What arguments support an early date for the Didache? I've encountered a number of dates proposed for the Didache, ranging from some time in the first century, even before some of the documents found in the NT, to late in the second century.

What arguments or evidence supports a first century date?

Background

The wild dates assigned to the Didache are most likely a result of the the several developments it seems to have gone under. Some scholars have even attempted to remove the "additions" to the original Didache in order to uncover the original text1. It is difficult to determine just how late the last development occurred, so for this reason, I will be assuming that you are asking when the Didache in its original form was first composed.

The importance of the Didache stems from the fact that some of the early Christian churches considered it to be canonical. Even some modern-day Oriental Orthodox Churches consider a derrivative of the Didache, the Didascalia, to be part of a broad canon2. Though generally the Didache and her derivatives have not been considered canonical by Christendom in general. This is likely due to the very practical nature of the document.

This answer will quickly summarize the various arguments put forth and allow you to follow up on each of these points for further study. It will not offer arguments for a late date, as this is beyond the scope of your question.

Arguments for a 1st Century Dating

The primitive church presented by the Didache is highly indicative of an early composition date. The Didache shows little to no knowledge of the more formal structures referenced by those like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch (1 Clement dating ~70-140 CE and Letter to the Smyrnaeans ~107 CE). Some believe the Didache to have been composed in Antioch, which then begs the question why it would not mention the formal church structures Ignatius (who lives in Antioch) mentions.
The Didache seems to lack Pauline influence which indicates its writers where not familiar with Paul's theological ideas expressed in his letters dating ~50 CE onward. This leads to the conclusion that the Didache was written before its writers had received the famous Pauline letters we know today.
The manner in which the sayings of Jesus are presented suggest they were received by oral tradition. This has led some to believe the Didache lacked all four of the written gospel accounts. For example, the golden rule is recited in the negative ("do not do to another what you would not want done to you" Didache 1.23) unlike the gospels which recite it in the positive. This suggests that the writers were relying on oral tradition rather than written tradition.
The Didache begins by arguing that there are "two ways." This comports with the early Christian name "those who follow the way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22) and from Jesus' teaching of the two gates (Matthew 7:13-14). Jesus is also called the way (John 14:6). This is highly suggestive that the original writers of the Didache still considered Christianity to be a sect or "way" within the broader religion of Judaism4.
Dr. Alan Garrow argues the Didache is a possible solution to the synoptic problem5 which would date it before the Synoptic Gospels.
Several parts of the Didache demonstrate it is targeted towards gentiles, not Jews. This has led some to consider it an early catechism used by Jewish-Christians to first evangelize the gentiles. Essentially, it is a vague suggestion that the Didache is one of the first attempts by the original Jewish-Christians to evangelize the gentiles.
The Didache shows little sign of contemporary persecution in the writters' Christian communities. This suggests it was written before the harsh persecution characterizing the 60's CE.6
There is no "polemic against heterodox or Gnostic tendencies within the church."6 This suggests the Didache was composed before heterodox and Gnostic tendencies appeared within the church.
"The Didache does not fit clearly into any period of liturgy or ministry for which we have documentation."6 The reason may be because it was written before any liturgy we know of had formed.
In chapter 6 there is an appeal to abstain from food offered to idols. This comports with James' admonition in Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem (~50 CE) and is unlike teachings after the council on the subject (1 Corinthians 8:4-6 ~53 CE). This has also led some to identify the Didache with the Apostolic Decree written by James the Just.
Despite the apocalyptic ending, the Didache makes no connection to the temple destruction. However, it is hard to tell if this indicates much.
The longer name of the Didache is "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." The even fuller title is "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles." If this title were correct, it would have been written by the apostles themselves.
Some have argued that the Didache is a "matriarch" of Apocalypse of John (or Revelation), which if true, would naturally date the Didache before John wrote his apocalypse. See Dr. Alan Garrow's discussion7.

Conclusion

I have presented one side of the argument because this is what your question asked for. However, note that the Didache is one of the most wildly dated Christian documents, and it is likely that it will remain so. It is a document that many Christians esteem but rarely consider canonical.

Sources:

https://www.alangarrow.com/original.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/ethiopican.html
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian
https://www.alangarrow.com/synoptic-problem.html
https://earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/didache.pdf
https://www.alangarrow.com/uploads/4/4/0/3/44031657/the_didache_and_revelation__sbl_2015_.pdf


Was that Pentecost in the Acts also a time of the year of jubilee? Was that Pentecost, during which the Holy Spirit was poured out on the apostles in the book of Acts was also a time of jubilee? From what I see, the Pentecost was a holiday to commemorate God's giving Ten Commandments to His people - once every year. And the year of jubilee was established in the Old testament - according to what I can tell from Leviticus 25 - as a year of commemoration of the nation of Israel entering the promised land - once every 50 years. So, was that Pentecost in the Acts also a time of the year of jubilee?

As much as the Jubilee is important in Scripture, there is no evidence that one was ever actually declared in Israel's history.

This is noted as such by Jeffrey Fager and D.P. O'Brien in unrelated papers.

As such, there is no base from which to calculate the 50th year. More to the point for this question, there is no archeological or historical evidence of such a proclamation in the first half of the 1st century. (None later either, but since we don't know for certain when the Resurrection happened ( estimates range from 30 to 33 to 36 AD), I would be willing to consider any such declaration.) Unfortunately, there is none to be found.

That said, Jesus himself assuredly was the Jubilee. He says as much in Luke 4, when he preached on Isaiah 61:

  He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

  “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
     because he has anointed me
     to proclaim good news to the poor.
  He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
     and recovery of sight for the blind,
  to set the oppressed free,
     19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[f]

  20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

The "Good News" is the Gospel that Jesus has redeemed his own. Man may have been lax in keeping the Jubilee, but God was faithful in declaring it nonetheless.

The Jubilee itself is heavily bound up wit the idea of redemption:

  Corollary to this provision was the right of redemption (ge˒ullâh) attached to the sale of any land by a Hebrew. One did not have to wait for the Year of Jubilee to recover one’s land; rather, it could be reclaimed at any time by the gō˒ēl (redeemer), a kinsman of the original owner, or by the owner himself, upon payment of a sum proportionate to the number of harvests remaining from the time of re-purchase to the next Jubilee Year (Lev 25:24–28). In any case, the land was to revert to its original owner at the time of the Jubilee. The primary theological basis for the “release” of slaves, debts and land was Yahweh’s ownership of both the people and the land

In presenting himself as the "Redeemer," Jesus himself is setting up the analogy of God reclaiming his own - the reason behind the Jubilee.  As such, we can state, Jesus is our Jubilee, because though we had been slaves to sin, God restored the rightful order.

  Luke’s narration of Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth represents a particular development in the eschato logical use of Jubilee Year themes: Jesus himself is presented as the anointed (messianic) herald of the long-awaited Year of Jubilee.

  The term “release” (aphesis) represents the primary theological and verbal connection with the levitical proclamation of Jubilee. The classical Greek employment of aphesis was in the legal sense of a “release” from office, marriage, obligation, debt or even punishment. The word was not used, however, in religious contexts. In the LXX, of the approximately fifty instances of aphesis, twenty-two are in Leviticus 25 and 27, where it translates in most cases the Hebrew yôḇel, “Year of Jubilee”; in other cases, most notably Leviticus 25:10, it translates derôr, “release.” Derôr, in fact, seems to have been the technical term of the prophets to indicate the Year of Jubilee, that is, “the year of release,” or “liberty,” as Jeremiah 34:8, 15, 17; Ezekiel 46:17; and Isaiah 61:1 indicate.

  Green, J. B., McKnight, S., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (396). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

In paying for our sin on the cross, Jesus pays the redemption price for the world he created. In calling us sons and slaves, "joint heirs with Christ," we are free. As such, the Jubilee is for us.


According to Two Kingdom theology, could a man hold both secular and spiritual office? The so called Two Kingdom view of the separate institutes of secular state vs the church identifies a fairly clear boundary between the authority of each: one demanding some compliance with a nominal set of ethical behaviors for the well being of both Christian and all members of society of any religious persuasion and includes powers (e.g. punishing injustice, warfare) while the other holds higher standards in both ethical and spiritual matters but who's authority is limited in scope to the spiritual (e.g. sacraments, doctrine).

According to adherents of this view1, ordained church office bearers carry a special authority over spiritual matters in the context of the church. Likewise those who hold public office under any political structure2 have a special charge to create and enforce laws that fulfill a specific purpose. Given the the separation between both domain and available powers, under any circumstances would it be valid for an individual man to hold both ordained office in the church and a public office3 in the state? Is such a dual role4 possible for an office-bearer in the same way that it would be for a normal Christian to maintain any political role or is there a fundamental conflict of interest in being ordained resulting in some sort of unacceptable schizophrenia?

If there is a difference between the thinking of Reformation era theologians who used "two kingdom" terminology (viz. Martin Luther, John Calvin) and the modern "Radical Two Kingdoms" theological framework (viz. Meredith Kline, Michael Horton) on this issue, I would like to hear the difference between them spelled out.

1 Please note that this is not the quite same as the modern Evangelical parlance of "separation of church and state". Please limit answers to actual implementations of Two Kingdom theology.

2 For the purposes of this question the sort of public office I am referring to might be characterized by those of a mayor or constable—offices that are charged with either legislating or enforcing civil structures as their primary responsibility.

3 I am not thinking of the sort of office that might be conferred by the state automatically to religious office holders such as the right to officiate marriages, I'm thinking more along the lines of mayor or constable or parliamentary representative.

4 I am aware that most 2K views see all Christians as holding dual citizenship. This question is not about citizenship or the roles of all believers but specifically about office bearing.

This is an interesting question.  Bear with me as I attempt to build a bit of Confessional background to my answer.

It's clear from Article 5 of the Augsburg Confession that the office of the ministry was instituted by God to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments (http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article5).  This is God's "Right Hand Kingdom or Realm."  See also articles 7 and 8 in the Confession.  Then, the Confession notes that no one should do these things "publicly" (i.e. in the name of a congregation) unless he be regularly (or rightly) called (Article 14).

Then, Article 16 talks about Civil Affairs (http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article16).  This is God's "Left Hand Kingdom or Realm" of civil government.  It's interesting that in this Article there is no distinction between the various offices; i.e. "it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage."  In this Article, bearing a civil office is lumped in with marrying a wife.  Then, you have Article 23 later which states it is right and proper for "priests" (i.e. those holding the office of the ministry) to marry.  So, there's a logical connection then that seems to state that those who hold the office of the ministry could, theoretically, hold a civil office.

However, Article 28 (http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article28) goes into more details about the distinctions between God's Left Hand Kingdom (civil government) and His Right Hand Kingdom (the Church).  Both are instituted by God to care for His world; the Left Hand to enforce order, keep peace, pursue justice; the Right Hand to proclaim the Gospel by which people are saved by grace through faith.

A key quote from this Article is: "If bishops have any power of the sword, that power they have, not as bishops, by the commission of the Gospel, but by human law having received it of kings and emperors for the civil administration of what is theirs. This, however, is another office than the ministry of the Gospel."

The point is that bishops may have their office in the Right Hand realm as well as their office in the Left Hand realm, but that they have to understand that these are separate offices with different roles.  So, the Confessions seem to recognize that the possibility exists for one person to hold both a Left Hand ("secular" or "civil) office and a Right Hand ("spiritual" or the office of the ministry).

That said, is this advisable, even if it is technically allowed?  That's probably a separate question that what was originally asked.  On the one hand, it would be hard for a pastor to separate his office in the ministry with his office as, for example, a mayor.  On the other hand, if a pastor may get married, perform marriages, even serve as a soldier (e.g. a military chaplain), then why can he not serve as a mayor?


Is every single minute of the year a mass being celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church? If so, since when? Update: as stated by brasshat's answer below, the Good Friday mass is not celebrated in the Roman Catholic world. Naturally, this makes the answer to my question apparently trivial. It is not totally trivial though, because there are other rites in the Catholic Church (e.g. Maronite), which use a different calendar. In any case, to move further, take out such voluntary exceptions (i.e. self-imposed) from the calendar year, and assume a year that moves from Good Thursday immediately to Holy Saturday.

This post has two questions:

Imagine you pick a random minute of a random day of a random week of last year (2016). Was there a mass in a Catholic Church or Monastery being celebrated?

I am inclined to say yes, but I'm not sure how to confirm this. For timezones ranging from the West cost of the US to Japan, I would say we have fairly good confidence that masses are being held every morning, and maybe evenings, in every time zone, as they go through fairly a lot of countries with relatively large Catholic populations. I think there might be more issues with UTC +11 (toward the East end of Russia), UTC -8 (Alaska), and UTC -11 to UTC -9 (mainly the Pacific Ocean, and small islands). But, if there is a lot of diversity across mass times among Catholic churches/monasteries (some in the morning, others in the afternoon, and others in the evening; see below), maybe they can compensate for those timezones without much Catholic presence.

Are you aware of any formal analysis of this? I find nothing online. Maybe using some online website like this global registrar, this search tool, this, or this one. The latter show a lot of daily RC masses, at many times, even in cities like London (not "particularly" Catholic densely populated).

"Naturally", Catholic masses were not held every minute of, say, 100 AD. If the answer to the first question is yes, since when are Catholic masses held every minute?

For instance, take the year 1450 AD, before Catholic missionaries set out to establish monasteries and churches in America and the "Far East". Here, we could say that Catholic population was widely distributed between UTC +0 (Portugal) to UTC +6 (West of Russia). Let us assume that Catholic masses started in Portugal at 7 am local time, and finished in Russia at 6pm local time. From the Portuguese perspective (UTC), there was a mass from 7 am until 1 am (which is when the last time Russian mass finished, assuming it lasted one hour). This means that in 1450 AD there was no mass for at least 6 hours of the 24 hour day.

So, my guess here is that at some point, once the West of now-US/then-Mexico (UTC -6) was finally conquered by the Spaniards, and Catholic churches and monasteries were established, we could be more or less sure a Catholic mass was celebrated at all times of the day, every week, and year. This might have happened between the XVI and XVII centuries. Provided that no major global disruption affected mass times (e.g. World Wars), then this would define the lower barrier to since when Catholic masses have been continuously celebrated.

No. There is no mass celebrated on Good Friday, in any Catholic church, anywhere.

It is an obligation of every Roman Priest to say Mass every day, except for the noted exception for Good Friday, when no mass is celebrated. I once asked a Jesuit Priest of my acquaintance, and now of blessed memory, what happened  in places like some monasteries and large parishes, where there were more Priests than available altars, how this was accommodated, and he told me that in his early years after ordination, he would arise at one in the morning, to day mass to fullfil his obligation, and that there were priests celebrating at nearly every hour of the day.


What were the ages of the Apostles Peter and John when Jesus was crucified? What were the ages of the Apostles Peter and John when Jesus was crucified?
What I’ve heard is Peter was about the same age as Jesus (30-33), while John was an older teenage, approximately 18.  This makes sense in the passages:

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”  Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.  (John 19:26–27, ESV)

A teenager along with women would be less threatened being present at the crucifixion.

Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first (John 20:4, ESV)

For men who were not athletes, you would expect an 18 year old to outrun a 30 year old.

Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?”  When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” (John 21:20–21, ESV)

Jesus had told Peter to feed his sheep.  Usually younger brothers were given the task of taking care of the literal sheep.  Peter had to get used to the idea that shepherds (pastors) were elders.
What other evidence to we have for the ages of Peter and John at the crucifixion.

What were the ages of the Apostles Peter and John when Jesus was crucified?
According to Catholic tradition St. Peter was the oldest person amongst the Apostles; while St. John was the youngest apostle.

John the Apostle (6 AD– 100AD) was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus according to the New Testament. Generally listed as the youngest apostle, he was the son of Zebedee and Salome. His brother was James, who was another of the Twelve Apostles. The Church Fathers identify him as John the Evangelist, John of Patmos, John the Elder and the Beloved Disciple, and testify that he outlived the remaining apostles and that he was the only one to die of natural causes. The traditions of most Christian denominations have held that John the Apostle is the author of several books of the New Testament.

If St. John was born in the year 6 AD, that means St. John was about 24 years old at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, if we take the Crucifixion as been in the year 30 AD.
The Catholic Church does not know with any exactitude the real timeline of the Apostle Peter. So much of this question is simply based on tradition.
For the most part, it is believed that the Apostle St. Peter was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), about the year 1 AD.

St. Peter's true and original name was Simon, sometimes occurring in the form Symeon. (Acts 15:14; 2 Peter 1:1). He was the son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth, the position of which cannot be established with certainty, although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town. - St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles

As for how and when the Apostle St. Peter died, it is traditionally believed that he died between 64 and 67 AD and was crucified upside down at Rome. That makes St. Peter between 63 and 66 years old when he died. Historical documents are not more sure of anything more exact. One can read what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on this subject. Some even claim he died in 55 AD.
If in fact, St. Peter was born in the year 1 AD that would make St. Peter 29 years old if we hold the Crucifixion as being done in the year 30 AD.
There seems to be little historical evidence to support the ages of any of apostles and that is why the Church tends to follow tradition in this matter.


Why do (some) Anglican vicars use 'sing-songy' voices? I'm confirmed into the Anglican Communion, though I haven't been a regular attender for about 10 years. Now 67 years old, I'm still interested in my Anglican heritage and what my Anglican infant baptism means. I worry that the Church of England is dying. It seems that the people in our church are quite out-of-touch with the local community and unable to be authentic in their relationships with non-churchgoers. It seems that the culture of the people is at odds with the people of the community.

The question I have may seem trivial, but I think it's symptomatic of this out-of-touch problem. On a visit to check-out the new priest I was not really surprised to hear his voice had that 'sing-songy' quality that most vicars had in my childhood. But what really shocked me was that in casual conversation after the service he spoke in the same way. It was rather like a caricature, and at times it was hard not to laugh at the stereotype that was conjured-up.

I think it might help me to attend an Anglican church again if I could at least understand if it is a prejudice in myself when I hear this anachronistic vocal style. Knowing why might promote tolerance. My question is about the origin on the phenomenon.  My guess is that it was taught and propagated after the Reformation, as RC priests seem to be immune. And why should it extend outside of church services into their everyday conversation?

I've come across quite a few embarrassing references to 'sing-songy' vicars on the Internet, so I guess that the behaviour is still fairly common in the C of E, e.g.  https://sites.google.com/site/singsongyvicars/
Has any research been done into the phenomenon? or would it be too embarrassing to mention?

I submit that there may be a practical reason for the sing-songy voice, and I have tested the reason myself, with the help of a friend.

First, I read a passage from Scripture in a normal speaking voice, at normal volume, from the lectern in a large, "traditionally" furnished Episcopal church, and had my friend move back in the nave as I was speaking until my words could be heard, but no longer clearly understood. This was about 3/8 of the way from the lectern to the rear of the church. Then, I had my friend move still further back, to where my words could not be heard in their entirety. This was about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way to the back of the church.

Next, we repeated the experience with me chanting the same passage, from the same place, and at about the same volume. My friend had no trouble hearing clearly the words I chanted at the very back of the room.

Finally, we repeated the process in the "sing-songy" voice. In this case, the words were clearly understood about 2/3 of the way back the church, and heard all the way to the back.

I don't have enough training in psychoacoustics, or acoustics, for that matter, so I can't say exactly why chanting, and its distant cousin is more clearly heard than plain speech, but I've done the same test in different rooms, always with the same result--the closer to plain speech, the less the sound travels at a particular volume, the closer to chant, the better the sound travels.

These days, of course, with microphones, amplification systems, and loudspeakers, all one need to do to get normal voice to be easily heard anywhere in the room is to turn up the gain on the amplifier. But it was not always the case, and I suspect the sing-songy voice is a hold-over from pre technology changes, and that the perpetrators may not be be aware they are doing it, or if they are, may not put it on like vestments, which by the way, derive from regular garments of the Common Era, though that's a different queston altogether.


Is the Canaanite woman from Tyre and Sidon a Gentile or not? As far as I know the Canaanite woman, she is a gentile, yes?

Or is she from Ham's son's lineage Canaan etc?

What makes a gentile?

Is it only not being in one of the twelve tribes of Israel?

Or something else?

Is the Canaanite woman from Tyre and Sidon a Gentile or not?

The short answer is yes. She is a Gentile.

It is quite possible that she is a descendant  of Canaan and thus Ham.

She is not not of Jewish decent and she is not a Samaritan. Greeks were considered to be Gentiles to both the Jews and the Samaritans.

  The Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter is one of the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels and is recounted in the Gospel of Mark in Chapter 7 (Mark 7:24-30) and in the Gospel of Matthew in Chapter 15 (Matthew 15:21-28). In Matthew, the story is recounted as the healing of a Canaanite woman's daughter. According to both accounts, Jesus exorcised the woman's daughter whilst travelling in the region of Tyre and Sidon, on account of the faith shown by the woman.

  The woman described in the miracle, the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:26) is also called a "Canaanite" (Matthew 15:22) and is an unidentified New Testament woman from the region of Tyre and Sidon. "The woman is ... described as Syrophoenician by race. It is unclear whether Mark seeks to distinguish between a Phoenicianfrom Syria and one from northern Africa or between someone living in the coastal area of Syria and someone living in the central part." Her other notable characteristic is her non-Jewish status: the Gospel of Mark adds that she is a Greek (Greek: Ελληνις).

  The third century pseudo-Clementine homily refers to her name as Justa and her daughter's name as Berenice. - Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter


What did Jesus mean by "whoever believes in me will do greater works than I do"? In John 14:12, Jesus says:

  “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father." [ESV]

One may do a miracle similar to Jesus. But how one can do a miracle greater than that of Jesus? What did He mean by this?

Earlier in John is a verse that could potentially help provide an answer to your question:

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” - John 6:29 NIV

Another verse in John a little later (after the resurrection) gives further insight:

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” - John 20:29 NIV

This tells us something about God's priorities and what Jesus could possibly mean by "greater works". With this frame of reference then examples such as Acts 2:41 could be considered as fulfilling this promise:

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Peter preaches a sermon and about three thousand people put their faith in Jesus.  To put this in context, Peter is asking them to follow a leader who has been publicly executed in that locality less than two months previously and they themselves weren't witnesses of a resurrected Christ.


In the Catholic Church, what is the explanation for having, and the history behind Principal Co-Consecrators? When researching for an answer, I wanted to provide a link to Pope Bl. Pius IX.

He was ordained Bishop 28 Oct 1919 by Principal Consecrator: Archbishop Aleksander Kakowski † Archbishop of Warszawa {Warsaw}.

I was surprised to see other two Principal Co-Consecrators.

Isn't one Bishop enough to ordain and consecrate a candidate a Bishop?

The question

What is the purpose of the Principal Co-Consecrators?

In Church history, what is the explanation for having, and the history behind having Principal Co-Consecrators? Who decreed it and when?

By tradition only one validly ordained bishop is sufficient for an valid episcopal ordination. However the presence of two more bishops this is seen as symbolical to the collegiality of the episcopate. Also it has a practical side to it, that is the church is undoubtedly assured of the validity of the ordination, as three bishops participateSee note 1 in an Ordination Which requires only one of them for validity. (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law Canon  1012 - By John P. Beal)
Who decreed it and when?
The first decree regarding this is found in First Council of Nicæa - Canon 4:

It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.

It is clear from the above text that it was a preexisting tradition that more than one bishop were present during an episcopal ordination. This practice continues to the present day.

Note 1:
There has been issues raised regarding the functionality of the Co-Consecrators.

Do the co-consecrators equally with the consecrator impart the sacrament to the candidate? Beyond the possibility of a doubt they are not witnesses only but co-operators. They are not mere witnesses to the fact that the consecration has taken place, but, by taking part in it, make themselves responsible for its taking place. It is not easy to see how the assistant bishops can be said to comply with the essentials of a sacramental administration.  - Catholic Encyclopedia

In the current Rite of Ordination of a Bishop, all the bishop who are present participate in Laying on of Hands and during Prayer of Consecration say these words with the principal consecrator:

So now pour out upon this chosen one the power that is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.

These both satisfy the requirements of form and matter for the sacrament.


When/why did the [N]RSV become a "Catholic" Bible instead of a "Protestant" Bible? The Methodist church my aunt grew up in back in the 50s and 60s relied almost exlcusively on the RSV, and she continued to use it until her death a few years ago as her preferred translation.

However, when going through Christian bookstores (or just Christian sections of bookstores) today, I see the RSV (and NRSV) group with the NAB and other "Catholic" Bibles.

When/why did this occur (at least in the US)?

Are there aspects of the RSV/NRSV considered less ideal to Protestants now that were not as widely known/cared about half a century ago?

The reason that many of them are considered "Catholic" is probably because there is now a "Catholic Edition" of the RSV and the NRSV. Both of these are gaining traction over the NAB if only because of the superiority of the translation.

The major difference between Catholic and Standard RSV is that the Deuterocanon is placed in the standard Catholic order and there are a number of small word changes (most notably "brethren" for "brother").


Transubstantiation and John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."
  NKJV John 6:27

I am an Evangelical but have been worshiping in a high church for many years mainly because my friends worship there too. I know the doctrine of transubstantiation which teaches that the bread and wine literally change into Jesus' flesh and blood in the Eucharist. Most defenders of this teaching use John 6 as the main evidence. But in v27 Jesus not to work for FOOD WHICH PERISHES: i.e food that will rot and mould, but work for the food that will endure to eternal life. This is the "food" which Jesus says he'll give.

My question is: how does one who believes in transubstantiation go about understanding v27, considering that the consecrated bread in the Eucharist WILL eventually "perish"/mould/rot over time if left unconsumed. How can Jesus be referring to the Eucharist as his "food", when he says that HIS food will NOT perish (unlike the consecrated bread)?

I am not looking for an argument, I am just interested in how Catholics interpret this verse.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains that verse in his commentary on St. John's Gospel ch. 6 (my emphasis):

  The power of this food is seen in the fact that it does not perish. In this respect we should point out that material things are likenesses of spiritual things, since they are caused and produced by them; and consequently they resemble spiritual things in some way. Now just as the body is sustained by food, so that which sustains the spirit is called its food, whatever it might be. The food that sustains the body is perishable, since it is converted into the nature of the body; but the food that sustains the spirit is not perishable, because it is not converted into the spirit; rather, the spirit is converted into its food. Hence Augustine says in his Confessions: “I am the food of the great; grow and you will eat me. But you will not change me into yourself, as you do bodily food, but you will be changed into me.”

Related:

Summa Theologica III q. 77 a. 4: "Whether the sacramental species can be corrupted [i.e., decompose]?"

cf. this answer to this question regarding the nutritional aspect of Holy Eucharist


What is the basis of Christian belief that criminals should be punished on Earth? Do Christians believe that criminals should be punished on Earth by state authorities?

If so, why are they not satisfied with the promised divine punishment in afterlife?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  1898    Every human community needs an authority to govern it. (Cf. Leo XIII, Immortale Dei; Diuturnum illud.) The
  foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for
  the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the
  common good of the society. 1899    The authority required by the
  moral order derives from God:

    “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there
    is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been
    instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists
    what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”  Rom 13:1-2; cf. 1 Pet 2:13-17.

and here

  1909    Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the
  stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority
  should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and
  its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and
  collective defence. 1910    Each human community possesses a common
  good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political
  community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role
  of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society,
  its citizens, and intermediate bodies.

I believe that The Fourth Commandment "Honor thy Father and Mother" can be extrapolated to Honor authority.

From Wikipedia on the Fourth Commandment

  Thus, the fourth commandment's responsibilities extend to the greater
  society and requires respect for "legitimate social authorities". The
  Catechism specifies "duties of citizens and nations", which Kreeft
  summarizes as: "Obedience and honor" to "all who for our good have
  received authority in society from God". "Payment of taxes, exercising
  the right to vote and defending one's country". "An obligation to be
  vigilant and critical", which requires citizens to criticize that
  which harms human dignity and the community. "A duty to disobey" civil
  authorities and directives that are contrary to the moral order. "To
  practice charity", which is a "necessity for any working family or
  society"; it is the "greatest social commandment" and requires people
  to love God and neighbor. "To welcome the foreigner" who is in need of
  security and livelihood that cannot be found in his own country. "An
  obligation for rich nations to help poor nations", especially in times
  of "immediate need". "An expectation for families to help other
  families".[55][64]

It is not a dissatisfaction with the promised divine judgement, it is the governing authority's role from God to "ensure as far as possible the common good of the society."


Can someone look into a mirror and not liking what he or she sees be capable of loving his neighbour? The greatest command is to love your neighbor as yourself... ??

In order to love God and neighbour, we must first truly love ourself. This is not an option, but rather a necessity. If one hates oneself, how can on love God who he does not see or have true charity towards another person.

We can still love ourselves, while momentarily disliking ourselves due to our personal shortcomings or sins.

  “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus replies: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Matt 22:35-40).

St. Thomas Aquinas affirms that in order to love God we must first love ourselves.

  That the love of God and love of neighbor are profoundly connected is widely acknowledged and often preached. After all, did not the Apostle John declare that anyone who says that he loves God but hates his brother is a liar (1 John 4:20)? But where does the love of self come into this? Save for the word of Jesus, we might be tempted to leave it out altogether. We hardly need to be encouraged to greater personal aggrandizement. Yet here is our Lord exhorting us to love others in the same way that we love ourselves. That would seem to imply that the former rests upon the latter. Can that be right? Fr Herbert McCabe thinks that it is, and he appeals to no less an authority than St. Thomas Aquinas.

  When we examine Jesus’ words closely, we find two commandments but three objects of love—God, neighbor, self. It is the third, McCabe claims, that is the key to the others. Self is where we start from:

    I don’t mean that it is more important to love ourselves than to love God. I just mean that loving yourself is the way you love God. I mean that loving yourself is, in a way, more important than loving your neighbour because, without loving yourself, it is quite impossible to love your neighbour. Aquinas says, we should first love God, then ourselves, then our neighbour, then our bodily life (Summa Theologiae 2a2ae, 25, 12). (“Self-Love,” God, Christ and Us , p. 69)

  McCabe suggests that to understand what it means to love God we should reflect on what it means to love ourselves—and to not love ourselves. We fail to love ourselves, asserts the Dominican theologian, when we base our lives on the false belief that we lack intrinsic dignity and worth:

    The root of all sin is fear, a fear which is a disbelief in oneself, the fear that really, in oneself, one does not matter, does not really exist—the fear that if one really looked into the centre of oneself, there would be nothing there: the fear not just that one is playing a false part, wearing a disguise, but that one is nothing but the disguise. It is this fear that gives rise to the desperate attempt to put something there, to make something of ourselves, or the desperate fight to prevent others making nothing of us by taking away the masks. And so we make ourselves somebody through power over others and through possessions, which are a sort of power. Or we sink into some distracting pleasure so that we can forget the emptiness. And, of course, we hate those who threaten our self-flattering images. And all this is rooted in fear, because we cannot believe in ourselves, because we cannot believe that we matter just because we are ourselves. It is rooted in the fact that we cannot love ourselves. (p. 70) - To Love God We Must First Love Ourselves


What was the weight of Noah's ark before and after the animals were loaded on to it? Does anyone know what was the weight of the Ark before and after the animals were loaded on to it?

The draft of the Ark (the depth of the vessel submerged under water) is given in scripture as being 22.5 feet (15 cubits, as recorded in Genesis 7:19-20).

From this figure, together with the dimensions of the structure, can be calculated the displacement, which is the volume of water that the vessel displaces.

The weight of this volume of displaced water can then be calculated which will be the weight of the vessel (as is known by By Archimedes' Principle).

  Archimedes' Principle - the weight of a floating object is the weight of the fluid it displaces.

All the details and calculations are shown by Creation Concepts. They estimate a weight of :

  47million lb or about 24 thousand tons

Note: This only gives the weight of the ark when afloat with all its contents.


How is the "spirituality of the church" consistent with theonomy? In Hart and Muether's history of American Presbyterianism, Seeking a Better Country, they describe a doctrine of the "spirituality of the church," which emphasizes the spiritual, not social, task of the church:

  The church was not commissioned to make the world a better place in which to live.  It had no business telling the government how to rule the body politic.  It was not to feed the hungry, or provide houses for the homeless, or protest social injustice.  These political and social temptations only distracted the church from its spiritual calling. (223)

This view was "championed by James H. Thornwell," one of the most prominent 19th-century Southern Presbyterians.  But in what seems to me a contradiction, Thornwell is cited by others as an advocate of theonomy, which Wikipedia defines:

  the idea that God's Law-Word, including the judicial laws of the Old Testament, should be observed by modern societies.

For example, theonomist Greg Bahnsen writes:

  Even into the late nineteenth century respected Reformed theologians were contending that the state should conform its laws to those found in the law of God. The southern presbyterian, James H. Thornwell, stated in 1861: "We long to see, what the world has never yet beheld, a truly Christian Republic." (source)

Put simply, my question is: how are these two views are reconciled in the thought of Thornwell and other theologians who hold these two views?  How did he/they see the spirituality of the church and theonomy as non-contradictory?

Theonomy recognizes that the revealed word of God is the rule in every area of life, not merely the spiritual matters. Theonomists interpret the Bible to prescribe civil laws, especially from the Israelite theocracy that are supposed to govern all civil governments that are in line with God's will. They recognize both the civil magistrate and the Church as legitimate institutions who owe their allegiance to the word of God but they are not the same institution. In their view, it would be inappropriate for either institution to interfere with the matters that concern the other. Church courts are never to exercise civil penalties over their judgments nor are civil courts to usurp the ministry of the keys or the sacraments from the Church.

This view is not unique to James Thornwell, but it is clearly evident in his thinking.

  [T]he separation of Church and State is a very different thing from
  the separation of religion and the State. Here is where our fathers
  erred. In their anxiety to guard against the evils of a religious
  establishment, and to preserve the provinces of Church and State
  separate and distinct, they virtually expelled Jehovah from the
  government of the country, and left the State an irresponsible
  corporation, or responsible only to the immediate corporators. They
  made it a moral person, and yet not accountable to the Source of all
  law. It is this anomaly which we desire to see removed; and the
  removal of it by no means implies a single element of what is involved
  in a national Church.

James H. Thornwell's Critique of the Confederate Constitution


When is Isaiah 32 supposed to happen? I'm reading Matt Perman's book What's Best Next and found this interesting:

  Knowing how to get things done enables us to fulfill God’s call to make plans for the good of others. This is one of the most exciting reasons to me. The biblical call on our lives is not to do good randomly and haphazardly. Rather, God calls us to be proactive in doing good — even to the point of making plans for the good of others. For example, Isaiah 32: 8 says that “he who is noble plans noble things, and on noble things he stands.” We often think of doing good simply as something we are to do when it crosses our path. But Isaiah shows us that we are also to take initiative to conceive, plan, and then execute endeavors for the good of others and the world. (And this requires, of course, actually knowing how to plan and actually make our plans happen!)

  Perman, Matthew Aaron (2014-03-04). What's Best Next: How the Gospel Transforms the Way You Get Things Done (p. 23). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

In reading through Isaiah 32, there seems to be a kingdom of righteousness being described that sounds really good - but then it is almost immediately followed by a warning of destruction.

Not really knowing Isaiah as well as I should, I'm trying to understand the context from which Perman is making this leap.  Is this inference from Perman (that we should be actively planning noble things) directly drawn from the prophetic nature of what Isaiah is preaching here, or is there an eisegesis that is required to make the point?

There's obviously a lot going on in the book of Isaiah! He was writing in a time not long before the people of Judah would be taken into exile. The kingdom as it was then was a disappointment, while the state that would exist after the exile would be even worse. So he writes about the time of the coming of the messiah, when the kingdom would not only be re-established, would not only get back to the glory days of David and Solomon, but would even exceed them.

Verses 1-8 describe what that will be like, when all injustices are finally corrected. Then in verses 9-14 he warns the people that the must stop being complacent about their sin because God's judgement would be coming very soon. In verses 15-20 he returns to describe the time of the coming of the messiah. (The messiah isn't directly mentioned here, but it's a straight forward interpretation.)

Perman's interpretation isn't great. What he says isn't wrong, but it's not the point of the passage. The passage is describing and contrasting evil and righteous people. His point is really pretty unnoteworthy - making plans for the good of others is just another way of saying to love people. Of course God calls us to do that.


Why did Jesus order the unclean spirits in the Multitude at the Seaside (Mark 3.7-12) to not make him known? The passage I am referring to is Mark 3.11-12:

  11 Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, “You are the Son of God!” 12 But he sternly ordered them not to make him known.

I'm confused because why would Jesus not want the multitude of people present with him to not know he is the Son of God? Isn't that what Jesus wanted?

Reason 1: The test of whether a message is Jesus' message.
The Apostle John gave us this test:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see
whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out
into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God:
Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not
from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard
is coming and even now is already in the world. (1 John 4:1-3)

God has sovereignly prevented demons from declaring this truth, as your reference to Mark 3 affirms. If He did not do so, the Apostle's test would fail, because demons could counterfeit messages from God by saying Jesus was God come in the flesh. It is a matter of a divine authentication protocol. (I am a software engineer.)
Indeed, many of the teachings labeled by the early church to be heresies were ones that denied that, or denied part of it.

Jesus seemed to come in the flesh, but it was an illusion; he was just a spirit.

Jesus came in the flesh, but only had a divine will, not a human will, too.

Jesus was human and special, but was created, not the eternal God.
And so on and so forth. The evil spirits keep trying to find new ways to almost affirm this truth and so deceive believers while packing it along with lies.

Reason 2: The Source of Jesus' power.
The Pharisees accused Jesus of working for Satan. Jesus had to make sure that there was a bright line that separated him and his message from that of the enemy.

22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute,
and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the
people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by
Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided
against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided
against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is
divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I
drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out?
So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of
God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon
you. (Matthew 12:22-28)

Jesus was not like the Sorceress Supreme in Doctor Strange, who tried to do good, yet by drawing her power from the Dark Dimension of Dormammu, imperiled the world. He had to make that clear. The demons seek to trick people by seeming to help Jesus, thereby tarnishing his message and reputation.


Why do we explicitly need to ask for help through prayer? Since God is omniscient not only does he know all of our hardships but he also knows that we want him to help us through said hardships. Why do we explicitly ask for help through prayer?

We ask for help and for what we need in prayer because God delights in it.

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior 1 Tim 2:1-3

We also pray so that our thoughts become aligned with God's. The Lord's prayer makes it a point to specifically say that God's will be done on Earth.

7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’ Matt 6:7-13

Jesus, to fully align His thoughts with the Father's, prayed the night He was betrayed.

“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” Matt 26:39.

John lays it out more plainly for us.

14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. 1 John 5:14-15

When our thoughts are aligned with God's we will ask for what He is to do, anyway. And since our thoughts are aligned with God's we will delight and rejoice in His righteous ways.
So when we are suffering, we pray to the Omniscient God because he likes to hear from us, and He wants us to think like Him, which is always holy and righteous. Then from that perspective, our suffering will seem different than that.


May divorced men become Roman Catholic priests? In reading through canon law ( I think around 1037 or so ), it says that unmarried men must be celibate and 25 years old, or married men must be at least 35 and have their wife's consent before being ordained.

What I didn't see was if divorced men were allowed to become priests, and which provisions they would be subject to if they are. So, can divorced men become priests, and must they be celibate if they do?  (In other words, could they remarry if this were the case)

Divorce doesn't actually exist in the Roman Catholic Church, so the simple answer is No: they can't.

There is annulment, where a marriage ceases to have canonical effect — it is almost as though it had never been (see this answer — it's complicated). Married people who divorce and whose marriage is annulled can marry in church; it's likely that the same applies to ordination. I couldn't find anything in the Code of Canon Law either: it can't cover every eventuality explicitly, but see below.

Without an annulment, the man is still canonically married and cannot be ordained priest: see Canon 1042(1). Following ordination, they cannot marry and remain in orders; I know someone who relinquished his orders in order to marry. Even deacons cannot marry after ordination — they take a vow of chastity on ordination; but if they are already married they can be ordained deacon.

There are a few married priests in the Church, but they have to have had individual permission from Rome to be ordained (Canon 1047(2)(3)), and if their marriage ends (by annulment or widowing) they cannot remarry. The same applies to married deacons: they cannot remarry while in orders.

There is an interesting supplementary question about annulment which arises though. Imperfect intent is grounds for annulment — that is, if one of the parties never really intended the marriage to be a real marriage, then the Church can annul it. If a man contracts marriage but never intended it to last because he felt called to ordained ministry, would that be valid grounds for annulment, and if so, could he still be ordained?

It seems it may well be valid grounds for annulment because of the lack of good intent. However I guess that from the statement in Paragraph 72 of ARCIC's document Life in Christ, the Church might consider that serious psychological defects exist. In that case Canon 1041(1) provides a reason not to proceed with ordination.

This might even obtain for a man whose marriage ended in annulment through no fault of his own.


Popes' Coat of Arms and Saint Malachy Prophecy of the Popes I was going to ask about the potential validity of the Saint Malachy's Prophecy of the Popes as I once did on "Catholic Answers" message board years ago, but doing a search to check for redundancy, I see someone else has asked something similar, so I'm spinning my question in a little different direction.

Question on Status

When I've talked to online Catholics about this prophesy it is often dismissed.     New Advent's entry on it is a bit more neutral.

  They were first published by Arnold de Wyon, and ever since there has been much discussion as to whether they are genuine predictions of St. Malachy or forgeries. The silence of 400 years on the part of so many learned authors who had written about the popes, and the silence of St. Bernard especially, who wrote the "Life of St. Malachy", is a strong argument against their authenticity, but it is not conclusive if we adopt Cucherat's theory that they were hidden in the Archives during those 400 years.

I have noticed one thing.   It seems like if you check the Coat of Arms and personal background of various popes, it seems like this prophesy has been fairly accurate!

So I'm curious if there is any discussion and explanation of this in Catholic circles?    At the very least, it appears to me that popes of the modern era, unofficially seem to be choosing their coat of arms, and maybe their name based on it.

Popes' Coat of Arms and Saint Malachy Prophecy of the Popes

No pope chooses his name or coat of arms based on the Prophecies of Popes which are attributed to the Irish St. Malachy. That seems like a reasonable weak reason for a pope to choose his papal name based on St. Malachy’s predictions, to say the least, if not superfluous altogether by some people.

Any connection of these Latin mottos to a pope’s coat of arms of name or some else involved in a pope’s life is up to chance.

Proponents of the prophecies have attempted to link these mottos to various Supreme Pontiffs in various ways as the Wikipedia article on the Prophecy of the Popes points out.

It is more the proponents of the prophecies that create the suitable links between a particular pope and his St. Malachy’s motto.

Since the Vatican does not recognize this as an valid prophecy, anyone could interpret it a particular motto in their own way.

I am personally unsure if this prophecy is true or not, however it seems to have an eerily accurate tone to it, to say the least.

I am personally at divergence with most proponents of the Prophecy of the Popes, when it comes to the interpretation given to the current Pope Francis as this question points out: Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis and the Prophecy of the Popes.


Jehovah's Witnesses's teaching on the Church I just read a wiki page on Jehovah's witnesses, visited their official website, and was quite surprised that in the list of their believes there is a striking absence of the definition (or at least description) of their concept of the Church.

According to what I can see at the moment, they are only using the word "church" or plural "churches" in reference to the numerous religious groups in the main-stream Christianity (which they consider all to be in apostasy), while they themselves prefer to speak about the Kingdom, rather than the Church.

Is it a result of their special translation of the Bible (in which many words were translated quite differently from the way it is done in the majority of Bible translations, for example, in many places the word that is translated in other translations as "fellowship" in their translation is rendered as "sharing") or am I simply missing out on something here?

What's their concept of the Church? What's their teaching on the Church? When did it start? How long has it been around? Has it always existed since it was started or, perhaps, it was over at some time and then re-stated again?

The word church has various meanings. It can be used to refer to an physical building. Witness churches are called Kingdom Halls. It can also be used to refer to a group of believers in a specific area. For sense of the word, Witnesses use congregation, which I believe is quite common for many branches of Christianity.

But the word church has another meaning, and it is this meaning I think you're asking about. The "church" as the united body of all believers. For this sense, Witnesses don't have a direct word. They do use the word Christian in a very narrow sense, to refer only to themselves. Perhaps that's their nearest equivalent. And yes, they do believe that "true Christianity" essentially died out after the First Century, and (with the exception of a few brief flames here and there) was reborn with them.

The church may also be the organisation, the institution, as distinct from the individual members thereof. For that sense, the Witnesses use various words, notably, the word organisation itself. They may also talk of the "Faithful and Discreet Slave", which is the teaching body of the organisation (basically, the group that define the doctrine).

The finer points of how the Faithful and Discreet Slave is distinct from the Governing Body have now escaped me. I used to know that. I've forgotten.


According to Reformed Theology, are Catholics Christians? In John MacArthur's Scandal of the Catholic Preisthood, Catholicism is not portrayed as the zenith of Christianity.

Question:

Is this

a John MacArthur only view, not held by the majority of reformed theologists or
a view held by reformed theology -- i.e. there are fundamental beliefs that:

A. Catholicism hold but reformed theology and

B. reformed theology require which Catholicism deny

If your choose (1); please cite sources on how Reformed Theology + Catholic Theology agree. If you choose (B); please cite examples of (A) and (B)

I'm going to attempt to answer this in a way that is truthful, and accurate, but maybe not exactly what you're looking for.

Please be very mindful of where I say "assuming this definition, then..."  On those statements, I am intentionally using that assumption as a logical starting point for assumptions. I am not saying I hold those views, or that I condone or deny them.  I am trying very hard to avoid the mines in this minefield

MacArthur's views are not uncommon. The Catholic Church still teaches doctrines that many Evangelical denominations hold to be un-Scriptural, in error, or even according to some views, outright blasphemy. (Note I didn't say "the Catholic Church teaches wrong things" I said "some denominations teach...)

However, it is one thing to say that the Catholic Church teaches things that are "wrong", and quite another to make a blanket statement that Catholics aren't Christians.

Even if you accept the Reformed/evangelical statement that a Christian is defined as someone who has repented of their sins and put their faith in Christ for salvation, and has this been "born again", you still couldn't make the statement that Catholics are not Christians.

According to reformed theology, salvation is an individual thing. Denomination makes no difference. Again assuming the MacAurthur definition of "Christian", the most you can say is "due to the fact that the Church teaches erroneous statements about what it takes to be saved, it's less likely for a Catholic to be saved."


Are Many Christians postmodern in their approach to modesty? Christians have a wide variety of opinions concerning modesty. Many say that if you believe you should dress a different way than that is fine for you--just don't impose your beliefs on us--because the bible doesn't explicitly define modesty. That seems to be a postmodern way of thinking.

Being a Christian means trying to be more like Christ and incidentally less like the world. Many "Christians" seem more interested in being a close as they can to the world in how they dress. Surely that stance denies the truth that we are to follow Christ as best we can and is therefore "postmodern": If we aren't supposed to follow Christ as best we can, does truth even exist?

With all due respect, to compile the entire Christian community into a composite entity and then direct the question at that entity is at best unfair. To be a Christian certainly involves always being cognizant of the image that one is projecting to others in their daily life, and to that end a Postmodern stance on one's level of modesty is contrary to the teachings of Christ. Do some Christians reflect a Postmodern preference of modesty? Of course. Do some Christians consciously value humility instead? Most definitely. It's no different for any other religion. This really comes down to a case-by-case basis and can't be applied to the Christian collective.


Christian apologetics regarding the killing of innocent children during the Genesis flood I'm trying to catalog the various justifications that are put forth when it is claimed that killing innocent children in the Genesis flood was some combination of immoral, cruel, or unjust.

Here are some of the common answers I've come across:

God can do whatever he wants. (video video)
The children were not innocent, due to original sin. (link)
Society was extremely wicked during this period. Children endured physical abuse, sexual abuse, abandonment, starvation via neglect, child slavery, etc. The wicked men were killed out of justice. The children were killed to put them out of their misery.
The flood is allegory. God didn't actually kill all of humanity except for Noah and his family. (link)

Note that 3 is in conflict with 2.

4 makes 2 and 3 moot.

Proponents of 1 consider the rest of the justifications unnecessary.

What are some other justifications that people have put forth? Views from all denominations welcome.

UPDATE

Man was warned by Noah for 100 years before the flood came. When innocent children died, it was the fault of their parents for not building boats, not the fault of God. (See comment below by NigelJ and link)
Infants and children immediately went to heaven when they died in the flood so this is not ultimately viewed as cruel.

There is another way to look at this question: There is nothing different about the death of people who died in the flood and people who have died throughout history in the millenia since.

The maximum age at death recorded in the Bible is 969 years, for Methuselah. To Noah, God revealed that he would henceforth limit the maximum lifespan for humans to 120 years. This is an eightfold reduction in the maximum lifespan. Since we do not see a terribly abrupt cutoff in the distribution of people's longevity today, we can assume that God did not just add a cutoff, he shifted the whole curve.

Today, 25% of people in the world are 14 years old or less. This was higher in the past, but childhood mortality has been declining due to better nutrition and medicine. However, in Noah's day, it is likely that childhood mortality was similarly low, compared to conditions after the flood.

If we apply an eighfold shift to the curve, then that means that in Noah's day, only 3% of people were aged 14 or less. That means that the flood of Noah killed fewer infants and young children than is the common situation throughout of most history since then. Stillbirth, infant diseases and starvation, child sacrifice, child abuse, war, weather, and all the other causes of death to children in the centuries since Noah probably have killed a higher percent of children than the proportion killed during the flood.

This reduces the question: "How can you justify causing the death of children in the flood of Noah?" to another question: "How can you justify God's taking of the life of any child at any time throughout history?"

In Luke 13, Jesus said this:

  13 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the
  Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus
  answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than
  all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you,
  no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those
  eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think
  they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I
  tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Jesus did not teach that the circumstances of a person's death correlate simply to how good or wicked that person's life was. The book of Job teaches the same thing. Job's friends confidently asserted that Job's children were exceptionally wicked because of the storm that killed them. They said the same thing about Job, by comparing his financial and physical condition to what they expected should happen to wicked people under God's judgment. God rebuked them strongly.

I know - I haven't answered the question. But the question as stated assumes a category of children that we do not need to deal with any differently than the children alive today. For that, Elihu's answer to Job in Job 37 is appropriate:

  11 He loads the clouds with moisture;
  he scatters his lightning through them. 12 At his direction they swirl around
  over the face of the whole earth
  to do whatever he commands them. 13 He brings the clouds to punish people, or to water his earth and show his love.
  14 “Listen to this, Job;
  stop and consider God’s wonders."

Sometimes suffering is punishment, and sometimes it is training that produces growth and is evidence of God's love.

As for what happens to those children, as a Reformed / Baptist believer, I believe that God welcomes such children into heaven.


Can an act of martydom include the taking of another's life? In Islam it seems that "martyrs" can be defined to include those who intentionally take life.  Specifically, those who die killing, or during battle with, enemies of the faith.  Does Catholicism or any Christian denomination define martyrdom or sainthood in a way that can include those who take another's life?  Has anyone been declared a martyr or saint by any Christian denomination for taking another's life?

To clarify the definition of martyrdom, in both Islam and Christianity, martyrdom is achieved by dying, not specifically by taking a life, although in some cases one's death may involve taking the lives of others.

The Catholic Church has certainly canonised individuals who died fighting for the Christian cause, but sainthood is not open simply to all who do so. Martyrs are generally regarded as Christians who die through persecution, but a heroic death in battle could also qualify as martyrdom - for example, King Oswald of Northumbria is considered a martyr because he died at the hand of a pagan while defending a Christian nation.

Hershel Shanks says in Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, pages 88-89, in 1095, when Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade, he undertook to bestow a plenary indulgence on all who took part, promising that a crusader who died in a state of penitence for his earthly sins would be received into heaven immediately.  In a speech attributed to Urban, he  promised "We now hold out to you wars which contain the glorious reward of martyrdom, which will retain that title of praise now and forever."


What guidelines should be followed using spiritual gifts? What guidelines should be followed if using spiritual gifts in a church setting today?

Wowsers! Great question! Also a loaded one. I'll be deconstructing 1 Corinthians 14 since this is the clearest example of guidelines (I'm also assuming that you meant the spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12).

  Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

I have so much to say about this in terms of non-cessationalism, but because it doesn't directly answer the original question, suffice it to say that Paul tell us that spiritual gifts are to be desired. We were never given a choice between chosing to love God and spiritual gifts. I often hear, "I rather love Jesus and focus on Him", as if that can minimize Jesus in some way to pursue spiritual gifts. So then, in this guideline, we're told first of all to desire spiritual gifts. Paul, as if to argue the possibility that some may doubt, establishes the topic of this snippet (chapter 14).

  6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? 7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. 12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. 13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. 18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

This is one of the verses that I see that Paul clearly establishes a differentiation between two different kinds of "tongues". Here he is talking about the public use of speaking in tongues. Later in verse 28 he says that if there is no one to interpret, we speak in tongues privately (which is actually to God and for our edification as we see in verses 4, 14 & 28). We're told here that the public use of tongues is useless in terms of the edification of the Church as a whole when there is no interpretation. Thus, we should rather speak from our understanding if there is no interpreter present. Notice here, though, that the word is interpret and not translate. Because there are different kinds of tongues (1 Cor. 13:1), there will not always be someone there who knows that particular language and the Spirit gives an interpretation. It's not a word-for-word translation, but the message is conveyed the same. I've seen this happen many times in a service where one speaks in tongues and interprets what He feels the spirit is saying, then someone has stood up and said, "that was my native tongue and you have said everything exactly as you spoke it!". It an amazing thing to watch and it instills a fear and awe of the Lord.

  20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
  21 In the law it is written:

“With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”says the Lord.

22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

Here is a good guideline. Be careful that you don't "overuse" tongues in a public service because those who are unbelievers will think you are crazy if they come in and you're babbling in languages that they don't know. Although, if there is prophecy and his heart is revealed then he will know there is a God. I've seen this many times. People who don't believe in God will quickly listen when you tell them the secrets of their heart that no one else could know but God alone.

  26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (I've ommited verses 34-38 to keep from debating such a sensitive topic.) 39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

This is probably the "meat" of the guidelines section. Verse 40 basically sums everything up. The thing we need to keep in mind when operating in spiritual gifts in a Church setting is that things need to be done decently and in order. There should not be chaos in the Church of the God of peace. Each has his own part and there is no rush to make yourself heard since everyone can take a turn and be edified.

I hope this helps and makes sense. Sorry if it's too long!


Are there any Christian denominations that deny the existence of an afterlife? The Sadducees in ancient Israel rejected the very idea of there being an afterlife. They claimed that the punishment and curses as well as the blessings and rewards described throughout the Bible are earthly.

Many Jewish held beliefs carry over into Christianity, but are there any Christian denominations that believe this?

I would have to say no.

Now, I'm not an expert on ABSOLUTELY EVERY denomination, but I have never heard of a denomination that denies the existence of consciousness after death.

Note that there may be small groups that are nondemoninational, who have unconventional beliefs. Seeing that nondemoninational is such a general term, we can't really give an answer, seeing that a small church in somewhere might believe that.

But to my knowledge, there are no other denominations (other than nondemoninational, as stated) that deny the existence of an afterlife, though the idea of the afterlife might be morphed a bit across denominations.


Did Martin Luther publish any doctrinal material of managing one's own physical death? As Christianity often comes hand-in-hand with the subject of death we often associate an RIP tombstone with a priest, pastor, or some religious representative at a burial site.  However as we usually live many years before 'meeting our maker' I was wondering if their was any reformed perspective on managing our preparation for that eventual certainty?  For instance, someone like Luther, who represent Protestant thought in so many ways; Did Luther publish any doctrinal perspectives on managing our death, aside for the obvious rule of faith in Christ to ensure a blessed hereafter?

Luther brings up death quite a bit.  He usually positive about it.
For example, Luther compares death to childbearing:

“When a woman is in travail she has sorrow; but when she has recovered, she no longer remembers the anguish, since a child is born by her into the world” [John 16:21]. So it is that in dying we must bear this anguish and know that a large mansion and joy will follow [John 14:2]. (Luther's Works Vol 42.100)

Luther sees death as a monster we must face and therefore should think about it often ensuring our faith in forgiveness is greater and when death finally comes, not to think of it any longer but to rely on our sense of forgiveness and think of nothing else, for this will be a day of trail:

Death looms so large and is terrifying because our foolish and fainthearted nature has etched its image too vividly within itself and constantly fixes its gaze on it. Moreover, the devil presses man to look closely at the gruesome mien and image of death to add to his worry, timidity, and despair. Indeed, he conjures up before man’s eyes all the kinds of sudden and terrible death ever seen, heard, or read by man. And then he also slyly suggests the wrath of God with which he [the devil] in days past now and then tormented and destroyed sinners. In that way he fills our foolish human nature with the dread of death while cultivating a love and concern for life, so that burdened with such thoughts man forgets God, flees and abhors death, and thus, in the end, is and remains disobedient to God.
We should familiarize ourselves with death during our lifetime, inviting death into our presence when it is still at a distance and not on the move. At the time of dying, however, this is hazardous and useless, for then death looms large of its own accord. In that hour we must put the thought of death out of mind and refuse to see it, as we shall hear. The power and might of death are rooted in the fearfulness of our nature and in our untimely and undue viewing and contemplating of it. (Luther's Works Vol 42.100)

Luther saw the guilty waving finger of the Devil as like the fiery vipers biting Israel in the desert.  The only cure was too look at Jesus on the cross.  This is the deepest insight into how to face death not being bothered by our sins in the final hour.  He say's you must not be captivated by sin, looking at your own many sins directly, or looking at all the sinners falling into hell.

You must turn your thoughts away from that and look at sin only within the picture of grace. Engrave that picture in yourself with all your power and keep it before your eyes. The picture of grace is nothing else but that of Christ on the cross. (Luther's Works Vol 42.104)


Were demons afraid of the cross before the crucifixion? Afaik, the cross is a big christian symbol because of the crucifixion of Jesus (if it was before, wow the roman were dumb to nail a prophet to a sign of his own religion)

Also, Demons are usually repelled by holy symbols.

But were they afraid of the cross before the crucifixion, therefore before it became a christian symbol?

Scenario: we are in 200 BC and I encounter a demon. Would pulling out a cross still work as well as today?

The answer is yes.  The cross was foreshadowed as salvation and they trembled.  The first time was when Israel battled the Amalekites after coming out of Egypt roughly circa 2,000 BCE.  Joshua was sent to battle, while Moses was on the hill overlooking.

  And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand. And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.
  Exodus 17:9, 11

  But Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.  And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.
  Exodus 17:12-13

There's the sign of the cross.

God commanded Moses to build a memorial.

  And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi:
  Exodus 17:15

Jehovahnissi means the LORD is my banner, my refuge.

PS. The word translated "rod" is not necessarily a "walking stick or cane", but may also be translated as tribe, as in Moses took his tribe of Aaron and Hur or as staff as in the wooden beam.


Is man God's greatest creation? I know there is a verse that states this I will edit it in after I will find it.

But also we have these verses:

  Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,
  that thou visitest him?  Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower
  than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

So we know God created both angels and men but here it states man are created "lower" than angels.

So in what aspects are men God's greatest creation. Power, intelligence ?

Or can this be interpreted as the reason for which men is the "crown" of his creation ?

The way I interpret this passage

  Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,
  that thou visitest him? Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower
  than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

God is the God of all creation. Jesus IS also God who dwelt among men (John 1). He lowered his status as God himself to dwell among men and die for them. That's what it is referring to being made lower than the angels.  The angels are up in heaven.  Men are down here on the earth.

  Phil 2:5-8  -  Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
  6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the
  form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became
  obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

As for the specific question about is man God's greatest creation I would says yes absolutely.

God didn't send Jesus to die for Angels, or plants or animals.  He didn't become a horse when he came to live among men.  He became a man.  We were made last on the earth for a reason.  It was because in the beginning everything on the earth was made for man to enjoy.  Only man is made in His image and we were the ones who were given dominion over the earth.

  Gen 1:27-28  27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful,
  and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
  over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
  living thing that moves upon the earth.


Is Christianity more friendly to its own Scripture translation than other religions? If so, why? Christianity seems to me to embrace translation of its scriptural writings far more than other religions, and to give such translations nearly equal weight with the approximations of the original manuscripts based on surviving texts and textual analysis.

Is this actually the case? If so, why is Christianity so friendly to scriptural translation?

(Christianity's emphasis on proselytizing ("make disciples of all nations") and de-emphasis of traditional cultural exclusion and conversion ["neither Jew nor Gentile"] are factors. The adoption of Greek scriptures requiring understanding of two languages [plus a minimal amount of Aramaic] may also have made translation more attractive. An emphasis on inward belief over outward practice and on universal calling may also have increased the importance of making the scriptures more easily and broadly understandable. A [more Protestant?] emphasis that the Bible is generally clear and that individuals are responsible for knowing the Scripture would also seem to be a factor.)

Mark 16:15 (NIV) He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach
  the gospel to all creation.

  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,

God wants all nations and languages to know Jesus Christ.

  Acts 1:8 (NIV) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes
  on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea
  and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

As per the words of Jesus Christ, the Gospel was first preached in Judea. After that, Philip preached the Gospel in Samaria. Latter, Paul became the main person to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, travelling as far as he could and end up in Rome, the center of the world at that time. The first century Christians spoke Aramaic and Greek, hence the New Testament was written mostly in Greek.

After 300 years, after persecuting the Christians for a long time, Rome finally became a Christian empire. Latin was the language of ancient Rome and hence was used for the language of sacred scripture. Till the 11th century, Christianity flourished mostly around Rome and Europe only and Latin was considered the sacred language. From the 15th century on wards, we see a great change. Reformations took place and many missionaries are sent to many parts of the world. This Missionary movement results in translation of Bible into different languages.

It is the will of God that the whole world should know Jesus Christ. The Gospel was already preached in Judea and Samaria. Now, it is our duty to fulfill the will of Jesus Christ that the Gospel should reach the ends of the world. Hence, translation of Bible in all languages is a necessity. For this reason, Christians tolerate translation of the Scripture unlike other religions.


To which Saints may a Catholic pray, and when can this begin? The Catholic Church teaches, as I understand it, that a person may pray to a Saint, and this Saint will then intercede along with that person to God concerning the request (or something like that).  It appears that Mary may be the saint to whom people pray the most.

My question concerns which saints are qualified to receive prayers.  Is it restricted to only those who are designated as Saints by the Catholic Church?  Does that start only after the Saint is designated as such?  What is people prayed to John Paul II or Mother Theresa today, but they receive the designation of Saints at a later time?  Is it the designation of sainthood by the current Pope on earth that allows someone in heaven to begin hearing prayers?

What prevents any Christian from hearing the prayers of people on earth?  Would it have something to do with the time when they get out of Purgatory?

I understand there are several questions there, but they all surround the issue of praying to the Saints.

To which Saints may a Catholic pray, and when can this begin?

Actually a catholic can privately pray to anyone whom he/she thinks can intercede on their behalf. In fact Catholics do not see any difference in asking you to pray for me and asking my dead grandma (if I believe she is in heaven or purgatory) to pray for me.

Is it restricted to only those who are designated as Saints by the Catholic Church?

Public prayers are restricted only to canonized personssee note 1. But private prayers/veneration is not. In-fact the actual canonization procedure can start if and only if for 5 years after the death of a person, the lay faithful have prayed to them privately and continuously. But such prayers can not be done publicly in a Church or Chapel. More specifically their statues and pictures cannot be placed in an alter of a church/chapel. They cannot be represented with halo around their head.

Is it the designation of sainthood by the current Pope on earth that allows someone in heaven to begin hearing prayers?

No it does not. The designation of sainthood or canonization only attests that the universal church can pray to them because this person is in heaven and has the power to intercede before God for us. The main purpose of Canonization is to show people Good example. This is revealed by infallible papal proclamation. Canonization is helpful only for people on this earth to recognize a saint, it does not give special powers to people in heaven. Private devotions are not restricted by this.

What prevents any Christian from hearing the prayers of people on earth? Would it have something to do with the time when they get out of Purgatory?

On the contrary, a catholic can even ask for the holy souls in the purgatory to intercede. Only thing is that souls in the purgatory cannot pray for themselves, but they can very well pray for us.

Points to note:

Persons who are beatified can be publicly venerated only in the concerned persons diocese. For public veneration outside of his own diocese the permission of the Bishop or the Bishop council of the country is required. Such restrictions do not apply for one who is canonized. For example Bl. Mother Theresa is permitted to be venerated all thru India by the Catholic Bishops council of India, even though she belongs to the Archdiocese of Calcutta.
There are some saints whose devotion is explicitly suppressed because faithful have been having devotion to them, but their life is not a good example or there is little to no proof for their existence. For example as late as 1173 Pope Alexander III, reprimanded certain bishops for having permitted veneration of a man who was far from being a saint. Also the names of St. Valentine and St. Philomina are removed from universal church canon, because of lack of evidence for them to have existed. But their veneration is permitted in local churches where it is traditionally held.