What's the goal of Catholic/Protestant ecumenism? In a small town, the height of ecumenism is a joint Christmas choir concert.  We certainly tolerate each other enough not to throw our respective clerics/elders out of our steeples.  But we don't really come to any sort of understanding of each other.

I've learned more about protestantism in 2 weeks of this website than I have in the last 20 years of parish life.  Which raises the question, what is the overarching goal of ecumenism?

It would seem to me that there are two natural ends.

Reconciliation, where we acknowledge our differences and proceed on our different courses towards salvation in harmony with one another or
Reunification, where we acknowledge our differences and proceed with our one course toward salvation in a sonorous melody.

perhaps there are more goals, but are there any ecumenical documents to show that we're making any progress toward these goals?  Also, are they polar opposites, if we proceed toward Reconciliation do we throw out Reunification?

Very interesting question.
First, what should be the goal of ecumenism? I believe it has to be reunification. Pardon my translation of choice (NIV) (added own emphasis)
Paul talks about our differences in 1 Corinthians 12:12-14

12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

In the broader context of the passage, this is talking about gifts and each of us are called to do different things for the body of the Church. But it does highlight that we are not all the same, we have our differences.
But the overall goal of the true church should be unity.

Ephesians 4:4-5 (NIV)
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

But why not reconciliation? When I hear that word, I think of the definition to compose or settle (a quarrel, dispute, etc.). Given that there has been millenia for people to offend each other and great chasms in the different denominations, it seems unreasonable to believe we can work through all that history.
Besides, it is a christian command to forgive one another. But it has to be our prayer to be united in Christ so the world will know he is from God

John 17:22-23
22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

So to answer the question Also, are they polar opposites, if we proceed toward Reconciliation do we throw out Reunification?: I don't believe they are polar opposites, but using the above definition of reconciliation, I don't think it's necessary to reconcile in order to reunify.
As for the official progress of ecumenism, wikipedia has some history on it from a (mostly) Catholic point of view. Focusing on the section of 'recent' progress:

The mutual anathemas (excommunications) of 1054, marking the Great Schism between Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) branches of Christianity, a process spanning several centuries, were revoked in 1965 by the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

I find it interesting that ecumenism between Catholics and Protestants don't seem to be a main focus. It seems to be between Catholics and Orthodox, and the various denominations of Protestants.

Organizations such as the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches USA, Churches Uniting in Christ, Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship and Christian Churches Together continue to encourage ecumenical cooperation among Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and, at times, Roman Catholics.

Most recently, the US Episcopal Church seems to have made a blunder in uniting the beliefs (also from that wikipedia article):

The decision by the U.S. Episcopal Church to ordain Gene Robinson, an openly gay, non-celibate priest who advocates same-sex blessings, as bishop led the Russian Orthodox Church to suspend its cooperation with the Episcopal Church

But the American denominations are making some progress by remaking an organization to unite the churches in 2002.


Where can I find out more about other people rising from the dead, when Jesus died on the Cross? 51 When Jesus died, the curtain in the Temple was torn into two
  pieces. The tear started at the top and tore all the way to the
  bottom. Also, the earth shook and rocks were broken. 52 The graves
  opened, and many of God’s people who had died were raised from death.
  53 They came out of the graves. And after Jesus was raised from death,
  they went into the holy city, and many people saw them. -Matthew 27:51

Aside from Jesus healing people, this appears to me as the biggest supernatural event in the Gospel: Other people rising from the dead, out of graves!

However, there is only 1 line given to this?

Are there any more details about what happened here?

Thanks!

There is no doubt this truly happened, but in many of the events in the gospels, they are the only records of the history which is why they written. I think when one gospel has something and the others do not, we can assume this is not to be central in our view of the ministry of Christ, but that it is important from the angle that the individual writer takes.**

For example take Alfred Edresheims way of categorizing the gospels (which I like):

Matthew (Jewish view of the Christ) -  has for its main object the Discourses or teaching of the Lord, around which the History groups itself. It is intended as a demonstration, primarily addressed to the Jews, and in a form peculiarly suited to them, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

Mark (general view of the Christ) - is a rapid survey of the History of the Christ as such. It deals mainly with the Galilean Ministry.

Luke (Gentile view of the Christ) -  complements the narratives in the other two Gospels (St. Matthew and St. Mark), and it supplements them by tracing, what is not done otherwise: the Ministry in Peroea. Thus, it also forms a transition to the Fourth Gospel of the Judæan Ministry.

John (the Church’s view of Christ) - which gives the highest, the reflective, view of the Eternal Son as the Word, deals almost exclusively with the Jerusalem Ministry.

With this category of Mathew we could say why did Mathew think the many dead raising to life and the thunder was important along side of the curtain tearing?  We must keep in mind the gospels only select certain highlights of the miracles the Lord did and we can assume those that are recorded are only a drop in the bucket, juts as the words he spoke were much, much more than what was recorded. The words in the gospels are just little snippet summaries.

One possible answer is that Mathew, as writing to a Jewish audience, really wanted to stress the end of the Jewish Law and power in Christ’s death to end it. Besides the Jews expected Messiah to bring about a resurrection of the dead soon after his arrival to this earth (see here). The other three may have not have included it in their limited selection of material, perhaps because they felt the focus should really be on the greater event of Christ’s death. So this is a great miracle and thankfully Mathew recorded it, but we must not let any miracles cloud the greatest event which was Christ’s death.


Which nuns get new names? I know that some Catholic nuns chose new names, like Mother Teresa (previously Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu), and others didn't, like Sister Helen Prejean.

What determines whether a woman changes her name on taking her vows? Is it up to the individual, or do different orders have their own particular rules or customs?

Name changes in the Bible indicate a significant change in the life of the person. For example,

Abram became Abraham.

  "No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham;
  for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations." (Gen 17:5)

Jacob became Israel.

  Then he said, "Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel,
  for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." (Gen
  32:28)

Simon became Cephas, which means rock.

  "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which
  means Peter). (John 1:42)

Having said that, it is really up to the individual to take a new name. Usually, they like to take the name of a saint whom they are inspired by.


May a Catholic have thier cremated remains poured out at sea? My mother, a Roman Catholic in good standing, passed recently and wished to be cremated and her ashes poured out at sea.  A young priest at her parish, fresh out of seminary, indicated that such a thing goes against Catholic teaching while an older priest of 44 years in the same parish suggested not bringing the ashes to the memorial Mass and then doing whatever we wish.  It was also suggested that the entire urn could be tossed into the ocean but sprinkling the ashes out is the part that is disallowed.
What is the official Roman Catholic stance on:

Cremation
disposition of ashes at sea, particularly regarding sprinkling out of the urn

May Catholics have thier cremated remains poured out at sea?
The short answer is no.
Anyone familiar with the Catholic Church knows that over the years, they have changed their policies many times on numerous subject matters. And cremation is no exception. Burial of the human body is still the preferred manner.
In 1917, the code of Canon Law allowed cremation only in times of plague, disaster, or other situations that necessitated a quick disposal of the body.
In 1963, the Vatican said burial of deceased bodies should be the norm, but cremation is not “opposed per se to the Christian religion.” Catholic funeral rites should not be denied to those who had asked to be cremated, the church said.
Human ashes are to be buried at a Cemetery, just like as if the human body of the faithful departed were actually still present.
Catholics may choose to be cremated and has all the funeral rites of the Church, unless the reason for the cremation ”of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith”.

Those to Whom Ecclesiastical Funerals Must be Granted or Denied
Can. 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful.
§2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals.
§3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available.
Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.
Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.

According to new guidelines from the Vatican’s doctrinal office, cremated remains should be kept in a “sacred place” such as a church cemetery.
The following rules were issued on August 15, 2016 by the Vatican:

The reservation of the ashes of the departed in a sacred place ensures that they are not excluded from the prayers and remembrance of their family or the Christian community. It prevents the faithful departed from being forgotten, or their remains from being shown a lack of respect, which eventuality is possible, most especially once the immediately subsequent generation has too passed away. Also it prevents any unfitting or superstitious practices.

For the reasons given above, the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence is not permitted. Only in grave and exceptional cases dependent on cultural conditions of a localized nature, may the Ordinary, in agreement with the Episcopal Conference or the Synod of Bishops of the Oriental Churches, concede permission for the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence. Nonetheless, the ashes may not be divided among various family members and due respect must be maintained regarding the circumstances of such a conservation.

In order that every appearance of pantheism, naturalism or nihilism be avoided, it is not permitted to scatter the ashes of the faithful departed in the air, on land, at sea or in some other way, nor may they be preserved in mementos, pieces of jewelry or other objects. These courses of action cannot be legitimized by an appeal to the sanitary, social, or economic motives that may have occasioned the choice of cremation. - Instruction Ad resurgendum cum Christo regarding the burial of the deceased and the conservation of the ashes in the case of cremation

Ps. Unless one can find a Vatican directive allowing a complete urn to be cast into the sea, in lieu of sprinkling the ashes over the water, this is to be forbidden. Urns will crack and the remains will be scattered in the waters anyway. Without a clear Vatican directive this should not be done, regardless of what some Catholic priest or even Catholic websites states. We can not presume permission to so. They must always be able to back it up in Canon Law! Urns are to be buried in cemeteries.
Articles of interest:

Cemetery aims to 'do the right thing' with free burial
New Vatican Instruction: Cremation Allowed But Strict Conditions Apply
Why does the Catholic Church prefer burials over cremation?


Why is "being created" considered an imperfection? I've seen the uncreated God contrasted many times to the created angels, Satan, and humans, and etc. Being created is counted against the latter category as a mark of imperfection which God does not bear.

However I don't really see why being created is an imperfection.  Surely something can be created and be created perfectly, right?  To become perfect?

Is there a way to understand this through the bigger picture of what perfection is?  Or is this something that must be understood on its own?

Being created doesn't affect perfection as much as impassability. The doctrine of impassability states that God cannot change- that he is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If God (or Jesus) were created then he has changed - he went from not existing to existing.

The tie in between perfection and impassability is this: if God changes, then it sets up a situation where God is not perfect. If he changed, he would, it is assumed, move to being 'perfect' from a state that was necessarily 'less than perfect.' That previous state, adherents of impassability maintain, is inconsistent with the nature of God's perfection, hence it cannot be.


When did the church in the city of Rome first try to impose a tradition on other churches? Just wondering in what year the first historical record of the Church in Rome, against the wishes of other churches, that she should impose her tradition on them?

Note: I am simply looked for the first factual recorded date in history. I am not making an inquiry into whether the church in Rome had a right, or not, to do so.

I'm frankly dumbfounded. Unless I'm reading wrongly, @Mike has asked this question, and then provided his own answer.

To answer your question, though it hardly seems necessary since you knew your answer before asking your question, before "the church in the city of Rome" tried "to impose a tradition on other churches", whatever that means, other churches were querying the church of Rome for guidance. Pope St. Clement (+AD 96) wrote to the church of Corinth in response to complaints from its leadership. The presbyters and bishop of Corinth had been deposed and chased out of the city and they wrote to Rome asking its bishop to validate their authority as appointees of the apostles. And this happened perhaps while St. John was still even alive.

It is wise, when wondering how Rome started "imposing traditions other churches," to remember that while Rome had armies, the church of Rome had none. How, precisely, is the Bishop of Roman supposed to have imposed anything on anyone?

The appeal to Rome is always an appeal to moral authority. Even in the heyday of her power, the Church of Rome and the Papal States were by-and-large reliant on other nations' for their military protection. When patriarchs in Constantinople and bishops in North Africa ask for the support of the Pope, they are not asking for his armies - at his most militarized he had precious few - they are asking for his endorsement.


Can Grace be irresistible and still be a gift? According to TULIP Calvinism grace is "irresistible".  If grace is irresistible then what role does faith play in salvation and can it still be considered a gift?

Yes, salvation can still be considered a gift.  In general, something can be considered a gift if it:

Is positive/desirable
Is given rather than earned (otherwise it should be called a wage)
Is given without obligation of repayment (otherwise it should be called a loan)

Whether a gift can be resisted or not has no bearing on its "giftiness".  According to Calvinism, faith comes into play as the mode with which we receive the gift of salvation. So, in order to cause us to be saved, God regenerates us and then causes us to have faith.

The irresistible quality of the process (regeneration and subsequent faith) does not undermine it's "giftiness".  On the contrary. According to Calvinism, salvation would not be purely a gift if it were resistible, because then the act of choosing to not resist the gift could be construed as meritoriously earning it, at least in part.


The Christology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer I once heard a Reformed theologian critique Dietrich Bonhoeffer for his Christology, but it failed to stick with me because I have not (yet) read any Bonhoeffer and am not very familiar with recent German theology in general.

What did Bonhoeffer teach about Christ? Was this related to Karl Barth's Christology? What other theologians hold to a similar position?

Christ as community (ecclesiocentric)

In his dissertation "Sanctorum Communio" (1927), christology and ecclesiology do basically conincide. Christ is "existing as community" ("Christus als Gemeinde existierend").

The mediator and center0: christocentric alteration

Christ and the world. In Bonhoeffer theology since his "christology" lecture (1933), the question of Christ is always connected with the question of the world (Welt).1 In his late writings, his prison letters, this is expressed as the question of "Christ and the world come of age".2 Earlier in his Ethics he states: "In Jesus Christ the reality of the good has entered into the world".3

Christ as the mediator ("Mittler"). Based on this question, Christ is defined as the "mediator" between humans and God and the humans,4 since there are no direct relations anymore. As such, Christ is the center ("Mitte"). Bonhoeffers already clarified that in his christology lecture (1933): Christ is …5

the center of human existence ("menschliche Existenz")
the center of history ("Geschichte")
the center of nature ("Natur")

or, as he later says: He's "the center of life".6 Hence the christology is the middle and fundament of Bonhoeffers theology.

Relation to Karl Barth

Both, Barth and Bonhoeffer, were accused of a "christological narrowing"7 – a "christomonism"8.

Jürgen Moltmann claims a difference: While Barths christology is Trinitarian,
Bonhoeffer's christology is theocentric9 (since it's fixed on the doctrine of incarnation).

0) This description is based on Ernst Feil: Die Theologie Dietrich Bonhoeffers. Hermeneutik – Christologie - Weltverständnis. Münster 20065.
1) "Wer Christus heute für uns eigentlich ist", Wiederstand und Ergebung (WE), p. 178.
2) "Christus und die mündig gewordene Welt", WE, p. 218.
3) "In Jesus Christus ist die Wirklichkeit des Guten in die Welt eingegangen", Ethik, p. 207.
4)"Nothing can be known about God nor about the humans until God became a human in Christ" ("Es kann […] weder von Gott noch vom Menschen etwas gewusst werden, bevor Gott in Jesus Christus Mensch geworden ist."), GS III, p. 230.
5) GS III, p. 199 f.
6) WE, p. 211
7) Cf. Gerhard Ebeling: Die nicht-religiöse Interpretation. In: MW II 19
8) This accusation was first done by Paul Althaus. According to Gerhard Ebeling: Wort und Glaube. Tübingen 1960, p. 99. it would also apply to Bonhoeffer. Cf. also Ernst-Heinz Amberg: Christologie und Dogmatik. Untersuchung ihres Verhältnisses in der evangelischen Theologie der Gegenwart. Göttingen 1966, p. 125
9) J. Moltmann: Herrschaft Christi und soziale Wirklichkeit nach D. Bonhoeffer in: Theologische Existenz heute, NF 71. München 1959, p. 29


What does it mean that Eve was beguiled? In Genesis 3:13 (King James Version) we read that Eve was "beguiled":

  And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done?
    And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

In this context, what does "beguiled" mean?

I am not so much looking for a linguistic explanation. I have looked up the definition and etymology of the word "beguile" and see that there are many different meanings for the word (to charm; fascinate; to delude; influence by slyness; deceit, wile, fraud, ruse, trickery; sorcery, witchcraft).

I really want to understand what it means that Eve was beguiled.

Eve when she ate of the tree of good and evil instantly became aware of the sin of disobedience and she knew she was in trouble with God when He asked her what she had done.  She realizing now what the guilt of sin was, blamed the serpent who truly was the great deceiver he is.  Her reply "He beguiled me."  He tricked me.


Is there a Biblical basis for believing someone can be saved after dying and going to Hell? As the title suggests, is there any Biblical reason to believe it is possible to escape Hell after dying and going there?

Is there any way to save those people after these punishments? Or are they permanently locked in hell?  Is there any way suggested anywhere in Scripture?

Short answer:

No, there's no Biblical reason to believe that there is any opportunity whatsoever to escape hell.  There are several non-Biblical arguments, but they are not based on the teachings found in the Bible.

Longer answer:

There are several groups that believe that there is an opportunity to be "saved" after death.

The LDS Church believes that the dead are still possible to redeem, and practice baptism for the Dead, for example.  From an article on their site explaining Baptisms for the Dead:

  Many people have lived on the earth who never heard of the gospel of
  Jesus Christ and who were not baptized. Others lived without fully
  understanding the importance of the ordinance of baptism. Still others
  were baptized, but without proper authority.

  Because He is a loving God, the Lord does not damn those people who,
  through no fault of their own, never had the opportunity for baptism.
  He has therefore authorized baptisms to be performed by proxy for
  them. A living person, often a descendant who has become a member of
  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is baptized in behalf
  of a deceased person. This work is done by Church members in temples
  throughout the world.

This is only possible to believe, however, if you also believe in the LDS definition of Hell as a temporary prison for some (only permanent for Satan, his followers, and the "sons of perdition".

  Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it
  is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal
  world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who
  were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of
  Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition, who are not
  redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Outside of the LDS Church, the idea that you can be saved after death is very rare. Some groups do believe in what's known as "Postmortem Evangelism". However, from a Biblical perspective, and one held by most Christian denominations, this is not supportable.  Scripture is quite clear that our eternal fate depends entirely on what occurs in this life, and that once we die in our sins, if we do not have the forgiveness of Christ, our fate is sealed.

From The Christian Research Institute

  One well-known advocate of PME, Gabriel Fackre, argues that Scripture
  teaches that each human’s destiny is not fixed at death. The context
  of several key Bible passages, however, does not support his
  interpretation. In fact, these passages clearly say that everyone will
  die and be judged (Heb.9:27) and that each person’s eternal destiny,
  either reward or condemnation, will be based on what was done in this
  life (Matt.7:21–23;13:36–43; John5:28–29). Jesus, moreover, taught
  that each human’s destiny is fixed at death; for example, in His story
  of Lazarus, who was eternally in paradise, and the rich man, who was
  eternally in torment (Luke16:19–31). Finally, the description of the
  great white throne judgment in Revelation20:11–15 unquestionably
  indicates that our eternal destiny is based on our earthly life. In
  these and other passages, physical death marks the boundary of human
  opportunity to be saved. Belief in PME, meanwhile, has serious
  negative implications for Christian evangelism and missions. The
  weakness of PME arguments and the total silence of Scripture regarding
  opportunities to hear the gospel after death, therefore, should cause
  Christians to reject this view.


Where Did Joshua 22 Take Place When Joshua 'summomed the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Manassheh', where did he summon them to?

Verse 9 gives the answer:

  After that the Reuʹben·ites, the Gadʹites, and the half tribe of Ma·nasʹseh departed from the other Israelites, from Shiʹloh in the land of Caʹnaan, and they returned to the land of Gilʹe·ad, the land of their possession where they had settled at the order of Jehovah through Moses.


Do Anglo-Catholics encourage closed Communion? Closed Communion seems to be commonly required in churches with more physical views of the Real Presence (excluding, of course, Reformed churches that hold to Calvin's "spiritual presence" view). The Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and many Lutherans all practice closed Communion. Most Anglican churches, however, practice open Communion. Are there any Anglo-Catholic churches that have tried to restrict their Communion practice to church members, as do most churches with similar theology?

Some more conservative Anglo-Catholics may prefer a policy of closed communion, but in the Episcopal Church there is a policy of communion being offered to all who are baptized.


Why does Catholicism impose restrictions on receiving the Eucharist? At the Last Supper, Jesus commands us to "do this in remembrance of me" (cf. I Cor. 11:24); so, why are there stipulations to receive the Eucharist? Why does the Catholic Church seem to put obstacles to fulfilling one of Jesus' commandments?

Firstly, 1 Cor. 11:24 & 25 ("this do ye for the commemoration of me") is not addressed to all of us but to ordained priests with the ability to consecrate, of which the Apostles were.

Secondly, the Church prohibits those in a state of mortal sin (e.g., the divorced and "remarried," who are really adulterers, unless they correct their sinful situation and receive absolution in Confession) from receiving Communion both for the sake of the sinners' souls and for the preservation of the sanctity of this most Holy Sacrament, for, as St. Paul relays (1 Cor. 11:27),

  whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of our Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of our Lord.

To receive Communion, one must be

a baptized Catholic united to the Catholic Church
in a state of sanctifying grace (i.e., not have committed a mortal sin, the death of the supernatural life of the soul, without first receiving absolution from a priest in the Sacrament of Confession)


Just what does Infant Baptism accomplish as regards Original Sin? The answer to this question indicates that the human soul is created by God, and without any lack of saving grace, at the precise instant that the soul is infused into the newly propagated human body.
The sin and death we inherit from Adam, says Aquinas, are passed in the physical human nature by the human father.  God does not, the answer declares, create a deprived human soul but the newly created human soul is 'infected' instantly upon infusion with that body.  At that moment the human soul becomes devoid of saving grace and stands in need of salvation.
Infant Baptism is intended to remediate this 'original sin' in the Catholic Church:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called [Cf Col 1:12–14]. [Catechism of the Catholic Church]

My assumption is that infant baptism does not remove original sin from the physical aspect of humanity, otherwise no further sacraments would be necessary.  1 John warns us not to say that we have no sin:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. - 1 John 1:8-10

And Paul details his current struggle with the sin that dwells in his physical members even after his experience on the Damascus Road and his Baptism and call to Apostleship:

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? - Romans 7:14-24

Additionally, Paul looks to a future day (the return of the Lord Jesus and the resurrection) when he will be delivered from his body of death so it is clear that he is not currently experiencing freedom from the presence of sin in his members.
Infant Baptism then must somehow remove the stain of sin that the human soul derives from it's infusion into the body and return it to it's intended created state possessed of sanctifying grace.
If this is the case, what keeps immediate re-infection of the soul from happening since the soul/body union still remains and the body is still tainted and infectious?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism) lists 5 effects of the sacrament of baptism:

Remission of sin
Remission of all punishment due to sin
Grace of regeneration
Infused virtues and incorporation with Christ
Character of Christian

"what keeps immediate re-infection of the soul from happening" after baptism?

Concupiscence remains after baptism, but it is not sin (cf. the § "Concupiscence Which Remains After Baptism Is No Sin" where the Catechism describes the first effect of baptism).
Council of Trent, session 5:

If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted […] let him be anathema.[…]this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, can not injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. (2 Tim. ii. 5). This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin (Rom. vi. 12; vii. 8), the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin. And if any one is of a contrary sentiment, let him be anathema.


How does the existence of the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary fit with the Assumption of Mary? One site that tourists can visit in Jerusalem is the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. But Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the Assumption of Mary (that she was taken body and soul into heaven).

How does Mary have a tomb if there was no body to bury because she was taken into heaven?

The Catholic Church teaches as dogma that the Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. The Church's tradition on this matter is that Mary did physically die. But Pope Pius XII left this point an open question.

  On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII spoke these words, which kindled Catholic hearts around the world:

    We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heaven."

  "Having completed the course of her earthly life." This phrase displays the prudence and precision employed in the definition of dogma. There was no pronouncement on the exact nature of Our Lady's death, or even as to whether she died at all. The common consensus holds that the Mother of God did, in fact, experience physical death, but we must be careful here to state unequivocally that the death of the "Immaculate Conception" was an event as unique as the Lady herself:

    For Mary's death was to be neither an expiatory death [like that of Christ on Calvary] nor a death of punishment [like that of human beings born with original sin]. Moreover, under the cross she had been a sharer in the sufferings of Christ's death.... Her death came in the form of a dissolution resulting from the supernatural power of divine love, as a consuming of the natural vital strength by the languishing of her love, or by the violence of an ecstasy of love which separated the soul from the body, or because by her love Mary prevailed upon God not to maintain her bodily life any longer.

    Hence, Mary's death appears as a holocaust of love. The sacrifice, made under the cross in the greatest spiritual sorrow, was thereby outwardly completed in a sweet and loving manner as in a slumber of love." (Rev. M. J. Scheeben, Mariology, Vol. II.)

  "A slumber of love." The ancient Church knew well that the death of the Mother of God was a singular event, and they referred to this "slumber of love" as her Dormition, her "falling asleep," a clear indication that the close of the Virgin's earthly life was peaceful, unaccompanied by any anxiety or pain. On earth, Mary lived for Jesus and for Him only. When her earthly race was run, Mary's burning desire to be reunited forever with her Son found its fulfillment. "Now, since it is certain that the Son died of love and that the Mother died of the death of the Son," wrote St. Francis de Sales (+1622), "we must not doubt that the Mother died of love."

  Where did the Assumption take place?

There are two places that traditionally mark Mary’s Assumption both in Jerusalem and in Ephesus. From the Scriptures we do not learn about the end of Mary’s life or that of many of Christ’s apostles.

  Today there is a Greek Orthodox Church near Gethsemane in which there is a tomb where it is claimed Mary was placed after she died. However there is a stronger tradition that Mary spent the last part of her life in Ephesus in Turkey and died and was assumed into heaven from there. Two centuries ago the German mystic and stigmatist, Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, in visions which she received between 1818-1824, saw an image of Mary’s house on a hill near Ephesus. Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich was  beatified by Pope John Paul II in 2004. The zeal of a French nun,  Sr. Marie DeMandat-Grancey, resulted in the expedition that located the remains of the house in 1891, on Mt. Nightingale very near ancient Ephesus, exactly where Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich said it was. (Fr. Eugene Poulin was also on the expedition but desires that posterity give the gratitude to Sr. Marie) The shape of the house and all other details exactly matched the description of Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich, and it was the only stone house on the hill. Now that house on Mt. Nightingale very near ancient Ephesus is restored and venerated as the house where Mary came to spend the last years of her life to avoid the persecution of the Church in Jerusalem. It is in the care of the Franciscans and each year receives one and a half million visitors. The first church ever dedicated to Our Lady was built in Ephesus in the second century and Christians had a principle in the early Church that they only built a church in someone’s honor if that person lived and died or was martyred there. When Jesus was dying on the cross he asked his close friend and disciple John to look after his mother (John 19:26-27), and St. John also spent time in Ephesus and is buried there. In 431 AD a big council of the Church was held in Ephesus which declared Mary to be the Mother of God. Naturally the council declaring Mary as Mother of God would not have taken place there if they did not believe Mary had been there. Those who visit the house of Mary say they feel the presence of Our Lady there very strongly. Many graces and healings are received there and you can see many crutches left there by people who were miraculously healed there. The house is also visited by many Muslims because Muslims also have a strong devotion to Our Lady. In it excerpts about Our Lady from the Muslim holy book, the Koran, are plainly seen. It is the only place in the world where Muslims and Christians pray together peacefully. That is what Our Lady as a mother and the New Eve would want, all peoples praying together peacefully. On July 26th 1967, Pope Paul VI visited the house; on November 30th 1979, Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass nearby, and in 1991 he called it “the material home of Mary.” (Subsequent to my preaching this homily  Pope Benedict also celebrated Mass there on November 29th 2006). - The Assumption of Our Lady and her house in Ephesus

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich in her revelation mentions that she believed the actual tomb of the Ever Blessed Virgin Mary will one day eventually be discovered, not far from where she dwelled at Mt. Koressos (Ephesus), Turkey with St. John the Apostle.

  In 1895 Pope Leo XIII removed the plenary indulgence for Mary’s tomb in
  Jerusalem for all time. Pope Pius X granted a one time plenary indulgence
  to a 1914 pilgrimage to Mary’s House. In 1951, Pope Pius XII declared
  Mary’s House an official sanctuary for pilgrims. That same year he also granted permission for the celebration of the Votive Mass of the Assumption
  at Mary’s House. Finally, Pope John XXIII granted a plenary indulgence
  for Catholic pilgrims to Mary’s House for all time on August 18, 1961.

  Three Vicars of Christ have also blessed Mary’s House with their presence.
  Pope Paul VI came to pay his respects to the Virgin Mary at Ephesus on
  July 26th 1967. He entered the shrine, prayed for a long time in front of the
  altar, and he himself lit the sculpted lamp he had brought. In memory of Sr.
  Marie de Mandat-Grancey, he gave the Superior of the Sisters of Charity a
  gold chalice for their oratory inscribed with her name.

  Pope John Paul II also came to Meryem Ana Evi on November 30, 1979
  after an official visit to Ankara. He celebrated Holy Mass there before a
  crowd of pilgrims. The open air altar was erected on this occasion. He
  offered to the Capuchin Friars, who celebrate the Holy Eucharist every day
  at the shrine, precious liturgical clothes and vessels. - Mary’s House & Sister Marie

The House of the Blessed Virgin, Mary (Selçuk, Turkey)

According to the meditations of Sister Catherine Emmerich (d. 1824), compiled and published in 1852, the Blessed Virgin died and was buried not at Ephesus but three or four leagues south of the city or one and a half hours of carrying the litter of the Virgin Mary by two Apostles from Mary's house to her tomb. She is followed by those who accept her visions or meditations as private revelations.


Are Russian Orthodox Christians considered heretics by Roman Catholicism? I heard that Russian Orthodox Christians are considered heretics by Catholics. Are there any official Catholic doctrines, documents or quotes that deny or confirm this statement?

The primary difference between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church is the refusal of the former to acknowledge the primacy of the Pope. This is a discussion that dates back well over a thousand years. There are some groups of former national Orthodox churches (the Ruthenian church for example) which have in the last several centuries chosen to acknowledge the Pope as head of the Church; these have been re-admitted into the Catholic Church and are known as the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Given that the main difference is the refusal to be subject to the Pope, the Orthodox Churches are formally considered to be in a state of schism, not heresy:

  Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 751)

Although, as St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa Theologica,

  just as the loss of charity is the road to the loss of faith, according to 1 Tim. 1:6: "From which things," i.e. charity and the like, "some going astray, are turned aside into vain babbling," so too, schism is the road to heresy. Wherefore Jerome adds (In Ep. ad Tit. iii, 10) that "at the outset it is possible, in a certain respect, to find a difference between schism and heresy: yet there is no schism that does not devise some heresy for itself, that it may appear to have had a reason for separating from the Church."


What do Bible lexicons, like Strong's, mean when they use the phrase, "by extension"? What does the phrase "by extension" mean, when a lexicon, like Strong's, uses that phrase, and then, gives a definition or a meaning?

For example, Strong's states that the word, "hated" in Romans 9:13, "Jacob i have loved, and, Esau, i have hated", means "by extension" to ("love less"); but, other lexicons say the word "hated" in the original Greek language means "to detest", and, literally, to simply, "hate"! The latter definitions seem more true and accurate than Strong's "by extension" definition of "love less". Also, Strong's placed "love less" in parentheses, and that is not normally done by Strong's when providing a definition, even when providing an "extension" meaning.

Could you tell me what the parentheses indicate and mean?

Also, "detest" and simply, "hate" seem like the more likely meaning in Romans 9:13, and not "love less" when comparing it with many other Scriptures in the Bible using the word, "hate","hated", or, "abhor", "abhorred",(etc.), particularly, when describing God's attitude toward "evildoers", or, "wicked" individuals, in the Bible.

Would you please give me a detailed meaning for when Strong's or any other lexicon might use the phrase, "by extension"? Is it the editor's opinion, only, particularly, if surrounded by parentheses? Or, is it something else? What are we extending? Or, is the rendered lexicon definition grounded in fact regarding the original autographs of Sacred Scripture for this or any particular Bible verse under study? Thanks!

I once owned a Strong's concordance and lexicon, but no longer do, and so I cannot verify what I can only describe as an opinion at this point.  Therefore, if participants feel this answer must be down voted, I'll understand.

Strong's use of "by extension" basically means, "or, you can look at it this way...."  James Strong first published his concordance in 1890 and back then people were much less willing to ascribe to God behaviors that would appear to be very mortal or worldly.  The idea of a benevolent god hating someone (such as Esau) is, if you think about it, a bit terrifying.  If He can hate one person, whom else might He hate?  Indeed, in a number of congregations within and without my own denomination I've met people who believe hate (and anger, to continue the example) are sins — and since God cannot sin, He cannot hate, and therefore something must be wrong with the translation.

It's worth noting as a side note that there may, indeed, be something wrong with the translation.  What we call the "original Greek" is not Jesus' original language, and there could be a more "original" document that would better express what He was saying.  Further, the particular quote about Esau is Paul talking, and he may not be remembering the exact quote or, worse, he may be embellishing (which he occasionally did).

Or, the scriptures may be dead on accurate and we need to deal with the fact that God may have some very strong, very negative emotions that we may experience if we're not on the up-and-up.

To continue, In Strong's day it would have been very normal to suggest and alternative way of looking at a verse or word that was more culturally sensitive.  Therefore, if you are bothered by the idea that God may hate someone, it may be more palatable to believe that He simply "loved that person less" than those whom He loved.

Regrettably, this is a specific idea that many parents then and now can easily relate to.  Some kids are easier to love than others....

It is unfortunate that I can't remember my use of Strong's Concordance well enough to remember what the parenthesis would mean, but I'd be willing to bet a milkshake they mean "I think" or "it's possible that."  Which is a fancy way of saying, "I'm not sure, but maybe...."


In Church History, when and how did The Glory Be (The Doxology) originate? In Church History, when and how did The Glory Be (The Doxology) originate?

Is the history of this prayer known as to when and how it originated?

The Glory Be is part of those basic prayers like the Our Father and the Hail Mary.

Related question: How are doxologies formed for common prayers?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article for the Doxology, it was used at least as early as the fourth century "as a protest against Arian subordination.

The article goes on to say that in the West, the Latin version was put into a canonical form at the Fourth Synod of Toledo in 633.


Is there, or was there, a Christian denomination that believes, or believed, that Jesus Christ was "just a normal human"? I have met several people that came in contact with Christianity as adults. Their perception is that Christ was a human preacher that voiced his concerns in a time of corruption, abuse by authorities, dishonesty, crime and debauchery. This makes me wonder if in the time of Christ some of his followers had similar impression and took him as a role model, but not as a divine entity.

Historically, there have been a number of sects that denied the divinity of Jesus, claiming that he was a man, and nothing more.*

In the first few centuries of Christianity, most of these groups held the Christiological heresy (from the point of view of mainstream Christianity) called Adoptionism, also known as dynamic monarchianism. Its basic tenet is that Jesus was merely a man, and that he became the Son of God by adoption at some historical moment: generally the Baptism in the Jordan, at the Resurrection, or the Ascension.

The most famous adherents of this heresy were Theodotus of Byzantium and Paul of Samosata. This was also the theory, apparently, of the Ebionites, who were a group of Jews living in the first and second century, who considered Jesus the Messiah, but not the natural Son of God (as orthodox Christians do).

These early sects have long since died out; however, in later centuries, there have been many individuals who have considered Jesus to be a great moral teacher, or a wise philosopher, but not God. This, for example, is generally the attitude of Deism (a philosophical position toward religion that became common in the Enlightenment period, roughly 1715-1789, ending with the French Revolution) toward Jesus.

Perhaps the denomination that comes nearest to an explicit denial of Jesus’ divinity is Unitarianism. Historically, Unitarianism professes an explicit denial of the dogma of the Holy Trinity. (In this sense, the Unitarians re-proposed a doctrine similar to Monarchianism. Historically, Monarchianism—the denial of the Trinity—has two possible Christological implications: either Adoptionism, as described above, or Modalism or Patripassianism, which does not deny Jesus’s divinity, but denies that Jesus’s Person is distinct from the Father.) As a general tendency, Unitarians have tended to downplay the supernatural aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry, so they generally do not acknowledge his Divinity, in the orthodox sense. (The denomination does not impose a definite creed, and so there is a wide variety of beliefs and opinions.)

* Attentive readers will observe that I left out the most important historical denial of the divinity of Christ: Arianism. The reason is that Arianism is principally a Trinitarian heresy; that is, Arius and his followers denied that the Word—the Second Person of the Trinity—is God like the Father. They did not, however, deny the supernatural character of the Incarnation, nor that Jesus was more than merely a man. (In fact, their Christology was closer to that of Apollinaris of Laodicea, which tended to deny Jesus’ full humanity.)


How is the divinity of Jesus defended in light of Philippians 2:9 ("God exalted him") and Matthew 28:18? Philippians 2:9
  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name

  Matthew 28:18
  Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

In the first of the verses mentioned above, Scripture talks about God exalted Jesus, and the second verse talks about Jesus gaining all authority on heaven and on Earth. If Jesus is God, why would he need to be exalted and given authority, especially considering that exaltation and authority are qualities already possessed by God?

Paul says of the Son of God, that 'being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God'[Philippians 2:6 KJV] . He is equal to God, in his eternal Being.

The two texts you mention regard the Son of God being exalted in humanity. That is, after incarnation and after his sufferings and death, God exalted Jesus Christ to his own right hand - in humanity.

The first humanity failed. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23.

But Jesus Christ, in humanity, did - always - the will of the Father, John 8:29. Thus has God exalted him, in humanity, to his own throne, Revelation 3:21.


Is it given by God in human nature to be a creator too? We humans have a significant ability to create using our fantasy. Was this ability given to us by God, a Creator as He created man in His image, according to His likeness, or was this ability developed itself while world became more complex?

It's part of our character since we were made in His likeness. He's our Heavenly Dad - it's logical that we inherit some of His characteristics.

Furthermore, creativity is unique to humans. If your second explanation were true, animals would also be creating art.


Does the Bible indicate whether Solomon is in heaven? Solomon was possibly one of the most blessed Old Testament figures—God gave him wisdom, wealth, honor beyond anyone in his time. Solomon also wrote Proverbs & Ecclesiastes, and possibly the Song of Solomon—three of the books of the Bible.

However, he also had 700 wives + 300 concubines (who, according to the Bible, turned his heart away).

Question: is Solomon in heaven?

In God's promise to David, Solomon's father, He says,

  The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 15But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’ ”

  2 Samuel 7:11-16, emphasis added

You could debate what 'saved' means...  But, according to the promise to David, I would say God never turned his face from Solomon.

In that regard, in terms of salvation in the New Testament, as those in the old looked forward in faith to an event they did not know, and those in the New look back in faith to one they do know, I have held and continue to hold that, in this regard, you could say Solomon was 'saved'.

Pertaining to interpretation, while portions of this also point to Christ, I don't see how this part could, since it talks about "doing wrong".  In that regard, it seems this portion refers to Solomon literally.


How old was Moses when he parted the Red Sea and how old was he when he wrote the ten commandments I'm trying to write a timeline of Moses's greatest achievements and this is all I haven't found so far. If you know what the two ages of Moses are in relation to these two events, please let me know, that would be great!

According to the Bible, in Exodus 7:7 it states:

  And Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three years old when
  they spoke to Pharaoh.

Therefore, Moses was at least 80 years old at the red Sea and at Sinai when he received the 10 Commandments from the LORD. To be a bit more specific, it took about 2 months to reach Sinai, but they spent 2 years at Sinai according to Numbers 10:11:

  Now it came to pass on the twentieth day of the second month, in the
  second year, that the cloud was taken up from above the tabernacle of
  the Testimony.

So Moses was 80 or 81 years of age when he reached Sinai and 82 to 83 years of age when they left.


What distinctive kinds of Bible translations are there? Obviously there is a lot decisions and elbow-grease that go into producing any Bible translation. I hear a lot of different terms used to describe the different methodologies that guide those decisions such as literal, word-for-word, figurative, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence, paraphrase, simplified, and at least a dozen others.

Can somebody unscramble these and try to bring some order to the relations between them. If it is possible to group an of them and gives specific examples of how different methodologies are compatible or at odds that would be lovely. If there is some kind of sliding scale between different ends of the spectrum, please describe what that spectrum is.

Let's try to avoid preferences about what we think are the best kind of translation, but expand on the motivations for each. I have strong opinions but will try to make my choice of "right" answer based on how well different methodologies are represented, not based the priorities I use in choosing a translation.

Great question!

Biblical translation is a difficult task because you're trying to get words and meaning out of 1900+ year old text and make it intelligible to people today in their own native language.

Because of this, translation kind of becomes a spectrum.  On one end, you have word-by-word translation while on the other end you have a paraphrase meant for everyone to understand.

Here are the three broad categories:

Word-for-Word translation

This type of bible takes the original language and (word for word) translates it into the target language (for lack of a better term).

This type of translation is willing to move words around slightly to make the meaning clear in the target language.  For example, adjectives in some languages (Spanish, Latin, etc.) come after the noun they modify instead of before (like in English, German, etc.).  So, when translating, they may move adjectives or other words around to make them conform to the target language.

Examples:  English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible
Thought-for-Thought translation

This type of translation tries to maintain the original intent of the text.  It takes a phrase or sentence or paragraph at a time and puts it into more modern terms.  Instead of translating each individual word, they translate larger chunks.

The idea behind this is that it allows the text to be more easily understood by modern languages while still retaining the original meaning.

Examples:  New Living Translation, New International Version
Paraphrase

This type of translation is at the farthest extent of the spectrum.  This translation takes the original text and translates it into words that is super easy to understand.  This type of translation is also called free-text translation because of the freedom that the translators have in converting the original manuscripts into modern language.

Examples:  The Message.

1. This is a link to the primary source article.  2. All links above go to the respective translations of John 3:16

That simply tells you the types of translations there are.  There are many different types of bibles, however, each of which may have multiple translations.

For example, the Life Application Bible (which I heartily recommend, by the way) can be found using the NIV, NKJV, or NLT translations.  While the translation of the sacred text is common among bibles, the extra notes regarding the text vary greatly.

There's one specific translation that I want to use as an example.  It's called the Apostolic Bible.  It's a type of "polyglot" bible (which literally means many tongues, or multiple languages) that contains both the original language and the English translation.  (It also contains the Strong's Concordance reference number for each word.)

It's a fantastic example of a word-for-word translation:


What happens to unborn, unbaptized babies who die? If we accept that unborn babies are human beings and not merely a non-human organism, and further we require baptism as a prerequisite for salvation (using it as justification for infant baptism)...

What happens to an unborn baby which never experiences live birth, and clearly can't have been baptized since it was not yet born?

Note: I'd be especially interested (but not exclusively so) in responses to this from Catholic theologians and/or apologists.

I cannot provide a better answer then the answer provided by the LCMS (The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod). This is taken from the LCMS FAQ: Doctrinal Issues - Baptism.
On the role of infant baptism:

Q: How does faith play a role in infant Baptism? Is faith later taken care of when the child is confirmed?
A: Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates the gift of faith in a person's heart. Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about Baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see, e.g., 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim.3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Summary: Lutherans believe that through infant baptism God creates faith in the heart of the infant, this faith is present though it cannot be shown outwardly.
What about unbaptized babies?

"There is some basis for the hope that God has a method, not revealed to us, by which He works faith in the children of Christians dying without Baptism (Mark 10:13-16). For children of unbelievers we do not venture to hold out such hope. We are here entering the field of the unsearchable judgments of God" (Romans 11:33).
What is the basis of such hope? It is this, that God is not Himself bound by the means to the use of which He has bound us. That is to say that while Christ has commanded us to baptize all nations, God can save sinners without Baptism. He did so throughout the entire Old Testament. During the first 2,000 years we know of no special means of grace for little children. At the time of Abraham He instituted circumcision, but He did not thereby provide for little girls. It is for God to determine under what conditions He will receive children into His kingdom.
A most encouraging instance for the Holy Spirit's power to influence even unborn infants in a spiritual way is found in Luke 1:15, 41, 44, where it is stated that the unborn John the Baptist leaped for joy within his mother's womb when the unborn Jesus was brought into his presence by His mother Mary. Behind all this is the all-encompassing Gospel pronouncement that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world [including the little children] unto Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19).
As to the second point we might say: Whether individual Lutheran pastors have ever baptized stillborn children immediately upon their arrival, we do not know, and to our knowledge such practice has never been sanctioned by our church. Nor should it be sanctioned. The means of grace, including Baptism, are for the living only (Heb. 9:27).
Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion. Published by: LCMS Church Information Center

Summary: Lutherans believe that Baptism is for the living only, however, God may have created a means to save those who were not baptized or not able to be baptized (stillborn, or died quickly and unexpectedly shortly after childbirth). This hope is based on the fact that God has shown himself capable of saving without baptism and may still continue to do so.


Athanasian Creed article 6, meaning of "the glory equal" In the Athanasian Creed, article 6, we read:

  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

Does the wording of this article mean that there are 3 different and personal glories and majesties which are all equal as opposed to one majesty shared by the 3 Persons?

One possible angle is to look at the Latin text, since there is no official adopted Greek text. The article reads:

Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas: æqualis gloria, coæterna majestas.

Though the colon might throw us off, we ought to remember that it did not exist as punctuation in the original, so we might feasibly emphasize the parallelism of this article by reconstructing the passage as follows, followed by my literal translation:
"Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" - "Of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
"est" - is
"una divinitas" - one divinity
"aequalis gloria" - equal glory
"coaeterna majestas" - coeternal majesty
In other words, the Three Persons are said to possess "one divinity" in the same way that they possess the other two qualities. Thus, in this Creed, I would venture to claim that the reference is to the shared glory and majesty of the three persons as one God.
In general, as already mentioned, the "differences" between the Persons are their "ad intra" relations. The "ad extra" actions are of one God.
The larger question--about whether we can refer to a glory particular to the Father or Son or Holy Spirit--is complicated. The most direct Scriptural reference is in the priestly prayer of Jn 17:1-5:

1b Πάτερ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα· δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ, 2 καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 3 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. 4 ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας ὃ δέδωκάς μοι ἵνα ποιήσω· 5 καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.
1b Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

In this passage, I would argue that Jesus is speaking of a relational difference in the glory (δόξα) communicated between the Father and the Son. That, however, is a separate question which would merit a separate reply.


How did the crucifixion come to be? Is it the pain and suffering on the cross that was the main consideration to the crucifier and that is why that they did it? Or is there some other symbolic meaning for crucifixion?

How did the crucifixion come to be?

It was for a slow, painful and also humiliation. The cross had no symbolic meaning in a crucifixion, it could have been any wooden construction. Historically crucifixion actually means impaling on a plank, piece of wood ,etc. The word cross actually comes from the word crux which defers to a wooden construction(or tree) used for impaling people on. Where it came from we don't know, the oldest registered crucifixion is before ancient Rome by the Persians somewhere 500 B.C.


According to the Catholic Church, is there any supernatural (non-physical, non-mathematical, non-scientific) part of a human being? My previous understanding of the Catholic Church's teaching was that a human being is of two conjoined natures: physical and spiritual. Also, my previous reasoning was that things like consciousness, the ability to feel and especially free will are impossible in the natural/physical/mathematical world, where all that is possible are non-conscious, non-free, more or less sophisticated mechanisms. Therefore, I would say, free will must have supernatural origins and the claim that a human being has free will implies that there must be a supernaturnatural, spiritual, non-mathematical, non-physical, non-scientific part of the human nature, that cannot be researched nor explained by scientific means.

However, now I am being told that what I was thinking and saying were all heresies. I am being told that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church there is no supernatural or spiritual part nor dimension in the human being or human soul. The only fundamental difference between humans and animals, according to the Church, is that God has gifted humans with His grace to a greater extend than animals, and because of this God's favor humans are granted immortality - but otherwise, humans are really simply more intelligent animals and nothng more. Therefore free will, if existent, is absolutely within the scope of science and probably will be fully explained by science.

Some people I was talking to were telling me that was I was believing were non-Christian views of Plato, and that I was guilty of believing and spreading the "heresy of Platonic dualism", since the Church has rejected the views of Plato and instead adopted the views of Aristotle, as described above, through St. Thomas. Other people were telling me that while my views were not yet heretical, because these views, since adopted by St. Augustine (who had been inspired by Plato), did have their place in the Church, nevertheless they were unfavorable, since the majority of theologians were instead holding the views of St. Thomas, who had been inspired by Aristotle.

The view that free will is a purely natural phenomenon that does not and can not have supernatural origins, since there is no such part nor dimension in the human being is, I have to admit, absolutely counter-intuitive for me and is absolutely opposite to how I used to understand the teaching of the Church. Therefore, could you explain to me, according to the teaching of the Church:

Is there no non-natural, non-scientific, non-physical, non-mathematical part or dimension in the human nature?
If so, does free will therefore have purely natural origins that are not fundamentally prohibited from being researched and fully explained by science?

If I may ask, could you kindly back your answers by appropriate citations of the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Disclaimer: Just to keep my conscience clear: This is a summation of views 3 different persons, out of them I know one to have academic background in theology and philosophy and have reasons to suspect one more of such background; these three peoples' views did clash on certain subtleties, however I do not feel competent to state them; finally I am likely to have misunderstood and misinterpreted certain subtleties. The big picture stands, however, for these reasons I cannot 100% say that every word I wrote is an accurate representation of what I was told to be the teaching of the Church.

The answer can be found here in the Catechism of the Catholic Church; in particular, it says:

  366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

This paragraph makes pretty clear that the Catholic Church says there is a part of man that is not “tangible” or “mathematical”.

The other paragraphs in this sections explain it a little better and I think can provide an answer to your other doubts.


Is Jesus talking about supererogatory merit in Matt 5:38-48? i.e. earning a reward rather than sin I know the word "merit" will send up red flags for Protestants, but what I mean has nothing to do with justification.  By supererogatory merit I mean doing something not required, and doing it for the purpose of earning a reward (not of being justified).  The reason I ask the question is because normally I've read Matt 5:38-48 as a set of disjointed verses (reading it in the KJV which is always printed verse-by-verse).  But recently having read it in a few modern translations that arrange the verses in paragraphs, I noticed something interesting.

The verses on turning to the other cheek, giving your coat to anyone who sues for your shirt, loving your enemies, all seem to be connected to verse 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?"  So its all about trying to earn a reward.  "And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others?"  Ah, and its about doing more than others!

This calls in question the traditional interpretation that its a sin to defend yourself, to defend yourself in a lawsuit, to hate your enemy, and presents these things as extras, something above and beyond for those who want to do more than others and earn a special reward.

So my question is basically, what do you think?  Is there any basis to this interpretation or do you think its entirely wrong?

I don't think that Matt 5:38-48 is a depiction of the type of system you are describing. Rather, it appears to be Jesus doing something he often did, namely, turning the thoughts and traditions of man upside-down. When He says "you have heard it said...", he is referring to some Rabbi's teaching somewhere (that is how they often taught back then, similar to PhD's today quoting one another).

However, there IS a biblical basis to defend the type of system you are curious about. Read 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.

(NIV)
10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Paul says here that no one can lay another foundation (the foundation must be Christ), so, the foundation is your salvation or justification by Christ's body and blood (I, as a Protestant, would say "faith alone"). However, Paul also states that each man builds on this foundation using materials (your works and/or fruits, or merits), and that we will receive rewards according to how our works hold up in God's test (most likely on judgment day).

I hope that helped to answer your question.


What is the biblical support that the Catholic Church is the custodian of truth? The doctrine of papal infallibility is not founded on biblical texts specifically. It is founded on the "biblically supported" doctrine that the church is the custodian of truth. What is the scriptural support for the Catholic church's claim that they are the custodians of truth? What does it mean to be the custodian of truth. Does this mean that they believe in modern revelation and receive direction from God?

The key Biblical passage is Mt 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it" (NRSVCE). Though such a citation inevitably hearkens back to certain meta-questions about the use of "πέτρᾳ," the Catholic Church has always seen it as referring to the specific ministry of Peter, out of which grew the institution of the Papacy.
It would follow as a corollary that this "not prevailing" depends not on any human strength but on a special kind of assistance: hence the "parakletos" referred to most insistently in Christ's Last Supper Discourse.
Important to note (though perhaps a bit ancillary to this particular question) is that a Catholic would take issue with one notion that seems to underlie your question, that a doctrine is valid only insofar as it is "founded" on or directly corroborated by Scripture. Though Scripture is an extremely important "fons revelationis"--and some theologians would be willing to argue that all doctrine can be implicitly found in it--the Catholic Church has always had strong confidence in the value of Sacred Tradition (capital "T"), built on the practice of the Apostles and the teachings of the early Church.
As for the precise meaning of "custodian of the truth": the Catholic Church speaks of a "depositum fidei" (deposit of faith) closed at the death of St. John, which constitutes the public revelation of Christ, in whom all the truths of salvation are contained. Though further revelations ("private revelations") are not rejected, and sometimes are approved as useful (such as the apparitions at Fatima and Lourdes), they belong to a separate category altogether because they are directed at understanding the "depositum" in a more profound or culturally focused way. Catholic dogma all exists in the "depositum," though centuries of development and interpretation prompt us to see things that were not clear before, such as the Assumption or Immaculate Conception. No "modern revelation" that purports to add something to the deposit of faith is admitted by the Church.
The proper relation of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium is expressed well in Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Cf. especially #10:

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. (7)
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. 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.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. Source: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Bl. Paul VI, November 18, 1965.


What is the Obsolete Covenant? By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete;
  and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (Hebrews 8:13,
  NIV)

In the light of the Epistle to Hebrews, what did the author mean by "The First Covenant" and "The New Covenant"?

What is the First Covenant which is now outdated and will soon disappear?

This is the old covenant which God made with Abraham and his posterity.
Genesis 15:18 NRKJV

18 In the same day יהוה made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Genesis 17:1 through 14 NRKJV

1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, יהוה appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am El-Shaddai1 ; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3 And Abram fell on his face: and Elohim talked with him, saying,
4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be an Elohim unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their Elohim.
9 And Elohim said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

This is the New covenant which Jesus made with all people and not just the seed of Abraham.
Mat 26:27 through 29 NRKJV

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Since the first covenant was only with Abraham and his seed, since Jesus death would now provide salvation for both Jew and Gentile it did not cancel the old covenant, but actually expanded the first covenant to include the Gentiles.
It is called the new covenant because it is the first covenant with the Gentiles.


Did Prophet Jeremiah's soul pre-exist his conception in human form? At Jeremiah 1: 4-5 we see the prophet speaking of his call:

  Now the word of the Lord came to me saying,
   “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
  and before you were born I consecrated you;
  I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Do the words of the Lord indicate that the soul of Jeremiah had existed even before he was conceived by his mother? Or, are they only meant to be  a figurative expression? How do the teachings of Catholic Church explain the words of God to Jeremiah?

No, Jeremiah (and you and me) didn't have a soul until it was "formed in the womb"

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God
CCC 366

It's pretty clear and unambiguous, even Jesus' human soul was created at the Incarnation. (please correct me if the tense or the verbs "was created" are wrong).  The function of the soul is to animate the body.

it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul,
CCC 364

If there's no body, there's no need for a soul and what there is no need for, there isn't.  After death, our souls await being reunited with our bodies because the body+soul mix is what being human is all about.

As for Jeremiah, according to the commentary in the NAB, this is because his birth was foretold.  Obviously, if there's a foretelling, there's a foreknowledge and certainly if God is omniscient, He knows us before we're born, it doesn't mean He makes us before we're born.
If I grew a head of lettuce and some tomatoes and was intent on making a salad, I could say.  Before I ate you, I knew you in the garden. If I had wanted to make an omelet, I could say to the omelet, before I ate you, I knew you in the egg, etc...
I had this question myself many times, belief in the soul preexisting conception is a heresy that was denounced like 1700 years ago that I can't remember the name of but someone called me out on it on this very site, so I figured I'd pass this along to you.


What do Catholic Deacons do that a Priest would never do? In the Latin rite of the Catholic Church we have permanent Deacons. What do they do that a Priest would never do? I know they cannot say Mass and hear Confessions. There must be a good reason why we have men who are ordained but not allowed to say Mass or hear Confessions. Why do we even have Deacons?

What can Deacons do that a Priest woud never do?
The short answer is nothing, at least liturgically speaking. Permanent deacons are permitted to be married and have a family, whereas priests are generally celibate. A few permanent deacons go on to the priesthood after the death of their spouse.
However, permanent deacons are of great value to the Church.
For example, they run parishes in communities that do not have access to priests. In Canada, this becomes more and more true as one goes further north.
At mass, deacons read the Gospel and aid the priest in the distribution of Holy Communion.
In the Words of Pope Francis: “they are dedicated to the service of the poor, who carry within them the face of the suffering Christ.”
Deacons were instituted by the Apostles so as to help the poor and widows. Thus this would free up time for the Apostles so that they could be more dedicated to preaching the Gospel.

The name deacon (diakonos) means only minister or servant, and is employed in this sense both in the Septuagint (though only in the book of Esther, e.g. 2:2; 6:3) and in the New Testament (e.g. Matthew 20:28; Romans 15:25; Ephesians 3:7; etc.). But in Apostolic times the word began to acquire a more definite and technical meaning. Writing about 63 A.D. St. Paul addresses "all the saints who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Philippians 1:1). A few years later (1 Timothy 3:8 sq.) he impresses upon Timothy that "deacons must be chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience." He directs further that they must "first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime", and he adds that they should be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children and their own houses. For they that have ministered well shall purchase to themselves a good degree, and much confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." This passage is worthy of note, not only because it describes the qualities desirable in candidates for the diaconate, but also because it suggests that external administration and the handling of money were likely to form part of their functions.
Origin and early history of the diaconate
According to the constant tradition of the Catholic Church, the narrative of Acts 6:1-6, which serves to introduce the account of the martyrdom of St. Stephen, describes the first institution of the office of deacon. The Apostles, in order to meet the complaints of the Hellenistic Jews that, "their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations" (diakonia), called together

“the multitude of the disciples and said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve (diakonein) tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continuously to prayer, and to the ministry of the word (te diakonia tou logou). And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost”

(with six others who are named). These they placed "before the Apostles; and they, praying, imposed hands upon them."
Now, on the ground that the Seven are not expressly called deacons and that some of them (e.g. St. Stephen, and later Phillip (Acts 21:8) preached and ranked next to the Apostles, Protestant commentators have constantly raised objections against the identification of this choice of the Seven with the institution of the diaconate. But apart from the fact that the tradition among the Fathers is both unanimous and early — e.g. St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, xii, 10 and IV, xv, 1) speaks of St. Stephen as the first deacon — the similarity between the functions of the Seven who served the tables and those of the early deacons is most striking. Compare, for example, both with the passage from the Acts with 1 Timothy 3:8 sq., quoted above, the following sentence from Hermas (Sim., IX, 26):

“They that have spots are the deacons that exercised their office ill and plundered the livelihood of widows and orphans and made gains for themselves from the ministrations they had received to perform.”

Or, again, St. Ignatius (Ep. ii to the Trallians):

“Those who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ must please all men in all ways. For they are not deacons of meats and drinks [only] but servants of the church of God.”

St. Clement of Rome (about A.D. 95) clearly describes the institution of deacons along with that of bishops as being the work of the Apostles themselves (Ep. Clem., xlii). Further, it should be noted that ancient tradition limited the number of deacons at Rome to seven (Eusebius, Church History VI.43), and that a canon of the council of Neo-Caesarea (325) prescribed the same restriction for all cities, however large, appealing directly to the Acts of the Apostles as a precedent. We seem, therefore, thoroughly justified in identifying the functions of the Seven with those of the deacons of whom we hear so much in the Apostolic Fathers and the early councils. Established primarily to relieve the bishops and presbyters of their more secular and invidious duties, notably in distributing the alms of the faithful, we need not do more than recall the large place occupied by the agapae, or love feasts, in the early worship of the Church, to understand how readily the duty of serving at tables may have passed into the privilege of serving at the altar. They became the natural intermediaries between the celebrant and the people. Inside the Church they made public announcements, marshaled the congregation, preserved order, and the like. Outside of it they were the bishop's deputies in secular matters, and especially in the relief of the poor. Their subordination and general duties of service seem to have been indicated by their standing during the public assemblies of the Church, while the bishops and priests were seated. It should be noticed that along with these functions probably went a large share in the instruction of catechumens and preparation of the altar services. Even in the Acts of the Apostles (8:38) the Sacrament of Baptism is administered by the deacon Phillip.
An attempt has recently been made, though regarded by many as somewhat fanciful, to trace the origin of the diaconate to the organization of those primitive Hellenistic Christian communities, which in the earliest age of the Church had all things in common, being supported by the alms of the faithful. For these it is contended that some steward (oeconomus) must have been appointed to administer their temporal affairs. (See Leder, Die Diakonen der Bischöfe und Presbyter, 1905). The full presentment of the subject is somewhat too intricate and confused to find place here. We must content ourselves with noting that less difficulty attends the same writer's theory of the derivation of the judicial and administrative functions of the archdeacon from the duties imposed upon one selected member of the diaconal college, who was called the bishop's deacon (diaconus episcopi) because to him was committed the temporal administration of funds and charities for which the bishop was primarily responsible. This led in time to a certain judicial and legal position and to the surveillance of the subordinate clergy. - Deacons

A great example for deacons can be found in the person of St. Lawrence who distributed alms to the poor, whom he called the riches of the Church.

St.Lawrence was thought to have been born on December 31, AD 225,2 in Valencia, or less probably, in Huesca, the town from which his parents came in the later region of Aragon that was then part of the Roman province of Hispania Tarraconensis. The martyrs Orentius (Modern Spanish: San Orencio) and Patientia (Modern Spanish: Santa Paciencia) are traditionally held to have been his parents.
Lawrence encountered the future Pope Sixtus II, who was of Greek origin and one of the most famous and highly esteemed teachers, in Caesaraugusta (today Zaragoza). Eventually, both left Spain for Rome. When Sixtus became the Pope in 257, he ordained Lawrence as a deacon, and though Lawrence was still young appointed him first among the seven deacons who served in the cathedral church. He is therefore called "archdeacon of Rome", a position of great trust that included the care of the treasury and riches of the Church and the distribution of alms to the indigent.

St. Lawrence is one of the patron saints of deacons.
As a personal note, I celebrate his feast day by praying for all deacons in the Church. If possible I have an outdoor barbecue in his honor. St. Lawrence was cooked to death on a gridiron on 10 August 258 in Rome.
Besides going to mass on his feast day, I listen to John Denver’s song "Rocky Mountain High", Which refers to his experience watching the Perseid meteor shower (also known the tears of St. Lawrence) as during a family camping trip in the mountains near Aspen, Colorado, with the chorus lyric, "I've seen it raining fire in the sky."

In August, watch this meteor shower named for a saint


How common were blasphemy accusations and trials among the Jews during the time of Jesus? I am curious if any critical scholarly work has attempted to study the frequency with which blasphemy accusations occurred within the Jewish community at the time of Jesus, and if possible, how many of those trials led to executions as Jesus' did?

Based upon the Talmudic statement that if a Bet Din (high court) convicted one person to death they were a bloody body, it would seem to me that killing someone even for blasphemy was uncommon and loathed.
The Mishnah states that a sanhedrin that executes one person in seven years — or seventy years, according to Eleazar ben Azariah — is considered bloodthirsty.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism

Furthermore in the gospels it is recorded that the Jews had lost the right to capital punishment and that is why Jesus was sent to Pilate.

The Sanhedrin stopped issuing capital punishment either after the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE or alternatively, according to passages in the Talmud and New Testament, in 30 CE when the Sanhedrin were moved out of the Hall of Hewn Stones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism

When Caponius was appointed Procurated (around 7 A.D.), the legal power of the Sanhedrin was restricted and adjudication of capital offenses was lost. Cf. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 2:8; Antiquities 20:9.
http://forums.jewsforjesus.org/thread-9793.html