What is so special about sitting at God's "right hand"? This concept seems to show up in a few places:

  Psalms 110:1 (NIV)
  The LORD says to my lord:
     “Sit at my right hand
     until I make your enemies
     a footstool for your feet.”

  Ephesians 1:19–20 (NIV)
  ...and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms...

  Romans 8:34 (NIV)
  Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Clearly, undeniably Jesus is at the "right hand of God".  But what does that mean or signify?  Would being at the left hand of God be a bad thing?

Scope: I'm specifically seeking a mainstream Protestant exegesis of this text, although I suspect the understanding will be universal across all denominations and doctrines (although I could be wrong).

It simply means that Christ is uniquely special to God and has his authority.

To sit at the right hand of an earthly king was a place of honor, denoting special trust, authority from, and relationship with the king.  It was something that was understood without needing explanation at the time.

If you were to sit at the right hand of the King meant that you acted with his authority.  Those who came to you would treat you with respect and obedience, as if you were the king yourself.

It's one of the many demonstrations in the Bible, which is not readily understood by us in our time that made perfect sense to the culture as it was then.

There's an article that explains it a bit differently, with more detail here: http://www.letusreason.org/onenes10.htm

This is an excerpt:

  To sit at ones right hand means a place of authority, it was a place
  of honor it meant dignity and rulership. Throughout the O.T there are
  used what are called anthropomorphism to describe God in some function
  or characteristic. this is figurative language describing a certain
  characteristic of God it is describing his divine actions from a human
  view point.

...

  The term at the right hand of God points to his exalted position he
  now is active on. There are numerous things that need to be considered
  to understand this phrase. The phrase right hand is a metaphor, God
  exercises his authority by his right hand.

  Right after Peter writes of the resurrection he says 1 Pt.3:22 Who has
  gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and
  authorities and powers having made subject to him". If he is God the
  Father then they are already subjected to him, If he is only a man,
  then the ruling of the universe is in a humans hands. So it is as in
  Mt.28:18 all authority was given to him in both heaven and earth. This
  is something he did not have as he came to earth in a state of
  humility Phil.2:5-8.

There are several other ways of stating the same basic thing here: http://biblemeanings.info/Words/Body/Right_hand.htm


Can Elders of a church be young? I am referring to 'Elders' in the sense of 1 Timothy 5:17 (NIV) :

  17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

As opposed to 'Respect your Elders'. Is there an age-requirement?

This all kind of depends on what you mean by "young".

Titus 1:5 - 9 has a more detailed description of what an elder should be:

  Titus 1:5 - 9

  5 I left you on the island of Crete so you could complete our work
  there and appoint elders in each town as I instructed you.

  6 An elder
  must live a blameless life. He must be faithful to his wife, and
  his children must be believers who don’t have a reputation for being
  wild or rebellious.

  7 For an elder must live a blameless life. He
  must not be arrogant or quick-tempered; he must not be a heavy
  drinker, violent, or dishonest with money.

  8 Rather, he must enjoy
  having guests in his home, and he must love what is good. He must live
  wisely and be just. He must live a devout and disciplined life.

  9 He
  must have a strong belief in the trustworthy message he was taught;
  then he will be able to encourage others with wholesome teaching and
  show those who oppose it where they are wrong.

As you can see while this description does not explicitly give an age requirement, it gives the expectation that this person is established, and that they have a proven track record of being Godly.


What are legitimate reasons for a Catholic priest to take a sabbatical? Some of the priests I know were recently given a sabbatical year (in both cases it wasn't for the sake of study - the priests ended their parish assignments lasting for many years and had time to think over whether to take another parish, enter a monastery or leave priesthood completely). When looking for details how sabbatical works for Catholic priests, I found a document concerning archdiocese of Seattle - this seems to expect the priest on a sabbatical to study some special program.

So here are my questions:

1) What does Canon law say about sabbaticals (link to particular canons + brief summary should be OK)?

2) What is up to the Ordinary? How usual is the linked policy, and how different is practice in other dioceses? What reasons for sabbatical are accepted (provided that other requirements have been met) in most dioceses, what in some and what almost never?

I'm interrested especially in situations like that of the two priests I mentioned, but any other information about priests' sabbaticals is welcome.

1) Nothing. Canon law is silent on sabbaticals. It's a completely discretionary thing.

2) Priests' sabbaticals can be many things. Some go on to write a book. Others indeed do study -- one of my university friends was a Catholic priest from Australia who came to Oxford, on a sabbatical, to study for a doctorate. During a sabbatical, at least for reasons of study, their faculties remain intact, but they should in general restrict themselves to co-celebration of Mass. Then there are sabbaticals for health reasons -- usually, policies there tend to be subject to diocesan policies on safeguarding the health (mental, physical and spiritual) of priests. Finally, there are sabbaticals for 'other reasons', these tend to be either giving priests some time to think things through (especially if they somehow were affected by a serious incident or experience a crisis in faith, which happens even to priests!) or as a 'lite' version of suspension. The ordinary has pretty unfettered discretion in this area, subject to, of course, not really having much of a choice where a priest is subject to incapacitating illness. Lately, given the recognition that priests are under an enormous amount of stress and need some care themselves, policies are arguably such that they're more likely to give priests some time if they so need. Sorry that's a bit of a disappointing answer, but sadly that's the best one can do when something's up to the about 400 or so dioceses that make up the Church!


Modern religious law it still applicable? Leviticus 20 literally is associated with Israelites. Why is there a necessity for association with modern law?

I have to agree with DJClayworth in that I'm not sure which verse(s) you're referring to from Leviticus 20 have been associated with which modern law(s), but I did want to try and help answer the question you have to the best of my knowledge.

As a quick intro, many people (even the staunchly devout) have misjudged the Old Testament as being just a historical account of how things started and where Christian beliefs originated. But after reading through the Bible a couple of times and praying that God would show me the message He wanted me to glean from the Old Testament, I realized that the Old Testament has a much greater purpose than simply its historical value.

In Malachi 3:6, the very first line in that verse says "For I am the Lord, I do not change". And it's in that verse, written in the very last book of the Old Testament, that I finally and truly understood the major value that the OT holds.

The Old Testament refers to God, specifically, far more than the New Testament (which focuses primarily on Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit). And in all the instances where God takes action or speaks to someone in the Old Testament, we see God's nature. What He says and tells people to do, plus the things that He does all point to who He is, just as our speech and actions tell others who we are and what our nature is. And while we can learn who God was through the Old Testament, Malachi 3:6 says that we are actually learning and seeing who God still IS to this very moment, because He NEVER changes.

So in Leviticus 20, some of the verses (such as the ones in regard to Molech) do have a specific and direct relation to the Israelites at that particular time, BUT the nature of those verses also reveal the underlying topics that God cared about then and still cares about today.

When I read Leviticus 20, I see underlying topics such as loyalty to God, the value of all lives, the dangers of communicating with unknown spirits, the importance of respecting our parents, the importance of fidelity and loyalty in marriage, the seriousness of marriage in general, the concern for good family relationships, the concern for our health and the importance of avoiding sexual behaviours that can negatively affect both our physical and emotional health, etc.

Because God NEVER CHANGES, we can know with complete certainty that the main issues addressed in the verses found in Leviticus 20 are still applicable (as far as God is concerned) to us today.

Most of the underlying topics from Leviticus 20 are still upheld by many people today for obvious reasons. Most of us know we shouldn't throw our babies in the fire or sleep with our brother . . . or our dog. It's not so much the laws of Leviticus or the laws of modern America that stop us from doing those things. Instead, it's our own conscience that usually puts the kibosh on those behaviors.

As a final note, to see whether a specific law or principle from the Old Testament was intended to carry through to modern times, look to see if it's mentioned in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament.

Hope that helps!


What was the concept of heaven people had before the death of Jesus? Catechism of the Catholic Church Para 1026 states : "By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has "opened" heaven to us....."

At Luke 15:21 we see the repentant  prodigal son declaring :

‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

We also see Jesus saying at Luke 16:22 (KJV) :  ""So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom."

And,  at John 14:2 (NRSVCE) :

" In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?"

Clearly, the concept of heaven was there even before the death of Jesus at the Cross. My question is: What does the Catholic Church say about the concept of Heaven that the people had before the death of Jesus ?

What was the concept of heaven people had before the death of Jesus?

The following is the closest I am able to find in trying to answer your question from a Catholic perspective.

As to what the Chosen People actually believe today may be something totally different. Remember that the Sadducees of Christ’s day and age denied the resurrection.

Religion historian Philip Jenkins believes the books of Wisdom and Maccabees can explain the origins of Christian beliefs about heaven and hell. His article is found on U.S.Catholic (Faith in Real Life).

  What early Christians learned from Jews about the afterlife

  Historically, there are many reasons why different religious bodies defined their scriptures as they did, but Catholics should be very grateful to have the texts they do. Far from being marginal or apocryphal, texts like Wisdom and Maccabees are precious testimony to a revolutionary era in Jewish history—roughly, the three centuries or so before Jesus’ time, a period that shaped emerging Christianity.

  When we read these often under-appreciated books today, we encounter ideas and beliefs that were quite startling at the time but that formed the outlook of Jesus’ first followers. These writings allow ordinary believers today an unparalleled glimpse into the thought world of the early Christian community. Moreover, these books demonstrate the continuity between the Jewish world and later Christian—and, specifically, Catholic—faith and practice, especially in changing attitudes toward the afterlife and of heaven, hell, and judgment.

  Throughout the gospels Jesus often speaks of the future life, of the fates reserved for the virtuous and the wicked. Not every Jew at the time shared those views, and the influential faction of the Sadducees even denied the afterlife. Even so, the early Christians were firmly rooted in the Jewish beliefs of the time: Death was assuredly not the end.

  But the more we investigate the Hebrew Bible, the more surprised we should be by this fact. Through most of the early history of the Hebrew people, the afterlife was anything but an obvious or accepted doctrine, and only in the three centuries or so before Jesus’ time did that situation change. Those centuries mark a tectonic shift in religious thought, and Jesus’ followers were at its heart. Both the books of Wisdom and Maccabees served as key manifestos for that revolution.

  When Old Testament books and authors discuss the afterlife, the picture they present is anything but hopeful. Before the sixth century BCE individuals who died survived at best as shades who had little distinct identity. In the grim words of Psalm 115, “The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any that go down into silence.”

  The Bible refers often to Sheol, the place of the dead, but this miserable place was not reserved for notorious sinners or wrongdoers. Regardless of your goodness or piety, the ultimate fate of humanity was the grave with its maggots and worms. In the third century BCE the author of Ecclesiastes wrote that the same fate ultimately comes to righteous and evil alike. All go down to Sheol. “But whoever is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost” (Eccl: 9:4–5). Only the fact that the book was credited to King Solomon ensured that such a materialist manifesto remained within the biblical canon.

  Later readers, Jewish and Christian, can point to some passages as indicating a belief in survival or resurrection, such as Ezekiel’s story of the valley of dry bones (37:1–14). Usually, though, such texts are visions of a collective future resurrection of the Hebrew people rather than of any given individual.

  So what changed? Jewish beliefs were first transformed at the time of the Exile to Babylon in the sixth century BCE, and ideas of an afterlife become much more obvious in so-called post-Exilic works written after the 520s.

  The main reason for change was the increasingly firm monotheism taught originally by the great prophets. They rejected any suggestion that the God of Israel had consorts or companions and scoffed at images of God sitting in a heavenly court with fellow deities and goddess wives. Nor was God the lord of the Hebrew nation alone while other divine figures ruled only their particular peoples. For prophets like Isaiah or Jeremiah God was absolutely and sternly alone, the one creator and Lord of the whole earth.

  But that strict monotheism raised troubling questions, especially about the nature of good and evil. If God was alone and all-powerful, then his followers had to explain the existence of so much evil in the world. Why did so many evildoers end their days in comfort and security, while the righteous perished in gutters?

  While believers used many strategies to address those questions, the idea of the afterlife helped enormously. If wrongdoers flourished today, they would get their comeuppance in another life when the virtuous and poor would receive their rewards. One great meditation on those issues of ultimate justice is the Book of Job, which was probably written in the fifth or fourth century BCE, and which includes a stunning suggestion of future resurrection.

  Afterlife beliefs became much more popular and widespread from the third century BCE onward, when ideas of heaven, hell, and resurrection were freely discussed in highly influential writings that are not included in most canonical Bibles. The most important was the first Book of Enoch, which Jesus certainly knew and which early Christians regarded as inspired scripture.

  The text as we have it combines several separate writings created at various points between about 250 and 100 BCE. Throughout Enoch we find stories of heavens and hells, each presided over by archangels and devils in a way that looks utterly familiar to modern readers but which was daring and innovative in its age. The book’s readers hoped for heaven and feared hell.

  One critical event fanned the flames of otherworldly expectation, namely the great Maccabean revolt of the 160s BCE, when faithful Jews rose in armed rebellion against pagan Greek overlords. The ensuing wars were savage, and countless Jewish patriots were killed, often in circumstances of vicious torture and persecution.

  Again the question arose: Did these individuals really have no hope of reward or vindication beyond the collective good of the Hebrew people? But of course they did, if you assumed an individual afterlife and a resurrection to judgment. Back in the fourth century a glorious afterlife was a distant aspiration; by the second the idea became an urgent necessity.

  We see the shift in attitudes in the book called 2 Maccabees, which Catholics and Orthodox Christians accept as a fully canonical part of scripture, but which Protestants see as apocryphal. Probably written in the late second century BCE, the most astonishing thing about 2 Maccabees is that so little in it surprises us today. Throughout, we read stories that exactly fit our expectations of how God’s martyrs should behave.

  When one resistance hero has his hands severed, he declares that he will receive them again after his death. His brother proclaims a similar faith and warns his persecutors that they, unlike he, will have no resurrection which they can look forward.

  Writers of the post-Maccabean era explored the possible implications of that core idea of survival after death, and some of the beliefs they report sound as if they belong to a much later era, to the point of prefiguring a Christian thought-world. After the great nationalist hero Judah the Maccabee secured victory, 2 Maccabees reports how he collects money to be sent to the Temple for a sin-offering for those who had fallen in heroic battle.

  The author holds out this deed as an example for others to follow: “For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. . . Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin” (2 Macc. 12:44–45). The doctrines expressed here sound oddly akin to ideas of later Catholic Christianity, including the communion of saints and the practice of prayer for the dead.

  For most Jews the afterlife became a natural expectation. That change is obvious in the Book of Wisdom that Christians find in their own Bibles, and which dates to the first century BCE. Wisdom offers a telling parody of the Ecclesiastes text quoted above—ironically, because like Ecclesiastes this text too is credited to King Solomon. As the author of Wisdom asks, so you believe that we are shadows that just fade away, and nobody returns after death? So what is to prevent you from committing every form of sin and exploitation? In reality, says Wisdom,

    The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,
    and no torment will ever touch them.
    In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died,
    and their departure was thought to be affliction disaster,

    and their going from us to be their destruction;
    but they are at peace. . . .
    Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good,
    because God tested them and found them worthy of himself;
    like gold in the furnace he tried them,
    and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them. (3:1–6)

  Not surprisingly, this is a popular text at modern Christian funerals, where these comforting words seem familiar and appropriate. But how radical were these ideas compared to what had gone before in the Hebrew tradition! So beautifully did Wisdom expound later Christian ideas that some early churches wanted to include it in the New Testament, rather than the Old.

  In the century or so before Jesus was born the afterlife theme was freely discussed in many once-beloved texts and tracts, and Jesus and his first followers certainly knew most of them. (They were not included in any later Bibles.)

  The Testament of Judah tells us how “they who have died in grief shall arise in joy, and they who have lived in poverty for the Lord’s sake shall be made rich, and they who have been in want shall be filled, and they who have been weak shall be made strong, and they who have been put to death for the Lord’s sake shall awake in life.” Those assurances about future rewards sound very close to the beatitudes of Jesus himself, who was likely recalling the text.

  No one source or writing carried those doctrines of the afterlife into the apostolic world. Rather, the ideas had become standard in the Jewish world in the previous few generations, and they became the familiar subject matter of many writings. What impresses us today is how firmly the early church was building on those Jewish precedents, including some ideas that we might have thought much later. Nothing better illustrates the thoroughly Jewish setting from which Jesus and his first followers emerged.

  There are many reasons to read and reread books like Wisdom and 2 Maccabees. You can read them as historic documents, or they can serve as mighty defenses against those who believe that Catholic doctrines such as prayer for the dead are unscriptural. Above all. they are magnificent statements of core Christian doctrines and wonderful expositions of that faith. - What early Christians learned from Jews about the afterlife


Is there a mentioning (in the Bible) about why God exists? I know Christianity at a glance as I haven't read the Bible thoroughly from start to finish. I haven't found bad things Jesus taught us. But I have a crucial question to raise my confidence in believing Jesus as my savior. The question is:

Is there a mentioning (in the Bible) about why god exists?

The Bible assumes God exists. It begins with:

Genesis 1:1 ESV

  1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Not answering the question "Why", but simply having God as a premise.

I heard Ravi Zacharias say once. That in the Occident that we asked the question if we should believe in God, but in Orient they ask which god you believe in. In Orient they take for granted that you will believe in something.

Since the Bible was written in the Est and during an age where atheism and skepticism was not what it is today, I ,personally, find it normal that they did not answer a question that was not in their mind and in their reality.

Since the vast majority of the people at the time of the writing of the Bible believe in some God the Bible defines God, it does not explain the reason why.


What is the difference between the Jewish celebration of Passover and the Christian celebration of Easter? What are some of the main differences between the Jewish celebration of Passover from the Christian celebration of Easter?

They are quite unlike each other. You can read of the fundamentals of the Jewish Passover in Exodus 12. In fundamentalist Christianity, Easter is the celebration of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. You can read of the resurrection benefits for the Christian in 1 Corinthians 15. Wikipedia should have articles on each if you want to be more thorough. I will give an summary of these.

In the Jewish Passover, the Jewish people celebrate the time when their forefathers were slaves in Egypt and God spared them from death and brought them out of Egypt. He had first told the Jews (in Exodus 12) what to do to make sure they were not included in the judgment, including killing a lamb and dabbing blood around the door. When the avenging angel went from house to house to kill the firstborn throughout Egypt, and God saw the blood, He "passed over" that house, keeping the angel from entering in.

The secular version of Easter is as a harmless holiday. Easter began as a pagan religion to Astart the goddess of fertility - that's why symbols such as rabbits and eggs are incorporated into the holiday, and it takes place in the spring when new life begins after a cold winter.

The Christians have taken the holiday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. (New life - get it?) The eggs and rabbits usually don't enter into it except sometimes as holiday fun.

Your confusion may be because at one point in the biblical narrative, Jesus celebrates the Passover with His disciples (see Matthew 26). There, He applied the blood to Himself. In later books in the New Testament this is expanded: He was God's lamb to be sacrificed in their place so they would be set free from slavery to sin. Christians continue to do this "Lord's Supper" or communion with bread and wine, sometimes weekly, sometimes more or less often, and often on a Sunday. This Passover supper and Easter fall on the same day, and is an interesting dovetailing of the Old and New Testaments, where the OT figure of Christ (the Passover lamb) has been fulfilled in the NT.


What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to the doctrine of baptism as a necessity for salvation? The title says it all, really.

What did the ECF believe and teach with regards to baptism being or not being necessary for salvation?

Related: What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to baptismal regeneration?

“First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism
  for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the
  name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and
  rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is
  the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we
  should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and
  perpetual God.”

-Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching Ch. 3

  “Those, then, who, after having been baptized into Father, Son, and
  Holy Spirit, and having been taught that there is one divine nature in
  three subsistences, are rebaptized, these, as the divine Apostle says,
  crucify the Christ afresh (chapter 3)… But those who were not baptized
  into the Holy Trinity, these must be baptized again.” (chapter 9)

-John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV

  “It is possible that a man is wishing to pay court to a woman, and
  came hither on that account. The remark applies in like manner to
  women also in their turn. A slave also perhaps wishes to please his
  master, and a friend his friend. I accept this bait for the hook, and
  welcome thee, though thou camest with an evil purpose, yet as one to
  be saved by a good hope. Perhaps thou knewest not whither thou wert
  coming, nor in what kind of net thou art taken. Thou art come within
  the Church's nets: be taken alive, flee not: for Jesus is angling for
  thee, not in order to kill, but by killing to make alive: for thou
  must die and rise again.” (5)

-Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lect. 1

  “Great is the Baptism that lies before you: a ransom to captives; a
  remission of offences; a death of sin; a new-birth of the soul; a
  garment of light; a holy indissoluble seal; a chariot to heaven; the
  delight of Paradise; a welcome into the kingdom; the gift of
  adoption!” (16)

-Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lect. 1

  “We may not receive Baptism twice or thrice; else it might be said,
  Though I have failed once, I shall set it right a second time: whereas
  if thou fail once, the thing cannot be set right…” (7)

-Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lect. 1

  “Jesus sanctified Baptism by being Himself baptized. If the Son of God
  was baptized, what godly man is he that despised Baptism? But He was
  baptized not that He might receive remission of sins, for He was
  sinless; but being sinless, He was baptized, that He might give to
  them that are baptized a divine and excellent grace. For since the
  children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise
  partook of the same, that having been made partakers of His presence
  in the flesh we might be made partakers also of His Divine grace: thus
  Jesus was baptized, that thereby we again by our participation might
  receive both salvation and honor (11)… For thou goest down into the
  water, bearing thy sins, but the invocation of grace, having sealed
  thy soul, suffereth thee not afterwards to be swallowed up by the
  terrible dragon. Having gone down dead in sins, thou comest up
  quickened in righteousness. For if thou hast been united with the
  likeness of the Saviour's death, thou shall also be deemed worthy of
  His Resurrection. For as Jesus took upon Him the sins of the world,
  and died, that by putting sin to death He might rise again in
  righteousness; so thou by going down into the water, and being in a
  manner buried in the waters, as He was in the rock art raised again
  walking in newness of life (12)… Moreover, when thou hast been deemed
  worthy of the grace, He then giveth thee strength to wrestle against
  the adverse powers. For as after His Baptism He was tempted forty
  days…” (13)

-Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lect. 3


How does one become an Apostle in the LDS Church? With the recent passing of one of the Apostles in the LDS Church, how will the new  Apostle be chosen to fill the vacancy?

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of
  all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

  25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which
  Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

  26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias;
  and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:24-26)

When Judas Iscariot died in Christ's time, he left a vacancy in the Quorum of the twelve in the ancient Church. When choosing a replacement for Judas Iscariot in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the remaining Apostles understood the importance of the man being a witness, with the others, of Jesus’s ministry, from His baptism through His Resurrection (see Acts 1:22). The importance of this eyewitness testimony is a major theme in the early Church and the early chapters of Acts (see Acts 2:32; 3:15; 4:20; 5:32).

Anciently, casting lots was a means of making a decision. Among the Jews it was generally believed that the hand of God would direct the outcome:

  33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is
  of the Lord. (Proverbs 16:33).

Though the exact method of casting lots in this instance is not known, one ancient method involved each voter writing a name on a broken piece of pottery and then putting it forth to be read or counted.

The Apostles sought to know whom the Lord had chosen. A similar process is followed in the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.1

Following the calling and sustaining of Elder Robert D. Hales as an Apostle, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) explained how an Apostle is called today:

  “Under the Lord’s plan, those who have responsibility to select
  officers are governed by one overriding question: ‘Whom would the Lord
  have?’ There is quiet and thoughtful deliberation. And there is much
  of prayer to receive the confirmation of the Holy Spirit that the
  choice is correct.

  “… In filling that vacancy, each member of the First Presidency and
  the Quorum of the Twelve was at liberty to make suggestions. I am
  confident that in every case, there was solemn and earnest prayer. A
  choice was then made by the First Presidency, again after solemn and
  serious prayer. This choice was sustained by the Council of the
  Twelve. Today, the membership of the Church in conference assembled
  has sustained that choice.

  “I give you my testimony … that the impression to call Brother Hales
  to this high and sacred office came by the Holy Spirit, by the spirit
  of prophecy and revelation. Brother Hales did not suggest his own
  name. His name was suggested by the Spirit” (“God Is at the Helm,”
  Ensign, May 1994, 53–54).

Concerning the vacancy left by Elder Perry: the remaining Apostles will gather, and inspired by the spirit, they will put forth names of men they feel should fill the vacancy-typically they look at those men who are currently serving as a Seventy, but their prior callings are less important than their worthiness. The Apostles will then fast and pray, and discover whom the LORD has chosen. When the Apostles are in unanimous agreement that they have learned whom the Lord would have to fill the vacancy in the Twelve, and it has been confirmed by the Holy Ghost, they will then extend the call to that man, and his name will be put forth before the church at the next General Conference for their sustaining vote.

After he has been sustained, he will be ordained as an Apostle of the Lord by the laying on of hands by all of the other apostles, and serve in that calling for the rest of his life.

1 Chapter 29: Acts 1–2. New Testament Student Manual, 2014


Can a practicing Catholic be an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church Monastery? Stephen Colbert's wikipedia bio states:

  Colbert is a practicing Roman Catholic and a Sunday school teacher and an ordained minister with the Universal Life Church Monastery.

These two (bolded) things, according to various media reports and the blogsite of the Universal Life Church Monastery are factually correct, so I'm not asking if they are possible, but whether according to official Catholic doctrine the two are reconcileable?

By way of background information:

  The Universal Life Church Monastery (ULC) is a non-denominational, non-profit religious organization famous worldwide for its provision of free, legal ordinations to its vast membership over the internet. The ULC, recognizing the importance of maintaining open hearts and minds, embraces any individual, no matter his or her spiritual background, who wishes to become a member of this family of faith. Since its founding, the Universal Life Church has ordained more than 20 million ministers. - www.themonastery.org/aboutUs

The Picture is of Colbert officiating at the wedding of Mike Cassesso and MaiLien Le using a licence granted to him in the state of New York on the basis of his ULC credential.

Clearly Colbert was not officiating as a priest in the Catholic sacrament of marriage, but do his actions in conducting a non-Catholic wedding violate any particular Church teachings? If so, would it be regarded as a venial sin or a mortal one?

When examining your conscience, as a Catholic preparing for the Sacrament of Reconciliation with a book like the Handbook of Prayers, you'll hit this bullet point under the First Commandment:

  Did I endanger my faith by joining or attending meeting of organizations opposed to the Catholic Faith (non-catholic services, the Communist Part, free-masonry, "new age" cults or other religions)? Did I take part in one of its activities?

No, that would be "joining a non-Cathoic service".  The church looks pretty new-agey too.  Mr. Colbert, has no obligation as a TV personality to perform secular duties to marry people like a ship's captain or the Mayor of Pittsville.

The gravity of the sin, I think is varied by why he is doing what he is doing.  I'd say, at least he's not obviously officiating an illicit marriage, but why he's in that position, looking like an ordained minister - functioning as an ordained minister of a sect that holds values opposed to his own.

Now, lets analyze whether or not the Universal Life Church Monastery holds values

One the one hand you could have this type of a conclusion to the ceremony:

  Pronouncement

  Minister: By the power vested in me, by the Universal Life Church and by the state of Delaware, I pronounce you, Sally and Kevin as wife and husband, lawfully wedded before God.
  Kiss

  Minister: Kevin, you may now kiss the bride, forever sealing your union.
  Presentation

  Minister: Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present to you Mr. and Mrs. Sally and Kevin Smith!

On the other hand:

  Pronouncement

  Minister: By the power vested in me, by the Universal Life Church and by the state of Delaware, I pronounce you, Sally and Jennifer as wife and wife, lawfully wedded before God.

  Kiss

  Minister: Sally, you may now kiss the bride, forever sealing your union.
  Presentation

  Minister: Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present to you Mrs. and Mrs. Sally and Jennifer Smith!

and that's what they consider a Christian marriage service.  Now, there are lots of Christians who think this is peachy, but Catholic's can't just do what they want and not consider it sinful behavior, that's the price one pays for consuming the Body and Blood of Christ and also what one sacrifices when they knowingly commit a mortal sin.

One thing to note is, the reason this is not good is because it "endangers my faith".  It's a serious occasion of sin for a private individual. But, being a public figure and a self-proclaimed Catholic, it becomes scandalous, which is always worse.

This is the kind of stuff that needs to be denounced just as publicly as it was done in the first place.


easy yoke and heavy cross I am having difficulty reconciling a tension that I see in the teachings of Jesus.

In Matthew 11:28--30 Jesus tells us

  28 “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

(all verses herein have been taken from NRSV).  However, in Luke 9:23 Jesus also tells us

  23 Then he said to them all, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.

Similarly, in Luke 14:25--33 Jesus tells us the cost of discipleship

  25 Now large crowds were traveling with him; and he turned and said to them, 26 “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, 30 saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace. 33 So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

So on one hand, Jesus' yoke is easy and his burden his light.  On the other hand, we are also given the serious and austere command to take up our cross--which is very heavy.  In Romans 8:17, even Paul seems to suggest that we need to share in Christ's sufferings

  17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

In Mere Christianity, Lewis suggests that this tension is reconciled by devoting every aspect of our life to God, but this interpretation doesn't seem obvious to me.  It seems like there should be an easier, more apparent way of reconciling these passages.  If the Bible is God's word (as I believe it is), then why isn't easier to understand?

I have searched this forum, and have been unable to find any answers that directly address the tension to which I am referring.

I would be very grateful to anyone who can shed some light on this matter.

Thank you for your question, I think it is actually a good question to put ourselves into. About what Jesus's teaching is all about, and how can we live out our life that is glorifying to God. As I reflect my life upon it, I came to a simple thought that I hope that may help you.

I think we must come to understand our purpose in life. In this world that full of darkness and lawlessness, for what reason we live in this world, and to understand that Jesus has been giving encouragement and promises that comforts us, in trials, in difficulties, in persecutions and so on. To grow in Jesus Christ also means that we must allow ourselves to be exposed to the storm of life, trials and challenges.

Christian, or to say, disciples of Jesus Christ, are those who follow Jesus' teaching. Our only purpose in life is to fulfill God's Will and his purposes.

In Luke 9:23,

  23 Then he said to them all, “If any want to become my followers, let
  them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.

The daily cross represents trials and challenges in our lives, explicitly talking about the trials we face when we are doing God's Will. Jesus came and gave us Salvation, a gift of eternal life, and he has given commands to us that, as his disciples, we must do the same, the share the gospel to the world. Many unbelievers will come and try to give a hard time to those who shares gospel. Why? Simply because the Satan is deceiving the people, that Satan doesn't want the truth to be shared.

In these trials and temptation that Satan has led us into, I would explain in one situation to make a clearer picture of what I meant:

Say you have come to a church, and stayed here for several months. You join the Sunday Service even the Fellowship. And you enjoyed it, because you just sits there alone and enjoy all the programme that has been prepared by other people.

So one fine day, the pastor approach you and invited you to take up a serving position in the church. The next thing you realised is that you are sitting in a meeting, and the committee are discussing about the programme of the coming fellowship. One way or another, you started to find out that some of the people who serves in the church are less "friendly" as you expected. Some are even having very tight tension among other people who serves. You started to realised that, the relationship between men in the church are broken. Sooner or later, the trouble maker came to you and started to squeeze you and give pressure to you in your serving. And you were stressed about it, and told the pastor that you decided not to serve anymore.

Story Ends

The trouble maker I mentioned could be a pastor, a church leader, or someone who have high position, or anyone you men in your serving. I have been to many churches and see many cases, where there are always some people who have their pride inside, and doesn't allow those who were less superior that him/her to do decision or even say anything in a church serving.

These people, the "trouble makers" are one of the trials that we, as the disciples of Jesus face everyday. There is no way to avoid it, I believe God has placed different kind of people surrounding us, to test us, to give us chance to grow. And to share the gospel of those who have broken relationship with God.

And the daily cross means that, in our daily life. We must deny ourselves, get off the pride in ourselves, and in exchange, we focus on Jesus in our prayers and devotional time, to renew ourselves. Because we have trials to face.

But take courage, as Jesus said in Luke 28,

  “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens,
  and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me;
  for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your
  souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

When you have taken the cross and serve Jesus, you come to realise that: Serving People is Difficult!

And this moment, Jesus asked us to come to Him. Those who are weary and carrying heavy burdens, meaning that we are stressed and find no way in dealing the problems on our own. Neither can we just kick the Trouble Maker out of the church, or try hard to rebuke him at what he has done wrong. But one thing we can do is:

To surrender to our God.

Because at the end of the day, all the things that we do, we only participate it, and in partnership with God.

  8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is
  not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no
  one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus
  to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. -
  Ephesians 2:8-10

You see, God has already prepare everything for us, the work has done by God, in all many different ministry. God have entrusted us the work to us, and we do it not because we are trying to earn our salvation, we do it solely because we as Christian, love our God.

And in love, that we embrace ourselves in serving Him, because of the comforts and promises that Jesus has been given to us. Through love, we face difficult people; through love we share gospel to the people; That although we face trials and grows weary, but surely we will find rest and fin way in our All-Loving God, our Almighty God, Jesus Christ, Our Savior.

As Christian, we must be clear on what is our purpose. To proclaim the gospel in all nation. Understanding the challenges in this world at the End Time. And hold fast onto the hope and promises that God has given to us through the word of God. The bible is where you find your direction, and pray to listen to God for His guidance.


Do we have free will to choose salvation or is our "choice" an illusion? Researching whether angels have free will and whether God has free will, I found myself in the midst of this question.

Is free will an illusion?

Our "choice" is that we either follow God or we do not follow God.  However, God has clearly chosen some people to be saved and some to not be saved:

  Matthew 22:14 (NIV)
  For many are invited, but few are chosen.

  Jeremiah 1:5 (NIV) Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
     before you were born I set you apart;
     I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.

  Ephesians 1:5 (NIV) he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will

But, if God chose us to either be saved or not saved, do we have free will in choosing to follow him?

We have free will to chose salvation.  God created everything; The universe, our world, and even us. All of this is already his.
Our agency is the only thing that we are able to give God that he doesn't already have.

An example:  The President of the United States is chosen (by us) to be our Commander in Chief, though he can still choose to try to stay in bed and ignore his duties.

We're chosen (by God) for various things throughout our lives.  Whether we choose to obey him is entirely up to us.

Matthew 16:23-25 (KJV)

  But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou
  art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of
  God, but those that be of men.

  Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me,
  let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will
  lose his life for my sake shall find it.

The last line of that quote is in reference to people becoming martyrs.  It is a good example of someone having a choice regarding their salvation.  If someone chooses to deny Christ to save their life they will die spiritually, yet if they choose to die for Christ's sake, they will find their salvation.


What do Protestant churches teach about the fate of deceased infants? My question is posed to the Protestant churches that teach that man is saved by faith alone.

If a person is saved by faith alone, what happens to children who die before they are able to conceive of the meaning of Christ's death and their own need for him and therefore cannot have a saving faith in his work?

I heard the John Calvin taught that unbaptized infants were saved by their parents' faith. I've also heard that some Calvinist pastors will say that there is no way of knowing, because God has chosen which will go to heaven and hell apart from human action. Some Roman Catholic teachers taught that there was a place in Hell (or between Heaven and Hell) called limbo for unbaptized infants, but I see that Pope Francis has stated that unbaptized infants do have hope of salvation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549439/The-Pope-ends-state-of-limbo-after-800-years.html). But I'm looking for an overview of the positions that are taught as doctrine in the Protestant churches, or are at least in writing from their leaders.

The salvation of infants within Protestant denominations cover a wide range of alternate views.  The subject is closely related to different view of infant baptism but not identical. To avoid the subject of how baptism has its role in the subject, I would like to limit the scenario to a child that dies before having a chance of being baptized.

To keep things simple I would like to first list the main concepts involved that divide the views depending on the persons emphasis or belief in the principle ideas.

Virtually all protestants believe in original sin, therefore infants do need salvation.
Some believe that God can and does infuse a germ of faith into the soul of an infant at any age, regardless of the child's disposition or own will through irresistible grace. (This would be more common with Luther and Calvin and is similar to regenerating baptism)
Some believe in point (2) above but only for the elect. (This would be more common among Calvinistic Reformed Churches who put an emphasis on election. Some Baptists might lean in this direction also.)
Some believe faith is not even required for those assumed too young to sin of their own conscious choice and that faith is only required in those who are old enough to sin on their own accord. In other words everyone receives Christ until they reject Him. (This can be popular among almost any evangelical churches including Baptist, possibly less frequent in the traditional Lutheran)
Some believe (3) but that faith is not infused in the infant but counted for what God could foresee if the child were to have lived. In this sense there is allowance of what would have been under different conditions which might possibly be part of God's hidden reasons for the election in the first place. However, strictly speaking most classical Calvinists would oppose that idea for anything remotely implying that God's election has anything to do with man must be excluded. Therefore they revert back to simple infused irresistible grace. Yet, nevertheless even hyper Calvinists might hold this belief that God's foreknowledge of different circumstances 'may' be involved as they can't see how God's knowledge can be excluded from any of his decisions. Pushing the idea of foreknowledge towards an actual full reason for election is where Armenians and Methodists are usually found.
Some believe in point (2) but not just for the elect but practically speaking for those children of parents who are believers that baptize their children as infants. (I know I said I would exclude baptism but just as a branch of common ground I raise this one concept as virtually ceremonializing who is elect with respect to children.) This would be common in traditional and somewhat ceremonial churches like some Lutheran, some Anglican, I think some Presbyterian but am not sure. Some traditional reformed churches also I think might lean in this direction. The other varient of this of course is a mixture with (4). Under the mixed view, once an infant is too old, the security of baptism might 'wear off' so to speak and confirmation is needed.  The reason is that an age of innocence has passed, whereby their were protected from their parents faith and baptism and now must believe or reject the gospel for themselves.

Why so many views? Because the Bible does not directly deal with the question or the answer. It is to be expected that where the Bible does not directly lay out a specific view directed to the subject of infant deaths, or at least not do so in an obvious way, naturally various different views will develop. The bible puts its focus on those who are able to choose and believe, or reject the offer of eternal life. If this makes someone feel frustrated it might be worth noticing that we really can't know for sure who are genuine Christians or not anyway. We can only obtain assurance for our own soul for our own condition. So if a child dies at 1 month or 40 years, we can only hope for their soul anyway. Our faith and hope must be placed in God, both for ourselves and for others.

References
I have managed to find a good reference that seems to more or less categorize the different Protestant beliefs as I have done. All quotes from Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Norman L. Geisler, P360-365)

Baptized Infants Only

  This view is held by sacramentalists, who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. Some Roman Catholics, some Lutherans, and Anglicans espouse the position.

Elect Infants

  The elect infant view has not found a home outside of very strong Calvinistic circles.

Those God “Foreknows.”

  According to this position, God, as an omniscient Being, foreknew which infants would have believed if they had lived long enough.

All Infants

  Since the seventeenth century the view that all infants are saved has become the most popular in varying theological traditions. Some believe that all infants will eventually believe. Others believe that God will save infants apart from the condition that they would believe.


What is the basic Protestant understanding of oneness in these Scriptures? While it is quite evident Jesus is making reference to the Spiritual realm in the following Scriptures:

  John 17:20 through 24 NKJV  "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21  that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22  And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23  I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. 24  "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

What is not so obvious is exactly how we are all to come together and become one. And of particular interest is an explanation of that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

Even with the 11 commentaries that I use in my study, There seems to be no agreement on just what oneness means. They all agree and so do I that it is referring to inhabiting Heaven at some future date.

As close as I have been able to understand this is that when we are all of one common something it will prove the legitimacy of Christ.

If someone has a more complete understanding of these Scriptures I would appreciate knowing it.

Even though I am a Southern Baptist any Denominational doctrine is desired and the Catholic interpretation would also be helpful.

Thanks Bye.

According to the immediate context, the oneness of the believers with the Father and the Son in John 17 is oneness in terms of love.

John 17:11,22-24
11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one...
22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

Even the greater context shows that the mutual indwelling is based on love and not on nature.

And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 1 John 4:16
Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." John 14:23


How do "once saved, always saved" advocates explain the Parable about wise virgins? The Parable Matthew 25:1-13 King James Version (KJV)

  Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which
  took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

  2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

  3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

  4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

  5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

  6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh;
  go ye out to meet him.

  7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

  8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our
  lamps are gone out.

  9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for
  us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for
  yourselves.

  10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were
  ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

  11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to
  us.

  12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

  13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein
  the Son of man cometh.

Did the 5 foolish virgins were saved once but lost their salvation in the end? Clearly, they were waiting for Christ(the bridegroom) which means they were saved but didn't have faith(oil).

While it is impossible to account for all OSAS interpretations of of the passage, the most obvious answer is that the unwise virgins were not saved. Remember that certain (purported) proponents of OSAS allow that someone can be (self) deceived about their status as one of the elect.

Consider what Calvin wrote:

  Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent .... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent (Institutes, 3.2.11).

The unwise virgins believe that are ready only to learn too late that they lack the needed oil (grace?).


Is death a conscious act? In the book, I come across a statement that says:

  Many theologians say that death is always "a conscious act, " even
  when we seem unconscious to those around us. It is an act we perform,
  not something we simply use undergo.

Is there any supporting proof for this statement within the Roman Catholic Church's teaching or where some theologians get that idea?

There is a understanding in Catholic Culture, that most people at the end of their lives, typically die in the same manor that they lived.  For example, A person who lives his life rejecting in his heart the idea of God, will at the end of that life, continue on as when he was living it.  Alternatively, a person who lives a sacramental life of Prayer and adoration will continue to do so at the time of their death.

Redemption, as understood by the Catholic Church, includes stages, initial acceptance into the Church by Baptism, the reception of the Blessed Sacrament and confirmation. Unlike the New Christianity where preachers teach that  if only "once" you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, you are saved.  Christ and his church teaches biblically that a person must persevere to the end.  It is also clear that even a saved person continues to sin and must continually repent of that sin. Furthermore, Sin brings Punishments.  This is a concept that is clearly displayed in the Scriptures. It is essential for a Catholics to maintain there relationship, this is done through the Grace of the sacraments.

It may seem that I'm going off track a little.  I hope to bring it all back into focus at the end.

After a Christian is initiated into the Church through Baptism Eucharist and Confirmation, they are to use the sacrament of Reconciliation to remove the Guilt of sin, and perform Penance in order to repair the damages to their soul caused by sin, and to make reparations to damages caused to others. The Priest will give the confessed sinner, some manor of reparation, either prayer, Charity or fasting, or some other means by which a person repairs the damage they have done to themselves and to others.  If a sinner who commits a mortal sin, and has a valid confession, the guilt of sin is removed from the soul.  If the Penance is not done, the damage caused by the sin will need be repaired in the afterlife by means of purgation.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is not only efficacious, but a preparation for the day of judgement when the soul must answer for all that they have done.  Practice if you will, Humility training for when you stand before the lord.  So like Adam, when God meets you in the Garden and asks "Where are you?" you will have the answer ready on the tip of your tongue

  My God, I am sorry for my sins with all my heart.
  In choosing to do wrong and failing to do good,
  I have sinned against You whom I should love above all.

The Devil, whose tricks do not change, preys on the weak, and none are weaker than those who are suffering and dying. It is for this reason that the Church has the Sacrament of "the anointing of the sick" which includes the Viaticum, the food for the Journey, the bread of life which is Christ, which also has the power on its own to forgive venial sins. A Christian who asks for the Extreme unction is still not out of hot water, the mind weakens from suffering can still be led astray, temptation to end ones life by means of Doctor Assisted suicide is a danger for the suffering.  This is why Catholics pray, some daily for the intercession of the Virgin mother.

  Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee.
  Blessed art thou amongst women,
  and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
  Holy Mary, Mother of God,
  pray for us sinners,
  now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

See this link for a discretion of the Rosary in Sacred Scripture

Especially at the hour of death, this prayer to Jesus, honoring his mother.

  Luke 2:35 "...and you yourself a sword will pierce so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

Faced with the prospects of all eternity in the presence of the One True God, or that of damnation, the Catholic who practices his faith does so with the intention of succeeding in the one and only purpose for our creation.  The Conscious act of which the Lenten Missal addresses is the state of your conscious at the time of death.  Are you concerned with the agony of your flesh or the dispensation of your soul in your last moments.  Will you curse God for your agony or unite yourself to the sufferings of Christ on the Cross.  Will you, in order to relieve yourself of the pain, or the financial burden on your assets which you intend for your children, choose to end your life before its time? Would you under duress, deny Christ?  The Sacraments, the liturgy, the Prayers of the Church, Prepare our conscious for that time and the difficult thoughts and decisions and actions that we must face.

The conscious act is your perseverance to the end, through trials and tribulations, sometimes pain and discomfort. A prepared soul, who has prayed their entire life for the strength to persevere, and given the Grace to do so though the Sacraments of the Church, the intercession to the body of Christ, will have a conscious that acts according to the sacramental prayerful life they lived. Even the mind which seems to sleep will dream of the Scriptures or contemplate the mystery of salvation.

Compare this to a person who simply states that they have absolute assurance of their salvation, the sin of Pride and presumptions, an echo of the fall.

  where are you?


What are the different views on the nature of 'hellfire'? Fire as understood by physical humans consumes and destroys the fuel that it ignites and then goes out. The  unredeemed soul is what many religions teach will be tormented eternally in fire of hell. Given the concept of fire in physical world it seems that the fire that does not consume must be taken as not literal by our physical ability to comprehend but must mean something else and the scary pictures of Dantes inferno are artist conceptions based on physical understanding.

I would like an overview of various hellfire beliefs as to what kind of fire torments the spirits that are said to be tormented in hell.

There are many perspectives in relation to Hell, but all of them relate to the fundamental question: What do you do with those who won't follow the rules?

A. My View

Revelation 22:12-17 (KJV)

  And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
  Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
  I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The picture being depicted here is: God/Jesus calling all who are thirsty for the water of life to step through the open gates of the city in order to satisfy it. Outside the gates are "dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." Revelation 21:8 adds "the fearful and unbelieving" to the list of those who are outside the gates. Those outside the gates are not drawn to the water of life because the thirst they have cannot be satisfied by it.

There have been, is, and always will be only two realms of existence. The first: inside the gates; and the second: outside the gates. Where are "the dogs, and sorcerers, ..., and the fearful and unbelieving" at this present time? They're right here, in the realm of existence where we currently dwell - outside the gates.

God has not created a third realm, tailored exclusively for the purpose of tormenting those souls who have no desire to dwell with God and be governed by Jesus, according to God's principles of life (the Law). No. This realm, the one we know so very well, is Hell. The evidence for that notion is overwhelming.

However, those who wish to be rescued from Hell, need only step through the gates into the other realm - the one where God dwells and the citizens are governed by Jesus according to God's principles of life (the Law). I make no apology for the repetition of that statement, because the simplicity of the Gospel cannot be over-emphasised.

This realm, the one in which we currently dwell, has yet to descend into the ultimate condition depicted in Revelation: fire burning with brimstone, where the smoke of torment ascendeth up forever and ever and there is no rest day or night, and their worm dieth not forever and ever. However, we are witnesses to the beginning of such woes every night we watch the news on TV.

Seven times, the Gospel of Matthew records Jesus as using the word Gehenna (Strong's G1067), which the KJV renders as Hell. It is a reference to the valley of the son of Hinnom that lay outside the city of Jerusalem, and to which access was afforded through the Dung Gate. It was a refuse site, and a place of perpetual burning, a completely apt depiction of the "hell fire" of a future existence outside the gates.

Destruction is the pursuit of human activity in the absence of God's input, and His input into this realm will last only as long as the fruit of its purpose can be harvested. When the last soul who wants to step through the open gates into the city, does so, God will close the gates, step away from this realm and leave it to those who won't let it go. It will then descend into the abyss that we see depicted in Revelation, because there will be no one left to stand in the breach to prevent it.

Why would anyone not want to let go of this realm?

The desire for power and authority. In the other realm, the citizens willingly submit to Jesus' authority, so no one who wants to rule in his own right will come within cooee1 of the gates.
Those who want to indulge their inclinations towards the flesh, sorcery, whoremongery, murder, idolatry, and deception will not come within cooee1 of the gates.
Those "good souls" who are not included in 1 or 2, but who fear what eternal existence would be like under Jesus' governance according to God's principles of life, will not come within cooee1 of the gates.
Those "good souls" who are not included in 1, 2, or 3, but who prefer to accommodate the evils of the realm in which they exist in preference to some airy-fairy, idyllic notion, will not come within cooee1 of the gates.

There are other views, of course:

B. The Traditionalist View

"Hell" is a realm distinct from heaven and earth that was/is/will be purpose-built by God for the eternal torment of those who won't play the game by His rules.

C. The Annihilationist View

There is no realm called "Hell", purpose-built or otherwise, and those who won't play the game by God's rules will simply cease to exist.

D. The Universalist View

There is either no realm called "Hell", purpose-built or otherwise, because every soul will eventually resign themselves to playing the game by God's rules; OR there is a purpose-built realm called "Hell" that will be deployed as an intermediate measure to facilitate the resignation of those who won't play the game by God's rules.

Conclusion

Let me use a timely child's Christmas song to summarise the simplicy of the Gospel and the existence of Hell:

  Be near me, Lord Jesus, I ask Thee to stay,
  Close by me forever, and love me, I pray!
  Bless all the dear children in Thy tender care
  And fit us for heaven, to Live with Thee there.

Suffering the fires of Hell is a matter of personal preference, as detailed in option A above under the heading, "Why would anyone not want to let go of this realm?"

We, in this realm, are already in Hell and have first hand knowledge and experience of what life in Hell entails, so no one will be taken by surprise when the gates to the city are closed. Each person stands outside the gates of the city until such time as either he/she expresses a desire to be "fitted for it", at which point the fitting process begins; or the gates of the city are closed (Luke 13:23-30).

When the last person who wants to be fitted for life within the gates of the city, is fitted, then the purpose for this realm will have been accomplished, and God will then step away from it, giving it as a possession to those who don't want to let it go. At that time, this realm will no longer have the input required to moderate the inclination of it citizens who will then, themselves, reduce it to the state of the "hell fire" existence depicted in the text of scripture.

1. Not within cooee is an Australian expression that means "not within the distance a loud resonant call would travel."


Is the Divine Substance rational? According to the answers here and here, the term person means "an individual substance of a rational nature".

According to trinitarian theology, the triune god exists as three consubstantial persons consisting of one substance.

Does this mean the triune god exists as three individual substances of a rational nature, consisting of one substance of an irrational nature, in which neither nature is divided so that each are fully rational and irrational?

The Divine Substance (a.k.a. God) is supremely rational, as long as we understand the term rational to mean “capable of intellectual knowledge.”

As I mentioned in my answer to the O.P.’s question regarding person and substance, the Divine Substance (God) is perfectly identical with each one of the Persons.

The Persons are really distinct from one another, because they consist of the very relations of origin that subsist in the Godhead. However, there is no real distinction between Person and Substance. (In God, individual and universal substance coincide perfectly.)

(It is important to recall that the notions of person and substance—which strictly speaking apply only to creatures—are applied very improperly to God. That is why theses affirmation sound strange to us.)

As I mentioned in my previous answer, substance can have two slightly different connotations. For an Aristotelian like me, “substance” primarily means individual, concrete beings, like trees, flowers, stones, and human beings. Secondarily it can mean the common or universal kind of thing something is: for instance, tree-kind, flower-kind, stone-kind, and mankind. (For a Platonist, the priority is reversed—but for our purposes the fundamental idea is the same.) Also, “substance,” “essence,” and “nature” are basically synonyms for the ancient Greeks.

Now, Boethius’ definition for person, as the O.P. correctly mentions, is “individual substance with a rational nature.” We are, therefore, dealing with the two meanings of substance that I just mentioned above. Boethius is affirming, in effect, that a person is a concrete being that belongs to a particular genus or kind of being: namely those with the capacity for intellectual (rational) knowledge.

Boethius’ definition, as I mentioned, applies properly to creatures. God is beyond creaturely genera and species. However, He does possess to an infinite degree the capacity for intellectual knowledge (i.e., He is omniscient).

Therefore, both the Divine Nature or Substance (a.k.a. God) and the Divine Persons (who are, as I have mentioned, each perfectly identical to the Divine Nature) are not only rational but supremely rational.*

Hence, irrationality has no part whatsoever in God. Moreover, God is one Substance: the Persons do not divide the one Substance in any way whatsoever. In no way can He be considered three Substances.

* Note that in classical Scholastic lingo the term “rational” can be taken in a strict sense and in a broad sense. In the strict sense, “reason” and “rationality” refer to the particular kind of intellectual knowledge that we human beings possess. Our intellects are discursive; that is, we have to use concepts, enunciations, and argumentations to arrive at knowledge. Not all intellects are like that, however. For instance, angelic intellects are intuitive. In the broad sense, however, “rational” is a synonym for “intellectual.” That is what Boethius means by it.


Can Bishops give dispensations from certain marriage vows? If, for instance, someone tells me that his bishop said he could get a vasectomy because having children with his wife in the future is likely to be injurious to her health. Should he be able to produce some sort of documentation that says he can do that thing? Would that be a dispensation?

Is that even something a bishop can do or is that just an instance of heterodox advice from an unorthodox bishop?

What a “dispensation” is

First of all, a “dispensation” is a legal term, in which the competent authority relieves one of its subjects from having to follow a law (or part of a law) in a particular case. The Code of Canon Law describes dispensations as follows:

  A dispensation, or the relaxation of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular case, can be granted by those who possess executive power within the limits of their competence, as well as by those who have the power to dispense explicitly or implicitly either by the law itself or by legitimate delegation (Can. 85).

It is to be noted that a dispensation can be granted only for a strictly ecclesiastical law.

There is no general requirement that a dispensation be written, however Can. 37 says,

  An administrative act which regards the external forum must be put in writing.

Hence, a dispensation that must be made public must be in writing. (A common dispensation of this kind, for example, is the one required for a Catholic to marry an unbaptized person.)

(The implication is that a merely disciplinary dispensation—say, from the obligation to fast on Ash Wednesday—could be given by word of mouth.)

Regarding the particular case in question

Regarding the matter in the original question (getting a vasectomy), the short answer is “no.” Vasectomies are a form of direct sterilization and mutilation, which cannot be justified under any circumstances:

  Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary (Humanae vitae, 14).

A bishop has no power whatsoever to set aside the natural law. (If a bishop ever gave that kind of advice, it would be advisable to notify the competent authority, either the nuncio of the country where he resides, or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directly.)

Moreover, the marriage “vows” (technically, the matrimonial consent) include the will to enter a stable, exclusive, monogamous, and fruitful union between a man and a woman. These are the essential properties of marriage, and they can never be set aside. As the Catechism puts it,

  Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child (no. 1664, quoting Gaudium et Spes 50 § 1).

It may be justifiable to delay childbirth, even indefinitely (and a serious health problem on the woman’s part would justify it), but for that purpose a method that does not deliberately disrupt the fecundity of marriage must be used (i.e., natural family planning):

  If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained (Humanae vitae, 17)

It should be noted that since the time of Humanae vitae, there have been great advances in gynecology, which make it possible to use NFP with extremely high efficacy—for example with the Billings Ovulation Method or the Creighton Model. (When the health of the woman is in danger, then extra care should, naturally, be exercised to avoid pregnancy—and when that is done, the chance of pregnancy is very small.)

Regarding the attempted dispensation in question

More apropos to the original question, since giving dispensations from natural law is impossible (and attempting to so would most likely get him in trouble with the Curia), it is unlikely that a bishop who attempted to do so would leave a written record of it.

Moreover, the situation of a married couple (apart from the matrimony itself, which is necessarily in the external form) would in the internal forum (i.e., a private matter), and so it seems that any dispensations (if they were possible) would not need to be written to be official.

In summary

If the bishop (or other authority) were legitimately dispensing from a strictly ecclesiastical law, in a strictly private matter (e.g., regarding fasting in Lent), then no written record would be necessary.

If, on the other hand, the matter were public (in the external form), some kind of formal written documentation would be required (as in the case of disparity of cult in marriage).

However, in the case described (the vasectomy), a dispensation is impossible, and so the question is actually moot: the act was clearly both illicit and invalid.


Roman Catholic: Is piracy of information and media wrong in all circumstances? I've come across people who claim piracy to be a theft that breaks one of the Ten Commandments (a sin against God). Yet, I've considered the matter and opined the following.

1) Equal Opportunities: It is a given, taking into consideration poor countries like India also, that not everyone is in a position to earn as much as his fellow brother, be that due to being born in poor circumstances, in the schooling privileges given him, in mental gifts given him, as in intelligence, ability to learn, ability to carry out work. Everyone has differences in this regard. There is also the point of what he can afford given the economic status of his neighbourhood, wealth and health of his families that he must earn for too.

2) Taking note of the above, Unfair Pricing and Class Distinction: It always amazes me when a person who is well above his means wants to force a doctrine of morality on others, in that piracy is a theft. I will just say, let pricing be governed according to class. Let the poor pay one thing, let the middle class pay one thing, and let the rich pay thrice the amount for his every need than the poor. And let's see if the "fairness" of the hearts of the rich is willing to still cope with such.

3) Is piracy immoral: The Bible does mention that anything that is kept away from you unfairly, you have the right to take it. What I think of that, I will not say, but I mentioned it as it might be related to this.

What does the Church think about the morality of piracy?

The Catechism is explicit.

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
1756 It is an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Theft of food in order to sustain life is not a moral act and cannot be justified by circumstances, even though responsibility might be diminished by starvation. That is, although the act is wrong, culpability is reduced and punishment might be mitigated because of the extreme circumstances.
"Piracy of information and media" is not essential to the preservation of life.


Scripture explanation: spiritual person can evaluate everything I'm reading 1 Corinthians and there are certain verses that just don't seem to make any sense to me.

  1 Cor 2 15 The spiritual person, however, can evaluate everything, yet he
  himself cannot be evaluated by anyone. 16 For who has known the
  Lord’s mind, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

  — Holman Christian Standard Bible

What does Paul mean spiritual person can evaluate everything?
If this is talking about ability of believers to understand Godly matters then how does the statement, who has known the Lord's mind fit here?

I think the passage is clearer when the prior two verses are included:

  1 Corinthians 2:13–16 (HCSB)

    13 We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom,
    but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to
    spiritual people.

    14 But the unbeliever does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit,
    because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it
    since it is evaluated spiritually.

    15 The spiritual person, however, can evaluate everything, yet he
    himself cannot be evaluated by anyone.

    16 For who has known the Lord’s mind, that he may instruct Him? But we
    have the mind of Christ.

Verse 14 explains that those who are unspiritual have no discernment and cannot understand any spiritual matter, and thus are equipped to evaluate neither spiritual things or spiritual people.

Verse 13 explains, on the other hand, that spiritual people are taught by the Spirit to discern spiritual things. In Galatians Paul contrasts desires of the flesh with desires of the Spirit (5:16-17).  Thus, the ability to discern things of the Spirit necessarily requires one to discern them against things of the flesh.  Hence, I believe, the phrase "all things" is appropriate in verse 15.

Regarding your second question, I do not think any of the above is inconsistent.  The preceding verses refer to "spiritual things" and not "all spiritual things".  Those spiritual things that relate directly to us and our personal salvation are those that we are able to discern.  That does not mean to say, however, that we somehow possess the knowledge that God possesses.  John Chrysostom wrote (in the 4th century):

  We know the things which are in the mind of Christ, which he has
  willed and revealed to us. This does not mean that we know everything
  which Christ knows but rather that everything which we know comes from
  him and is spiritual.

  Homily VII on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians

This is also reinforced elsewhere in Scripture (e.g. Romans 11:34; Isaiah 40:13).


Who are the lambs in John 21:15? At a recent bible study with some lay missionaries, the lay sister leading the study indicated that the lambs in John 21:15 represent the apostles.  She was unable to explain why we might think that to be the case, though.  Is there a tradition or other source of support for the idea that the lambs in this verse represent the apostles?

I'm specifically interested in her claim, not the verse itself, and it the claim's relation to traditional Catholic interpretation of this passage.  I do not care what you think the passage means or why.  I do not care if the interpretation presented is reasonable.  I do not care what the connotations of the word used in the Septuagint or Jerome's Vulgate are, except inasmuch as they represent Church teaching as regards the claim.

I do care what the Church Fathers, both Eastern and Western, said about the verse inasmuch as it relates to Peter's relationship with the apostles.  I do care about Papal bulls, encyclicals, etc that assert the same claim with or without support.  I care about documents giving biblical support for the Papacy which cite this verse or conspicuously do not cite the verse with support for that being conspicuous.

In sum, I am interested in knowing what support, if any, exists for this specific claim (i.e. that the Catholic Church teaches that in this passage the 'lambs' are the apostles) but not other claims about this verse in general.

The "lambs/sheep" in this case referred to the whole Church

From one of the notes at the Vatican's web site issue of the New American Bible, for John 21:15 we find the following analysis of verses 15-17 in notes 8 & 9:

  8 [15-23] This section constitutes Peter's rehabilitation and emphasizes his role in the church.

The lambs are addressed in this note:

  9 [15-17] In these three verses there is a remarkable variety of synonyms:
  two different Greek verbs for love (see the note on ⇒ John 15:13 {agape/philios}; two verbs for feed/tend; two nouns for sheep; two verbs for know. But apparently there is no difference of meaning. The threefold confession of Peter is meant to counteract his earlier threefold denial (⇒ John 18:17, ⇒ 25, ⇒ 27). The First Vatican Council cited these verses in defining that Jesus after his resurrection gave Peter the jurisdiction of supreme shepherd and ruler over the whole flock.

A citation(excerpt) from the First Vatican Council:

On the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter (Fourth Session, Chapter 1)

  And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44]{44. Jn 21, 15-17}. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

About lay led retreats and bible studies

It is in my experience common for Catholic lay leaders to have OK, albeit incomplete, explanations for a variety of doctrine and theology.  I have experienced this first hand serving on just under a dozen ACTS retreats.  The enthusiasm of the leaders and team members is often matched by a lack of depth in the grasp of doctrine and various high level Church positions.

Sources used to supplement lay led bible studies vary widely, from articles in faith based magazine, to the Catechism, notes from formal classes in theology or religion, notes used to teach CCD to children, to favorite blogs, to official doctrine and of course Scripture.  I'll offer the suggestion that the lay leader was passing on something they had learned informally.  For a lay led event's purposes it's close enough not to matter.  The original apostles were very much Jesus' sheep, and if not The Whole Flock they represent a very important flock, or a key part of his flock, whom he sent to the rest for our salvation.


Are there any passages in Sacred Scripture that explicitly describe apocalyptic weather patterns? I've heard my whole life that one of the major signs to look for concerning the end of the world is that no one will be able to tell what season it is.

Most of my fundamentalist friends and family (especially my Southern Baptist Grandmother) assume that this "end-times prophecy" is biblical, and that it should be thrown right in there    with all the other "signs of the times."

I have made it all the way through the New Testament several times now and haven't noticed anything about strange seasons.

The closest thing I have noticed is in Matthew chapters 24 and 25, where Jesus is describing what will happen right before he returns.

  As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him
  privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will
  be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

  Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will
  come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.
  You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are
  not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
  Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There
  will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the
  beginning of birth pains. Matt. 24:3-8

  How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing
  mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the
  Sabbath. Matt. 24:19

  “Immediately after the distress of those days

  “‘the sun will be darkened,
      and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky,
      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’  “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the
  earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of
  heaven, with power and great glory. Matt. 24:29-30

This question is prompted by a conversation I had the other day with some of my pastor friends. We are experiencing an unusually mild summer here in North Georgia, and during our conversation it was brought up that "in the end times you won't be able to tell what season it is."  I responded, "Ya know, I've heard that saying my whole life. Where is that in the Bible?"

No one had an answer.

Is anyone else familiar with this idea? Am I missing something? Where is this in the Bible?

If it is not, then where did this "end-times prophecy" originate?

The only passages that come to mind regarding weather patterns in the end times have to do with clouds:

  Joel 2:2  A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of
  thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great
  people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall
  be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.

  Zep 1:14  The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth
  greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall
  cry there bitterly.  Zep 1:15  That day is a day of wrath, a day of
  trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of
  darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

Is it the quantity of clouds? Will they be blacker than normal? We can expect unusual weather patterns when much of the earth's greenery is burnt ("The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up" -- Rev. 8:7), the air is scorched, and smoke is everywhere. From what I've seen in my life on earth, dense smoke turns the sun red:

  Joel 2:30  And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth,
  blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.  Joel 2:31  The sun shall be
  turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and
  the terrible day of the LORD come.

The abundance of burning vegetation will surely cause crazy weather patterns.


Which languages did Huldrych Zwingli know? Which languages did Huldrych Zwingli know?

As far as I know, he knew Latin and, of course, he knew his own mother tongue (which was German or Romanch?), but did he know some other languages? I am especially interested in whether he knew Hebrew or Greek.

It would be highly unusual for a major theologian of that (or any) erra (and certainly for any of the Protestant reformers) to not have at least some familiarity with the source languages of the texts they studied and taught from. Also, Latin is pretty much a given for any scholar of that time whether at a seminary or in any other field.

A little background reading from Wikipedia makes this comment about the time of one of his early posts as pastor. In other words he clearly studied Greek early on, then during his first tenure as pastor also took up Hebrew.

  He perfected his Greek and he took up the study of Hebrew

Digging a little further, it seems clear that his Hebrew must have been more than a smattering. At one point in his education he was required to translate texts from Hebrew to Latin and Greek and make commentary on it as part of devotionals five days a week. We also find he had at various times at least two qualified tutors in Hebrew, one of which was the author of a Hebrew grammar book of the time. (Source: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment by Magne Saebo and The Swiss Reformation by Bruce Gordon.)

There seem to be plenty of sources that talk about the education he had and the abilities that those required. Try searching for things like zwingli hebrew on Google Books for further study.