Is wearing makeup sinful according to Catholic teaching? Is wearing makeup is sinful according to Catholic teaching? If so, why?

I am not asking about someone who would put makeup to cover some kind of deformity on his face (like when someone gets burned on his face) but about regular cases.

Edit (My conclusion so far).

It would seem to me that Aquinas is saying that wearing makeup can not be devoid of sin. It seems to me that Aquinas in his article separates two questions:

Whether the adornment (and here adornment (ornatus) means wearing clothes, jewelry or something which is added onto the body and is not like makeup which applies paint on the body as Aquinas says in a replay to the second objection) of women is devoid of mortal sin?

With this question, it seems to me, he deals in 'I answer with (Respondeo)'.

Whether applying paint(and here is painting (fucatio) something that we would call wearing makeup) on the body can be devoid of sin?

With this question, it seems to me, he deals in 'Reply to Objection 2'.

I am here interested in question 2 and as far as I can see, Aquinas says in Reply to Objection 2 that it is sinful to wear makeup:

  Cyprian is speaking of women painting themselves: this is a kind of
  falsification, which cannot be devoid of sin.

It seems to me, that the reason that he gives for why wearing makeup can not be devoid of sin is that it is some kind of deceiving. I could try to formalize his argument in this way:

It is wrong to deceive others.
Wearing makeup is the same as counterfeiting a beauty one has not, therefore wearing makeup includes deceiving others.
Therefore, it is wrong to wear makeup.

The reason why this argument would not work for wearing clothes is that clothes are to cover the body, while makeup applies paint on the body. Clothes to the body are not the same as makeup to face.

Also, this argument would not convict applying products against skin dehydration (or something like that) because those products could be understood as medicine.

Also, we could see that the same argument (principle) which I gave is used against those who paint themselves in a way to seem to be of different sex (ie. transgenders). One of the reasons why is it sinful for them to paint themselves that way is because they deceive others.

If I am still misunderstanding something please correct me.

If a woman wears makeup for vane or scandalous purposes (e.g., impressing others, making others envious, inciting men to lust, etc.), it's sinful. If she wears makeup to please her husband (e.g., so he doesn't commit adultery or despise her), it's not sinful.
St. Thomas Aquinas writes, in Summa Theologica II-II q. 169 a. 2 ("Whether the adornment of women is devoid of mortal sin?") co.:

As regards the adornment of women, we must bear in mind the general statements made above (Article 1) concerning outward apparel, and also something special, namely that a woman's apparel may incite men to lust, according to Prov. 7:10, "Behold a woman meeteth him in harlot's attire, prepared to deceive souls."
Nevertheless a woman may use means to please her husband, lest through despising her he fall into adultery. Hence it is written (1 Cor. 7:34) that the woman "that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Wherefore if a married woman adorn herself in order to please her husband she can do this without sin.
But those women who have no husband nor wish to have one, or who are in a state of life inconsistent with marriage, cannot without sin desire to give lustful pleasure to those men who see them, because this is to incite them to sin. And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally; whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial. And the same applies to men in this respect.  Hence Augustine says (Ep. ccxlv ad Possid.):I do not wish you to be hasty in forbidding the wearing of gold or costly attire except in the case of those who being neither married nor wishful to marry, should think how they may please God: whereas the others think on the things of the world, either husbands how they may please their wives, or wives how they may please their husbands, except that it is unbecoming for women though married to uncover their hair, since the Apostle commands them to cover the head.Yet in this case some might be excused from sin, when they do this not through vanity but on account of some contrary custom: although such a custom is not to be commended.


When did God create Hell? Assuming a belief in a literal eternal hell believed by traditional Christian beliefs, when is hell believed to have been created by God?  A good answer will include scriptural support for when Hell was created.

My attempt of an answer based on the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

First, I could not find any explicit doctrine/dogma on this. Thus, my answer is inferred from other dogmatic definitions.

Hell and Genesis:

Let us start with the fact that, if God dwells in Heaven (e.g. John 14:2), Heaven has always existed (unless God "moved", which is odd). At some point, as related in Genesis, God created the universe and Earth. However, there is no direct mention of God creating a physical place named Hell.
But Hell already existed at the time of Jesus resurrection:

Remember that Jesus descended into hell. Thus, hell must already exist.

In effect, the Catholic Church teaches that there is a General (or Last) Judgment (which is to occur when Jesus comes again, and where bodies will be resurrected), and a Particular Judgment, which occurs immediate after the death of the body. In the latter, which has happened since Adam and Eve, the soul is sent to wherever it corresponds depending on the status of sin the individual is at.  However, before Jesus erased original sin with his death, even saints and good people were "sent to hell" (to be precise, this place is called limbus patris, "in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam;").

All this means that Hell must have existed as a destination of the soul since the death of Adam and Eve.

Maybe hell is not a physical place, but just a state of separation from God.

This is in fact possible for now.  The Catholic Church has not decided anything on this. Many theologians and church fathers believed hell to be a physical place inside the Earth, in which case, God would have created hell just as he made Earth (for details, see "Names and Place of Hell" here). Yet, in my view it is only evident that, if after the General Judgment every human being is to have its body resurrected, Hell must by then be a physical place.

In conclusion, hell, at least as a place for destination of disembodied souls, exists since the creation of mankind.  Whether it was "created" by God or not, it is open to debate, as this depends among other things on whether hell is a physical place or it is simply the "absence of God".  What is clear however is that in the General Judgment bodies will be resurrected, at which, given my limited human mind, it means hell as a physical place must definitively exist, and hence, be created by God.


Does "Positive Christianity" still exist? Positive Christianity was a movement in Nazi Germany. It advanced interpreting Jesus as an active organiser, preacher and fighter against institutionalised Judaism.

I was wondering if anyone still follows this interpretation? The Wikipedia page suggests that it went into decline and suggests that some adherent groups still exist. However, the links don't really lead anywhere.

Positive Christianity was actually a movement that existed prior to the Nazi's rise to power, but it underwent a mass of redefinitions by the Nazi's. Positive Christianity did not die with Hitler and the Nazi regime in 1945, just as Nazism didn't die. The original organization may have dissolved with the fall of the Nazi Party, but it has supposedly been adopted by some modern churches with a white supremacist theology who promote a racist interpretation of Christianity. There is a movement in the United States where a number of these churches have united and are known as Christian Identity Churches. There are less than 50,000 adherents, and the congregations are largely considered extremist hate groups.

Active Christian Identity Groups
Christian Identity Ministries (Australia); Tagline:
"The Anglo-Saxon-Keltic-Germanic-Scandinavian People are Israel"Koehne, Samuel. "Nazism And Religion: The Problem Of 'Positive Christianity'." Australian Journal Of Politics & History 60.1 (2014): 28-42. (link to abstract)


What is an LDS general conference? Tomorrow (Saturday) and Sunday, the Mormon church is holding a general conference, which happens twice a year, in place of regular church meetings.

There's some basic stuff on their website about it, but I'd like to know more about what it is, how it started, why it is held, its significance to church members, etc.

For example: It's a general conference -- who exactly is invited: is it for members only, like the temples? Is it a collection of sermons or does the format vary? What is discussed, and are there any notable conferences which have impacted Christianity or the world?

Bonus points for scriptural references or parallels.

I should probably let a member of the LDS Church answer this, as I only attended the LDS Church for a few months.  There was an LDS conference during that time, and I'm going to attempt to answer based on what I can find for official statements and my own memory of the event.

From the LDS Website:

  What is general conference?

  General conference is a semiannual gathering of The Church of Jesus
  Christ of Latter-day Saints. During general conference weekend, Church
  members and others gather worldwide in a series of two-hour sessions
  to receive inspiration and instruction from Church leaders.

Even though the main conference occurs in Salt Lake City, it's something that every member of the LDS Church can attend, in the local congregations.  In the one I was attending, it was shown over a projector, and all of the members attended.  They also use modern technology like Podcasts, YouTube, and others to give people that absolutely couldn't attend in person, or in their local place of gathering a chance to see and listen to the entire messages.  On top of that, the Deseret News provides extensive coverage.

The purpose is to give the leaders a chance to give guidance to the Church (as a whole - all members of the LDS Church, rather than local Churches), to preach, to exhort, and to instruct.  Also, announcements such as changes to Church Leadership, new direction, new understanding of doctrine based on divine revelation to Church Leadership is all common as well.

The teachings covered here are considered to be authoritative, and according to the following, are considered inspired.

Again, from the official LDS site: (bold text added by me)

  Read Doctrine and Covenants 68:2–4. What “scriptures” do we have today in addition to the standard works? (The inspired teachings of
  modern-day Apostles and Prophets.) Where can we find the teachings of
  modern-day Apostles and Prophets? (Church magazines and general
  conference reports.) How have you been blessed as you have treated
  their counsel as scripture?

For the members, it's a chance to hear directly from those highest in the Church leadership.

As much as I hate quoting from Wikipedia, it covers the basics quite well:

  General conferences are held on the weekends containing the first
  Sunday in April and the first Sunday in October. The April conference
  is known as the Annual General Conference, and the October conference
  as the Semiannual General Conference. The April conference includes
  annual statistical and financial reports not included in the October
  meeting. Both conferences are identified by the number of years since
  the church was founded in April 1830; thus, the April 2011 meeting was
  the 181st Annual General Conference, and the October 2011 meeting was
  the 181st Semiannual General Conference.

As for the significance to the Church members, aside from the obvious implications of the above:

It's not much different than any other annual or semi-annual business meeting for many secular businesses.  It's a chance to make big announcements, and motivation speeches, but of course, related to the Church and revelation from God, rather than the types of things important to businesses.

For someone who has never attended one, it's hard to describe on one hand.  To say that the Church Leaders give messages is a true statement, and they make announcements, and in general, give direction to the Church as a whole.  That all sounds a bit dry.  The official descriptions don't adequately describe the excitement and adoration that is evident.  It reminds me of how Apple employees reacted to Steve Jobs.  I don't mean that in a derogatory way.  I included it to attempt to convey the atmosphere, which is something I've never seen matched in other Church events. (Clarification - the meetings themselves are not like that - I was referring to the excitement of anticipation, the discussion in the car on the way to the Church, in the parking lot, etc.  Once the general sessions start, the atmosphere was much more reverent, but everyone gave rapt attention to the leaders.)

The excitement is understandable, considering that those they hear from include the President of the Church, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Considering that the Church teaching is that these people are still receiving divine revelation from God, it's only one step removed from hearing from God Himself.

You can find much more information simply by searching their amazingly well done online Scripture Citation Index for "General Conference".  For example, from there I learned that Elder Paul V Johnson (one of the Seventy) considers it a sacred responsibility for all members of the Aaronic Priesthood to attend.

  It is a sacred responsibility to address you in this general
  priesthood meeting. I always look forward to attending these
  priesthood sessions with my sons. I have great memories of sitting by
  them in our stake center as we listened to the teachings of the
  General Authorities. These meetings made a difference in my life when
  I was a young man, and they continue to make a difference in my life
  now. I know they have been an influence on my sons and on millions of
  Aaronic Priesthood holders around the world.

And, not that it's doctrinally important, it's a chance to listen to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, who are really quite good.


What does the Bible say about praying too much? I don't understand how these verses:

"Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few." - Ecclesiastes 5:2
"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." - Matthew 6:7

Can be reconciled with Luke 18:1-8 where Jesus gives a parable about praying with persistence.
Is it possible to pray too much about something?  Is it possible to pray continually yet with few words?
What do other parts of the bible have to say on this issue?

The Bible in no place says that you can possibly pray too much.  In fact, it says just the opposite.  Not only in the passage in Luke, but also in 1 Thessalonialns 5:17, which says we should be praying continually.

Like most "contradictions' this one is simple to resolve by showing that the problem arises from taking verses out of context.  (See Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies.)

Take a look again at Ecclesiastes 5 with the surrounding verses:

  1 Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to
  listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not
  know that they are doing evil. 2 [b] Be not rash with your mouth, nor
  let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in
  heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few. 3 For a
  dream comes with much business, and a fool's voice with many words.

  4 When you vow a vow to God, do not delay paying it, for he has no
  pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow. 5 It is better that you should
  not vow than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Let not your mouth
  lead you[c] into sin, and do not say before the messenger[d] that it
  was a mistake. Why should God be angry at your voice and destroy the
  work of your hands? 7 For when dreams increase and words grow many,
  there is vanity;[e] but[f] God is the one you must fear.

This is not talking about not praying, it's talking about not speaking rashly and carelessly to God.

This is backed up by most commentaries.  Here's a small sampling to show that this is an established teaching/understanding of the verses, and not just my opinion:

  Benson Commentary

  Be not rash with thy mouth — Speak not without due consideration; and
  let not thy heart be hasty — Do not give way to every sudden motion of
  thy heart, nor suffer it to break out of thy lips till thou hast well
  weighed it. We must think, and think twice, before we speak, when we
  are to speak, either from God in preaching, or to God in prayer, or in
  solemn vows and promises made in his presence; which were very much in
  use in those times, and of which he speaks in the following verses.
  For God is in heaven — Is a God of infinite majesty, holiness, and
  knowledge, and therefore not even to be thought of, and much more not
  to be worshipped, without profound veneration, great solemnity, and
  much serious consideration; and thou upon earth — Thou art a poor worm
  of the earth, infinitely below him, and therefore oughtest to stand in
  awe of him, and fear to offend him; therefore let thy words be few —
  1st, In prayer: use not vain repetitions, nor a multitude of words, as
  if they were necessary to inform God of thy wants, or to prevail with
  him to grant thy requests; or as if thou shouldest certainly be heard
  upon that very account: see Matthew 6:7. 2d, In vowing: be not too
  prodigal in making more vows and promises than thou art either able or
  willing and resolved to perform. Remember that God looks down from
  heaven, hears all thy vows, and expects a punctual accomplishment of
  them.

  Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

  5:1-3 Address thyself to the worship of God, and take time to compose
  thyself for it. Keep thy thoughts from roving and wandering...

  Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter
  any thing before God,....


Help identifying a large FAQ about women pastors made by John Piper and someone else I don't know if was a book, article, or interview, but recently I read a document which contained 30-50 question and answer items related to women as pastors. I know it was by John Piper and potentially co-written by another author or pastor.

John Piper and Wayne Grudham have published the following books which may deal with the subject of women as pastors:

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - A Response to Evangelical Feminism by John Piper and Wayne Grudham - A controversy of major proportions has spread through the church. Recent generations bear witness to the rise of "evangelical feminism"-a movement that has had a profound impact on all of life, challenging some of our basic Christian beliefs...  Combining systematic argumentation with popular application, this volume deals with all of the main passages of Scripture brought forward in this controversy regarding gender-based role differences.  Anyone concerned with the fundamental question of the proper relationship between men and women in home, church, and society will want to read this book.
50 Crucial Questions About Manhood and Womanhood - An Overview of Central Concerns About Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper and Wayne Grudham - Adapted from chapter two of Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.
“This is the booklet I return to most often in dealing with the knotty issues of manhood and womanhood in ministry.”
“The issue we face in this booklet is how men and women should relate to each other according to the Bible.”

This link is to an article by John Piper on female professors at seminary: Is There a Place for Female Professors at Seminary?
I hope this is helpful.


Reformation objections to lectio divina? It is becoming popular in Protestant circles to embrace traditional Roman Catholic (RC) mysticism, such as the practice of lectio divina. For example, see this page on the website of Timothy Keller's church, and also his recommendation of this book. However, it occurs to me that the original Reformers were probably aware of these forms of mysticism, and had reasons for rejecting them, or they would have been preserved in the Protestant tradition. In light of the current trend, it would behoove those who subscribed to a Protestant and particularly a traditional Reformed position to be aware of and wrestle with these objections.

What did the Reformers (or later Reformed theologians) teach about RC mysticism?

In what works did they critique it?
What were their major objections?
Did they find anything laudable in it?
What alternatives did they offer for spiritual growth?

I am most particularly interested in the practice of lectio divina.

This subject is all about balance. Rationalism and Mysticism are the extremes to avoid. Your question does not seem biased to either extreme.

I do not think you will find reformers making direct attacks upon particular forms of meditation so long as those meditating, mediated on those objective doctrines that they taught! The moment any type of mysticism crept in that would give cause for someone to claim that their 'inner light' had authority over objective doctrine, they were called fanatics. Thomas Muntzer was a German reformer who went that way. Luther mentions his sentiments when discussing the necessity of the public reading of scripture:

  First, attend to the public reading. Do not omit it. It seems to me that there is a miraculous spirit in those fanatics. Thomas [Müntzer] began it. So they hold the Word in contempt. “The testimony in my inner being is enough for me.”
  (Luther's Works 28.329)

However the reformers were not rationalists, they felt until the Spirit opened up the objective doctrine you did not know what you ought:

  Secondly, you should meditate, that is, not only in your heart, but also externally, by actually repeating and comparing oral speech and literal words of the book, reading and rereading them with diligent attention and reflection, so that you may see what the Holy Spirit means by them. And take care that you do not grow weary or think that you have done enough when you have read, heard, and spoken them once or twice, and that you then have complete understanding. You will never be a particularly good theologian if you do that, for you will be like untimely fruit which falls to the ground before it is haft ripe. (Luther's Works 34.386)

However, to reiterate, if one's meditation was not centered on objective truth, and most importantly objective truth of grace, as opposed to works, one's meditation was self-based and idolatry:

  The highest forms of religion and holiness, and the most fervent forms of devotion of those who worship God without the Word and command of God, are idolatry. Thus under the papacy it was regarded as an act of the greatest spirituality when the monks sat in their cells and meditated about God and His works, or when their fervent devotions so inflamed them as they genuflected, prayed, and contemplated heavenly things that they wept for sheer pleasure and joy. There was no thinking here about women or about any other creature, but only about the Creator and His marvelous works. And yet this action, which reason regards as eminently spiritual, is a “work of the flesh” according to Paul. Thus every such form of religion, which worships God without His Word and command, is idolatry. The more spiritual and holy it appears to be, the more dangerous and destructive it is; for it deflects men from faith in Christ and causes them to rely on their own powers, works, and righteousness. (Luther's Works 27.87)

From all the references about prayer or meditation in Luther or Calvin that I have read, which is a fair sum, never will you find an encouragement to practice mysticism, nor is the subject important enough for their attention. So long as people held to the doctrines they preached, meditation styles just did not matter.


Jesus cried: my God, why did they hear Elijah? The bible states the meaning of Jesus' words on the cross. Why then did some people take it as calling for Elijah?

Jesus exact words were "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani." (Matt 27:46)

Eli-jah (literally YHWH - jah is God (El) of mine (i)) would be shortened as "Eli".  Since they are the same word, in the bustle of a crowd, it is not at all unlikely that this "prophet" would be thought to be calling Elijah.

Remember, just because the words were in Psalm 22, doesn't mean the mean the people would have been assuming Jesus' first thought would be to quote a Scripture.

Pronounced "A-Lee" it sounds like a short name for "A-Lai-yah"


Why did Pilate call Jesus The Man? At John 19:5 we see:

  So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!”

Elsewhere, we see Jesus referring to himself as Son of Man on numerous occasions.

My question is: Was Pontius Pilate a secret beneficiary of the teachings of Jesus so that he was able to quote the very words of Jesus in his pronouncement during the latter's trial? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say about such a prospect?

Here's what St. Thomas Aquinas commentates on Jn. 19:5:

  Thirdly, Christ's exhibition is further described through the words of Pilate, Here is the man! spoken in a sarcastic way, as if one so disgraced would dare to usurp a kingship. Look at the kind of person you are accusing of this! The words of the Psalm (22:6) apply to him: "I am a worm, and no man." And so, if you do hate your king, spare him now because you see him dishonored. "When disgrace increases, let your hatred decrease,"5 as Augustine says.

  5. Tract. in Io., 116, ch. 2, col. 1942; cf. Catena Aurea, 19:1-5.


Jesus said I am the Way, how does the Catholic Church best explain this passage? John 14:6 New International Version (NIV)

"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

This passage from St.John Gospel had a strong emphasis on Jesus as the only means of salvation.

Add to this the 1Timothy2:5

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,.."

This two powerful verses is very dear to our Christian brothers and I would say somehow had a negative effect as it set a dividing line on how the salvation of man is viewed in light of this passages.I believe Christian beliefs and Catholic teaching  can be harmonize in view of this two important passages, only if a good biblical explanation from the Apostolic to Early Church Tradition can be both accepted as the mediating factor.

The Catholic Church I think never interpret this verses the way our Christian brothers magnify the explicitness of this verse and always harmonize the biblical meaning of this in light of the whole gospel.

My question is, how does the Catholic Church interprets this passages in the Apostolic times & early Church Tradition and does the Vatican II share the same view or teaching from the very beginning of Catholicism?

A good biblical explanation will be a good start for Ecumenism to succeed.

I find your question a little hard to understand. I think you're saying that you think the Catholic Church must have difficulty with these passages, presumably because of the apparent belief that the Church functions as a mediator. The stereotype in certain Protestant circles is that the Catholic Church displaces Christ as the mediator of salvation. This is not correct.
Let's start with paragraph 74 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a lengthy summary of the Church's teachings:

God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2.4): that is, of Christ Jesus (John 14.6). Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth

So straight away, you can see it clearly stated that Jesus is the sole truth, and the sole means of salvation. This paragraph cites one of your verses, and the verse immediately before the other.
Elsewhere, we have paragraph 1698:

The first and last point of reference of this catechesis will always be Jesus Christ himself, who is "the way, and the truth, and the life."

Or paragraph 2466:

In Jesus Christ, the whole of God's truth has been made manifest. "Full of grace and truth," he came as the "light of the world," he is the Truth.

Or paragraph 2614:

Faith in the Son introduces the disciples into the knowledge of the Father, because Jesus is "the way, and the truth, and the life."

I think these clearly indicate the unique mediatorial role of Jesus.
With regard to the 1 Timothy passage, the key part of the Catechism is paragraph 618:

The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the "one mediator between God and men". (1 Tim 2.5) But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, "the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery" is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to "take up [their] cross and follow (him)", for "Christ also suffered for (us), leaving (us) an example so that (we) should follow in his steps." In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.  This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering. Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.

This is a wonderful explanation of Catholic ecclesiology. Christians have a share in Christ's saving action, uniting their sacrifices with the one perfect sacrifice of the Cross.
It is not for a second about diminishing the unique place of Christ's sacrifice, or his unique mediating role.
Similarly, we can see this in 1544f.

Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men." (1 Tim 2.5) The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.
The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. the same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."

The priesthood of the Church in this present age is precisely a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The sacrifice of the Mass is precisely a participation in Christ's sacrifice on Calvary.
As you say, I think a correct interpretation of this is important for ecumenism. It is vital for the correct Catholic teaching to be understood by the Catholic faithful and by other churches, rather than the popular and misleading caricature that perverts the Gospel and sets Christians against each other.


Fallen Angels worshiped in ancient civilizations? Ok, so I am doing research for a fictional book and in my research I have come across the names of 2 fallen angels (book of Enoch) that take advantage of mankind and allow man to worship them like god. Abezethibou (Egypt) and Nisroch (Babylon).

I realize that the book of Enoch isn't considered Canon to most Christian groups, but I'm wondering about similar recorded accounts recognized by any Christian groups, Scripture, or Deuterocanonical books?

My question is this: Are there other fallen angels that humans worshiped recorded or recognized as described above?

In 1 Corinthians 10:19-20 (NIV), Paul writes:

  Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.

This indicates that all idol worship is actually worship of demons (fallen angels).

2 Kings 3:26-27 (ESV) describes a human sacrifice which seems to be effective:

  When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him 700 swordsmen to break through, opposite the king of Edom, but they could not. Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.

The fact that this sacrifice had such a dramatic effect seems to imply that the being to whom the sacrifice was directed existed and had power to influence a battle. Typical Christian theology identifies such gods as demons (fallen angels).


Who or what is the origin of the Seven Mountain Mandate? In Charismatic circles, there is a movement or teaching called the Seven Mountain Mandate. In a nutshell, we are taught that it is God's purpose for the Church or Christians to have influence, or take dominion over seven specific areas of society/culture: media, government, education, economy, family, religion, and arts/entertainment.

There have been many books on the topic written over the last decade, from authors Lance Walnau, Johnny Enlow, Tommi Femrite, Bronwyn O'Brien, Bill Johnson, Rivkah Isaacs and others.

One of the earliest book titles (from 2009) stood out to me: Johnny Enlow's The Seven Mountain Prophecy. The title seems to imply that this mandate originates from a specific prophecy uttered by a specific person.

When did this teaching originate, and by whom? I've heard it taught as a general teaching, but I have never learned its origin.

Related question:
What's the biblical basis for Dominionism?

Although the general concepts associated with soft forms of Dominionism like the Seven Mountain Mandate have been around for a long time (arguably since the very beginning - cf. Genesis 1:27-28; Matthew 5:13-16; 28:18-20 etc.), according to the7mountains.com, the particular formulation in question dates back to the 1970s and was first promoted by Loren Cunningham, the founder of YWAM:

God gives Loren Cunningham the 7 Mountain Strategy
In the book Making Jesus Lord by Loren Cunningham (YWAM, 1988, p. 134), Cunningham wrote:
“Sometimes God does something dramatic to get our attention. That’s what happened to me in 1975. My family and I were enjoying the peace and quiet of a borrowed cabin in the Colorado Rockies. I was stretched out on a lounge chair in the midday warmth, praying and thinking. I was considering how we Christians – not just the mission I was part of, but all of us – could turn the world around for Jesus.
A list came to my mind: categories of society which I believed we should focus on in order to turn nations around to God. I wrote them down, and stuck the paper in my pocket.
The next day, I met with a dear brother, the leader of Campus Crusade For Christ, Dr. Bill Bright. He shared with me something God had given him – several areas to concentrate on to turn the nations back to God! They were the same areas, with different wording here and there, that were written on the page in my pocket. I took it out and showed Bill and we shook our heads in amazement.
Here’s a list (refined and clarified a bit over the years) that God gave me that sunny day in Colorado:

The home

The church

Schools

Government and politics

The media

Arts, entertainment, and sports

Commerce, science, and technology

“These seven spheres of influence will help us shape societies for Christ.”


How did Isidore of Seville become the patron saint of the Internet and computer programmers? According to Wikipedia, Isidore of Seville (not to be confused with Isidore the Laborer) is the patron saint of the Internet and computer programmers.

Unfortunately, the current revision doesn't describe how a 7th Century man became the patron of a 20th Century invention and its related profession. It does mention the existence of the Order of Saint Isidore of Seville, founded January 1, 2000, but it's unclear on if they pushed for this patronage or if it was others.

How did Isidore of Seville gain the distinction of being the patron saint of the Internet and computer programmers?

Pope St. John Paul II declared St. Isidore of Seville the patron saint of the Internet because he tried to catalogue everything that was ever known to man. I remember reading about this in 1997 in the Italian version of the L'Osservatore Romano.

  In 1997 Pope John Paul II declared Isidore of Seville the patron saint of the internet. Saint Isidore died in the year 636, long before the first host-to-host ARPANET connection in 1969. But Isidore did try to record everything ever known in an encyclopedia that was ultimately published after his death.

  From The Telegraph:

    Saint Isidore wrote a 20 book opus Etymologies, also known as the Origins, in which he tried to record everything that was known. Published after his death in 636, it was for a thousand years considered the encyclopedia of all human knowledge.

    Written in simple Latin, it was all a man needed in order to have access to everything he wanted to know about the world but never dared to ask, from the 28 types of common noun to the names of women’s outer garments.

    It was a tool by those seeking wisdom much like the internet is used now.

  Source: The patron saint of the internet is Isidore of Seville, who tried to record everything ever known

The Franciscan Media has this to say about this subject:

  An amazingly learned man, he was sometimes called “The Schoolmaster of the Middle Ages” because the encyclopedia he wrote was used as a textbook for nine centuries. He required seminaries to be built in every diocese, wrote a Rule for religious orders, and founded schools that taught every branch of learning. Isidore wrote numerous books, including a dictionary, an encyclopedia, a history of Goths, and a history of the world—beginning with creation! He completed the Mozarabic liturgy, which is still in use in Toledo, Spain. For all these reasons, Isidore has been suggested as patron of the Internet. Several others—including Anthony of Padua—also have been suggested. - Saint Isidore of Seville

Popes generally do not name patron saints as the faithful often are inspired to have their own local patron saints. How Pope John Paul decided to have St. Isadore as the patron saint of the Internet is unknown. How he became (by what individuals) the patron saint of computer programmers is equally unknown. But it is a logical step after the internet patronage question was made.

  In 1997, Pope John Paul II decided that the internet could use a patron saint to guide Catholics in its proper use. He chose Saint Isidore of Seville (560-636), Doctor of the Church, and last of the Latin Fathers. His twenty-book opus (called Etymologia, after the subject title of one of the books), made him an easy choice. The word “etymology” was Isidore’s own coinage. It means “the study of origins.” Today, the term is limited to the history, or origin, of words. Interestingly enough, three other words that I know of owe their invention to saints: “utopia” and “integrity” to Saint Thomas More and “soliloquy” to Saint Augustine.

  Here is a prayer to Saint Isidore that should be said before logging in on the internet:

  Almighty and eternal God, who created us in Thy image and bade us to seek after all that is good, true and beautiful, especially in the divine person of Thy only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee, that, through the intercession of Saint Isidore, bishop and doctor, during our journeys through the internet we will direct our hands and eyes only to that which is pleasing to Thee and treat with charity and patience all those souls whom we encounter. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

  Source: Patron Saint for the Internet, Isidore of Seville


What is the Catholic concept of "freedom to sin"? This question is inspired by a question posted on ScienceFiction&Fantasy.SE. The central issue (vastly oversimplifying) is whether it's more evil to compel someone to do good than to compel them to do evil.

The comments on my answer brought up the faith of the author of the work under discussion, a Roman Catholic, and the notion of "freedom to sin;" one SFF user posted an anecdote from their Catholic school teachings, saying (emphasis mine):

  I can remember being [taught] (in Catholic school) that intending to steal something when the opportunity arises, is still a sin even if the opportunity doesn't arise. The choice to commit the sin is as bad as committing the sin. Freedom to sin is an important part of Catholicism. Removing that freedom (forcing them to walk the correct path) removes the truth of their redemption (because they did not make the choice). It will demonize the "good path" because it is a thing you are enslaved to, and so one will eventually rebel against it.

Another SFF user1 posted a link to the Summa Theologica in comments, particularly the bit on whether will is the subject of sin, but I'll admit that I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the language.

Doing my own research, I found a bit in the Catechism of the Catholic Church discussing the freedom of choosing between good and evil, which I found easier to read, but I'm still having trouble grasping the finer details.

As a non-Catholic, can anyone explain this concept to me? Helping me to understand the meaning of these (or other) texts would be most helpful, but I'll take any help I can get.

1 Who is also a user here; hi, Matt!

To the extent that an act is compelled by an outside source, the actor is not responsible for it:

  Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1731)

  As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

(Catechism paragraph 1732; emphasis added)

  Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary.

(Catechism paragraph 1734; emphasis added)

And most importantly for our purposes:

  Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.

(Catechism paragraph 1738)

The Church will recognize a distinction between an act which does good (to the receivers of the action) and an act which is good (that is, which allows one to evaluate the actor as a morally good person). Aquinas (Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 21, Article 2) states:

  An action is said to deserve praise or blame, from its being imputed to the agent [that is, from the agent being responsible for it]: since to praise or to blame means nothing else than to impute to someone the malice or goodness of his action. Now an action is imputed to an agent, when it is in his power, so that he has dominion over it: because it is through his will that man has dominion over his actions, as was made clear above. Hence it follows that good or evil, in voluntary actions alone, renders them worthy of praise or blame.

So let's distinguish between what might be called useful actions (those which produce something good) and praiseworthy actions (those which allow us to call the actor "good"). Paragraph 1734 above is saying that one is not morally responsible for acts done involuntarily—acts you're forced into. In that sense, no forced actions are praiseworthy; you can't be a truly good person through being forced into it. (Neither, incidentally, can you be a truly evil person—everything depends on the extent to which you are forced into your actions.)

Thus, in the example you give in the SciFi question, Gandalf is producing "useful" actions—or rather forcing people into doing so—but he is not helping people be good people. And this, the Catechism says, is part of the responsibility of those who govern, at least to the extent that they must allow people to be free to choose to be good people. That's what paragraph 1738 (on the "right to the exercise of freedom") is saying. If Gandalf were to force his subjects to do good (i.e. to do useful things), he would be doing so at the cost of fundamentally injuring their human dignity—a grave sin.

Would this be worse than forcing them to do bad things? Perhaps not; in neither case would it reflect poorly on them, and in both cases it would be a grave sin on the ruler's part. (And forcing them to do bad things would, of course, result in objective evil being done.) But in no case would it ever be an acceptable course of action, or method of rulership.


Is the dignity of man pertains to his soul only or to the wholeness of his being meaning body & soul? The Teaching of Tradition that support the Council of Trent interpretation on death penalty cited the reflections or teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine:

"They will never be beasts, but they can behave like beasts. "And if they behave like beasts, their dignity will suffer loss", while their personhood remains. Therefore we destroy the body, and leave the soul in God's hands, it is an appeal to the Highest Court. There is a difference between the dignity we have being made in God's image and the dignity of our bodies which are NOT made in God's image, and aka Catholic underlines it." – (St. Thomas Aquinas himself and St. Augustine himself quoted from comment of other user)

From above teachings, I found a lot of reflections not yet certain or are open for better understanding like:

They will never be beasts, but they can behave like beasts. (Is an admission of conditional behavior).

"And if they behave like beasts, their dignity will suffer loss,” while their personhood remains. (The words "will suffer loss" again is not certain and will have difficulty to guarantee that a soul really has lost its dignity in the absence of human faculties as we are commanded not to judge in Matthew7:1).

Therefore we destroy the body, and leave the soul in God's hands, it is an appeal to the Highest Court. (The wordings can be clearly seen "as an appeal a prayer only subject to the Wisdom & Providence of God", so they are recognizing that Tradition does not have a Final Say on ending one's life).

But, the most troubling one is the teaching separating the dignity of man soul to the dignity of the his body.

“There is a difference between the dignity we have being made in God's image and the dignity of our bodies which are not made in God's image,"

This particular phrase on Tradition seems emphasizing the physical body is not made in God's image only the soul.
My understanding is the soul animates our body and while it is our soul that will be judge in the end by God,the Church teaches the resurrection of our bodies.So, our judged soul will be reunited to our resurrected bodies.
My question, what is the scriptural basis of the teaching that the dignity of the soul is separate from his body?
I'm looking for Catholic Church Teaching that will expound and put clarity on the issue of the inherent dignity of man (body & soul), which the Council of Trent said "will suffer loss" that is put now to better understanding under Pope Francis "that man's dignity is not lost even after committing a very serious crimes."

This is only speculation, but they may have been drawing their ideas from Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5, when he was addressing the issue of a serious sin among the congregation that was being glossed over:

  1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you,
  and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with
  his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone
  into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been
  doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I
  am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I
  have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one
  who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you
  in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this
  man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit
  may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Apparently there is debate on the precise meaning (or, for that matter, the proper translation) of the Greek that here appears as "destruction of the flesh."  The 2011 NIV supplies these notes on the text:

  a. 1 Corinthians 5:5 In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh
  (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as
  a power in opposition to the Spirit.

  b. 1 Corinthians 5:5 Or of his body

Regardless of that question, in v.5 Paul is clearly drawing a line between "the flesh" and "the spirit" -- and just as plainly declaring that it's "the spirit" which is of paramount importance, so much so that "the flesh" may, and even should, be "destroyed" if need be to save the spirit.  In this regard his priorities were in line with Jesus' words from Matthew 5:

  29 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. 30 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.

Looking to a modern RC commentary on the 1 Corinthians 5 passage, the current interpretation looks to be a command of excommunication merely, and not the inflicting of any kind of physical punishment.  This still makes sense, in that by ejecting this young man from the protection of the church (spiritual as well as physical), he would be exposed to both human and demonic threats.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/5

  Deliver this man to Satan: once the sinner is expelled from the
  church, the sphere of Jesus’ lordship and victory over sin, he will be
  in the region outside over which Satan is still master. For the
  destruction of his flesh: the purpose of the penalty is medicinal:
  through affliction, sin’s grip over him may be destroyed and the path
  to repentance and reunion laid open. With Paul’s instructions for an
  excommunication ceremony here, contrast his recommendations for the
  reconciliation of a sinner in 2 Cor 2:5–11.

But in ancient times, the standards and interpretations may have differed.  It'll need someone with a deeper knowledge of church history and tradition to respond on that point.


According to Catholicism, why do some possessed people vomit during exorcisms? According to Catholicism, why do some people vomit during exorcisms?

The famous, recently deceased exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth frequently mentions in Memoirs of an Exorcist: My Life Fighting Satan that the possessed vomit:

  It doesn’t bother me at all to see people vomit.

  The woman screamed and began to vomit; clumps of brown dirt and saliva came out of her mouth.

  Then the witch began to vomit again, and after a scream she fainted and collapsed on the ground.

  On top of the insults, the possessed vomited and spat at us repeatedly…

  He vomits, and thus begins to liberate himself; he feels lighter, he cries, asks for help, even manages to make the sign of the cross.

  Again the boy vomits; I fuel his vomiting by making him drink holy water.

  …the wife was very ill and vomited up a medal. I was convinced that it was not a matter of possession, but I continued the exorcisms, given the gravity of the situation. Then the wife began vomiting up the strangest things: glass, nails, bandages, metal buckles, little objects like animals. … The almost-constant vomiting came back. … The strangest thing was that pieces of paper began coming out with the vomit, and they fit together like a puzzle. …after spending all day vomiting up food and pieces of paper with ballpoint writing…

  …he struggled to hold it in, but he would vomit. … Since then he’s stopped vomiting objects and falling on the ground.

  …she ground her teeth, tried to vomit, kept her eyes rolled back so you could only see the whites.

  …she vomited strange things like hair and raw beans…

The Devil and all his legions are at war against Our Lord, and all his Angels and Saints.

When The Evil takes possession of someone and they seek the aid an exorcist, the proof of possession must be fully ascertained before he can be given permission from the bishop to perform the exorcism. There are many things that must come into play here: doctors in various fields of medicine, etc...to aid the exorcist. Vomiting is just one of the many signs of possession and at times in great volume.

  According to the Vatican guidelines issued in 1999, “the person who claims to be possessed must be evaluated by doctors to rule out a mental or physical illness.” Most reported cases do not require an exorcism because twentieth-century Catholic officials regard genuine demonic possession as an extremely rare phenomenon that is easily confounded with natural mental disturbances. Many times a person just needs spiritual or medical help, especially if drugs or other addictions are present. After the need of the person has been determined then the appropriate help will be met. In the circumstance of spiritual help, prayers may be offered, or the laying on of hands or a counseling session may be prescribed. The exorcist might not perform an exorcism if he doesn't know the person.

  Signs

  Signs of demonic invasion vary depending on the type of demon and its purpose, including:

  1.Loss or lack of appetite

  2.Cutting, scratching, and biting of skin

  3.A cold feeling in the room

  4.Unnatural bodily postures and change in the person's face and body

  5.The possessed losing control of their normal personality and entering into a frenzy or rage, and/or attacking others

  6.Change in the person's voice

  7.Supernatural physical strength not subject to the person's build or age

  8.Speaking or understanding another language which they had never learned before

  9.Knowledge of things that are distant or hidden

  10.Prediction of future events (sometimes through dreams)

  11.Levitation and moving of objects/things

  12.Expelling of objects/things

  13.Intense hatred and violent reaction toward all religious objects or items

  14.Antipathy towards entering a church, speaking Jesus' name or hearing scripture.

It is not hard to imagine that the Devil tries his upmost to remain hidden, but once he has been discovered through an exorcism he will try his hardest not to be expelled. If he has to spit, vomit or worse at the exorcist he will. I had a priest exorcist tell me more than once: "You can not imagine how many times I have been spit in the face!"

Exorcists are required to be very prudent when asking questions about how a person became possessed:

  15 But necessary questions, are for example; about the number and name of the spirits inhabiting the patient, about the time when they entered into him, the cause thereof, and the like. - De Exorcizandis Obsessis a Daemonio

Fr. Gabiele Amorth in his book An Exorcist Tells His Story (Pages 137 -139) has this to add to questioning the Demon, vomit and liberation:

  Norm number 20 of the Ritual suggests asking the Demon the cause of his presence, particularly whether it is due to something the individual ate or drank. If this is the case, the exorcist must command the person to vomit. If instead the curse is due to some foreign object, the exorcist must ask to be shown where the object is hidden, find it and burn it.


How do molinists justify a world where not everyone freely chooses salvation? Assuming not all humans on earth will become Christians. Many have lived and died that have not. The Bible is clear that many will fall away and perish.

If Molinism is true,

Then either:

  A. There is no possible world or state of being that allows all individuals on earth to freely choose belief in God

Or:

  B. There is some possible world or state of being that would allow all individuals on earth to freely choose belief in God

If A is true, this implies some limit to God’s power, or if not, it seems prima facie false. It's fair to think that there is some possible world where all individuals on earth to freely choose belief in God.

If B is true, then God freely chose not to create a world where all individuals freely choose God, even though he could have. Which seems very unlikely if God is omnibenevolent.

Is there an official molinist response to this?

I am not especially Molinist, by either formal declaration or preference. But, as a 3rd party observer, my quick review of wikipedia indicates to me that both options A and B require underlying assumptions that Molin may not have accepted.

Both seem to assume that everyone choosing belief in God before they die is a good thing.

And they both seem to assume that every individual, if given the choice, would choose to believe in God while they are alive.

A bit in the apparent converse, they also both seem to assume that there is ultimately an option, after death.

"Every knee shall bow," etc., but we are not told that everyone will choose to do the same thing with their ultimate confession of God. In fact, we are told that some will acknowledge God and choose to go their way into some lesser happiness, where the glory of God is seen in reflection, or at a distance, not directly.

At least that's how I understand this version of the question of evil.


What is the significance of Jesus seeing Nathanael under the fig tree? In John 1:46-50, Nathanael is introduced to Jesus for the first time.

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth."
Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
Philip said to him, "Come and see."
When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him, "Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!"
Nathanael asked him, "Where did you get to know me?"
Jesus answered, "I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you."
Nathanael replied, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"
Jesus answered, "Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these."

What is the significance of Jesus seeing Nathanael under the fig tree, that this one short statement would turn Nathanael's skepticism to such reverence?

Apparently Nathanael took it as evidence of some kind of supernatural knowledge on Jesus' part, but his reaction seems to be overblown - Maybe Jesus just happened to be passing by that tree and recognized him from earlier! I think his dramatic response tells us about Nathanael's personality - impulsive perhaps, certainly an all-or-nothing sort of guy. Someone who is very anxious for the Messiah to appear.

Jesus treats his response with a little bit of humor, it seems. My paraphrase: "You believe all that just because I saw you sitting under a tree? Your going to see much better evidence than that!"

Nevertheless, Nathanael's response is correct, and one of the great confessions of faith, parallel to Thomas' later in the book - "my Lord, and my God!" John may be telling us that great confessions like that, coming from two doubters, are evidence that God chooses to work through the people we'd least expect.


From where does the doctrine that there is no time in heaven originate? I'm quite familiar with the fact that God himself is outside of time, this is very easy to  show through scripture.

However it seems to be an increasingly popular conception that there is no time in heaven as well. For example, in this answer about saints.  (Probably not the best example, but readily available.)

I'm quite certain that time works differently there as we have many examples from scripture where future and past events in heaven are participated in. But a lot of people are explaining it in a way that makes man eternal (not just living forever but, existing eternally as God does in every time frame). I have also heard some Mormons say they were always taught man will become eternal too (don't know if this is official, just what I have heard some say).

This seems to me to create a problem with the fact that Satan was supposed to have been cast out of heaven, but by necessity is still in heaven if there is, in fact, no time. Even if we dismiss the depictions in scripture of time passing in heaven as metaphorical, in order to help us understand certain things.

How widespread is this doctrine and where did it originate? Does any whole tradition hold this view, or is it simply a failure of individuals to communicate their meaning?

It depends what you mean by time. From our faith, as revealed in Scripture, we know that our experience of the heavenly state is to be without end, and without decay or corruption. However, it does not necessarily follow that there will be no perceptible succession of events. In general, orthodox theology has assumed that we will not assume God's own unique attributes - we will not become omnipotent, for example - and so we will not end up  "outside time" in the fullest sense, as this is directly and innately part of the God-nature. (I suspect that some of this insistence is in opposition to gnostic/Neoplatonist ideas.) I'm not aware of any sect that holds dogmatically that we will become atemporal, though perhaps some people believe it, or leave it open as an option.
In theology, much of the speculation has historically been guided by the philosophy of Aristotle. In On the heavens 1.9 he writes (my annotations in square brackets):

It is therefore evident that there is also no place or void or time outside the heaven [= beyond the boundary of the universe]. For in every place body can be present; and void is said to be that in which the presence of body, though not actual, is possible; and time is the number of movement. But in the absence of natural body there is no movement, and outside the heaven, as we have shown, body neither exists nor can come to exist. It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there [= the Prime Mover], is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self-sufficient of lives. 1

This passage indicates that time as such is particular to our world; whatever is outside the world is beyond time. Similarly, Physics 4.12 speaks of a category of eternal things which are not contained in time, measurable by time, or affected by the passage of time.
From a Christian perspective, it is natural to say that God himself ought to be covered by this concept (and while this articulation of the idea is from Greek philosophy, it's not totally un-Biblical). Can other things - heaven, angels, human souls - be considered atemporal as well? If we try to jam Aristotle and the Bible together, we might well think that souls in heaven are outside of time, because they're no longer in the world.
But in general, theologians have been reluctant to say this. Truly being outside of time is reserved for God alone, as an essential part of his nature. Other things may, through the grace of God, be made perpetual or incorruptible or immutable.
Scholastics, who were the first to tackle the topic systematically, came up with various elaborate categories; the most important here is the aevum or aeviternal, which is the kind of relationship to time that the angels have. They are creatures of time insofar as they experience a succession of events, but they do not decay, or age, or change in any essential way. Moreover, God's knowledge of the future was held to be direct, because in a sense he's already there, whereas angels may only make inferences about the future (see Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.57.3). They are everlasting but not atemporal.
In some writers, the aevum is distinguished from the true eternal in that aeviternal things could be destroyed by God, whereas he himself is immutably immutable. Some sources also note that when the heavens and earth have passed away, there would no longer be an objective way of measuring time, and so the duration of events would be up to our perception alone. This points to a certain "timelessness" of experience, even though there is still a succession of cause and effect.
An influential patristic text is in Augustine's Confessions 11.9,

For, doubtless, that heaven of heavens, which Thou in the Beginning created, is some intellectual creature, which, although in no wise co-eternal unto You, the Trinity, is yet a partaker of Your eternity, and by reason of the sweetness of that most happy contemplation of Yourself, does greatly restrain its own mutability, and without any failure, from the time in which it was created, in clinging unto You, surpasses all the rolling change of times.
nimirum enim caelum caeli, quod in principio fecisti, creatura est aliqua intellectualis, quamquam nequaquam tibi, trinitati, coaeterna, particeps tamen aeternitatis tuae, valde mutabilitatem suam prae dulcedine felicissimae contemplationis tuae cohibet, et sine ullo lapsu, ex quo facta est, inhaerendo tibi, excedit omnem volubilem vicissitudinem temporum.

and another is Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy 5 Pr. 6,

We may say that God indeed is eternal, but the world truly is perpetual.
deum quidem aeternum, mundum vero dicamus esse perpetuum

The exact definition and nature of the aevum was disputed, but the standard account is that of Albertus Magnus in his Summa de Creaturis; the first part, De quattuor coaequaevis, covers the different sorts of time, but the whole text is really one piece. His pupil Thomas Aquinas also mentions the aevum in Summa Theologica 1.10.5-6. For more than you ever wanted to know: The medieval concept of time, ed. Pasquale Porro, BRILL 2001.
1. Translation by  J. L. Stocks, 1922.


Why have a photo of the bishop in the sacristy? In many (most? all?) Catholic sacristies, there is a photograph of the diocesan bishop, and often one of the Pope.

Why?

(Authoritative sources preferred to anecdote.)

Because from the earliest times, bishops have been seen as the fulcrum of the local Christian community: the priests being their fellow workers; and the deacons their servants. Apostolic succession also comes through the bishops who alone can ordain new bishops and priests.
For example, St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in A.D. 107, writes in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans (Chapter 8):

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

So while there is no explicit or authoritative documentation on the custom, this is almost certainly the reason sacristies have a photo of the local bishop: showing the centrality of the local bishop, and the authority and jurisdiction which comes from him, to and via the priesthood, to the faithful.
In the Roman Rite we also have the acknowledgement of the local bishop in the Canon (a for all intents and purposes unchanged part of the perennial Roman Rite of Mass):

...
To you, therefore, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, which we offer you firstly for your holy catholic Church. Be pleased to grant her peace,  to guard, unite and govern her throughout the whole world, together with your servant N. our pope and N. our bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth,
hand on the catholic and apostolic faith. Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N. and all gathered here, whose faith and devotion are known to you. For them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise—or they themselves offer it—and all who are dear to them: for the redemption of their souls, in hope of health and well-being, and paying their homage to you, the eternal God, living and true. In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-virgin Mary, mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ,† and blessed Joseph, her spouse, your blessed apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, (James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude; Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian) and all your saints; we ask that through their merits and prayers, in all things we may be defended by your protecting help. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. ...

The bishop (as well as the pope) serve to symbolize—as well as realize and maintain—unity and catholicity in the communities that make up the one body of the Catholic Church.


What verses in the Bible indicate that Apostles expected Christ to come back very soon? I heard somewhere that it is possible that the 12 Apostles, right after Christ's ascension, believed that His return would happen very soon, that is, even during their lifetime. What evidence do we have in the Bible that might indicate that kind of thinking on the part of the Apostles?

I've looked up the Wikipedia article on Second Coming, but it only quotes the words spoken by Jesus Himself about His second coming to happen soon.

As for the Apostles, it only quotes these words by John:

  "Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that Antichrist
  is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know
  that it is the last hour" (1st John 2:18)

What other verses in the Bible may indicate that the Apostles expected the Lord to be back very soon?

As was noted, I don't think there are many. Rev 1:1 comes to mind and "shortly."
Another one might be,

  1 Cor 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
  30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
  31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

The problem is whether these things are to be understood spiritually as did the early church fathers, or as earthly historical events, which is the preference of many modern scholars. To see how the church fathers handled terms like "this generation" (Mat 24:34, Mark 13:30-31, Luke 21:32-33) check the Catena Aurea.

Catena Aurea


What is the biblical basis for it being acceptable to bring doubts to God? What is the biblical basis for the idea that it's okay to bring any doubts to God in prayer?

Yes, this is acceptable. It is not only in prayers and not only in the Old Testament but in the New Testament too.

It is important to see that Jesus himself endorses a critical stance.

Thomas the Apostle speaks (John, 20, 25):

  "I won't believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.

Jesus endorses this attitude and bothers to get back to Thomas to give him proof (John, 20, 27):

  Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!

And finally (John, 20, 29):

  Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me.

So the Bible makes it very clear that Jesus wants us to not just be gullible but to demand proof. Neither of the Apostles was prepared to believe without a proof and Jesus respected that and had this very story been incorporated into the Bible for us.


Are the Ten Commandments a perfect summary of all the commandments found in the Bible? Many Christians claim that Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) are special because they summarize the "moral law" of God. However, in the Old Testament we find about 613 commandments, and similarly in the New Testament there are about 1050 commandments. Thus, there are about 1663 commandments in the whole Bible, which makes me seriously doubt that the 10 commandments can successfully capture and summarize all what the Bible has to say about morality.
Is it true that the Ten Commandments are a perfect summary of all the commandments found in both the Old and New Testaments?

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself'.
On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
— Matthew 22

That was a two-part summary of the Ten Commandments (which are actually 10 freedoms for those that follow them):
The first four about loving God:

Paganism — Free of fear other gods.
Idolatry — Free of fear of any physical object.
Blasphemy — Free of fear that God will ignore you.
Disrespect — Free of mundane labour.

And the last six about loving man:

Dishonour — Free of fear of dishonouring one's family.
Murder — Free of mental poisons such as hatred and vengeance.
Adultery — Free of fear of temptation to be unfaithful.
Theft — Free of desire for what is not rightfully yours.
Perjury — Free of desire to use words to hurt others.
Extortion — Free of resentment of others for what they have.

Many commandments were for specific purposes, such as defining the infrastructure for running the country or organizing the religious hierarchy.
But all the other general commandments tend to fit into one of these ten categories.
Even the rules for how to have a healthy lifestyle could be considered as part of the commandment against (self-)murder.

Under the old covenant, the laws were considered in a strictly physical, letter-of-the-law manner.
Thoughts are not significant, it is one's actions that count.
(e.g. homosexual desire is not condemned (even today in modern Judaism); but acting on that desire is.)
Under the new covenant, the laws take on a spiritual meaning.
Physical actions are still significant, but so is mental attitude.
It's not only physically killing someone that is a sin, it is also simply hating them.
It's not only physical adultery that is a sin, it is also simply lusting in one's mind.


Can we pray from any position? I enjoy praying lying in bed just before I sleep ... until I fall asleep. In church I usually pray with my hands simply by my side or even with my hands in my pockets. I just let them stay wherever they are.

However I have seen that many people change positions before they pray, often clasping their hands together or opening them towards something.

Is there anything particularly wrong with praying lying in bed or with your hands in your pockets? Is there any particular reason one must change positions to begin praying?

No, you don't have to put you hands together.  People usually put their hands together either as a sign of reverence or to help focus and get into a correct spiritual posture fir prayer or both.

You can pray in just about any manner you see fit, though.  I'll often pray while driving (with my eyes open).  I often see people praying with their hands raised.  You can even lay flat on the floor with your hands spread out.

I think its import that you take a position that makes you comfortable, shows reverence to the Lord, and postures your heart to communicate with God.


Why can the Catholic Church declare one person a saint but has never declared another damned? The Catholic Church has a process to canonize someone, to declare that they are a saint, that they are

  truly in heaven and worthy of public veneration and imitation.

(Cf.  Canonization - United States Catholic Catechism for Adults).

If the Church can declare that someone is "truly in heaven", why do they not also have authority to declare that someone else is likewise damned and truly in hell?

That is because Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven and earth (Matthew 16:19). Not keys to hell. In other words, Peter (and his successors) can bind and loose on earth and heaven (Matthew 18:18) not in hell. They do not have authority on beings outside of the church. And people in hell are outside of the Church.

P.S: Christ alone has the keys to hell (Revelation 1:18)

PPS: One can never be certain that another is for ever damned since there is always a chance for someone to be converted, even at the last moment of their lives. This is a matter between God and the dying person.


Is every sinful behavior a sin? In particular, is it sin when someone:

does something sinful, but he is not aware of the sinfulness
does something sinful, someone told him it is sinful, but he still doesn't feel it as sin
does something not sinful, but he feels it as sin

?

What is the relationship between sinful behavior and sin?

Nowhere in the Bible is something sinful not sinful because of how someone feels. There may be things that are not innately sinful, that may be sinful in certain situations (Ecclesiastes 3).
In your questions, specifically when someone:
does something sinful, but he is not aware of the sinfulness

For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the
truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins, but a fearful
prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the
adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without
mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse
punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned
the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was
sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who has
said, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' And again, 'The Lord will
judge his people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the
living God. (Hebrews 10:26-31)

Note the verse that says "there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins". This verse points out that those who sin when they know they are sinning, will receive a "fearful prospect of judgement". This implies that sinning when you are not aware of your sin carries a lesser penalty (although still, all sins are enough to send a man to hell). See this article.
does something sinful, someone told him it is sinful, but he still doesn't feel it as sin
You seem to be presenting two different possibilities here:

He does something sinful, but he doesn't feel it is sin - If he is doing "something sinful", that is, something specifically called out in Scripture as sin, it doesn't matter how he feels on the issue. Indeed, the rejection of that action being sin is another sin, a rebellion against God.

He does something that someone else has told him is sinful, but he doesn't feel it is sin - "Be a Berean" and search the Bible for backing to that action being sin. If none exists, or can be reasonably inferred, and you are not convicted that that action is sin, they you're probably fine. If there is backing in Scripture, then this falls back under (1) and is of itself sin.

does something not sinful, but he feels it as sin

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)
But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)

See this article, but it seems to be yes. If you truly believe something is sin, even if it is not specifically presented as such in Scripture, and you sot what you believe is wrong, then you are sinning.
Overall, the relationship between sinful behavior and sin is this: sin is the doing of anything that God prohibits, the failing to do something he commands, or the disobeying of your own convictions about sin, while sinful behavior is the engaging of the act of sin, but may be the engaging in an act that is not inherently sinful, but is for that particular situation.


Does Deuteronomy 17:18 prevent bible translation copyright Many modern bible translations are published with copyright claims. However published in the work is not only permission but a command to make a copy. This can be found in.

Deuteronomy 17:18

  And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that
  he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is
  before the priests the Levites:

You might argue that this only applies to Kings. However Revelation 5:10 makes us all kings:

  And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on
  the earth.

It seems to me that if the translators wanted to copyright their translations they would have to leave Deuteronomy 17:18 out. However they all include it and it appears at least on face value to superseded their copyright notice.

Is this a valid legal argument? Has this has ever been tested in a court of law? And if so what was the outcome?

It's an invalid legal argument and would fail if tested.

Copyright subsists in the arrangement of the words themselves within the literary work. The licence to copy is separate from the literary work.

Quite apart from copyright law, Dt 17:18 needs to read in context.

  17 14 "When you come to the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me'; 15 you may indeed set as king over you him whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.' 17 And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply for himself silver and gold. 18 "And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, from that which is in the charge of the Levitical priests..."

Note verse 15: "One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you." Even if that verse could be adduced to licence making copies, it would only apply to the king elected to rule over the people. It couldn't apply to everyone who was made a king by virtue of Revelation 5:10.


Do Mormons believe that marriage is eternal? Do Mormons believe that marriage is eternal?

Not automatically, but Latter-Day Saints do believe that marriage, and the family unit that it forms the foundation of, can and should be a sacred, eternal covenant that lasts "for time and all eternity" rather than simply "till death do you part."  Like other things of this life that touch on eternity, an eternal marriage has to be set up under Priesthood authority.  This is done in a holy temple, in a ceremony known as a sealing, where the marriage is "sealed" upon them under the same authority that was given to Peter in the New Testament, that what he should bind on earth would be bound in heaven.

This can be done as part of a wedding ceremony, or at a later point if the couple was already married before coming to the temple.  In the latter case, it is also possible to bring any children of theirs into the same covenant, to be sealed to their parents as an eternal family.  (This is not necessary for children born after the parents are sealed in marriage; they are considered "born under the covenant".)

See LDS article on Marriage


Is there a standard version of the Bible? Is there a standard version of the Bible, compared to which, all other versions would be considered either translations or paraphrases? If yes, when was the standardization done? And how common is it to study that Bible? And is it accepted across different denominations of Christianity?

The standard resides in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  While there are, admittedly, small variances in the Greek manuscripts (New Testament) in particular, these variances are completely insignificant, consisting mostly of spelling variances for proper names, word order, and very slight verb tense differences, which happen to translate the same into English anyway.

Most advanced students of the Bible will learn Greek at least and oftentimes Hebrew as well and reference the original languages.  My pastor translates each passage from scratch whenever he preaches on a New Testament text.


Could a Christian remain in the sect of the Pharisees? Acts 15:5 reads:

  But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed
  stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to
  order them to observe the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5 NET)

This verse does not explicitly state that these Pharisees left or were expelled from the sect upon converting to Christianity.

Are there any historical documents that discuss what would have happened to a member of the Pharisees upon conversion to Christianity?

What biblical evidence there is, suggests that there may have been a small window in history (~30-35 years) when this was indeed possible.  As well as the verse you've already cited, the Apostle Paul appears not to have been formally excluded from the sect prior to his appearance before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem detailed in Acts 23 (~57AD). This is seen by virtue of the fact that his appeal to his fellow Pharisees was not dismissed out of hand, but divided the council:

6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)
9 There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. “We find nothing wrong with this man,” they said. “What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?”

If we look beyond scripture to the writings of Hegesippus (as relayed by Eusebius), it seems likely that this window closed about the time of the death of James the Just in about 62AD (source).


Who are the two witnesses in the book of Revelation? I have read tidbits about the two witnesses in the book of revelation. What I don't know is whether or not these are Angels, or Humans and what their purpose is.

I believe that they are literal men. With that in mind, there are two different schools of thought that I have come across on whom these men could be:

These are just two "normal" men who have been called out (like the 144,000 witnesses in Rev. 7:1-9) to perform signs to the unbelievers during the Tribulation.
These are two men that have lived before on earth, and are sent back by God for this special mission. The three most often mentioned are:

Elijah - A great and powerful prophet from the Kingdom period of Israel. He called down fire from Heaven, as do these two witnesses (cf. 2 Kings 1:10, Rev. 11:5). There was a great drought during part of his ministry, similar to the two witnesses in Revelation (cf. 1 Kings 17:1, Rev.11:6). He also appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Moses (Mat. 17:1-9), after which Christ stated that he would come back to the earth before the end (Mat.17:11). Last, he was taken up to heaven without dying (2 Kings 2:11); some believe this was so he could come back to earth in the last days.
Moses - Also a great prophet who did many miracles. Against the Egyptians he caused water to turn to blood, along with many other plagues, similar to the two witnesses in Revelation (cf. Ex. 7:20, Rev.11:6). Also, apparently God sent Michael the Archangel to take Moses' body after he died, possibly to preserve it for this future mission (Jude 9). He also appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Elijah.
Enoch - A mysterious prophet that we know very little about. Enoch, like Elijah, never died (Ge. 5:24), this being taken by some to indicate that he and Elijah will someday return.

Summary: We don't know who they are, but they could be two future prophets, or two prophets from the past God has sent back.


Why does the Eastern Orthodox church forbid blind men from becoming priests? An Eastern Orthodox man told me that, because he was blind, canon law forbid him from serving as a priest. He was quite okay with this (and served his church in other capacities), but unfortunately didn't have the time to elaborate on the rationale for why Eastern Orthodoxy had this restriction.

Why does the Eastern Orthodox Church forbid blind men from serving as priests? And does this restriction apply to men with other disabilities (e.g. deafness)?

I asked on the OCA website (Orthodox Church In America)

I was happy to receive an answer within a few minutes.

Below is the response

  The complete lack of sight would be an impediment to ordination as one who serves as a priest, both liturgically and practically, must be able to see what he is doing, and especially be in a position to read from Scripture publicly as well as the prayers in the service books.  Some forms of blindness -- the type where people can see poorly but with corrective lenses can, even though perhaps considered legally blind in some places -- might not be an impediment, but such matters are evaluated individually by ordaining bishops.


Where within Biblical Scripture does it mention anything similar to the official Catholic and/or Orthodox church's hierarchy of church officials? Where within biblical Scripture does it mention anything similar to the official Catholic and/or Orthodox church's hierarchy of church officials?

Catholic and/or Orthodox church's may point to (2 Tim. 2:2)"[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

However, (2 Tim. 2:2) could be interpreted as simply pastors/preachers passing on teachings to other pastors/preachers.

(Just thinking out loud, even though Biblical Scripture might Not mention anything similar to the official Catholic and/or Orthodox church's hierarchy of church officials, Biblical Scripture does Not condemn/contradict the official Catholic and/or Orthodox church's hierarchy of church officials.)
Please comment so that there is more clarification on this said topic.

I won't be able to give a complete answer as I'm not that familiar with the Catholic and Orthodox church structure, but Biblical church structure is something I've been looking into recently so here is what I've found out.

The Pope I believe the argument for having one man overseeing the entire church comes from Jesus statement to Peter in Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church ... " (ESV). Since Peter means rock or stone, Jesus' statement is taken to mean that Peter was the foundation of the church and would lead it. He was the first Pope.

The argument against this is that the rock/foundation Jesus was referring to was not Peter himself, but Peter's statement that Jesus was the Messiah in verse 16.

The Cardinals Or any small group of men appointed to oversee the church originates from the concept of the 12 Apostles. I would reference Acts 1:12-26 where the remaining 11 Apostles found it necessary to choose a man "...to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." Also, Acts 15 where "The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter [of circumcision]." It would seem biblical that a small select group of Church officials meet together to decide how to apply doctrine to life.

Bishops These are comparable to the Elders/Overseers in the Bible. The key passages detailing what an Elder should be like are 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Focusing more on church structure, Acts 14:23 indicates that it was important (maybe even necessary) to Paul and Barnabas to appoint Elders in the churches where they went.

Priests Here, we get to the references about Deacons in the Bible. The Greek word simply means 'servant', but considering the stipulations in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and the selection of 7 men with the laying on of hands in Acts 6:1-7, we can assume that they were appointed to serve in a role that differentiated them somehow from other Christians, though all Christians should be serving.

And so, in the New Testament, we begin to see a structure of Authority loosely take shape. Apostles appointing another Apostle to replace Judas. Apostles sending Paul and Barnabas to plant churches. Paul and Barnabas appointing Elders. Elders (Timothy) encouraged to appoint other Elders and Deacons. Etc. The Catholic and Orthodox church structures use different titles for the different positions of authority, but they have quite a few similarities to the structure seen emerging in the early church.

Lastly, if we take a look back at the Old Testament, we see an example where Moses arranges an authoritarian structure simply to help facilitate the proper workings of a community. In Exodus 18:13-27 Moses heeds the advice of his father-in-law and appoints men "out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. And they judged the people at all times." This is an indication (not a proof) that even authoritarian structure that is arranged by man is Biblical and "endorsed" by God (supported by Romans 13:1-7, Hebrews 13:17). I won't expand more on that thought here as it goes beyond the scope of the question, but my point is that regardless of the specifics of these church structures, Authoritarian Structure in itself and as a concept is Biblical.

Hope that helps to answer your question. I'm no scholar and I've never been to Seminary, but I guess like C.S.Lewis, even a lay-person can do their own study and pass on what they've learned. I'd love to hear what other people have to say on the topic. Good question.