What is meant by the 'Confirmation' concerning the receiving of Holy Spirit in Acts 8:5-19? Acts 8:5-19 (NIV)
Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah there. When the crowds heard Philip and saw the signs he performed,
they all paid close attention to what he said. For with shrieks,
impure spirits came out of many, and many who were paralyzed or lame
were healed. So there was great joy in that city.
Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the
city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was
someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their
attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power
of God.” They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time
with his sorcery. But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the
good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they
were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was
baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great
signs and miracles he saw.
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the
word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. When they
arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might
receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on
any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they
received the Holy Spirit.
When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this
ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy
Spirit.”

(I had to post the whole passage to make it easier to understand)
Questions:

If Phillip was able to perform miracles and baptize people, then what was the need for Peter and John to go to Samaria?
Why was the Holy Spirit not given when Phillip baptized the people?
What actually happened when Peter and John placed their hands on the people that even Simon the sorcerer was amazed at it?
What kind of manifestation of the Spirit was it? Clearly it was visible and powerful.
Why is this incidence known as Confirmation?

(Answers are expected on the perspectives of major denominations only)

The is from the perspective which is taught by a Word of Faith church.

One. If Phillip was able to perform miracles and baptize people, then what was the need for Peter and John to go to Samaria?
1 Cor 12:11: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

For whatever reason Phillip knew the Holy Spirit did not will for Him to lay hands on people and them have the miracle of the Holy Spirit fill them.

Two. Why was the Holy Spirit not given when Phillip baptized the people?

Being filled with the Holy Spirit is not the same as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Being baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues is a different kind of miracle than the New Birth.

Three. What actually happened when Peter and John placed their hands on the people that even Simon the sorcerer was amazed at it?
Four. What kind of manifestation of the Spirit was it? Clearly it was visible and powerful.

They were filled with the Holy Spirit and they probably spoke in tongues but there may have also been:

Prophecy
Holy Laughter
Falling, shouting, dancing, shaking, paralysis.

Five. Why is this incidence known as Confirmation?

It is not known as confirmation in all Christian denominations.


According to the Anglican Church, did the prophets in Old Testament have a concept of life after death? I'm a non-denominational Christian who visits whatever Church happens to be close when I'm travelling. I was visiting an Anglican church today, and the reverend gave a sermon from Old testament.

She mentioned that:

God has been slowly revealing his plans, and there are several things we know that folks in OT times didn't.
They didn't have any concept of after death life, making their sacrifices for faith of even greater value than ours who know they'll go to heaven. There are OT verses that suggest no life after death.

I was taken by surprise at this as I always thought that the the prophets of Old Testament always had full revelation and understanding perhaps even greater than ours, since they had direct contact with God and had information from extra books that we no longer have (the Book of Jasher, etc.).

My questions:

Is this the official theology of the Anglican Church, or just that reverend's own view?
If it is official Anglican theology, what is their Scriptural basis for it?

The thirty-nine articles are an Anglican doctrinal standard.

The Old Testament is dealt with in Article Seven. It specifically  denounces the view that .the old Fathers (i.e. the Old Testament folks) looked only for transitory promises. It asserts  that in both the Old and New Testaments everlasting life is offered to mankind.

  The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.

Anglican doctrine then appears to run counter to your understanding of yesterday's sermon.

However it is very widely understood in Christianity  that God  revealed His plans through the prophets and, since they lived at different times, this happened gradually. Those in earlier times had a lesser picture than those of later times.

So, while it is  true that in some ways the people in  Old Testament times knew more than we do: their knowledge of the Book of Jasher being an example; it is also true that in some ways we know more than they did. Our knowledge of Jesus Christ is an example.

As the start of the Epistle to the Hebrews begins:

  God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son

Thus, having less knowledge, they arguably needed more faith.


How would Catholics respond to the theory that Mary was a surrogate mother that had no DNA in common with Jesus? Did the life transferred to Mary's womb contain unique DNA?
Did that remain the case through out the pregnancy?
Science tells us that a surrogate host mother of an implanted fertilized egg will have no DNA in common with the child.

Some have claimed that Jesus could not be perfect if he was a blood relative to Mary who was a descendant of Adam.
Can Catholics reconcile this claim by using the surrogate mother defense? That is to say Jesus had totally unique DNA and was not a result of a fertilized egg from Mary's ovaries?

The Catholic Church certainly teaches that Christ is the actual physical offspring of Mary; that is, that he is genetically descended from Mary:

  The Holy Spirit, “the Lord, the giver of Life,” is sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 485; emphasis added)

  In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh [that is, her actual, physical son], was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos).

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 495)

It appears from these two quotations, at the minimum, that the Church currently teaches that Mary was the mother of Jesus in the usual sense (that is, in being an actual "blood relative" of Jesus, genetically related to him).

In addition, Thomas Aquinas addresses this question in his Summa Theologica, though modern-day understanding of his discussion may be hampered by his incorrect understanding (derived from Aristotle) of prenatal development.

Aquinas, with Aristotle, believed that the "humanity" of a human before birth derived solely from the father, and that the mother's only physical contribution was providing the physical substance (the actual flesh, bones, and blood) of the child. In considering the question "Whether the flesh of Christ was conceived of the Virgin's purest blood?", Aquinas comments:

  It belongs to the supernatural mode of Christ's generation, that the active principle of generation was the supernatural power of God: but it belongs to the natural mode of His generation, that the matter from which His body was conceived is similar to the matter which other women supply for the conception of their offspring.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 31, Article 5)

In other words, Aquinas believes that the actual physical substance of Jesus' body was in fact derived from Mary's body (even though he discusses it in terms we now know to be factually incorrect), so that he is her son (physically) as well as the Son of God (eternally).

Aquinas addresses the question even more directly shortly afterward. Question 35, Article 3, of the Third Part of the Summa asks "Whether the Blessed Virgin can be called Christ's Mother in respect of His temporal nativity?"—that is, whether Mary is in fact the physical mother of "God born into the world", in the sense of being his genetic ancestor, not just the vessel in which he was "incubated" until birth.

Aquinas, though he doesn't consider "surrogate motherhood" in the sense that we can think of it nowadays, does bring up the potential objection that miraculous births in general (like the "birth" or creation of Eve from the body of Adam) don't necessarily result in parent-child relationships. He answers the objection (quoting Saint John of Damascus) by saying,

  As Damascene says ... "The temporal nativity by which Christ was born for our salvation is, in a way, natural, since a Man was born of a woman, and after the due lapse of time from His conception: but it is also supernatural, because He was begotten, not of seed, but of the Holy Ghost and the Blessed Virgin, above the law of conception." Thus, then, on the part of the mother, this nativity was natural, but on the part of the operation of the Holy Ghost it was supernatural. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is the true and natural Mother of Christ.

That is, it is the fertilization of Mary by the Holy Spirit that is supernatural or miraculous about Jesus' birth, but everything else about Jesus' conception and birth (including, as we'd now phrase it, his conception from an egg of Mary's) was totally natural—so that she was his mother in the usual sense.


Is there a concise eschatology in the Catholic Church? In many Protestant traditions, eschatology has a major bearing on many other aspects of the faith, including soteriology and Christology. Especially in Pentacostal and Charismatic churches, as well as groups like the Jehovah's Whitnesses and the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, end times teachings have a major influence on operations and ministries of the church.

Does the Catholic Church have a difinitive doctrine of the end of days and second coming of Christ?

Yes, the Catholic Church does have a definitive eschatology. A good overview of it can be found in

Arminjon, Charles. The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of
the Future Life. Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press,
2008.[Translation of the French original which greatly influenced St. Thérèse of Lisieux, as reported in her autobiography,
Story of a Soul.]

The best Catholic commentary on the Book of the Apocalypse:

Kramer, Herman Bernard F. Leonard. The Book of Destiny: An Open
Statement of the Authentic and Inspired Prophecies of the Old and New
Testament. Rockford, Ill.: Tan Books and Publishers, 1975.

Among the catechisms:

Catechism of the Council of Trent (The Roman Catechism) "Article 7: From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead."
Pègues, Thomas. Catechism of the “Summa Theologica” of Saint Thomas
Aquinas : For the Use of the Faithful. New York: Benziger, 1922.
pp. 304ff.pp. 304ff. is a commentary on St. Thomas Aquinas's
treatises on the resurrection and on the last things (Summa
suppl. qq. 69ff.).

The Roman Catechism gives the conditions for the end of the world (cf. Matthew 24 and ch. 1 of The End of the Present World):

  The Sacred Scriptures inform us that the general judgment will be preceded by these three principal signs: the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, a falling away from the faith, and the coming of Antichrist. "This gospel of the kingdom," says our Lord [Matt. 24:14], "shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come." The Apostle also admonishes us that we be not seduced by anyone, "as if the day of the Lord were at hand; for unless there come a revolt* first, and the man of sin be revealed,"[2 Thes. 2 ff.] the judgement will not come.

[*This revolt is understood to be a spiritual revolt; cf. my answer to "What is the Roman Catholic interpretation of 2 Thes. 2:3?".]

What distinguishes Catholic eschatology is its insistence on Matt. 24:36:

  But of that day and hour nobody knoweth, neither the Angels of heaven, but the
  Father alone.

Also, Catholic eschatology opposes Millenarianism (Chiliadism), which a Decree of the Holy Office on 21 July 1944 condemned:

  2296 In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely.

I've only treated what precedes the General Judgment and haven't even touched upon the Four Last Things, but the above resources are excellent places to start for understanding Catholic eschatology.


Did any of the Apostles travel to present day Saudi Arabia? Apostle Thomas? Did any of the Apostles travel to present day Saudi Arabia? Apostle Thomas?

I would cite this comment from New Advent on the subject.

  The origin and progress of Christianity in Arabia is, owing to the lack of sufficiently authenticated historical documents, involved in impenetrable obscurity, and only detached episodes in one part or another of the peninsula can be grouped together and studied. References to various Christian missionary enterprises in the north and south of the country, found in early ecclesiastical historians and Fathers, such as Eusebius, Rufinus, Socrates, Nicephorus, Metaphrastes, Theodoret, Origen, and Jerome, are valuable, but to be used with caution, inasmuch as a lamentable confusion, common to all writers of that time between Arabia proper and India, or Abyssinia, seems to have crept into their writings.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01663a.htm

I found a detailed term paper that covers Pre-Islamic Arabia.    From scanning it looks like the student did a good job compiling lots of church history, anthropology, and archeology and other resources together.
http://www.academia.edu/829636/Pre-Islamic_Christianity_in_Arabia

Galatians 1

  13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

One tidbit I picked up (looking at the term paper I linked to).   Some Early Church Historians credit Thomas as having spread the Gospel to Arabia, but this point is made doubtful by other folks (like the New Advent quote at the top of this entry).   The author of the term paper however makes this a credible claim, based on the Fact that Souther Arabia was considered "The Gateway to India" due to the shipping routes of the day.


Can the belief of Jesus' listeners be considered belief unto salvation? During my daily study of the book of John, I've come across several statements like this one from chapter 8:30, which says:

  "As he was saying these things, many believed in him."

Is there any biblical, or even logical, argument to conclude that this belief was unto salvation, or anything that could be used to cast credible doubt on this?

Can the belief of Jesus' listeners be considered belief unto salvation?

YES

  Galatians 3:2-7 (NLT)

  Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by
  obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit
  because you believed the message you heard about Christ. How foolish
  can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are
  you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort? Have you
  experienced so much for nothing? Surely it was not in vain, was it? I
  ask you again, does God give you the Holy Spirit and work miracles
  among you because you obey the law? Of course not! It is because you
  believe the message you heard about Christ. In the same way,
  “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of
  his faith.” The real children of Abraham, then, are those who put
  their faith in God.

Abraham was counted as righteous because of his faith. In the same manner, those who believed in the words of Jesus are cleansed through the Word of God.

  You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. (John
  15:3, NIV)

In passage you posted(John 8:30), Jesus was telling to the people that He is the Light of the world and the promised savior, who will save us from our sins. All they had to do was believe in Him and the Father who sent Him, and they will not die in their sins.

  John 8: 24-30 (ESV)

  I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe
  that I am he you will die in your sins.” So they said to him, “Who
  are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been telling you from
  the beginning. I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he
  who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from
  him.” They did not understand that he had been speaking to them about
  the Father. So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of
  Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own
  authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me
  is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that
  are pleasing to him.” As he was saying these things, many believed
  in him.

Though Jesus was not yet crucified, faith in Him was sufficient to have salvation. For,  The death of Jesus saves all the believers before and after His crucifixion.


What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic church? What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic church? When I search online, I mostly find stuff about filioque. But I want to know specifically what he does. What is his role? How does he affect our salvation?

The theology of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost - the two terms mean the same thing) is a huge subject. This article gives a systematic explanation from the Catholic point of view.

Catholic theology of the Holy Spirit is very little different from general Protestant or Orthodox theology of the Holy Spirit, with a few notable exceptions, which I will attempt to list:

It is generally accepted that one of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to guide the interpretation of the Scriptures. There is variation in how the Spirit is believed to do this. Protestants believe the Spirit does this either through Christians in general, or through the community of the church. Catholics believe that the Spirit does this through the church and its structures - specifically the Catholic church.
Catholics would fall in with mainstream Protestants (but not Pentecostals) in believing that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit (tongues, healings etc.) are not given to all Christians, and are relatively rare.
One important but obscure belief specific to Catholics is the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the God the Father and the Son. This beliefs is notable only because it is the nominal cause of the split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

There may be others that I am unaware of.


Is there biblical evidence that the New Earth is our final destination? In Revelation 21 we learn that following the resurrection Christians will inhabit a restored Earth called "The New Earth."

What biblical evidence exists that this is the final destination for humanity and not simply part of an "infinite finale" series of events in which there are cycles of history similar to the ones that we are currently experiencing?

The Bible does indicate that the earth will always be mankind's home and it will never be destroyed. (Psalm 104:5; Psalm 37:29, 115:16).

There are several clues in the scriptures which help us to see that we will not have repeating cycles of history with mankind falling into sin and corruption and needing to be restored.

For one thing, the Bible indicates that Jesus only needed to die once, for all mankind, forever. (Hebrews 7:27, 28) The value of his sacrifice is completely satisfactory forever, because his perfect human life corresponded to Adam's. (1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Corinthians 15:45) That ransom gives God the legal right to forgive repentant sinners and restore them to perfection without breaking his own standard of justice. (Deuteronomy 19:21). Once the value of this ransom has been fully applied to mankind, and those living have regained the sinless and endless life that Adam gave up, any future offspring would be born without any inherited sin or death. (Romans 5:12; Revelation 21:4)

Another line of evidence is that Satan and his demons will be completely destroyed after the final test at the end of Christ's thousand year reign. Prior to this they are only restrained, so that they can be "released from his prison" to see who will still choose to follow them even after attaining perfection. After that final test Satan and all who choose to follow his course of rebellion against God are completely destroyed in the "lake of fire". (Revelation 20:2, 7-10) Fire is here used to represent destruction (which is what fire does). Burning there "forever and ever" indicates that their destruction is permanent, as in they will never receive a resurrection. After the rebels are destroyed, those remaining will have already been tested and proven to be faithful. It is unlikely that a person would choose to rebel after that, but if they did, they could simply be destroyed quickly without dragging the rest of us down. This is because any future rebellion by any individual person could be handled totally differently from the initial rebellion of Satan, Adam, and Eve. At that time it made more sense for God to allow them to choose an independent course in order for humans and spirits to see that such a course can never work for them and their offspring. Certainly by the end of the final test, God's universal sovereignty, or his right and ability to rule will have been fully proven to the satisfaction of all reasonable humans and spirit creatures. (Jeremiah 10:23; Psalm 34:8)

Another way we know our problems are being handled in a permanent way is because of God's qualities such as love, holiness, wisdom, and power. His love makes him want to end suffering forever. (1 John 4:8) His holiness makes him incapable of allowing wickedness to exist forever. (Isaiah 6:3) His wisdom and power make him capable of knowing and achieving the best and permanent solution. (Daniel 2:19)

This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. For more information visit jw.org


Is it possible to reconcile Owen's trilemma with salvation by faith? John Owen's "trilemma" argument is often used as a defense for Limited Atonement, but it appears to have an underlying difficulty:

To which I may add this dilemma to our universalists: God imposed his
wrath, and Christ underwent the pains of hell, either for all the sins
of all men, or for all the sins of some men, or for some of the sins
of all men. ... If it was the first, then why are not all freed from
the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their
unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or
not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it is, then Christ
either underwent the punishment for it, or he did not. If he did, then
why should that sin keep them from partaking of the fruit of his death
more than their other sins for which he died? If he did not undergo
the punishment for it, then he did not die for all their sins. (The
Death of Death in the Death of Christ [modernized edition by William
H. Gross], Book I, ch III)

He argues that Christ dying for sins means that unbelief (itself being a sin) should not prevent unbelievers from being saved. But if the atonement would save even those who never believe, then that seems to imply that faith is immaterial to salvation.
Is it possible to reconcile this line of reasoning with salvation by faith?
Clarification
To summarize the problem and the question:

Owen argues that Christ dying for a person means that unbelief would not stop that person from being saved, viz, "...why should that sin keep them from partaking of the fruit of his death more than their other sins for which he died?"

If, as Owen argues, the atonement means that unbelief doesn't disqualify someone from salvation, that seems to imply that faith makes no difference in whether one is saved.

The question then is how can faith making no difference in whether one is saved be reconciled with salvation by faith?

It is a fact, which is experienced and observed, that the unbelief of some does not exclude them from salvation, but their unbelief is overcome and they are saved from it :

  Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart. [Mark 16:14, KJV.]

It is a fact, which is experienced and observed, that some do not believe and they are left to themselves and they perish in their sins :

  And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.[Matthew 27:5, KJV.]

Thus it appears to be a fact, witnessed by observation and by experience, that salvation is of the Lord (Psalm 3:8, Psalm 62:1, Jonah 2:9) and that Jesus Christ died for the sins of a great multitude (bearing them in his own body on the tree, I Peter 2:24) - a multitude whom no man can number, Revelation 7:9, there being nothing at all 'limited' about this breath-taking atonement.

Thus it is also clear that salvation is by faith and clear that this faith is not derived from the self - it is God-given :

  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. [Ephesians 2:9, KJV.]

So it becomes clear, by observation, by experience, by divine revelation and by irrefutable logic, that the difference between the two aforesaid types of persons above, is not in and of themselves, but lies within the eternal Deity.

  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.. [Romans 9:16, KJV.]

Which clear and plain truth is expressed by Dr Owen in his book 'The Death of Death in the Death of Christ' originally published in 1647.


Why did Jacob insist that Joseph's sons were his? In Genesis, Before Jacob dies, he has a conversation with his son, Joseph.

Genesis 48:1-6
Some time later Joseph was told, “Your father is ill.” So he took his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim along with him. 2 When Jacob was told, “Your son Joseph has come to you,” Israel rallied his strength and sat up on the bed.
3 Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty[a] appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and there he blessed me 4 and said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers. I will make you a community of peoples, and I will give this land as an everlasting possession to your descendants after you.’
5 “Now then, your two sons born to you in Egypt before I came to you here will be reckoned as mine; Ephraim and Manasseh will be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are mine. 6 Any children born to you after them will be yours; in the territory they inherit they will be reckoned under the names of their brothers.

What is up with this passage? Why is Jacob insisting that Joseph's sons were his?

This appears to be essentially a bit of pragmatism.  The foremost heir would inherit a double share of the father's inheritance, (this is what Elisha was referring to in 2 Kings 2:9,) and Joseph had been given this honor.

Since the inheritance was to be passed down throughout generations, and Joseph had two sons, Jacob essentially said "we'll do it like this: each of your two sons gets a full share, and that takes care of your double share."


Can Catholics serve as godparents at an Anglican infant's baptism? My wife and I (both Catholic) have been asked to serve as godparents at our niece's baptism. The child's parents are fully aware of our strong commitment to the Catholic faith. I've received conflicting advice, and I wonder if anyone here can point to clear teaching on whether or not it is licit for us to serve as godparents at a baptism in an Anglican church.

It would seem so:

Pontificium Consilium ad Christianorum Unitatem Fovendam See ¶98 & 98a.

  It is the Catholic understanding that godparents, in a liturgical and canonical sense, should themselves be members of the Church or ecclesial Community in which the baptism is being celebrated. They do not merely undertake a responsibility for the Christian education of the person being baptized (or confirmed) as a relation or friend; they are also there as representatives of a community of faith, standing as guarantees of the candidate's faith and desire for ecclesial communion.

  (a).  However, based on the common baptism and because of ties of blood or friendship, a baptized person who belongs to another ecclesial Community may be admitted as a witness to the baptism, but only together with a Catholic godparent.107 A Catholic may do the same for a person being baptized in another ecclesial Community.


What is the reasoning behind the Amish practice of avoiding technological advances? The Amish seem to believe that it is somehow wrong to utilize technological advances, such as the automobile, electricity, etc.  What is the basis for this belief (among those that do this for spiritual reasons)?  Put another way, what is the problem or danger with technological advances?  How does avoiding them make someone more spiritual.

I guess I should not expect an answer from a member of the Amish, but perhaps someone who is familiar with that teaching can answer.

This answer will focus on the religious aspects of the Amish rather than the cultural aspects, as far as differentiation is possible. Even then, there are four major orders and each community is self-governing; therefore, all statements made will be generalizations, and will naturally have exceptions.

The Amish find their roots in the Swiss Anabaptists (most still consider themselves to be Anabaptists), and their culture and traditions have been shaped by the persecutions suffered by the Anabaptists in the 1600s.

The Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania does an excellent job of summing up the Amish way of life:

  The persecution reinforced the biblical teaching of a cleavage between the church and the larger society. In Amish eyes, the kingdoms of this world, which use coercion, differ from the peaceable kingdom of God. Many Amish practices are based on the religious principle of separation from the world--that the practices of the church should be separate from the larger society.

Scripture such as Romans 12:1-2 are sometimes used to affirm their decision to step back from the world:

  I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Also note Matthew 13:22, Matthew 16:26, and John 15:18.

The Amish seek to follow Scripture in all they do, even casting lots to select their ministers; and they tend to emphasize practicing their faith more than determining and teaching specific doctrines. They often emphasize the teachings given in the "Sermon on the Mount" and believe the community as a whole is responsible for taking care of each member, to the point where they consider insurance systems to be wrong -- it shows a lack of faith in God and subverts their responsibilities toward each other.

Contrary to popular "knowledge," the Amish do not try to completely ignore the modern world; they only wish to preserve their community-oriented way of life against the highly individualistic cultures around them.

As Peter Seibert, president of the Heritage Centre of Lancaster County puts it*:

  It is easy to get it wrong about the Amish. They are not about putting up walls to block out the modern world. What they are about is adapting their community to modernity in order to preserve its essential being as a simple agrarian society.
  They will pick and choose what they want from our world.


Why is smoking a sin? Many Christians are saying that smoking is sin. However, there are no cigarettes in the Bible. Personally, I don't smoke because the cigarette cover says "Smoking is injurious to health". Hence, I consider it foolishness to harm yourself. Moreover, I tried to smoke once but I choked and never tried again. There is really no point in inhaling smokes.

Here are my questions to those Christian groups who believe that smoking is a sin.

What is the argument that smoking is sin?
What Bible verses are used to infer that smoking is sin?
Is smoking a sin just because it is injurious to health? If so, it would be a sin to keep on eating fats when the doctor says not to and you can't resist it.

What is the argument that smoking is sin? / What Bible verses are used to infer that smoking is sin?

There are multiple reasons why smoking can be seen as a sin. And some of the reasons appeared because we only started to learn some things about smoking in the last hundred years.

Smoking is proven to be unhealthy, thus when smoking you are willingly destroying your body
Nicotine and the habit of smoking is addicting just like gambling or alcohol. And addiction can be seen as a devil you need to resist or a temptation to be avoiding. Also an addiction overpowers you and becomes your master.
Some people are trying to look cool and conform to their smoking environment.

But the first point is the most suggested when talking about smoking being a sin.

Is smoking a sin just because it is injurious to health? If so, it would be a sin to keep on eating fats when the doctor says not to and you can't resist it.

This actually a general social issue which is invisibly linked to it being a sin or not.

People say to each other all the time, even to strangers: "Smoking is bad for you!, Stop smoking!"

This is social acceptable, but ask yourself if you see a fat man it is social acceptable to say to him:

"Stop eating, so much, it's unhealthy!"

Well, no. Not yet.

The same reason why it's social acceptable to call someone out on their smoking, is the reason we can call someone out using the bible as a weapon against an unhealthy habit smoking which can be seen a sin.

Because many Christian parent's don't want their kids to smoke it's easy to grab the bible and call it a sin. because it's unhealthy. But it wouldn't be very social acceptable to grab the same bible and call someone out because he's fat.

The spirit of time changes a lot, the German's have a word for this zeitgeist.

Somewhere in the future you will probably see this happening.


What are the main differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and Biblical Unitarians? What are the main differences between the two? I know that both reject the trinity and the divinity of Jesus, but that's about it. I'm particularly interested in knowing their doctrinal differences (if any) with regards to the following points:

Christology,
Pneumatology,
The nature of God,
Soteriology,
The nature of humans (what happens to us when we die),

and any other important doctrinal aspects in which they part ways.

Introductory Notes:
CSE = Christianity Stack Exchange   BU = Biblical Unitarianism  JW = Jehovah’s Witnesses
CSE Tag Unitarianism = a liberal Christian theological movement (from 1565) known for its rejection of the doctrines of the TRINITY, Original Sin, Predestination and Biblical Inerrancy.
CSE Tag Universalism = In Christianity, Universal Salvation is the belief that all humans will be reconciled to God.
CSE Tag Canon = books considered to be authoritative as scripture.
Main link for all articles on Biblical Unitarianism:  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles
Please note: Biblical Unitarianism is not to be confused with Unitarian Universalism.
Both groups consider the Bible to be authoritative scripture. Any biblical references are to be found in the links provided.
I neither support nor endorse the beliefs of either Biblical Unitarians or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Christology – Study of the person of Christ, his humanity and divinity, his nature and work:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology
BU – Jesus is NOT God.  They reject the Trinity. There is only one True God, the Father, and Jesus Christ is the “man accredited by God” who has now been made “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:22 and 36). Christ is fully man and is “one of us,” and God is God and has never changed or been a man.  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/philippians-2-6-8   Jesus is the Son of God.  He did not have a pre-human existence.  He came into existence when God created Jesus’ life in Mary.  He was born without sin.  He was resurrected with an incorruptible body and exalted in heaven to God’s right hand and given all authority under the Father.  Jesus was the perfect and ultimate sacrifice for all men’s sin and is the mediator between God and men.  Jesus remains a finite, separate being with a beginning.  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/who-is-jesus-christ  See also: https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/jesus-is-the-son-of-god-not-god-the-son
JW – Jesus is NOT God.  They reject the Trinity.  Before he became human, Jesus was created by Jehovah as the mighty spirit creature known in heaven as Michael the Archangel.  https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/archangel-michael/   Jehovah created everything else through Jesus.  God’s “only-begotten son,” the Word, was a spirit person like his Father but later “became flesh,” residing among mankind as the man Jesus.  Completing his earthly course, he was “put to death in the flesh, but [was] made alive in the spirit.” His Father resurrected him, granted his Son’s request to be glorified alongside the Father with the glory he had had in his pre-human state and God made him “a life-giving spirit.” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004211  See also: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101998883#h=8  and ‘His Origin was from Early Times’ here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005681
Pneumatology – Study of the Holy Spirit, the person and works of the Holy Spirit:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatology
BU – God is Spirit and is referred to in Scripture as the Holy Spirit.  Since God is “holy” and also a “spirit,” “Holy Spirit” is simply another name for God the Father.  God gives the gift of the new birth – his holy spirit – his divine nature.  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/what-is-the-holy-spirit  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/gods-gift-of-holy-spirit-a-he-or-an-it
JW – God is Spirit and the holy spirit is his active life force/power/energy.  The invisible energizing force that God puts into action to accomplish his will. It is holy because it comes from Jehovah, who is clean and righteous to the highest degree, and because it is God’s means to accomplish what is holy.  It is not a person and does not have personality.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/tl/r1/lp-e?q=holy%20spirit
Nature of God – Study of God’s attributes and being, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity
BU – God alone is the creator.  Jesus does not have the divine attributes of omnipotence or omniscience (John5:30; Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32) which suggests that God the Father does.  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/search/%22Nature%20of%20God%22    https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
JW – Jehovah created the spirit who came to earth to be born as Jesus.  Everything else was created through the pre-mortal Jesus.  Jehovah is omnipotent and omniscient (all-knowing), and has the divine ability to see and to know everything, but chooses to be selective with foreknowledge.  However, omnipresence is not applicable to Jehovah God: “God being an individual, a Person with a spirit body, has a place where he resides, and so he could not be at any other place at the same time.”   https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1981122#h=7:0-9:545  See this article for Jehovah’s exercise of selective foreknowledge: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1970567 and this article on omnipotence: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001549?q=omnipotence&p=par
Soteriology – Study of Jesus’ role in Salvation, Sin, Redemption, Atonement, Justification, Universal Reconciliation:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology#Christianity
BU – Jesus, born without sin, is the perfect and ultimate sacrifice for all men’s sin.  He has been made heir, exalted to God’s right hand and given all authority under the Father.  To the faithful he offers the like distinction and honor that he has with the Father, to sit with him in his throne (Revelation 3:21).  Christ is the first begotten of the dead (Revelation 1) and is ordained of God to be the judge of the quick and the dead (Acts 10:42).  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/if-jesus-isnt-god-how-did-he-forgive-sins  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/how-can-a-man-atone-for-the-sins-of-mankind  https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/why-did-jesus-have-to-suffer-and-die
JW – Although perfect, Jesus could have sinned, but did not.  Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant which applies specifically to the 144,000 who have a heavenly hope. See ‘Those for Whom Christ is Mediator’:  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002957?q=Jesus+mediator&p=doc    He sits in heaven, at the right hand side of Jehovah.  Since 1914 he has been ruling, from heaven, as King.  At Armageddon he will return to judge wicked humanity, accompanied by all the heavenly hosts, and then will reign over the earth for 1,000 years.  After all things have been subjected to him, he will hand the kingdom over to Jehovah. See the last section ‘Where is Jesus Today’: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005681  https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/gods-kingdom/promises/kingdom-enemies-removed/
Life after Death – Includes Christian eschatology, Heaven in Christianity, Christian views on hell, and Intermediate state.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife#Christianity
BU – I could not find anything on life after death, heaven, hell, the intermediate state or the human soul continuing to exist after the death of the body.  Only this: “To the faithful he [Jesus] offers the like distinction and honor that he has with the Father, to sit with him in his throne” (Revelation 3:21).  Regarding eschatology, this quote from 1 Timothy 6:14-16: “To keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light.” https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
JW – There is no such thing as an immortal soul. The immortal soul doctrine is pagan.  All who die await the resurrection when they will be brought back to life in physical bodies and have 1,000 years in which to earn the right to live forever on a paradise earth.  Any who fail the final test will be annihilated.  There is no such thing as eternal punishment in a literal hell.  Only 144,000 persons since the time of Jesus can go to heaven, there to rule with Christ Jesus over the inhabitants of a paradise earth.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004192?q=immortal+soul&p=par  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003841?q=paradise+earth&p=par
You ask if there are any other important doctrinal aspects in which Biblical Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses part ways.  Theologically, the most important issue is the person of Jesus Christ, and who he REALLY is.  Both Biblical Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses have a different take on Jesus, the former claiming he did not exist till God created his life in Mary, and the latter claiming he was created as a mighty spirit creature, known in heaven as Michael the Archangel, through whom everything else came into existence.  It is easy to find out what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe about life after death, the resurrection and where they expect to spend eternity.  Not so with Biblical Unitarians. I was unable to find information from the official BU web site on human nature, life after death, heaven, hell, or a resurrection. https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/category/articles
Perhaps the biggest difference is that Biblical Unitarians are liberal and they are not dogmatic. Neither do they insist on people adhering to any view they support.  They are not a religious denomination and do not appear to have a hierarchical structure.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, claim to be Jehovah’s earthly organisation and their Governing Body is part of “the faithful and discreet slave” who dispenses spiritual food.  The rest of religion is part of ‘Babylon the Great’.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governing_Body_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#:~:text=The%20Governing%20Body%20of%20Jehovah's,administers%20the%20group's%20worldwide%20operations  Also, a baptised Witness can either be disfellowshipped (for unrepentant rule-breaking) or be deemed as disassociated.  https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=disfellowship
Further Reading:
Background information on Biblical Unitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_unitarianism#:~:text=Biblical%20Unitarianism%20encompasses%20the%20key,but%20may%20not%20be%20divine
This JW link answers questions on their beliefs: https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=our+beliefs
The Unitarian Universalist Church: https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/does-the-unitarian-universalist-church-hold-to-the-bible-as-the-word-of-god


Why was having concubines not a sin like adultery? The Old Testament records many instances of men having concubines or many wives.  Why did having concubines not fall under the sin of adultery?

2 Samuel 5:13 - "After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him."

Genesis 25:6 - "But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east." (Abraham)

I suppose the issue here must've been consent between all parties.

Having multiple wives was permitted (though not exactly endorsed) in the Law of Moses.

Adultery is having (or desiring) an intimate relationship with someone who's already married (to someone else). As it was forbidden in the Mosaic law, it was referring to a man and someone else's wife. It was not really speaking of a married man and another woman. Even then, though, the only occasion in which such a relationship is allowed is within marriage. So, in order for a man to have that kind of relationship with a woman, she would have to be a wife of some kind.

Concubines were essentially wives of lower status. They were still bound to the one man.


Dialog between Jesus and Peter in John 21: what's going on? In John 21: 15-17 there's a post-Resurrection dialog between Peter and Jesus.  Here's the KJV translation of this dialog.

  So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of
  Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord;
  thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

  He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest
  thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.
  He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?
  Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou
  me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest
  that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Other more recent translations basically say the same thing about this threefold dialog between Jesus and the guy who recently denied him.  It's good to read this passage as Jesus's threefold recommissioning of Peter after the three denials. But it does seem repetitive.

But, there's a strange thing about the translation. The Greek uses two different words for love here.  agape and philo.  Writing out the KJV again using "like" for philo and "love" for agape, we get this.

  So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of
  Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord;
  thou knowest that I like thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

  He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest
  thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I like thee.
  He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, likest thou me?
  Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Likest thou
  me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest
  that I like thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

This difference in words gives the whole dialog a very different tone.  Is Peter holding out on Jesus? (If you're wondering about why this might be important, next time your spouse asks, "do you love me?" answer "sweetheart, I like you." Let us know how that works out for you. :-)

Does anybody know why the English translations erase this distinction in the words for love in this passage? Was it due to a translator's theological point of view?

Though not a Greek scholar, I would contend that translating philo as like is a poor translation.  Agape typically connotes the perfect love that God has and to which we can only aspire (though aspire to it we must, just as we aspire to imitate Christ though we can only do so imperfectly). On the other hand, philo connotes the love between two persons which is not eros, the sexual love between a man and a woman.

Our language is inadequate to the task, having only one word for love, which takes on different connotations in different contexts - when I say "I love my brother" I mean quite different love than "I loved my wife last night".

As an aside, why does Jesus "labor the point" three times? It is generally considered to correlate to Peter's three denials; for Peter it was thrice affirming the forgiveness for thrice denying our Lord.


According to Eastern Orthodoxy why did we inherit the sin of Adam and Eve? God is known as very just and he likes to have mercy on people.

God doesn't want people to inherit sins of their parents. So why did we inherit this very sin? What is so special about the sin of Adam and Eve?

I feel like that it's against justice because we didn't make it. It's also against having mercy because we inherited a sin which leads to death.

The sin is a damage we do to ourselves. Adam and Eve damaged themselves and we inherited this sin, like child inherits damage if his mother smokes or drinks alcohol during pregnancy.


Were the actions of the 3rd Duke of Alba in the 16th Century considered a Catholic Crusade? Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba was sent by Philip II of Spain to Belgium where he waged war against the protestants in the area.

As a bit of history, Belgium in the 16th Century started out as part of the "Seventeen Provinces" within the Burgundian Netherlands.  Belgium was formed after the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648)

On February 16, 1568, the entire population of the Netherlands—three million—was condemned to death as heretics, apart from a few named exceptions:

  Philip next submitted a "Memorial and Representation" of the state of the Low Countries to the Spanish Inquisition craving the judgment of the Fathers upon it. After deliberating, the inquisitors pronounced their decision on the 16th of February, 1568. It was to the effect that, "with the exception of a select list of names which had been handed to them, all the inhabitants of the Netherlands were heretics or abettors of heresy, and so had been guilty of the crime of high treason." On the 26th of the same month, Philip confirmed this sentence by a proclamation, in which he commanded the decree to be carried into immediate execution, without favour or respect of persons. The King of Spain actually passed sentence of death upon a whole nation. We behold him erecting a common scaffold for its execution, and digging one vast grave for all the men, and women, and children of the Low Countries. "Since the beginning of the world," says Brandt, "men have not seen or heard any parallel to this horrible sentence. (Wylie, History of Protestantism, vol. II, p. 70.)

Would the sending of the 3rd Duke of Alba to Belgium and his following actions be considered a Catholic Crusade?

Professor Petrus Johannes Blok was Professor of Dutch History at Leiden University, the Netherlands oldest university, in the late 19th and early 20th century. In 1907 he identified that the decree sentencing almost all Netherlands inhabitants to death, and depriving them of their property, said to have been promulgated in Spain in 1568, was actually a forgery dating from some time in the 1570s. In a sense then, it was, according to the Professor, fake news, but from the 16th century; and generally accepted by historians until the 20th.

See page 42-43 of "Britain and the Netherlands Volume 5" by Bromley and Kossmann .

The Netherlands  Inquisition had been running for several decades already and, as Phillip II himself observed, was less merciful than the Spanish. At one time heretics who  refused to repent could be burned. If a man or boy repented he could be beheaded, but if a woman or girl repented she could be buried alive.

This article, on the website of St Andrew's University, the oldest in Scotland, quotes estimates of 50,000 to 100,00 deaths. After the Duke of Albi arrived many more thousands of deaths were inflicted, it says.

This was the same Duke of Albi who in 1556 had besieged Rome and threatened to sack the city if the then pope did not accept his terms.

However no attempt was made to exterminate almost all the inhabitants of the Netherlands indiscriminately. The decree, even if it had existed, was not acted upon. That the Duke of Alba did lead a force to the Netherlands and that much persecution followed is true.

The historical details are somewhat disputed and perhaps the History site might provide some answers  as to roughly how many perished, and how many suffered other punishment or went into exile.

If, in fact, the Pope had approved a campaign to kill all 3,00,000, many of whom were Catholic anyway, and had called on all Catholics to support it,  then that would have been a most extraordinary thing. We can only speculate whether it might have been called a crusade, or what it might have been called.

Rather depressingly, perhaps, what actually happened was, in the context of sixteenth century Europe,  more a case of "business as usual".


According to Catholicism, what particular truth will the great apostasy deny? CCC 675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

There are many Church teachings about the "Truth" taught by Jesus Christ in the gospel and other "Truth" handed by the Apostles as Sacred Tradition and deposited to the Church.

Is there a Catholic teachings or explanation on what particular "Truth" where apostasy will be committed?

Cardinal Manning, the most prominent father at the First Vatican Council who was responsible for the definition on papal infallibility, lists some signs of "the persecution which Antichrist shall inflict upon the Church of God," in the 4th lecture of his Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ, "The Perpetual Conflict of the Vicar of Christ" (all 4 lectures in printed form from TradiBooks as The Pope and The Antichrist), pp. 147ff.:

  "1. The first sign or mark of this coming persecution is an indifference to truth." (p. 148)

and

  "2. The next step which indicates the fulfilment of the prophecies is the persecution of the truth." (p. 151)

These would seem to be an "apostasy from the truth".

(adapted from this answer to "How can one identify the Anti-Christ, can he be a Bishop opposing the Papacy in relation to 1 John 2:19-20?")

The philosophical foundation of the heresy of Modernism is agnosticism, that one cannot know (ἄ = "not", γνωστος = "to know"). Commenting on Pius XII's anti-Modernist encyclical Humani Generis, Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. writes that Modernists have redefined what truth is:

  Finally, [Modernists] consider the traditional definition of truth «chimerical»: «Adaequatio rei et intellectus», the conformity of judgement with extra-mental being and with its immutable laws, and they want to «substitute for it» this new definition: Conformitas mentis et vitae, the conformity of our judgment with life and with its subjective exigencies, and this leads to an «insufficiently objective certainty» regarding the existence of God, as in the proof proposed by Kant.

To redefine truth could be considered an "apostasy from the truth".


Did Philip Melanchthon teach penal substitution? This question is a follow-up to my question, "Did Martin Luther teach penal substitution?"
The Wikipedia article on Philip Melanchthon states in its opening paragraphs:

Philip Melanchthon . . . (16 February 1497 – 19 April 1560), . . . was a German Lutheran reformer, collaborator with Martin Luther, the first systematic theologian of the Protestant Reformation, intellectual leader of the Lutheran Reformation, and an influential designer of educational systems.
He stands next to Luther and Calvin as a reformer, theologian, and molder of Protestantism. Along with Luther, he is the primary founder of Lutheranism, and is often deemed by historians to be its intellectual leader as contrasted with Martin Luther's rather simplistic views. They both denounced what they believed was the exaggerated cult of the saints, asserted justification by faith, . . . .

Under the subheading, "As theologian," the article states:

Melanchthon . . . furthermore reduced Luther's much richer view of redemption to that of legal satisfaction.

This suggests that Melanchthon, rather than Luther himself, may have been the origin of the common Protestant view that Luther's theology of justification and redemption revolved around the penal substitution theory of atonement—and of the ascendancy of that doctrine within Lutheranism generally. Indeed, this is the very thing suggested in footnote 10 on Wikipedia's "Penal substitution" article:

Gustaf Aulén, a critic of penal substitution theory, disputed in his 1931 book Christus Victor that Luther accepted penal substitution. 'Under Aulen's assessment, Martin Luther revitalized the Christus Victor paradigm. According to Aulen, however, beginning with Melanchthon himself, Luther's reappropriation of the classic theme was quickly lost within later Protestant circles as more objective, "Latin," theories were allowed to displace it.' (Paul R. Eddy and James Beilby, 'The Atonement: An Introduction', in P. R. Eddy and J. Beilby [eds], The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views [Downers Grove: IVP, 2006], p. 13) [italics added]

However, the Wikipedia article on Melanchthon does not go into any greater detail on his theology of justification, redemption, and atonement. So my question is:
Did Philip Melanchthon teach penal substitution?
Whatever other sources an answer may use, please provide direct quotations from Melanchthon's own works to support your answer.
(Note: Answers regarding Luther's teachings on penal substitution should be posted under the related question linked above. Also related: "Who first clearly formulated the penal substitution theory of atonement?")

A great place to look for this is Melancthon's Defense of the Augsburg Confession.  As we'll see, he does not always use language specific to penal substitution, but the themes of Christ's sacrifice appeasing God's wrath and acting as a forensic substitute for sinners are certainly there.
Christ makes satisfaction and his mercy is set against God's wrath:

[Christ] was given for us in order that He might make satisfaction for the sins of the world, and has been appointed as the [only] Mediator and Propitiator. (Part 2)
Thus, because faith, which freely receives the remission of sins, sets Christ, the Mediator and Propitiator, against God's wrath, it does not present our merits or our love (Part 2)
Therefore this Propitiator thus benefits us, when by faith we apprehend the mercy promised in Him, and set it against the wrath and judgment of God. (Part 5)

The appeasement of God's wrath:

The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. (Part 5)

The application of Christ's righteousness to sinners:

Moreover, in this passage [Romans 5], to justify signifies, according to forensic usage, to acquit a guilty one and declare him righteous, but on account of the righteousness of another, namely, of Christ, which righteousness of another is communicated to us by faith. (Part 9)
The second matter in a propitiator is, that his merits have been presented as those which make satisfaction for others, which are bestowed by divine imputation on others, in order that through these, just as by their own merits, they may be accounted righteous. [...] Thus the merits of Christ are bestowed upon us, in order that, when we believe in Him, we may be accounted righteous by our confidence in Christ's merits as though we had merits of our own. (Part 26)
to be justified does not mean that a righteous man is made from a wicked man, but to be pronounced righteous in a forensic sense (Part 8)

And Christ as the price for our sins:

But the Fathers knew the promise concerning Christ that God for Christ's sake wished to remit sins. Therefore, since they understood that Christ would be the price for our sins, they knew that our works are not a price for so great a matter [could not pay so great a debt]. (Part 3)

And finally, Christ the victim bearing the punishment of sin on our behalf:

the Law condemns all men, but Christ, because without sin He has borne the punishment of sin, and been made a victim for us has removed that right of the Law to accuse and condemn those who believe in Him, because He Himself is the propitiation for them for whose sake we are now accounted righteous. (Part 6)


How can Evangelicals link baptism and circumcision without practicing infant baptism? This question is a follow-up to this answer. In this particular answer the biblical basis for baptism being non-requisite for salvation is given. Essentially it is a defense of the doctrine that you are saved by faith alone; baptism seen as an act outside of saving faith. The part of the answer that is the subject of this question is this:

  what applied to circumcision (it follows salvation, which is by faith) applies to baptism

Colossians 2:11-12 is given as the basis for thinking of circumcision as foreshadowing baptism.

So my question is if what applied to circumcision applies to baptism, why are infants not baptized? If the answer is that infants can't be confirmed to be saved before infant baptism, then why is circumcision linked to baptism?

In order to be on topic this question must be directed at a specific group. So I ask this question of Protestant Evangelicals specifically since the article quoted in the answer that raised my question  appears to be written by a Protestant Evangelical Christian (Matt Slick). Besides, most high church Protestants do practice infant baptism, so I think this question is confined to PE churches.

I did read some of the article by Mr. Slick, but I couldn't find an answer to this question there.

Abraham's Circumcision
First of all, we must differentiate between Abraham's circumcision and the circumcision of the covenant that applied to Abraham's descendants and household. They are still the same circumcision, but Abraham is a unique case because he was the first to receive it.
Colossians and the answer you quote are speaking of Abraham's circumcision. His faith preceded the circumcision. In the same way, faith precedes baptism. The comparison they are focusing on is not in the timing of the age of the sign, but in the order.
Circumcision of Old Covenant
However, even when speaking of the circumcision of the covenant, the logic remains consistent. For infants were born into the covenant and then received the sign of circumcision. In fact, anyone wishing to join Israel and God's covenant people had to be circumcised. So whether it was by birth or by choice, the circumcision always followed as a sign of that status.
Baptism of New Covenant
Believers are not born into the new covenant, not with their first birth. Rather we are born again into the new covenant and then receive the sign of the covenant, now baptism, as spiritual infants.
Circumcision of the heart
Remember, even circumcision of the flesh was not enough. Just because one was born an Israelite did not mean they had a circumcised heart, which was the real point all along (Deut 30:6, Jer 4:4). In the same way, we cannot claim baptism to be effectual. It is still only a sign of the new birth. It means nothing without true faith like Abraham's.
Infant baptism neither signifies being born again, nor guarantees future faith. Logically, one could say the first circumcision didn't necessarily signify real circumcision of the heart either, yet they did it anyway. That is to say, it is not wrong to baptize infants, it is only wrong to put your faith in it. Just as Jesus pointed out it was wrong to trust in being a Jew (May 3:9).  A system that allows for both infant christening and believers baptism would be fine, but when we eliminate believer baptism we are changing the order of the sign from what it was in the old covenant.
Conclusion
It is not illogical to say one applies to infants and the other does not. For the first birth applies to the first covenant and the second birth applies to the second covenant.
Rather it is illogical to apply the same requirements of the first covenant to both the first and second covenant's signs, ignoring the differences between the covenants.


Who first addressed a religious male or female with "brother" or "sister," respectively? What is the first occurrence in Church history of addressing a religious male or female (i.e., one who has taken vows of obedience, chastity, and poverty) with "brother" or "sister," respectively?

It may be possible that St. Benedict of Nursia (480-547) in his Holy Rule is the first recorded instance of maintaining the fact that his religious should not address one another simply by their names.

Chapter 63 states the following:

  Let the junior brethren reverence their seniors, and the seniors love their juniors.

  In calling each other by name, let no one address another by his simple name alone; but let the seniors call the juniors Brothers, and the let the juniors call their seniors Fathers, by which is understood paternal reverence. But he Abbot, since he is looked upon as representing Christ, be called Lord and Abbot; not that he has taken it to himself, but for the honor and love of Christ. He himself is so to consider it, and so to act as to be worthy of such a dignity.

  Wherever the brethren meet one another, let the junior ask a blessing from the senior.  When the senior passes by, let the junior rise and give him place to be seated; nor let the junior presume to sit down unless the senior bid him do so, fulfilling thereby what is written: "With honor anticipating one another." - CHAPTER 63 of the Rule of St. Benedict.


What is the biblical basis for commemorating the birth of Jesus? For many Christian denominations, Christmas is the highest holiday of the year.
What is the biblical basis for commemorating/celebrating the birth of Jesus, regardless of the particular day of the year on which it is celebrated?

John's Gospel Chapter 1 tells us that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (v1) and that this Word became flesh and dwelt among us (v14). So Christians beleve the Birth of Christ entailed the Incarnation (becoming flesh) of God Himself as a human person.  This, if true,  was one of the most important things ever to happen.

Psalm 145 v4 says "one generation shall praise thy works unto another, and shall declare thy mighty acts".

Many Christians feel that the Birth of Christ, the Incarnation, is a mighty act which should be declared to future generations.

There are many ways this could be done, some Biblically-based, some not.  In the Book of Exodus God instituted the Jewish festival of Passover. Chapter 12, verses 26 and 27 may explain why: "It shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you What do you mean by this service? That you shall say it is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt." God instituted the Passover festival so that future generations should learn what had happened.

In the book of Esther the Jews were delivered from an impending calamity. To commemorate this the annual Jewish festival of Purim was established.Chapter 9 verse 27 tells us the Jews "took it on themselves" to establish that they and their descendants should celebrate this annually for ever.  God did not institute Purim, as He instituted Passover, Rather the Jews took it on themselves to do so.

The Bible does not command the celebration of Christmas, any more than Purim,  but the Church took it on itself to do so.A Biblical basis is that the event it commemorates is important enough to be passed down to future generations, that God set the example with Passover of using an annual festival to pass things down, and that the Jews had also later taken it on themselves to establish an annual festival without God's direct command, as a way to perpetuate knowledge of something they felt important. This is the Biblical way, so this is what the Church did.

If looking for a Biblical basis for the date of Christmas, it is important to bear in mind there may not be one. Elizabeth, John the Baptists mother, was already 6 months pregnant when Gabriel announced  to Mary that she too would bear a Child (Luke 1 v26). This puts the Birth of Christ around 15 months after the conception of John.  Gabriel announced that Elizabeth would conceive when he appeared to John's father, Zachariah, when he was burning incense in the temple (Luke 1, vv10 11) .  There was a tradition that this happened on the day of Yom Kippur, (late Sptember/early October). We are also told that Zachariah was of the course of Abijah (Luke 1 v5) - this indicates his place on the priestly roster and thus the weeks in the year when he would have been on duty. Attempts have beeen made to determine when this was, but there is no consensus.


Why does the NRSV-CE omit mentioning prayer and fasting in Matthew 17? The NRSV-CE omits mentioning prayer and fasting, explaining in footnote (g):

  Matthew 17:20 Other ancient authorities add verse 21, But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting

Rheims translation of Mt. 17:20, based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate, says:

  But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.Hoc autem genus non ejicitur nisi per orationem et jejunium.

Why does the NRSV-CE omit mentioning prayer and fasting in Matthew 17?

By "Other ancient authorities add verse 21, But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting" they mean that not all sources contain verse 21, and they come to the conclusion that it is a later addition and not originally there. So the translators omit the verse to be closer to the original text (which is unknown). It reflects a decision what sources the translators deemed more authoritative than others. Maybe because they are older, or there are more sources which confirm this reading.

I can't say anything about how justified this is in this particular case, but this is what should be understood from the footnote.


What are the dietary restrictions for Lent in Catholicism? There are some things that I've been told since I was kid that I'd like to ask about regarding fasting. I'm a of Catholic Maronite Rite and I'd like Catholic answers.

Are we allowed to eat whatever we want on Sundays? I've been taught not to fast on Sundays, therefore we can eat whatever we want on Sundays all day long.
Are we allowed to drink? I've been told that we can drink water, only Muslims don't drink water while fasting. Some Christians do it, but it's optional.
Is Saturday or Sunday the last day of lent? I believe it's Sunday, meaning you cannot eat on Holy Saturday, my friend is a Catholic too and he believes that he can eat on Holy Saturday.
What about fish and egg? I don't eat meat in the first and last week. however, I eat fish and eggs. Is it allowed? I've been told so.

I'm Catholic, but I don't know what a Maronit is.  One thing about fasting that people often forget is the reason we do it in the first place.  If you just do it because it is the rules, it will not benefit you at all.
Sundays and feast days are not actually part of Lent, so you don't have to fast.
I have not heard anything about not drinking water.
I would say if you go to the Easter vigil Mass, Lent is over when they turn the lights on.  (You would know what I mean if you have ever been to the Easter vigil Mass.)  If not, it is over on Easter Sunday.
I have never heard you can't eat meat the first and last week.  You can't eat meat of Fridays, though.  Fish is fine and I have never heard anything about not eating eggs.
Saying you will go to hell if you don't fast is just plain stupid.  Imagine if you get to heaven and God says, "You could go to heaven, except once 20 years ago, you didn't fast, so you instantly go to hell."  Even if it was a sin, just go to confession.  The only sin that is unforgivable is saying that God cannot forgive your sins.  He can, but you have a free will, so He won't forgive them if you tell Him he can't.


What is the significance of colour purple in the robe that Jesus was made to wear? Was there any significance to the colour purple, as described by the evangelists while mentioning the robe that Jesus was made to put on before His crucifixion? Both John 19:2 and Mark 15:7 mentioning the colour, would seem to signify that the colour did convey something, but what?

Purple in the Roman Empire was associated with triumph, and came to be associated with the Emperors specifically. Along with the crown of thorns, the purple robe was a mocking symbol of Jesus' royalty.


Should Catholics silently hum the Tetragrammaton when they're supposed to sing it?' I was telling the kids in my Catechism class yesterday that we don't pronounce God's name anymore in hymns during Mass.  They were a tad taken aback, especially since apparently they're supposed to sing some song at their school containing the Holy Name.

Anyway, how scrupulous does one need to be about this? I can't imagine that the only place you may not utter God's name with the vowels is the very space where he is worshiped most abundantly.

So, should they sing along, or just hum to themselves?  I'd really appreciate a good sound Catholic answer to this as it is ostensibly binding on us for the rest of our lives!

In the liturgical context, I think the Liturgiam Authenticam, which provided guidance on how to conduct translations, is pretty clear on this:

  [I]n accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned “Septuagint” version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.

In English, the tetragrammaton should be replaced with "LORD", although I've seen "God" used as well.

However, outside of that context, the Church is less strict. In the follow-up letter, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a strong case that the use of the tetragrammatron is philologically misguided:

  The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the so-called Septuagint, dating back to the last centuries prior to the Christian era, had regularly rendered the Hebrew tetragrammaton with the Greek word Kyrios, which means "Lord." Since the text of the Septuagint constituted the Bible of the first generation of Greek-speaking Christians, in which language all the books of the New Testament were also written, these Christians, too, from the beginning never pronounced the divine tetragrammaton. Something similar happened likewise for Latin-speaking Christians [...] in these translations, too, the tetragrammaton was regularly replaced with the Latin word "Dominus", corresponding both to the Hebrew Adonai and to the Greek Kyrios. [...]

  This fact has had important implications for the New Testament Christology itself. When in fact St. Paul, with regard to the Crucifixion, writes that "God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9), he does not mean any other name than "Lord" [...]

but it issued no guidance about whether it should be used elsewhere, stating only (emphasis mine):

  Avoiding pronouncing the tetragrammaton of the name of God on the part of the Church has therefore its own grounds. Apart from a motive of a purely philological order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the Church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated.

Outside of a Christian context, it may be like nails on the chalkboard for someone who perhaps gets annoyed when people talk about the Brontosaurus, but there is no direct prohibition about using it. Of course, it would be a sign of respect to hum it or replace it the word Lord if at all possible.


How can "burden" in Acts 15:28–29 and Matthew 11:28 be reconciled? Acts 15:28–29 (NIV):

  It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with
  anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from
  food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled
  animals and from sexual immorality.

Matthew 11:28:

  "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you
  rest".

The word 'burden' in Acts witnessed by Holy Spirit and used by Jesus in Matthew seems to mean the same thing, though I haven't done a Greek word study yet.

Wouldn't the combination of these scriptures give license to sin (in human meaning) if it is not violating human rights and legal demands?

Well, actually in Greek Bible these words are different.

In Acts 15:28-29:

  ἔδοξεν γὰρ τω̨̃ πνεύματι τω̨̃ ἁγίω̨ καὶ ἡμι̃ν μηδὲν πλέον
  ἐπιτίθεσθαι ὑμι̃ν βάρος πλὴν τούτων τω̃ν ἐπάναγκες

i.e. word βάρος, that could mean also "weight"

and in Matthew 11:28:

  δευ̃τε πρός με πάντες οἱ κοπιω̃ντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι κἀγὼ
  ἀναπαύσω ὑμα̃ς

where word πεφορτισμένοι could be translated as to be "overburden".

So the meaning of word "burdened" in your variant of translation is actually different.
If In Acts 15:28 it means some kind of obedience, while in Matthew 11:28 it means a state of man, when he is overburden, too loaded, when he is in troubles, sins and sorrow.


What does the abbreviation "RNIO" mean in a painting of the Virgin and Child? In the Crivelli painting "The Virgin and Child with Infants Bearing Symbols of the Passion" there is (at the right, under a bare tree) an injured (?) knight with a red shield inscribed with the letters "RNIO".  (Or maybe something else in place of the "I".) Here is an image with that particular detail of the painting:

What do those letters mean?  I assume they're an acronym of some kind?

There seems to be two views on what the letters "RNIO" mean in the Carlos Crivelli painting. I only have one reference for the answer: Dr. Liliana Leopardi, an expert in Italian Renaissance art, Assistant Professor of Art and Art History at Chapman University, who was gracious enough to share her knowledge with me through personal correspondence.

  Scholars have been trying to figure out the inscription for quite a long time now. It is thought to be to an inscription that somehow refers to the commissioner's identity. As it happens to be painted on one of a shield.

Scholars are divided on the way that it refers to the commissioner's identity, Dr. Leopardi continues:

  It could either be a reference to the name of the commissioner or the initials of a series of words that were meant to be the commissioner's motto.

The answer unfortunately is that scholars simply don't know the answer.


Can a Catholic ask for protection from a priest in case his/her spouse has filed a no-fault divorce? In the case of no-fault divorce, if one spouse files for divorce and the other spouse does not want a divorce, then can the other spouse receive protection from the Catholic priest in order to prevent the former spouse from remarriage?

First, I think I should point out that priests have no say in who gets a secular divorce. (Depending on circumstances, it might actually even be the right thing to do.) A tribunal, on the other hand, does have the authority to grant an annulment.

My experience is that the no-fault annulment is possible, but very difficult. It becomes incumbent upon the person who wants the annulment to prove that the marriage is not valid. Sometimes this is easy (one spouse says, "I was piss drunk for our wedding, I slept with her maid of honor (or best man), and I am a schizophrenic who had skipped a month of medication before the ceremony"), other times it becomes almost impossible.

But, that's still "almost". I did have a friend who got an annulment, and her then husband was not too fond of it (though there was clear grounds). He dragged his heals in the process and even managed to delay it for at least a year (the process took three altogether), but eventually she was able to get the Church to hear her out, and the Church agreed with her.


Why is the word ‘concupiscence’ so important in understanding the difference between a Catholic view and a Protestant view of ‘Original Sin’? I have noticed this word ‘concupiscence’ a lot while studying Catholic Theology. It seems to significantly change what ‘Original Sin’ means, making a Catholic meaning of ‘Original Sin’ very different from the Protestant meaning. It appears to be a key word because the Catholic Church actually condemned the Protestant view during the reformation as being heretical. A lot of it seems to boil down to the word ‘concupiscence’.

I have not encountered the word a lot in Protestant theology but it is coming up left, right and center, as I study Catholic Theology.

Why is the word ‘concupiscence’ so important in understanding the difference between a Catholic view and a Protestant view of ‘Original Sin’?

If you want to understand Catholic teaching you really ought to consult the Catechism. After all, authentic teachings are always going to be more accurate than what you have 'heard'.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that Adam and Eve were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice" (CCC 375, 376 398), free from concupiscence (CCC 377). The preternatural state enjoyed by Adam and Eve afforded endowments with many prerogatives which, while pertaining to the natural order, were not due to human nature as such. Principal among these were a high degree of infused knowledge, bodily immortality and freedom from pain, and immunity from evil impulses or inclinations. In other words, the lower or animal nature in man was perfectly subject to the control of reason, the will (subject to GOD,) and most importantly, GOD. Besides this, the Catholic Church teaches that our first parents were also endowed with sanctifying grace by which they were elevated to the supernatural order.[1] By sinning, however, Adam lost this original "state," not only for himself but for all human beings (CCC 416).
According to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right: the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, and the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth.[2]
As a result of original sin, according to Catholics, human nature has not been totally corrupted (as opposed to the teaching of Luther and Calvin); rather, human nature has only been weakened and wounded, subject to ignorance, suffering, the domination of death, and the inclination to sin and evil (CCC 405, 418). This inclination toward sin and evil is called "concupiscence" (CCC 405, 418). Baptism, Catholics believe, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God. The inclination toward sin and evil persists, however, and he must continue to struggle against concupiscence (CCC 2520).
Source: Wikipedia entry on Concupiscence - Catholic teaching section.
Footnotes:
¹ Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Terrestrial Paradise
² Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Original Sin


Baptism of grandchildren My grandchildren were not baptized and I was worried about it. They are going on a trip.   Therefore, I took it upon myself to baptize them.   What if anything is the Catholic Church's view of this?  My children are not practicing Catholics.  When my oldest grandson was a baby, maybe about six months old, I was giving him a bath in the kitchen sink and poured water over him and stated specifically, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"...  I did this to the other four today.  I told my son and daughter.  My daughter just chuckled and my son was upset with me.  They were raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, but neither are practicing now.

Canon law states:

Canon 868
§1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:
1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;
2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.
§2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.

Given that your grandchildren were not in imminent danger of death, it appears that your actions may have been in breach of canon law.


Did Mary have other children? Since it appears that Jesus had brothers and sisters, did Mary have other children?  If not, how many wives did Joseph have?

Matthew 12:46–47 NIV

  46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers
  stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your
  mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

Matthew 13:56 NIV

  56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this
  man all these things?

As noted above by Igantius Theophorus, there exist some early Christian documents that attempt to deal with the conflict between the presence of Jesus' siblings and the perpetual virginity of Mary—Joseph as a widower seems to have been a favorite. So, for example, the Flight to Egypt as depicted artistically often includes Jesus' brother James leading the donkey—since he was putatively from an earlier marriage. That said, there is nothing in the biblical text that demands that Mary remained a virgin, was immaculately conceived, or assumed into heaven.

Of course, such doctrines are matters of faith and perfectly fine to hold to, but no serious biblical scholar would argue for the historical reliability of such documents—whatever the reality may have been.


What is the Catholic Church's position on the relationship between science and religion? Hugh Ross in his book Navigating Genesis states that the "non-overlapping magesteria" model for the relationship between science and religion (of whom Stephen Jay Gould is a proponent) is endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church.

He refers to Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis (1950) as evidence.

Is the Catholic position indeed a separatist model?
What is the current Catholic understanding of the relationship between science and religion?

References to the Catechism of the Catholic church would be of valuable import, as well as any other official documents.

The "'non-overlapping magesteria' model for the relationship between science and religion" is not Catholic. In fact, it is condemned as a part of the heresy of Modernism, what Pope St. Pius X called the "synthesis of all heresies" in his 1907 encyclical condemning Modernism, Pascendi Dominici gregis (my emphases):Faith and Science

16. Having reached this point, Venerable Brethren, we have sufficient material in hand to enable us to see the relations which Modernists establish between faith and science, including history also under the name of science. And in the first place it is to be held [according to the Modernists] that the object of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object of the other. For faith [according to the Modernists] occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be unknowable for it. Hence [according to the Modernists] each has a separate field assigned to it: science is entirely concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which faith does not enter at all; faith on the contrary concerns itself with the divine reality which is entirely unknown to science. Thus the conclusion is reached that there can never be any dissension between faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore never be in contradiction. And if it be objected that in the visible world there are some things which appertain to faith, such as the human life of Christ, the Modernists reply by denying this. For though such things come within the category of phenomena, still in as far as they are lived by faith and in the way already described have been by faith transfigured and disfigured, they have been removed from the world of sense and translated to become material for the divine. Hence should it be further asked whether Christ has wrought real miracles, and made real prophecies, whether He rose truly from the dead and ascended into heaven, the answer of agnostic science will be in the negative and the answer of faith in the affirmative—yet there will not be, on that account, any conflict between them [according to the Modernists]. For it will be denied by the philosopher as philosopher, speaking to philosophers and considering Christ only in His historical reality; and it will be affirmed by the speaker, speaking to believers and considering the life of Christ as lived again by the faith and in the faith.

Faith Subject to Science

17. Yet, it would be a great mistake to suppose that, given these theories, one is authorised to believe that faith and science are independent of one another. On the side of science [according to the Modernists] the independence is indeed complete, but it is quite different with regard to faith, which is subject to science not on one but on three grounds [according to the Modernists:]

For in the first place it must be observed that in every religious fact, when you take away the divine reality and the experience of it which the believer possesses, everything else, and especially the religious formulas of it, belongs to the sphere of phenomena and therefore falls under the control of science. Let the believer leave the world if he will, but so long as he remains in it he must continue, whether he like it or not, to be subject to the laws, the observation, the judgments of science and of history.
Further, when it is said that God is the object of faith alone, the statement refers only to the divine reality not to the idea of God. The latter also is subject to science which while it philosophises in what is called the logical order soars also to the absolute and the ideal. It is therefore the right of philosophy and of science to form conclusions concerning the idea of God, to direct it in its evolution and to purify it of any extraneous elements which may become confused with it.
Finally, man does not suffer a dualism to exist in him, and the believer therefore feels within him an impelling need so to harmonise faith with science, that it may never oppose the general conception which science sets forth concerning the universe.

Thus it is evident [to the Modernists] that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant.

Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani Generis was primarily about re-condemning Modernism in the form of the heretical "New Theology" that had sowed its rotten seed in seminaries and theological schools since Pope St. Pius X's time.