Should we consider everyone better than ourselves? Question:: Should we consider everyone better than ourselves?

It seems that we can, without abusing humility, consider ourselves better than others. And it seems that we can do this in two ways:
1) by comparison of what we have from ourselves and what the other one has of himself,
2) by comparison of what we have from God and what the other has of God.
(But we could not consider what we have from ourselves to be better than what other has from God). This seems to be the teaching of Aquinas:

  I answer that, We may consider two things in man, namely that which is
  God's, and that which is man's. Whatever pertains to defect is man's:
  but whatever pertains to man's welfare and perfection is God's,
  according to the saying of Hosea 13:9, "Destruction is thy own, O
  Israel; thy help is only in Me." Now humility, as stated above
  (Article 1, Reply to Objection 5; Article 2, Reply to Objection 3),
  properly regards the reverence whereby man is subject to God.
  Wherefore every man, in respect of that which is his own, ought to
  subject himself to every neighbor, in respect of that which the latter
  has of God's: but humility does not require a man to subject what he
  has of God's to that which may seem to be God's in another. For those
  who have a share of God's gifts know that they have them, according to
  1 Corinthians 2:12: "That we may know the things that are given us
  from God." Wherefore without prejudice to humility they may set the
  gifts they have received from God above those that others appear to
  have received from Him; thus the Apostle says (Ephesians 3:5): "(The
  mystery of Christ) was not known to the sons of men as it is now
  revealed to His holy apostles." On like manner. humility does not
  require a man to subject that which he has of his own to that which
  his neighbor has of man's: otherwise each one would have to esteem
  himself a greater sinner than anyone else: whereas the Apostle says
  without prejudice to humility (Galatians 2:15): "We by nature are
  Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners." Nevertheless a man may esteem
  his neighbor to have some good which he lacks himself, or himself to
  have some evil which another has not: by reason of which, he may
  subject himself to him with humility.

But on the other hand, it would seem that we can not consider ourselves better than others even if we see another committing a serious sin. We read in the Imitation of Christ (emphasis is mine):

  If you wish to learn and appreciate something worth while, then love
  to be unknown and considered as nothing. Truly to know and despise
  self is the best and most perfect counsel. To think of oneself as
  nothing, and always to think well and highly of others is the best and
  most perfect wisdom. Wherefore, if you see another sin openly or
  commit a serious crime, do not consider yourself better, for you do
  not know how long you can remain in good estate. All men are frail,
  but you must admit that none is more frail than yourself.

Also, I have heard an argument in favor of the opinion that we should not consider ourselves better in any respect, because we never know how the other person would have acted if he received the graces we did

Can all of those arguments be put in harmony?

Of course, I would like an answer from the Catholic viewpoint.

Should we consider everyone better than us?

The answer is DEPENDS on what we are comparing.  We also need to remember that in some cases we need to compare ourselves to God instead of to our neighbors.

  Can all of those arguments be put in harmony?

The answer is YES.  You listed 3 arguments (below) but this answer currently focuses only on the first two.  Because this answer's explanation makes a critical distinction between what we are comparing, we need a more detailed source before we can harmonize the third argument.

Argument from Aquinas
Argument from chapter II of The Imitation of Christ
Argument from lack of knowledge about how others would have acted if they receive the same graces we do

Introduction

We need to be very careful NOT to compare things that the text doesn't ask us to compare.  For proper interpretation context, I read the whole Question 161 from the Summa and the whole Chapter II from the Immitation of Christ (1886 translation).  More modern English translation here.

The Preface of the 1886 translation says that George Stanhope adds "words, clauses, and even sentences, that do not alter the purport and order of the thoughts, but give more time for dwelling upon each link in the chain" and still preserves the spirit of the book.   But I think this translation changes the meaning somewhat for your bolded quote, which warned me that I should better read the larger context:

  For lowliness of mind, and not thinking of a man's self "more highly than he ought to think," is the most difficult, but withal the most profitable, lesson; and the preferring others before ourselves, is a point of true wisdom and high perfection.  Nor ought our opinions of this kind to be changed, though we should see another guilty of some egregious folly, or very grievous wickedness, since we ourselves are men of like passions and frailties; nor can we tell how long our own virtue may continue unshaken.  Remember then, that infirmities are common to all mankind; and so remember it, as to persuade yourself, or at least to suspect, that these are dealt to thee in as plentiful a measure as to any other person whatsoever.

I had to look up the dictionary to get the less common meaning of "frailty" which is:

  imperfection or weakness of character; frailty implies a general or chronic proneness to yield to temptation

ANALYSIS of Aquinas's relevant text

HUMILITY (Question 161) is part of the discussion on MODESTY (Intro in Question 160), which in turn is part of Temperance.  In Q160 Art.1, Aquinas says Modesty is for less difficult things to moderate compared to Temperance which is for concupiscences of pleasures of touch.  There are 4 kinds of Modesty (listed below).  HUMILITY is treating the first kind.

Movement of the mind towards excellence, moderated by HUMILITY which is opposed to PRIDE
Desire pertaining to knowledge, moderated by STUDIOUSNESS which is opposed to CURIOSITY
Body movements and actions, becomingly and honestly, whether seriously or in play
Outward show in dress and the like

In Q161 Art. 1, HUMILITY is shown to be a virtue to handle attractive goods to the appetite, specifically the difficult-to-obtain goods.  It is similar to the virtue MAGNANIMITY (to strengthen the mind against despair to pursue great things), but HUMILITY is to temper and restrain the mind "lest it tend to high things immoderately."
In Q161 Art. 2, Although REASON is needed to realize the disproportion that surpasses our capacity, to know one's deficiency, and to rule the appetite, Aquinas places the virtue of HUMILITY's sphere of operation in the appetite itself, to direct and moderate the movement of the appetite.
In Q161 Art. 3, the question is "Whether one ought, by humility, to subject oneself to all men?", to which Aquinas says yes, quoting Phil 2:3 "Don’t be selfish; don’t try to impress others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves.".
Then he made the 2 distinctions, in both cases HUMILITY does NOT apply:

If we have God's gift we know we have it (per 1 Cor 2:12).  There is no point to lower ourselves, because it's God's gift.
If both we and our neighbor have defects, then if we lower ourselves against others that means we are bragging that we are the greater sinner (per Gal 2:15).  See zippy2006's answer for detail.

What CAN we apply Phil 2:3 to?  There are 2 things that we can humble ourselves to them.

If neighbor has God's gift that we don't have
If we have evil that neighbor does NOT have

PARAPHRASE of Chapter II of Imitation of Christ

Section 1:

We have a natural desire to know, but it is better to be a peasant who serve God than proud philosopher.
He who knows himself well is vile in his own sight, so doesn't care of the praises of man.
If the philosopher knows a lot but doesn't have love, the knowledge doesn't help him before God who judges according to deeds, not knowledge.

Section 2:

Inordinate desire of knowledge produces distraction and deceit, i.e. desire to appear learned and to be called wise.
There are many things to know that profit little to the soul, so it's foolish to seek knowledge when the soul is dying.
What satisfies the soul is not many words, but a good life that refreshes the mind and pure conscience that gives great confidence towards God.

Section 3:

The more knowledge, the more to be judged unless we live holy in proportion to knowledge.  So don't be proud of the knowledge we have, but have the FEAR of responsibility because of the knowledge.
Realize the more you know the more you don't know, so you should instead confess ignorance, remembering that there are always others who know better than you.
If want to learn something worthwhile, then love to be unknown and be considered as nothing.

Section 4:

The perfect wisdom is to think oneself as nothing and to think well and highly of others.
When another commits serious crimes don't consider yourself better, for you don't know how long you can keep your virtue / integrity.
Remember that although everyone has a chronic proneness to yield to temptation, none is more prone than yourself.

INTERPRETATION: digesting the data

The Aquinas text's context is TEMPERANCE (one of the 7 virtues).  The treatment of HUMILITY (Q161) is to discuss MODESTY in our natural desire to seek praiseworthy and inherently GOOD things by the mind so we do not seek beyond moderation which can lead to PRIDE.  After receiving information from REASON to know the right proportion and one's deficiency, HUMILITY needs to rule the knowing appetite.
How does HUMILITY do that, i.e. when does Phil 2:3 apply?  Two ways:

If a neighbor has God's gifts we don't have, we consider them better than ourselves [the implied advice here is to pursue our natural desire for GOOD things without being jealous of the neighbor who has MORE; we need to be humble because we are truly LESS than they are in terms of possessing God's gifts]
If we have evil (sin, vices) that neighbor doesn't have, then of course we consider our neighbor better than ourselves [the implied advice here is to be humble because they are more virtuous than us]

But in the following cases, we should not consider our neighbors better than ourselves, i.e. Phil 2:3 doesn't apply here:

If we have God's gift that the neighbor doesn't have [the implied reason here is because we need to be humble TOWARDS GOD instead, who is the Giver]
If we are comparing ourselves to neighbor as sinners [the implied reason here is that we will be bragging about having more evil, which is offensive towards God]

The context for Chapter II of The Imitation of Christ is also about pursuit of good things, focusing on knowledge (like the proud philosopher) rather than doing / serving (like the humble peasant).  If there is no love knowledge is useless, in fact can BITE you because God demands responsibility and expect proportionally more holiness from you.  Natural desire for knowledge then has to be moderated and tempered so NOT to produce deceit, or better yet, don't pursue it at the cost of your soul.  Rather, if you find yourself want to brag about your wisdom, remember how your neighbor may have more knowledge than you.
Here's my interpretation for the last paragraph: Therefore, the perfect wisdom is to tune your attention to other's virtues.  When you see your neighbor commits a serious crime, remember that both you and your neighbor share a common human frailty, namely the chronic proneness to yield to temptation.  You can say that NOW you are better (since you didn't commit that crime) but your desire for knowledge will deem you more vulnerable than your neighbor for the reasons stated earlier.  So it is best to ADMIT that at your current state (preferring knowledge to virtue/serving) you are much weakened, and to motivate you to seek virtues why don't you say to yourself "none is more frail than myself".
The previous chapter 1 and succeeding chapter 3 should also provide support for my interpretation in #5:

  [Chapter 1 paragraph 3]: What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it.

  [Chapter 3 paragraph 7, emphasis mine]: A good and devout man arranges in his mind the things he has to do, not according to the whims of evil inclination but according to the dictates of right reason. Who is forced to struggle more than he who tries to master himself? This ought to be our purpose, then: to conquer self, to become stronger each day, to advance in virtue.

CONCLUSION

There is no conflict between Q161 and Chapter II since:

Both talk about moderating natural desire to pursue knowledge with the attendant temptation to PRIDE and VANITY, which is dangerous to the soul and can distract us from virtue.
Both talk about humility when comparing the good things we have and the good things neighbor have, but in a different way:

In Aquinas's text: when we know what the neighbor has that we don't have
In Thomas Kempis's text: when we THOUGHT we know more than our neighbor but actually don't (i.e. by remembering that there are always others who have more knowledge than us)

When it comes to comparing the case when one party does crime but the other doesn't (yet), the comparison is DIFFERENT:

In Aquinas's text: it's when WE do it but the neighbor doesn't
In Thomas Kempis's text: it's when the NEIGHBOR did it but to protect ourselves we should disregard that crime as irrelevant in comparison to our fragile virtue in light of human frailty

The main point of Thomas Kempis's chapter II is the danger of pursuing knowledge instead of virtues.  It offers mortification exercises (below).  Therefore we shouldn't take the quote out of context.

to remain humble towards God (whom we should serve)
to be mindful of our progress in holiness
to remember that God is interested in our deeds and holiness (so we should measure ourselves to His standard rather than measure to the neighbor's state of holiness), and
to be realistic in the true measure of our knowledge

What both texts DID NOT SAY: It's a virtue to consider ourselves the greater sinner than our neighbor despite the facts of the case.
Both passages have nothing to do with the saints considering themselves the greatest of all sinners.  That is because although the words compare themselves with other people and saints, but in practice they compare their own heart against their awareness of the perfect God.  Ken Graham's answer addresses this very well and provides a relevant blog article to resolve the puzzle.  So I think we should take their words as figure of speech, similar to how C.S. Lewis in his spiritual autobiography says that he is "the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England".


Is Asia in the Bible the Asia of today? I have this sneaking suspicion that the Asia listed in Acts is not the continent of Asia.

Acts 19:9-10 ESV But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.
Acts 20:16 ESV For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.

If that's the case, then what is the Asia of the Bible?

You are correct. Asia as referred to in the bible was a province in the Roman Empire.  See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_(Roman_province)

For further information, refer to the etymology section of the main Wikipedia article on Asia.


What are some examples of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church? Currently I am doing a school project on why I believe Sacred Tradition should be used along with Scripture. What are some examples of Sacred Tradition throughout Church history. I would guess that the Rosary and the Marian Dogmas be considered tradition but would traditions like the accounts of the Apostles' deaths and the account of Mary's bird be put in the category of Sacred Tradition? What are also some other examples of Catholic Church Sacred Tradition?

What are some examples of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church?
Before giving such example, it is important to understand the meaning and nuances of the expression of Sacred Tradition:

To begin, it is important to note that Sacred Tradition is not the same as what we commonly understand by the word "tradition." We need to distinguish between the terms "tradition" spelled with a lower case "t" and Tradition" spelled with a capital "T." When we spell the word tradition with a lower case letter, we are referring to those things that are more often referred to as "traditions" and have a meaning closer to the word "practices” which are not part of Divine Revelation itself, but are pious customs that have arisen later in the history of the Church (CCC 2651). Examples of traditions include praying the Rosary or the Divine Mercy Chaplet, devotions to favorite saints, making the sign of the cross and the like.
When Tradition is capitalized in this context, it refers to Sacred Tradition. The word tradition comes from the Latin word tradere which means "to hand on." Sacred Tradition is the Scripture as it is lived out in the Church. It is nevertheless the Word of God. Specifically, it is the Word of God that the prophets and the Apostles received through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This message which they received was "handed on" to the Christian world by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. - What is Sacred Tradition

Let us remember that not everything is written in the Sacred Scriptures. This is evident by the writings of both St. Paul and St. John:

15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15-17
29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. John 20: 29-31
23 This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?
24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. John 21: 23-25

The New Testament, while being the primary source for all that God revealed in Christ, is itself a product of Tradition. Tradition is a living and active process which the Church experiences from one age to the next while meditating on the Word of God and the events of salvation history. The Holy Spirit guides the Church in this process and guarantees that Tradition will be an authentic expression of God’s Word for each generation. After the writing of the New Testament, subsequent generations could reflect not only on Jesus’ teaching but also on that privi- leged experience of first generation Christians who knew Jesus when he walked the earth.
The Church in each generation, through prayer, study, and contemplation, reflects on God’s Word in Scripture and gives new interpretation to it while never altering the Revelation it contains. In every generation, she expresses anew the Word of God against an ever changing landscape of human society and culture. The diversity of devotions and styles of worship is beautiful and expresses the Church’s catholicity or universality. But these various local traditions are not what we mean when we speak of Tradition. As times change and in light of Tradition, these religious customs and practices may be changed or discarded. Sacred Tradition does not change. It is expressed differently from one age to the next but is always consistent with the truth of
God’s Revelation.
Examples of some Sacred Traditions are as follows:

Peter is the Head of the Church.
Mary retained her virginity before, during and after the birth of her Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Mary was born without Original Sin.
Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul.
Terms such as “Trinity” are not in Scripture but come from Sacred Tradition. Even Protestants use this term in their theology.

A question often asked has to do with the relationship between Sacred Tradition and Scripture.
The New Testament itself sheds light on this relationship in the Second Letter to the Thessalonians where the author writes: "This passage makes it clear that there were important traditions passed on by word and not only by letter. As the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council noted, "It is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore, both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and reverenced with the same sense of devotion. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, which is committed to the Church." So we see that we need both Scripture and Sacred Tradition to understand God's life among us properly.
Most of the beliefs and practices found in Sacred Tradition have their basis in Scripture, but some do not. Catholics' belief that Mary was assumed into heaven is an example of a Sacred Tradition that has no reference in Scripture. The Assumption of Mary was nonetheless an important belief in the early Church and that is why it has been passed on through the generations as part of Sacred Tradition.
A few examples of beliefs and practices which do have their basis in Scripture would include the following:

The Apostles' Creed, an early summary of important Christian beliefs.

The role of bishops, priests, and the Pope in Christian ministry.

The authority of the Pope--the belief that the Pope cannot teach falsely when he speaks officially as head of the Church on matters of faith and morals.

Our understanding of the Sacraments and their place in Christian life.

Although Scripture touches on these matters, it is through Sacred Tradition that we fully understand their meaning and significance to the Church.
Finally, we must note that there are many traditions in the Catholic Church which do not belong to Sacred Tradition. These traditions, with a small "t" if you will, include such things as special prayers and devotions and stories concerning certain Saints. These traditions may help people grow closer to God, but they are not as important as Sacred Tradition, with a capital "T". Sacred Tradition, together with Scripture, includes those beliefs and practices that are most important to the Church because they have been revealed by God and because they have been affirmed by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. That is why Sacred Tradition can help us to live a better Christian life.For a detailed study please refer to "Catechism of the Catholic Church" pages 74-84. - What is sacred tradition, and why is it important?


Are there Old Testament Scriptures that mention salvation for the Gentiles? I'm wondering if there are any passages/prophecies about salvation for the Gentile world in the Old Testament. If you know any, please share.

YES, there are!

The footnote in my NLT Bible for Acts 11:1 has a list of Old Testament verses that say that salvation is for all people, not just the Jews. Below, I've reproduced the list and for two of them, I've directly quoted them because they're the clearest and most direct with regards to this topic.

Genesis 12:3
Psalm 22:27
Isaiah 42:4
Isaiah 49:6

  Isaiah 49:6 (NLT)
  6      He says, “You will do more than restore the people of Israel to me.
               I will make you a light to the Gentiles,
               and you will bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”

Isaiah 56:3-7
Isaiah 60:1-3
Jeremiah 16:19-21
Zechariah 2:11

  Zechariah 2:11 (NLT)

  11 Many nations will join themselves to the Lord on that day, and they, too, will be my people. I will live among you, and you will know that the Lord of Heaven’s Armies sent me to you.

Malachi 1:11
Romans 15:9-12 (These are different wordings of Psalm 18:49, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1, and Isaiah 11:10.)


Why do we have to go to organized institutions to practice our beliefs? I believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  People insist on going to church to express these feelings, beliefs, etc.  Why are religious institutions necessary?

My personal experiences with Church is people putting on a show in a public place.  People act all holy at church but when they are in public and not in church, they don't express their beliefs all the time.  Matthew 10:33- But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven This applies to these people.

I believe that if you are a good person, if you believe in God, and you don't deny him, you will go to Heaven. So this brings me to my question, Why do we have organized places of worship to practice our beliefs?  Can someone give me bible verses that say that these religious institutions are holy places, and this is where you should go to worship?

I am not trying to offend anyone, I am just trying to be informed. If you feel like I am offending you, please feel free to down vote me.

This is a question which is going to have several different answers, according to different denominations. Bear with me while I go over the main ones.

According to Roman Catholic theology, the church (specifically the institution, which became the Catholic church) is the inheritor of the promises Jesus made to his disciples. Specifically the church is the guardian of the truth of the faith, and one of the main means through which the grace of Jesus is dispensed to his followers. In particular this is done through the Mass, which can only be carried out by priests of the Church. Thus to be detatched from the church is to be detached from one of the main ways that Jesus provided that his followers down the ages could receive grace, strength and spiritual blessing. This is not to say that a Christian cannot exist outside of the church, but to wilfully reject the church is to reject the provision that Jesus has made for your spiritual growth and sustainment - in effect to say to Jesus "Thanks for setting up this organization to give me what I need, but I'm going to do it on my own".

The Orthodox churches hold similar views, although there is somewhat less emphasis on the structure and heirarchy of the church.

In the Protestant churches, there is (mainly) no belief that the church (in the sense of an organization) is required or necessary for God to dispense grace, strength, understanding and wisdom. There is much more emphasis on the individual's relationship with God. However even in those churches meeting with other followers of Jesus is extremely desirable for mutual support, encouragement and teaching. Again, to attempt to live a solitary Christian life is to reject the provisions that God has made for your spiritual well-being. In Protestantism this provision does not (mainly) come through the organization of the church. Instead 'the church' is defined to be 'the body of true believers', which may or may not overlap with members of any specific organization. The Protestant belief here is based mainly on the example set by Jesus and his followers, who operated in community and met together regularly.

All of the above is stated in the full knowledge that any given organization of believers will be imperfect and flawed, but that working through these imperfections together is a means of growing the Christian living. There is an old saying that no church is perfect - and if you find a perfect church, don't join it - because you'll spoil it.

Nothing here is to say that a Christian who is prevented from meeting with other Christians, for example by isolation or imprisonment, is less of a Christian, but to cut yourself off from other believers voluntarily is to deny yourself many supports, which Jesus has provided for your benefit.


What verses are commonly cited to support that unity, despite differences, is preferable to dividing the Church? If you're involved in church leadership/management, then you are keenly aware of the real threat that differences in doctrine can pose to the unity of the church. If you know anything about the Reformation, then you know that differences in doctrine are pretty much the only reason churches have split in the past.

However, some denominations strongly stress unity over doctrine. Catholicism seems to be one. Anglican, Episcopal, and some Presbyterians seem to stress unity as well. Or, in other words, they allow members and even leadership to espouse dissenting doctrinal opinions, at least on minor issues, preferring to focus on what they do share, which is brotherhood in Christ.

My first thought is that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Powerful words, however, they seem to stress unity in purpose rather than doctrine. With a bit of thought, it's obvious that the Church body must at least be unified in purpose (presumably to glorify God in everything and show the world his light), but some argue there is plenty of room for differing opinions on some or even most doctrinal issues. What is the biblical basis for this opinion?

Verses regarding unity of doctrine are not as common as the less specific verses regarding unity as a body.  Two verses that I have most commonly heard referenced regarding avoiding doctrinal division are:

  But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. - Titus 3:9 ESV

And

  Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. - 2 Timothy 2:23 ESV

But it could be argued that both reference all controversy, and are not limited to church leadership.

One the other hand, Paul addresses this very issue of church doctrinal unity in his first letter to the church in Corinth, and I rarely if ever hear this referenced in that context:

  10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
  11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
  12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
  14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
  15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
  16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
  17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. - 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 ESV

A few others that may also be useful in this regard:

  17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
  18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. - Romans 16:17-18 ESV

And

  24 But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it,
  25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
  26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. - 1 Corinthians 12:24-26 ESV

And

  17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  18 They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions."
  19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. - Jude 1:17-19

I have edited again to include a verse that I almost literally stumbled upon recently (printed on a floor plaque outside a church):

  1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
  2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. - Philippians 2:1-2 ESV


What is the significance of taking hold of the horns of the altar? I was wondering why did Joab take hold of the horns of the altar in 1 Kings 2:28? Or rather, what is the significance of him doing that? What is he trying to do?

1 Kings 2:28-29 (NIV)
28 When the news reached Joab, who had conspired with Adonijah though not with Absalom, he fled to the tent of the LORD and took hold of the horns of the altar. 29 King Solomon was told that Joab had fled to the tent of the LORD and was beside the altar. Then Solomon ordered Benaiah son of Jehoiada, “Go, strike him down!”

And when Adonijah learned that Solomon was made king, he took hold of the horns of the altar :

1 Kings 1:49-51 (NIV)
49 At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. 50 But Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar. 51 Then Solomon was told, “Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon and is clinging to the horns of the altar. He says, ‘Let King Solomon swear to me today that he will not put his servant to death with the sword.’”

This looks like a reference to the manslaughter provision in Exodus:

  Exodus 21:12-14

  12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

  13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

  14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

By fleeing to the tabernacle and taking ahold of the altar, Joab was claiming that he was not guilty of murdering Absalom (see 2 Samuel 18) and deserved mercy.  Apparently Solomon disagreed.


What is the basis for translating the serpent in Gen. 3 as a being of light? I've read two books that mentioned that the serpent in Genesis 3:1 which tempted Eve could have been rendered as a "shining one" or being of light rather than a serpent. Is there really a basis for this alternate view, or is it questionable scholarship?

The Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible has a note on this in the margin for Ezekiel 28:13-15, saying that the serpent signifies "a shining one."
The Companion Bible has a 2-page appendix devoted to the serpent of Genesis 3. Seems to imlpy that it was not a literal serpent that spoke, but the character of the one who spoke and of whom Eve respected.

The Hebrew word שְׂרָפִים śərāfîm / Latin seraphim means "burning ones", it is used to sometimes imply fiery serpents (likely because of the burning sensation their bite cause) (Num.21:4-9; Deut.8:15) and also to describe the angelic creations around God's throne (Isaiah 6:1-8).

However, the Hebrew word  נחש, nakhásh is used in Genesis 3 for serpent, so it is more literal in meaning. I'm not aware of any passage in Genesis that refers to a "shining one".

I can see how the connection/ confusion to a "shining one" is made. But I do not think it is mainstream or well justified from the Bible to question that Eve talked to a literal serpent.

Regardless, we know that the creature behind the mask is Satan.

  Revelation 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


Has the name "Jesus" ever been used for naming Jewish children since the Savior's incarnation? I mean we still have a lot of men named Mohamed in the Muslim community. Is it the same with the name "Jesus" in the Jewish community? Do we have any evidence of Jewish men named Jesus that have lived since the birth of Christ?

So, the main question is: Has the name "Jesus" ever been used for naming children since the Savior's incarnation?

Yes, it is actually a common name in many languages. It isn't so popular on English but* I know lots of people in the Spanish,  Turkish and Arabic worlds that use various renditions of the name "Jesus". I am sure it is used in many other languages as well. Personally I would never name my kid that but there is nothing to stop anybody from doing so.

*Several people have pointed out my mistake, it exists in English too the quite common name "Joshua".


What are the reasons for the Catholic Church's term "ecclesial community?" It is my understanding that the Catholic Church uses the term "Church" for itself and the Orthodox Church, and "ecclesial community" for Protestants.

What are the reasons the Church applies the term "ecclesial community" and not "church" to certain Christian groups?

Put simply, the Nicene Creed states a belief in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church," and the concept of an apostolic church (i.e., one in the apostolic succession as the Roman Catholic Church defines it, in which each bishop is ordained in an unbroken line reaching back to the Apostles) is key to which churches are capital-C Churches according to the Roman Catholic Church and which are ecclesial communities.

Cf. Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, June 29, 2007 | CDF:

  FOURTH QUESTION

  Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term
  “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full
  communion with the Catholic Church?

  RESPONSE

  The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term.
  “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and
  above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and
  the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very
  close bonds”, they merit the title of “particular or local
  Churches”, and are called sister Churches of the particular
  Catholic Churches.

This category covers the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and a handful of smaller groups such as the Church of the East in which the RCC recognizes a valid line of Apostolic succession and more-or-less "correct" sacraments, but nevertheless are not in communion with Rome.

  FIFTH QUESTION

  Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the
  Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian
  Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

  RESPONSE

  According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy
  apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore,
  deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial
  Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the
  sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral
  substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic
  doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

The classic example of one of these bodies would be the Anglican Communion, which considers itself a church in the Apostolic Succession but for a variety of reasons, including the sacramental form/intent of ordination, is considered an ecclesial community by the Vatican.

However, "ecclesial" means "pertaining to church," and it seems strange that "ecclesial communities" translates to "church communities" but ecclesial communities are not "Churches" under the Roman understanding. It would appear the difference is one of degree; as the response to the Fourth Question above notes, the capital-C Churches have a similar understanding of the sacraments, the apostolic succession, the priesthood, and the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ despite not being in full communion with Rome, while the answer to the Fifth Question points out that the Reformation churches specifically have a much different understanding of the sacraments, the apostolic succession/priesthood, and the Eucharist in addition to lacking communion with Rome. In other words, the RCC recognizes any Trinitarian baptism performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and it is clear groups of people baptized under a Trinitarian formula deserve to be recognized as something, but not as a traditional capital-C Church in the same sense as it recognizes the Eastern Orthodox, et al.

The term "ecclesial community" can also refer to "ecclesial movements" (lay associations of the faithful) like Communion & Liberation, Opus Dei, Neocatechemenal Way, etc.


What is known (and/or alleged) about the moral character of the 12 disciples? I've been following some (often less than civil) conversations about the character of pastors lately in which how morally upstanding a church leader should be expected to be is questioned. At several points, the interpretation of various Biblical sources was called into question -- something to the effect of "if this is to be interpreted literally it would disqualify lots of pastors. Obviously that wouldn't be God's intent, so we just re-examine our interpretation." Right off the bat, the hermeneutical principles I bring to the table call that nonsense -- instead  it is the Biblical text itself that informs us of what outcome God would or would not have wanted. This leads me to believe that, given the premise of that statement, indeed many church leaders should be disqualified.

My question is what happens when we apply various standards to the first apostles? I know it is generally understood in most Christian circles that while 12 were originally called, it was understood that one was destined to play the traitor, leaving 11 apostles after Christ left. Among themselves they appointed a new 12th. We also know that at least some of them came from sketchy backgrounds where a few broken families and certainly some shady business practices are assumed. Tax collectors anybody?

So what do we know about the moral character of the apostles after Christ's ascension? As they went out into ministry, did they evidence the kind of upstanding moral character we might expect? Does scripture or history record of lieing/cheating/stealing in their "born again" lives? How about divorce? Did any of them go on to marry and then be unfaithful?

If the Scriptural record and history don't afford any concrete examples of unfaithfulness, what dirt did folks try to throw on them?

I am no expert in the apostles' lives, but here are some thoughts.

It has been said that God provides His truth in earthenware vessels. That is, they are never of impeccable moral character. Judas is an obvious example, but Peter, too, sinned against Jesus in the course of His passion (by denying him three times). The difference between the two is that Peter did not run or hide from Jesus when he saw him again and received his forgiveness.  But Judas could not forgive himself nor did he seek Jesus' forgiveness.

John 21:17 NAS

  He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep."

As a result, Peter remained as head of the disciples, but we all know what happened to Judas.

Also, later on, we hear of Paul rebuking Peter, apparently over his recalcitrance to eat with Gentiles. So there is still fraternal correction going on even among the apostles.

Galatians 2:11-14 NAS

  But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

We know that the apostles all, except John, died a martyr's death spreading the kingdom. So whatever other faults they may have had, they were at least loyal.


What do Lutherans mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist? The Lutheran Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all understand it the same way. The Lutheran understanding differs significantly from the Orthodox and Catholic positions; could someone explain the Lutheran understanding of this doctrine?

This is a hard and subtle question.  I am here to tell you, this topic does not preach. If you wanna preach on this, get your hospitality krewe to serve coffee BEFORE your service, not after.

What DOES preach is the surpassing mystery of Holy Communion.  What DOES preach is the idea that we get the same thing those folks got that Thursday night long ago in the night in which Jesus was betrayed.  What DOES preach is the overwhelming spiritual power of those scraps of bread and drops of wine.

What DOES preach is the idea that we are seated all together at one great table, enjoying one great feast, with the whole church through the ages and around the world. We share that table with Peter, who would go on to deny Jesus.  We share it with Judas, who would go on to rat Jesus out to the cops.  We share it with the disciple whom Jesus loved, who would comfort his mother at the foot of the cross.  And, at the head of the table is Jesus, the one who gave of himself so we might have life.  Yes, he is present at the table. He is present in the meal.

Who cares what preaches? Because the Lutheran understanding of the sacrament of Holy Communion is this: Jesus Christ instituted it to give strength and comfort to us human beings (Peter, Judas, you, me) by nourishing our faith and feeding our souls.

Here's a little history and doctrine.  I'm digging this out of my notes from Uncle Tim Wengert's class at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.

The Lutheran Book of Concord is the authoritative source for the doctrine of our strain of Christianity on this subject.  The important historical thing to keep in mind is that the 16th-century reformers who forged those documents (first among them the Augsburg Confession) were caught in a squeeze between two groups.

One of the jaws of that vise was the late-medieval Roman church, and their claim of the time that the Mass was a sacrifice, and that consuming the bread  "worked" on people ex opere operato, that is, as if by magic just by doing it, without any need to touch their consciences.

The other jaw was the Zwinglians of Zürich and their claim that the Lord's Supper is a memorial and a remembrance of Christ.  (The Calvinists of Geneva weren't a factor at the time these documents were forged).

The "in, with, and under" theology of Jesus Christ's presence in the bread and wine is, practically, the way Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, and their colleagues dealt with the vise. The path they chose is effectively a middle way (even though they strenuously claimed it was the only faithful way).

OK, you can wake up now.  Enough church history.

Why do Lutherans believe and teach that Jesus Christ is present in the bread and wine?

He said so. "I am the bread of life."
The idea that Communion is a human work must be refuted, and his presence does that.
The Communion must be powerful enough to be food for the soul.
He is present among us on earth in this moment.

Why is the "in, with, and under" theology different from the Roman theology?

The Augsburg Confession says, "the true body and blood of  Christ are truly present under the gestalt of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper and are distributed and received there."  The Apology of the AC says "Christ commands that it be done in memory of him. The Mass, therefore, was instituted so that the faith of those who use the sacrament should recall what benefits are received through Christ and should encourage and console the anxious conscience."

Another thing Luther said is that we need to take our rational selves prisoner in the face of mysteries like this, and simply allow the mysteries to be part of our lives.   So, to sum up my answer, "I don't know."


Do heterodox have a guardian angel as well? (Eastern Orthodox perspective) According to the Eastern Orthodox Church, do non-Eastern Orthodox have guardian angels as well? By guardian angel, I mean a righteous spirit assigned to a person by God in order to guide and protect them throughout their life for the purpose of their sanctification. I know that all Orthodox have them, and I believe they are assigned at Baptism, so it would make sense that non-Orthodox would not have one but I am unable to find a clear answer.

Bonus points if you can answer regarding confessions that are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox but whose Baptism is recognized as valid by them, e.g. Roman Catholics, some Presbyterians, etc.

Of course.  God does not have one oekonomia for Orthodox Christians and another for non-Orthodox.

The Orthodox doctrine of guardian angels is witnessed in the Old Testament as well as in the teachings of Jesus, both of which precede the foundation of the Christian Church.  The Psalms witness:

  He shall give his angels charge over thee, to guard thee in all thy ways  (Psalm 90:11 LXX; Q. 105, The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Philaret).

Christ taught that each one of us has a guardian angel:

  Take heed that ye not despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father, Who is in heaven (Matthew 18:10; Q. 106, The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Church).

The latter passage was spoken in regard to unbaptized Jewish children.

Regarding the applicability of Met. Philaret's catechism, he states that his catechism is addressed to "every Christian", not just Orthodox Christians (Question 1).  Question 106 (and answer reads):  "Has each one of us his guardian angels?  Without doubt.  Of this ye may be assured from the following words of Jesus Christ ..."

Furthermore, the more recent Orthodox Dogmatic Theology of Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky states (p.123):

  The Orthodox Church believes that every man has his own guardian
  angel, if he has not put him away from himself by an impious life.

It was brought to my attention that a particular Russian Orthodox priest published on his website an explanation:

  In the prayers for the making of a catechumen, we pray “Yoke unto
  his/her life a radiant angel…” From this point onwards, we certainly
  have a guardian angel who protects us in ways we cannot fully
  understand.

which leaves the impression that there is some Orthodox teaching that one only receives a guardian angel if one enters the Orthodox Church.

The statement is correct in explaining that our guardian angel protects us in ways we cannot fully understand upon entering the Church (although technically, catechumens are still "outside" the Church), but the priest would not have meant that one doesn't even receive a guardian angel until that point.  There is a belief, however, that once one is joined to the Church, spiritual things change in many respects.  Another Orthodox theologian, Dumitru Staniloae, writes:

  In the Church, a communion is brought about not only among her visible
  members, but with the angels as well.  The *sobornicity** of the
  Church takes in the angels too.

(* Sobornost is a slavic term meaning something like "spiritual community").

Evagrios the Monk wrote, as Fr. Dumitru quotes, "Know that the holy angels encourage us to pray and stand beside us, rejoicing and praying for us" ("On Prayer", The Philokalia, Vol. 1, p.65); and "If you pray truly, you will gain assurance; angels will come to you as they came to Daniel, and they will illuminate you with knowledge of the inner essences of created things" (Ibid.).


What is on the cover of this printing of Ladder of Divine Ascent? What is that? Is it some well-known Orthodox symbol? I think I can discern a bearded face but that's it.

These books are published by Paulist Press, a Catholic publisher. This is not a Orthodox symbol, but there will be a description of the cover art on the page opposite the Table of Contents page.


What is the difference between the Christologies of Nestorianism and Pelagianism? Both Nestorius and Pelagius believed in a composite subject Christology that the person of Christ is a divine-humane person, the Logos and His tabernacle. Their Christology were condemned at Ephesus (431) and later repeated at Constantinople (553) where both Ss. Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo are declared as the Doctor of the Church. Nestorius teaches that the Logos is united with a perfect man. While Pelagius teaches that the perfect humanity of Christ is united to the Logos. So that both teach the Logos unites Himself with a perfect tabernacle as a composite subject.
St. John Cassian under a request by Pope St. Leo the Great which at that time was an archdeacon wrote seven volume treatises to combat Nestorianism by connecting it with Pelagianism.

[T]he error of Pelagius ... that in saying that Jesus Christ lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they [chose].
John Cassian, On the Incarnation against Nestorius, 1:3, in The Works of John Cassian, trans. with preface Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff.

In similar fashion from a different perspective Marius Mercator accuses Theodore of Mopsuestia of being the father of the Pelagian heresy for teaching,

[T]hat the progenitors of the human race, Adam and Eve, having been created mortal by God, did not wound any of their descendants when they strayed by their transgression, but harmed only themselves; that they made themselves guilty of the command before God, but absolutely no one else.
Marius Mercator, Commonitorium, Patrologia Latina, vol. 48, 110D-111A.

Both John Cassian and Marius Mercator linked Nestorianism with Pelagianism. Richard Norris in his study Manhood and Christ observed that Antiochene Christology is aptly enough expressed in the dictum that, “The Nestorian Christ is a fit Savior for the Pelagian man.”1
So how are their Christologies differentiated from one another?

1 Richard Norris, Manhood and Christ, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963, p. 246.

Pelagianism isn't a Christology, and "the perfect humanity of Christ is united to the Logos" isn't a Nestorian position as stated. The argument linking the two was that Nestorianism is the Christology that naturally fits with Pelagian Anthropology and Soteriology. That's not something that any of the major Pelagians or Nestorian thinkers said, though; that was a link made by their enemies.

It wasn't Nestorian thinkers specifically, but the East generally that attracted the exiled Pelagians. The Synod of Diospolis, which exonerated Pelagius, wasn't a Nestorian synod. And though Julian of Aeclanum was an admirer of Theodore of Mopsuestia and settled in his bishopric and translated some of his stuff into Latin, Theodore plainly denied that it was possible to live a perfect life with only the goods of nature. The Assumed Man could do it only because the Word was so closely and permanently united to him. And Julian quoted many Eastern authorities against Augustine, most of whom had no Nestorian connection.

A distinctively Pelagian Christology would not only have to teach two persons in Christ, but would also have to be Adoptionist in order to give Jesus a chance to live perfectly on his own before the Word indwelt him; and as far as I know, neither Pelagius nor Caelestius nor Julian ever suggested such a thing. Nor did Theodore, nor Nestorius. You have to go back to Paul of Samosata (who was universally condemned well before the 5th century) to try to pin that one on Antioch.


What does Matthew 5:27-30 ("Cast off your eye/hand/etc") mean? For reference, here's the text of Matthew 5:27-30:

  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Does this mean literally? Aside from the obvious issue that you'd get locked up pretty fast for self-harm, I don't think anyone's limbs or eyes (or anything really) would survive very long under a literal interpretation of this...

I don't think its meant to be interpreted literally. I take it as "Do everything you possibly can to avoid sinning."

relevant example: I have a co-worker of refuses to go to the beach since he would be tempted to engage in lust-related activities.

Whether you agree with my coworker's interpretation and level of devotion to the literal word is not my point. My point is he is making some sacrifices to lead what he thinks is a good life.


Who determines church dedications? In some of the more traditional denominations—certainly Catholicism and Anglicanism, to name two—churches or church buildings are named after "saints". This is in contrast to the more evangelical denominations, where churches are generally either named after their local area ("Mytown Baptist Church" / "Mytown Methodist Church" etc.) or more free-form.

How do the traditional churches determine which saints to dedicate each congregation/building to? Is it the building or the church itself (the people) that take on the name?

The denominations that dedicate their churches in this fashion tend to be those with a more centralized structure. As far as I know the decisions are usually made by consultation between the local congregation and the church authorities. I've been part of one Anglican church where the choice of a name was clearly that of the congregation, with the approval of the central authorities.

Other organizations can also have an input. I was part of one congregation where the choice of name was vetoed (or at least recommended against) by the Fire Department, on the grounds that there was already a church with that name in the town, and the fire trucks might be dispatched to the wrong one. In this specific case "Saint Luke" was the preferred name, since the church was to share a building with a medical centre (St. Luke was a doctor). However in the end "Saint Francis" was chosen.


Jesus and Contingency Let's assume that God is omnipotent in the sense that he can do anything which is logically possible (so that he cannot create square circles because  a square circle is a contradiction).

Now it is thought that God cannot do things like make himself cease to exist, or to become contingent. How does this square with the idea that (at least some part of) God became a man. By entering into time and assuming a bodily form, is that not the meaning of becoming contingent?

I can anticipate the answer that Jesus has two natures, the human one that is contingent (and does not exist anymore) and one that is divine (which was never contingent), but this seems to me to just split Jesus into a divine part (which was never contingent) and the ordinary human part, so that the Jesus that walked on Earth was an ordinary human, and hence no need fore the idea of the trinity.

Any way to resolve this dilemma?

Edit: Perhaps to restate: Do we have to accept that God - in his omnipotence, must be able to create the logically impossible, in order to believe in something like the trinity?

Not in the slightest. The Incarnation does not involve the assumption of contingency. The Incarnation adds nothing to the person of God the Son, only to creation (inasmuch as the human nature of Jesus is a creature).

That is, the soul created for Jesus, is Jesus' soul, but in not too dissimilar a way to how creation is God's own also, created for Him. When God creates souls, He by so doing, or perhaps simultaneously, creates a new person that this soul is the soul of. However, in the Incarnation, God created a soul for Jesus, which assumes His Person, instead of a created person.

The very fact that Monophysitism is a heresy proves that contingency is not affected, for the divine and human nature of Christ are not mingled, and there is absolutely no admixture or confusion of natures (Monophysitism meaning, 'One-natureism,' referring to the heretical idea that Christ's divine and human nature melded into one Supernature).

Truly, the human nature of Christ is a Tabernacle: "the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1:14). (I don't intend to give the impression it was a puppet for the Son, but rather a vehicle for His Person, or a mode of living on earth; the former would be heretical.)

In other words, in the Incarnation, nothing is added or which, taken away, changes Who or What he was before. That is, the Hypostatic Union (meaning the unity of natures in the one person of Christ) could theoretically be undone, and Christ's human nature destroyed; inasmuch as it was not necessary for Him to be incarnate in the first place).

Also, Christ's human nature still exists. It didn't get destroyed.


Why do Christian missionaries start schools? Why do many missionaries start their mission work through the educational institutions?

What is the spiritual focus behind starting a school?

How successful is it at proclaiming the Gospel?

There are several reasons as to why Christian missionaries start schools. I am taking a missionary class called Perspectives on the World Christian Movement and some of their reasons are as follows:

Making/building something to improve their lives(i.e. a school) is one way to make the people open up and be accepting towards you and your message.
Many times the people need a school to understand their own written language(My friend on Papua New Guinea started a school for this reason.)
At a school, you can have a Christian influence on your students and the other teachers. Unless you are in a closed country, you can teach classes on the Bible and share the Gospel in your classes.

Hope this helps!


What kind of characteristics does the Great Tribulation have in LDS eschatology? There is this other question with an answer that touches on the Great Tribulation as it is viewed in LDS eschatology, but I would like to ask more specifically about the situation on earth during the Great Tribulation:

What physical events do Mormons believe will happen before or during
the Great Tribulation?
In what sense will it be a "Great Tribulation" - is this mostly
symbolic or are there spiritual or physical (e.g. economical)
reasons that warrant the label "Great Tribulation"?
Do Mormons have any official beliefs on how long the Great
Tribulation is expected to last?

Before I begin I'd like to restate from the other answer that the phrase "Great Tribulation" is not used in Mormon terminology/teachings and LDS teachings most closely align with post-tribulationist. That is Mormon's believe in a chronology that is along the lines of tribulation, second coming, Millenium, and then the last judgement. I will not go into great detail as most of this is covered in LDS manuals and covers several chapters, feel free to look at the referenced manuals if you want more detail.

  What physical events do Mormons believe will happen before or during the Great Tribulation?

Signs of the Second coming1

Wickedness, War, and Turmoil-being fulfilled
The Restoration of the Gospel-fulfilled
The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon-fulfilled
The Gospel Preached to All the World-partly being fulfilled
The Coming of Elijah-fulfilled
Lehi's Descendants Will Become a Great People-partly being fulfilled
Building of the New Jerusalem
Other signs (see the scripture references at the bottom of the chapter if you want the others)

Second Coming2

Jesus will cleanse the earth-wicked will be destroyed
He will judge His people
He will usher in the Millenium
He will complete the First Resurrection
He will take His rightful place as King of heaven and earth

Millenium3

Temple/Missionary work
Satan bound
Peace on earth
Righteous government
No death
All things revealed
A final struggle at the end of Millenium when Satan will be set free for a short time. Satan will gather his armies and they will be cast out forever.

Final Judgement4

Judged by words, works, and thoughts
Judged by records
Inheriting a place in a Kingdom of Glory

  In what sense will it be a "Great Tribulation" - is this mostly symbolic or are there spiritual or physical (e.g. economical) reasons that warrant the label "Great Tribulation"?

Because this isn't Mormon terminology it is hard to get a specific answer but based on the previous answer (above) there are spiritual and physical reasons that would warrant the label "Great Tribulation".

  Do Mormons have any official beliefs on how long the Great Tribulation is expected to last?

No. We have to measure when the first sign of the Jesus' Second Coming is to the Second coming (no specific time period), plus 1,000 year Millenium, and then Final Judgement (again no specific time period). So at least 1,000 years.

1 https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-43-signs-of-the-second-coming?lang=eng

2 https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-44-the-second-coming-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

3 https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-45-the-millennium?lang=eng

4 https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-46-the-final-judgment?lang=eng


Have any 20th/21st century Ecclesiologists developed a framework/models for describing/categorising the functions of the visible church? I'm a researcher for an Anglican charity, and I'm conducting a literature review. I'd like to develop a coding frame that's able to adequately describe felt changes to the different facets of church life experienced by attenders in the Church of England in the present day.
To that end, I'm trying to find a robust (enough) framework of 'what the Church does', as opposed to 'what the church is'; I've found Dulles' Models of Church helpful for getting my head around the former, but I'm struggling to find any similar literature describing the latter.
Dulles describes what the church is:

The church is a herald
The church is a community of disciples
The church is a mystical communion

But has anyone developed a similar frame for describing what the church does? For instance:

The church administers the sacraments
The church serves the poor
The church proclaims the gospel

Etcetera.
Please note that I'm not asking for an exhaustive list of 'things the church does' from users of this stack. Rather, I am asking if any literature exists that has attempted to produce a framework that describes the church's functions within the past 100 years.
I'm most interested in models/frameworks that are readily applicable to a Western, Anglican, post-Enlightenment context, but broadly interested in anything that exists.

I have yet to find an academic book or a journal article that provides a research-level model for what a church does.  Most I found is on the nature of the church, similar to Avery Dulles's 1987 book Models of the Church, such as Stanko Jambrek's 2019 journal article Church Models for the 21st Century where he reviews a variety of church models in 3 categories (1. formed today, 2. created throughout history, 3. have a foundation in the Word of God).  The article also includes an analysis of Dulles's model.
However, below are some pointers for your literature review to come up with a good list/model of what a church does for your coding frame.
Enduring church functions
For a church to thrive and blessed by the Holy Spirit, the church needs to be aware of its proper mandate.  Based on the Acts of the Apostles, The Letters of Paul, and the Pastoral Epistles, Rev Mark Feldmeir wrote The Five Functions of the Church for the Clergy Academy of the Mountain Sky Conference of the United Methodist Church:

Training - Didache
Worship - Liturgia
Community - Koinonia
Service - Diakonia
Proclamation - Kerygma

How a church implement the NT mandate and organize their activities is of course heavily dependent on its denomination.  For a representative example of a Protestant church read the article Church: Six Functions of the Church or for a typical non-denominational Baptist church read the 2019 Southern Baptist Journal of Theology article What are the Essentials of a Local Church?  Guidelines for Missionary Ecclesiology which enumerates a local church's functions as follows:

Worship: public singing, teaching, admonition, celebration of ordinances, giving, testimony, mutual encouragement
Preaching and Teaching:
Prayer: adoration, confession of sin, thanksgiving, supplication, intercession
Baptism and the Lord's Supper:
Discipleship: individual exhortation, encouragement, mentoring
Fellowship: build each other up, serving one another, bear one another's burden, etc.
Accountability and Discipline: intertwined with both discipleship and fellowship
Generous Giving: to relieve the poor, to advance the gospel around the world, etc.
Evangelism:
Missions:

Another way to bring out what a church does is by examining the church officers mentioned in the New Testament:

Presbyters: Responsible for teaching, preaching, baptisms, pastoral care, leadership, management
Elders: Responsible for governing and internal affairs
Deacons: Responsible for external affairs including the caring side of the church, including ministering beyond the community of faith

To the above NT offices many Protestant churches today add / subsume new offices to complete their church organization and hierarchy with:

Ministries: Sunday school, adult education, music, women's group, men's group, etc.
Support groups: grief sharing, divorce recovery, substance abuse, etc.
Missions:

local projects: soup kitchen, homeless shelter, etc.
regional projects: home repair, habitat for humanity
international projects: schools, hospitals, orphanages, missionaries

Committees: Nominating, Hospitality, Personnel, Finance, Stewardship, etc.
Board of Trustees: responsible for the property of the church

(source: Don's empirical notes on church officers and church organization, better source to be found)
Church administration and church leadership books
I found that Church administration and church leadership books, especially the handbook / reference style ones, can help populate your coding frame.  For example, see the detailed Table of Contents of The Church Leader's Answer Book: A Reference Guide for Effective Ministry which covers (what I think) every foreseeable activity that a church might do to implement the above church functions effectively, although I admit that this book seems to be written more for non-sacramental / non-liturgical / non-denominational churches, and therefore is missing some aspects of what Lutheran / Anglican / Catholic churches are doing.
To give an idea, these are the book's part headings, which in turn are subdivided into about 5-8 chapters each:

Administration: Church Management, Church Boards, Meetings, Decision Making, Pastoral Search, Staffing, etc.
The Church Office: People, Place, Procedures, Storing Documents, Equipment, etc.
Change and Conflict:
Construction and Renovating: Deciding, Building Trends, Builders and Architects, Financing, Location, Planning
Facilities and Operations:
Church Furnishings:
Church Finances: Budget, Borrowing, Grants, Giving, Investments, Taxes, etc.
Leading Others: Identifying Gifts, Mentoring, Coaching, Making Disciples, etc.
The Pastor's Life: Family, Growth, Rest, Finding your place of ministry, etc.
Preaching: Audience, Applying the Word, Planning, Style & Delivery, Illustration, Technology, etc.
Groups for Growth: Planning programs, Children's Programs, Youth Programs, Prayer Groups, Small Groups, Singles, Special-Interest Groups
Pastoral Tools: Counseling, Special Visits
Community Outreach: Becoming Outwardly Focused, Assessing Your Community, Meeting Community Needs, Finding Lost People, Assimilating Newcomers, Missions
Worship: The Heart of the Worship Leader, Laying the Groundwork, Worship Planning, Worship Leaders and Teams, Technology, Special Services


Should the Catholic rosary be recited in Latin or the vernacular language? Should the Catholic prayer be recited in Latin or the vernacular language? During recitation, should the Catholic recite by chanting the verses or by singing with a catchy melody? Is it a sin to use the wrong words or switch the order of the verses around? Is it a sin to recite without even understanding the words because the words and concepts might be above the prayer's own vocabulary, or would the young Catholic be taught the meaning and form of the words to avoid praying in vain (Matthew 6:7)?

In the Catholic Church, there are two "types" of worship. On the one hand, there are the public liturgies of the Church (primarily the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours); on the other hand, there are all other devotions. These are known as private devotions, and, for the most part, are not subject to rules specifying how they are to be prayed.

We see this described in the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium:

  Popular devotions of the Christian people are to be highly commended,
  provided they accord with the laws and norms of the Church, above all
  when they are ordered by the Apostolic See.

  Devotions proper to individual Churches also have a special dignity if
  they are undertaken by mandate of the bishops according to customs or
  books lawfully approved.

  But these devotions should be so drawn up that they harmonize with the
  liturgical seasons, accord with the sacred liturgy, are in some
  fashion derived from it, and lead the people to it, since, in fact,
  the liturgy by its very nature far surpasses any of them.

The Rosary is in this second class. In the case of this devotion, there are various guidelines issued, but there are no rules that specify whether or not it is a "valid" Rosary.

It is certainly not a sin to change it according to local or even personal custom, so long as the changes are not contrary to the faith of the Church. It is also up to your personal preference whether you recite it in the vernacular, in Latin, or indeed in Martian if that helped your personal piety. Both are very common.

With regard to your final question, one of the principal advantages of the Rosary is that it is a form of prayer that can be done without complex instruction and is open to various levels of understanding according to the individual's capability.


Why is God on Sarah's side when she asked Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael? The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking,  and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”
The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son.  But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.” (Genesis 21:8-13, NIV)

According to Genesis 21:12 you can see that God is on Sarah's side to send Hagar and Ishmael away. Is it to realize his promises? We all know that God's plan works sometimes strange.
Can somebody maybe elaborate on this please? Because I can't completely understand why God would do something like this.

Plenty of Blame to Go Around

In the drama which unfolds in Genesis 21, there is certainly plenty of blame to go around. If you tend to root for the underdogs, who in this case are Hagar and Ishmael, your heart goes out to them. Abraham had every right to be upset with his wife Sarah for her obvious harshness and indifference toward Hagar ("that slave woman," as Sarah referred to her) and her son Ishmael, whom Sarah had caught either mocking her son Isaac or playing with him as if he were on equal footing with the child of promise, which he was not (Genesis 17:19, NET footnote 17).

Abraham (and Sarah, for that matter) was certainly reaping what he had sown. He had inadvisably listened to his wife in the matter of having a son by Hagar, Sarah's  Egyptian maid/slave, and the conflict which ensued was both unnecessary and obviously preventable. As the young people say nowadays, however, "it is what it is."

Sarah was equally to blame for her insistence that Abraham have a son by Hagar (not that Abraham needed that much persuading to have sex with an attractive woman who was probably much, much younger than Sarah!). Had both she and Abraham listened--really listened--to the promise God had made to them in Genesis 17:19 and 18:10, they would not have been in the pickle in which they found themselves in Genesis 21.

Ya' Reaps What Ya' Sows

In the matter of reaping and sowing (see Galatians 6:7-8), there is bound to be unpleasant fallout. God was not, as you suggest, "on Sarah's side" in the matter of Hagar and Ishmael. In a sense, Sarah was behaving quite naturally, since she was guarding zealously the rights and privileges accruing to her son by virtue of his status as the heir apparent. You can rest assured that Abraham expressed his outrage to his wife Sarah for being so heartless and unfair.

God calmed Abraham down, however, and assured him that Hagar and his beloved firstborn had a bright future ahead of them (Genesis 21:13). Moreover, God came to their rescue when Hagar, despairing of her life, cried in God's hearing, and he repeated to her the promise he had made to Abraham that Hagar's son would become a great nation one day (v.18).

And Now, From God's Perspective . . .

Notice I italicized the word his in my last paragraph. I did so because while Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, God did not consider him Abraham's firstborn! In fact, in Genesis 22, here is what God said to Abraham:

  "'Abraham . . . take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will tell you'" (excerpted from vv.1-2, with my emphasis).

From God's perspective (which should have been Abraham's perspective too), Isaac was Abraham's only son. After all, God had promised Abraham and Sarah a son in their old age. Sarah and Abraham, however, had wavered in faith by taking matters into their own hands in an attempt to "help God." God, of course, needed no helping hand in doing what to them had seemed impossible (see Genesis 18:14).

Appearances Can Be . . . Deceiving

In conclusion, while God may appear to have sided with Sarah, in reality he did not. He graciously gave the child of Sarah's handmaid a bright future by first saving him from a certain death in the wilderness, and then by allowing Ishmael to grow into a skilled hunter who eventually married "one of his own" (an Egyptian) and become a father many times over.

As Sir Walter Scott said (Marmion, 1808), "What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." In the affair of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael, there may not have been an intent to deceive, but there was certainly an attempt to perform an "end run" around God. We reap what we sow, and our tangled web is of our own making!
Regardless, God still has the last word!


Is there a "Reina-Valera" only movement? I'm aware of the King James (KJV) only movement, but is there also a similar movement for the Spanish Reina-Valera (RVR) bible? My father, who is Puerto Rican, told me that RVR-onlyers were a thing.

Yes there is.  And like the KJV-only movement, it is not monolithic.

For English speakers, it's important to recognize that the Reina Valera (RVR) is a group of Bible translations that continues to dominate the Bible translation market in Spanish-speaking countries. They primarily rely on the Textus Receptus, like the KJV, not modern critical Greek texts, like popular English translations (NIV, NLT, ESV, etc.).  The most common edition is the 1960, but the two other 20th century editions, 1909 and 1995, are also popular.

With that in mind, we can break down "RVR only" tendencies as follows:

Those who prefer some edition of the RVR because they are most familiar with it or it is most common in their area
Those who generally prefer the RVR because they consider the Textus Receptus to be the best basis for a Bible translation
Those who consider one particular version of the RVR to be the "correct" or even "inspired" translation of the Bible into Spanish

The KJV-only movement can be broken down similarly, but the distinctive in the RVR-only movement is that not all those in group 3 agree on what is the "right" version of the RVR.  There are at least three versions of the RVR that are claimed to be the only "correct" version:

1602 Purified.  Robert Breaker III examines the various RVR options and concludes that a recent revision of the original 1602 RVR is the "purest" Bible translation. (source)
RVG (Reina Valera Gómez 2010).  Emanuel Rodríguez wrote a book entitled, God's Bible in Spanish: How God preserved his words in Spanish through the RVG.
1865. Jeff McArdle argues that the Valera1865 is the best representative of the original 1602 text, saying that "every attempt should be made to defend every word found in the Valera 1865." (source)

In this sense, the RVR-only movement is even more divided than the KJV-only movement.  These three camps naturally criticize each others' versions; for example, Emanuel Rodríguez (the proponent of the RVG) issued a lengthy rebuttal against Jeff McArdle's criticisms.

It's worth noting that the RVR-only movement seems to originate in, or at least get much of its voice from, the KJV-only movement.  Robert Breaker and Jeff McArdle are both fundamentalist baptists and KJV-only proponents, and a prominent KJV-only advocate, D. A. Waite, endorsed the RVG and hosts Emanuel Rodríguez's defense of it on his website.


What is the purpose of the Penitential Rite in a Catholic Mass? The Mass in the Roman Catholic Church includes a Penitential Rite, where a Penitential Act is effected. However, as the Roman Misal states (page 55):

  After this, the Priest calls upon the whole community to take part in the Penitential Act, which, after a brief pause for silence, it does by means of a formula of general confession. The rite concludes with the Priest’s absolution, which, however, lacks the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance.

This is, such act is not equivalent to the Sacrament of Confession. As this other entry in Wikipedia about the mass states,

  Confession (Penance or Reconciliation) is the only sacrament not celebrated within a Eucharistic framework and for which therefore no Ritual Mass is provided.

I wonder then, which is the purpose of such penitential act? Is there somewhere an "official" or authoritative analysis of this? Maybe by a Church Father?

This part of the Mass comes after the Confiteor (I confess):
Traditionally,

Confíteor Deo omnipoténti, beátæ Maríæ semper Vírgini, beáto Michaéli Archángelo, beáto Ioánni Baptístæ, sanctis Apóstolis Petro et Páulo, ómnibus Sanctis, et vobis, fratres: quia peccávi nimis cogitatióne, verbo, et ópere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa. Ideo precor beátam Maríam semper Virginem, beátum Michaélem Archángelum, beátum Ioánnem Baptístam, sanctos Apóstolos Petrum et Páulum, omnes Sanctos, et vos, fratres, oráre pro me ad Dóminum Deum nostrum
I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the saints, and to you, brothers, that I have sinned in thought, word and deed: through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault. Therefore I beseech blessed Mary, ever Virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and you, brothers, to pray to the Lord our God for me.

(Followed by the server saying the same, exchanging 'brothers' for 'father')
This is a general confession of sins, both past, absolved mortal sins, and any venial sins you currently are guilty of, but which don't merit damnation.
It is in this sense that the general absolution makes explicit the priestly intercession to God on behalf of the people (in concordance with the fact that he is about to offer the perfect Victim to the Father, "in persona Christi"2 Cor 2:10).
He then intercedes for the people:

Misereátur vestri omnípotens Deus, et dimíssis peccatis vestris, perducat vos ad vitam ætérnam. Amen.
May almighty God have mercy upon you, forgive you your sins, and bring you into life everlasting. Amen.

He then blesses the people with a gesture, saying:

Indulgéntiam, absolutiónem, et remissiónem peccatórum nostrórum, tríbuat nobis omnípotens et miséricors Dóminus.
May the Almighty and merciful God grant us pardon, absolution, and full remissions of our sins. Amen.

Mortal sins must be confessed:

John 20:21-23 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

This could be because one needs to be quite sure of their absolved state before recieving the Eucharist, that is, whether they are in a state of grace, period.
So that no one should be recieving the Eucharist without purity of conscience in that regard:

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 "Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body [10:16 "body" and "blood of the Lord"] [i.e. from what is profane]"

This petition and intercession for forgiveness generally is not a 'Sacrament' but a general plea for mercy. And it is followed by prayers right up to the Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy) before the Mass begins to turn more doxological (worship-oriented).
This is why the Sacrament of Confession/Extreme Unction is still the only means of absolution of mortal sins—a general plea for mercy doesn't constitute said Sacrament. It amounts to a priestly prayer.
A good reason this doesn't absolve everyone is because literally anyone could be there at Mass. To pretend forgiveness of all sins would be impossible, since "if we confess our sins he is just and faithful to forgive."1 Jn 1:9 And we know the method he instituted for such: Confession.
I can't find any authoritative sources which speak to—or feel the need to—on this at this time.
EDIT: Ken Graham has sources in his answer which may be of help.


How does the Catholic Church reconcile evolution with original sin? According to Catholic doctrine:

all men inherit ancestral sin from Adam;
God descended upon Earth as the Son in order to free mankind from this sin, was crucified, died etc.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

The theory of evolution states that we (as Homo Sapiens) gradually evolved from other creatures. This implies—if we don't misinterpret the theory—that Adam and Eve never existed.

If Adam and Eve never existed, no one fell, and we cannot inherit ancestral sin from no one. Moreover, there wasn't any reason which Jesus had to be born for, anything he had to free us from.

Now, my question is: How can the doctrine of ancestral sin be justified in view of the Darwinian theory of evolution?

Catholics reconcile the two beliefs by being allowed to believe in evolution, but required to believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

For the purposes of this discussion, evolution is the scientific hypothesis that the physical bodies of various living beings have developed from those of other living beings of different species. To believe in evolution is to hold evolution as a scientific hypothesis, subject to falsifiability in the event of countering evidence (that is, evidence that can only be explained if the hypothesis is false).

With these definitions in mind, then, the Catholic Church neither requires nor forbids Catholics to believe in evolution—to the extent (and only to the extent) that such a belief is not found to conflict with Church teaching. However, the Church does require that Catholics assert that there were a single original man and woman, who sinned, and who are the ancestors of all subsequent humans.

The encyclical letter Humani Generis, written by Pope Pius XII in 1950, discusses (among other philosophical stances the Church considers to be errors or heresies) evolution as it has sometimes been used to back an existential, relativist view of the world. Pope Pius writes:

  The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

(paragraph 36)

In other words, the Church has no issue with discussion of evolution as science, and purely as science; it's when the scientific conclusions are used to back philosophical statements at variance with the revealed Truth, or when evolution is held as if it were a matter of Faith, that the Church takes issue.

Pope Pius continues, however:

  The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

(paragraph 37)

In other words, if Adam and Eve were not a single pair of people, who sinned, and who were the ancestors of all subsequent humans, it would be possible to deny that all human beings are subject to original sin. Since this is a matter of Faith—something which cannot be denied without committing heresy—there appears to be no way to hold that Adam and Eve were not literal beings.

The Pope concludes by mandating that teachers of the Catholic faith not present such statements (e.g. that Adam was not a real person, but represents a number of early humans) as fact.

Note: To believe that there were two humans who were the ancestors of all subsequent humans is scientifically reasonable, as I understand things. That is, it appears that the statement found above in this question:

  The theory of evolution ... implies—if we don't misinterpret the theory—that Adam and Eve never existed

may be false without contradicting what is known scientifically about humans; and the Catholic Church, as appears in this document, officially believes that it is false.


What scripture speaks of filling a bag and "compressing" it? When you purchase a box of cereal or bag of potato chips at the store, you often come home to find that 2/3 of the container is filled with air. This is because although the container may be filled up during production, while the container is "in transit", all the contents are slowly settling to the bottom.

There is a scripture I'm looking for that makes a similar point. Speaking of God's generosity, makes an illustration of how not only does God fill your bag of wheat or grain to the brim, but he "pushes down" on the bag, compressing the contents, so he can fill it even more.

Can anyone recall which scripture I am referring to?

I believe you are referring to Luke 6:38

  Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. (KJV)


What does the Orthodox church consider to be the defining features of Christian meditation? There are many different kinds of meditation or prayer, Christian and non-Christian. However, I am confused regarding actual difference because these varieties, both Christian and non-Christian, seem largely to be arbitrarily constructed.

This question asks specifically about the rosary vs a mantra while I am interested in all methods generally. This one asks about sharing Bible references on the correct way to meditate but I think falls short as I do not believe the Bible is a meditation textbook. I also think none of the answers address my question as they seem to straw-man eastern meditation as harmful, demonic, or dulling.

That said, what do the Orthodox consider to be the characteristics that distinguish (for example) hesychasm from Patriarch zen? The practitioner of Patriarch zen assumes a still posture and remains attentive while removing all thoughts or images from her mind.

On the other hand, Wikipedia says (regarding hesychasm):

  ... that the primary task of the
  Hesychast is to engage in mental ascesis. This mental ascesis is the
  rejection of tempting thoughts (the "thieves") that come to the
  Hesychast as he watches in sober attention in his hermitage.

Sober, attentive watching. Is there a clear, defining line between meditations that are acceptable for Orthodox Christians and those that aren't? If so, what is it? If I don't yet have the opportunity to learn from a starets (please forgive me if that is the incorrect term), should I learn Patriarch zen from a righteous man who believes it will lead Christians toward God?

As far as I can tell, the answer is yes because it is the intention, correctness of practice, and unending goodness of our Lord that determines results. However, I would much rather admit my own fault than attempt to outsmart two-thousand years of great saints. Answers should reference official statements from authority figures in the Orthodox church. Thank you very much!

I'm a Catholic, so I guess you can take my words with a grain of salt, but I think the defining feature of Christian meditation is the focus on God through Grace.
From my point of view, the physical techniques that the, say, Buddhists use are not wrong per se, but rather are just things humans can do to help them contemplate something. Since Buddhists and Christians are both humans, to focus their minds, regardless on what each is focusing on, would reasonably involve similar techniques. It's not as if a Buddhist's body works differently than a Christian's!
What becomes important then is what that something we are contemplating is. We Christians contemplate God, and Buddhist contemplate "nothing"*. Ultimately, we can only contemplate God by Grace, so Buddhists might get something like a glimpse, but they can't truly experience the "uncreated Light."
Here's some of Dr. David Bentley Hart's (an Orthodox Christian: pray for him. He's have serious health problems right now) thoughts on Zen Buddhism:

Every contemplative tradition necessarily stresses the need to discipline desire, to control the powers of both body and mind, to cultivate dispossession of the self, to learn detachment from finite things, to sacrifice discrete concepts about the truth for the sake of an immediate experience of the truth, and so forth.
Of greater interest to the Western reader, I would claim, is the actual content of the experience toward which Dogen urges his readers. I think there is more than a verbal or affective similarity between some of Dogen’s formulations and, for instance, Traherne’s or Blake’s or Dostoyevsky’s descriptions of seeing eternity within time, or paradise within the world of suffering and death. It would be presumptuous and reckless simply to claim that, when Dogen speaks of seeing that luminous wisdom that precedes, fills, and transcends all existing things, he is speaking of, say, the eternal Logos of Christian belief. But I would certainly insist that he is bearing witness to a genuine glimpse of that reality, in a way both beautifully distinctive and eminently worthy of reverence.
Source: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/12/luminous-wisdom

Here's another article concerning Christian meditation vs Buddhism: http://www.antiochian.org/mindfulness-known-church-fathers
*It's not exactly "nothing" in the sense we Westerners use the word. Buddhists seem to contemplate in part how the reifications of our mind are not based in reality, and that reification is itself deceitful to our consciousness. No-reifications can also be called "nothing" or "no-thing" ("rei" is the Latin word that corresponds with the English word "thing"). By removing the reification fictions of our mind, Buddhists believe they can see reality as it really is. However, I'm willing to be corrected on this point by those with greater knowledge.
Christi pax.