulgence for the faithful departed be applied to one soul also. The Church has a long standing tradition of offering Gregorian Masses for the souls in purgatory. These Masses are said for a particular soul (one) in purgatory which at the conclusion of the last Gregorian Mass that soul would be released from their sufferings in purgatory.

  Gregorian Masses

  During the 6th century, a deceased monk from St. Andrew’s Monastery in Rome (founded by St. Gregory) reportedly appeared to a friend and requested that 30 Masses be said to release his soul from purgatory. After the Masses were completed, the monk appeared again to declare he had entered heaven. Since that time, Catholics have continued the tradition of celebrating 30 consecutive Masses for one person to free his or her soul from purgatory. - Gregorian Masses

How can we obtain in indulgence?

  What is a plenary indulgence? It is the remission before God of all the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven. It can be obtained by those properly disposed under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church. The indulgence may be applied to the living or the dead.

  The plenary indulgence can be gained according to the following norms:

  1) A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day.

  2) After worthily celebrating sacramental confession, each member of the faithful can receive the gift of the plenary indulgence during a suitable time, even daily.

  3) The sacrament of penance and the Eucharist must be accompanied by prayer for the intentions of the Roman Pontiff and also by acts of charity and penance.

  4) Participation in the Eucharist should take place on the same day as the prescribed works are performed. - How to Gain the Jubilee Indulgence


What is the theological justification for believing in the real presence of Mary in the Eucharist? I stumbled across the wikipedia article for a sedevacantist, schismatic Catholic group called the Palmarian Catholic Church which states that this group

  has also declared the Real Presence of the Virgin Mary in the sacred host and the bodily assumption into heaven of St. Joseph to be dogmas of the Catholic faith

I don't really know whether I should be shocked, outraged, amused or curious, but I'll go with curious.

Would anyone happen to know the theological justification for the dogma of the Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist?

The short answer to your question is that   theological justification for believing in the real presence of Mary in the Eucharist would be by the same means that believing in pray to Mary and all the attributes (dispenser of all graces, power over all the angels, etc.) are justified, which is by extrapolation. Based upon the premise that  Mary "never left the side of Christ," then it is reasoned  that she  is present in the Eucharist with Christ, kneeling beside him. (http://www.wrldrels.org/articles/palmarian%20catholic%20church/palmarian%20catholic%20church..pdf)

The longer answer, and which tell more of the Palmarian sect, is that technically   the tiny  Palmarian sect is debatably not sedevacantist, since unlike them they accept the validity of Popes John 23 and Paul 6, and  have their own popes, starting with Gregory XVII,  who later admitted to sexual impropriety involving nuns  (George D. Chryssides, "Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements," p. 268) and left the church,  and living with his girl friend, said that due to investigation he came to  the conclusion that the Palmarian church was a set - up or a scam.  (magnuslundbergblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/the-papacy-of-gregory-xviii-final.pdf)

Which relates to your question, as the extensive researcher/author ("Fighting the Modern with the Virgin Mary) Magnus Lundberg  states concerning access to  texts in general,

"because of the increasingly closed nature of the church, it is not easy to get access to the texts and very little is found in research libraries. They have to be acquired in other, sometimes, complicated ways." (magnuslundberg.net/category/palmarian-catholic-church/page/3)

And rather than  being a group that is based upon the weight of Scripture and tradition,  they began as an Apparition group and get their marching orders and distinctive theology from this Mary. Which does not mean what their  adulation and they attributions they give to their Mary is far removed from what is seen uncensored in historical Catholicism, in which are found  statements such as that Mary is  an almost almighty being,  to whom Jesus owes His Precious Blood to, with the Eucharist being "bread produced by Mary from the flour of Her immaculate flesh, kneaded into dough with her virginal milk.” (catholictradition.org/Mary/virgin-eucharist.htm)

However,  Palmarian Church even went beyond this. Lundberg  finds,

Within weeks of its foundation in 1978 , the Palmarian Church would develop this body of articles of faith at a rapid pace. For t hem , the Virgin has come to have an almost e qual status with that of Christ. In short, it is a very Mario - centric theology. Among other things, the Virgin has been declared Co - mediatrix, Co - redemptrix and Co - reparatrix. None of these titles w as unknown in the Roman Catholic tradition, but they had not been made dogmas. Other Palmaria teachings, however, are less traditional.

According to Pope Gregory XVII, the soul of the Virgin was shaped before the creation of heaven and earth. In fact, it had existed in the mind of God eternally. Therefore, the pontiff declared Mary to be God's "companion" in the creation of the world, that she in fact was a co - creator ( PD 34; PKO , 5 , 11 )..

After this, the Palmarians took one further step in declaring that both Christ and the Virgin Mary are present in the Eucharist , as she never left the side of Christ. It is also stated that her presence in the Eucharist is in no was symbolical, but real. Not only the body and blood of Christ is present in the Eucharist, but also the Virgin, kneeling beside him. In one of the papal document this is explained in the following way: We teach as in fallible doctrine that - - - [s]he who is able by grace really and truly to suffer the Sacred Passion of Christ, also by grace is able to be present in the Sacred Eucharist, since, at no moment has Mary ever been, or will be, removed from her Son. (wrldrels.org/articles/palmarian%20catholic%20church/palmarian%20catholic%20church..pdf)

For those unfamiliar with Catholic Eucharistic theology, when the Catholic priest utters the words of consecration over the bread and wine then they lo longer exist, despite the physical evidence of them, for instead that have become the "real" body and blood of Christ that was crucified on the cross, which is consumed by believers in order to obtain spiritual life. Protestants reject this, usually holding to a metaphorical understanding.


According to Catholic Church, does John the Evangelist mention the same individual Jews at 8: 31 and 8:59? We read at Jn 8: 31:

Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples”

That is followed by a hot debate between the Jews and Jesus on sin, ancestry etc. Towards the end, they  pick up stones to throw at him, accusing him of blasphemy (Jn 8:59) .
One wonders whether John is describing the change of attitude of the same individual Jews whom he mentions as believers at 8:31 , towards the end of the chapter. My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, does John the Evangelist mention the same individual Jews at 8: 31 and 8:59?

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., commentates that they were different:

Ver. 59.—Then they took up, &c., as a blasphemer, who placed Himself above Abraham, and made Himself equal to God. Blasphemers were ordered to be stoned (Lev. 24:16). It is clear that these Jews were not those who were said to have believed in Him [in v. 31] (as Theophylact supposes), but the others who were opposed to Christ. “And to what should such hardness betake itself but to stones?” says. S. Augustine (in loc.) “They sought to crush Him, whom, they could not understand,” says S. Gregory (Hom. xviii.)


What is the earliest Christian use of a worship leader? Music directors existed in Old Testament times (see these 56 references). But was there such a thing as what we now call a worship leader in Christian (New Testament and early church) times? Or is it a modern (re-)invention?

Additional information: we know that hymns were sung in Biblical times, including by Jesus and the disciples. And we know there were gatherings of thousands. These two facts suggest to me the early church may have worshiped in large groups, which would imply someone coordinating it. But I have no idea if that resembles a modern worship leader.

It is a fairly natural idea to have somebody fulfilling this role, and various Christian traditions have done just that. The following are from Worship music: a concise dictionary (ed. Edward Foley, 2000):

Cantor [Latin]. "Singer" (1) In Christianity, a 5th-century term for the psalmist; later, the medieval singer (often cleric) who intoned and led the chants; more recently a leader of congregational song who often sings the verses to the congregation's refrain. ...
Precentor [from Latin praecino, "I sing before"]. (1) The leader of chant in a schola; the precentor usually intoned chants on the side of the first choir, while the succentor ("subcantor") intoned for the second choir. (2) Another title for the cantor. (3) In some reformation traditions, the liturgical master of ceremonies, with special responsibility for the choral services. (4) The leader of congregational song in a church having neither a choir nor instrumental accompaniment.
Psalmist [Greek, Latin psalmista]. (1) One who leads (or sings the verses of) the psalm, usually in responsorial style. The term appears in the 4th century in some lists of  ecclesiastical ministers. (2) The author of a Hebrew Bible psalm.
Psaltes (pl. psaltai) [Greek; Slavonic pevetz]. "Singer, cantor." In modern Byzantine usage when plainsong is used a psaltes or cantor ordinary leads the congregation by intoning and carrying the melody. In the Byzantine era (6th-15th centuries) Hagia Sophia had 2 choirs of psaltai; the leader (protopsaltes) stood between them. ...

In general, the lines seem to be a little blurred between the roles of "main singer" and "musical decision-maker", as with modern "worship leaders". The Orthodox protopsaltis seems to have evolved from the first into the second role. The Catholic Encyclopedia says under "precentor":

Anciently, the precentor had various duties: he was the first or leading chanter, who on Sundays and greater feasts intoned certain antiphons, psalms, hymns, responsories etc.; gave the pitch or tone to the bishop and dean at Mass (the succentor performing a similar office to the canons and clerks); recruited and taught the choir, directed its rehearsals and supervised its official functions; interpreted the rubrics and explained the ceremonies, ordered in a general way the Divine Office and sometimes composed desired hymns, sequences, and lessons of saints.

The Synod of Laodicea in the fourth century restricted who was allowed to sing:

Canon 15. No others shall sing in the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo and sing from a book.

This is probably connected to the idea of having a person in charge of planning and performing the music in general. I don't know who had that job before the dates given in the references above (which go from the fourth century to the medieval period).


How (and by whom) are financial decisions made in the Catholic Church? Coming from a denomination that doesn't subscribe to one earthly central Church authority, or a rigid structure, I find it very interesting to learn about denominations that do have such a structure.  While browsing through the "Gospel Topics" section on the LDS website, I ran across the article on Tithing, which says this:

  Church members give their tithing donations to local leaders. These
  local leaders transmit tithing funds directly to the headquarters of
  the Church, where a council determines specific ways to use the sacred
  funds. This council is comprised of the First Presidency, the Quorum
  of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric. Acting according
  to revelation, they make decisions as they are directed by the Lord.
  (See D&C 120:1.)

That's a very clear, understandable high-level explanation of the process including who makes the decisions.

Before getting to the question, here's a high-level explanation of my Church's process and who makes the decisions.

In my own Church (A Baptist one) it's handled in a more straightforward democratic fashion.  Once per year, the Pastor puts together a budget of anticipated expenses (by category - Pastoral care, Sunday School Supplies, etc.) and anticipated income (based on last year's Tithes, growth trends, etc.), and presents it to the Church.  The Church (meaning the voting (age 18+) members of the local Church) discuss and vote on the budgets.  Usually we accept the Pastor's budget, but we may discuss and adjust certain line-items.  Then, throughout the year, as needs arise, they are met if they fall within the budget.  The Pastor has some leeway on certain items. For example, we have a line item for "Needs of others", and the Pastor can dole that out to individuals in need at his discretion.

One last thing before the actual question, I really am interested in how this is handled in other denominations, but I don't want to turn this into a "list" question.  And I don't want to re-post the same question over and over naming different denominations in each.  So I'm going to focus on one Church with a central authority and a well-defined structure that interests me, and ask about them.

Without further ado:  In the Catholic Church, can someone provide an overview of who makes the broad financial decisions, and what is the process?

The simple answer is: "it's very complicated". Individual churches, dioceses, national councils of bishops, religious orders, houses of those religious orders, the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, institutions like schools and hospitals: they are all to some extent independent and to some extent related. The Catholic Church is not a simple organisation, and it doesn't have a simple financial structure.

In particular, it is complicated because the exact pattern is not replicated in every country. The national Episcopal Conferences have some degree of autonomy in setting a pattern which will apply in each country, according to what is appropriate. Moreover, the Vatican finances are both complex and opaque. Some income comes directly from donations from the faithful (a system known as Peter's Pence), while other income comes from the surplus from the Istituto per le Opere di Religione, the Vatican Bank.

There isn't a simple organisational structure, with the Vatican at the top and the parishes at the bottom and a simple flow of money up and down the chain. This is because the basic structure of the Catholic Church is based around is that of the particular church. This is generally (though not always) a diocese. It is local (that is to say, defined by geography) and headed by a bishop. (Code of Canon Law, Canon 368) If you want some of the theology behind this, the document Communionis Notio is relevant.

The diocese are institutionally independent of one another, though they are grouped in the national/regional Episcopal Conferences which have certain legislative powers in their region, and they are all subject to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church. Each diocese is divided into parishes. The priests in each parish are essentially "deputies" for the bishop.

The financial relationship that we might consider best, therefore, is between the diocese and the parish. (The financial organisation of the Vatican would take years to analyse fully!) The parish-diocese relationship is the most common financial relationship. It leaves a whole lot out, as you see from my opening paragraph. So let's look at one such example. I'm going to look at the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster and it's 2011 financial statement, for the simple reason that I could find it online.

The parishes receive income of various types (p19):

collections, donations and legacies (by far the largest)
parish activities
investment income
rent
trading income
disposal of assets

This is spent in various ways (p21). The largest are non-clergy salaries and parish assessments, which are in effect a diocesan tax: each parish provides a proportion of their income to the diocese. This proportion varies among Episcopal Conferences and possibly among dioceses: I haven't found any clear information.

In each parish, the parish priest is primarily in charge of finances:

  In all juridic affairs the pastor represents the parish according to the norm of law. He is to take care that the goods of the parish are administered according to the norm of cann. 1281-1288. (Canon 532)

On top of this, there is to be a finance council in each parish:

  In each parish there is to be a finance council which is governed, in addition to universal law, by norms issued by the diocesan bishop and in which the Christian faithful, selected according to these same norms, are to assist the pastor in the administration of the goods of the parish, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 532. (Canon 537)

So many decisions are taken on a local basis, by the priest with the advice of the finance council.

At a diocesan level, most income comes from the parish assessments mentioned above (p20 of the Diocese of Westminster report). In the diocese, there is again a finance council to manage finances:

  In every diocese a Finance council is to be established, offer which the diocesan bishop himself or his delegate presides and which consists of at least three members of the Christian faithful truly expert in Financial affairs and civil law, outstanding in integrity, and appointed by the bishop. (Canon 492)

The function of this council is to provide "a budget of the income and expenditures which are foreseen for the entire governance of the diocese in the coming year".

So a short summary.

Most income comes to individual parishes. The parish priest is in charge of this, with the assistance of a finance council. A proportion of income goes from the parish to the diocese, where a finance council appointed by and presided over by the bishop is in charge of decisions concerning the governance of the diocese.

This is obviously not the whole picture. It covers only the parishes and diocese. These are the most significant aspect of the Church, but a lot more could be said about the various other aspects of the Church on local, national, regional and international levels. Moreover, to some extent these relationships vary significantly across the world.


Who first clearly formulated the penal substitution theory of atonement? The Wikipedia article on Penal substitution states in its opening paragraph:

  Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment. (italics added)

In the final paragraph of the Overview section, it states further:

  While penal substitution shares themes present in many other theories of the atonement, penal substitution is a distinctively Protestant understanding of the atonement that differs from both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understandings of the atonement. Many trace its origin to Calvin, but it was more concretely formulated by the Reformed theologian Charles Hodge. Traditionally a belief in penal substitution is often regarded as a hallmark of the evangelical faith and is included as an article of faith by many (but not all) evangelical organizations today. (italics added)

These quotes place the development of penal substitution firmly within the Protestant tradition. However, they, and the article as a whole, are not very conclusive about exactly where and when penal substitution theory originated. Its formulation is attributed to figures as distant from one another in time as John Calvin (1509-1564) and Charles Hodge (1797-1878).

Manwe Elder's answer to my earlier related question, "When and where does the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins" first appear?" does a fine job of briefly tracing the history of the idea of Christ paying the penalty for our sins, and showing that it was not present among major theologians before the Protestant Reformation. It also provides some examples of early Protestant theologians who spoke of Christ paying the penalty for our sins.

A related question of mine also asks, "Did Martin Luther teach penal substitution?"

Given that penal substitution is a distinctly Protestant doctrine (this question is not about earlier foreshadowings or bases of the theory):

What Protestant theologian or theologians first clearly formulated the doctrine of penal substitution?

Whatever other sources an answer may use, please provide direct quotations from the relevant theologians' own writings to support the answer.

Hard to choose, but probably Martin Luther. Your linked answer has the clearest example, from Luther's Works, Volume 26 (Lectures on Galatians Ch. 1-4).

  He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of men upon Him, and said to Him: "Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them....Whatever sins I, you, and all of us have committed or may commit in the future,
  they are as much Christ’s own as if He Himself had committed them.

However, this is from a 1535 lecture, and so it's not the earliest instance, per se.

In 1530, penal substitution was officially proclaimed as part of the Lutheran faith by the Augsburg Confession at the Diet of Ausburg. (Note the similar phrasing.)

  Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins.

Luther approved a draft of the confession, so it's likely that he supported this view of the of atonement by this time, if not earlier.

Around the same time, John Calvin wrote Institutes of the Christian Religion, which was published in 1536.

  He offered in sacrifice the flesh which he took from us, that by expiation wought he might destroy our guilt and appease the Father's just anger.

It's hard to say who had the idea first. Given that Protestantism relied especially on Paul's works, and this interpretation is best supported by him ("For he hath made him to be sin for us"), it's not surprising that Protestant theologians arrived at this doctrine readily.