What feast does Paul refer to in 1 Corinthians 5:8? What feast is Paul referring to?

  Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:8 NKJV)

The preceding verses answers your question:

6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Verses 6 and 7 are referring to the Passover Feast. During Passover, Jews at the time (and today) would eat unleavened bread, as a symbol of moral purity.  Here Paul is explaining this symbolism.  In the analogy, leaven (yeast) represents sin, and he says that just as even a little yeast is sufficient to leaven a large loaf of bread, just a little sin (or sexual impurity in this specific example) is enough to contaminate an entire body of believers.


Why did Paul VI strip József Mindszenty of his archbishopric? József Mindszenty was appointed Primate of Hungary and Archbishop of Esztergom in 1945.  There existed a mutual animosity between him and the Hungarian government, which culminated in his imprisonment for treason, and later his confinement for many years at the American embassy as a political asylee.  Pope Paul VI eventually secured a deal that permitted him to leave the embassy in exchange for exile from Hungary.

In 1973, While Mindszenty was in exile, Paul VI supposedly pressured him to voluntarily resign the primacy and archbishopric.  When that did not work, he unilaterally stripped Mindszenty of his titles.  However, he refused to appoint a successor to the vacant offices.  This raises the following questions:

Why did Paul VI want Mindszenty to give up his offices?  Was this simply a matter of him being unable to effectively discharge his duties while in exile?  If so, what was the point of leaving the offices vacant?  If it was rather a purely political move aimed at placating the Hungarian authorities, why did the latter not include this condition in the original deal?  Did the Church ever publish an official reason for relieving Mendszenty of his titles?

(I wasn't sure whether it was more appropriate to ask this question here or on the History Stack Exchange, but as our own tour solicits questions about "the history of denominations (such as Roman Catholic…)" I thought I'd try here first.)

This can be understood in the context of the "Vatican Ostpolitik".
The Vatican made a secret agreement with the Eastern Orthodox not to mention Communism at the Second Vatican Council; indeed, the word "Communism" appears in none of its promulgated documents.
From De Mattei's The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story, pt. 2, § 11c:

Cardinal [Tisserant] confided […] that he had participated in the negotiations with the schismatic Russian Orthodox: “Moscow demanded that no one speak against communism in the council, and Rome agreed,” he said, adding that he thought it “possible to speak against materialism and atheism without mentioning communism; in this way the council, which deals only with religion, could accomplish its mission perfectly.” […] Cardinal Mindszenty had remained the last symbol of ecclesiastical resistance to communism, after the death of Cardinal Alojzije Stepìnac, who had died of poisoning on February 10, 1962.

ibid. pt. 7, §9 "The Vatican Ostpolitik":

One of the most famous victims of the Vatican Ostpolitik was Cardinal József Mindszenty, primate of Hungary and hero of the anti-communist resistance. Mindszenty, who had been a prisoner from 1948 to 1956, took refuge after the Hungarian revolt in the American embassy in Budapest and always remained resolutely opposed to any idea about dialogue or negotiations with communist governments, convinced that that could only strengthen them. He steadfastly disputed the Vatican Ostpolitik, telling the Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot: “Why do you appoint bishops in the countries of the Eastern bloc? It would be better if there were none, rather than those whom the governments allow you to appoint.”162 On November 1, 1973, when Paul VI asked him to renounce his title of archbishop of Esztergom and primate of Hungary, the cardinal replied with a respectful but clear refusal. Paul VI took it upon himself to declare the primatial archdiocese vacant, informing Cardinal Mindszenty on November 18, 1973, of his dismissal as archbishop.163
162. A. Wenger, Le cardinal Villot, op. cit., 260.

The announcement of the removal of Cardinal Mindszenty was made in L’Osservatore Romano. According to the Giornale d’Italia dated February 6–7, 1974, the Vatican had “offered his head on a silver platter to his Herod, the communist government of Budapest.” The February 13 issue of the Zürich newspaper Die Weltwoche wrote that now Rome itself was the one to martyr Mindszenty, since it was worried about getting rid of its anachronistic image for the sake of the Vatican’s new Ostpolitik. On February 5, 1974, when the news of his dismissal had become common knowledge, Cardinal Mindszenty issued a communiqué in which he declared that he had never resigned from his post as archbishop nor from his rank as primate of Hungary, underscoring that “the decision was made solely by the Holy See” (Memorie, op. cit., 372).


What is the source for Martin Luther's quote against the use of pipe organ music? I've heard it said that Martin Luther condemned the use of pipe organs, saying that they were somehow evil.

What is the source for this quote? Or is it falsely attributed to Luther?

Might this be your quote?

  "The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal" (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762)

This phrase turns up 1,400 results in Google; but it may not be accurate.

One researcher, apparently familiar with Luther and this quote, had this rebuttal:

  Strong DOES NOT use the word “insignia,” it uses the word “ensign!” Various other church of Christ denomination websites also misquote this statement.

Searching Google for the quote with "ensign" instead of "insignia" turns up 7 results. This suggests widespread dissemination of the (mis)quote without checking sources. (This is possibly the encyclopedic source, though it's certainly not word-for-word; thanks @James T)

The source mentioned above had more to say on the topic:

  One big problem with this quote is that students of the writings of Luther CANNOT find this quote ANYWHERE in the writings of Martin Luther! It is well known that Martin Luther DID NOT oppose musical instruments in church. Luther was at odds with John Calvin on this subject. Luther taught Gospel Liberty, that anything not specifically condemned in the New Testament was authorized.

With a creative search query, I determined that 98% of the online sources for this quote reference the same Martin Luther encyclopedia referenced above.

Another possible source for this saying is Heinrich Eckhard's Fasciculus Controversiarum Theologicarum where he states,

  Lutherus organa Musica inter Baalis insignia refert.

Which a 19th century author translates as:

  Luther considers organs among the ensigns of Baal.

A few problems, though: @James T's source suggests that "organa Musica" is better translated as "instruments of music." Further, Eckhard isn't even himself the original source of his statement.

As we trace this quote back, we go from one shaky source to another (as the "quote" changes) until the internet trail peters out at "Anhaldini p. 74"


Is Jesus the last Prophet? Many Muslims believe that the Prophet of Islam is the Last prophet of God.

Does this belief of 'last' Prophet exist in Christianity as well? Do any Christians believe that any other prophet will come between Jesus and his second coming?

You have not scoped this question to any particular Christian denomination, but pretty much all mainstream and even non-mainstream denominations would say that Jesus was not the last prophet.

The Bible contains prophecies that were written by people after Jesus (such as the book of Revelation), and it describes first-century Christian congregations as having prophets. (1 Corinthians 14; Acts 13:1)

Denominations which don't recognize the authority of the Bible still usually rely on private revelation or their own prophet to base their beliefs on.


According to reformed theology: Is loving God a choice? If not, do the elect differ from robots? According to reformed theology:

God, before the foundations of the universe, chose to elect some humans
God ensures that the elect will come to believe and follow Christ

Thus, the question:

For the elect, is loving God a choice? [this appears to be a "no"]
If not, how do the elect differ from robots?
Also -- some have claimed "the reason Adam/Eve" was given a choice -- was that it was so that they could prove their love to God by not eating of the tree. Is there a way to resolve this with reformed theology? We appear to come back to the point where -- if God ensures that the elect believe in Jesus -- then the fact that the elect love Christ is not a matter of choice, but a matter of God's works.

You're asking about two different elements of the traditional reformed acronym TULIP:

Unconditional Election - That Christ's elect are called without regard to their own merits.
Irresistible Grace - That the elect are drawn to Christ despite the fact that their sin nature keeps them away and this drawing is actually irresistible.

The crux of your question is not the unconditional election part. You can sort of have that without the Irresistible grace part, but it makes the election virtually meaningless (We'll get to why in a minute).

Irresistible grace is not a method of turning humanity into automatons. It is however, God's way of drawing his people to himself. God is an all powerful being, the fact that we do not desire and worship him is an unnatural state. Much like all things desire to revert to their natural state, God providing even the ability for it to become so causes a human to revert to said state. This is much like shorting a circuit. Electrons are content to mill about in their circuit, but the moment a circuit is shorted they make a beeline for the short. This is what Irresistible grace is like. You're milling about aimlessly, but then the most direct path to fulfillment is opened and you make a beeline for it, without even thinking.

This is how it works on a spiritual level. However, what is apparent in the mind of the person is that it just makes sense, or you feel do down at out that you have no where else to turn. You don't necessarily feel the tug. It just happens. Although some people do feel it more than others (Lewis famously described it as "being dragged kicking and screaming").

I said something at the beginning though that is probably controversial, but it's true. Without Irresistible Grace election is both meaningless and is either impossible or makes God ignorant or impotent. Let me unpack that just a bit. If we start with the assumption that God calls those that he elected, then either he is willingly calling people that he knows will not come or all of those that he calls will come. If not all of the people that he calls do not come, then why does he call them in the first place? If all of the people that he calls do come, don't we have to include that the call itself is compulsive?

If not all that come at God's call then what is the meaning of that call? Isn't it effectively meaningless? Can some come that are not called? are all called? Do those that come when called have some kind of merit that distinguishes those from that that do not? (I'm asking a lot of rhetorical questions, hope that's ok)...

Anyways, in summary: Those that are called must be drawn irresistibly or the call is both meaningless and makes God out to be impotent or ignorant.


Why would God send a deceitful spirit? 1 Kings 22:19-28
19 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’
“One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’
22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.
“‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.
“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’
23 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”
24 Then Zedekiah son of Kenaanah went up and slapped Micaiah in the face. “Which way did the spirit from[a] the Lord go when he went from me to speak to you?” he asked.
25 Micaiah replied, “You will find out on the day you go to hide in an inner room.”
26 The king of Israel then ordered, “Take Micaiah and send him back to Amon the ruler of the city and to Joash the king’s son 27 and say, ‘This is what the king says: Put this fellow in prison and give him nothing but bread and water until I return safely.’”
28 Micaiah declared, “If you ever return safely, the Lord has not spoken through me.” Then he added, “Mark my words, all you people!”

So God sends a spirit enticing Ahab in order to attack Ramoth Gilead. If I may dare ask, why does God feel the need to send a deceiving spirit? Would this not go against the Commandments God has given? And why was such a spirit even within the close proximity in the presence of the Lord in the first place? I wish to know how to reconciling this text with others.

Regarding your question, if it is a matter of deceit or not - consider the original context.

First you should read the whole chapter: 1 Kings 22

The subject has to do with truth, amazingly.

  13 The messenger who went to call Micaiah said to him, Behold now, the
  prophets unanimously declare good to the king. Let your answer, I pray
  you, be like theirs, and say what is good.

  14 But Micaiah said, As the Lord lives, I will speak what the Lord
  says to me.

The king demands to hear the truth.

  16 And the king said to him, How many times must I charge you to tell
  me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?

So the prophet tells the truth.

Then there is the part you mention where God asks "who will go fool Ahab" and a spirit says "I'll be a deceptive spirit in his prophets..." and that is agreed upon.

And thus the prophet summarizes:

  23 So the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these
  prophets; and the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.

Notice too - what God said was distinctly different than what the lying spirit said.

So you can see that although there was indeed deception, God revealed the truth (he cannot lie, and he is the "revealer of secrets") but as usual Ahab follows his own self-convenient thinking and heart as many do.

This is similar to what is said here:

Deuteronomy 13:1-3

  If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a
  sign or a wonder,

  2 And the sign or the wonder he foretells to you comes to pass, and if
  he says, Let us go after other gods—gods you have not known—and let us
  serve them,

  3 You shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer
  of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you
  love the Lord your God with all your [mind and] heart and with your
  entire being.

Again - with the fore-knowledge of such things, you actually have the truth of the matter ahead of time so the seeming deception is irrelevant - unless one's lying heart wishes to believe it. God has not lied. (Romans 3:4)

Similar passages:
2 Samuel 15:31

  31 David was told, Ahithophel [your counselor] is among the
  conspirators with Absalom. David said, O Lord, I pray You, turn
  Ahithophel’s counsel into foolishness.

Job 5:13

  13 He catches the [so-called] wise in their own trickiness, and the
  counsel of the schemers is brought to a quick end.


Where does the concept of "unconditional love toward others" come from? What tradition or theology does the concept of "unconditional love toward others" derive from, and how is it reconciled with the need of repentance for absolution along with a similar process for brothers and sisters of the faith described in Titus?

Most will probably know a certain candidate thanked his mother for it recently (could indicate Baptist origins), and it was also brought up on the radio today:  http://www.keylife.org/player/works .

I would submit that the numerous times God forgave Israel, the love he expressed to David even after sinning, and ultimately the very fact that a plan of salvation was established from the very beginning, all point to and demonstrate unconditional love
The need of repentance and "process", assuming you're speaking of Titus 3:4-7, is that plan of salvation in which demonstrated/demonstrates unconditional love.

Isaiah 54:10
Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,” says the Lord, who has compassion on you.
Psalms 78:36-38
But then they would flatter him with their mouths, lying to him with their tongues; their hearts were not loyal to him, they were not faithful to his covenant.
Yet he was merciful; he forgave their iniquities and did not destroy them.  Time after time he restrained his anger and did not stir up his full wrath.
Matthew 18:21-22
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”
Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.


Who produced the first Concordance? Prior to this new-fangled electronic thing called the internet, people who were looking to find a particular verse in the Bible resorted to a manual index called a concordance.  In such a book, keywords would be listed alphabetically, and every verse using that keyword would then be listed.

The most famous example is Strong's Concordance of the Bible.

My question is, who was the first person to come up with the idea of making such a valuable tool in the first place?

The first concordance was undertaken under the direction of Hugh of Saint-Cher and completed in the early 13th century.

Hugh was a member of the catholic Dominican Order, whose founding goals were to preach the gospel and fight heresy. This order was known for its intellectualism; the influential St. Thomas Aquinas was a member of it. While prior to the Dominicans heresy was fought and the gospel was preached in Catholicism, friars were generally expected to stay home. The Dominicans, however, took a more open and intellectual approach to fighting heresy by traveling and establishing missions, and  by preaching the gospel through appealing to the Bible. This clearly gave rise to a need for better tools to study and understand the Bible.

It is for this reason that the order, and Hugh in particular, is credited not only for creating the first concordance of the Bible, but also for creating the first "correctorium", or a collection of various readings and commentary of the Bible. As a result of carelessness or mistakes on the part of scholars who would insert, change, or omit passages of the Bible when transcribing, including adding commentary, there was a great need for a comprehensive work to understand the original meaning of the Biblical text. Thus, the correctorium was created. It even included excerpts of the original Greek.

Hugh is often miscredited for producing the modern division of chapters and verses in the Bible. Chapters had already been established at the time. Verses had not, however Hugh in his concordance used a system in which the chapters were divided into roughly 7 equal parts and the part of the chapter was indicated in the concordance. The basis of the concordance was the Latin Vulgate.

For more information on all of these topics (Mostly from the Catholic Encyclopedia), see:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04195a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_concordance

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07521b.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12354c.htm


What's the Biblical basis for "all Christians will be together in heaven some day"? Christians often say that "some day we will all be together in heaven." I'm wondering if this idea comes from scripture.

The closest I can think of is the end of Revelation, which discusses a "new earth" on which the "new Jerusalem" descends. If you take this apocalyptic vision as having a symbolic city (representing the complete Church) coming down from a literal heaven, I suppose you could argue logically that the completed church must have been together in heaven prior to descending. But I really doubt if the saying comes from an interpretation as complex as that!

Am I overlooking something simple? Does the Bible teach elsewhere that all Christians will be together in heaven some day?

I'm looking for "orthodox", protestant perspectives argued from the standard (66 book) canon.

What's the Biblical basis for “all Christians will be together in heaven some day”?

One verse that comes to mind is one that is often used with rapture theory, but does talk about both those who have died in Christ and those who are alive being joined together at his return and remain with him.

  1 Thessalonians 4:17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be
  caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the
  air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.


What is the Amish view on the use of social media? Not even sure if they would classify themselves as Christians, but what is their view on social media?

Unfortunately, the Amish are a hard group to get a grasp on.
First you have to clarify which order of Amish. There are some super conservative groups which are more like what most people have been taught to envision when they think of Amish.
The majority of your basic "Old Order" Amish have electricity,  just not on the grid, through generators, batteries and even solar. It's not present inside the home, but is often in their barns and offices. They do have phones, usually the land-line is in a phone booth outside (notice the emphasis on the home). They mostly have cell phones, at least for business, but they are cracking down on smart phones with internet.
Internet is the real key. It's access to dangerous things (primarily pornography is pointed at) makes it the real problem with computers. Not the computer itself. Amish use "word processors" ever day at our work. They are PCs made with modified network cards so they are incapable of connecting to the internet with a browser.
Bishops are figuring out that smart phones are basically just small computers with internet, so that is being discouraged. (My Amish boss had an iPhone for business for several years up until 6 months ago, now he's back to basic flip phone, as are the others in his Bishop's district).
Obviously, no internet means no social media.
However the kids have smart phones and facebook and all that and there doesn't seem to be any issue with it. Though it is family by family what the kids are allowed to do. The children aren't bound by Amish rules since they aren't a part of the church until they choose, so it's up to the parents.
Conclusion
Judging by its use by the teenagers, the Amish parents have no moral issue with social media. It's use by full members of the church would clearly not be allowed as it requires the use of the internet. But any Amish rule against something cannot be equated as an absolute moral judgment against it.
They wouldn't look down on you for your facebook, at least not any more than they would for you watching TV or driving them to the store in your car.

Most information I have given is from personal daily contact with the Amish in Pennsylvania.  However this article highlights some of the things I reference:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/the-surprising-ingenious-amish-gadget-culture#.wnob1lVjG


When and by whom was the Exsultet written? On Wikipedia I found the Latin text of the Exsultet, but it is not clear when exactly it was written, or by whom.  What is its origin?

According to Zenit and the Catholic Encyclopedia, the solemn rite originated no later than the late fourth century, with the current text of the Exultet likely dating back to the fifth century.  The earliest extant manuscript is found in the Bobbio Missal, dating from the seventh century.  Its author is unknown.


What is the basis for the idea that God is highly involved in human lives? A few days ago a family member who is religious told me about an event in her life that she thinks is a miracle. She witnessed a car wreck in front of her, and believes that it is a miracle that it was not them because they had stopped to pray beforehand. The details are not particularly important to this question.

I know many people of various religions, but I've only heard similar statements from Christians. I live in the USA so I'm wondering if this is something that is largely cultural (being the most popular religion here) or if there is something particular about Christianity that encourages this?

Are there any verses in the Bible which support this kind of hyper-involvement in your life by God?

And is there a specific movement or denomination that is particularly supportive of this idea?

Many Christians, and I am one of those; who believe that God knows everything, controls everything, and is everywhere simultaneously. This idea is commonly known as God being omniscient, omnipotent, and Omnipresent. To most of us that simply means that God is with his people at all times, that God knows everything and every circumstance that will take place right up until the end of time; and that he directs circumstances in order that things will happen exactly the way he wants them to right up until the end of days.

There are innumerable concepts as to how much control God uses to accomplish his goals. They range from superficial management, all the way to micro management.

Those who are prone to believe that God micro manages base that belief on:

  Matthew 10:29 through 31 NKJV  Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. 30  But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31  Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

However; to think that God micro manages everything, every incident, and all events; would appear to my simple mind to take away a free will.

There are however; some incidents in which it would appear that only holy intervention could have caused some result.

To this end I will cite this incident.

I have a close friend, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He was given only a few months of life by several doctors. After many prayer sessions, by both he and others in the church; he returned to the doctor who originally diagnosed him with the cancer. On that visit there was no sign of cancer left, and today 10 years later he is still praising God for that healing.

Although I cannot say that I know beyond a doubt that his healing was God's work, I do believe that there is no other explanation.

Christianity, is known as faith for a reason;

Faith according to Merriam Webster; is. Latin: to trust; Greek: to persuade, to draw towards any thing, to conciliate; to believe, to obey. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth.

I have abbreviated this definition because it was extremely long; however; it still contains the main idea which I want to convey. That idea is that faith and free will are almost the same thing as far as Christians are concerned. One can either choose to believe or not believe. Just as one can choose to believe or not believe things that are written in the history books are other similar publications. And the depth of that belief can have a wide range.

Hope this helps.


When did the pronunciation of "Jesus" change? When did the pronunciation of Jesus change from Yeh-sus to Gee-zus? Why did the name change? How? Where?

Update: how did the name pronunciation change? Wouldn't there be people to correct mispronouncing the name? Did English speaking regions that pronounced J as a soft G take over educational institutions? What happened to English speakers that read J as Y?

It was a mispronunciation of a European (i.e. German/Old English) spelling of Jesus. Before the 1600s "Js" were pronounced "Y" - as in the name Jürgen. In fact, the letter "J" is extant in no alphabet until the 14th Century. The Greek Ίησους (Yeh-sus) was written "Jesus", but pronounced the same (that is, with a "Y") until after the 1630s when the letter J was generally pronounced "dje". This accounts for the change in pronunciation.

This also accounts for why in the 1611 KJV, all the "J - names" (e.g. Jesus, James) were written with an "I" (e.g. Iesus, Iames).

If you're interested, the English/German form is actually taken from the Latin Iesus, hence the "us" ending, rather than a "ous" ending. The name in Hebrew is ישוע (Yeshua, a shortened form of Yehoshua), which is where we get the name Joshua from. :-)


According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, why was Jesus likely not born in December because of Levite temple service schedule? This is about a particular reason why it was not likely for Jesus to have been born in December, based on an explanation I remember hearing from a Jehovah's Witness over a decade ago.

I know that multiple arguments can be provided against a December birth date but this particular one is of interest mainly because I forgot the exact reasoning behind it and have not been able to find it explained anywhere.

From what I remember of it, it had to do with the Levite temple service schedule and possibly John the Baptizer's father serving at the temple.

If there is a reasoning along these lines, what was the explanation for it?

You have a good memory, and so did that Witness. I had never heard of this argument before, but with some research I found an article in a 1985 Watchtower which explains this line of reasoning.

[Box on page 28]
How does First Chronicles help to prove that Jesus was not born on December 25?

According to First Chronicles, King David organized the priests into 24 “courses,” or groups, each group being assigned to serve for a week at the temple. Thus, a member of each course would get to serve at the temple twice each year, at approximately six-month intervals.

The first course began serving immediately after the end of the Festival of Booths, around late September/early October. The eighth group, named after Abijah, served a week in late November/early December, and then another week in late June/early July. Why is the division of Abijah significant? Because, according to Luke’s account, John the Baptizer’s father, Zechariah, belonged to “the division of Abijah,” and he was actually serving in the temple when the angel appeared to him and announced the coming birth of John.—Luke 1:5, 8, 9.

As Luke’s record shows, John was conceived very soon after this. Hence, he was born nine months later, either early September or early April. Luke’s record also shows that Jesus was six months younger than John. (Luke 1:26) Thus this detail from the book of Chronicles shows that, rather than being born at the end of December, Jesus was born either early March, or early October. Other scriptures show that the latter is the correct time.—For more details, see The Watchtower, June 15, 1954, page 382.

— w85 9/1 p. 28 "Read and Learn From the Two Books of Chronicles"

Nowadays, Jehovah's Witnesses commonly use the explanation that the shepherds would not have been out of doors at night (Luke 2:8) during the winter months, since winter in Bethlehem is especially cold and rainy.


What is a brief history on the idea that the Pope is the Antichrist? I am quite familiar with the Reformers' opposition to the Papacy, and many said the Pope is the Antichrist. What confuses me is this quote from that same page:

In calling the pope the "antichrist," the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the "antichrist" when they wished to castigate his abuse of power.

I was under the impression that the idea originated with the Reformers; however, it clearly did not. I would like a brief history of this idea up until the Reformers.

This answer draws extensively from Angel Pope and Papal Antichrist, Bernard McGinn, Church History 47(2):155-173, 1978. McGinn is a Catholic and an expert on medieval mysticism.

The identification of the Pope with the Antichrist of Revelation comes essentially from Joachim of Fiore, a twelfth-century mystic who was particularly interested in the pattern of history. His theology was condemned in a synod of 1260, though it was very influential - firstly, among groups in the Church who were devoted to lives of poverty, especially the Franciscans, and secondly among various schismatic the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh sects.

For Joachim and followers, contemporary power struggles over the nature of the papacy, and questions over legitimacy during periods where there were antipopes, foreshadowed a future apocalyptic showdown between a pastor angelicus, novus dux, or orthopontifex (the good guy) and an Antichrist or pseudopontifex (the bad guy).  This was a divergence from previous Antichrist theories, which tended to think he would be a (Holy) Roman Emperor.1 Joachim himself may or may not have thought that the Antichrist would be a "proper" elected pope, as opposed to someone setting himself up in mockery of the true church. He did think that the result of the conflict would be the beginning of a new era, where all people would live a simple, monastic, contemplative life, and where there would no longer be a church or pope. 2

The next generation of Joachimites certainly did believe in the pseudopontifex. From them come the Dulcinians and other millenarian sects. By the way, if you've read Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, then you've met some of these people! Part of the problem for the Franciscans in that book is that everyone assumes they're Dulcinian. Both groups were influenced by Joachim, but people like William of Ockham stayed within the Church, while trying to promote poverty and simplicity in life, and did not want to get rid of the papacy. Even Ubertino of Casale, who called Boniface VIII and Benedict XI a pair of antichrists, didn't want anything more than to have a better pope take over.3

There is an influence on the Lollards, whose founder John Wycliffe (1330-1384) had similar views of the papacy. And from these "proto-Reformers" it is a hop, skip and jump to the actual Reformation, similarly animated by concern about the church being wealthy and corrupt. The big difference, roughly from Wycliffe onwards, was that now the institution of the papacy itself was seen as Antichrist - unlike the classical Joachimite view of a good and a bad pope fighting it out. For the Protestants there could not be a good pope! All popes, for them, were like mini-antichrists preparing the way for the final Antichrist of Revelation (the antichristus magnus). In a previous answer of mine you can find some references to Luther, Calvin, etc., discussing this idea.

Now, there have been other people, even before Joachim of Fiore, who used the word "antichrist" in relation to some pope. But these occurences are fairly sporadic and not influential. McGinn cites Arnulf (an archbishop of Reims), speaking at the synod where he was deposed in 991, calling John XV "Antichrist seated in the temple of God and showing himself as if he were God".4 Any stuff like this is just name-calling, and in any case is invariably about some specific individual pope, not the institution of the papacy or the hypothesized pseudopontifex.

In summary, the Pope-Antichrist link is in its purest form a creature of the Reformation, where the very institution of the papacy was held to be intrinsically evil. This built upon an earlier trend of criticizing the church for some combination of wealth, lack of zeal, or political disagreement: and where people looked forward to either a better pope, or the coming of a messianic golden age where the whole question was moot. The people associated with this view were necessarily "dissidents", and sometimes "heretics". I have not found any of them who are accounted "saints", and frankly I think it rather unlikely (unless we mean "saints" in a much more general sense).

1. See eg Hugh of Newcastle, De victoria Christi contra Antichristi (1319), or the Ludus de Antichristo, a mid-12th century play about an imperial Antichrist.
2. Antichrists and Antichrist in Joachim of Fiore, Robert E. Lerner, Speculum 60:3, 1985.
3. Arbor vitae crucifixae Jesu, Ubertino of Casale (1305) at 5.8 and 5.11 (f. 230rb-233ra, 237vb in the Venice 1485 printing).
4. Acta concilii Remensis ad Sanctum Basolum, Gerbert of Aurillac (aka, later, Pope Sylvester II), in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 3, 672.


Was the Book of the Law (Torah) ever kept inside the Ark of the Covenant? Deuteronomy 31:24-26 (NIV) After Moses finished writing in a book the
  words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the
  Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: “Take this
  Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the
  Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.

This verse indicates that the Torah was placed beside the Ark of the Covenant and stood there as a  witness.  But this Wikipedia mentions the Torah as once kept inside the Ark.

Was there any chance ever that the Torah was kept inside the Ark? Is there any verse supporting it? (If the information in Wikipedia is not credible, someone must update it)

Note: Readers should not be confused between Torah (book) and the stone tablets (10 Commandments). The question here is about the Book, not the tablets.

The rabbis debate the meaning of the verse in Bava Batra 14b. מִצַּד is a rare combination, but it certainly means "beside" in Jos. 3:16, Jos. 12:9, Ruth 2:14, 1 Sam. 20:25. I see no instances where it can unequivocally be asserted to mean "in," "inside," or "within." Had Moshe intended to say that it was placed "inside" the Ark, why wouldn't he have written ב or בקרב instead?

For example, using the same verb that is found in Deut. 31:26 (a conjugation of the verb שׂוּם, meaning "to put" or "to place"), Isaiah writes (Isa. 63:11),

  ...Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within him?

The prophet uses the prepositional phrase בְּקִרְבּוֹ (bekirbo). The context makes it clear that God puts or places His Holy Spirit inside an individual.

Another example is Deut. 10:2 where we find, again, the same verb, but this time, Moshe uses the prepositional prefix ב.

  And I will write on the tables the words that were on the first tables which you broke, and you shall put them in the Ark.

Here, God commands Moshe to put the tables (which have the Ten Commandments written upon them) in the Ark, which is translated from the Hebrew phrase בָּאָרוֹן (ba'aron).

So, the tablets are placed בָּאָרוֹן, "in the Ark." Why not write the same for the Torah scroll if indeed it was located "in the Ark"? There's simply nothing which explicitly confirms that it was indeed located in the Ark. Again, the prepositional phrase מִצַּד is never used in a context meaning "inside" or "in."


When God said to man that if he sinned he would die, was he speaking of death of the human body or death of the Soul, or the Spirit? When God warned Adam about eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he said that in the day that he ate there of he would surely die.

Genesis 2:17  KJV

  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

We know that Adam lived over 900 years on the Earth:

Genesis 5:5  KJV

  And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

So Adam and Eve did not die physically that day,  but  the argument could be made that they did die in the respect that they were now separated from God for eternity.

Since God had created man in their image, which I take to mean as in three parts body, spirit, and soul.

If sin had separated man from God eternally, and man was condemned to eternity in the lake of fire that would be the second death:

Revelation 21:8  KJV

  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

And since man was condemned to the lake of fire for eternity, which is the second death that would have taken place on the same day as their sin.

Could that have been the reason why:

Genesis 3:22  KJV

  And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

It can't have been his body, because he was still alive physically and didn't drop dead on the spot.

And it can't have been his soul because he felt naked after eating of the forbidden fruit.  Which means his natural mind was still working.

  And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the
  cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the
  presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. - Gen 3:8

The only part left of us is our spirit which we cannot perceive through our 5 senses.

  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of
  the Spirit is spirit. - John 3:6

So I believe it was a spiritual death, not a natural death.

Why was he driven out of the garden?  I believe it was so that he couldn't continue to eat of the tree of life and continue to live physically forever in a fallen state.

  And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know
  good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
  the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Gen 3:22

I believe it wasn't so much that sin had separated God from man, but man from God.
It was man who hid from God in the garden after eating the fruit and man who felt shame.  God continued to reach out to man but sin kept man away from God.

But obviously things were not quite the same.  Without a spirit that is alive they were unable to fellowship with God.  They (and we) cannot relate to God spirit to spirit unless we are born again.

Gen 3:8-10:

  8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in
  the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the
  presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

  9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art
  thou?

  10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid,
  because I was naked; and I hid myself.


What is the Biblical definition of what makes one a Christian? Many religious leaders/organizations place the "cult" label on groups of people or churches who interpret the Bible differently than them. If we claim the Bible as our only authoritative source for our doctrinal foundation. What does it actually say on the matter?

The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. (Acts 11:26, NIV)

Therefore, a Christian is a "disciple" of Christ. And a "disciple" of Christ is one who "believes Jesus and abide in his word" (John 8:31).

Therefore, one who does not believe Jesus or does not abide in the word of Jesus is not a "disciple" of Christian and not a Christian.


Biblical basis or rationale for Christian Identity Movement? After discovering the Christian Identity movement, and investigating them further to answer another question, I've been pondering how they justify their doctrine.

On the homepage of Christian Identity Ministries they quote Luke 1:68-75 and then make this bold statement:

"The Anglo-Saxon-Keltic-Germanic-Scandinavian People are Israel"

How does Christian Identity interpret the bible to justify a white supremacist theology?

In Luke here there's a prophecy about the restoration of Israel, pretty similar to many found in the psalms.
Some white supremacists, including these people, believe that the 10 lost tribes of Israel (all except Judah and Benjamin, I think) went to Northern Europe and became the English, and sometimes all the Celtic & Germanic people.
So these verses about Israel being "saved" is evidence to their minds that all the tribes would be preserved, and they see their race as fulfilling that.

Read more about the ten lost tribes if you want to know more.

This is a very biased belief that has almost zero historical evidence, and St. Paul has the view that Christians are the fulfilled children of Abraham (see his To The Romans).


Do Presbyterian Protestants have a 'day of rest' or a 'day of religious works'? My own experience, growing up in Presbyterian Protestantism (four generations of Church of Scotland ministers) gave me the distinct impression that many influential people in that section of Christendom were treating 'Sunday' or 'the sabbath' as an opportunity to load heavy burdens on the congregation.

I remember exhortations along the lines of 'you must think spiritual thoughts all day on a Sunday' and 'you must not let your mind wander'.

Does Presbyterian Protestantism really believe that the sabbath is to be 'rest'? Or do they believe it is one day out of seven in which maximum religious exertion should occur?

  For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Hebrews 4:10.

The position of the Westminster Confession of Faith regarding Sabbath day observance may help to explain why you were exhorted to “think spiritual thoughts all day on a Sunday” and that “you must not let your mind wander”:

  As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.
  This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
  https://www.rts.edu/Site/About/Reformed_tradition/WestminsterConfession/wc_ch21.aspx

It has been my observation that SOME Protestant denominations place great emphasis on what could be described as “maximum religious exertion” by running around like headless chickens on a Sunday, from dawn to dusk, participating in church-related activities.  However, the Westminster Confession does advocate observing a day of rest from secular activities (including employment and recreation).  No doubt those Protestant Christians who are actively engaged in Sunday services do so gladly and willingly and would not describe it as “work.”

Although I am not in a position to comment on the Presbyterian view of the Sabbath, the Bible has this advice with regard to all who participate in Sunday worship and observation of the Sabbath:

  1 Corinthians 10:23-32: “Everything is permissible” – but not everything is beneficial.  “Everything is permissible” – but not everything is constructive.  Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others...  For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?  So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.  Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God – even as I try to please everybody in every way.  For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.”

  Colossians 2:13: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.”


Is the Bible literally the word of God? As someone from a Muslim background, I have noted a major distinction between the Quran and the Bible; The Quran is seen by its adherents as the ipsissima verba of God, while (I've heard) the Bible isn't.

So my question is quite simple, but I haven't been able to google it: Are there any parts in the Bible which are seen literally, unequivocally as the words of a Christian God? I'd imagine there have to be, but on the other hand if it isn't the literal word of God you could say the Bible might have gotten so altered by people over the time that there exists a possibility that no part of the Bible is actually God's word.

Which came first, Qur'an or Bible? Bible

Did the Qur'an fall from the sky? NO

Did the Bible fall from the sky? NO

Did God(Allah) write the Qur'an with His finger? NO

Did God(Jehovah) write the Bible with His finger? The Ten Commandment was, at least.

Who wrote Qur'an and Bible?
Qur'an and Bible were written by men and both claimed to be from God.

How many authors Qur'an has? One. Muhammad alone. No one was there to support the ideas of Muhammad. He alone handled the whole situation.

How many authors Bible has? Approximately 40 men. All from different times and places with different languages but were writing in harmony to each other.

How many years Qur'an took to complete? Approximately 23 years. 100 years later it was put into written form.

How many years Bible took to complete? Approximately 1500 years. This has a good historical evidence to prove its authenticity and timelessness.

Method of communication from God in Islam: Muhammad was the only person responsible for the origin of Qur'an. He claimed to receive the last and final message from God through angel Gabriel. The communication usually took place in the Cave of Hira. Muhammad was always alone in that cave. Who knows what he was doing! Probably thinking about what will be the contents for the next chapter for his composed book and revising the words that he has to say to his 50-60 companions.

Method of communication from God in Bible: There are many countless ways on how God communicated with the authors of the Bible. Some saw a vision. Moses was speaking with God like a friend. Paul saw a great light and met with Jesus. There are many examples.

Originality of stories from Qur'an: Most of the stories from Qur'an are borrowed from the Bible with incomplete accounts and many times twisted. Years are not mentioned. There is no sequence. Names are also confusing. Example, Qur'an has no mention of the names of Cain and Abel and also who was the elder or who was the evil one.

  Surah 5:27
  And recite to them the story of Adam's two sons, in truth, when they
  both offered a sacrifice [to Allah ], and it was accepted from one of
  them but was not accepted from the other. Said [the latter], "I will
  surely kill you." Said [the former], "Indeed, Allah only accepts from
  the righteous [who fear Him].

Originality of stories from Bible: The Bible itself is it's own source for it's stories without borrowing it from elsewhere. In fact, it's a historical record of Israel and Christianity.


Why did Katarina von Bora need to hide in a barrel to escape from her convent? In the 2003 movie Luther, Katarina von Bora (future wife of Martin Luther) says that she escaped from her convent with other nuns by hiding in herring barrels. But we see that Luther did not need to take such drastic matters to leave his monastery, and that he worked among the people anyway andseems to have been able to come and go as he pleased.

Is there some aspect of this movie that is artistic license? Why did Katarina von Bora need to escape from her convent in a barrel when Luther did not need to do anything of the sort?

Martin Luther and Katarina von Bora (Frau Luther as she became) belonged to different orders. He was an Augustinian canon, and as such, although resident with other priests, in a monastery, worked in the community. In his case he was Professor of Theology at the Wittenberg University, and also preached in the town Church. In his younger days, he had been sent to Rome on business for his order.

Luther did not renounce his monastic vows until shortly before his wedding in 1525, and he continued to live in what had been the monastery, along with students from the university for the rest of his life.

Katarina, on the other hand, belonged to a Cistercian nunnery which meant she had much less freedom. Cistercians affirmed a strict application of the Rule of St Benedict, and focussed on self-sufficiency, physical work, devotion, prayer and austerity. However, Cistercian houses varied. Katarina's convent, at Nimbschen, near Grimma, had several estates and Katerina would have worked in the grain fields and gained experience of farming and brewing beer.

More importantly,  her nunnery was in the territory ruled by Duke George, who was unsympathetic to the Reformation, and had already executed  one Heinrich Kener for aiding a nun to escape. She was not closely confined, or guarded like a prisoner, but if she had simply left she would have been in dangerous territory for an escaped nun.  Luther, some fifty miles away  in Wittenberg, was in the territory of Frederick the Wise, and so the escaped nuns were safe there.

Herr and Frau Luther were married a little over two years after the escape, and Frau Luther, "die Lutherin",  became a role model for vicars wives everywhere.

Ref: Martin Luther by Mensch and Peters page 154


What does Bible say about possibility of seeing/hearing people on Earth from heaven? I mean, for example, could my dead grandmother see me from heaven?

This was bothering me as a Christian and I was frustrated not to find the answer, because this is important to me personally. For example, when I travel the first thing I ask is if the hotel where I'm staying has an internet connection so that I can communicate with my wife and daughter when I am away.

Many passages from the Bible have been used as the basis for people seeing and hearing from heaven. I think that I have now rounded up all the major points. I could be wrong, perhaps there are even more. Below I give the 7 major biblical points that I have seen brought up as supporting this view. Some of these points are related, but they all approach the issue from a slightly different perspective.

One important thing to remember is that the dead in heaven might not "see and hear" exactly like we do. This does not mean that they can't see and hear, but only that the faithful in heaven might see and hear things differently.

1: Faith in Heaven

Jesus says:

  Matthew 17
  20 He said to them, “Because of your little faith. Amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

Many things are impossible for us of little faith, but I would guess that the dead in heaven have faith at least the size of a mustard seed. If they do, then it is possible for them to hear us. (Of course, this passage does not say they must listen, but there is nothing in the Bible that suggests that they would not listen to people who cry out to them, or that God would command them not to listen when a loved one wants them to hear.)

2: The Psalms

Psalms are prayers. In at least two Psalms, the person who is saying these prayers is asking or commanding all of creation (including those in heaven, angels, hosts, and so on) to praise God:

  Psalms 103
  20 Bless the LORD, all you his angels,
  mighty in strength, acting at his behest,
  obedient to his command.
  21 Bless the LORD, all you his hosts,
  his ministers who carry out his will.

  Psalms 148
  1 Hallelujah! Praise the LORD from the heavens; praise him in the heights.
  2 Praise him, all you his angels; give praise, all you his hosts.

  Daniel 3:86 (not available in some Bibles)
  86 Spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord;
  praise and exalt him above all forever.

Some might say that these passages are just figurative expressions of the psalmist's own praise. However:

  Revelation 5
  13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, everything in the universe, cry out:
  “To the one who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
  be blessing and honor, glory and might,
  forever and ever.”

  Luke 19
  39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.”
  40 He said in reply, “I tell you, if they keep silent, the stones will cry out!”

  Numbers 20:8
  8 Take the staff and assemble the community, you and Aaron your brother, and in their presence command the rock to yield its waters. Thereby you will bring forth water from the rock for them, and supply the community and their livestock with water.

So according to God (literally the words of God in this case), it is even appropriate to speak directly to rocks and expect something to happen. Of course, rocks are inanimate, which means they have no soul. But people (even dead people, of course) have souls, so we should expect that they would hear us like people and not like rocks, even if they don't hear in exactly the same way that we do. (We know that beings with only a soul can hear, even though they have no body, because the Bible describes angels having conversations with people.)

3: Moses and Elijah

At the Transfiguration of Jesus, the Bible describes Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus as if they are aware of what is and will be happening in the world:

  Luke 9
  29 While he was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white.
  30 And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah,
  31 who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem.

Some people might say that Moses and Elijah could hear Jesus because they "came down to earth". But others say that Peter, James, and John saw a glimpse of people who were "in heaven" talking to Jesus (when Peter suggested setting up tents, a cloud overshadowed them, a voice said “This is my beloved Son. Listen to him.”, and then they could no longer see Moses and Elijah).

4: Revelation

Revelation establishes that certain people in heaven "interact" with the prayers of other people:

  Revelation 5:8
  8 When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.

This describes the prayers of holy people filling up golden bowls, in heaven. The bowls are held by the 24 elders (the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes). The elders offer up these prayers to God like incense ("Let my prayer be incense before you...", Psalm 141:2). The point here is that, at the very least, these people are directly interacting with prayers. How do people usually directly interact with prayers? By hearing them (or knowing them, or saying them).

5: Raphael's Record

Tobit 12 describes Archangel Raphael doing the same, but with more clarity: the prayers of Tobit and Sarah are recorded, and this record is something that God wants kept and "presented" to Him:

  Tobit 12:12
  12 Now when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and likewise whenever you used to bury the dead.

Obviously, God can hear all prayers, but He still wants a record kept. How did Raphael know what the prayers were? My guess is that Raphael could hear them.  Of course, Raphael is an angel, not a heavenly human person, but this seems to show that this is an activity endorsed by God.

6: Abraham hearing the rich man

The following parable implies that someone in heaven is capable of hearing:

  Luke 16:22-25
  22 When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
  24 And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’
  25 Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that [...]

The rich man is in hell, suffering, and he cries out to Abraham. Abraham is dead and in a far-off and elevated place. Some people who argue against there being any biblical basis get this point entirely confused. It's not about the rich man seeing his family! It is about Abraham in that heavenly place hearing the rich man. Even this person in hell is heard by Abraham.

Some say that the only lesson of this parable is that people will not believe even if someone returns from the dead. Others say that the only lesson is that once you are in hell it is too late to pray, or that not all prayers will be answered, or that people who care more for riches than for the poor will go to hell. But others say that one important lesson is that faithful people like Abraham can hear prayers and are worth praying to.
The following is my own explanation of why this parable is important: There can't really be a sort of "isolation bubble" around a place like heaven, because then this parable would be describing something heretical. For example, no parable would ever describe someone being reincarnated as a cow while giving any kind of teaching, because reincarnation in general is a heresy and incompatible with the order of things. So we must believe that this parable describes something that is in accordance with the way in which God has ordered His creation.

7: Cloud of Witnesses

Hebrews is also often brought up as evidence that a "cloud of witnesses" can see us (this "cloud" refers to the dead that are in heaven, including: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Jacob, Moses, Rahab Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets, all mentioned in Hebrews 11):

  Hebrews 12
  1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us* and persevere in running the race that lies before us
  2 while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith. For the sake of the joy that lay before him he endured the cross, despising its shame, and has taken his seat at the right of the throne of God.

The interpretation depends on what the word "witnesses" means. Some have interpreted it to mean that the people are witnessing us (seeing us, like spectators in a stadium) as we "run the race". Others suggest that these people are witnesses to faith: good role models, a "cloud" of the faithful that we should hope surrounds us. I think the second view (that we should look up to saints) is more appropriate based on context, so this is the only point I don't entirely agree with. But I have included it because it is important.

So there are many passages from the Bible that serve as the basis for people seeing and hearing from heaven. Points 1, 3, 5, 7, and possibly 6 relate to the possibility of seeing (and not just hearing prayers).

The most important thing is to have the faith of Abraham, and to give prayer worthy to be offered up to God.


Can a Catholic priest conduct a Catholic baptism upon the request of non-Catholic parents, assuming that they will raise the child Catholic? Can non-Catholic parents ask the priest to baptize the child (infant) in the Catholic church and promise that they will give the child a Catholic upbringing? I mean, it could be a learning experience for the child. Even if the child doesn't believe, such insider exposure may give the child some underlying presuppositions that Western atheists make (i.e. existence of God, the causal relationship between the supernatural and morality, etc.), which may not be accessible to atheists who are not raised in a Christian household. Also, even if Christian morality isn't perfect, the church at least provides a social environment as an attempt to not only teach morality in the Western world, but also promote community service, and Catholic churches are pretty common in the United States, so maybe the non-Catholic/non-Christian parents may willingly take advantage of that. Plus, I use the Catholic church in this question, because I know that the Catholic church seems to consider all people who are baptized are Christian, but not all Christians (in this sense, Catholics) are saved and that salvation is an ongoing process. I think that would be doable for a non-Catholic person who intends to raise his or her child Catholic. Even if the child may not become an observant Catholic in adult life, he or she will forever be Catholic, and the Catholic upbringing may be beneficial.

The Roman Ritual prescribes

  24. An infant of infidel parents may be baptized lawfully even though
  the parents are opposed, provided that its life is in such danger that
  one can reasonably foresee it may die before attaining the use of
  reason. Outside the case of danger of death, it may lawfully be
  baptized, provided its Catholic rearing is guaranteed, as in the
  following two cases: (a) if parents or guardians or at least one of
  them consent; (b) if parents, i.e., father, mother, grandfather,
  grandmother, or guardians do not exist, or if they have lost their
  right over the child or are unable to exercise it.

  25. Generally, the norms stated in the preceding rubric are to be
  applied to baptism of infants whose parents belong to a heretical or
  schismatic sect, or of Catholic parents who have lapsed into apostasy,
  heresy, or schism.

Note that "Catholic rearing" must be "guaranteed", and it is the priest who must assess that. He may feel that "infidel parents" may not be able to guarantee it sufficiently, even with a fully-qualified sponsor.

The Ritual recognises that the sponsor (or "godparent") will be an important part of the child's religious upbringing:

  38. It is the duty of sponsors by reason of their position ever to
  regard their godchild as a personal charge, and in all that pertains to
  his Christian upbringing to watch over him faithfully, so that in his
  whole life he may prove himself true to the promises which they once
  solemnly spoke for him.

... and it lays down rules which need to be met in order that the sponsor is deemed capable of discharging that responsibility:

  33. There should be only one sponsor (who may be of different sex from
  the one baptized); or at most two may be employed, a man and a woman.

  34. To validly act as sponsor it is required:

  (a) that the person is baptized, has attained the use of reason, and
  has the intention of acting in this capacity;

  (b) that he does not belong to a heretical or schismatic sect, is not
  excommunicated whether by condemnatory or declaratory sentence, nor
  legally infamous, debarred from legal acts, nor a deposed or degraded
  cleric;

  (c) and that the person is not the father, mother, or spouse of the one
  baptized;

  (d) that he is chosen by the one baptized, or by the parents,
  guardians, or, if these are wanting, by the minister;

  (e) that during the act of baptizing the sponsor (or his proxy)
  physically hold or touch the one baptized, or immediately lift him out
  of the water, or take him into his arms from the font or from the hands
  of the minister.

  35. To lawfully act as sponsor it is required:

  (a) that he has reached the age of fourteen, unless the minister sees
  fit to admit a younger person for some valid reason;

  (b) that he is not excommunicated for a notorious crime, nor excluded
  from legal acts, nor legally infamous (even though no sentence has been
  issued to that effect), nor interdicted, nor a public criminal, nor
  infamous in fact;

  (c) that he knows the rudiments of the faith;

  (d) that he is neither a novice nor a professed religious, unless
  necessity urges it and the sponsor has the express permission from at
  least the local superior;

  (e) that he is not in sacred orders, unless he has the express
  permission of the Ordinary.

  36. When in doubt as to whether a person may validly or lawfully be
  permitted to act as sponsor, the pastor should consult the Ordinary if
  time allows.

(In every place in the quotes, lawfully is referring to Canon law. If the parents are opposed and a baptism takes place, there may be a civil case to answer.)


What is the earliest instance of Eucharistic adoration? Eucharistic adoration is a practice in Catholicism in which the Eucharist, being bread that has literally turned into the body of Christ, is publicly displayed. Commonly, it is placed in a monstrance and the faithful sit in silence and pray or otherwise reflect on the fact that they are in the presence of Christ's body. It is not consumed as it would be during Communion, and the faithful simply look at it.

What is the earliest recorded instance of this practice? To be clear, I'm not talking about simply saving the Eucharist for the sick or a later time, but rather to have it displayed for adoration without consuming it.

What is the earliest instance of Eucharistic adoration?
The first recorded instance of Perpetual Adoration antedates Corpus Christi, and occurred at Avignon, on 11 September 1226.
Catholic devotion towards the Blessed Sacrament started in the 11th century:

Toward the end of the eleventh century we enter on a new era in the history of Eucharistic adoration. Until then the Real Presence was taken for granted in Catholic belief and its reservation was the common practice in Catholic churches, including the chapels and oratories of religious communities. Suddenly a revolution hit the Church when Berengarius (999-1088), archdeacon of Angers in France, publicly denied that Christ was really and physically present under the species of bread and wine. Others took up the idea and began writing about the Eucharistic Christ as not exactly the Christ of the Gospels or, by implication, as not actually there.
The matter became so serious that Pope Gregory VII ordered Berengarius to sign a retraction. This credo has made theological history. It was the Church's first definitive statement of what had always been believed and never seriously challenged. The witness came from the abbot-become-pope, whose faith in the Blessed Sacrament had been nourished for years in a Benedictine monastery.
Gregory's teaching on the Real Presence was quoted verbatim in Pope Paul VI's historic document Mysterium Fidei (1965) to meet a new challenge to the Eucharist in our day--very similar to what happened in the eleventh century.
From the eleventh century on, devotion to the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the tabernacle became more and more prevalent in the Catholic world. At every stage in this development, members of religious orders of men and women took the lead.
Feast of Corpus Christi
There was nothing startling, therefore, when Pope Urban IV, in the thirteenth century, instituted the feast of Corpus Christi. When establishing the feast, the Pope stressed the love of Christ who wished to remain physically with us until the end of time.
In the Eucharist, said the Pope, "Christ is with us in His own substance." For "when telling the Apostles that He was ascending into heaven, He said, 'Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world,' thus comforting them with the gracious promise that He would remain and be with them even by His bodily presence" (August 11, 1264).
Urban IV commissioned Thomas Aquinas to compose the Liturgy of the Hours for the feast of Corpus Christi, to be celebrated annually on the Thursday following Trinity Sunday.
Aquinas, like the Church, never separated the Eucharist as Sacrifice, Communion and Presence. But, with the Church, he also realized that without the Real Presence there would be no real sacrifice nor real communion. Aquinas assumed that God became man so He might offer Himself on Calvary and continue to offer Himself in the Mass. He became man that He might give Himself to the disciples at the Last Supper and continue to give Himself to us in Holy Communion. He became man to live in flesh and blood in Palestine and continue to live now on earth as the same Jesus Who died and rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of His heavenly Father. - The History of Eucharistic Adoration: Development of Doctrine in the Catholic Church

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say on the subject:

No trace of the existence of any such extra-liturgical cultus of the Blessed Sacrament can be found in the records of the early Church. Christian Lupus, indeed, argues that in the days of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine it was customary for the neophytes to adore, for eight days following their baptism, the Blessed Sacrament exposed, but no sound proof is adduced. It first appears in the later Middle Ages, about the beginning of the thirteenth century. It certainly may be conjectured that such adoration was really connoted by the fact of reservation in the early Church, especially in view of the evident desire to have the Eucharist represent the unity and continuity of the Church, as it is unlikely that there should not be some continuation of the adoration evidently given to the Host at the Synaxis. But such conjecture cannot be insisted upon

in view of the remarkable fact that no trace of any such adoration is to be found in the lives of saints noted for their devotion to the Blessed Sacrament in Holy Communion; thus it is remarkable that St. Ignatius in "The Spiritual Exercises", when directing attention to the abiding presence of God with His creatures as a motive for awakening love says not a word of the Blessed Sacrament;

because of the practice of even the present-day Greek Church which, although believing explicitly in transubstantiation, has never considered Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament "our companion and refuge as well as our food" (Thurston).

The slowness with which the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament came into vogue, and the also slow development of the custom of paying visits to the Blessed Sacrament [Father Bridgett asserting that he had not come across one clear example in England of a visit to the Blessed Sacrament in pre-Reformation times (Thurston, ib.)], render it increasingly difficult to make out a case for any adoration, perpetual or temporary, outside the Mass and Holy Communion, as these various forms of devotion are closely linked together. Most liturgists rightly attribute the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and its special adoration to the establishment of the Feast of Corpus Christi. But it is worthy of note that the first recorded instance of Perpetual Adoration antedates Corpus Christi, and occurred at Avignon. On 11 September 1226, in compliance with the wish of Louis VII, who had just been victorious over the Albigensians, the Blessed Sacrament, veiled, was exposed in the Chapel of the Holy Cross, as an act of thanksgiving. So great was the throng of adorers that the bishop, Pierre de Corbie, judged it expedient to continue the adoration by night, as well as by day, a proposal that was subsquently ratified by the approval of the Holy See.
History
It is interesting to note the propagation in France during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of the Perpetual Adoration in all the churches and chapels of certain dioceses. The earliest mention of this practices is in 1658, when the churches in the Diocese of Chartres were opened for this purpose from six o'clock in the morning to six in the evening and wherever there were religious communities possessing a chapel the adoration was continued day and night.  - Perpetual Adoration


What is Reasoning behind the Inquisition and Separation of Holy days to be separate from the Israeli Sabbath I have been studying the Catholic religion lately and a great question came to mind which is explained below.

We know that despite all the differences in branches of Christianity, most denominations share in common the same basic beliefs. We almost all believe Christ died to save us from our imperfect selfs.

Therefore, I did some research on previous persecutions here and in the associated links. According to the Bible Jesus himself and all of his followers are commanded to "keep the Sabbath holy". The Bible also explicitly states that the Sabbath that God has commanded is on the Seventh Day of the week or Saturday.

The Links also describe how the Catholic Church and Spain used evidence that the families of potential Jews were celebrating the Sabbath on the correct day to persecute the Jews. The Inquisitions in general were supported by the pope and the church despite the fact that in Matthew 23:23 Jesus specifically demands mercy. All known versions of the Bible and in every one the meaning remains the same.

Furthermore Luke 6:36, James 2:13, 1 John 1:9, Psalm 103:1-22, Titus 3:5, Psalm 23:6, John 3:16, Hosea 6:6 and the extremely point-on verses in Matthew 9:13 and Mathew 12:7 all demand mercy or say something about it. I could go on and on but I would lose interest after the umpteenth verse.

I mean no offense to Catholics despite what my recent questions might suggest and there are many Catholics who are just as righteous and faithful as any other believer, but my question is the following.

How does the modern Catholic Church justify this defiance to what Jesus said about mercy being BEFORE justice? After all, the Catholic Church believes in Papal Infallibility so does the church not recognize that this was wrong according to the very religious scripture that our Lord commanded them to follow whole-heartedly?

(As a side note, the two questions I have asked are directly related and in my opinion would not be complete without each other. They are related because the church prosecuted Jews as well as changed their religious observance of the sabbath to separate themselves from the Jews to avoid as much as possible being seen as Jewish trouble-makers by Rome)

Again, I am just trying to learn about the Catholic Church because my brother recently converted to Catholicism. I do not mean to even imply that the Catholic Church is anything bad or wrong which is what three of my Catholic relatives thought when I asked them.

With respect to the Inquisition: the Catholic Church has long recognized this as an evil done by the Church of past years, and has repented and asked God for forgiveness:

  The institution of the Inquisition has been abolished. ... The children of the Church cannot but return with a spirit of repentance to "the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of the truth" ("Address to the International Symposium on the Inquisition Organized by the Central Committee for the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000", 31 October 1998, n. 4; L'Osservatore Romano English edition, [ORE], 11 November 1998, p. 3).

  This spirit of repentance, it is clear, entails a firm determination to seek in the future ways to bear witness to the truth that are in keeping with the Gospel.

  On 12 March 2000, on the occasion of the liturgical celebration that marked the Day of Pardon, forgiveness was asked for errors committed in the service of the truth by recourse to methods not in keeping with the Gospel. The Church must carry out this service in imitation of her Lord, meek and humble of heart. The prayer I addressed to God on that occasion contains the reasons for a request for forgiveness that can also be applied to the tragedies associated with the Inquisition, as well as to the injuries to memory that result from it.

  "Lord, God of all men and women,
  in certain periods of history
  Christians have at times given in to [forms of] intolerance
  and have not been faithful to the great commandment of love,
  sullying in this way the face of the Church, your Spouse.

  Have mercy on your sinful children
  and accept our resolve
  to seek and promote truth in
  the gentleness of charity,
  in the firm knowledge that truth
  can prevail only in virtue of truth itself.
  We ask this through Christ Our Lord."

(Letter of John Paul II to Cardinal Roger Etchegaray on the occasion of the presentation of the volume "L'Inquisizione", 15 June 2004)

The Church rejects what it has done, in the understanding that the Holy Spirit has led it to a new interpretation of how to bring others to the knowledge of God.

Similarly, the Church recognizes that some of its actions and attitudes with respect to Jews were not in keeping with the commandment to "love your neighbor". This attitude, too, has been rejected:

  True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

  Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

(Nostra Aetate, "Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions", October 28, 1965)

Finally, with respect to your comments on the Sabbath: The Church teaches that the Sunday observance is in fact distinct from the Sabbath, and replaces the Jewish Sabbath observance:

  Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

    Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord’s Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death. [St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistula ad Magnesios (Letter to the Magnesians)]

  The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all." Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2175–6; emphasis added)


Does Pope Francis recommend giving communion under both kinds to the laity? I've heard that Pope Francis recommends giving the communion under both species (i.e. the bread and the wine) to the laity, but I can not find proof of this. Is it true and could somebody provide official links to his recommendations?

From General Instruction of the Roman Messal

  It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is
  bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the
  same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they
  partake of the chalice (cf. no. 283), so that even by means of the
  signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the
  sacrifice actually being celebrated.[73]

This is not a recommendation from Pope Francis, but a valid option from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, so the Pope (obviously) approves it.

Communion under both species is most desiderable, but it often has some pratical difficulties in performing this option (OGMR 283).

  The diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds
  for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of
  religious and at celebrations with small groups. The diocesan Bishop
  is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds
  whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own
  shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful
  have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the
  Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large
  number of participants or some other reason.


In accordance to LDS doctrine, would Mary & Joseph need to be sealed (by proxy) in the temple? It is my understanding that the LDS faith places great emphasis on the family unit  because they believe that through the sealing powers performed in the Temple by the holy Melchizedek priesthood, these families can live "together forever." The sealing aspect is not only important for uniting the family for all eternity, but for reaching the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. And for those who have passed on who hadn't had the opportunity to do their own work (which is why the Church invests so much time in doing genealogy), the LDS members can vicariously do these sacred ordinances for these individuals.

Since we know that Mary and Joseph are undoubtedly one of the most righteous couples/parents, and are deserving of the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, has the LDS Church performed their ordinances by proxy for them? If so, would they seal Christ to Joseph?

Am I right in assuming that in Christ's time, sealings were not performed in the Jerusalem Temple?I suppose the same could be said for all the righteous Biblical figures? These answers may not be answerable, but I wasn't sure if the LDS Church has any statement on it or not.

We can assume, well, "I'm sure they are taken care of... don't worry about it." But we know that Christ was an example, and while He was sinless, He still entered the waters of Baptism to show us the way. So I'm just curious if the LDS Church has mentioned the other sacred saving ordinances (according to LDS beliefs) pertaining to Christ and His family?

Mary and Joseph must be sealed by proper authority (a Melchizedek priesthood holder with the authorization to perform the sealing) in order to receive the blessings of the sealing ordinance, including inheriting the highest degree of Celestial glory.  This is true for all of God's children.  I doubt an exception would be made for them.

What we do not know is when Mary and Joseph received this ordinance, if they received it yet at all.  That is not officially part of Mormon doctrine or records as far as I know.  It is possible they were sealed by Jesus and/or the apostles while they were living or had their ordinances performed vicariously under the authority of the apostles after they passed away, but it is not certain.

In essence, they are required to be sealed, but the Church does not claim to have official records of their sealing.  Due to the current policy against performing ordinances for famous persons (as well as the uncertainty you mentioned), it is unlikely this ordinance will be performed in the near future.


Trying to understand the footnotes in the documents of the Vatican II council PREFACE:

I am trying to familiarize myself more with more proper catholic doctrines declared by the Vatican II council for when I interact with Catholics, more than just reading the Catechism. A monumental task that I am slown down by the somewhat cryptic footnotes.

EXAMPLE:

cf. St. Augustine, "De Catechizandis Rudibus," C.IV 8: PL. 40, 316. | the very first footnote of the very first constitution listed here, Deī Werbum.

It is fairly easy to understand: confer to "De Catechizandis Rudibus," by St. Augustine of Hippo circa IV... However, I can find nothing for Pl.

What source am I supposed to use? The only compy of the document I can find is not arranged in any such chapters or verses that this could mean, I have no idea. And the only usage of PL. I am acquanted with and can find is plural.

What is 4 8: plural 40, 316?

THESE ARE SOME OTHER EXAMPLES:

f. Council of Trent, session IV, loc. cit.: Denzinger 783 (1501).

What is Denzinger 783?

I can list far more examples, but it just looks very disorganised. I assume it is a very traditional way of doing it and there is nothing wrong with that, I am just both unfamiliar with this format and have no idea where they would want anyone else to look for these citations. This is meant to be the clear, dogmatic statement that
can be checked back and back again to confirm what the all the council has decided on and what the catholic Church should hold in common, so  I know it is not un-understandable.

"Denzinger" is the Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, the Handbook of Creeds and Definitions, first compiled by Heinrich Denzinger in the 19th century. This is a summary of sources for the most basic beliefs and creeds of the Church. Unfortunately the most recent version, the 43rd edition published in 2012, is not available online.

Similarly, PL is an abbreviation for Migne's Patrologia Latina, which could be translated The Writings of the Latin Fathers, a collection of (at least in invention) all the major and most of the minor works of Church Fathers, theologians, and other Church scholars writing in Latin through the first millennium or so of Church history.

The abbreviated forms of these names are used in the expectation that most people who have studied Church history will be familiar with the works and by extension with the abbreviations.

Looking at the specific examples you give, I would interpret them:

  cf. [that is, compare] St Augustine, De Catechizandis Rudis [On Pagans to be Catechized], Chapter IV Section 8: [found in] Patrologia Latina Volume 40 page 316.

And

  Council of Trent, session IV, in the place cited, [found in] Denzinger's Enchiridion, point 783 (1501 in the original  numbering)


Was Galileo mentioned during Vatican II? Was Galileo mentioned by the participants of the Second Vatican Council?

Yes, during the first half alone he was mentioned explicitly by name three times:

Bp. André Charue of Namur, Belgium, on 17 Nov. 1962, regarding a revision (p. 114-115) of the schema De sacra liturgia, said (p. 145):

Attendite, venerabiles Patres, ad conditionem eorum omnium, qui cum fide catholica componere debent scientificum laborem in universitatibus, in omnibus scientiarum circulis. Exemplum Galilaei et alia exempla recentiora sufficiant! Immaturae declarationes alicuius Concilii, propter earum solemnitatem, onerare possent, dicamus in semisaeculum, conditionem scientificorum.
[Beware, venerable Fathers, of the condition of all those who with catholic faith must compose scientific work in the universities, in all scientific circles. Let Galileo and the other more recent examples suffice! The immature declarations of some in this Council, because of their solemnity, could aggravate—we speak in the mid-century—the condition of the sciences.]

Bp. emeritus of Innsbruck, Austria, Paulus Rusch (1903-1986) explicitly mentioned Galileo during the 22nd meeting, 19 Nov. 1962, in his intervention (p. 356-357) against ch. 2, #12 ("Inerrancy") of the first schema the fathers voted on: De fontibus revelationis. Cdl. Siri's intervention, which mentioned Pope St. Pius X and Modernism, is on p. 38-39. The very next day, 61% of the council fathers rejected the schema (cf. Ratzinger Reader pp. 258 ff.). John XXIII thereafter called upon a mixed commission (incl. Cdl. Frings, whom Fr. Ratzinger advised, and Rahner) to redraft it. Cdl. Frings said (p. 34-35) the original schema was too scholastic and professorial in tone, "nec aedificans nec vivificans" ("neither edifying nor vivifying")!
Here is De fontibus revelationis ch.2, #12 on inerrancy:

Because divine Inspiration extends to everything, the absolute immunity of all Holy Scripture from error [PTC had said "the infallibility and inerrancy"] follows directly and necessarily. For we are taught by the ancient and constant faith of the Church that it is utterly forbidden to grant that the sacred author himself has erred, since divine Inspiration of itself as necessarily excludes and repels any error in any matter, religious or profane, as it is necessary to say that God, the supreme Truth, is never the author of any error whatever. [Pius XII, Divino afflante (EB 539), using the words of Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (D 1950); see also EB 44, 46, 125, 420, 463, etc.]

After giving an example of how Matt. 27:9 allegedly errs by quoting Jeremiah when it apparently was really quoting the prophet Zachary, Bp. Rusch said (p. 357):

Accedit nostram Ecclesiam hac in re iam duram passam esse experientiam. Anno 1633 Galilei sub Urbano VIII damnatus est, quia defendit doctrinam contra Scripturam. Doctrinam autem quam defendit erat, sicut notissimum est, terram circa solem rotare et non viceversa.
[Additionally, our church has already suffered a hard experience in this matter. In 1633 Galileo was condemned under Urban VIII because he defended a doctrine contrary to Scripture. But the doctrine that he defended was, as is well-known, that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.]

Bp. Michel Darmancier (1918-1984), titular of Augurus, commenting on the "De ecclesiæ magistero" section (p. 47-54) of the 23 Nov. 1962 schema De ecclesia (p. 12 ff.), wrote in his "written animadversion" (p. 452):

De illis enim contingentibus elementis sicut in fide et theologia proprie dicta consentire possunt theologi per saecula et per totum orbem catholicum, illa intimius coniungentes cum dogmatibus, quin exinde oriatur quaevis certitudo de illorum veritate, etsi concludi potest fidem ex illis detrimentum non timere. Sic, usque ad saeculum XVI, unanimiter docuerunt theologi terram centrum universorum esse, unde Galileus quidam satis notas difficultates cum sancta Inquisitione expertus est.
[The theologians can agree, throughout the ages and the whole catholic world, on those contingent elements in faith and theology properly speaking which are intimately connected with dogmas, which might not arise from any certainty of their truth, although to fear a loss of faith from them cannot be concluded. Thus, until the 16th century, theologians unanimously taught that the earth was the center of the universe, whence Galileo experienced some well-known difficulties with the holy Inquisition.]

See also the article on Galileo at Vatican II in this book.


Are Catholics more likely to accept Platonism's idea of the Forms? No faith seems to directly accept the Forms, although I wondered if Catholics are more likely to agree with the idea of things in this World ( including thoughts) echoing a perfect and pleasurable version of themselves in Heaven? Just checking I'm in the right church! (I'm a Protestant Platonist)

It's not entirely clear that Catholics ought to favor the doctrine of forms to a greater extent than Protestants. The Cambridge Platonists, influential in mid seventeenth century English thought, were largely Protestants of the newly emerging, Anglican sort, or Latitudinarians. Take a look at Henry More. Certainly the Cambridge Platonists did follow a doctrine of forms, but how close that was to Plato's has often been disputed.

They raise the question, therefore, of which doctrine of forms you want to talk about. The doctrine of forms is pre-Christian, of course, although it became a major part of the early Catholic church's teaching. Remember, also, that it figured heavily in Arabic thought, and it was the cultures of Islam that largely inherited the knowledge of 5thC BC Athens, which were released into Western European hands in part as a result of the Spanish reconquista and the fall of Cordoba. The adoption of trans-mediterian standards of philosophical reasoning by the Catholic church (yes, noticeably Thomas Aquinas' grand work on integrating Aristotlelianism with Catholicism) may have helped the church speak to intelligent non-Chirstians. For an example, we need only look at the most famous Bishop of Hippo. There have been many different versions of this philosophical doctrine down the ages, and some would say the it carries right on to the Idealists, but each permutation is different, and often they live in different geographical locations.

I see, in general, no reason why Catholics should be more pre-disposed to the belief that conceptual unities are the foundation of physical phenomena (rather than vice versa), than Protestants. The great benefit of being a protestant, I suppose, is that if the Archbishop of your church disagrees with the doctrine of forms, you can find a different kind of protestant Archbishop. However, the last time I know of there being more than one Pope was when Barbarossa was storming Italy.