Can Catholic works of ‘satisfaction’ (prayer, fasting, etc.) for the removal of temporal punishments of venial sin be credited to others still alive? Here is what I think I understand:

A Catholic believes in something called penance that is understood as a sacrament by which forgiveness of sins (committed after baptism) is granted through the priest's ‘absolution’ to those with:

a) ‘true sorrow
b) confess their sins and
c) promise to satisfy for the confessed sin

The satisfactions are basically works necessary to ensure the temporal punishments due to sin are ‘satisfied’. The idea is that although the ‘absolution’ remits both the guilt and the eternal punishment of mortal sins, some indebtedness to justice that demands temporal punishment can be cancelled through the ‘satisfaction’ (or later on in purgatory).

On the subject of purgatory one mans work with intrinsic satisfactory qualities may actually be transferred to another in order to remove some (or all?) of the punishments of those believers in purgatory. Those in purgatory are those who did not make satisfaction for their own menial sins before dying – thus having to be in purgatory.

  Owing to the peculiar relation between and material identity of merit and satisfaction in the present economy of salvation, a twofold value must in general be distinguished in every good work: the meritorious and the satisfactory value. But each preserves its distinctive character, theoretically by the difference in concepts, and practically in this, that the value of merit as such, consisting in the increase of grace and of heavenly glory, is purely personal and is not applicable to others, while the satisfactory value may be detached from the meriting agent and applied to others. The possibility of this transfer rests on the fact that the residual punishments for sin are in the nature of a debt, which may be legitimately paid to the creditor and thereby cancelled not only by the debtor himself but also by a friend of the debtor. This consideration is important for the proper understanding of the usefulness of suffrages for the souls in purgatory (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, Decret. de purgat., in Denzinger, n. 983). (Catholic Encyclopedia – Merit)

Here is my question:

'I understand that a Catholic through meritorious works that have satisfactory power in them, can transfer those satisfactions as a kind of spiritual wealth to those in purgatory. However, can these ‘credits’ if I may use the word, be sent to others who are still alive as well?'

More specifically: 'If I was Catholic and a dear relative I know commits venial sins and needs to do some satisfaction to avoid temporal punishment, can I do good meritorious/satisfactory works for them and thereby remove their temporal punishments for them? Or is the transfer of satisfaction only for those believers who are suffering temporal punishments in purgatory?

The Catechism says:

"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin." The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.
CCC 1471

and I think that answers it.  Every time you bless yourself with holy water, you have a partial indulgence.  A plenary indulgence also requires complete detachment from sin, which in my opinion seems very difficult. Those indulgences can go towards your own sorry life or someone else who is dead, even if they're in Heaven those prayers won't be wasted as prayers are never wasted.
Unless of course you're praying that your delinquent nephew won't be given a just punishment for skinning cats.  In this case you'd want to pray that God gives your nephew the actual grace that you would be given for a meritorious act.  This is what your Catholic mother calls "offering it up".

Also, I'd slightly modify the first sentence if it wouldn't subvert the question.

Catholics believe in something called Reconciliation

and

c) promise to do penance

I was surprised about the use of the term satisfaction here in the Catholic encyclopedia.  It's in the Catechism quite a bit too but I've never seen it defined in my Catechetical instructional materials when covering the Sacrament of Reconciliation.


Do Mormons/LDS believe that the Bible in any way predicts the coming of Joseph Smith? The LDS/Mormon Church, as I understand it, believes that Joseph Smith, Jr. is a prophet of God who restored the true gospel, which had been lost over the centuries.  This, if true, would have been an extremely monumental event.

Are there any biblical prophecies (in the Old or New Testaments) that the LDS church points to as predictions of the coming of Joseph Smith and his work?

Much of my answer is similar to the answer to the question, "Is there any Biblical basis for believing in the Book of Mormon?" and many of the passages will overlap.

The Joseph Smith Translation, a revision of the KJV, contains a clear prophecy about Joseph Smith, and even refers to him by name. This prophecy is found however in an addition to Genesis 50, for which there is no textual support in either the Hebrew text or the Septuagint (nor is it found in any other English translation of Genesis.) While Mormon believers may use these verses, non-LDS Christians will deny their authenticity.

  And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation. (Genesis 50:33)

There's also significant detail in Isaiah which the LDS believe were fulfilled in the events related to Joseph Smith. It begins about the Great Apostasy, which is the long period of time between Christ and the Restoration during which the fulness of the gospel was not on the earth. The rest of the passage's fulfillment is found in JS-H 1:11-26,63-65.

Isaiah 29:10-18

  10 For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.

  11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book
  that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read
  this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

  12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read
  this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

  13 ¶Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me
  with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed
  their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the
  precept of men:

  14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among
  this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of
  their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent
  men shall be hid.

  15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord,
  and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who
  knoweth us?

  16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the
  potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me
  not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no
  understanding?

  17 Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned
  into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a
  forest?

  18 ¶And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and
  the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

Then there's Ephesians, which mentions this period of time:

Ephesians 1:10

  10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather
  together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and
  which are on earth; even in him:

The LDS believe this is the dispensation of the fulness of times, or the time when the gospel is "dispensed" in its fulness, in that all things are restored to the Earth in preparation for the second coming of the Messiah. This verse also references the gathering of the house of Israel, which in our day, is more plainly called missionary work.

Acts 3:21 also mentions the "restitution" or restoration of all things:

  21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Evidently, "all His holy prophets" taught about the restitution of all things. And apparently, we have lost some of their writings, since in the Bible we have today, not all the prophets specifically mention this thing.


Praise and Worship, what is the difference? What does "praise" look like?  How does it differ from "worship"?

We are urged/called to/commanded to praise God (psalms 146:1 and others), but what is it and what does it look like?

Romans 12:1-2 states: I appeal to you therefore, brothers,by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.(ESV)

I expect this question will be soon closed as primarily opinion based, but let's sneak in an answer.

Merriam-Webster defines "praise" as:

  1) to express a favorable judgment of

  2) to glorify (a god or saint) especially by the attribution of
  perfections

I like to think of praise in terms of a word I like to think is related: raise

  1) to cause or help to rise to a standing position

Because it makes perfect sense to me what Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1 Cor 4:5)

  Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both
  will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make
  manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have
  praise of God.

When we praise God, we lift up His importance in our lives.  It's no suprise that He will do the same for us.

Praise is often a spoken thing.  For example, praise is often given in song.  Hebrews 2:12

  Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the
  church will I sing praise unto thee.

Paul and Silas both sang and praised (Acts 16:25) leading us to believe praise occurs in prayer.  It's disappointing that the only verse that easily makes this connection is from LDS Scripture.  From D&C 136:28 we read:

  If thou art merry, praise the Lord with singing, with music, with
  dancing, and with a prayer of praise and thanksgiving.

See also Psalm 72:15.

The two definitions of worship that are relevant to us are:

  2) reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also :  an
  act of expressing such reverence

  3) a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual

Worship is a much more complex word.  It involves more than simply speaking.  Also, where praise is the act of lifting another up, worship is the act of lowering oneself in humility before another.  (Rev 19:4):

  And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and
  worshipped God....

Worship always involves praise, though praise doesn't always involve worship.  Matthew 14:13.

  Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a
  truth thou art the Son of God.

Not surprisingly, we can be the recipients of this kind of worship (fundamentally, praise) in regard to other people.  Luke 14:10.

  But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that
  when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up
  higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit
  at meat with thee.

Worship describes the act of helping others understand, follow, and worship.  This is reflected in a chastisement given by the Lord (Matt 15:9):

  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the
  commandments of men.

And it describes service to the being we worship.  Matthew 4:10.

  Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,
  Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Therefore, praise is something we (usually) say to raise another above ourselves and worship is something we (usually) do to humble (lower) ourselves before another.

An example: from our point of view, if two of us are standing on a stair, one praising the other would encourage the other to stand on the next higher stair.  One worshipping another would willingly and selflessly step down one stair so the other would be a step higher.


How did the cross come to be a symbol for Christianity? I understand WHY the cross became a symbol for Christianity, but HOW did it become a symbol?  How did it start and how did it evolve into the symbol (or symbols since there are many variants) we all know today?

The first chapter of John Stott's The Cross of Christ provides a history of the development of the use of the symbol of the cross in Christianity.  I'll briefly summarize it here.
Pre-cross images
The earliest images used by Christians did not include the cross. Persecution required that they be circumspect, which meant that an image clearly associated with both Christ and execution could not be preferred.  Thus, the earliest images included peacocks, doves, and particularly fish.  The greek word for fish, ichthys, served as an ancronym for Iesus Christos Theos Huios Soter ("Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour"), which drew less attention from the uninitiated.
Second-century images included biblical scenes like Noah's ark, Abraham killing the ram, and the raising of Lazarus.  These had a closer relationship to the redemption of Christ, but were still not obvious enough for the public at large to understand the reference.
Choosing the cross
Christians had a variety of emblems to choose from, such as the manger where Jesus was born, or the boat from which he taught, or the stone that rolled away from his grave.  But, says Stott, Christians wanted to:

commemorate as central to their understanding of Jesus neither his birth nor his youth, neither his teaching nor his service, neither his resurrection nor his reign, nor his gift of the Spirit, but his death, his crucifixion.

The cross image at this time was not a crucifix, that is, a cross with Jesus' body on it; such images apparently arrive in the sixth century. (for more on this, see When did the split in crufix/empty-cross symbolism occur?)
Early use of the cross
Stott argues that the cross was in use by the 2nd century.  He interprets Tertullian's  AD 200 writing, "we trace upon the forehead the sign," as being the sign of the cross (De Corona, chapter 3).  He also presents the writing of Hippolytus (The Apostolic Tradition, AD 215):

He mentions that the sign of the cross was used by the bishop when anointing the candidate's forehead at Confirmation [...] [i]t is also, he adds, a protection against evil.

Hippolytus, says Stott, was a conservative who would not have been describing rites and customs unless they were "already long-established," perhaps a generation or more.
Additional evidence from the early church comes from Cyprian, in the middle of the third century, who also appears to make reference to the symbol of the cross in his work De Lapsis.
Constantine
Constantine famously propelled the use of the cross as a symbol when he reportedly saw a vision at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.  The vision showed a cross and the words, "Conquer by this sign."  The subsequent victory inspired Constantine's conversion, and he began using the cross on the standards of his army.  The cross thus became widely known across the Roman Empire as the symbol of Christianity.


To what extent do Mormons believe that miraculous healing happens in our days? Gospel accounts about Jesus' life make it seem like he miraculously healed large amounts of people during the time he was here on earth. For example, Matthew 4:23,24 (KJV) says this:

  And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and
  preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of
  sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

  And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all
  sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and
  those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick,
  and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

Reading above passage it seems like Jesus' miracles provided a form of advertising about him, since verse 24 speaks of his "fame" that led people with all kinds of illnesses to be brought to him.

There are at least some Christian denominations that believe that God also heals people during our times, but if this was actually the case, we probably wouldn't have such an overburdened health care system.

I mean no doubt most people would probably rather announce having faith in Jesus than pay expensive fees for medical treatment. Even though above passage actually makes it look like Jesus also healed people who were not really worshipers of God, such as those that were "possessed with devils".

Anyway, since we don't see any Christian denominations reducing the backlogs in our hospitals nowadays, I wanted to ask about the extent to which different denominations believe in miraculous physical healing happening in our time.

For example, I saw that the seventh Article of Faith published at lds.org says:

  We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions,
  healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

(emphasis added)

Do Mormons believe that people are physically healed in our times or that this refers to spiritual healing, or to something that is expected to happen in the future?

Yes, Mormons believe in gifts and miracles of both spiritual and physical healing in these days.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave a talk in 2010 called Healing the Sick. The whole talk is relevant to your question but here's a snippet (not sorry for making it essentially my whole answer):

  Latter-day Saints believe in applying the best available scientific knowledge and techniques. We use nutrition, exercise, and other practices to preserve health, and we enlist the help of healing practitioners, such as physicians and surgeons, to restore health.

  The use of medical science is not at odds with our prayers of faith and our reliance on priesthood blessings. When a person requested a priesthood blessing, Brigham Young would ask, “Have you used any remedies?” To those who said no because “we wish the Elders to lay hands upon us, and we have faith that we shall be healed,” President Young replied: “That is very inconsistent according to my faith. If we are sick, and ask the Lord to heal us, and to do all for us that is necessary to be done, according to my understanding of the Gospel of salvation, I might as well ask the Lord to cause my wheat and corn to grow, without my plowing the ground and casting in the seed. It appears consistent to me to apply every remedy that comes within the range of my knowledge, and [then] to ask my Father in Heaven … to sanctify that application to the healing of my body.”

  Of course we don’t wait until all other methods are exhausted before we pray in faith or give priesthood blessings for healing. In emergencies, prayers and blessings come first. Most often we pursue all efforts simultaneously. This follows the scriptural teachings that we should “pray always” (D&C 90:24) and that all things should be done in wisdom and order.

  ...

  Truly, as the Book of Mormon teaches, God “manifesteth himself unto all those who believe in him, by the power of the Holy Ghost; yea, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, working mighty miracles … among the children of men according to their faith” (2 Nephi 26:13).

  ...

  Many scriptures teach that the servants of the Lord “shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover” (Mark 16:18). Miracles happen when the authority of the priesthood is used to bless the sick. I have experienced these miracles. As a boy and as a man I have seen healings as miraculous as any recorded in the scriptures, and so have many of you.

You might say that the LDS believe in modern medicine as a miracle in and of itself. Elder Russell M. Nelson, another member of the Twelve, is a world-renowned heart surgeon who developed several new techniques for saving lives. But, as he has stated in his own talks on the matter, not without faith and prayers and fasting.

The Book of Mormon says, in Moroni 7:27,29,35-36:

  27 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased because Christ hath ascended into heaven, and hath sat down on the right hand of God, to claim of the Father his rights of mercy which he hath upon the children of men?

  29 And because he hath done this, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither have angels ceased to minister unto the children of men.

  35 And now, my beloved brethren, if this be the case that these things are true which I have spoken unto you, and God will show unto you, with power and great glory at the last day, that they are true, and if they are true has the day of miracles ceased?

  36 Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved?

  37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.


Why did the Council of Laodicea condemn "Judaizing" Sabbath rest? The Council of Laodicea states in canon 29:

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

Anathema, being basically excommunication, is a serious thing. Why did the members of this council consider Saturday worship a sin and even worthy of such punishment? Why were Saturday worshipers on the same level as heretics and enemies of the church?
Also, why would the church state something that is in direct contrast with the ten commandments? Calling the Sabbath rest Judaizing is one thing, but then it says to do it on Sunday.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 20:8-11

I would prefer answers from theologians and church leaders of this time. What did they say about it?

The complete canons can be read here.

Judaizer is a term for those early Christians who held that adherence to Mosaic law  was necessary for salvation. Observance of these laws (such as circumcision and the distinction of clean and unclean foods) was proscribed in Acts 15 and 11, respectively.
The New Testament distinguishes the Lord's Day from the Sabbath, and it commemorates the day of the Resurrection. While the topic has only a few scriptural references (e.g., Acts 20:7, Rev 1:10), the testimony of the early Church Fathers is consistent.
The intent by the Council in using the term Judaizer seems clear: Christianity is not just another sect of Judaism. Jews worship on the seventh day, the Sabbath. Christians worship on the eighth day of Creation, the Lord's Day, to commemorate the day of the Resurrection. Those who teach otherwise must be called out.
You can find the complete canons of the Synod of Laodicea here.


According to Pentecostal doctrine why is a Catholic Christening not a valid Baptism? I've got a Pentecostal friend who says that my Christening (Catholic doctrine) does not count as it is not a true Baptism to receive the Holy Spirit. Why don't Pentecostals accept Catholic Christening?

There are two common Pentecostal doctrines that are at play here:

1. Pentecostal beliefs on Water Baptism

Firstly the general belief with regard to (water) Baptism is that it is for believers only; this is called credobaptism (or just believer's baptism) and is a belief that almost all Pentecostals hold in common with Baptists. It means that any form of infant baptism (not just Catholic christening) would be regarded as an invalid "baptism". They may also emphasize the form of the baptism as well, with full immersion being required for a valid baptism.

2. Pentecostal belief on Baptism in the Holy Spirit

The defining belief of Pentecostals (ie their distinguishing belief from other evangelicals etc; their raison d'etre) is their teaching that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is an important experience in the life of a believer that is subsequent to their regenerative salvation (new birth) and is also distinct from water baptism (although it is possible for them to occur simultaneously); this is also known as the doctrine of subsequence. According to this doctrine, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is received by faith for the purpose of empowerment to witness for Christ (who has already been received as Lord and Saviour) and may occur before (eg household of Cornelius) or after water baptism (eg early Ephesian believers). Pentecostals most commonly believe that the sign of having received the baptism of the Holy Spirit is
"speaking in tongues" (a human or heavenly language that has not been learned naturally).

The above applies for the majority of Pentecostal denominations, but a notable exception are Oneness Pentecostals who have some quite disctinct beliefs:

  The majority of Pentecostals do not view baptism as essential for salvation, and likewise, most Pentecostals are Trinitarian and use the traditional Trinitarian baptismal formula. However, Oneness Pentecostals view baptism as an essential and necessary part of the salvation experience and, as non-Trinitarians, reject the use of the traditional baptismal formula. - wikipedia/Pentecostalism


Does it actually SAY that Heaven will be joyous in The Bible? ...and, come to that, does it actually state, beyond doubt (or a different interpretation) that the joy there is far, far beyond that we can experience in this world or even imagine?

BEFORE anyone points to the Corintheans "Eye hath not seen..." it must be pointed out that that is followed by an explanation that, despite the fact we couldn't have guessed for ourselves, God has revealed it to us.

Despite God having revealed it, I'm seeming to find that all the things people had excited me about Heaven with seems to have been 'added on' as good guesses. Current joys are mere sunbeams of that to come? All joys will be ressurected as impossibly greater than they were now?

The Bible does not say there will be infinite joy, but rather the absence of its opposite.  Revelation 21:4 states:

  4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

The absence of death (cf. 1 Corinthians 15) and the absence of tears seems to indicate an abundance of joy.  It isn't explicit, but it is pretty easy to extrapolate to that position.


Can a child presented by a same sex couple be validly baptized in the Catholic Church? In Instrumentum Laboris 2014, the working document for the October 2014 Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in Rome, #120 The Transmission of the Faith to Children in Same Sex Unions has in part

  However, when people living in such unions request a child’s baptism,
  almost all the responses emphasize that the child must be received
  with the same care, tenderness and concern which is given to other
  children. Many responses indicate that it would be helpful to receive
  more concrete pastoral directives in these situations. Clearly, the
  Church has the duty to ascertain the actual elements involved in
  transmitting the faith to the child. Should a reasonable doubt exist
  in the capability of persons in a same sex union to instruct the child
  in the Christian faith, proper support is to be secured in the same
  manner as for any other couple seeking the baptism of their children.
  In this regard, other people in their family and social surroundings
  could also provide assistance. In these cases, the pastor is carefully
  to oversee the preparation for the possible baptism of the child, with
  particular attention given to the choice of the godfather and
  godmother.

Focusing the on - Clearly, the Church has the duty to ascertain the actual elements involved in transmitting the faith to the child - what are these actual elements that the Church has a duty to ascertain?

Answering with basis from the Sacred Deposit of Faith (Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition), can a child presented by a same sex couple be validly baptized in the Catholic Church?

cf. illicit vs. invalid | C.SE.

Please see:

This article Baptize but Be Discreet: On the Catholic Baptism of children presented by homosexual and other irregular parents | Msgr. Charles Pope and comments.
Does the Pope have the authority to baptize aliens (martians)?. It was my thinking there that the Pope's Martians were children in same sex unions, who the same sex couple presented to the Church for Baptism.

Here's the current practice in the USA:

  Baptism of children in the care of same-sex couples presents a serious pastoral
  concern. Nevertheless, the Church does not refuse the Sacrament of Baptism to these children, but there must be a well founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion. In those cases where Baptism is permitted, pastoral ministers should exercise prudential judgment when preparing baptismal ceremonies. Also, in preparing the baptismal record, a distinction should be made between natural parents and adoptive parents.

  cf. Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination:
  Guidelines for Pastoral Care | USCCB.

these circumstances arose not too long ago in my diocese any Bishop Morlino was quoted

  “If the gay couple were to come forward and present the child for baptism and somehow sincerely intend that the child be brought up Catholic, and if an arrangement could be made such that the child being brought up a Catholic was a reasonable hope, then we would strongly favor the baptism of the child,” he said.

  If the same-sex couple could not provide that reasonable hope themselves, “then we would try to direct them to choose godparents who could intervene and bring the child up Catholic.”

  “We’re not looking for a reason to exclude the child from baptism. We’re looking to create the conditions so that the child can validly and licitly be baptized,” he said.

  “That is pastoral service.”

  cf. New Pastoral Frontier: Baptisms of Children to Same-Sex Couples | NCR.

Here are some of they ways the synod identified that folks in "Irregular Situations" can get help:

  Still another reality on all continents is the existence and activity of Catholic schools and Catholic colleges, in which the children of parents in irregular situations can enroll without any distinction being made.

  Instrumentum Laboris - 145

  Many times the children are the ones who evangelize their parents.

  ibid. 146

  new initiatives are being enacted, including opportunities for formation in prayer and retreats, intended for parents and often taking place simultaneously with their children’s catechesis in preparation for the sacraments; “schools for parents”; catechetical programs on sexual morality and moral issues related to the family;

  ibid. - 147

and it is important to remember that:

  Particular Churches are well aware that children or young people are not to blame for the choices and living situation of their parents. Consequently, children are welcome everywhere, without distinction with respect to others and with the same love and attention.

  ibid. - 149

but this might be the optimal solution:

  In other cases, children of families with irregular situations receive Baptism after three or four years of catechesis, at an age when their peers are admitted to First Communion, as mentioned by some episcopal conferences in Africa.

Like most traditional minded Catholics, I can't see how parents committed to their Irregular Situation (which is my new favorite euphemism) can profess what they need to profess at their children's baptism.  (something about rejecting "all Satan's works").  Not that you can stack a remarried Irregular Situation somewhere higher than a same sex Irregular Situation and twice as high as a single parent Irregular Situation,  but, there is a certain extra amount of scandal that comes in to the church when considering two fellows telling the congregation a bald-faced lie vs a remarried couple telling a lie one death apart from normalization and a single mother not even remotely telling a lie, but actually needing support from the church community that she's probably not getting.

The only reason I write that is because as you may know, there are only four kinds of ordinary Baptism.  (this isn't doctrine, it's just reality).  You can be Baptized before Mass, during Mass, after Mass or not at Mass.  If I were going to do something that was potentially scandalous, but somehow valid, then I would opt for doing with with the congregation not present.

But, I found this note:

  Finally, to prevent the scandal of the weak we are sometimes obliged to sacrifice some temporal good of less importance, but we are not bound to do this when the goods are of greater importance.

interesting when looking up the meaning of the word scandal in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.  I'd say Baptism is a good of greater importance (and not a temporal one).  So it can't be forsaken to prevent scandal.

And lastly, apply what the Synod folks are saying about the feelings of divorced and remarried Catholics who are unable to receive the Sacraments.  One of their major gripes is that it seems like a public punishment.  That's not what the sacraments are for, they're medicine if anything. Medicine that can kill you (through Blasphemy) if you receive them unworthily.  So perhaps that's why the Synod is finding that they only real confounding factor in allowing children from same sex unions to be baptized is ensuring that they get proper formation in the Faith (and morals) but should not go against what their parents teach because that (undermining the rights of parents to form the their children) is also not what the Church is for as it is not in harmony whatsoever with the Natural Law.

But now we've circled back around and that's why they're called Irregular Situations.


Eating of which non-fish animals does not go against the dietery law of the Roman Catholic Church? During lent a Roman Catholic may not consume meat other than that of a fish. However, there are some non-fish animals that have been considered okay to consume during that time, like beaver for example. What other non-fish animals are okay for a Roman Catholic to eat during lent?

Canon Law 1251 says:

  Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays [...] (emphasis mine).

In other words it is to be determined by the bishops exactly what constitutes abstinence. The bishops of Quebec can simply state that beaver meat is OK to eat on days of abstinence. They don't have to declare it 'fish'. I would imagine that this is common practice in areas where fish is very hard to come by and meat is a staple food. In areas where meat is a rarity, giving it up would be little sacrifice and the rules might again be changed. As this page puts it, "when we abstain, it's not because the food is impure; we're voluntarily giving up something good, for our spiritual benefit". The exact nature of what is given up is of secondary importance.


Can a person lose salvation if publicly denies Jesus but keeps living a christian life? (Catholic) I just watched the movie "Silence" and made me wonder if a person can lose his salvation if he keeps publicly denying Christ but privately(secretly) still living a Christian life?

Matthew 10:33

  But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly
  Father.

Not many of us must defend our faith to the point of death.  Does God have mercy on us if we deny him publicly(if death penalty) but internally we still follow his commandments and try to live a Christian life or is it ok to deny faith in Christ in order to save someone else's life? What does the Catholic Church say about this?

Note: please avoid commenting on the movie. I know it wasn't the best one and I didn't like the ending too. I already read the reviews and how the role of martyrdom was wrongly understood.

There is a few things to consider in order for the answer to make sense:

We have multiple opportunities while we are alive to repent, be
forgiven, fall into sin, learn from our mistakes, repent again, and
so on. We are basically building christian character and receiving
grace to help us in our journey to heaven. It is not a one time
deal.
We die one time. This is one time deal.
After we die we will be judge (without going into details on
personal judgement or at the end of times) by Jesus and the
judgement is in the complete life journey we chose. On top of that
Jesus will give us all the Mercy we are willing to accept.
Jesus will not force us into Heaven (salvation) if we do not want
to.

Therefore, it is possible that a person in his early Christian journey lives a life that you can describe as more "secretive or internal". But as the journey and the Christian character becomes more mature and aligned to Christ's,   living two life's (one internal and one external) is contradictory.

At one extreme you can find the saints and martyrs that freely chose to be thrown to the beasts or unimaginable tortures rather than renouncing Christ externally (I assume they could have chosen to reject Him publicly but in their hearts still be as committed to Him). They preferred dead rather than renouncing Him even externally.

On the other extreme you can find a person just new to Christianity but not yet strong enough to overcome fear. He could possible be tempted to deny Christ publicly but still recognize him as his God and Savior. If he dies at that moment, then we trust that Jesus, in his infinity mercy and since He know what we have in the deepest places of our hearts, may offer him salvation.

So, my answer to your question is, until one dies, one has the opportunity of repenting and finding forgiveness. Work hard for your salvation by aligning your life to Christs' own life, day after day. And at the end have Hope that Jesus is Mercy itself - but will never bully us into loving him.

Sections that may help in answering further the question or guiding the appropriate response depending on the scenario.

CCC: Grace 1996-2005, Christian Holiness 2012-2015, Faith/Hope/Charity 2087-2094.

Peace.


Is the Society of St. Pius X schismatic or not? Back in the 1980s, Archbishop Lefebvre of the Society of St. Pius X consecrated four priests as bishops without the Pope's approval. Does this action make the Society schismatic?

Societies of Apostolic Life, "without taking religious vows, pursue the apostolic purpose proper to each society. Living a fraternal life in common in their own special manner, they strive for the perfection of charity through the observance of the constitutions" [Canon 731]. The Society of S Pius X is constituted as a Society of Apostolic Life with the canonical approval of the Bishop of Fribourg [Canon 579]. Such Societies, "since they are dedicated in a special way to the service of God and of the whole Church, are in a particular manner subject to its supreme authority" [Canon 590].
The Society itself says

The Society of St. Pius X humbly submits to the authority of the pope, supreme guardian of the faith, and pays him all the reverence due to the chosen head of God’s Church.
If and when the time-honored teachings of the Church are obscured or perhaps even seemingly contradicted by the authorities in Rome, however, the SSPX stands firm for tradition.

Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four priests as bishops in 1998 without authority, an act which was schismatic under Canon Law [Canon 751] and resulted in all five being excommunicated by Pope John Paul II.
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI remitted the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated without authority by Archbishop Lefebvre, and explained in an apostolic letter:

An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return.

He went on

This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council.

This mirrors the Society's own statement.
Pope Benedict then dealt with the status of the Society and its ministers:

As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

Thus although the ministers within the SSPX who were illegitimately consecrated have been released from the individual penalty of that schismatic act, the fact that they belong to an organisation constituted as a Society of Apostolic Life which has reservations about the authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council [cf Canon 590] means that they cannot minister within the Church: they remain under interdict.
Because the Society itself (in the second sentence quoted at the top of this answer) has set itself to be the authority to determine if "time-honoured teachings are obscured or seemingly contradicted," it remains schismatic.


Which denominations use the King James Version? Which denominations primarily use the King James Version of the Bible?

I did a search on Google and could not find anything reliable.

It's really not a denominational issue, per se, but a doctrinal issue or a simple preference.

The King James Only movement are people and churches that believe that the King James version is the only one to use.  They have various reasons for this.

James White has broken it down into five primary reasons for sticking with the KJV:

"I Like the KJV Best" - people who simply like the translation
The textual argument - people who believe that the KJV translation is more accurate because it's based on better manuscripts
Received text only - this belief states that the original manuscripts used by the KJV translation were supernaturally better than the ones we have today.
Inspired Translation - this group believes that there was inspiration behind the translation and that it was, therefore, inspired by God whereas other translations are not.
New Revelation - this group believes that the KJV translation was a new revelation from God.  This view is often called "Ruckmanism", after it's primary adherent, Peter Ruckman

Ultimately, it's not a denominational thing, but either a doctrinal issue (that extends beyond denominational decrees) or a preference.


What is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is immoral? The Catholic Church, as well as many other Christians, believes that abortion is inherently immoral, based on the belief that life begins at conception.

What is the biblical basis for this position?

I'm interested in the perspective of those who are Biblical literalists, whether Protestant, Catholic, or others.

One of the most important passages regarding this is found in the Mosaic Law which God gave to Israel to be used in governance:

  "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her
  children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall
  surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he
  shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you
  shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
  foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
  Exodus 21:22-25 ESV

So, if the child (and this is what it is called) is born but is unharmed, then the man is guilty of assault, which did not carry the death penalty.  However, if the child IS harmed, then the man's punishment should be the same as that which was suffered by the child while still in the womb.

From a biblical perspective, then, the taking of the life of an unborn child was considered murder and would receive capital punishment, accordingly.

In addition to this, John the Baptist responded the presence of God Incarnate when Mary visited his mother Elizabeth while both of them were still in the womb:

  In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to
  a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted
  Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby
  leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,
  and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and
  blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that
  the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of
  your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And
  blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what
  was spoken to her from the Lord."  Luke 1:39-45 ESV

Before this, the angel told Zechariah the his son John (the Baptist) would be filled with the Holy Spirit even while in the womb of Elizabeth.

  for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or
  strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from
  his mother’s womb.  Luke 1:15 ESV

Psalm 139 also speaks of life in the womb:

  For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. Psalm 139:13 ESV

Not only does life exist in the womb, but God is active in the creation of that life.

Summary

So, God gave Israel instructions to punish anyone who killed or harmed an unborn child, and the Bible strongly supports the position that life begins at conception and is in the image of God at that point, with a body, soul, and spirit.


Why use Yeshua instead of Jesus? We known the name of Christ through the Bible which is written in κοινή greek. In the original language the name is Ἰησοῦς which transliterated to Latin as Iesus and then to English as Jesus.

Why then do some Christians feel a need to Judaism the name and return it to Modern Hebrew יֵשׁוּעַ (Yeshua)? Taking in consideration that Modern Hebrew is not the same as the Hebrew used at the time of Christ and that Modern Hebrew was invented in the XIX century.

To clarify my concern I will cite from a book of John Owen about the subject

  They said Jesus was anathema, or "one accursed." They looked at him as a person to be detested and abominated as the common odium of their gods and men. Hence, at his mention they used to say, "Jesus anathema." He is, or let him be, "accursed, detested, destroyed." And the Jews continue in this blasphemy to this day, hiding their cursed sentiments under a corrupt pronunciation of his name. For instead of Yeshua, they write and call him
  Yeshu (ישו), the initial letters of yimmach shemo vezikhro — that is, "Let his name and memory be blotted out;" the same as "Jesus anathema." And this
  blasphemy of pronouncing Jesus accursed was what the first persecutors of the
  church tested the faith of Christians with, as Pliny said in his epistle to Trajan;Justin Martyr with other apologists agree. (On the Holy Spirit (Pneumatologia) by John Owen - Book 1 Chapter 1)

Also according to Stanley Porter, in “Did Jesus Ever Teach In Greek?” (Tyndale Bulletin 44, no. 1 [1993]: 199–235) in Israel many Jews including Jesus spoke Greek.

In John 19:20 the name of Ἰησοῦς and Iesus is used in front of the crowd

  [John 19:20] Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

Why use Yeshua instead of Jesus?
Besides the simplest and most obvious reason for doing so is because we can, I will give you the reason why I do this myself when I am alone and not hindered by being overheard by others. But I will say this much. One of the reasons I do it is because of devotion to the name of Jesus. Now let me explain where I am going with this from time to time.
The claim that modern Hebrew (or Aramaic) is not the same as the Hebrew (or Aramaic) used at the time of Christ for the Hebraic name of Jesus remains simply on a theoretical level. Some dispute that claim.

Some of rabbinical sources comment on the reasons for the missing ayin from Yeshu, as opposed to the Hebrew Bible Yeshua and Yehoshuah... A tradition states that the shortening to Yeshu relates to the Y-SH-U of the yimach shemo "may his name be obliterated.” Against this David Flusser suggested that the name Yeshu itself was "in no way abusive," but "almost certainly" a Galilean dialect form of Yeshua. But E.Y. Kutscher showed that the `ayin was still pronounced in Galilee, refuting a thesis by Paul Kahle. - Yeshua

Those who employ the name of Jesus in either Aramaic or Hebrew are not Judaizing the name of Our Lord, but pronouncing his Holy Name as such in devotional manner or in a Christian Rite that frequently employs either Hebrew or Aramaic in their liturgies.
Being a Catholic of the Latin Rite and greatly influenced by the Church’s traditions, I will explain my own motivation based on such.
The Catholic Maronite Rite uses Aramaic (Syriac) as a liturgical language and the name of Jesus in their Rite is Yeshua. I occasionally worship in this Eastern Catholic Rite.
Many of us can recall Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ in which all the dialogues were done in the languages employed at the time of Our Lord.
When I first watched this movie I decided to ask a friend who has a minor in biblical languages if he could recite in Aramaic the Our Father, the Ave Maria, the Gloria Patri along with the phrase begone Satan on a CD. The reason was that I could say the rosary in Aramaic, the language which Our Lord spoke. It is a purely devotional aspect that I have incorporated into my prayer life. What more needs to be said?
There are many other factors that one can incorporate into this response, such as:

The Catholic Church acknowledges Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic (also known as liturgical Syriac) as being  sacred languages.
Our Lord spoke the common language (Aramaic) of the people in his day and age, but recited Hebrew in the synagogue when he read Sacred Scripture out loud.
Pope Pius XII allowed the use of Hebrew in the Tridentine Mass for Catholics living in Israel for obvious reasons. (Sorry folks, Latin was not the only language employed at Mass prior to the Second Vatican Council in the Roman Rite.)
The Maronite Catholic Rite may employ either Aramaic (Syriac) or Arabic in their liturgy, but the words of consecration must be in Aramaic, the very language Christ spoke at the Last Supper.

Although pronouncing the name of Jesus in any particular language has much merit. Pronouncing it in either Hebrew or Aramaic adds something special in my mind. How many times did Our Lord heard his most holy Mother Mary call him affectionately by his name: Yeshua.
Here are some YouTube video examples (dialect may very):

Shlomlech Ave Maria Hail Mary in Aramaic
Shlom Lech Maryam (Hail Mary) in Aramaic with Arabic,and English script ماجدة الرومي
Lord's Prayer (Aramaic)
Abun d'bashmayo (Aramaic) The Lord's prayer
Musical Aramaic rendition of the Our Father that moved the pope in Georgia
The Words of Consecration in the Maronite Mass الكلام الجوهريّ في القدّاس المارونيّ
Maronite Words of Consecration

Whether or not we pronounce the name of Jesus as Yeshua or not is unimportant to most, but for some it brings us closer to the historical Christ in his day and age, in a loving traditional way of speaking.
Holy is the name of Jesus ישועה "yeshua" forever in Hebrew or Aramaic forever!
Addendum:

East Syriac Ishoʕ
Yeshuuʕ or Ishoʕ, the Syriac name of Jesus
Aramaic and Classical Syriac render the pronunciation of the same letters as ܝܫܘܥ yeshuuʕ (yešuʕ) /yeʃuʕ/ and ܝܫܘܥ ishoʕ (išoʕ) /iʃoʕ/. The Aramaic Bibles and the Peshitta Syriac preserve these same spellings. Current scholarly consensus posits that the NT texts were translated from the Greek, but this theory is not supported directly at least by the name for Jesus, which is not a simple transliteration of the Greek form as would otherwise be expected, as Greek did not have an "sh" [ʃ] sound, and substituted [s]; and likewise lacked and therefore omitted the final ‘ayin sound [ʕ]. Moreover, Eusebius (early fourth century) reports that Papius (early second century) reports that Jesus's disciple Matthew wrote a gospel "in the Hebrew language". (Note: Scholars typically argue the word "Hebrew" in the New Testament refers to Aramaic; however, others have attempted to refute this view.) The Aramaic of the Peshitta does not distinguish between Joshua and Jesus, and the Lexicon of William Jennings gives the same form ܝܫܘܥ for both names. The Hebrew final letter ayin ע is equivalent to final ܥ in Classical Syriac and East Syriac and West Syriac. It can be argued that the Aramaic speakers who used this name had a continual connection to the Aramaic-speakers in communities founded by the apostles and other students of Jesus, thus independently preserved his historical name Yeshuuʕ and the Eastern dialectical Ishoʕ. Those churches following the East Syriac Rite still preserve the name Ishoʕ. - Yeshua (Wikipedia)

Other articles of interest may be read if desired:

In which language did Pontius Pilate communicate with Jesus?
What language did Jesus speak?
What language did Jesus speak? The pope and Israel’s prime minister disagree.


Why sleep put apostles into temptation? Matthew 26:40-41 NIV

  Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t
  you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch
  and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is
  willing, but the flesh is weak.”

How does sleep put the apostles into temptation? I understand why they should pray but how the sleep can put them into temptation? Can a sleep be a doorway to  a devil? Or what is Jesus talking about here according to the Roman Catholic Church teaching? What is the context?

TL:DR; Sleep does not cause temptation, prayer prevents it.

  How does sleep put the apostles into temptation?

It doesn't.  The most likely source of your question is that the cause and effect you attribute is a misunderstanding of the Scripture.  On that scene in Matthew we can choose four insights of many, with sources and expanded discussion below.  In short, the point being made is that it is prayer that will protect you against temptation, rather than that sleep causes temptation.

  Origen: Finding them thus sleeping, He rouses them with a word to hearken, and commands them to watch; "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation;" that first we should watch, and so watching pray. He watches who does good works, and is careful that He does not run into any dark doctrine, for so the prayer of the watchful is heard.
  St Jerome: It is impossible that the human mind should not be tempted, therefore He says not "Watch and pray" that ye be not tempted, but "that ye enter not into temptation," that is, that temptation vanquish you not.
  St Hilary: And why He thus encouraged them to pray that they might not enter into temptation, He adds, "For the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak;" this He says not of Himself, but addresses them.
  Origen: These then He would have watch and pray that they should not enter into temptation, for the more spiritual any one may be, the more careful should he be that his goodness should not suffer a great fall.

Detailed discussion.

What's available for the Catholic perspective on this?

In footnote 26 of the English version of Scripture hosted at the Vatican web site, you find an explanation of that snippet of verse.  Note that the translation uses "undergo the test" rather than "temptation."

  41 Watch and pray that you may not undergo the test. 26

The footnote:

  26 [41] Undergo the test: see the note on ⇒ Matthew 6:13.  In that
  verse "the final test" translates the same Greek word as is here
  translated the test, and these are the only instances of the use of
  that word in Matthew.  It is possible that the passion of Jesus is
  seen here as an anticipation of the great tribulation that will
  precede the parousia (see the notes on ⇒ Matthew 24:8; ⇒ 24:21) to
  which ⇒ Matthew 6:13 refers, and that just as Jesus prays to be
  delivered from death (⇒ Matthew 26:39), so he exhorts the disciples
  to pray that they will not have to undergo the great test that his
  passion would be for them. {emphasis mine}   Some scholars, however,
  understand not undergo (literally, "not enter") the test as meaning
  not that the disciples may be spared the test but that they may not
  yield to the temptation of falling away from Jesus because of his
  passion even though they will have to endure it.

From this explanation we find that the understanding of that line in scripture is nuanced, but it does not present sleeping as the trigger to temptation.

The context.

It is good to consider a verse in the greater context of the narrative.  Lines 40 and 41 together address his desire that they keep the watch with him (you have to stay awake to keep watch) and that they pray that they (his disciples) do not have to undergo the test.  (See the note above).  That more complete reading of the scene does not link sleep to temptation, but links prayer as a way to ward off, or be protected from, temptation.  (Cf also the Lord's Prayer).

  36  Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he
  said to his disciples, "Sit here while I go over there and pray."   37
  He took along Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to feel
  sorrow and distress.   38 Then he said to them, "My soul is sorrowful
  even to death. Remain here and keep watch with me."    39 He advanced
  a little and fell prostrate in prayer, saying, "My Father, if it is
  possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you
  will."    40 When he returned to his disciples he found them asleep.
  He said to Peter, "So you could not keep watch with me for one hour?
  41 Watch and pray that you may not undergo the test. 26
  The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."   42 Withdrawing a
  second time, he prayed again, "My Father, if it is not possible that
  this cup pass without my drinking it, your will be done!"   43 Then he
  returned once more and found them asleep, for they could not keep
  their eyes open.   44 He left them and withdrew again and prayed a
  third time, saying the same thing again.    45  Then he returned to
  his disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and taking
  your rest? Behold, the hour is at hand when the Son of Man is to be
  handed over to sinners.    46  Get up, let us go. Look, my betrayer is
  at hand."

What about a more traditional look?

An older translation examining scripture uses the term "temptation".  That rendering is then addressed in Saint Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea.  The commentaries of previous theologians are presented and compared on that scene in Matthew.

  And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:
  nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." 40. And he cometh unto
  the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, "What,
  could ye not watch with me one hour? 41. Watch and pray, that ye
  enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh
  is weak." 42. He went away again the second time, and prayed,
  saying, "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I
  drink it, thy will be done." 43. And he came and found them asleep
  again for their eyes were heavy. [p. 909] 44. And he left them, and
  went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

St Thomas Aquinas lists some of the commentaries from theologians who preceded him.

Origen: And though Jesus went but a "little forward," they could not
watch one hour in His absence; let us therefore pray that Jesus may
never depart even a little from us.
Chrysostum: He "finds them sleeping," both because it was a late
hour of the night, and their eyes were heavy with sorrow.
Hilary: When then He returned to His disciples and found them
sleeping, He rebukes Peter, "Could ye not watch one hour with me?"
He addresses Peter rather than the rest, because be had most loudly
boasted that he would not be offended.
Chrysostum: But as they had all said the same, He charges them all
with weakness; they had chosen to die with Christ, and yet could not
even watch with Him.
Origen: Finding them thus sleeping, He rouses them with a word to
hearken, and commands them to watch; "Watch and pray, that ye enter
not into temptation;" that first we should watch, and so watching
pray.  He watches who does good works, and is careful that He does
not run into any dark doctrine, for so the prayer of the watchful is
heard.
Jerome: It is impossible that the human mind should not be tempted,
therefore He says not "Watch and pray" that ye be not tempted, but
"that ye enter not into temptation," that is, that temptation
vanquish you not.
Hilary: And why He thus encouraged them to pray that they might not
enter into temptation, He adds, "For the spirit indeed is willing,
but the flesh is weak;" this He says not of Himself, but addresses
them.
Jerome: This is [p. 912] against those rash persons who think that
whatever they believe they can perform. The more confident we are of
our zeal, the more mistrustful should we be of the frailty of the
flesh.
Origen: Here it should be enquired, whether as all men's flesh is
weak, so all men's spirit is willing, or whether only that of the
saints; and whether in unbelievers the spirit is not also dull, as
the flesh is weak. In another sense the flesh of those only is weak
whose spirit is willing, and who with their willing spirit do
mortify the deeds of the flesh. These then He would have watch and pray that they should not enter into temptation, for the more spiritual any one may be, the more careful should he be that his goodness should not suffer a great fall.


Why did Pope Francis say, "When we encounter the Cross, do we turn to Mary," rather than to Christ? When we encounter the Cross, we turn to Mary: Give us the strength, Mary our Mother, to accept and embrace the Cross! —His Holiness Pope Francis

Source

Can anyone explain, according to Catholic doctrine, why, when we encounter the Cross, we turn to Mary, rather than to Christ?

Mary is the mother of the incarnation.  If the incarnation matters, then Mary matters.  Mary matters because God mattered to Mary.  Mary said “be it unto me according to thy word”.

  John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Word of God is Jesus Christ; Mary bore the Word that became flesh.  She did this as a humble servant.  When we look to Mary, we look to the reality of the incarnation. We look to the heart of a mother, the human mother of Jesus Christ.

We are to have the heart of Mary and want what God wants for us, setting aside our agenda, our will, and doing the will of God the Father through the overshadowing presence of the Holy Spirit. This is what Mary did while yet on Earth.

  Matthew 12:47-49  Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren…For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mary physically bore the “Son of Man” who in glory is the “Son of God”.  Surely, it is foolishness to attempt to divide the incarnation (Mary) from the risen Lord (Jesus Christ).

So, when we turn to Mary, we turn to the incarnation, and this is not turning from, but towards, Christ.


Relics of Noah's Ark? Do any Catholic or Orthodox churches claim to have relics of Noah's Ark? (As one might have a piece of the True Cross, for example.)

The Armenian Orthodox Cathedral in Etchmiadzin, Armenia claims to be in possession of a relic of a piece of wood that was part of the ark made by Noah, however it is mostly based on legend.

  There are many legends that the mountains could tell about the time when Noah and his family descended from the Ark into the valley. One day the Christians of the area decided to retrace Noah’s story by climbing Mount Ararat and finding the Ark. On that day Bishop Jacob of Nisibis grabbed his staff, crossed himself and set off on his journey.

  However, he found it very challenging—on his first attempt he stopped to rest and was so exhausted he fell asleep on a warm boulder. When he awoke he found himself standing at the foot of Mt Ararat, staff in hand. He crossed himself again and began to climb once more.

  Three times he tried to climb to the summit of Mt Ararat to see the Ark, but each time he became so exhausted he fell asleep and awoke standing at the foot of the mountain.

  Finally God saw his efforts and sent him an angel who told him there was no reason to climb the mountain because the Ark could not be found. Instead, in reward for his faith and patience, God gave him a piece of the Ark.

  When Bishop Jacob woke he could feel something hard under his head—it was wood from a Shittah tree. According to scripture, Noah, the forefather of all humanity, built the Ark from this wood.

  Jacob thought it was best not to question God, and he returned to the people with his recount of what had happened. That sacred piece of Shittah wood was framed in gold and has been displayed in Etchmiadzin cathedral since. - The Legend of Noah’s Ark Relic


Is Frisbeetarianism a Christian denomination? I heard a guy on talk radio talking to a caller who claimed to be a Frisbeetarian. I had never heard of this religion I wondered if it is Christian or some obscure ancient pagan form of religion.
Does anyone here know what their main beliefs might be and how they compare to mainstream churches?

Frisbeetarianism is a parody religion, along the same lines as Pastafarianism.  It is sometimes attributed to comedian George Carlin:

  Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. (source)

It's also attributed to comedian Jim Stafford in 1975.

In answer to your question then, no, it's not a form of Christianity nor a form of ancient paganism.  It's simply a parody, created by comedians, to poke fun at religion.


How does election work according to mainstream Presbyterian thought? In the Presbyterian church, does election require that we both receive God's call and answer it? Or is it only that we need to have been chosen? Could this be a question of understanding God as not experiencing time as we do and therefore knowing and always having known who will receive him and are therefore elect (supported by Jesus saying, “you didn’t choose me, I chose you, from before the foundation of the world). We cannot offer God ANYTHING  But can we not simply respond to Him? I want to understand how this is meant to work from a Presbyterian  perspective.

Theology has the idea of the Ordo Salutis, or Order of Salvation. A Christian branch like Reformed Theology (of which Presbyterianism is a part) will have a particular way of organising the various doctrines of salvation. The Order of Salvation shows the logical order of these doctrines: how one doctrine leads to and interacts with the others. Note that it is often not a chronological order, and many 'stages' of the Order of Salvation may, from our perspective, happen at the one time.

For Reformed Theology Predestination and Election are the earliest stages and refer to God's sovereign and independent choices. There is nothing that election requires; it is not contingent on anything else. It is purely God's free choice, based on nothing in us.

The Presbyterian doctrine of election is laid out in the Westminster Confession chapter 3.

  I. God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

  II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all
  supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he
  foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such
  conditions.

  III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some
  men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others
  foreordained to everlasting death.

  IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are
  particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain
  and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.

  V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the
  foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and
  immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his
  will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free
  grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or
  perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as
  conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of
  his glorious grace.

  VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the
  eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means
  thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are
  redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his
  Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and
  kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other
  redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted,
  sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

  VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the
  unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or
  withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power
  over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and
  wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

  VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be
  handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will
  of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may,
  from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their
  eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise,
  reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and
  abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.


Is it true that John Paul II restored the practice of selling indulgences in 2000? Is it true that John Paul II  restored the practice of selling indulgences in the Roman Catholic Church in 2000?

EDIT:

two sources: here and here

Answering your question

No.  It is not true.  In any way.

The sale of indulgences is the sin of simony (selling of holy items) and the temporal punishment is the immediate excommunication of the perpetrator by the very nature of the act. Even accepting money for indulgences has been outlawed since the Council of Trent, which codified it with "let all who disagree be anathema".

What you probably really wanted to know

After Vatican II the question of how the Church would handle indulgences was left up in the air. Paul VI, in 1968, realizing that there was still some spiritual benefits in them, produced a new list of things which included
partial or a plenary indulgence (assuming appropriate circumstances). They no longer equate to "years of penance"* but rather, "part of the suffering of a soul in purgatory" (partial) or "all of the suffering of a soul in purgatory." (plenary)

The item you are probably referencing is that John Paul II released a new Enchiridion of Indulgences, which is the official list of all of the indulgenced acts from the Vatican. Individual ordinaries (heads of diocese, which can be any priest if necessary) are free to amend this within their juristiction.

* as an aside: indulgences are more properly understood as having to do with the amount of suffering in purgatory, not the length of time there.


In Presbyterianism, what is the basis for a parallel between the office of deacon and Christ's priestly office? In Presbyterianism, there are three "titles" that can be given to officers of a church:

Teaching elder (e.g., pastors)
Ruling elder
Deacon

Last weekend I heard something rather novel, at least to me1—that these three titles parallel the three offices of Christ (prophet, priest, and king):

Teaching elder – Prophet – proclaims God's word
Ruling elder – King – rules and directs the church; responsible for church discipline
Deacon – Priest – ????

The parallels are obviously not perfect even in the first two cases, since ruling elders also proclaim God's word (at least in small groups and classes, if not preaching from the pulpit), and teaching elders also participate in ruling and directing the church.  Still, I can see the connection.

However, I do not see the connection between the office of deacons and Christ's priestly office.  So that's my question:

Given a Reformed and Presbyterian polity and christology, what is the basis for making a parallel between the office of deacon and Christ's priestly office?

There's likely to be some biblical basis for this, but I'm most interested in the biblical arguments made by those who hold to Reformed, Presbyterian beliefs.  Those who do not share this framework, if they make a connection between these two offices, might do so for different reasons.

This view is held by "some Reformed textbooks," according to G. I. Williamson, so it's not just the view of the person I heard it from.  Unfortunately Williamson doesn't mention which texts argue for this.

Sorry Nathaniel, I'm not able to comment yet, I'm new to this site :).
It's basically a model of Jesus's ministry and the actions of the early church. He chose several disciples/apostles, trained them in helping the poor, healing the sick, and leading the Church, and eventually set them out on their own.  See Acts 6:

Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Indeed, this is true in many modern Presbyterian churches. In my own, the elders typically have more longevity and lead the church intellectually and spiritually, while we've had many deacons who have been trained by our elders and pastors, given responsibilities in caring for our church members, and eventually set out as missionaries or church planters.
Hope this helps some; sorry I can't substantiate my claims more, I'm not as read-up on these topics as I used to be and as I wish I was.. In short, I believe it's a model based upon Jesus's example.


Why would God create beings with the capacity to sin? Life on earth is filled with the horrible effects of sin.  Why did God create mankind with the capacity to sin?  Was there a higher purpose in this or was there a specific reason for it?

I'm specifically looking for an answer based on biblical teaching as interpreted in the Protestant tradition.

The reason God created anything at all is for His glory.  (Isaiah 43:1-7 (esp v.7), Rev. 4:11, Col 1:15-16)This is a hard concept to grasp for anyone, even for a committed Christians.  So the answer is that sin is there to glorify God.  You may ask, "How does sin glorify God?"  Sin glorifies God's attributes of justice and wrath, not His most popular attributes.  Many Christians view God a pure love, and that is correct; but God is also pure wrath "a consuming fire" and pure justice. (Hebrews 12:29, Deuteronomy 32:4)

Think about it this way.  If you had a family member who had been murdered by a criminal and you were present at the trial and the Judge decided to acquit the criminal despite eye witness testimony, how would you feel?  Would the judge be 'glorified' in your eyes.  God is glorified in the judging of sinners.  In the case of true Christians, Christ stands as their sacrifice.  So if we go back to the courtroom example we see the Judge's Son offering to take the punishment of the criminal and the Judge offering to take the criminal into his family to reform him.

So God is glorified by sin in two ways.  He is glorified by judging sin righteously and also by His Son taking the punishment for some of the sinners.

Romans 3:22-26 (NKJV):

  For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


In what way is the Son of God "one with the Father"? What is the Trinitarian stance on the meaning of John 10:30?

  I and the Father are one.

The Trinitarian position on this is pretty straight forward. Hard to wrap your mind around, maybe. A mystery, sure. But the same basic idea is held by most Trinitarians, especially Protestant and Catholic traditions. Eastern Orthodoxy comes at this from a rather different angle, but as far as application to that verse goes aren't fundamentally different.

Jesus is one substance with God the Father. In other words he was and is God incarnate, not some created being, not a lesser creature, not a mirage, really and truly the one true God in physical form.

The Athanasian Creed is a good reference for this point:

  Now this is the catholic faith:

Note the little-c catholic here is not a reference to Roman Catholicism, it just means universal.

  That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
  neither blending their persons
  nor dividing their essence.
  For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
  the person of the Son is another,
  and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
  But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
  their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

That's the basic outline of what the Trinity is: three persons but one being.

Now here's the part that directly addresses that verse. It says basically the same thing over in a lot of ways just to eliminate as much confusion as possible and not leave wiggle room for novel definitions:

  What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
  The Father is uncreated,
  the Son is uncreated,
  the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

  The Father is immeasurable,
  the Son is immeasurable,
  the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

  The Father is eternal,
  the Son is eternal,
  the Holy Spirit is eternal.

  And yet there are not three eternal beings;
  there is but one eternal being.
  So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
  there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

  Similarly, the Father is almighty,
  the Son is almighty,
  the Holy Spirit is almighty.
  Yet there are not three almighty beings;
  there is but one almighty being.

  Thus the Father is God,
  the Son is God,
  the Holy Spirit is God.
  Yet there are not three gods;
  there is but one God.

  Thus the Father is Lord,
  the Son is Lord,
  the Holy Spirit is Lord.
  Yet there are not three lords;
  there is but one Lord.

  Just as Christian truth compels us
  to confess each person individually
  as both God and Lord,
  so catholic religion forbids us
  to say that there are three gods or lords.

  The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
  The Son was neither made nor created;
  he was begotten from the Father alone.
  The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
  he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

  Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
  there is one Son, not three sons;
  there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

  Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
  nothing is greater or smaller;
  in their entirety the three persons
  are coeternal and coequal with each other.

A couple paragraphs later it gets into more specifically how this relates to the Son's incarnation. Obviously him taking on human nature adds an extra wrinkle to the whole thing, so it points out that this doesn't nullify the basic Trinitarian formula:

  That we believe and confess
  that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
  is both God and human, equally.

  He is God from the essence of the Father,
  begotten before time;
  and he is human from the essence of his mother,
  born in time;
  completely God, completely human,
  with a rational soul and human flesh;
  equal to the Father as regards divinity,
  less than the Father as regards humanity.

  Although he is God and human,
  yet Christ is not two, but one.
  He is one, however,
  not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
  but by God's taking humanity to himself.
  He is one,
  certainly not by the blending of his essence,
  but by the unity of his person.
  For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
  so too the one Christ is both God and human.


What is the Dispensational Interpretation of Daniel’s Stone Kingdom? I would like to understand the following vision from the viewpoint of the Dispensational system of prophecy.  What is the stone kingdom, and when did it arrive? Does it begin at John the Baptist’s announcement (Matt. 3:1-2) and reach its ultimate expression at Christ’s second coming?  Or, has it been deferred until the Millennial reign?

  “You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of
  exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was
  frightening. The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and
  arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its
  feet partly of iron and partly of clay. As you looked, a stone was cut
  out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and
  clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze,
  the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and
  became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind
  carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the
  stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the
  whole earth.”

  “This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation … in
  the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that
  shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another
  people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to
  an end, and it shall stand forever.”  (Daniel 2:31—36, 44)

The classical Dispensational understanding is that since each part of the image represents an actual political and tangible kingdom, the best understanding is that the rock that becomes a mountain must refer to a future tangible Messianic kingdom where Christ reigns visibly on the earth. If we examine the details of Zechariah 14 combined with Revelation 20 we see how this kingdom has economic, political, military and even meteorological factors and lasts 1000 years.


If war were to break out between Russia and USA, would Russian Mormons fight against the USA? My understanding about Mormon beliefs is that they do serve in armed forces in the country where they live.

Also I may be incorrect but, looking at this question, it seems that Mormons hold the United States in an especially high regard among nations. This can also be seen from the talk "This Nation Shall Endure" (by Ezra Taft Benson, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, in 1973) linked to the accepted answer to the question.

So the question I wanted to ask is about Mormons living in Russia (where, according to this page, the church has 23,180 adherents).

Edited to a single question:

If a war broke out between Russia and the USA, would Mormons in Russia be instructed to not to fight, considering perhaps reasons such as that it could destroy the United States constitution?

Latter-day Saints abide the law of the land in which they live; honorably answering a call when conscripted for military service is part of this belief. Volunteer military service is also respected as a way of serving one's country. Latter-day Saints should live in accordance with the revealed will of the Lord and according to their own conscience.

  Latter-day Saints in the military do not need to feel torn between their country and their God. In the Church, “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12). Military service shows dedication to this principle.

(From https://www.lds.org/topics/war)

This happened in WW2. There's even a movie based on a true account about this ("Saints and Soldiers"). War is awful, but Mormons accept this reality where they do not have the power to avoid it.

Further reading: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/military-service


According to Catholicism, how should Christians react when an unbeliever dies? I was reading the following passages, and they seem to indicate that we should rejoice when God brings about His judgement:

"Righteous art thou, O YHVH, and upright are thy judgments." Psalm 119:137

Also:

"But, O YHVH of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause." Jerimiah 11:20

And:

"Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of YHVH, because he cometh to judge the earth.
O give thanks unto YHVH; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever." 1 Chronicles 16:33-34

One more:

"But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am YHVH which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith YHVH." Jeremiah 9:24

I'm seeing several, maybe even hundreds, of verses that confirm God's judgment is righteous and good. Unless I'm missing something, God's judgement seems to be something Christians should be excited and happy about.
So according to Catholicism, should Christians (of any sort) rejoice when an unbeliever (specifically those that have outright denied Christianity: ex. Atheist, Muslims, Hindu) dies and God subjects their flesh to be burned for eternity?

According the Catechism of the Catholic Church

  Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one
  and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy
  Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way
  known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of
  the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does
  the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be
  saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism
  explicitly if they had known its necessity.

So, I'd say first of all that your question made be based on a false premise. But taking just the words of your question at face value, I'd refer you to 1 Timothy 2-4; Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and probably many other verses.

I'd also suggest that the proper response is no different from the proper response in an earthly context. When some malefactor receives proper justice at the hands of the courts, should we rejoice in their misfortune? Of course not. But we can be glad that their unlawful and predatory behavior will no longer continue, and hope that others who may be tempted toward such behavior may be dissuaded by the example of their punishment.

As to hell being a place of physical torture, again I'd have to say that your question is based on a false premise. The church teaches that,

  "The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom
  alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created
  and for which he longs."

So from the perspective of the saved, basking in the splendor and glory of the beatific vision, such separation is torture, and so those metaphors are appropriate.

For me, the most cogent depiction of hell can be found in CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce". It answers the question I think you're getting at: "How can a loving and good God create clay-footed creatures whom he then condemns to an eternity of torture while they beg and plead for forgiveness and mercy". (Hint: He doesn't) Although Lewis was not Catholic, I see nothing in what he relates there that is inconsistent with the church's teaching. I recommend it most highly, especially if this question poses difficulties for you. It's an easy, fun read, to boot.


Why was Aaron not allowed into the promised land? God judged Moses and Aaron separately at another event, why wasn't Aaron allowed into the promised land?

Aaron's death was a judgement for what happened at the water of meribah.

  “Aaron will be gathered to his people because he will not enter into the land which I have given to the children of Israel because you rebelled against Me at the water of Meribah.” (Numbers 20:24 MEV)

The water of Meribah refers to the spring that flowed from the rock that Moses struck. God told Moses and Aaron to speak to the rock to make water flow from it, but instead Moses struck it with his staff.

  Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the door of the tent of meeting, and they fell on their faces, and the glory of the Lord appeared to them. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Take the rod, and gather the assembly together, you and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes, and it will give its water, and you will bring out to them water from the rock; so you will give the assembly and their livestock drink. So Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as He commanded him. Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly before the rock, and he said to them, “Hear now, you rebels. Will we bring out water from this rock for you?” And Moses lifted up his hand, and he struck the rock twice with his rod, and plenty of water came out, and the assembly drank, and their livestock. The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you will not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.” This is the water of Meribah because the children of Israel argued with the Lord, and He was sanctified among them.” (Numbers 20:6-13 MEV)

Aaron was called to be a priest and kind of spiritual helpmate to Moses. It was his position to uphold Moses and to support him. Though Aaron did not himself strike the rock, he was there when God commanded them, and he allowed Moses to falter, sharing in his disbelief.


What's the difference between Actual Grace and Karma? I was thinking about donating to the Best Podcast in the Universe but they always give out "Karma" for donors, and being a Catholic, I don't believe in Karma, but I do believe in Actual Grace and I do believe that Actual Grace is something God gives you to continue doing good things.  Can it be in reward for doing good things and to perpetuate the doing of good?  Are our good deeds tantamount to a prayer?

Note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this about "actual grace":

  Actual graces ... refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

(paragraph 2000)

Excellent answers are wholly Catholic, apostolic, etc... And should contain the word Distinguo or at the very least the phrase "It would seem that..." (meaning please don't disregard the premise offhandedly until you've defeated the premise with your artful and oh-so-scholastic rhetoric).  They would also speak to a wholly superficial knowledge of Hinduism and Karma, which is all that I have; which I gleaned from playing Fallout and watching Dharma and Greg as an adolescent.

Objection 1: It would seem that there is no distinction between actual grace and karma. For both are external causes of a person's future behavior. Therefore there is no distinction between them.

Objection 2: Furthermore, karma and actual graces both influence the state of an individual after death. For karma, we are told, can influence how an individual is reborn; and grace certainly influences their judgment to heaven or hell. Therefore, etc.

Objection 3: Furthermore, like actual grace, karma affects an individual based on their previous behavior. Therefore, etc.

On the other hand, karma appears to be automatic and objective, a particular understanding of how one's behavior influences one's future state. Not only do good actions produce good results, but bad actions produce bad. But although good actions will result in further actual graces, there is no statement that bad actions will result not only in a deprivation of grace by God in this life, but even of a specific obstacle to grace. Therefore there is a difference between actual grace and karma.

I answer that there is a distinction to be made between actual grace and karma, in a number of ways. In the first place, grace is a gift granted to one by God:

  Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1996; bold emphasis added)

But karma does not require to be granted by any being; it appears to be part of the structure of the universe:

  a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad;
   he becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds

(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5)

Furthermore, grace is granted to humans so that they may grow to become more like God (that they may advance in the process of theosis; see the quote above from the Catechism). Karma, on the other hand, does not appear to have any particular purpose.

For at least these two reasons, it appears that one must draw a distinction between actual grace and karma.

Reply to Objection 1: As discussed above, karma is not granted to one person by God, but grace is.

Reply to Objection 2: Although karma controls the state in which one will be reborn after death, grace does not in itself control whether one will be saved after death. Rather, the will of God, judging us as to our faith and works, accomplishes this.

Reply to Objection 3: As discussed above, karma can appear in both negative and positive forms, while grace is a purely positive gift of God.


Does human effort oppose God's grace? A pastor in my church once told me that "human effort does not oppose God's grace", I.E. to say, as long as you do your best (which is impossible to attain, but you try any way), God will indeed do the rest.

Are there any biblical references that support/reject this view?

Human effort consistent with the will of God, does not oppose God's Grace. However, the words of Jesus to Peter (cf. Matthew 16:21-23),

  "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things, but on human things" (NRSV)

are a proclamation from God himself that human effort can, indeed, oppose God's grace.

The assertion that one's best is impossible to attain is a logical paradox, and a fallacy. Everyone can do his or her best, so it is obviously possible to attain. The issue is the extent to which the "best" of any particular individual comes close to God's objective standards. But God exhorts in Genesis 4:7

  "If you do well, will it not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." (NRSV)