Does Malachi 4:1 and Jude 7 prove that hell is temporary? Does Malachi 4:1 and Jude 7 prove that hell is temporary?
I'm studying the bible and I found a few verses that seem to challenge the idea of an eternal hell forever and ever. Even though the bible says forever and ever and eternal. (Mark 3:29, Revelation 20:10)
These are the verses I'm referring to... (Malachi 4:1, Jude 7)
Malachi 4:1
“For behold, the day is coming,
Burning like an oven,
And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble.
And the day which is coming shall burn them up,”
Says the Lord of hosts,
“That will leave them neither root nor branch.
Jude 7
as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
So having noted the verses, here is my question. Malachi 4:1 says that the wicked will be burned up and will have neither root nor branch, and Jude 7 tells us that Sodom was an example and that the city of Sodom had eternal fire which is obviously not burning today.
So is hell temporary or eternal?

Before we delve into what Malachi and Jude said, remember that two verses plucked out of the Bible can never establish whether a doctrine is right or wrong. These things have to be put into context and many other Scriptures must be consulted before a full picture emerges.
Malachi carries on from where the prophets Haggai and Zechariah left off.  The setting is the return of the Jews to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple. The time is about 445 years before the birth of Jesus. Malachi rebukes the Jews who doubt the love of God and the faithlessness of both people and priests.  After promising to send his messenger to prepare the way (John the Baptist) for God’s messenger of the covenant (Jesus), Malachi warns the Jews of the judgement to come.  Remember that this prophecy of judgment is directed first and foremost to God’s own people, to those who would reject the messenger of the covenant.
Malachi uses a literary device to paint a word picture of what this day will be like.  When he says “it will burn like a furnace” and “every evildoer will be stubble” and “not a root or a branch will be left”, we can visualise a field that has been burned after the crop has been gathered.  Nothing will be left.  Malachi is not speaking about the eternal destination of the wicked on the final Day of Judgment.
Almost 500 years later, after the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (the messenger of the covenant), Jude writes to the very first Christians to remind them of how God delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.   He speaks of how the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were killed because of their immorality and perversions.

In a similar way... They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

The fire that came down from heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah was not eternal, but it utterly destroyed the wicked inhabitants of that region.  Jude refers to historical events as an illustration.
The two Bible verses you quote do not suggest that hell is either temporary or eternal.   The book of Revelation has much to say about the Day of Judgment and the final destination of those people who fail to repent and who continue to blaspheme God.


What is the Eastern-Orthodox interpetation of Romans 3:10-20? In his book, "On the Bondage of the Will", Martin Luther cites St. Paul in section 151, to back his view that free-will is actually in bondage, specifically Romans 3:10-20, how do Eastern-Orthodox interpret these passages?

I've translated prof. Lopukhin's interpretation of these verses for you:

for 10-18:
Accusations made by the Apostle are in agreement with those made by Jewish prophets about them. First he cites Psalms 13:1–3, 5:10, 139:3, 9:28, then books of Proverbs and Isaiah (1:16 and 59:7-8 respectively), then Psalm 35:2 again. It should be noted that the Apostle speaks of human corruption in wide terms (10-12) and then makes an accent on two specific instances - a corruption in words (13-14) and corruption in deeds (15-17). He concludes that the source of the corruption is a missing fear of the God (18).
for 19-20:
Jews could've argued with the Apostle that cited writing are related to heathens and not people of Israel (like Ps. 13). The Apostle counter that books of Old Testament are written for Jews, not for heathens. It is clear that book authors wanted to warn people of Israel, their compatriots, about God's judgement for their sins, in which they became akin to heathens. It could be, in Jews the Law foresaw the beginnings of sins that were present in heathens. "The whole world" - a whole humanity, both Jews and heathens - "held accountable to God", that is is a subject for God's judgement, "by the works of the law". Under this term the Apostle means not only deeds of rite, but also inner acts of human's will. A Jew wanted to obey all the testaments of Moses' law by his own, his own spiritual work. He wanted to exonerate himself by his own labor. The Apostle sees such ambition as unreachable - "no one will be declared righteous", not a single person, as we are weak and powerless, and can not fulfill the Law in its entirety. So, the only thing that the Law gives Jews is understanding of the sad fact that it is impossible to get out of the sins abyss by their own. The Apostle speaks of that more in 8:7-11.

Hope that helps.


How does Catholicism deal with the apparent paradox/conflict between "love thy neighbour" and "you will be rewarded" I am wondering about an apparent conflict between a call for selfless love topped with a promise of a reward for it. Simply speaking, one is called to behave well (love ones neighbour) out of kindness (certainly not selfishness), but at the same time a reward is promised (those who behave well eventually go to heaven). This seems to entangle selflessless with selfishness in an uncomfortable way.

The following example hopefully illustrates my concern. Suppose I am encouraging my kid to go help a person in need by appealing to the kid's kindness and compassion. But when done with encouraging, I add "by the way, you will get $10 if you help him/her". This seems to defeat the point of the motivation through kindness and selflessness.

In yet other words, I am concerned that on the one hand there is a morality, an ideal that is attractive for a well-wishing person, but the promise of a reward downgrades this to an act of buying and selling (I do this and then you give me that).

Worse yet, the  promise of a reward removes the opportunity to choose selflessness over selfishness. There is no longer a choice between behaving selflessly and behaving selfishly because both lead to the same actions in life.

Theologically speaking, through the Holy Spirit we receive the theological virtue of Charity (more commonly called Love), "by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, point 1822).

Point 733 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

  "God is Love" and love is his first gift, containing all others. "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."

Thus, those who are greatly infused with this virtue will by its sole merits express such love through internal and external acts (minding the issue of sin, temptation, selfishness and other obstacles on the way). Again, God is Love, so receiving God through the Holy Spirit (recall the issue of the Trinity) by definition predisposes our will and soul to love! The reward is a non-issue.

Yet it is true that charity is essential for salvation. Point 837 of the Catechism states:

  ... Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'

Saint Paul reminds us (1 Cor 13:1-3):

  If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.

Thus, it would have been a bit unfair for Jesus not to let us know that indeed love lead us to heaven. Thus, Jesus is in this sense acknowledging a reality - the means of salvation. He is not suggesting we should love because we would otherwise go to hell. The sole fact that we are made for love is sufficient reason for us to seek the source of this love and make it the aim of our lives.


Which Protestant Christian denominations accept the Deuterocanonical books? Which Protestant Denominations accept the deuterocanonical books on equal inspirational footing as the rest of the Biblical canon? I can't think of any, which is of course why I'm asking☺.

I was raised Baptist so we referred to these books as Apocrypha and generally saw them as a distraction from the "true" word of God. I'm curious to see what non-Catholic denominations hold these books to be inspired as well.

The 39 articles of religion in the back of the Book of Common Prayer, used by Anglicans and Episcopalians, says concerning these books (part of Article 6):

  And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

It then lists all the books of the Apocrypha which were found in early editions of the King James Version.  "Hierome" is, of course, Jerome who came up with the idea of calling these books the Apocrypha to begin with.  So its not that they put these books "on equal inspirational footing as the rest of the Biblical canon" but that they are read at least.  They aren't banned from the pulpit as they would be in a Baptist church.  But according to the rule stated here, they can only be used as backup, not to create a new doctrine but only to backup what the Old and New Testaments already say anyway.

In the Daily Office lectionary of every pre-1979 Book of Common Prayer there are two lessons to be read at each sitting, one Old Testament and one New Testament lesson.  Sometimes the Old Testament lesson comes from the Apocrypha.

The Revised Common Lectionary, a Sunday lectionary used by several Protestant denominations, also occasionally gives an optional reading from the Apocrypha in the Old Testament reading slot. It gives a choice, like for example in Year A on the 6th Sunday after Epiphany, it calls for: Deuteronomy 30:15-20 or Sirach 15:15-20

On the Revised Common Lectionary site's FAQ, under the question "What churches are current members of the Consultation on Common Texts?" they list the churches that are part of that consulation, which presumably means that they use the RCL. But that doesn't necessarily mean they read the optional readings from the Apocrypha.


"Those excluded from the Congregation" Deuteronomy 23:1-8 lists some people that are forbidden to "enter the assembly of the LORD".

  Deuteronomy 23:1-8 (NKJ)

  Those Excluded from the Congregation

  1 “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter
  the assembly of the LORD. 2 “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter
  the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his
  descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.  3 “An Ammonite or
  Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth
  generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the
  LORD forever, 4 because they did not meet you with bread and water on
  the road when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against
  you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse
  you. 5 Nevertheless the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam, but
  the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because
  the LORD your God loves you. 6 You shall not seek their peace nor
  their prosperity all your days forever.  7 “You shall not abhor an
  Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian,
  because you were an alien in his land. 8 The children of the third
  generation born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.

What is the meaning of this? How should it be interpreted? Should this be applied today? If so, how?

You have to go all the way back to Deuteronomy 12 to get to the beginning of the "statutes and judgments" given by God to the Israelites.

Deuteronomy 12:1-7(NKJ)
A Prescribed Place of Worship
1 “These are the statutes and judgments which you shall be careful to observe in the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth. 2 You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations which you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. 3 And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place. 4 You shall not worship the LORD your God with such things.
5 “But you shall seek the place where the LORD your God chooses, out of all your tribes, to put His name for His dwelling place; and there you shall go. 6 There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. 7 And there you shall eat before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice in all to which you have put your hand, you and your households, in which the LORD your God has blessed you.

Emphasis mine.
God is giving instruction appropriate for the time and the place.  Not everything in Deuteronomy is appropriate for our time and our place.
As J. Daniel Hays writes in his Applying the Old Testament Law Today:

The narrative setting for the Book of Deuteronomy is the eleventh month of the fortieth year of the Exodus (Deut. 1:3), just before Israel entered Canaan. The place is specified—just east of the Jordan River (1:1, 5). Israel had completed the forty years of wandering as a punishment for refusing to enter the land. Now a new generation had grown up and God gave them a restatement of the covenant that He had made with their parents forty years earlier. Most of Deuteronomy consists of a series of speeches that Moses delivered to the Israelites on God’s behalf. These speeches are connected to the narrative because they refer to the same time, place, and main characters as the narrative does. Also the end of the book contains some nonlegal, narrative material: the appointment of Joshua as leader (31:1–8), the song of Moses (32:1–47), a blessing of Moses on the tribes (33:1–29), and the death of Moses (34:1–12). Furthermore the events of Deuteronomy flow into the Book of Joshua, where the story continues without interruption.


According to reformed theology, who or what will the saints reign over during the millenium? Regarding the 1000 years, Revelation 20:6 states:

  Blessed and holy is the one who takes part in the first resurrection.
  The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of
  God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
  (NET)

According to pre-millennial reformed theology, who or what will the saints reign over during the 1000 years?

While pre-millennialism is rare in Reformed theology, you will find it among the Reformed Baptists. It is possible that their views vary greatly today, I will assume that those of the eminent theologian John Gill (1697-1771) are still typical. As mentioned in the comments, this pre-millennialism is not dispensational, so do not confuse it with the popular modern versions.

Quoting from his Exposition of the Bible, on Revelations 20:4, as his commentary on verse 6 refers to the previous mention of "reigned with Christ a thousand years":

  ... Christ being descended from heaven, and having bound Satan, and the dead saints being raised, and the living ones changed, he will reign among them personally, visibly, and gloriously, and in the fullest manner; all the antichristian powers will be destroyed; Satan will be in close confinement; death, with respect to Christ and his people, will be no more; the heavens and the earth will be made new, and all things will be subject to him; and all his saints will be with him, and they shall reign with him; they shall be glorified together; they shall sit on the throne with him, have a crown of righteousness given them, and possess the kingdom appointed for them; they will reign over all their enemies; Satan will be bruised under their feet, being bound; the wicked will be shut up in hell, and neither will be able to give them any disturbance; and sin and death will be no more: this reign will not be in a sensual and carnal way, or lie in possessing worldly riches and honours, in eating and drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage; the saints will not be in a mortal, but in an immortal state; the children of this resurrection will be like the angels; and this reign will be on earth, (Revelation 5:10) the present earth will be burnt up, and a new one formed, in which these righteous persons will dwell, (2 Peter 3:13) of which (See Gill on Revelation 21:1) and it will last a thousand years; not distinct from, but the same with the thousand years in which Satan will be bound ...

I hope this summary is accurate, but from my reading of Gills Exposition, Reformed pre-millennialsm essentially is a belief in an extended "judgement day" that begins with Christ's second coming and ends with the final judgement, the millennium being a thousand years of glory for the saints before that final judgement of the wicked.

To get a clear picture of his teachings on the millennium and the second coming, I would recommend reading his full commentary on Revelations 20. Again, as a disclaimer, I only know one Reformed Baptist personally, and I have no idea if John Gill's pre-millennial theology is still popular among them.


Virgin Mary in Old Testament? Are there any Old Testament passages that could be or have been taken to refer to Virgin Mary?
If so, what is it they are taken to be saying or prophesying about her?

Yes, there are references to Mary in the Old Testament—vastly less than those to the Christ, Jesus, who is the entire focus of the Bible, but nonetheless, there are references.

I will be answering from a Catholic perspective.

The references to Mary in comparison to those of Christ being rather scant, however, says little as to the significance of Mary, as we know that the greatest prophet ever born (except Christ) was John the Baptist (and he is mentioned relatively less than many other prophets or other figures in the Bible):

  Luke 7:28

  For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.

So even though mentioned relatively little, and even then only in terms of Christ, and not independantly, this does not indicate a lack of importance (Luke 7:26). So it is with Mary also. The Bible is about Christ, and Mary is not its focus. Nonetheless, we find references to Mary in both the Old and New Testaments, some of which are very significant indeed!

Kinds of Prophecy

First, it's helpful to distinguish the various kinds of references to future events or figures in the Old Testament. These generally fall under type or prophecy. Often they are merged into a typological, mystical prophecy involving many elements (most of them unconcerned with the chronology of the prophesied events or figures).

A type is an Old Testament figure or event which, while very much real, nonetheless also, ordered in God's inscrutable wisdom and providence, simultaneously foreshadowed things to come—something greater in the New Testament, superior to its shadow in the same way a shadow is to the one casting it (which is always the casewith types, by the way):

  Colossians 2:17

  These are a shadow of things to come, but the body [that casts it] is of Christ.

Examples of types are too many too count or recount, but a few are: 1 Peter 3:18-22 (the flood waters/waters of baptism); John 3:14/Numbers 21:8-9 (a sign to look unto to be saved/Christ looked to for salvation); *1 Corinthians 5:7 (the Paschal Lamb/Christ); Genesis 22:12,8; John 3:16 (an only son being sacrificed in obedience) etc.

And prophecy everyone is familiar with; but briefly, they can be either mystical/veiled, or more explicit. An example of a more explicit prophecy is Genesis 49:10 or Deuteronomy 18:15. An example of a more mystical prophecy is Zechariah 3:1-8.

Surprisingly to some, most 'prophecies' in the New Testament are actually of the 'type' kind—'look how God foreshadowed the New Covenant'. That is to say, direct, explicit prophecies are really quite rare in comparison to typological prophecy.

For example, "Out of Egypt I have called my son" originally referred to Israel, God's 'son'. Not Jesus. Instead of recognizing or even being aware fo the existence of typology, critics of the New Testament claim the writers in fact didn't know what they were quoting, and used quotes out of context. This is so utterly false, and obviously wrong. St. Matthew was able to read the first half of a sentence (Hosea 11:1). He using typology.

  Matthew 2:15

  That it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Out of Egypt have I called my son.

It doesn't say it fulfilled any prediction or prophecy. He is saying it happened to be  a prophetic saying; and Israel had significance beyond the material—as a type of Christ. For example, Christ didn't think 'the Mosaic Law' was a prophecy predicting something with precise dates when He said what He said in Matthew 5:17. Inasmuch as He saw it, like many Old Testament events, to be something recorded so that we would relate to their fulfillment; and pointed to the fact that the Mosaic Law pointed to something outside itself, even the source of grace of which it was a mere channel,and an acquaintance with Christ who was that source, and His higher calling in the New Covenant.

So since the most common kind of prophecy in the New Testament is type, perhaps Mary has many types of her? Well, we'll see that she does, but first, the  prophecies.

Since these prophecies are so packed, though they are few, I can only include two, of the respective kinds, in this answer (even then, I will only be touching on them).

Prophecies about and Types of Mary

A New Adam and a New Woman for a New Creation: a Prophecy of Mary

2 Corinthians 5:17. Galatians 4:3-5. 1 Corinthians 15:22.

One of the earliest prophecies in all of Scripture, if not the first prophecy per se, is that of Genesis 3:15, often called the Proto-Gospel (or the first promise of hope since the Fall). After the Fall, when Eve gave into the devil in eating the forbidden fruit, and Adam likewise gave into his wife, God says the following to the serpent—a guise of the devil:

  I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her
  seed: [the woman/her seed] shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for [her/the seed's] heel.

Ignoring the latter part, and the translation issues related thereto, we see God promises that the manner in which the devil brought sin into the world (tempting a virgin to disobey God) would be the manner in which God would bring his defeat, crushing his pride (of which the crushing of the "head" is symbolic). Namely, through another 'woman'—a New 'Eve'. Eve gave in; the New Eve will markedly be the opposite. In this is the devil's defeat brought about. What, then, do we find about the Incarnation, the inital and principle fulfillment of this prophecy?

Not an evil or fallen angel causing a woman to disobey God and bring about the Fall, but a good angel, Gabriel, asking a woman to be obedient to His plan to bring about the Redemption. Even before we go further, her primary 'seed' Christ is then the prime candidate, without peeking at the New Testament yet, for a New Adam in this future 'new creation.' (We ultimately are proven to be correct. 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; Romans 5:12,14,21 etc.)

  Luke 1:38

  And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

This woman appears again at enmity with the devil in the Book of Revelation, in which her seed is identified as Jesus Christ, but also His followers, His disciples, those who follow Him.

This time, she is inserted into a symbolic-narrative vision, yet it's clear that the woman of Genesis 3 is here in view, complete with enmity with a serpent, and her seed Revelation 12:

  And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman  ... and behold a great red dragon,  ...  and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod [Jesus]: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne [the Ascension].  ...  And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: ...  And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him  ...  the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time.  ...  And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. ...

Not only is this Mary because her Son is so explicitly Jesus Christ, but because in John 19:27, Christ in His last moments gives His mother, Mary, to be the mystical "mother" of His beloved disciple John, who also wrote Revelation!

Mary's primary 'seed' is Christ, and "the rest of her seed" is His followers:  Mary is our spiritual mother (Judges 5:7), as Christ is our spiritual brother! Consider how the two respective 'Adams' treat the respective 'Woman':

  Genesis 3:20

  And Adam called the name of [the woman] Eve: because she was the mother of all the living.

  John 19:26

  When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

The similarity between Eve and the New Eve doesn't stop at their perogatives (as mother of fleshly and spiritual offspring, respectively), or how they were interacted with by angels to bring about the Fall and the Redemption, respectively, of the human race. We see even more parallels. Even in the very way the respective Adam's bring about the respective Fall and Redemption is very similar in connection with the respective 'Eves'.

Evil angel, Satan, tempts Eve to disobey God's decree; woman tempts Adam  with what will bring about the Fall; Adam knows but gives in.
Good angel, Gabriel, asks Mary to obey God's plan; Mary 'tempts' the New Adam to begin His ministry and thus the suffering of His Passion, and ultimately the Redemption; He knows, but gives in:

  John 2:1-5

  And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.

A few things are to be noted here. Jesus gives in, even though His hour is not yet come. He knows the consequences of becoming enemy number one, suffering, being murdered, but 'gives in.' The words 'what to me to thee?' in the Greek are not to be taken for rebuke, since Mary goes on to act as though this means 'OK' (to simplify things). He knows what it entails, as Adam knew that he would "surely die", but nonetheless gave in to the New Eve.

Remarkable parallels! Even more striking, and even further proof that this parallel is what in fact is being conveyed, St. John in this early part of His book is calling to mind the beginning of Genesis throughout: "In the beginning..God...all things were made by him..on the first day...on the second day...on the third day..." etc. What is Jesus' first act of the 'New Creation'? He takes six water pots representing the six days of the first creation, and peforms His first (public?) miracle. He calls to mind, too, the fact that "Mary the mother of Jesus was there" first, and then Jesus. This is, I think, significant. He is definitely calling to mind something significant about Mary and Jesus in this scene.

The Ark of the Covenant : a Type of Mary

One of the most striking types of Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. Looking at this image, you might see why. Take a close look at what this sacred vessel was to built to contain.

  Hebrews 9:4

  ...the ark of the covenant covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna [which fell from heaven], and the rod of Aaron [the highpriest, and the founder of Israel's priesthood], that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament [word of God on stone].

These were of course symbols of Christ: the true manna which came from heaven (John 6:25-42), the ultimate Highpriest (Hebrews 4:14-16) and the Word of God made flesh (John 1:14), instead of on stone tablets.

Who or what does the container made for Jesus symbolize, then?—it's the same woman "clothed with the sun," or here, gold. (Revlation 11;19; 12:1! cf. Ps 45:9; Mk 10:40; 1 Kings 2:19). Mary is the New Ark. Maybe that's why the old one had to give way to the new (Jeremiah 3:16).

Still not convinced? See how St. Luke quite deliberately, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, records the similarities between the ark and Mary!

  Luke 1:39-56

  And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Judea. And she entered into the house of Zachariah, and saluted Elizabeth. And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord. ... And Mary abode with her about three months; and she returned to her own house.

Compare the striking parallels with what happens in regard to Mary, and what happens in regard to the Ark of the Covenant—not scattered through its history or Scripture, but in the one scene, even in the one chapter!

  2 Samuel 6:1-17

  And David again gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went, with all the people that were with him of the men of Judea to fetch the ark of God, upon which the name of the Lord of hosts is invoked, who sitteth over it upon the cherubims. ... And when they had taken it out of the house of Abinadab, who was in Gabaa, Ahio having care of the ark of God went before the ark. But David and all Israel played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of wood, on harps and lutes and timbrels and cornets and cymbals. And when they came to the floor of Nachon, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it: because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Uzzah, and he struck him for his rashness: and he died* there before the ark of God. ... And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me? And he would not have the ark of the Lord brought in to himself into the city of David: but he caused it to be carried into the house of Obededom the Gethite. And the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gethite three months: and the Lord blessed Obededom, and all his household. ... And David and all the house of Israel brought the ark of the of the Lord with joyful shouting, and with sound of trumpet. And when the ark of the Lord was come into the city of David, Michol the daughter of Saul, looking out through a window, saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord...

* I've highlighted this to show how God regards His Ark, and how it is unseemly that any man would touch Mary sexually, who bore the Holy One and "God...made flesh," (John 1:1,14) and that she remained a virgin as Christians always taught: even though married to Joseph she asks Gabriel, "How shall this [conception] be, since I know not man?" (Luke 1:34) (a euphemism for 'do not have sexual intercourse').

One could develop this further. There are other strong types of Mary, and they are all linked. But these are a taster.

How about just one more...

Judith, proto-fulfillment of the Woman of Genesis 3—and type of Mary.

  Judith 13:14-26

  And it came to pass, when the men had heard her voice, that they called the ancients of the city. And all ran to meet her from the least to the greatest: for they now had no hopes that she would come. And lighting up lights they all gathered round about her: and she went up to a higher place, and commanded silence to be made. And when all had held their peace, Judith said: Praise ye the Lord our God, who hath not forsaken them that hope in him. And by me his handmaid he hath fulfilled his mercy, which he promised to the house of Israel: and he hath killed the enemy of his people by my hand this night. Then she brought forth the head of Holofernes out of the bag, and shewed it them, saying: Behold the head of Holofernes the general of the army of the Assyrians, and behold his canopy, wherein he lay in his drunkenness, where the Lord our God slew him by the hand of a woman. But as the same Lord liveth, his angel hath been my keeper both going hence, and abiding there, and returning from thence hither: and the Lord hath not suffered me his handmaid to be defiled, but hath brought me back to you without pollution of sin, rejoicing for his victory, for my escape, and for your deliverance. Give all of you glory to him, because he is good, because his mercy endureth for ever. And they all adored the Lord, and said to her: The Lord hath blessed thee by his power, because by thee he hath brought our enemies to nought. And Ozias the prince of the people of Israel, said to her: Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth. Blessed be the Lord who made heaven and earth, who hath directed thee to the cutting off the head of the prince of our enemies. Because he hath so magnified thy name this day, that thy praise shall not depart out of the mouth of men who shall be mindful of the power of the Lord for ever, for that thou hast not spared thy life, by reason of the distress and tribulation of thy people, but hast prevented our ruin in the presence of our God. And all the people said: So be it, so be it.

The typology is strong! Not only does this fulfill in a lesser more material sense Genesis 3:15 but again St. Luke ('Mary's Gospel') we see striking parallels between this and Luke 1 (26-55):

  And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy, which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: Because no word shall be impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

  And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda. And she entered into the house of Zachariah, and saluted Elizabeth. And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord. And Mary said:

  My soul doth magnify the Lord.
  And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
  Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid;
  for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
  Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me;
  and holy is his name.
  And his mercy is from generation unto generations,
  to them that fear him.
  He hath shewed might in his arm:
  he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
  He hath put down the mighty from their seat,
  and hath exalted the humble.
  He hath filled the hungry with good things;
  and the rich he hath sent empty away.
  He hath received Israel his servant,
  being mindful of his mercy:
  As he spoke to our fathers,
  to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Mary has such enmity with the devil (as well as those redeemed by Christ as she herself was—"and the rest of her seed") because she was preserved from from ever being prey to original sin—to his snare and poison.

Hence all the types of Judith being 'undefiled' by the enemy and with 'sin', and the ark being made of 'pure gold' to be fit for the presence of the glory of God, being 'blessed of all women', and 'full of grace' before the Incarnation, in preparation for it, and because of its merits: the Redemption of Jesus Christ. This is why 'all generations call her blessed', as the New Eve who did not partake in the fallen creation inasmuch as she was the New Eve who was to be the beginning of the doing-away-with of it. This is perhaps—God knows—why shes says "He who is might has done great things to me." And why unlike anyone else ever, an angel greets a human in this way:

"Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

Maybe this is why he basically renames her, or addresses her as, kecharitomene (full of grace) and doesn't even call her by her name. Because she was the first to be reinstated with the original grace and justice Adam and Eve were made to have, as the New Eve.

There is much to be said (and speculated) about Mary, the mother of God the Word made flesh, but this is just a small taster.

Silent little Mary God has hidden as a kind of treasure in Scripture, and she is content to keep relatively silent and give all glory, as a model Christian and follower of Jesus, to her Son. Remaining in various (and many!) types and prefigurements and subtle prophecies throughout Scripture, of which you've seen but two touched upon.


In Reformed theology, are Christians still "totally depraved"? In 2012, Calvinist pastor Tullian Tchividjian wrote an article, "Are Christians Totally Depraved?", in which he applied the language of total depravity to both non-Christians and Christians.  He argued that the phrase, "as understood and articulated by theologians for centuries, [...] means more than one thing" – both having "no spiritual capacity to incline ourselves Godward" (as non-Christians) and "sin corrupt[ing] us in the 'totality' of our being" (as Christians).

Is this the typical understanding of the doctrine of total depravity in Reformed theology?

Tullian Tchvidijian's vocabulary, if not his theology, is definitely not in line with the typical understanding of total depravity.  We'll begin by explaining that, and then comparing Tchvidjian's teaching.
Total Depravity
Robert Reymond's definition of total depravity is typical:

Both because of original sin and their own acts of sin, all mankind, excepting Christ, in their natural state are thoroughly corrupt and completely evil, though they are restrained from living out their corruptness in its fullness by the instrumentatlities of God's common grace.  Accordingly they are completely incapable of saving themselves.

The phrase "in their natural state" is worth noting here, as are the references to two related concepts: radical or total corruption and complete inability.  R. C. Sproul includes both in his treatment of total depravity as well:

To be totally depraved is to suffer from corruption that pervades the whole person. (118)
The moral inability of fallen man is the core concept of the doctrine of total depravity (128)

Sproul also points to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which makes the same points about the condition of fallen man in 9.3:

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

Tchividjian
With this understanding of total depravity, we can look at Tchvidjian's views.  He is clearly correct that the phrase means more than one thing; it does indeed include both total corruption and complete inability.  And he accepts, naturally, that the complete inability aspect does not apply to Christians, as they have been made alive in Christ.
So what about the other aspect?  Do Calvinists believe that Christians are still totally corrupt, that is, corrupt in their whole person?  This part is a bit trickier.  Tchvidjian writes:

Even after God saves us, there is no part of us that becomes sin free–we remain sinful and imperfect in all of our capacities, in the "totality" of our being.

Charles Hodge, in distinguishing three types of "good works," agrees: "not even the works of the holiest of God’s people are good" when we consider the phrase to mean that both the action itself, as well as the motives of the actor, are completely in line with the law.  However, he continues:

The works of the children of God, therefore, although stained by sin, are truly and properly good, because, (1.) They are, as to their nature or the thing done, commanded by God. (2.) Because, as to the motive, they are the fruits, not merely of right moral feeling, but of religious feeling, i.e., of love to God; and (3.) Because they are performed with the purpose of complying with his will, of honouring Christ and of promoting the interests of his kingdom.

So in one sense, Reformed theologians agree with Tchvidijian – sin does continue to taint everything that Christians do.  But it's inaccurate to say that sin taints everything that Christians do in the same way that it affects everything that non-Christians do.  Hodge makes a clear distinction between the "civil goodness" of the unregenerate – the "good" works done as a result of fear of punishment or social pressure – and the "good works" of the Christian, which are performed out of a love for God and a desire to honor him.  Tchividjian fails to make this distinction, and in doing so fails to accurately portray the teaching of total depravity.
Summary
Tchividjian's divergence from traditional Reformed theology appears to be more a matter of vocabulary and lack of clarity than actual theological disagreement.  The two points of discrepancy are:

He uses a label that means two distinct things as if it may mean only one thing.  The doctrine of total depravity includes both total corruption and complete inability, but though Tchividjian admits that complete inability does not pertain to Christians, he still applies the total depravity label to them.  From a traditional perspective, at best he can say that only half of total depravity applies to Christians.
He misuses the label of total corruption.  As a doctrinal label, total corruption denotes a heart that does nothing out of love for God, but with such a definition it cannot be applied to Christians.  Instead, Tchividjian confounds this with the idea that all actions of Christians are stained by sin, which Reformed theologians agree with, but call by a different name, such as remaining sin.

References

Hodge, ST, III, 18.4
Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Appendix E
Sproul, What is Reformed Theology? Chapter 6


According to Preterists did "the man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:3) become manifest before 70AD? If so, who was it? KJV 2Th 2:1  Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord
  Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,  2Th 2:2  That
  ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor
  by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at
  hand.  2Th 2:3  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day
  shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man
  of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;  2Th 2:4  Who opposeth and
  exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped;
  so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that
  he is God.  2Th 2:5  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you,
  I told you these things?  2Th 2:6  And now ye know what withholdeth
  that he might be revealed in his time.  2Th 2:7  For the mystery of
  iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until
  he be taken out of the way.  2Th 2:8  And then shall that Wicked be
  revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth,
  and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:  2Th 2:9  Even
  him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and
  signs and lying wonders,  2Th 2:10  And with all deceivableness of
  unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the
  love of the truth, that they might be saved.

The Preterist Archive gives this answer, among others.

  The best answer - we believe - is that it was both an office (the "what") and a person (the "one who" or "he").  More specifically, it was the institution of the Jewish priesthood led by Ananus, the high priest.

What About Paul's Man of Sin? - Preterist Archive

They also say:

  Josephus also records that before this John of Gischala, the son of Levi, was established as the Zealot leader in control of the Temple area (there were three Zealot factions), the power of Satan was already doing his deceitful and treacherous work.

Wikipedia notes that John 17:12 also uses the term "son of perdition," referring to Judas. It also gives this information.

  Some scholars[3] and theologians[4] down through history, including Hippolytus,[5] Luther,[6] Wesley,[7] Manton,[8] Schaff,[9] et al, say that first "Son of Perdition" reference is to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the man who attacked the Second Temple in Jerusalem and defiled it by sacrificing a pig on the altar, erecting a statue of Zeus as himself in the temple, raiding the Temple treasury and minting coins saying "Theos Epiphanes" (God manifest), etc. Even those theologians who advocate an interpretation of Daniel that includes the Roman Empire in their analysis recognize Antiochus as a prototype.[10]

Son of perdition


Jesus said he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, so what is their destiny, according to Catholicism? Jesus said:

  I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. (Matthew 15:24)

It is safe to say he was rejected by the Jewish people (in general, excluding the few who may have believed he was legitimate)

This means who ever did not follow Jesus from the lost sheep of Israel are considered unbelievers and will be in Hell forever correct?

From a Catholic perspective.

"Israel" is more than the ethnic Jewish race, according to the New Covenant that was initiated by the death and resurrection of Jesus.  The name originates from the time the patriarch Jacob  wrestled with 'the' Angel and was renamed 'Prince of God'.  It became the identity of the nation that descended from the sons of Jacob, the 'twelve tribes of Israel'.

John the Baptist asserted that God could raise up sons of Abraham from the stones, meaning that an Israelite could be defined by something other than his genetic code (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8).

The 'House of Israel' Jesus came to save referred to anyone who comes to God in faith, who believe in God's (not man's) plan of redemption through Jesus.   Paul goes on to state that ethnic Jews who rejected God's Son were removed from the tree of Israel, and their places were being taken by non-Jews who entered into the house of Israel by faith in Him (Romans 10).

The 'lost sheep of Israel' refers to anyone, Jew or Gentile, who recognized their separation from God, their powerlessness to change it through their own efforts (the law), and accepted God's gracious answer in Jesus.  "But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God." (John 1:12 NLT)


Are there any buildings standing that Jesus visited? I am wondering if there are any buildings that are still standing that Jesus visited. Thanks.

Many smaller locations are often debated.

Herodian architecture is unique and identifiable, making it a good reference for what was around at the time of Jesus' birth. Unfortunately, only one Herodian building is still standing: The Enclosure of the Cave of the Patriarchs, Hebron.

The Wailing Wall was also standing there in Jesus' day, but it is hardly a standing building.


Animal Kingdom before Sin Came into The Garden Were animals back then dangerous to each others, such as predators stalking and killing their prey? And were they dangerous to people like they so often are today?

According to Genesis there were no carnivores in God’s original creation.

  Genesis 1:29 and 30  And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. * And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so*.

God even told Adam that he would till the Earth in order to eat.

  Genesis 3:17 through 19  And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Since there were no meat eaters there would have been no reason for animals to fear either man or other beasts. God changed things with the birth of Noah.

  Genesis 5:28 and 29  And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

But God did not cause that prophesy to come to fruition until he had purified the Earth through the Flood.

  Genesis 9:1 through3  And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Although it does not say that he gave certain of the animals the same ability to eat meat it must be assumed that that was so.

Hope this helps you to understand the fear of animals for man and other animals.


Mass readings about husbandly conduct At Mass this weekend, we heard part of Proverbs 31 which is nice and all.  But my wife always complains that, "they always talk about how wives should act, they should say something about how husbands should act for once."

Are there any Mass readings during the 3 year cycle (or even the 2 year weekday cycle) that talk about how men should act.  I can't think of any other than "Husbands love your wives".

It appears that 21st Sunday of the Year [B Cycle] has at least part of what you are looking for, as Ephesians 5:21-32 has this from the KJV:

 21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

 22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

For the rest you can look through http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/1998USL-OrdinaryA.htm and http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/1998USL-OrdinaryC.htm but these links don't include the readings from the daily mass, which may have some of the verses mentioned that talk about husbands.


What does title of "Bishop" mean in some African-American churches? I'm familiar with what "bishop" typically means in mainline,  churches. It specifically points to an overseer of several other pastors and/or their congregations.

Some African-American Christian religious figures, or leaders of "historically black churches", use the title "Bishop", but in my estimation, they may be leaders of a congregation, but not overseers of other congregations.

Q: What does the term mean in these contexts, and how is the term derived?

Well, as you point out, the term Bishop—which is ultimately derived from the Greek episkopos > biscop [Old English] > bishop—literally just means "overseer." While it came to mean a leader over several parishes in many traditions, its more general meaning could just as easily be applied to someone who oversees a single congregation, which these historically black  churches seem to have done. I don't think there's much more to it than that.


How do Quakers know when to start and stop their church meetings? Worship meetings of the Religious Society of Friends (or "Quakers") are spent in silence unless people are moved by the Holy Spirit to act. This seems clear enough, however, I do not understand how a worship service comprised singularly of this practice would start or finish. How do congregants know that the worship has finished? How do they know that it is about to/has started?

Each Weekly Meeting (that is, each congregation) has a clerk who is regularly elected by the members of the Meeting to lead all business conducted by the Meeting. Some weekly meetings (such as the School Meeting described by the Friends School of Minnesota) have the clerk of the Meeting or another elder chosen by the Meeting begin the meeting by rising and stating a Query (that is, a question for reflection) which will be the topic of the meeting. Sometimes, on the other hand (as according to this Canadian reference) the Meeting for Worship (the worship service) is considered to begin as soon as even one worshiper enters the meeting room. As Meetings for Worship vary distinctly by Weekly Meeting, there may be other approaches as well.

Typically, the Clerk of the Meeting (or another elder appointed by them) will keep track of the meeting's length, and will stand at the end of the appointed time (45 minutes or an hour in most meetings) and close the meeting (usually with a handshake that then propagates around the room), thanking everyone for coming.

NOTE: Your question, and my answer, relate to the procedure at what are called unprogrammed meetings. Certain branches of the Society of Friends have a very different style of Meeting for Worship called a programmed meeting. These meetings look much like a typical Protestant worship service1, with readings, songs, and a worship leader.

1In my Catholic understanding.


Why does the Catholic church have so many Masses throughout the week? Why does the Catholic church have so many Masses throughout the week? For the practicing Catholic, which Mass service is most important?

There are the weekly worship services, weekend worship services, and even holiday worship services. Where would Bible Study and devotionals fit in? Do children worship with the parents, or do they have their own little worship area/classroom setting where they learn about God and stuff?

Why does the Catholic church have so many Masses throughout the week?

It is because of what Mass is to the catholic church. Mass is the Single most important commandment given by Christ to do until the end of times (Do this in remembrance of me
Lk 22 / 1 Cor 11).

  "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).

The mass is so important to the catholic church, that no-day passes without a Mass said at-least in one place in the world. This is not scientific, but it is folklore that there are three Masses being said every second in the world. (It is jokingly said that many Kings, dictators wanted to destroy the Catholic church. they tried different ways and failed. But all they have to do was to stop them from celebrating Mass.)

For the practicing Catholic, which Mass service is most important?

By the word important, if you mean the importance of the Mass itself, then for Catholics all mass is the same Calvary sacrifice, no one mass is greater than the other.

By the word important, if you mean the importance of participating in the Mass. Then important Mass would be Mass on Sundays and other Days of Obligation. There are specific ranks assigned to certain days. But this does not make the Mass more important (in the sense others are less important) in anyway. But it is important in the sense that they have to attend it.

Where would Bible Study and devotionals fit in?

First part of every Mass always starts with Readings from the bible. This is called the Liturgy of the Word. (Priests are required to read prayers from the bible three times a day. This is called divine office. Along with the Mass, divine office is the only public prayer of the Catholic Church)

On an ordinary day three passages are read. These passages are from:

Old testament or non gospel new testament. This is made into two separate passages on On Sundays and great feast-days (Solemnities)
Psalms (Some times, very rarely, other canticles from the bible too)
Gospel

After this during Liturgy of the Eucharist, all prayers said is based on biblical verses. So, in a way Mass is bible in action.

Do children worship with the parents, or do they have their own little worship area/classroom setting where they learn about God and stuff?

Mass is the primary form of worship in the Catholic church. There is a provision for a children mass where special prayers are said for them But worship is not to be done in a classroom setting. But almost as a norm Children always attend Mass with their parents. It is always recommended to do so. In-fact certain age children have a specific role in Mass called alter servers. Usually in parishes children (not toddlers) perform this role.

There is only one Mass for all. But there are separate Catechisms class (usually after Sunday mass) for Children.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in annihilation? What is the official position of the Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to hell, specifically the doctrine of annihilation which says that people will not go on existing, that eventually God will just extinguish some/all souls rather than leaving them in a state of eternal punishment.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that there is a soul that survives the death of the body. We believe that, at death, a person ceases to exist, since the body simply returns to the "dust". (Genesis 3:17-19) This makes sense if you think about people who have brain damage (a damaged body): their consciousness is affected by this. Our consciousness is not an independent system from our body that mysteriously survives the death of the body. God created the first man and woman to have a physical body formed from the "dust". (Genesis 2:7) This is different from the angels he created which are spirits. (Ezekiel 3:12) God is also a spirit. (John 4:24)

Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in hellfire as it would not represent divine justice from a loving God. (1 John 4:8) He wants us to serve him out of love, not fear of torture. (2 Corinthians 9:7) Some who die will receive a resurrection, but some will not. If God sees that someone has already shown that there is no chance they will conform to his righteous standards, he will simply leave them in a state of non-existence. (Matthew 5:30) They have already paid for their sins with death, and he has no desire to torture them. Those whom God chooses to preserve in his memory will at a future time receive a resurrection to life on this earth. (John 5:28, 29) They will be given a new body that will be perfect and not die over time. (Revelation 21:4) In the meantime they are simply "asleep" in death, resting safely in God's memory. (John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60)

The exception is those who are resurrected to spirit life, but this is only a relatively select few who will serve as kings and priests.

Here are some references from official websites of Jehovah's Witnesses. I hope that these links remain pointing to the right content, but I really don't know if it may change or not:

Hellfire — Is It Part of Divine Justice?

That is from a small tract so don't expect tons of detail. It is well written, easy to read, and easy to understand.

If you are interested in learning more, I recommend requesting a free Bible study.

For that they normally use the Bible study aid What Does the Bible Really Teach? You can also view this book online and download it in EPUB or PDF format. It has several chapters and appendix sections related to your question. The first chapter is called "Is This What God Purposed?"

If you want to do some deeper research, here is some heavier stuff from the book Insight on the Scriptures:

Death
Hell
Sheol
Hades
Soul
Spirit
Resurrection


What is the origin of the story that James had knees as hard as a camel's, because of his praying? I'm reading John Pollock's "The Apostle - A Life Of Paul" and, at page 85 of the 1969 print, he states that

  James was a man of such devotion that long praying had made his knees as hard as camel's, tradition says [...]

He doesn't apply a note index for that. Anyone knows any source of that tradition?

The first recorded instance of the tradition comes from Hegesippus, a second century Christian writer.  Unfortunately, his works have been lost, except for a small portion of his writings quoted by later authors.
In his Church History (c. 325), Eusibius writes:

But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows:
... [James] alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.

In his book, James the Brother of Jesus, Robert H. Eisenman states that this image is "so original that it is difficult to imagine that Hegesippus simply made it up."  In other words, the story likely either has some basis in actual history or at least developed from a tradition earlier than Hegesippus' time.  Thus, the origin of the story can likely be pushed back to at least the early second century.


Does CCC 2291 imply smoking is sinful? This says:

  Smoking in moderation is not a sin at all (CCC 2290).

The statement "Smoking in moderation is not a sin at all" can be found elsewhere like here and somewhere there.

I have two concerns on that statement.

First concern: But what about CCC 2291?

  Respect for health

  2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by
  God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the
  needs of others and the common good.

  Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in
  the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach
  maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education,
  employment, and social assistance.

  2289 If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does
  not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that
  tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for
  it's sake, to idolize physical perfection and success at sports. By
  its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a
  conception can lead to the perversion of human relationships.

  2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of
  excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur
  grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own
  and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

  2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and
  life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave
  offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are
  scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil,
  since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral
  law.

Smoking involves drugs such as marijuana or nicotine right? So how can smoking be permitted under non-medical circumstances?

I operate under CCC 2291 not prohibiting drinking coffee in moderation as caffeine, while it is a drug, is GRAS and CCC 2291 instead referring to drugs that have or should have government warnings or prescriptions from doctors.

Second concern: The Catholic Church is against masturbation, but it seems to me that smoking is worse than masturbation.

The Church doesn't anywhere define just exactly what drugs in the phrase "the use of drugs" means. That shouldn't prevent us from drawing reasonable conclusions about what it might mean, or whether it means something in particular at all.
The first edition of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church was published in French in 1992. In French, the text of interest is "L’usage de la drogue", which seems to mean "the usage of drugs"; but no specific definition of "la drogue" in this context is given.
Finally, the Latin text, which is normative, reads:

Stupefactivorum medicamentorum usus gravissimas infligit valetudini et vitae humanae destructiones.
[The use of narcotic medications inflicts grave destruction on health and human life.–my translation]

It seems unlikely, given (for example) this table of contents for a pastoral document dealing with drugs and addiction, that the Church is concerned solely or even primarily with narcotic drugs in the technical sense; but we're given no further guidance in the Catechism.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the first universal catechism in over 400 years, is what is technically known as a major catechism—a catechism primarily intended for use as a reference by pastors and catechists, rather than for use directly by learners of the faith. It is addressed to the bishops and other teachers; when there is a question of what something means, one ought surely to ask, "What would it mean to them?" Given that this is not a technical (theological/religious) word, it appears most reasonable to believe that it is intended to be interpreted (as are most words in the catechism) in the "everyday English" sense; that is, it's intended to mean what "most people" mean by the word.
Taking that approach, it's clear that tobacco is not in everyday usage in most English-speaking countries treated as a drug—that is, treated the same way that for example heroin, methamphetamine, or cocaine are. It's certainly not produced or trafficked clandestinely (for the most part). Thus, it appears that the Catechism is not intending to mark out tobacco as "a drug" except to the extent that this is a typical understanding in society. And given that most Western societies don't view tobacco usage the same way they view the usage of some of these more serious drugs, it appears that the use, without abuse, of tobacco is not prescriptively considered gravely contrary to the moral law and thus not automatically "grave matter", the potential subject of mortal sin.
I've answered your question about masturbation in the linked question.


How is the date of Easter set on the Orthodox calendar? How is the date of Easter set by the Orthodox churches?  (If that's too broad, I'm specifically interested in Greek Orthodox.)  According to the Greek Orthodox Diocese of America:

Easter is on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox (same general rule as the western church).
The earliest possible date is April 3 because the church follows the Julian calendar and the Council of Nicea hard-coded March 21 as the "equinox" date.  (March 21 on the Julian calendar is April 3 on the Gregorian calendar.)

Putting those factors together, we should expect Orthodox Easter to be the same date as western Easter in a "late" year (when the full moon is after April 3), and a month apart otherwise.  But that's not what happens.  In 2018, for example, the full moon is on March 31 (too early according to the Julian calendar) and Orthodox Easter is on April 8. The next full moon is April 29, so I expected Orthodox Easter to be the Sunday after that.

This Wikipedia page adds the following detail, without citation:

  Also, because the Julian "full moon" is always several days after the astronomical full moon, the eastern Easter is often later, relative to the visible moon's phases, than western Easter.

I wasn't able to find anything about calendrical full moons not matching astronomical full moons.

How does this all work?

(I know that both churches have a fixed cycle of dates now.  I'm asking about the computation and reasoning, not "because this is year N in the cycle".)

The Orthodox Churches continue to use the Julian Calendar with the result the equinox is assumed to be 13 days later than it really is. March 21 Julian is April 3 in the Gregorian Calendar commonly used. This is fairly well known, but less known is that the Eastern Churches continue to use the Dionysian tabulation for the dates of full moons, whereas in the West this too was changed,  beginning in Catholic countries in the 16th century.

In the 6th century a 19 year cycle of paschal full moon dates was constructed. If a year is divisible by 19 it has a Golden Number of 1, otherwise the Golden Number is one more than the remainder. 532 was divisible by 19. The Full Moon was April 5th. The next year the moon is said to be 11 days earlier on March 25th. This is because twelve lunar months are about 11 days less than a year. For the year 534 there would be a full moon on March 14 but this is too early, so instead of counting back 11 days to the twelfth moon we count forward 19 days to the thirteenth moon on April 13. This is repeated over the 19 year cycle, going back 11 days, or forward 19. When the Golden Number reaches 19 we get to April 17th and then go back 12 days to start the 19 year cycle again on April 5th.

Starting with years divisible by 19 (Golden Number 1) and going forward the cycle is 1) April 5th, 2) March 25th, 3) April 13th, 4) April 2nd, 5) March 22nd, 6) April 10th, 7) March 30th, 8) April 18th, 9) April 7th, 10) March 27th, 11) April 15th, 12) April 4th, 13) March 24th, 14) April 12th, 15) April 1st, 16) March 21st, 17) April 9th, 18) March 29th, 19) April 17th.

But how accurate is this cycle? Because 19 years can have 4 or 5 leap years, it is better to consider 4 such cycles. In 76 years there are 4 19 year cycles and always 19 leap years ( in the Julian Calendar). This period contains 365.25 x 76 days, which is 27, 759. The 4 cycles contain 940 lunar months averaging 29.530588 days, which in all is 27, 758.75 days, a discrepancy of about 6 hours. After 76 years each full moon actually happens 6 hours earlier, amounting to one day every 300 years (approximately).

By now the real full moon occurs 4 or 5 days earlier than the tabulated one used in the East, or we could express it , the tabulated day is 4 days late.

In 2018 the Golden Number is 5 giving a full moon on March 22 Julian. Because the Gregorian Calendar is 13 days ahead, this works out to April 4th in the Gregorian Calendar,  and so Easter in the East is the following Sunday.

Adjustments to the Western tabulation give the current 19 year cycle as follows: 1) April 14, 2) April 3, 3) March 23, 4) April 11, 5) March 31, 6) April 18, 7) April 8, 8) March 28, 9) April 16, 10) April 5, 11) March 25, 12) April 13, 13) April 2 14) March 22, 15) April 10, 16) March 30, 17) April 17, 18) April 7, 19) March 27.

This tabulation is constructed as for the East, going back 11 days or forward 19, except it starts with April 14th when the Golden Number is 1; and what would work out to April 18 or 19 is instead tabulated 17 or 18 respectively.

Omitting leap years three times ever 400 years should keep the equinox close to March 21 in the West, while in the East Easter moves closer to the Summer.

The lunar tabulation in the West is planned for further adjustment. The date of the full moon s will become 1 day later every time a leap year is missed. But it will be adjusted 1 day earlier every 300 years, starting 2100 , to account for the 76 year cycle leaving the moon 6 hours earlier.

So for Golden Number years 1 the tabulated moon is April 14. in 2100 it would move forward a day, to offset the missed leap year, but also back because of the 300 year rule, so it will remain April 14 until 2200. In 2200 it goes to April 15 and in 2300 to April 16, because 2200 and 2300 are not leap years. in 2400, which is a leap year it moves back to April 15 under the 300 year rule and so on.

All the other Golden Number dates move im tandem.

But in the East no adjustments are planned for sun or moon. In the very long term Orthodox Easter could be any time of year and any phase of month. There has been some talk of an agreed common date, but whether that happens remains to be seen.


Did Christ's original twelve apostles have families? We know that Peter was married because Christ healed his mother-in-law. Do we know if he had children? Do we know whether any of the other apostles were married and if they had children?

Eusebius of Caesarea's Church History talks a bit about this.

He says St. Philip, at least, had 4 daughters and Sts. Peter and Paul had wives.

  Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. "Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry."

Church History Book III

Regarding St. Paul (although not one of the 12):

  Paul was obviously unmarried when he wrote this verse. Some interpreters believe that he had previously been married and widowed; there is no clear evidence either for or against this view, which was expressed already at the end of the second century by Clement of Alexandria.

NABRE - Commentary on 1 Cor 7:8


What are the similarities and differences between the LDS and RLDS D&C? The Community of Christ (formerly RLDS), has more sections to their Doctrine and Covenants –163 sections. This is 25 more than what's in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants.

I notice also that many of the scriptures from sections written by Joseph Smith have been omitted by the Community of Christ.

Without creating a long list answer, can someone explain what's in the RLDS D&C that isn't in the LDS D&C? And what the RLDS have removed or changed from the D&C that Joseph Smith wrote?

You can copy the link below and see the table below to determine what is the difference between the LDS Doctrine & Covenants and the RLDS Doctrine and Covenants.  One of the differences is that after Brigham Young left with a group of saints the RLDS church was organized and their leaders Thomas Burdick, Warren Parish and Sylvester Smith began to write more sections in the Doctrine and covenants. As far as why the community of Christ Ommitted some of the scriptures, its probably because it wasn't in line with their doctrines.

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

Hopefully this wasn't too long.


In Catholicism, why should Jesus have been murdered on the Cross instead of just dying of old age? Imagine that Jesus wasn't murdered but just died of old age. Would there be a difference in redemption for those who believed in Him? If so, why did he need to be killed?

To be clear, I'm specifically asking about the difference between Christ being violently murdered and simply dying of old age. What is important about his violent murder that is different than a peaceful death?

I would like answers based on Catholic teaching and doctrine.

Introduction

There are a number of ways to approach this question for example my answer to this question: How is the matter of why the Son of God needed to be sacrificed explained in the Roman Catholic Church? contains some essential points that will be common to all answers from a Catholic standpoint. Some of those points are:

1) God is free.

2) God does whatever he pleases in accordance with his nature.

3) God has infinite solutions to each of what to creatures are problems: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”.

4) Faced with the "problem" of man's redemption, God could have chosen to act or not to act. Once he chose to act, he had infinite solutions to the "problem".

5) Once he decreed the work of redemption, he also decreed the manner by which the redemption would be wrought.

6) According to Church teaching grounded in scripture and explained by theology, redemption is by blood.

7) There is meaning behind and fittingness of the manner of redemption, in this case redemption by the blood of the God-made-man.

Answer

This answer takes from The Theology of the Precious Blood by Edwin Kaiser, C.PP.S. | Catholic Culture. The articles lays out some key points:

1) That God was not obliged to accept any atonement; God could have condoned the sin and demanded no atonement whatever; God might have been satisfied with partial atonement and granted partial condonation. In all of this God was free, nor would either His justice or His mercy have been impaired by His choice. But God decided that man should be shown mercy and be pardoned.

2) The very act of God assuming created nature [not necesarily human], God abasing himself, would have been more than sufficient to redeem because every act of God-made-creature has infinite value.

Therefore according to Catholic teaching and theology, Christ need not have been "violently murdered" and could have "simply died old age", and this could have been more than sufficient for the redemption.

Mary could have brought forth [the] male child, [and] her child [...] caught up [immediately] to God and to his throne without undergoing any pain and suffering and still this would have been more than sufficient for the redemption.

In my other answer I have also stated from Church teaching that since redemption is by blood, a small drop from Jesus as when he was circumcised would have been more than sufficient for the redemption.

Endnote

There is a paragraph in the article that ends:

  We insist on this point because some have misunderstood the whole
  Catholic doctrine of Redemption as though it were based on a cruel and
  vindictive concept of divine justice. (my emphasis)

I thought perhaps this is what may have prompted the OP's question. I would encourage the OP to read the entire article but I would also add that whichever was the things of God are looked at, man is always faced with a mystery.

Further Reading

Redemption - Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > R > Redemption.


Does the Traditionalist and Sedevacantist ignore the words of St.Ambrose saying "Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, Ibi Deus"? The above Latin quote, attributed to St. Ambrose means “Where Peter is, there is the Church, there is God.”

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), Jesus “entrusted a specific authority to Peter”:

Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living stone,” thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (CCC 552-553)

The Daily Roman Missal has this to say about the feast of The Chair of St. Peter:

  This feast brings to mind the mission of teacher and pastor conferred by Christ on Peter, and continued in an unbroken line down to the present Pope. We celebrate the unity of the Church, founded upon the Apostle, and renew our assent to the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, extended both to truths which are solemnly defined ex cathedra, and to all the acts of the ordinary Magisterium. (pg. 1485) - “Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, Ibi Deus”

Cardinal Caffara also had a statement of support reminding all the Bishops to not contradict the Pope;

«I was born Papist, I lived as a Papist, and I mean to die a Papist! If a Bishop has a thought contrary to that of the Pope» – he concluded: «he must go away, but really he must go away from the diocese. Because he would lead the faithful into a path that is not the one of Jesus Christ anymore. Therefore, he would lose himself eternally and would risk the eternal loss of the faithful». - Card. Caffarra: «Let who is against the Pope go away; he will lose himself»

I can't answer for traditionalists who are not sedevacantists, but for sedevacantists there is no problem here. When there is a pope, we will follow him. I don't think your quotation from St. Ambrose was intended to imply that, during periods when there is no pope, the church and God disappear. (There have often been periods without a pope.  Until recently, they were caused not by heresy but by the death or resignation of a pope.)


What is the Catholic doctrine on how to humble oneself before the Lord? What is the Catholic doctrine on how to humble oneself before the Lord?

How can one live such a life of humility, where we walk in a humble way before God and man?

The Rule of St Benedict of Nursia lists 12 degrees of humility. Although his rule was written for monks of the sixth century, there are many insights of great value for practicing humility for the average Catholic.

From the Holy Rule of St. Benedict, chapter VII. On Humility

  The first degree of humility, then, is that a person keep the fear of God before his eyes and beware of ever forgetting it. Let him be ever mindful of all that God has commanded; let his thoughts constantly recur to the hell-fire which will burn for their sins those who despise God, and to the life everlasting which is prepared for those who fear him. […] Let a man consider that God is always look at him from heaven, that his actions are everywhere visible to the divine eyes and are constantly being reported to God by the Angels.

  The second degree of humility is that a person love not his own will nor take pleasure in satisfying his desires, but model his actions on the saying of the Lord, I have come not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

  The third degree of humility is that a person for love of God submit himself to his Superior in all obedience, imitating the Lord, of whom the Apostle says, He became obedient even unto death.

  The fourth degree of humility is that he hold fast to patience with a silent mind when in this obedience he meets with difficulties and contradictions and even any kind of injustice, enduring all without growing weary or running away.

  The fifth degree of humility is that he hid from his Abbot none of the evil thoughts that enter his heart or the sins committed in secret, but that he humbly confess them.

  The sixth degree of humility is that a monk be content with the poorest and worst of everything, and that in every occupation assigned him, he consider himself a bad and worthless workman.

  The seventh degree of humility is that he consider himself lower and of less account than anyone else, and this not only in verbal protestation but also with the most heartfelt inner conviction.

  The eighth degree of humility is that a monk do nothing except what is commended by the common Rule of the monastery and the example of the elders.

  The ninth degree of humility is that a monk restrain his tongue and keep silence, not speaking until he is questioned.

  The tenth degree of humility is that he be not ready and quick to laugh.

  The eleventh degree of humility is that when a monk speaks he do so gently and without laughter, humbly and seriously, in few and sensible words, and the he be not noisy in his speech.

  The twelfth degree of humility is that a monk not only have humility in his heart but also by his very appearance make it always manifest to those who see him. That is to say that whether he is at the Work of God, in the oratory, in the monastery, in the garden, on the road, in the fields or anywhere else, and whether sitting, walking or standing, he should always have his head bowed and his eyes toward the ground.

St Thomas Aquinas also writes about the 12 degrees of humility, but in the reverse order.

  It would seem that the twelve degrees of humility that are set down in the Rule of the Blessed Benedict [St. Thomas gives these degrees in the reverse order to that followed by St. Benedict] are unfittingly distinguished. The first is to be "humble not only in heart, but also to show it in one's very person, one's eyes fixed on the ground"; the second is "to speak few and sensible words, and not to be loud of voice"; the third is "not to be easily moved, and disposed to laughter"; the fourth is "to maintain silence until one is asked"; the fifth is "to do nothing but to what one is exhorted by the common rule of the monastery"; the sixth is "to believe and acknowledge oneself viler than all"; the seventh is "to think oneself worthless and unprofitable for all purposes"; the eighth is "to confess one's sin"; the ninth is "to embrace patience by obeying under difficult and contrary circumstances"; the tenth is "to subject oneself to a superior"; the eleventh is "not to delight in fulfilling one's own desires"; the twelfth is "to fear God and to be always mindful of everything that God has commanded." For among these there are some things pertaining to the other virtues, such as obedience and patience. Again there are some that seem to involve a false opinion--and this is inconsistent with any virtue--namely to declare oneself more despicable than all men, and to confess and believe oneself to be in all ways worthless and unprofitable. Therefore these are unfittingly placed among the degrees of humility.

Let us not forget that those who desire to live a life of humility should also pray for this virtue. The following Litany of Humility was composed by Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val (1865-1930),Secretary of State for Pope Saint Pius X:

  O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
   From the desire of being esteemed,
   Deliver me, Jesus.

  From the desire of being loved...
   From the desire of being extolled ...
   From the desire of being honored ...
   From the desire of being praised ...
   From the desire of being preferred to others...
   From the desire of being consulted ...
   From the desire of being approved ...
   From the fear of being humiliated ...
   From the fear of being despised...
   From the fear of suffering rebukes ...
   From the fear of being calumniated ...
   From the fear of being forgotten ...
   From the fear of being ridiculed ...
   From the fear of being wronged ...
   From the fear of being suspected

  That others may be loved more than I,
   Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.

  That others may be esteemed more than I ...
   That, in the opinion of the world,
   others may increase and I may decrease ...
   That others may be chosen and I set aside ...
   That others may be praised and I unnoticed ...
   That others may be preferred to me in everything...
   That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should…


What was the stance of the Roman Catholic Church on the Vietnam War? Communism has been  an enemy of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) for a long time, but also capitalism has been a problem. To many people, the Vietnam War did seem like a meaningless war. But Jesus said, "War must come" (see, for example, Matthew 24:6).

My questions is: Did the RCC take a stand for the Vietnam War or against it? Did they support one side? What was its official reaction?

President Ngo Dinh Diem was a Catholic and brother of the traditionalist Catholic Archbishop Thuc. Diem governed according to Catholic principles, even legislating laws more in accordance with Catholic teaching. He was one of the several assassinated by the CIA coup right before the Vietnam War began. Some consider Diem a martyr much as some French consider King Louis XVI a martyr.

The Vietnam War began over a dispute between the government, run by Catholics (some even say it was nepotism), and Buddhists. Diem enacted a law that said a religious group had to petition the government first before being able to fly a flag for a religious holiday. Diem's brother Abp. Thuc celebrated his 25th anniversary of his episcopal consecration civically and with great pomp, but thereafter the government denied the Buddhists the ability to fly their flags on their religious holiday (6 May 1963), and the Buddhists became violent in protest (hence the memorable pictures of violent Buddhist self-imolations / suicides). Thereafter, there was a CIA coup to assassinate Diem (2 Nov. 1963) because, as Johnson later said, Diem was unfit for governing Vietnam. A few million Catholics regrouped into one region of Vietnam.

Diem had a love-hate relationship with the U.S. and France. France was a colonizer, but France's withdrawal from Vietnam left it unstable. The U.S. could've helped with stabilizing it, but it doesn't seem assassinating Diem helped.

At its core, the Vietnam War began as a religious war of Catholics vs. Buddhists.

Diem had an audience with Pope Pius XII, as mentioned in Miller's Misalliance p. 38.

According to this, in 1966

  Pope Paul VI addresses 150,000 people in St. Peter’s Square in Rome and calls for an end to the war in Vietnam through negotiations. Although the Pope’s address had no impact on the Johnson administration and its policies in Southeast Asia, his comments were indicative of the mounting antiwar sentiment that was growing both at home and overseas.


Why are bibles sold for profit? Christians are encouraged to give donations and free items to the needy.

But why are Bibles sometimes sold for profit, instead of being sold at cost-price, at a subsidized price, or even for free?

Because Bible publishers, like everyone else, must make a living, so they can pay their mortgages, buy groceries, and put the children through college.

It's the same reason pastors and missionaries are paid salaries.


How to verify if a "message from God" came from God? If I doubted on the authenticity of a "message", must I automatically associate it with the enemy's attacks?

Message here refers to any information that might be related to God's Will in our lives.

It is good to remember that God is consistent. He does not change. This works out to our benefit. For example:1

  Malachi 2:6 (ESV)
  For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

One of the ways in which this is good for us is that we are not trying to hit a moving target when it comes to understanding His will. His character, what pleases Him, what He expects from men, and other like topics are fixed, not variable truths.

This knowledge about God also allows us to say that He will not contradict Himself. If He has a message for you, you can easily check whether it's possibly true by checking it against a known corpus of teaching, His Word. He will never tell you anything inconsistent with the teachings he gave us in the Scriptures. This is why it is important to study and know them well so that as we are bombarded with messages from this world we will be able to discern which messages are an echo of His voice and which are crafts of the deceiver.

Most of the book of Jude tucked away at the end of the NT is a scathing warning against false teachers defined as any person or teaching that espoused any idea other than the Gospel as outlined by Christ and the early Apostles. It talks about people who see visions and follow them, reject the authority of the church, and fall into all manner of wrong roads. It ends with this call:

  Jude 1:17-21 (ESV)
  But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.

There are numerous other NT references to the importance of sticking to the early teachings, many of them clearer than this passage. The long an the short of it is that we are to discern whether any message is from God by comparing it against the rest of the Word.

1 Note that this example is in a different context of God keeping his covenants even when men are faithless, but the principle of God not changing is also found many other places in Scripture so I think it's a valid proof here.

One of my favorite quotes in The Lord of the Rings echos the idea of right and wrong and the basis for the decisions we have to make in our lives not being variable.2 Faramir asks:

  "How shall a man judge what to do in such times?"
  "As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."

2 This is not a source text!