Aside from St. Vincent Ferrer, are there any other saints said to have had the "gift of tongues"? What I am not asking about: Glossolalia, as practiced by Charismatics in the modern day.

What I am asking about: St. Vincent Ferrer was born in Spain and travelled as far north as Germany and Scotland, preaching wherever he went. He was understood wherever he went, in spite of never having learned anything but his native Valencian.

Eastern sources have likewise refuted the Charismatic claim that glossolalia is the miraculous gift of tongues by  pointing out that they have always had saints who spoke in languages they hadn't learned, in addition to performing other, less controversial miracles.

My question: Who are these saints, either Western or Eastern?

The following Aside from St. Vincent Ferrer, are there any other saints said to have had the “gift of tongues”?
Of coarse there are.
Here are a few that may fit the bill:
St. Anthony of Padua

St. Anthony and the Gift of Tongues
The book “The Little Flowers of St Francis” was written by Brother Ugolino about 100 years after the life of St Francis of Assisi and St Anthony of Padua, the details of which are based on original documents of the Franciscan Order. In Chapter 39 of this book we read:
"St Anthony of Padua, one of the chosen disciples and companions of St Francis, whom the latter called his Vicar, was preaching one day before the Pope and the Cardinals in Consistory, there were therefore present at that moment men of different countries- Greeks and Latins, French and Germans, Slavs and English and men of many other different languages and dialects.
"And being inflamed by the Holy Spirit and inspired with apostolic eloquence, he preached and explained the word of God so effectively, devoutly, subtly, clearly and understandably that all who were assembled at that Consistory, although they spoke different languages, clearly and distinctly heard and understood everyone of his words as if he had spoken in each of their languages. Therefore they were all astounded and filled with devotion, for it seemed to them that the former miracle of the Apostles at the time of Pentecost had been renewed, when by the power of the Holy Spirit they spoke in different languages.
"And in amazement, just like in the Acts of the Apostles they said to one another: "Is he not a Spaniard?' How then are we all hearing him in the language of the country where we were born-we Greeks and Latins, French and Germans, Slavs and English, Lombards and foreigners?"
It was not only at this consistory that St. Anthony's gift of tongues was utilized. It is written that while preaching in Italy he spoke in perfect Italian, and while in France he preached in French, although he had never studied these languages. Also remarkable is the fact that "the simple-minded and the most ignorant listeners were capable of fully comprehending all he said; and his voice, though gentle and sweet, was distinctly heard at a very extraordinary distance from the speaker."

St. Paul of the Cross (1694-1775)

The gift of Tongues in the preaching of St Paul of the Cross
The grace of being heard at great distances was also documented on at least three occasions in the life of St. Paul of the Cross (1694-1775), the holy founder of the Passionist Order. Because of his extraordinary reputation for holiness, people would come from great distances to hear the man of God preach his missions, and to witness the remarkable miracles and cures that often accompanied his preaching. Therfore the crowds that gathered during his missions were often immense. On at least three documented occasions, his voice could be heard by all those present, even amdst the usual noises of such a great crowd, extending even those who were literally several miles away. This extraordinary grace took place in the three locations of La Tolfa, at Civitacastellana, and on the Isle of Elba, where he was heard a full five miles away.
Also, as stated above with the Apostles and also St Anthony, it was also documented on several occasions that his Italian language was understood by members of different foreign nationalities and languages who had come to listen to him.

St. Dominic (1170-1221)

The gift of speaking in Tongues in the life of St Dominic
And then there is also another holy Founder, St. Dominic (1170-1221), the founder of the Dominican Order and the great promoter of the Holy Rosary, who was given the gift of tongues when he was one day on a journey to Paris with his companion, Bertrand of Garrega, and a number of other friends and disciples.
While on the road they visited the sanctuary of Rocamadour, where they spent the night praying before a miraculous image of Our Lady. The next day, as they journeyed along, they sang litanies and recited psalms and the divine office, which attracted the attention of two German pilgrims, who began to follow them. When they came to the next village the two German pilgrims, being greatly attracted by the devotion of the little band, made motions to them indicating that they should sit down and dine with them. It was somewhat of an awkward situation since the Germans could not understand the Dominicans, nor could the Dominicans understand the Germans. This continued for four days, with the Germans sharing their food with the Dominicans.
On the fifth day St. Dominic addressed Bertrand in this manner: "Brother Bertrand, it grieves me to reap the temporal things of these pilgrims without sowing for them spiritual things: let us kneel down and ask God to grant us the understanding of their language, that we may speak to them of Christ." Accordingly, they knelt down and prayed. When they rose up, they were able to converse with the Germans in their own language and did so without difficulty for the rest of the journey.
As they drew near Paris, the Germans, now filled with spiritual consolations, departed from them. The earthly food which the Germans had provided had been exchanged by Dominic for spiritual food which nourished their spirits and was beneficial to their eternal salvation. St. Dominic, for his part, charged Bertrand to keep silent about the matter and to keep it secret until his death, "lest the people should take us for Saints who are but sinners.'"

St. Pachomius the Great

Among many miracles wrought by him, the author of his life assures us, that though he had never learned the Greek or Latin tongues, he sometimes miraculously spoke them; he cured the sick and persons possessed by devils with blessed oil. - St. Pachomius, Abbot (292-348)

The German Stigmatic Therese Neumann of Germany (1898-1962) was gifted with gift of understanding foreign and ancient languages.

The extraordinary gift of understanding* foreign languages, especially ancient Biblical languages has been given to numerous Saints, especially the Mystics. Most notably in recent times this gift was given to a remarkable 20th century mystic and stigmatic named Therese Neumann of Germany (1898-1962).
During the ecstasies of the Passion in which Therese not only saw, but physically participated in in a mystical way, she heard the four languages which were in common use during the time of Christ: Latin, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic; the Aramaic was spoken in a dialect mixed with Greek words. Therese recognized and repeated them after she returned to normal life. The fact that this humble country girl could master such languages is a miracle in itself. Therese had a seventh grade education and did not speak or understand any other language but German; to her personal friends she spoke in the dialect of the Oberpfalz, the particular region of Bavaria in which Konnersreuth is located.
Many eminent scholars of Oriental languages and of the Old Testament visited Therese in order to check the authenticity of Therese's knowledge of languages. Nevertheless, it was indeed difficult to find scholars who were qualified to interview Therese. It is not an exaggeration to say that in many instances she knew more about these ancient languages and many other details than the scholars did!
Some of the noted men who helped extensively in the verifi¬cation and clarification of the 2,OOO-year-old practices were: Rev. Prof. Dr. Wutz (a priest), professor of Oriental languages and the Old Testament at Catholic College, Eichstatt, Bavaria; Prof. Bauer, of Halle, a non-Catholic expert in Oriental lan¬guages; and Prof. Wessely, of Vienna, a non-Christian, who was also a scholar of these languages. All of the results of their investigations were made public. - Gift of understanding foreign and ancient languages


Why is it said that the Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as "the Son of Man"? It is said that the Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as "the Son of Man"--not the Christ or King or God Incarnate, but distinctively the Son of Man.

What is it in the Gospel of Luke that gives rise to this particular distinction.  Why is this assertion made and what is the basis of that statement?

The Bible says that Jesus became man, and that He remained being God.
John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh"
Colossians 2:9 "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form".

So He is 100% human and 100% God. One person with two natures, and one of them, Son of Man.

This does not mean that he has a sinful human nature. Because His father is God and not man after all.
John 8:42 "Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.' "


What's the biblical basis for Dominionism? One stream of Dominion Theology is a growing teaching among Charismatic and Pentecostal churches which states that Christians are meant to acquire authority in seven worldly "domains" referred to as seven cultural mountains that include arts and entertainment, business, education, family, politics, media, and religion. This has been called New Kingdom theology by its proponents, and is associated with the wildly popular Charismatic worship centers of Bethel Church and the International House of Prayer.

What arguments are given by proponents as the biblical basis for this teaching? Especially, from which passages do its teachers derive support for the "dominions" and their number, and why and in what manner should the church seek this authority?

Me and some of the members of my church just had a discussion on dominion theology earlier today. The verses which are referenced for this topic are Genesis 1:26 and Luke 19:13 (KJV)

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

"13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come."

the words "occupy until I return" suggest using what was gifted unto us to better the kingdom of god. These gifts can include money (pounds), land, political power, or even spiritual gifts. as an investor uses his money to get more money by making strategic financial decisions in the marketplace so too must we Christians use what god has given us to advance the kingdom of god. What this means is that we need to be kingdom minded and ready and willing to promote the Lords agenda as the holy spirit leads us. Things like voting for christian leaders in an election, promoting local churches, being outspoken against the homosexual and abortion movements, supporting Israel, and just generally hating evil and fearing the lord are sure ways of being a good steward of what the lord has given you.

The seven different dominions Religion, Family, Education, Government, Media, Arts, and Business are the different spheres of influence of a society (check out the video on the front page of lancewallnau.com). Dominion theology, which can be backed up by the above bible verses, suggest that Christians should not just be focused on the Religious domain but all seven influence spheres in the society. The apathy of the church has led to the rise of homosexuality and abortion (family), State-sponsored education (education), Obama (government), moral decay in the leftist media, pornography (arts), the collapse of the middle class (business). These are all a direct result of Christians not taking a stand for Jesus Christ. As we have already won in what Jesus did at the cross there is nothing wrong with taking a stand and taking back the dominion over every sphere of influence that the Devil has taken from us. "Taking" is a verb so we actually have to be engaging the enemy to see results or else things will just get worse from this point.

Yes we can all sit on our hands and wait for the lord to come back and say to  him that we have kept the talent or minas(gift) safe for the lord but he will take the reward away from those who do nothing with the gifts that he gives them during this church age and give the reward to those who strive for christian dominion before he returns as is suggested by the outcome of the parables of the Talents and the Minas.

Ive been interested in this topic as well, hope this helps.

Jacob


Satan being allowed in the new Paradise on Earth I recall reading a scripture from the Bible with two JW's that said in the new Paradise Satan would be allowed. I questioned that with them and they smiled and said "yes".
Can you tell me in what book and verse of the Bible it says this?

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that after Armageddon Satan and his demons are thrown into the abyss (a state of inactivity)and a 1000 year long judgment day will begin.
During this time earth will be made a paradise, mankind will attain to perfection, the dead will be resurrected  all mankind will be judged.
A brief description of judgement day can be found here

At the end of the 1000 years a final testing described as taking a little while will take place when Satan is released and allowed to try to mislead mankind on final time.

The scripture that you are looking for is
Revelation 20:3 it reads from the new world translation :

  And he hurled him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not mislead the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were ended. After this he must be released for a little while.

And vs 7&8 read:

  Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison, 8  and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Maʹgog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea.

Good news is this time of testing is brief and Satan is then eternally destroyed.


In LDS (Mormon) theology, what is the Aaronic Priesthood and to whom is it conferred? I understand that the LDS church institutes that Aaronic Priesthood.  In the Old Testament, this was specifically reserved to the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron.

  and you shall gird Aaron and his sons with sashes and bind caps on
  them. And the priesthood shall be theirs by a statute forever. Thus
  you shall ordain Aaron and his sons.  Exodus 29:9 ESV

In the LDS Church, is this the same priesthood?  If so, what is the doctrinal precedent where people other than Jews from the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron can be given that priesthood?  Who receives that Aaronic priesthood today and how long is it held?

In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 107 verses 13-17 we read:

  13 The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it
  was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their
  generations.

  14 Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an
  appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power
  in administering outward ordinances.

  15 The bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood, and holds the
  keys or authority of the same.

  16 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this
  priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron.

  17 But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority
  to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office
  of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided
  he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power by the hands
  of the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Verses 16 & 17 get to the heart of your question.  Only Aaron and his sons have a legal right to the authority.  When a descendant of Aaron is not present, then a High Priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood can officiate in the office of bishop, which in LDS theology is the presiding authority in the Aaronic Priesthood.

Today, all worthy young men, starting at age 12 can be ordained to an office in the Aaronic Priesthood.  There are a total of four offices:  deacon, teacher, priest, and bishop.  The worthy 12-years olds are ordained to the office of a deacon.  When they turn 14, if they are still worthy, they are ordained to the office of a teacher.  At 16 they can be ordained a priest.

Later, (age 18 or so) they can, with approval from their priesthood leaders, be advanced to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and ordained to the office of an elder.  This is why LDS missionaries are referred to as "Elder."

The duties of the Aaronic Priesthood are spelled out clearly in the Doctrine and Covenants.  We also teach the young men of the church that the purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood are:

  Become converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ and live by its teachings.
  Serve faithfully in priesthood callings and fulfill the responsibilities of priesthood offices.
  Give meaningful service.
  Prepare and live worthily to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and temple ordinances.
  Prepare to serve an honorable full-time mission.
  Obtain as much education as possible.
  Prepare to become a worthy husband and father.
  Give proper respect to women, girls, and children.

  (Taken from Handbook 2: Administering the Church)

As to how long they hold the priesthood, as long as they remain worthy, it is not taken from them.  More responsibilities are added as they progress, but "once a deacon, always a deacon."

If you are interested in knowing more about the particular duties of the Aaronic Priesthood in the LDS faith, I would be happy to share them as well.  But you probably have to ask that as a separate question.


What exactly is the meaning of the text of Doxology in the concluding part of Catholic Eucharistic prayer? With these solemn words, the priest ends the Eucharistic prayer at the centre of which is the event of the consecration.

  Through him, and with him, and in him,
  O God, almighty Father,
  in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
  all glory and honour is yours,
  for ever and ever.

What exactly is the meaning of this and what is the interpretation of this in Catholic theology?

This is one of several different valid ways to take it:

Through Jesus as intercessor, the glory and honor is the Father's.
With Jesus as brother alongside us, the glory and honor is the Father's.
In Jesus, the Church being his body, the glory and honor is the Father's.

All of this is one action with the Holy Spirit (as Jesus acts in unity with the other person of the Trinity) who acts in and with all of us (we are unified as we act under inspiration of the Trinity).


What is the Biblical basis for Mary being the Tree of Life? The following is taken from True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort:

If Mary, the Tree of Life, is well cultivated in our soul by fidelity to this devotion, she will in due time bring forth her fruit which is none other than Jesus.

In light of Genesis 3:22-24:

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

Since God's clear intent was to prevent man from eating of the tree of life, what is the biblical basis for Mary being the Tree of Life and Jesus the fruit thereof?

What is the Biblical basis for Mary being the Tree of Life?
This is a metaphor for Mary. Christ is the source of our salvation and our eternal life. Mary is the one that bore Jesus into the world. Thus Mary is the Tree that produced the Fruit which (who) is no other than Jesus of Nazareth, who is called the Christ!
Catholics believe in the Eucharist! Thus Jesus is the fruit. Mary is the tree of life that produced the God-Man, who in turn gave us his flesh to eat at the Last Supper.
For a biblical basis, I would recommend St. Like’s narrative on the birth of Jesus:

The Birth of Jesus
2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”
16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.
21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived. - Luke 2


Mormon concept of 1 Timothy 6:16 1 Timothy 6:16 speaks of Jesus and is in King James Version translated as:

  Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can
  approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour
  and power everlasting. Amen.

However rather than the expression "Who only hath immortality", the original Greek text refers to Jesus being the only one having immortality.

Here is the text from the interlinear bible at BibleHub:

And here is how it is scripture4all interlinear:

Here's the passage from verse 13 to verse 16, for context. This is according to KJV (from here).

  13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a
  good confession; 14 That thou keep this commandment without spot,
  unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15
  Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only
  Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath
  immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto;
  whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power
  everlasting. Amen.

If everyone has an immortal soul then certainly when Paul wrote this there would have been other persons (either among those who had died, or those who were alive at the time) who also had immortality.

What is the Mormon perspective on how Jesus is here the only one having immortality if everyone has an immortal soul?

I fully agree with @depperm's answer.  But just to have fun with the question, let's assume Joseph made no corrections.  What could the verse possibly mean from the LDS perspective?

We believe nobody was resurrected before Jesus Christ.  From Acts 26:22-23 (see also Colossians 1:18)

  Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day,
  witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than
  those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ
  should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from
  the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Remember, we of the LDS faith believe that our Father's work and glory is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."  (Moses 1:39)  The difference between immortality and eternal life being resurrection and exaltation (see my answer to this question).  Since all people will be resurrected but none but Christ had been at that point, it was perfectly sensible to describe Christ as the "only immortal."

(Let me note that many people believe Matthew 27:51-53 describes Christians rising resurrected from their graves.  They're interpreting after his resurrection to mean "after the manner of" rather than "sometime later."  Since Jesus was the first to be resurrected, and this statement was made in Matthew immediately after Jesus died on the cross---three days before his resurrection---it's obvious to me that it's the later interpretation.  But that's an answer for another question.)

As for why we (meaning Joseph) think the verse was mistranslated or lost something from Paul's original writing (which doesn't exist) to today's translations, we need only look at the expanded reference you provide.
From verse 14:

  ...until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ...

And verse 16:

  ...whom no man hath seen, nor can see...

Paul appears to be contradicting himself, suggesting that we are waiting until the next appearance of Jesus... whom no man has seen, nor can see.  One of those two statements is wrong.

Worse, he teaches that Christ is dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto.  Except that Jesus spent His entire ministry teaching the He is the light and that He is completely approachable. ... Unless maybe Paul was being very literal: perhaps a person in their mortal body can't stand before Divinity without help?  Jesus Himself was transfigured to see Old Testament prophets (Matthew 17:1-3) and they weren't even resurrected, yet.  From Moses 1:11-14 we learn:

  But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my
  spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I
  should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon
  me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.

Without that transfiguration, no one on this earth can stand before the risen and glorified Lord.

So, why didn't Paul just say this?  We believe Paul was a better teacher than that.  Why tell Timothy that he was called to eternal life (1 Timothy 6:12) and then tell him it won't matter because only Jesus is immortal and no one can approach or even see Him?  That begs the question, what's the point of building up this entire house of cards to explain a confusing verse when Paul's usual lesson is about having a hope in Christ and availing oneself of His atonement?

Conclusion: without Joseph's correction to 1 Timothy 6:16 a complicated house of cards is needed to even try to understand and rationalize the verse, which is a better than average sign that the verse was improperly translated.  On the other hand, Joseph's repair sounds very much like Paul and conforms to Paul's other teachings.

Finally, our 9th Article of Faith teaches:

  We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and
  we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things
  pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Including repairing misunderstandings in the Bible (and anywhere else, for that matter).


What is the connection of Alta Vendita in the present Church Crisis regarding homosexual scandal & cover-up? The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita (commonly called the
  Alta Vendita) is a document, originally published in Italian in 1859,
  purportedly produced by the highest lodge of the Italian Carbonari
  and written by "Piccolo Tigre" ("Little Tiger"), which, according to
  George F. Dillon, was supposedly the pseudonym of a Jewish
  Freemason.

  The document details an alleged Masonic plan to infiltrate the
  Catholic Church and spread liberal ideas within it. The Carbonari had
  strong similarities to Freemasonry and so the document is seen by some
  as a Masonic document. In the 19th century, Pope Pius IX and Pope
  Leo XIII both asked for it to be published. It was first published by
  Jacques Crétineau-Joly in his book L'Église romaine en face de la
  Révolution in 1859. It was popularised in the English speaking world
  by Monsignor George F. Dillon in 1885 with his book the War of
  Anti-Christ with the Church and Christian Civilization.

  It is still circulated by many traditionalist and sedevacantist
  Catholics, who believe it accurately describes the changes in the
  church in the post-Vatican II era.

  (Wikipedia)

What is the connection of Alta Vendita in the present Church Crisis regarding homosexual scandal & cover-up involving clergy & prelates?

These recent homosexual/pederast scandals are an end-result of at least 1½ centuries of infiltration and moral and doctrinal corruption of the Church by Freemasonry and Communism.

Freemasonry is the most-condemned heresy of all times. 17 papal documents from Clement XII (1783) until Leo XIII (1890) have explicitly condemned it. Several popes have also condemned Communism and Socialism. Catholics are forbidden to be Freemasons; see: Declaration on Masonic Associations Nov 26, 1983.

Timeline of the Freemason's infiltration/corruption

1859-1884

The "Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita [Masonic High Lodge]" is a leaked document that Pius IX (who guaranteed this document's authenticity in his brief of 25 Feb. 1861) and Leo XIII asked to be published. Pope Leo XIII subsequently wrote the encyclical Humanum Genus condemning Freemasonry in 1884, urging everyone "to tear away the mask from Freemasonry, and to let it be seen as it really is" (§31).

The Permanent Instruction is printed in chapter 14 of Msgr. Dillon's Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked (originally titled: The War of Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization (audiobook)); chapter 15 is the letter by Piccolo Tigre.*

*Giuseppe Mazzini, a member of the Italian Freemasons called the Carbonari and key figure, along with Garibaldi et al., in the Freemasonry-driven unification movement of Italy

The following is an excerpt from the Permanent Instruction, quoted in John Vennari's The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church:

  The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies; it is up to the secret societies to take the first step toward the Church, with the aim of conquering both of them.

  The task that we are going to undertake is not the work of a day, or of a month, or of a year; it may last several years, perhaps a century; but in our ranks the soldier dies and the struggle goes on.

  We do not intend to win the Popes to our cause, to make them neophytes of our principles, propagators of our ideas. That would be a ridiculous dream; and if events turn out in some way, if Cardinals or prelates, for example, of their own free will or by surprise, should enter into a part of our secrets, this is not at all an incentive for desiring their elevation to the See of Peter. That elevation would ruin us. Ambition alone would have led them to apostasy, the requirements of power would force them to sacrifice us. What we must ask for, what we should look for and wait for, as the Jews wait for the Messiah, is a Pope according to our needs ...

  With that we shall march more securely towards the assault on the Church than with the pamphlets of our brethren in France and even the gold of England. Do you want to know the reason for this? It is that with this, in order to shatter the high rock on which God has built His Church, we no longer need Hannibalian vinegar, or need gunpowder, or even need our arms. We have the little finger of the successor of Peter engaged in the ploy, and this little finger is as good, for this crusade, as all the Urban II’s and all the Saint Bernards in Christendom.

  We have no doubt that we will arrive at this supreme end of our efforts. But when? But how? The unknown is not yet revealed. Nevertheless, as nothing should turn us aside from the plan drawn up, and on the contrary everything should tend to this, as if as early as tomorrow success were going to crown the work that is barely sketched, we wish, in this instruction, which will remain secret for the mere initiates, to give the officials in the charge of the supreme Vente [Freemasonic lodge] some advice that they should instill in all the brethren, in the form of instruction or of a memorandum ...

  Now then, to assure ourselves a Pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping him ... for this Pope, a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of. Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children ... You will contrive for yourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure patriots.

  This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun all the functions; they will form the sovereign’s council, they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily more or less imbued with the Italian and humanitarian principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation. It is a small grain of black mustard that we are entrusting to the ground; but the sunshine of justice will develop it up to the highest power, and you will see one day what a rich harvest this small seed will produce.

  In the path that we are laying out for our brethren, there are found great obstacles to conquer, difficulties of more than one kind to master. They will triumph over them by experience and by clearsightedness; but the goal is so splendid that it is important to put all the sails to the wind in order to reach it. You want to revolutionize Italy, look for the Pope whose portrait we have just drawn. You wish to establish the reign of the chosen ones on the throne of the prostitute of Babylon, let the Clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the apostolic keys. You intend to make the last vestige of tyrants and the oppressors disappear; lay your snares like Simon Bar-Jona; lay them in the sacristies, the seminaries, and the monasteries rather than at the bottom of the sea: and if you do not hurry, we promise you a catch more miraculous than his. The fisher of fish became the fisher of men; you will bring friends around the apostolic Chair. You will have preached a revolution in tiara and in cope, marching with the cross and the banner, a revolution that will need to be only a little bit urged on to set fire to the four corners of the world.

Piccolo Tigre's letter is also important because he realizes that the Catholic Church cannot be destroyed, as had been the Freemasons' plan previously; their goal now is to corrupt the Church for their own purposes, primarily by a recruiting strategy that divides husbands from their wives and families and forces them to take secret oaths even their wives cannot know.

Here is one example of where the "Little Tiger" describes their plan to corrupt the Church (Dillon p. 82):

  It is corruption en masse that we have undertaken: the corruption of the people by the clergy, and the corruption of the clergy by ourselves; the corruption which ought, one day to enable us to put the Church in her tomb. I have recently heard one of our friends, laughing in a philosophic manner at our projects, say to us: "in order to destroy Catholicism it is necessary to commence by suppressing woman." The words are true in a sense; but since we cannot suppress woman, let us corrupt her with the Church, corruptio optimi pessima [the corruption of the best is the worst]. The object we have in view is sufficiently good to tempt men such as we are; let us not separate ourselves from it for some miserable personal satisfaction of vengeance. The best poniard with which to strike the Church is corruption. To work, then, even to the very end.

1907

This corruption has even reached the levels of high-ranking clergy in the Church, perverting doctrine with the errors of Modernism, "the synthesis of all heresies", as Pope St. Pius X called it in his 1907 encyclical condemning Modernism, Pascendi Dominici gregis (cf. also his 1907 list of condemned errors Lamentabili sane).

The philosophical/doctrinal corruption began even with Kant, who, like Luther and the Freemasons, also despised the great Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.

1950

Modernism resurfaced on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, under the name of New Theology (Nouvelle Théologie), provoking Pope Pius XII to condemn its philosophical and theological errors in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis.

Communist infiltration into seminaries

Another aspect is the Communist infiltration into seminaries. Bella Dodd was a spy who revealed this strategy of corruption.

Chapter 18 "Twentieth Century Harbingers" (pp. 1089-1128) of The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church (vol. 5) by Randy Engel,* the leading historian on homosexuality/pederasty in the modern United States Catholic Church, does a good job reviewing the Communist infiltration and corruption of morals.

*Her recent articles on the Cdl. Viganò affair, etc., can be found on AKA Catholic.

February 2019 update:It has been revealed that disgraced homosexual Cdl. McCarrick associated with the Communist training center in St. Gallen, Switzerland, which would become the seat of the "St. Gallen Mafia," a group of liberals who opposed Benedict XVI in the 2005 conclave and campaigned for Francis's election in 2013 (cf. ch. 1 of The Dictator Pope).


Does Jesus call himself divine in the synoptic gospels? John's Gospel teaches clearly that Jesus is divine.

  And he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (John 1:10)

The Jesus depicted by that Gospel appears to believe this.

  Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? (John 14:8-9).

Are there any places at all in the other three Gospels where Jesus claims divine status in this unambiguous fashion?

In the Synoptics, Jesus showed his divinity by his words and actions.

Jesus equating himself with God:

  Luke 8:39 (NASB)

  "Return to your house and describe what great things God has done for
  you." So he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what
  great things Jesus had done for him.

  Mark 5:19 (NASB)

  And He did not let him, but He said to him, "Go home to your people
  and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and
  how He had mercy on you."

Jesus spoke of his divine name and spoke of himself as the divine Son of Man in Daniel 7:

  Mark 14:62 (NIV)

  "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the
  right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

  Matthew 26:64 (NIV)

  "You have said so," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: From now
  on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty
  One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Jesus equating himself with the other two persons in the Trinity:

  Matthew 28:19 ( NIV)

  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Luke equated Jesus ( the Sunrise from on high) with the God of Israel:

  Luke 1:78 (NASB)

  Because of the tender mercy of our God, With which the Sunrise from
  on high will visit us,

  Luke 1:68 (NASB)

  "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, For He has visited us and
  accomplished redemption for His people,

  Luke 7:16 (NASB)

  Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, "A great
  prophet has arisen among us!" and, "God has visited His people!"

Mark equates Christ with Yahweh in terms of ability:

  Mark 4:41 (NASB)

  41 They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who then
  is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”

  Psalm 107:29 (NASB)

  He caused the storm to be still, So that the waves of the sea were hushed.


Was Joseph Smith interested in and familiar with Kabbalah? We know that historically Joseph Smith taught himself Hebrew (as to how well, I'm not sure), and that he held beliefs similar to Jewish mysticism (degrees of heaven, preexistence, fall of angels, etc.), but do we know if he had access to and was familiar with Kabbalah writings? Did he study them in the original Hebrew?

How familiar would the average American Christian leader at that time be with Kabbalah? Is Joseph Smith exceptional in this regard?

In short:

  Do we know if he had access to and was familiar with Kabbalah writings?

There is no documentation of him having access to the Kabbalah writings.

  Did he study them in the original Hebrew?

Again there is no record of Joseph Smith having access to them.

There is a longer article entitled "Everything is Everything": Was Joseph Smith Influenced by the Kabbalah that goes more in depth, but basically says the same thing.

  How familiar would the average American Christian leader at that time be with Kabbalah?

There doesn't seem to be any documentation of American Christian leaders being any more/less familiar with it then current average church leader.

  Is Joseph Smith exceptional in this regard?

If he had knowledge of the Kabbalah then yes he would be more exception than the average American Christian church leader in this regard.

In regards to:

  Joseph Smith taught himself Hebrew (as to how well, I'm not sure)

Joseph Smith started a Hebrew School in Kirtland Ohio and started teaching himself and others Hebrew as best he could. Later he hired a teacher for seven weeks for 320$ (JSHC 2:356) taught by Professor Seixas who did say that the students were 'we were the most forward of any class he ever instructed for the same length of time.' (JSHC 2:396) Joseph Smith later learned more Hebrew (JSP) and German (JSHC 6:426) from his friend Alexander Neibaur. The longer article from above mentions that Alexander did cite the Kabbalah in Times and Seasons in the article 'The Jews' (TS 4:220-22 and TS 5:233-34), but goes on to say he could've cited it from a second source....we don't know.


How did Psalm 124 become associated with the Holy Innocents? The Holy Innocents are the children mentioned in Matthew's gospel (2:16-18) as having been murdered by Herod. Many churches celebrate a Feast of the Holy Innocents, or Childermass, on one of the days following Christmas Day.
Psalm 124 (or 123 in the Vulgate) is often chosen as an appointed reading, for example in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church. Here's verse 7 in the KJV and the Vulgate:

Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken, and we are escaped.
Anima nostra sicut passer erepta est de laqueo venantium: Laqueus contritus est, et nos liberati sumus.

Musical settings include those by Michael Haydn (offertory Anima nostra, MH146, performed here by the Vienna Boys Choir) and Palestrina (Anima nostra sicut passer).
I was wondering when and why this psalm text became associated with Matthew's story.
It is well-represented now in the lectionaries of several different churches, as shown above, but it does not seem to be referenced in the earliest such texts. For example, the fifth-century Leonine Sacramentary refers to Jeremiah 31:15 (which is clearly directly relevant, since Matthew quotes it!) but not to this psalm. In other words, who decided, and on what basis, that the psalm was a good match for the Holy Innocents?

To me, the imagery from the psalm perfectly represents Christ's escape from the killings that were taking place shortly after his birth. The psalm pictures our soul's escape from sin through the destruction of the snare much the same way Joseph's vision foiled the trap that was laid for the Christ. That seems to give the why pretty well.

As for the when, I am still looking for an answer to that question.


According to Emanuel Swedenborg, do infants go to heaven? According to Emanuel Swedenborg, or the New Church, do infants who die young go to heaven?

If not, do they go to hell?

According to Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) and the New Church, all infants and children who die before they are adults go to heaven and are raised there until they grow up and become angels themselves. This, Swedenborg says, is true whether or not they have been baptized, and no matter where or in what religion they were born.

Baptism, Swedenborg says, does not itself confer salvation, but rather symbolizes the spiritual washing of rebirth or regeneration that must take place for us to be saved and become angels in heaven.

Swedenborg rejected the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, saying instead that we have inborn tendencies toward evil inherited from our parents and ancestors. Until we have chosen to act on those hereditary tendencies toward evil of our own free will as rational and self-responsible adults, we are innocent, and are therefore destined for heaven rather than for hell.

So although Swedenborg often says that we humans are "born into evils of every kind" (see, for example, Divine Providence #83), our infancy and childhood is a grace period in which we are not held responsible for those evils because we have not chosen to act on them of our own free will as self-responsible adults.

Once we reach adulthood, though, we are held responsible when we choose to act on our evil impulses instead of on our good impulses. Then, and only then, according to Swedenborg, are we in danger of going to hell.

In short, only those who choose evil over good as rational and self-responsible adults go to hell. All infants and children, and also most teenagers, have not yet reached that stage. Therefore, according to Swedenborg, they go to heaven if they die before reaching adulthood.

They do not become angels immediately, however. Rather, they continue to grow up in heaven under the care of angel parents until they reach adulthood and become angels themselves.

For more on this subject, see the chapter on "Children in Heaven" in Swedenborg's book Heaven and Hell (#329-345).

For a readable contemporary presentation of the same ideas, written for those who have lost a child, see my article, "Where are my Children who have Died? Will I Ever See Them Again?"


Why did St. Peter propose to make different tents at the time of Christ's Transfiguration? (Catholic perspective) At Matthew 17:4  we hear St. Peter exclaiming  at the Transfiguration of Christ: “Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli′jah".

Was St. Peter acknowledging Jesus as a great prophet, rather than as The Redeemer, while he proposed to make three separate tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah? What are  the Catholic Church's teachings on the subject?

The Catena Aurea says of the tabernacles in this passage:

Origenes: Hereupon follows what the warm Peter spake, "Peter answered and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here." Because he had heard that He must go up to Jerusalem, he yet fears for Christ; but after his rebuke he dares not again say, "Be propitious to thyself, Lord," but suggests the same covertly under other guise. For seeing in this place great quietness and solitude, he thought that this would be a fit place to take up their abode in, saying, "Lord, it is good for us to be here." And he sought to remain here ever, therefore he proposes the tabernacles, "If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles." For he concluded if he should do this, Christ would not go up to Jerusalem, and if He should not go up to Jerusalem, He should not die, for he knew that there the Scribes laid wait for Him.
Remigius: Otherwise; At this view of the majesty of the Lord, and His two servants, Peter was so delighted, that, forgetting every thing else in the world, he would abide here for ever. But if Peter was then so fired with admiration, what ravishment will it not be to behold the King in His proper beauty, and to mingle in the choir of the Angels, and of all the saints? In that Peter says, "Lord, if thou wilt," he shews the submission of a dutiful and obedient servant.
Jerome: Yet art thou wrong, Peter, and as another Evangelist saysLuke 9:33, knowest not what thou sayest. Think not of three tabernacles, when there is but one tabernacle of the Gospel in which both Law and Prophets are to be repeated. But if thou wilt have three tabernacles, set not the servants equal with their Lord, but make three tabernacles, yea make one for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that They whose divinity is one, may have but one tabernacle, in thy bosom.

The commentators here link the three tents were meant as a ploy to dissuade the Lord from going to His Passion, as he knew that He would. In this sense, Peter would follow protocol and set up a separate tent for each VIP — it would be rude of them to make them share a tent, and they might have refused and gone off, prompting Jesus to go down from the Mount.
St. Jerome, of course, remembers to rebuke St. Peter in his commentary regarding the very point of placing Jesus in the same level as Moses and Elijah. If there will be three tents, it should be one for each person of the Trinity. However, he implies that St. Peter wasn't trying to make a theological statement with his three tabernacles, but it ends up suggesting one in the mind of the Gospel readers.


What do baptists mean when they refer to an ordained baptist minister? In most denominations, ordination refers to the process of being officially recognized and established by an ecclesiastical authority like an elder, a bishop, or a cardinal to be a minister. Given the independent nature of most baptist churches, it's unclear who is doing the ordination and what it means.

According to an article on one of the ABC-USA's regional websites, "ordination is the process that a church enters to affirm the calling, giftedness, and service of the candidate, ordination cannot be detached from a place of service," and it is "a public affirmation of what God has already done."

The article, as well as the SBC FAQ, says that ordination is done by each local congregation, and each congregation decides for itself what the requirements and prerequisites are, and may or may not consult other churches before doing so. Some don't even require ordination of its pastors.


Are the names of all people originally written in the Book of Life? The Bible speaks about the "Book of Life".  It seems that those whose names are written in it will have life and spend eternity in heaven whereas those whose names are not written in it will be cast into the lake of fire.

  "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose
  face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place
  for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and
  the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the
  book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which
  were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave
  up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead
  which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their
  works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the
  second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of
  life was cast into the lake of fire".

However, the Bible also talks about not blotting people's names out of the book of life.

  The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I
  will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his
  name before my Father and before his angels.  Revelation 3:5

So, are the names of all people originally in the Book of Life?  And then are the names of those who reject Christ blotted out of it later?  If so, what are the implications of this?

The Bible also speaks of those whose names have not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life.

  Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them.
  And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language
  and nation, 8and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone
  whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in
  the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.  Revelation 13:7-8

So, which is it?

As with many issues I start with the Summa Theologica (Summary of Theology), by Thomas Aquinas.  Here is one section of use:  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1024.htm#article3.

Here is an interesting quote:

  "Let them be blotted out from the book of the living" (Psalm 68:29).

So, yes, people can be blotted out of the Book of Life.

We may think we know who should be in that book, as we feel that person is achieved a particular level of holiness, but, God knows all, so there is information He will have that we don't.  So, we may feel someone is definitely going to Heaven, but later they do something that casts doubt on that, so we say they may have been removed from the Book, when they may never have been in there in the first place.

This also leads to the idea of predestination, that Aquinas covers in two parts that help here, but that goes beyond the answer to this question, so I will just give references.
This one deals with whether the Book of Life is predestination
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1024.htm#article1

And whether those predestined for Heaven are chosen by God.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article4


What is the Biblical basis for binitarianism? We hear a lot at times in church, seminary, general discussions, etc about the godhead, so that got me to wondering: what is the Scriptural basis for the Christian doctrine of Binitarianism?

UPDATE:

Binitarianism, as I currently understand it and am currently inferring about, is the belief that the Father and the Son are two persons in one God (similar to the theory of the trinity being 3 persons in one God) and the Holy Spirit is the operational power of God, but not a person.

Different traditions have more nuance in how they understand the trinity, but the most relevant and agreed upon part of that definition is: God is three 'persons', Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and each 'person' is clearly distinguishable from the other two, and all three exist simultaneously.

Binitarianism – belief that God is a 'binitarian' being – is effectively identical to trinitarianism, with one exception: the holy spirit is not considered to be a 'person'.

So where the bible speaks of the Father and/or the Son, binitarians typically agree with trinitarians on how to interpret those texts. Disagreement comes down to how to interpret parts of the bible where the holy spirit is mentioned.

I don't think it is necessary here to review every possible verse of relevance, but I will instead mention a few key texts that shape the binitarian approach to the bible:

Focus is placed on a verse such as 1 Corinthians 8.6, where Paul describes Christian faith being centered around 'one God, the Father' and 'one Lord, Jesus Christ', with no mention of the holy spirit.
First John 1.3 says 'our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ' (ESV). Again, binitarians note the lack of reference to the holy spirit as a 'person' we share fellowship with.
Revelation 3.21, 5.6, 7.17, and 22.1,3 portray Jesus (the Lamb) and God sharing a single throne, but no portrayal is made of the holy spirit also sharing this throne.
Drawing from both the ideas represented in both 2 and 3 above, further emphasis is placed on other texts that focus on God and Jesus, with no reference to the holy spirit when we would otherwise 'expect' to find such a reference (e.g. Romans 10.9, 1 Corinthians 15.20-28, Hebrews 1.1-4).
Most of the epistles begin with the author identifying himself, identifying his intended readership, and greeting where blessings are invoked. All of the greetings invoke blessing from God the Father, or from God and Jesus. E.g., Paul often greets his readers with, 'Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ'. Binitarians take the lack of mention of the holy spirit as an indication that the spirit is not a distinct 'person' the way we understand God and Jesus to be.
Additional points made are that, within the new testament, we find examples of prayer, worship, and praise directed toward God and Jesus, but no prayer, worship, or praise directed toward the holy spirit.

Binitarianism ultimately sees theology, soteriology, eschatology, etc., of the new testament taking shape around two distinct persons, God and Jesus. The holy spirit is understood as the singular spirit of God and Jesus (e.g. Romans 8.9) but not a distinct person, analogous to how a human's spirit is not a distinct person.

However, depending on some contexts, the term 'holy spirit' is not understood by binitarians to have a systematic definition. In some contexts the term is understood as referring to God's spirit (e.g. the parallelism between Matthew 10.20 and Luke 12.12), but in other contexts it may be understood as something more general (e.g. Psalm 51.11 as a poetic parallel to God's 'presence', or Luke 1.35 as a parallel to 'the power of the Most High').


On what basis should Christians oppose child marriage? In most of the western countries the minimum age for marriage is 18 years. (Some would like to argue that this could be 16 or 15 but none would argue it to be 9)

As a Christian I take pride in the fact that Christianity does not support the horrible custom of child marriage (which is still practised in some parts of the world).
It is one of those things that you don’t think much about because it seems so very basic.

However it recently crossed my mind that I’ve never seen a Biblical backing to it. Could it be that it’s only a cultural concept that I think of as a Christian concept?

So my question: Does the Bible define an age of marriability? If not, then on what Biblical basis should Christians oppose child marriages?

Indeed, AFAIK the Bible doesn't make any overt statements on this subject. It is, however, usually accepted that Mary was around 14 when giving birth, and was married at that time. In many ways it is perhaps fortunate that the Bible doesn't wax lyrical on the subject; your description of child marriage as a "horrible custom" sounds largely a product of culture (or dare I even say, "moral relativism"?). There is obviously also an issue of comparison, with radically different life expectancy and life-style (education in particular, and a harsher life, leading to a shorter childhood), historically at an age of around 14 (not the younger 9 that you cite) the majority of females would be fertile (or rapidly approaching fertility), about as educated as they were ever going to get, and with limited years ahead.

Islam, of course, has a glitch here in that it needs to accommodate the marriage of Aisha (often taken to be around 9) with the view of Muhammad as the ideal Muslim, which makes it rather hard for Islam to make a statement that such marriage is inherently wrong. However, even in Christianity (and OT in particular), the fact is that many (not all) of the laws around marriage are more about property laws (with the wife being the property) than of human rights-of / decency-towards the wife.

This leads me to conclude that we aren't going to get much direct and literal guidance from the Bible on this subject, and must resort to other arguments. Perhaps arguments such as these, or from unicef.


Given that Mormons believe the father has a physical body, what is the significance of the incarnation? In mainstream Christianity, the incarnation is a really big deal. The idea that the transcendent and ineffable God could enter into creation and become a man is a mind-boggling concept (and provides much for a religious mind to meditatively feast on)

However in Mormonism both the father and the son have physical bodies, and neither of them seem particularly transcendent, supreme, ultimate, absolute or ineffable. (in fact, when put next to the God of classical theism, the Mormon God doesn't really look like "God" at all!) Furthermore, our eternal destiny is to become Gods just like Jesus and the Father are Gods, and we will retain our fleshly bodies.

In other words, "Incarnation" seems like an every day occurrence in Mormonism. It's all rather pedestrian.

With all that in mind, what does the doctrine of the incarnation look like in the Mormon tradition, and how important/profound is it for Mormons?

It's a big, transcendent deal for Latter-Day Saints too, just in a different way.  Mormons believe that God the Son, Jesus Christ, has a physical body, but before the Incarnation he didn't.

As I understand it, the Catholic doctrine of "hypostatic union" teaches that Christ was both fully human and fully divine during his mortal ministry.  LDS doctrine essentially takes that idea one step further: while Jesus has always been the Son of God, participated in the Creation alongside the Father, and gave revelations and power to his prophets and his people in ancient days, he has also always been a son of God, as we all are, and followed the same eternal path of progression as we do, serving not only as our Savior and our Lord, but as our Exemplar.

He began as a spirit child of God, as we all did, was born into mortality, lived among us and experienced the joys and hardships of mortal existence, and eventually died, just like the rest of us.  But then he did something that only he, being God, was capable of: he broke the bands of death, taking back his life and opening the doors of the Resurrection, so that all of us can follow in his footsteps and continue our progress.

Latter-Day Saints believe that the righteous can achieve "exaltation," the quality of eternal life that God the Father and Jesus Christ enjoy, in the hereafter, but saying that it will be in "our fleshy bodies" is a bit of a simplification.

When Jesus was resurrected, he appeared to the apostles in his resurrected body.  He showed them the wounds from the crucifixion and had them touch and handle him so they would know he was not some sort of ghost, and even ate food with them. (See Luke 24.)  But he said something very unique during this meeting: "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have."  The much more common description of our physical bodies is "flesh and blood;" by saying "flesh and bones" instead, this implies that, while our resurrected bodies will still be distinctly our own bodies, (note the crucifixion wounds,) they will be different in quality in some way.  Mormons believe that these bodies will be perfected and immortal, incapable of further corruption or death.

This shows what the profound implications of the Incarnation are to Latter-Day Saints: when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no man comes to the Father but by me," he was describing himself as our Exemplar.  He showed us the way to "come unto the Father" and achieve exaltation by achieving it himself!


What are full-time protestant proselyting missions like? I'm a Mormon, and everyone knows Mormons are famous for missionary work, as pretty much every faithful young man will serve a 2 year full-time mission right out of high school, and many women will choose to serve one (or more) 1.5 year missions.

I'm very familiar with the LDS missionary program, but I'm not too familiar with many protestant programs. LDS Missions are pretty simple I think: You go through the application process with your bishop, if he thinks you're worthy then your application gets sent to church headquarters, a few weeks or months later you get a mission call to go serve somewhere in the world for 2 years (the church chooses where you go), you're set apart as a missionary–at which point you start living very strict mission rules 24/7–just before you report to the Missionary training centre for 3-12 weeks prior to being sent out into the field.

As a missionary you commit yourself 100% for 2 full years teaching people about the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, no days off, no vacation, no TV or cinema or entertainment of the like, and no phone calls home except for on Christmas and Mothers Day on top of a plethora of other very strict rules (no flirting/dating, iceskating, horseback riding, etc., etc.).

That's a typical LDS proselyting mission. There are many other types of missions that you can choose to go on, but for this question I'm only interested in proselyting missions.

How do some Protestant missions compare?

I come from a family of Protestant missionaries.

From a Protestant standpoint, the definition of a missionary is very apostle Paul-like. You simply have to go teach the gospel where it is not taught. There doesn't have to be a huge process to it.

The only time tight restrictions and approval processes come into play is when someone wanting to do mission work asks for monetary or other support. In such cases each overseeing organization has vetting processes to make sure a would-be missionary is sincere and reliable.

Common Examples,

A person decides to be a missionary in China. He or she goes to China, supports himself or herself by trade during the day, spends weekends and evenings teaching the gospel.

A person decides to be a missionary in Somalia. He or she goes to individual churches or support organizations and asks for monetary support, and will likely have to show evidence of due diligence to be considered. Each church or organization may choose to support or not support on their own.

A mission oriented organization seeks people to go to certain areas. People who express interest are vetted and sometimes put on a probationary or intern status. Sometimes these people must still raise their own funds( which is easier to do with a stamp of approval from a missions organization) or the organization may raise funds for them.

In almost all cases the global restrictions are no where near what they are for Mormons, though many protestant missionaries will self impose certain things like dress codes in order to not offend a particular culture.


Who are the 144,000 according to the Roman Catholic Church? After reading this question I thought about it and am now asking this question: Who are the 144,000 (Revelation 7:1-8; 14:1-5) according to the Roman Catholic Church?

From the Catholic Editions of the Bible, the multitude means the Church, the spiritual Israel, the assembly belonging to Christ and to the Father, marked as and are the children of God, the people of God on earth praising God.

The Footnote to Revelation 7:4 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) has:

  hundred and forty-four thousand: A symbolic number, i.e., twelve (the sacred number) squared and multiplied by 1,000 to denote a
  multitude. It is the church, the spiritual Israel, that is meant.

And the Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition note on Rev 14:1-5 has in part:

  [...] The assembly includes all those who belong to Christ and to the
  Father and who therefore bear the mark which shows them to be children
  of God. They are so numerous that it is impossible to count them, but
  their number is defined and God has it in mind - the people of God
  represented by a number which is the result of multiplying 12 (tribes)
  by 12 (apostles) by 1000 (standing for a number on a huge scale); cf.
  7:3-8. They are not yet in heaven; they are on earth, where they
  praise God, uniting their voices to the praise of the heavenly
  liturgy.

The footnote to Rev 7:4 in The Jerusalem Bible Popular Edition has:

  Twelve (the sacred number) squared and multiplied by a thousand,
  representing the totality of the faithful.


According to Catholicism, does God actively cause suffering in Hell? I was wondering what is the official ontological explanation of the Catholic Church in regard to human souls and fallen angles suffering in Hell. I do not know whether God actively punishes them with His absence or whether it's something else entirely.
Does the suffering in Hell come from not being able to bear God's presence? Or is Hell itself absence of God's presence? I don't know, though the first conclusion seems more logical to me, as God is omnipresent. Furthermore, God is Love, so I think that the suffering that comes from the free decision to turn away from Him is more plausible than God actively punishing sinners in Hell. After all, he is the just Judge, not a tormentor.
I hope that this speculation of mine is not heresy by Catholic standards. Thank you for your answers in advance.

Souls who die in mortal sin are actively punished, but others (e.g., those in the limbo for children, who died with original sin and no actual sin) are only passively punished (because deprived from the Beatific Vision).

St. Augustine writes (Enchir. xciii):

  The punishment of children who die in none but original sin is most lenient.


What is the LDS Church's position on spiritual gifts I am a regular listener of the Glenn Beck Radio Program.  Glenn Beck is a Mormon and, while he doesn't directly discuss his Mormon beliefs, he does often speak about spiritual and moral matters in our society.  Some of the things he's said, indirectly, about his personal faith and his church in general have made me curious about the official position of the LDS Church on spiritual gifts.

For instance, Glenn Beck has said that his church believes in proclaiming/granting spiritual blessings on people (like Abraham giving blessings to his children).  He has also alluded to listening to the voice of God to give him direction in his life and he regularly encourages others to do the same.

So, my question is, what is the official position of the church on spiritual-gifts in general?  For instance, what does the church teach regarding:

Prophecy
Speaking in tongues
Tongue interpretation
Blessings

Do they teach that these, or any other kinds, of spiritual gifts are commonly given today?  If so, do they teach that they are available to all members, or only to certain people within the church?  Are their beliefs in spiritual gifts more-or-less consistent among all members, or does it depend heavily on the local congregation?

The Articles of Faith are a set of simple statements of belief, taken from a letter written by Joseph Smith to explain various aspects of Mormonism to a non-Mormon audience.  The church later accepted it as a canonical statement of doctrinal points.

The seventh Article of Faith states:

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

In terms of organization, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is highly hierarchical, roughly comparable to the Catholic Church.  Basic doctrines are the same everywhere and do not vary from one congregation to another, so this belief is consistent throughout the church.

Prophecy: The applicable doctrine is bound up with the concept of stewardship, the idea that leaders have a responsibility to watch over that which has been entrusted to their care.  Any member of the church has the right to receive personal revelation regarding that which is under their stewardship, but not beyond those limits.  So a member with no particular responsibilities could receive revelation for his or her own life, a father or mother for their families, a Bishop for his congregation, and so on, with the Prophet authorized to receive revelation for the entire church; it would be considered invalid if a Bishop were to claim to have received revelation for the entire church, as this is beyond the scope of his stewardship.
Tongues and interpretation: Latter-Day Saints take a fairly literal view on these gifts.  In Acts 2, the Apostles are able to preach their message to a very diverse crowd and have them all understand it in their own language by the power of the Holy Ghost, and in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul admonishes the Saints against random, meaningless babble that does nothing to edify anyone.  The LDS interpretation is that the Gift of Tongues exists for the purpose of facilitating communication, and it's considered fairly common; many cases exist where a missionary serving in a foreign land, who hasn't gotten too far yet in picking up the language, reports a sudden surge in their ability to express his or her message at a crucial time, which leaves again once the need is gone.  (ie. this is not a bestowal of a new, unearned skill, just as the Apostles didn't suddenly learn all those languages, but a bit of help when it could do some real good.)
Blessings: This is an extremely broad term that can mean any number of loosely related things.  However, in the concept of spiritual gifts, if someone asks a Priesthood holder for "a blessing," this has a well-understood meaning.  A Priesthood blessing is a sacred ordinance in which a holder of the Priesthood lays his hands upon the recipient's head and attempts to be in tune with the promptings of the Holy Ghost as much as possible, so they can pronounce upon them whatever God wishes for them.  The most common use of Priesthood blessings is to heal the sick, with results ranging from simply giving comfort and reassurance, to subtle improvements, to classical "miraculous recovery."  These blessings can also be given to someone who is not sick, where they're generally referred to as "a blessing of comfort" and asked for by someone who is undergoing (or about to undergo) a stressful time or ordeal.


Authentic reasons to leave Roman Catholicism? What are some reasons the Roman Catholic Church would consider authentic reasons for leaving the Roman Catholicism for another community in the Church of Christ?

Authentic reasons to leave Roman Catholicism?
If a Roman Catholic desires to leave the Latin Rite and join an Eastern Rite Catholic community permanently, he or she is obliged to obtained permission from the bishops of both Rites concerned.
If one desires to transfer to an Eastern Rite Catholic Church because you are attracted to the spirituality of the Byzantine Church, then your request will almost always be granted.
This answer may surprise you, as Catholics are generally unaware that they have millions of coreligionists who are not themselves part of the Roman Catholic Church.
In a point of fact, the Catholic Church directly under the jurisdiction of Rome is properly and canonically termed the Latin Church. All official Church documents simply use the term, "Catholic Church." And contrary to popular belief, most of the day-to-day work preformed by the Holy Father is not in his role as pope and pastor of the Universal Church but in his position in the Latin Church as the bishop of Rome and the patriarch of the West.
So who are these "other" Catholics? They have their own hierarchies and liturgies, as well as their own distinct apostolic lineages. They may look and act like Eastern Orthodox churches, but they recognize the pope of Rome as the head of the visible Church on earth and have suffered for the cause of that unity.
There’s nothing wrong with changing rites if you so desire. It’s a bit of a hassle and really isn’t necessary. You can join an Eastern-rite parish without changing rites. However, if you still want to change rites, check with the pastor of the Eastern-rite parish you wish to join.

To change from the Latin Church to the Byzantine Church, you must first be involved in a Byzantine parish for at least a year. You need this time to become acquainted with Byzantine spirituality and liturgical life. You should then discus the matter with the Byzantine pastor. He will then guide you in writing a letter to the Byzantine bishop, asking to join his eparchy. The Byzantine bishop will then contact the Latin bishop, who will investigate the matter. If you are cleared, the Latin bishop will turn you over to the care of the Byzantine bishop, and you will officially become Byzantine Catholic. The entire process only takes a few months.
You will only be refused if one of the bishops suspects that you have the wrong motivation. If you want to transfer because you are attracted to the spirituality of the Byzantine Church, your request will almost always be granted. But if you want to transfer because you don’t like the Latin Church, and you say this in your letter, your request will be refused.
This is a big step to take, and should be treated with great seriousness.  But if you find yourself falling in love with the Byzantine Church, and begin to think of it as home, then go for it. - Roman Catholics becoming Eastern Catholic

It is more difficult for Eastern Rite Catholics to become members of the Latin Rite and permission of the Holy See is also required.
The transition of a Eastern Catholic to the Latin church is ruled by cann. 31 - 38 CCEO. Only relevant is here can. 32:

Can. 32 - § 1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the consent of the Apostolic See.
§ 2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.

So a Eastern Rite Catholic man can be transfered either with the consent of the Apostolic See ("Rome") and with the consent of the local Latin and Eastern bishops (if there are both).
If one has a good reason for changing the Church sui iuris this will succeed normally but with some paperwork. The process is not too easy because in the history of the church often Eastern Catholics were pressed into the Latin Church. Because of that can. 31 CCEO states:

Can. 31 - No one can presume in any way to induce the Christian faithful to transfer to another Church sui iuris.

The reason that Rome makes it harder to transfer to the Roman Rite from an Eastern Rite is because Rome desires to preserve the historical Eastern Liturgies.


Origins of the historical shift towards Believers baptism in the Protestant movement? Much of modern protestantism believes that only believers should be baptized, as believing adults (or at least consenting young people). The primary example being obviously Baptists.

This is a marked shift from the early reformers, the two which I am most familiar with being Luther and Calvin. Both of whom did infant / pedo  baptisms. ( As well as many modern protestant movements stemming from these reformers)

When historically did this idea begin to gain traction among protestant believers? Who were the originators and where/how did it spread?

What I would like in an answer: A brief (or not so brief) Historical overview of how/when/where this idea originated, gained traction, and eventually spread.

What I hope to avoid.

"The practice of believers baptism is biblical!". Yeah I agree but that really is a different question.

"The church has been baptizing infants since the "x"th century!". Sure I acknowledge that but I'm not asking about that.

Certainly some explanation of why the originators came to the conclusions they did might be necessary in an answer, but I'm not looking for impassioned arguments for or against types of baptism. I'm pretty well versed in those arguments and have my own opinions.

I found what hopefully is the right paper to answer the question.  I haven't read the paper myself, but the first introductory paragraphs below should provide a taste, or at least pointers for further research.  The 2007 paper is Origins of the Particular Baptists by Gordon L. Belyea, a PhD candidate in Systematic Theology at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, "where the focus of his dissertation will be in the area of Baptist Ecclesiology."  The paper is published in themelios in the 3rd issue, Volume 32, May 2007.  For a short profile of Particular Baptists, gotquestions.org has a short history.
Quote from the introductory paragraphs of the themelios paper:

The English Particular Baptists first appeared as a distinct group in the early seventeenth century. They combined the believers’ church practice of baptism with contemporary Calvinist soteriology. The origins of this movement are somewhat puzzling at first glance, as they combine what would appear on the surface to be contradictory theologies. Their soteriology was similar to that of the bulk of the Church of England at the time, particularly the Puritan stream; yet their practice of baptism and elements of their form of church government paralleled those of the Anabaptists, whom they universally disavowed. It is common today for Baptists to identify themselves with these continental radical reformers. Is this justified?
This paper will seek to establish the identity and origins of the Particular Baptists and delineate their characteristic beliefs, especially where these differed from other believers of their time. I will seek to show that the Particular Baptists find their roots in English Puritan Noncomformity, almost completely to the exclusion of any Anabaptist influence. Theirs were churches whose origins lay in the magisterial Reformation; differences between them and their Puritan contemporaries are primarily a function of their understanding and application of the Scriptures in not so much a different manner, as in one more consistent and complete.

Another resource I found is this Reformed blog article highlighting historic differences between them and the Baptists about infant baptism.  It includes good quotes from various Reformed confessions.  The same author also wrote a related article remarking how the current evangelical practice in the USA (dominated by SBC & Baptist theology) are reversed compared to before the mid 19th century when infant baptism was the norm.


Did the Catholic Church infallibly define that we can demonstrate with certainty the existence of God with the light of natural reason only? Question: Did the Catholic Church infallibly define that we can demonstrate with certainty the existence of God with the light of natural reason only?

Thanks for any help.

God's existence and divinity can be demonstrated.
Vatican I
The First Vatican Council defined the dogma of the knowability of God from natural reason in Dei Filius II canon 1 on Revelation:

If any one shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things: let him be anathema.[Cdl. Manning's transl. of:] Si quis dixerit, Deum unum et verum, Creatorem et Dominum nostrum, per ea, quæ facta sunt, naturali rationis humanæ lumine certo cognosci non posse: anathema sit

The beginning of ch. 2 on Revelation says:

The same holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, may be certainly known by the natural light of human reason, by means of created things; "for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made," [Rom. 1:20][Cdl. Manning's transl. of:] Eadem sancta mater Ecclesia tenet et docet, Deum, rerum omnium principium et finem, naturali humanæ rationis lumine e rebus creatis certo cognosci posse; invisibilia enim ipsius, a creatura mundi, per ea quæ facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur

"the mind of the Council was in favor of [God's] demonstrability"
Sacræ Theologiæ Summa IIA: One & Triune God, "Thesis 2: The existence of God can be demonstrated scientifically and intellectually," p. 29:

Certainly Vatican I deliberately omitted the word “demonstration” in its definition. [CL 7.132] That would seem to be easily explained, as Lennerz [De Deo uno, 64] notes, from the intention of the Council of defining a certain principle against strict traditionalism [a kind of fideism] by which also the milder form would necessarily be included. But that the mind of the Council was in favor of demonstrability is sufficiently clear from the fact that it was concerned about “the widely circulated error that the existence of God cannot be proved with any certain arguments and therefore cannot be known by the power of reason,” and “the arguments that have always been highly regarded are not of such a nature as to be convincing.” [CL 7.79] Cardinal Gasser himself conceded that “in some measure, to know for certain and to demonstrate” are “one and the same thing.” [CL 7.132] Therefore, according to the mind of the Council demonstrability is closely connected with certain knowledge, and Pius XI rightly said that the oath prescribed by Pius X [quoted below] excellently interpreted Vatican I.

Magisterial documents explicitly using the word "demonstrate"
Leo XIII, encyclical Æterni Patris §§4,5 (1879):

certain truths which were either divinely proposed for belief, or were bound by the closest chains to the doctrine of faith, were discovered by pagan sages with nothing but their natural reason to guide them, were demonstrated and proved by becoming arguments. […] In the first place, then, this great and noble fruit is gathered from human reason, that it demonstrates that God is
[Latin:] quaedam vera, quae vel divinitus ad credendum proponuntur, vel cum doctrina fidei arctis quibusdam vinculis colligantur, ipsi ethnicorum sapientes, naturali tantum ratione praelucente, cognoverint, aptisque argumentis demonstraverint ac vindicaverint […] primo loco magnus hic et praeclarus ex humana ratione fructus capitur, quod illa Deum esse demonstret

St. Pius X, encyclical Iucunda sane §15 (1904):

Men even go so far as to impugn the arguments demonstrating the existence of God, denying with unparalleled audacity and against the first principles of reason the invincible force of the proof which from the effects ascends to their cause, that is God, and to the notion of His infinite attributes.
[Latin:] Impetuntur ipsa argumenta, quibus Deum esse demonstratur, atque incredibili temeritate, contra prima rationis indicia, repudiatur invicta illa argumentandi vis, qua ex effectibus causa colligitur, id est Deus eiusque attributa, nullis circumscripta limitibus.

Pius XI said that St. Pius X's Oath Against Modernism (Sacrorum antistitum, 1910) correctly interprets Vatican I's Dei Filius. Sacrorum antistitum (DZ 2145) says:

I profess that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be certainly known and thus can also be demonstrated by the natural light of reason "by the things that are made" [cf. Rom. 1:20], that is, by the visible works of creation, as the cause by the effects.
[Latin: DZ 3538:] Deum, rerum omnium principium et finem naturali rationis lumine 'per ea quae facta sunt' (cf. Rom 1, 20) , hoc est, per visibilia creationis opera, tamquam causam per effectus, certo cognosci, adeoque demonstrari etiam posse, profiteor.

source for these quotes: Sacræ Theologiæ Summa IIA: One & Triune God, "Thesis 2: The existence of God can be demonstrated scientifically and
intellectually," pp. 27-29.


Why would Fundamentalists think Set Theory is anti-Christian? I read this article entitled "What do Christian fundamentalists have against set theory" and was shocked since I grew up (Grade 1 - 8) in several (what could be described as) fundamentalist/evangelical private schools, and I majored in Computer Science / Discrete Math in college and if the two concepts had some sort of conflict I'd be the person to know. However, I had never heard of a Christian objecting to set theory on religious grounds.

To summarize the article he basically cites this by a christian textbook publisher:

  "Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com

Then he explains set theory and goes on a rant (which may or may not be derived) against fundamentalists who object to modernism and all things tainted my modernism. Then talks a little tiny bit about how they may be offended by any type of theory that can contain infinities.

If this is actually a valid portrayal of fundamentalist belief, why would they object to set theory?

"Is it anti Christian" is a Truth question. Answering in such a way as to avoid that...

From a doctrinal or even denominational perspective, the answer is "no".  Do some Christians think this way?  Yes.

The author of the article does, however, quite accurately describe the mindset of certain types of individuals within more conservative, fundemantalist Churches like those that I favor and prefer.  I am personally friends  who share the type of mindset he describes.  In some of the examples, I fit the stereotype he's describing.

One of the relevant statements made in the article is this:

  I can tell you from experience that A Beka (and Bob Jones University
  Press) are stridently against modernism in all its forms. (I'm
  assuming they're against post-modernism, too, but you have to
  understand that the opinions and perspectives this sort of Christian
  fundamentalism has about society and culture were formed between the
  late 1920s and early 1970s and, because of this, the culture wars that
  they are fighting often come across as confusingly antiquated.)

He's dead-on there.  There is a culture of anti-modernism inherent in Fundamentalist culture and the Fundamentalist mindset.

And there are certainly individuals that I know that would say, "Amen, brother!" to the A Beka statements.  But none of them would confuse such a thing as a Doctrinal issue. Another hallmark of Fundamentalism is a strong belief in Sola Scriptura, and a rabid belief in sound doctrine. This isn't to say that they wouldn't argue that such things are true. Certainly, there are, as I said, those who believe such, but they know the difference between  such beliefs and doctrine.

Rather they might say that their opposition to modernism is an application of doctrine. They believe x is evil, dangerous, wrong, etc, because of doctrine y.

So they might argue that set theory is anti-Christian, but that is a personal interpretation and application of doctrine, not a doctrinal statement in and of itself.


How do Christians who reject pre-fall death reconcile their views with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (66 million years ago)? Many Christians believe that creation was cursed because of Adam & Eve's fall into sin, and that death entered creation because of the fall but not before. In other words, the idea of pre-fall death is rejected. I personally believe that this is a very reasonable position to hold from a Scriptural standpoint and that compelling Scriptural arguments can be made in its favor. However, matters get complicated when secular scientific theories are brought into the picture. In particular, a mass extinction event known as the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (which is commonly believed to be the responsible for the mass extinction of dinosaurs about 66 million years ago) might become a non-trivial complication for the "no pre-fall death" view. Below a few quotes from the Wikipedia article:

The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event[a] (also known as the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) extinction)[b] was a sudden mass extinction of three-quarters of the plant and animal species on Earth, approximately 66 million years ago. With the exception of some ectothermic species such as the sea turtles and crocodilians, no tetrapods weighing more than 25 kilograms (55 pounds) survived. It marked the end of the Cretaceous period, and with it the end of the entire Mesozoic Era, opening the Cenozoic Era that continues today.

As originally proposed in 1980 by a team of scientists led by Luis Alvarez and his son Walter, it is now generally thought that the K–Pg extinction was caused by the impact of a massive comet or asteroid 10 to 15 km (6 to 9 mi) wide, 66 million years ago, which devastated the global environment, mainly through a lingering impact winter which halted photosynthesis in plants and plankton. The impact hypothesis, also known as the Alvarez hypothesis, was bolstered by the discovery of the 180 km (112 mi) Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula in the early 1990s, which provided conclusive evidence that the K–Pg boundary clay represented debris from an asteroid impact.The fact that the extinctions occurred simultaneously provides strong evidence that they were caused by the asteroid.

A wide range of species perished in the K–Pg extinction, the best-known being the non-avian dinosaurs. It also destroyed myriad other terrestrial organisms, including some mammals, birds, lizards, insects, plants, and all the pterosaurs.

If we assume that 1) those who reject pre-fall death are right and 2) the scientists advancing the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event are also right, then it would logically follow that Adam and Eve had to have existed millions of years ago prior to the extinction of dinosaurs -- an idea that I would find hard to reconcile with the genealogies connecting Adam to Jesus in the Bible.
Question: How do Christians who reject pre-fall death reconcile their views with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event that is believed to have caused the mass extinction of dinosaurs and other species about 66 million years ago, according to scientific sources?

Those creationist Christians typically place the "extinction event" in Noah's day, thus long after the fall of the historic Adam.
An example is from the well-known Young Earth model defender, Institute for Creation Research, who published a rebuttal in their 2001 article Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs written by one of their scholars: Donald B. DeYoung, PhD who is also the President of the Creation Research Society.
After summarizing Luis Alvarez's theory, he highlighted that scientific support is not unanimous, that there are 5 major extinctions in the evolution view, that there are still 3 basic remaining questions, and that the creationist explanation is still viable.
Excerpt from the article: (emphasis mine).

A Creationist Conclusion
In the evolution view there have been at least five major extinctions of life during earth history. We may expect continued zealous efforts in coming years to tie these alleged extinctions to crater-like blemishes across the earth. Creationists challenge the time scale which widely separates these extinction events. In one alternative view, there was just one single major earth catastrophe of judgment which caused the near extinction of life, the Genesis flood of Noah's day. Thus the separate extinctions actually are closely related episodes taking place during the year-long global flood.
The K-T clay layer is just one small portion of sediment accumulation during the flood. There was both volcanic and collision activity associated with the flood, perhaps including Chicxulub and other craters (Froede and DeYoung, 1996). However, the dinosaurs were not driven to extinction at this time. Instead, living dinosaur types were sheltered aboard the Ark. They then gradually disappeared in post-flood centuries due to climate changes and other possible causes.
Several dramatic movies have portrayed deadly asteroids or comets pummeling the earth and endangering humanity itself in the years to come. The creation view is far more optimistic about the future, realizing that there is a definite future plan for mankind. We are not the result of chance, nor do we, or the earth's animal and plant life, face imminent extermination from a random space collision.