In heaven will we love God more than everyone else, or will we love everyone as much as we love God? (Catholic) Catholic Church teaches that God will be the principal object of our love in heaven.

My interpretation of this is that by saying "God will be the principal object of our love in heaven", Church is teaching us that in heaven our love for every other heavenly beings will be derived from our love for God (i.e. in heaven we will love all others because we first loved God) - but I don't think this implies that in heaven we will love God more than how much we love every other members. My friend, however, thinks that if God is the principal object of our love in heaven, in heaven we will love God more than how much we love everyone else.

My view is that in heaven we will love each and every others with the whole of our being, just as we will love God with the whole of our being (i.e. we will love every other heavenly beings as much as we love God - "with the whole of our being"), even though our love for God is what occurs first and our love for everyone else is what results after as a consequence. Based on the teachings of the Catholic Church, is my view correct?

In heaven we will still love God above all things, even our neighbor.

The order of charity—that is, of supernatural love—will endure in heaven; the love of God must remain above all, even in heaven. Mt. 22:36-40 says that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the second greatest is like (but not identical) to it: to love one's neighbor as thyself.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains how the order of charity endures in heaven in his Summa Theologica II-II q. 26 a. 13 "Whether the order of charity endures in heaven?" c.:

  The order of charity must needs remain in heaven, as regards the love of God above all things. For this will be realized simply when man shall enjoy God perfectly. But, as regards the order between man himself and other men, a distinction would seem to be necessary, because, as we stated above (A7,9), the degrees of love may be distinguished either in respect of the good which a man desires for another, or according to the intensity of love itself. On the first way a man will love better men more than himself, and those who are less good, less than himself: because, by reason of the perfect conformity of the human to the Divine will, each of the blessed will desire everyone to have what is due to him according to Divine justice. Nor will that be a time for advancing by means of merit to a yet greater reward, as happens now while it is possible for a man to desire both the virtue and the reward of a better man, whereas then the will of each one will rest within the limits determined by God. But in the second way a man will love himself more than even his better neighbors, because the intensity of the act of love arises on the part of the person who loves, as stated above (A7,9). Moreover it is for this that the gift of charity is bestowed by God on each one, namely, that he may first of all direct his mind to God, and this pertains to a man's love for himself, and that, in the second place, he may wish other things to be directed to God, and even work for that end according to his capacity

  As to the order to be observed among our neighbors, a man will simply love those who are better, according to the love of charity. Because the entire life of the blessed consists in directing their minds to God, wherefore the entire ordering of their love will be ruled with respect to God, so that each one will love more and reckon to be nearer to himself those who are nearer to God. For then one man will no longer succor another, as he needs to in the present life, wherein each man has to succor those who are closely connected with him rather than those who are not, no matter what be the nature of their distress: hence it is that in this life, a man, by the inclination of charity, loves more those who are more closely united to him, for he is under a greater obligation to bestow on them the effect of charity. It will however be possible in heaven for a man to love in several ways one who is connected with him, since the causes of virtuous love will not be banished from the mind of the blessed. Yet all these reasons are incomparably surpassed by that which is taken from nighness to God.


Why does the Eastern Orthodox Church dislike the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? In studying the Orthodox doctrines I have noticed that there is controversy about the nature of the Spirit and that the word 'filioque' is tossed around.

What I am wondering is, what is the underlying concept whereby Catholic and Protestant ideas about the Trinity conflict with Eastern Orthodox?  What is the real issue that keeps Orthodox on their own with respect to the Spirit proceeding from the Father only and not from the Son?

I don't think I could improve upon the summary at the Orthodox Wiki:

Objections on doctrinal grounds

It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.
The justifications for including the filioque in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."
The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.
Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the filioque into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church's unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.

Objections on canonical and historical grounds

Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of inserting the filioque into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at Nicea and its subsequent revision at Constantinople, the decision to include the filioque in the Creed was not done by an Ecumenical Council. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589).
Rome resisted the inclusion of the filioque for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the filioque began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in filioque. Later, however, Rome contradicted its previous more Orthodox stance by the promulgation of the filioque, thus anathematizing its own spiritual forebears.

Here's more on the ecclesiastical issue:

For Roman Catholics the Nicene Creed is under the Pope, not over the Pope.  When the Pope inserted the Filioque into the Nicene Creed a major realignment of ecclesial authority took place.  The Pope without the assent of the other historic patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and without convening an ecumenical council of bishops, unilaterally altered the Nicene Creed.  This was done even though the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431, Canon VII) forbade the creation of a new creed.  In essence, the Bishop of Rome was claiming a magisterium (teaching authority) equal to or superior to the Ecumenical Councils.  In exerting authority over the first three Ecumenical Councils the Pope was claiming authority over all Seven Ecumenical Councils.  Simply put, the Bishop of Rome, once first among equals, now claimed supremacy over all Christians, a startling departure from Tradition.  The emergence of a papal model of authority would in time clash with Orthodoxy’s conciliar model of authority.  Here we see how the Filioque lies at the root of the West-East Schism.

The Eastern Orthodox view, in contrast to the filioque, is that of the "monarchy of the Father." Here it is described by Fr. John Behr:

According to the Nicene creed, the Son is “consubstantial with the Father.” St Athanasius, the Father who did more than anyone else to forge Nicene orthodoxy, indicated that “what is said of the Father is said in Scripture of the Son also, all but His being called Father” (On the Synods, 49). It is important to note how respectful such theology is of the total otherness of God in comparison with creation: such doctrines are regulative of our theological language, not a reduction of God to a being alongside other beings. It is also important to note the essential asymmetry of the relation between the Father and the Son: the Son derives from the Father; He is, as the Nicene creed put it, “of the essence of the Father” – they do not both derive from one common source. This is what is usually referred to as the Monarchy of the Father.
St Athanasius also began to apply the same argument used for defending the divinity of the Son, to a defense of the divinity of the Holy Spirit: just as the Son Himself must be fully divine if He is to save us, for only God can save, so also must Holy Spirit be divine if He is to give life to those who lie in death. Again there is an asymmetry, one which also goes back to Scripture: we receive the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead as the Spirit of Christ, one which enables us to call on God as “Abba.” Though we receive the Spirit through Christ, the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, yet this already implies the existence of the Son, and therefore that the Spirit proceeds from the Father already in relation to the Son (see especially St Gregory of Nyssa, To Ablabius: That there are not Three Gods).
So there is one God and Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Spirit, three “persons” (hypostases) who are the same or one in essence (ousia); three persons equally God, possessing the same natural properties, yet really God, possessing the same natural properties, yet really distinct, known by their personal characteristics. Besides being one in essence, these three persons also exist in total one-ness or unity.


Driving out spirits in Jesus's name with discrepancy in Bible In Acts 19: 13-17. Several people tries to drive out demons by using Jesus's name.

  13 Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” 14 Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?” 16 Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.17 When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor.

However, Disciples encountered similar situation earlier. In Mark 9: 38-41:

  38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

How should I understand this? Was this group of people who drove out demons by using Jesus's name any different from the ones that were beaten severely for it?

Notice that in the Mark case, Jesus is saying, "Don't forbid them from casting out demons," whereas in Acts 19, it is the demons themselves who are unwilling to be cast out by someone who may use the name of Jesus, but who seems to be trifiling with things they shouldn't be.  In the case of Mark, it would be humans resisting, in the case of Acts, it is demons.
In the case of the passage in Mark, the question was one of association. As answered in another question, the focus is as much on institution as anything else.  Here, Jesus simply said something to the effect of 'Just because they aren't attending your church doesn't mean they can't do something in my name.'
In the Acts passage, we have someone attempting to cast out demons who is clearly unworthy to do so.  The name of Jesus is being invoked as a talisman of sorts - a magic set of syllables that some one is trying to utter in order to gain control. When this unworthy person attempts to cast out the demon, the demons are the ones who realize the would-be exorcist as a person who may know the name of Jesus, but not really be one of his.  When the demons say to the sons of Sceva, "I know Jesus" they are admitting that Jesus has power over them.  When they say, "I  know of Paul," it is because they have heard that Paul is one who correctly uses the power of Christ.  These demons know that Jesus is working through Paul, much to their consternation.  But it is one thing to say a name, and another to understand the one through whom power comes. These sons of Sceva apparently know the words, but not the Christ.
The demons are aware of this - and they pounce.
I would argue the Acts 19 passage should also be read in light of Acts 8.  In Acts 8, a sorcerer named Simon sought to control demons and harness the power of the Spirit for personal gain. He even offered Peter money to learn.

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

Peter reacts harshly saying this power of Christ is not something that can simply be bought or sold. He says:

20 ... “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.

When fighting the demons, Paul says in Ephesians 6 that

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.

Notice how the fighter is to be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Notice that we taken on armor - a defense, not an offense.

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.

Finally note, the only offensive weapon we have is the Word of God, nothing of our own:

17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

In other words, Simon, this Jesus' power isn't a game. There are real forces at work that aren't of your control. There is, however, a Jesus who is in control, at whose name demons cringe.  You are not in control - He is. Sons of Sceva, let him fight, for as it says in 2 Chronicles 16:9

9 For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war. ”

In other words, if you are going to fight demons, make sure you realize how the demons are actually defeated.


How does the revelation of Blessed Emmerich harmonize the teaching of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in Mary's Assumption? Pope Pius XII proclamation on the Dogma of Mary's Assumption in 1950 (Munificentissimus Deus) was silent on how Mary's death description was.

Eastern Orthodox believed in dormition.

There are also some who believed that the death & assumption occurs simultaneously.

However, Blessed Catherine Emmerich's visions and revelation provide a good theme for filling in the light needed to harmonize the teaching of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

My question is based on Blessed Catherine writings: How does her narration harmonize the missing description of the Church when it proclaimed the 4th Marian dogma of the Assumption? (as Pope Pius XII left description of death unclear).

How does the revelation of Blessed Emmerich harmonize the teaching of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in Mary's Assumption?

Before I begin, I will start with a caveat!

The revelations of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich are a treasure chest of information that can not be always verified or completely sanctioned by the Church. Because Blessed Catherine Emmerich did not write her own revelations, but were in fact written and edited by Brentano, the Church in her process of beatification would not allow these revelations to be taken as means to support her case. The reason, although doubtful, was that  Brentano may have added or altered the revelations in question.

The caveat being said, I personally believe that for the most part these revelations are bang on and historical research and modern archaeology have truly vindicated this caveat all together.

Now let us se how these revelations harmonize and to what degree with the two great Churches of the East and West.

The Assumption of the Virgin Mary was dogmatically defined by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950, in the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus by exercising papal infallibility. While the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church believe in the Dormition of the Mother of God (Dormition of the Theotokos or "the Falling Asleep of the Mother of God"), whether Mary had a physical death has not been dogmatically defined.

Although not an infallible statement Pope John Paul II said on June 25, 1997 that “Mary experienced natural death prior to her assumption into Heaven." See the General Audience of Pope John Paul’s statement: Mary and the human drama of death.

While the Catholic Church speaks of Mary’s Assumption and the Eastern Orthodox speaks of Mary’s Dormitione,; the Churches in question are basically expressing the same faith in slightly different angles so to speak.

  Many Catholics believe that Mary first died before being assumed, but they believe that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed. Others believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven without first dying. Either understanding may be legitimately held by Catholics, with Eastern Catholics observing the Feast as the Dormition.

  Many theologians note by way of comparison that in the Catholic Church, the Assumption is dogmatically defined, while in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Dormition is less dogmatically than liturgically and mystically defined. Such differences spring from a larger pattern in the two traditions, wherein Catholic teachings are often dogmatically and authoritatively defined – in part because of the more centralized structure of the Catholic Church – while in Eastern Orthodoxy, many doctrines are less authoritative.

    Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body – like His – was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives wholly in the Age to Come. The Resurrection of the Body ... has in her case been anticipated and is already an accomplished fact. That does not mean, however, that she is dissociated from the rest of humanity and placed in a wholly different category: for we all hope to share one day in that same glory of the Resurrection of the Body which she enjoys even now. - Assumption vs. Dormition

The revelations of Catherine Emmerich are in complete harmony with both Churches on this and adds nothing new except more details in her narration.

This poses a problem for the Eastern Orthodox who maintain Mary died at Jerusalem.

  A narrative known as the Euthymiaca Historia (written probably by Cyril of Scythopolis in the 5th century) relates how the Emperor Marcian and his wife, Pulcheria, requested the relics of the Virgin Mary from Juvenal, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, while he was attending the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to the account, Juvenal replied that, on the third day after her burial, Mary's tomb was discovered to be empty, only her shroud being preserved in the church of Gethsemane. In 452 the shroud was sent to Constantinople, where it was kept in the Church of Our Lady of Blachernae (Panagia Blacherniotissa).4

  According to other traditions, it was the Cincture of the Virgin Mary which was left behind in the tomb, or dropped by her during Assumption.

  The Armenian Patriarchate Armenian Apostolic Church of Jerusalem and Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem are in possession of the shrine. The Syriacs, the Copts, and the Ethiopians have minor rights.

  A legend, which was first mentioned by Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century AD, purported that Mary may have spent the last years of her life in Ephesus. The Ephesians derived it from John's presence in the city, and Jesus’ instructions to John to take care of Mary after his death. Epiphanius, however, pointed out that although the Bible mentions John leaving for Asia, it makes no mention of Mary going with him.5 The Eastern Orthodox Church tradition believes that Virgin Mary lived in the vicinity of Ephesus, where there is a place currently known as the House of the Virgin Mary and venerated by Catholics and Muslims, but argues that she only stayed there for a few years.

  The pilgrim Antoninus of Piacenza, writing of travels in 560-570 CE, mentions in that valley was "the basilica of the Blessed Mary, which they say was her house; in which is shown a sepulchre, from which they say that the Blessed Mary was taken up into heaven." Later, Saints Epiphanius of Salamis, Gregory of Tours, Isidore of Seville, Modest, Sophronius of Jerusalem, German of Constantinople, Andrew of Crete, and John of Damascus talk about the tomb being in Jerusalem, and bear witness that this tradition was accepted by all the Churches of Easbt and West. - Tomb of the Virgin Mary

Twelfth-century façade of Mary's Tomb at Jerusalem

In 1881, while using the revelations as described in the book by Brentano based on his conversations with Emmerich, a French priest, Fr. Julien Gouyet discovered the house of Mary at Ephesus.

  Discovery in Turkey

  On October 18, 1881, relying on the descriptions in the book by Brentano based on his conversations with Emmerich, a French priest, the Abbé Julien Gouyet discovered a small stone building on a mountain overlooking the Aegean Sea and the ruins of ancient Ephesus in Turkey. He believed it was the house described by Emmerich and where the Virgin Mary had lived the final years of her life.

  Abbé Gouyet's discovery was not taken seriously by most people, but ten years later, urged by Sister Marie de Mandat-Grancey, DC, two Lazarist missionaries, Father Poulin and Father Jung, from Smyrna rediscovered the building on July 29, 1891, using the same source for a guide. They learned that the four-walled, roofless ruin had been venerated for a long time by members of the mountain village of Şirince, 17 km distant, who were descended from the early Christians of Ephesus. The house is called Panaya Kapulu ("Doorway to the Virgin"). Every year pilgrims made a pilgrimage to the site on August 15, the date on which most of the Christian world celebrated Mary's Dormition/Assumption.

  Sister Marie de Mandat-Grancey was named Foundress of Mary's House by the Catholic Church and was responsible for acquiring, restoring and preserving Mary's House and surrounding areas of the mountain from 1891 until her death in 1915.[16] The discovery revived and strengthened a Christian tradition dating from the 12th century, 'the tradition of Ephesus', which has competed with the older 'Jerusalem tradition' about the place of the Blessed Virgin's dormition. Due to the actions of Pope Leo XIII in 1896 and Pope John XXIII in 1961, the Catholic Church first removed plenary indulgences from the Church of the Dormition in Jerusalem and then bestowed them for all time to pilgrims to Mary's House in Ephesus.

Taking away the indulgences from the Church of the Dormition in Jerusalem and bestowing them on Mary’s house in Ephesus, the Catholic Church showed to the world which tradition it not only favoured the Ephesus tradition, but modern popes have shown which tradition they believed to be more authentic.

  The Roman Catholic Church has never pronounced on the authenticity of the house, for lack of scientifically acceptable evidence. It has, however, from the blessing of the first pilgrimage by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, taken a positive attitude towards the site. Pope Pius XII, in 1951, following the definition of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950, elevated the house to the status of a Holy Place, a privilege later made permanent by Pope John XXIII. The site is visited and venerated by Muslims as well as Christians. Pilgrims drink from a spring under the house which is believed to have healing properties. A liturgical ceremony is held here every year on August 15 to commemorate the Assumption of Mary.

  Papal visits

  Pope Paul VI visited the shrine on July 26, 1967, and Pope John Paul II on November 30, 1979. Pope Benedict XVI visited this shrine on November 29, 2006, during his four-day pastoral trip to Turkey. - House of the Virgin Mary

As for the actual tomb of the Virgin Mary the Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:

  The tomb of the Blessed Virgin is venerated in the Valley of Cedron, near Jerusalem. Modern writers hold, however, that Mary died and was buried at Ephesus.

Catherine Emmerich’s revelations tell us that Mary lived at Ephesus with St. John, there she died and was placed in a tomb. St. Thomas having missed the funeral rites, asked to see her in the tomb, but she was no longer there!

What is more is that the tomb itself although not far from her house remains unknown. She states in the writings that at a future date the tomb of the Virgin Mary will be discovered...

  The Blessed Virgin's Burial

  When it was time to bear the coffin to the grotto, one half-hour distant, Peter and John raised it from the litter and carried it in their hands to the door of the house, outside of which it was again laid on the litter, which Peter and John then raised upon their shoulders. Six of the Apostles thus carried it in turn. The coffin hung between the bearers as in a cradle, for the poles of the litter were run through leathern straps, or matting. Some of the Apostles walked before the coffin praying, and after it came the women. Lamps, or lanterns on poles, were carried.

Before reaching the grotto, the litter was set down. Four of the Apostles bore the coffin in, and placed it in the hollow of the tomb. All went, one by one, into the grotto, where they knelt in prayer before the holy body, honoring it and taking leave of it. Then the tomb was shut in by a wicker screen that extended from the front edge of the tomb to the top of the vaulted wall above. Before the entrance of the grotto they made a trench, which they planted so thickly with blooming flowers and bushes covered with berries that one could gain access to it only from the side, and that only by making his way through the underwood.

On the night following the burial took place the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin into Heaven.

House of the Virgin Mary in Ephesus

  In her visions, Sister Emmerich described with great detail the geography of Ephesus, its location to the sea and the many roads leading into the major port city in Asia Minor. She mentioned many caves in the mountain. The location was described as “some three and a half hours from Ephesus.” Today, the car ride from Ephesus to Meryem Ana Evi, up the paved road to Bulbul Dagh, is less than thirty minutes. But in the 1st Century, the trek up the mountain side would have taken several hours. In describing the mountain, Emmerich says that, “This hill slopes steeply towards Ephesus,” which Bulbul Dag does as it rises to the south of the ancient city of Ephesus.

  In Blessed Emmerich’s visions, Mary was visited on occasion by “an Apostle or disciple on his travels,” and, of course, Emmerich saw one man going in and out of the house more often than others, and said, “I always took him to be [Saint] John.” She had a revelation that St. John did not remain permanently near the Blessed Virgin, but, “He came and went in the course of his travels. Emmerich said of the house St. John had built for the Blessed Virgin that it was unique among the village in that, “Mary’s Home was the only one built of stone . . . built of rectangular stones, rounded or pointed at the back.”  She said that, “Between the Blessed Virgin’s dwelling and Ephesus runs a little stream which winds about in a very singular way.”

  Sister Emmerich accurately described the view from the top of the mountain on which Mary’s Home was built. She said, “A little way behind it was the summit of the rocky hill from which one could see over the trees and hills to Ephesus and the sea with its many islands.” - The House of the Blessed Virgin, Mary (Selçuk, Turkey)

Further reading can be pursued with the following sources of information:

REGARDING MARY'S AGE
MARY'S HOUSE IN EPHESUS
THE DEATH OF THE HOLY VIRGIN
Maryemana Evi —
The Virgin Mary's House Near Ephesus


To break apart families or bring them together? The prophet said concerning the great day which Elijah will usher in, "And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."
  -Malachi 4:6

  Jesus said, "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
  -Matthew 10:35

Are these two verses consistent and if so how?

There's an interesting comment on the link between those last verses of the prophet Malachi (written some 400 years before Jesus was born) and the words of Jesus you quote (written circa A.D. 50 to 70) in the New International Study Bible 1987 edition.  It says regarding Malachi 4:6 the following.

  "According to Lk 1:17 John the Baptist sought to accomplish this..."

It makes the link to chapter 3 verse 1 where God promises to send his messenger who will prepare the way before him. Then, suddenly, the Lord being sought by Israel would come as messenger of the covenant. The footnote says,

  "This is fulfilled in John the Baptist (see Mt 11:10; Mk 1:2; Lk
  1:76)."

If this interpretation is accepted, we can follow through on it to see how there is no contradiction between these old testament and new testament (covenant) texts. They are consistent.

John the Baptist was born before Jesus and prepared the way for Jesus' ministry. John urged the Israelites to repent and to be baptised in readiness for the Messiah. This had a uniting effect in Israel. It created a sense of expectation and hope, so that when Jesus did start his ministry, people were alert to that and responded quickly. Jesus himself said that John the Baptist was the one about whom it was written, 'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.' That's in Matthew 11:2 - 19.

Shortly before then, Jesus sent out the twelve disciples with that warning about families being split due to him. He quoted from Micah 7:6 which showed family disintegration at a time of judgement from God. When Jesus came and quoted that text, he was not present in judgement - "For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it" - John 12:47. However, even while he remained on earth, he caused division because people had to take a stance regarding his astonishing claims. He could not be dismissed indifferently. People were either for him, or against him, and that caused divisions, in families too. Even his own family, at one point, thought he had gone mad and came to try to take him away! See Mark 3:20 - 22.

So, while a positive response to the claims of Christ brings peace to those ones, others who object to his claims will be sharply divided against believers. This can cause division in families. Equally, families who believe in Jesus are united.

As Malachi ended his prophetic writing with warning of a curse, so the last book of the new testament ends with a warning about consequences for not taking God's prophets and prophetic word seriously. We have to decide where we stand on such issues, and those who decide to trust in Jesus often find any unbelieving family members against them.


Are the ten commandments considered part of the old testament law? Possible Duplicate:
  To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply?

Leviticus contains many laws that modern-day Christians do not follow. From what I've understood, this is because they consider this law to have been fulfilled through the death of Christ. However, they also often tout the ten commandments as a source of morality.

Were the ten commandments not part of the law that was fulfilled? Or is there some other reason why Christians still adhere to them?

The Ten Commandments are also refered to as the decalogue.  However, Christians do not believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus were the fulfillment of the Ten Commandments, it was the life of Jesus Christ that was because He alone was able to live a holy life within the parameters of the Ten Commandments.

However, Christians today often "tout" the Ten Commandments because they have more or less become an icon of Judeo-Christian morality seeing as the 613 commandments in the OT are built upon them.  But according to the first half of Romans 8, the Christian life is less about living by the Law of God and more about living by the Spirit of God.

Yet an even more concise manner of living by the Ten Commandments can be seen as following the two greatest commandments, to love God and neighbor seen here in Matthew 22:36-40 NIV:

  36“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
  37Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on
     these two commandments.”

I hope this helps!


What does Neo-Scholastic Thomism say about the Charismatic Renewal movement? What does Neo-Scholastic Thomism say about the Charismatic Renewal movement?

Contemporary Thomist philosopher Dr. Ed Feser, in The Thomistic Tradition (part 1), defines "Neo-Scholastic Thomism" as follows:

  1. Neo-Scholastic Thomism: The dominant tendency within Thomism in the first decades after the revival sparked by Leo’s [1879] encyclical [Æterni Patris], this approach is reflected in many of the manuals and textbooks widely in use in Roman Catholic colleges and seminaries before Vatican II. Due to its emphasis on following the interpretative tradition of the great commentators on Aquinas (such as Capreolus, Cajetan, and John of St. Thomas) and associated suspicion of attempts to synthesize Thomism with non-Thomistic categories and assumptions, it has also sometimes been labeled “Strict Observance Thomism.” Still, its focus was less on exegesis of the historical Aquinas’s own texts than on carrying out the program of deploying a rigorously worked out system of Thomistic metaphysics in a wholesale critique of modern philosophy. Its core philosophical commitments are summarized in the famous “Twenty-Four Thomistic Theses” approved by Pope Pius X. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange[, O.P.] (1877-1964) is perhaps its greatest representative.

Charismatic Renewal not a Catholic movement
See The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church ch. 9 "The Sacraments" §87:

What is the rite known as “the baptism in the Spirit”?

The rite of “baptism in the Spirit”301 was originally the distinctive mark of a Protestant sect called the Pentecostalists. It is a laying on of hands for the purpose of giving a palpable experience of the Holy Spirit and a participation of the charismatic gifts [gratiæ gratis datæ] of the first Christians, especially speaking in tongues.

What is the origin of this Pentecostal rite?

Pentecostalism was born during the night of December 31, 1900, to January 1, 1901, in Topeka, Kansas.302 In the hope of regaining the charisms of the Apostles (especially speaking in tongues), the Methodist pastor Charles Parham (1873-1929) laid hands on a girl named Agnes Ozman.303 She immediately began to speak an unknown language, which a Czech recognized the next day as his mother tongue. The experience continued on the following days, and Pastor Parham set out to preach his discovery. Arrested later on a morals charge (he was accused of sodomy), Pastor Parham was eclipsed by some of his disciples, like William Seymour (1873-1929).304

How did the new Pentecostal rite spread?

The “Pentecostalists” were at first rejected even by the Protestants (they were called “shakers” because of their contortions or “rollers” because some of them rolled on the ground during their services). They established their own chapels and organized themselves in very restricted groups. It was only during the 1930’s in Europe, and in the 1950’s in the United States, that their rite was taken outside of strictly Pentecostal churches to penetrate all Christian denominations. Pastor David du Plessis (1905-87) was the main architect of this “ecumenical” propagation of “the baptism in the Spirit.” At the end of the twentieth century, there were about 100 million Pentecostalists worldwide.

Are there precedents for the Pentecostal phenomenon?

The rite properly called “baptism in the Spirit” is new, but heretical sects have regularly experienced analogous phenomena throughout history. At the end of the seventeenth century, a wave of illuminism shook the Protestant Camisards of the South of France: people claimed they felt the Holy Spirit, they spoke in tongues and wept copiously. The same eccentricities occurred in 1731, at Paris, in the St-Médard Cemetery on the tomb of a Jansenist deacon: frenetic convulsions gripped entire crowds, ecstasies, speaking in unknown languages, “prophecies,” etc.

How can this type of phenomena be explained?

These strange phenomena can partly be explained by natural causes (uncontrolled nervousness, morbid psychic exaltation, hallucinations), but it is likely that the devil often intervenes. The first sign of diabolical possession indicated by the traditional Ritual for exorcisms is the person’s speaking in languages never before studied.305

Can people who call on the name of Christ with such fervor really be manipulated by the devil?

Our Lord Himself said:

Beware of false prophets….Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name and cast out devils in thy name and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them: I never knew you. Depart from me, you that work iniquity. (Mt. 7:15, 21-23)

How did the Pentecostal rite penetrate into the Catholic Church?

The Pentecostal rite of baptism in the Spirit was spread in the Catholic Church by so-called Catholic “charismatics.” The “Charismatic Renewal” can be defined as “the Catholic branch of the Pentecostal current.”306

What is the origin of “Catholic” charismatism?

“Catholic” charismatism was born in the United States in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on February 20, 1967, the day on which two Catholic students at Duquesne University received the laying on of hands in a prayer group led by a Protestant minister and began to speak in tongues. They then used the same rite to transmit to other Catholics the powers thus received. On February 18, 1972, an engineer returning to France from the United States transmitted the baptism in the Spirit to Pierre Goursat, who founded the Emmanuel Community (the main French charismatic community) in 1973.307

What was the effect of the Pentecostal rite on the first Catholics who received it?

The laying on of hands produced the same effects in the Catholic students of Duquesne University as it did in Protestants. One of them recounted: “I was so joyful that all I could do was laugh as I lay on the floor.” Another testified: “The sense of the presence and love of God was so strong that I can remember staying sitting in the chapel for a half hour just laughing out of joy over the love of God.” And a third: “When hands were laid upon me, immediately it felt as if my whole chest were trying to rise into my head. My lips started trembling, and my brain started turning flips. Then I started grinning; I couldn’t help it.”308

What do these reactions show?

These unseemly reactions reveal diabolical intervention. Whereas the Holy Ghost makes order and discretion reign, the evil spirit, even when disguised as an angel of light, generally betrays himself by some grotesquery.309

Can the devil then inflame souls with the love of God?

The devil cannot inflame souls with the love of God, but he can give this impression to those who desire too strongly to feel the action of grace:

[T]he devil hath power to feign some false light or sounds, sweet smells in their noses, wonderful tastes in their mouths, and many quaint heats and burnings in their bodily breasts or in their bowels, in their backs and in their reins and in their members.

And yet in this fantasy they think that they have a restful contemplation of their God without any hindrance of vain thoughts; and surely so have they in a manner, for they be so filled with falsehood that vanity cannot disturb them. And why? Because he, that same fiend that would minister vain thoughts to them if they were in a good way–he, that same, is the chief worker in this work. And know thou right well that he would not hinder himself. The thought of God will he not put from them, for fear that he should be held suspect.310

Are similar warnings to be found in the writings of the saints?

St. Vincent Ferrer[, O.P.], in his Treatise on the Spiritual Life, teaches:

The first remedy against the spiritual temptations which the devil plants in the hearts of many persons in these unhappy times, is to have no desire to procure by prayer, meditation, or any other good work, what are called revelations, or spiritual experiences, beyond what happens in the ordinary course of things; such a desire of things which surpass the common order can have no other root or foundation but pride, presumption, a vain curiosity in what regards the things of God, and, in short, an exceedingly weak faith. It is to punish this evil desire that God abandons the soul, and permits it to fall into the illusions and temptations of the devil, who seduces it, and represents to it false visions and delusive revelations. Here we have the source of most of the spiritual temptations that prevail at the present time; temptations which the spirit of evil roots in the souls of those who may be called the precursors of Antichrist….311

Does this passage of St. Vincent apply to Pentecostalism and Charismatism?

It was precisely so that she could “speak in tongues” that Agnes Ozman asked Pastor Parham to lay hands on her. It was also to benefit from these extraordinary “charisms” manifested by the Pentecostals that the Catholics at Duquesne asked for the same laying on of hands.

Doesn’t the Charismatic Renewal accomplish some good, bringing back to the practice of Catholicism a certain number of souls and nurturing the piety of others?

The devil in his perspicacity knows how to lose a few to gain many. This is the teaching of Blessed Marie of the Incarnation:

Ecstasies, visions, and revelations are not a sure argument for the presence or assistance of God in a soul. How many have we seen who have been deceived by these sorts of visions? Even though they were the cause of the conversion or even the salvation of a few souls, it is nonetheless a strategy of the evil Spirit, who is content to lose a few to gain many.312

What advantage can the devil find in these displays of piety?

Pentecostalism not only revived and revitalized a moribund Protestantism, which risked leaving the Catholic Church an open field, but today it is allowing him to progressively take hold of Latin America313; the devil finds obvious advantages. Likewise, “Catholic” Charismatism perpetuates within the bosom of the Church the errors that are destroying it.

Isn’t the Charismatic movement against the post-conciliar desacralization of the Church?

It is precisely because it reacts against certain excesses that the Charismatic movement attracts Catholics troubled by the crisis, but only to bring them round to the conciliar errors! (in the same way that Pentecostalism brought back to Protestantism those who fled its excessive rigidity in droves).

Can you provide an example?

The Emmanuel Catholic Charismatic Community has reintroduced in many places adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the Rosary, confession, etc. These “conservative” devotions have rallied very many disoriented Catholics. But this conservatism merely serves to conserve…the conciliar novelties! Who would deny that the sentimental scenes that the Charismatics know how to stage so well are the principal crutch still holding up the new liturgy?

What is the link between Vatican II and the Charismatic movement?

Vatican II is fully responsible for the introduction of the Pentecostal rite within Catholicism. Not only because John XXIII desired a “new Pentecost,”314 or because the Pentecostal pastor David du Plessis—who had worked so effectively to infiltrate the “baptism in the Spirit” into all the Protestant confessions—was invited to the Council as an observer (he was influential in introducing several passages on the charisms into the conciliar documents)315 but it was especially the Vatican II decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, that led the Catholics of Duquesne University to receive “the baptism in the Spirit.”

How could this decree lead Catholics to “the baptism in the Spirit”?

Speaking about the communities separated from the Catholic Church, the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio states that “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.”316 It also says that “whatever is wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can contribute to our own edification.”317 These passages convinced the Catholics of Duquesne University to ask the Protestants for the imposition of hands on February 20, 1967.318

How does Charismatism promote the errors of Vatican II?

Like Vatican II, the Charismatic movement contributes to the upholding of a false ecumenism (Charismatism springs from ecumenism), to the confusion of the orders of nature and grace in every domain, to the weakening of the hierarchical authority willed by God, and to the forgetting of the ascetical side of the spiritual life.

How does Charismatism contribute to confusing nature and grace?

The desire to feel the action of grace (inherently intangible) is to expose oneself to the danger of confusing faith and religious sentiment (as the modernists do319), as well as divine inspiration and imagination, the theological virtue of hope and optimism, the life of grace and psychological well-being. Psychology, as it so happens, occupies an important place in Charismatic communities.320

What can be said, in the last analysis, about the rite of the baptism in the Spirit?

The Charismatics themselves do not quite know how to explain the rite of the baptism in the Spirit. It cannot be a sacrament since Jesus Christ instituted only seven. Thus they see it as a means of conversion, a reactivation of the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, or else a religious experience. But none of these explanations can account for the efficacy of a rite that seems to act of itself like a sacrament.

Can the baptism in the Spirit really be compared to a sacrament?

By linking spiritual effects to a specific rite, the baptism in the Spirit resembles the sacraments. But the latter transmit a grace that is not sensible (they leave us in the order of faith), while the other rite claims to make the action of God felt. Thus it can be defined as a caricature of a sacrament that transmits, not the grace of God, but a perceptible illusion of this grace. We know that the devil has the power to create this illusion in those who seek to experience physically the divine action.

Should the Charismatics be considered as possessed by the devil?

Those who receive the baptism in the Spirit are not for that reason possessed by the devil, nor even necessarily guilty of mortal sin (because of a certain ignorance of what they are doing). But they open themselves nonetheless to a diabolical influence that establishes them in an illusion, risks falsifying their spiritual life and blinding them to the crisis in the Church and to their own personal duty. Some give up the Christian life when, years later, the mirages vanish.

Should the healings and prodigies worked by Charismatics be attributed to the devil?

The devil cannot work miracles strictly speaking (which manifest an absolute power over nature), but he can produce prodigies (which use the laws of nature ingeniously). Undeniable miracles are not to be found among the Charismatics. They themselves acknowledge that a good number of healings that happen during their gatherings do not last.321 Besides, these outpourings in unknown languages during some Charismatic meetings have been identified as blasphemies by people knowing the languages who happen to be present.

Footnotes

The Pentecostalists cite the words of John the Baptist: “I have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Mk. 1:8). But in reality St. John the Baptist was speaking here of the sacrament of baptism that our Lord was going to institute and which, as distinct from St. John’s baptism—a baptism of repentance—was to give the Holy Spirit. The difference between these two baptisms is clearly stated in the Acts of the Apostles (19:3-6).

It was also in the United States that spiritualism was born, in 1847, when the Fox family girls in the village of Hyderville (in New York State) tried to make contact with the poltergeist that haunted their house. Ten years later, spiritualism counted more than ten million adepts.

Agnes Ozman had requested this laying on of hands herself based on the Acts of the Apostles (8:17-19; 9:17; 19:6).

Bothered by the personality of Charles Parham, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, some Pentecostalists today prefer to trace their movement to Seymour’s preaching in Los Angeles, April 9, 1906. That evening, the audience received the “baptism in the Spirit” and began to speak in tongues, to laugh, to cry, to sing, to clap their hands and stamp their feet so vehemently that the old house where they were meeting collapsed. Another Pentecostal illumination (analogous to the first, but independent) occurred in Great Britain in 1904 and considerably influenced French Protestantism. But “Catholic” charismatism, even in France, is linked to American Pentecostalism. See Arnaud de Lassus, Le Renouveau charismatique aujourd’hui, Supplement to Action Familiale et Scolaire, No. 162, pp. 48, 61-65, 135.

Rituale Romanum, tit. XI, c. 1, §3: “Signa autem obsidentis dæmonis sunt : ignota lingua loqui pluribus verbis….”

This is the definition given by the journal Tychique (review of the Charismatic community “Chemin Neuf” [New Pathway] in its July 1984 issue (No. 50).

The founders of other French Charismatic communities received the “baptism in the Spirit” either directly from Protestants (Gérard Croissant, called “Brother Ephraim,” founder of the Community of the Beatitudes), or through the intermediary of American Charismatics (Laurent Fabre, founder of New Pathway, received it from an American Jesuit.)

Testimonies quoted in the work by Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan, Catholic Pentecostals (Paramus, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1969), pp. 28, 64, 67.

The fouteenth-century English mystic who wrote The Cloud of Unknowing (one of the basic texts of Carthusian novices) wrote:Many wonderful gestures follow them that be deceived in this false work. Some be evermore smiling and laughing at every other word that they speak, as they were giddy girls or silly jesting jugglers lacking behaviour. Better far were a modest countenance, with sober and demure bearing of body and honest mirth in manner.I say not that all these unseemly gestures be great sins in themselves, nor yet that all those that do them be great sinners themselves. But I say that if these unseemly and disordered gestures be governors of that man that doth them, insomuch that he cannot leave them when he will: I say then that they be tokens.…And this is the only reason why I set so many of these deceits here in this writing: for why, that a ghostly worker shall prove his work by them. [English version: tr. Father Augustine Baker, O.S.B. (London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 1924), Ch. 53.]

The Cloud of Unknowing, Chapter 52. The same author explains:They conceive a false heat wrought by the fiend, their ghostly enemy, caused by their pride and their fleshliness and curiosity of wit. And yet, peradventure, they ween that it is the fire of love gotten and kindled by the grace and the goodness of the Holy Ghost….This deceit of false feeling, and of false knowing following thereon, hath diverse and wonderful variations, according to the diversity of states and the subtle conditions of them that be deceived. (Ch. 45)

St. Vincent Ferrer, “Treatise on the Spiritual Life,” in Rev. Fr. Andrew Pradel, O.P., Saint Vincent Ferrer of the Order of Preachers: His Life, Spiritual Teaching, and Practical Devotion, tr. from the French by the Rev. Fr. T. A. Dixon, O.P. (London: R. Washbourne, 1875), p. 181 [available online through Google/books].

Blessed Marie of the Incarnation (Madame Acarie), quoted by Lassus, Le renouveau charismatique aujourd’hui, p. 154. Blessed Jordan of Saxony (1190-1236) had to exorcise a certain Brother Bernard. Possessed by the devil, he preached in such a penetrating manner, with such a touching accent, such a pious air, and such profound words that he brought everyone who heard him to tears. Once the possession was discovered, however, he switched tone and pronounced only obscenities. When the Blessed asked him “Where are your beautiful speeches?” he answered: “Since my ruse has been discovered, I want to show myself as I am.” (Jordan of Saxony, O.P., Libellus de principiis ordinis praedicatorum, §110-119.)

See above, Question 1.

John XXIII, Apostolic Constitution Humane Salutis officially convening the Second Vatican Council (December 25,1961).

The Constitution Lumen Gentium (on the Church), §12:It is not only through the sacraments and the ministries of the Church that the Holy Spirit sanctifies and leads the people of God and enriches it with virtues, but, “allotting his gifts to everyone according as He wills,” He distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank. By these gifts He makes them fit and ready to undertake the various tasks and offices which contribute toward the renewal and building up of the Church, according to the words of the Apostle: “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for profit.” These charisms, whether they be the more outstanding or the more simple and widely diffused, are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation for they are perfectly suited to and useful for the needs of the Church.

The Decree Unitatis Redintegratio (on Ecumenism), §3, in The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., editor (New York: The America Press, 1966), p. 346. See above Question 47.

Ibid., §4, p. 349.

“As Catholics, they had been reassured by the Council, which had stated: ‘Whatever is wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can contribute to our own edification.’ After studying the matter, they decided to ask a group of Pentecostalists to pray for them and over them.” Mario Panciera in Présence Chrétienne, No. 12 (April 1989), cited in the Courrier de Rome (SiSiNoNo), No. 111 (February 1990), p. 2.

The confusion between faith and the religious sentiment is the fundamental error of modernism condemned by St. Pius X. See above, Question 11.

The members of the Well of Jacob community conduct P.H.R. sessions (Personality and Human Relations) in the spirit of the American psychologist Carl Rogers, who played an important role in the elaboration of the techniques of group dynamics (Lassus, Le renouveau charismatique, pp. 69-70). The New Pathway community, which recruits heavily among health professionals, proposes a medicine integrated with spirituality. The Beatitudes community is also heavily involved in psychotherapy. It is paradoxical that to perpetuate itself a movement that identifies itself as “charismatic” should need to specialize in human psychology, which the charisms of the Holy Spirit, on the contrary, should be able to move effortlessly and alone.

One of them explained it thus: “We sometimes see someone begin to be cured but then relapse several days later; that person preferred being sick and helped by others to a healthy autonomy, or else refused to make the efforts to persevere and progress towards complete health, physical, psychic, or spiritual.” (Yves Jehanno, L’Enjeu du renouveau charismatique [Paris: Fayard, 1988], p. 93.) It could not be more clearly shown that it is a question not of miracles but of simple prodigies (which help nature to produce an effect, but do not have power over it).

[*The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church*][1] by [Fr. Matthias Gaudron][16] was edited in collaboration with the [Dominican Fathers of Avrillé][17].
Fr. Gaudron was trained by the Society of St. Pius X, whose seminaries' curriculum adheres to the saintly pope's admonition in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi §45

that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. […] And let it be clearly understood above all things that the scholastic philosophy We prescribe is that which the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas Aquinas] has bequeathed to us […]. In seminaries where they may have been neglected let […] Professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment.

(cf. the magisterial quotes in Lumbreras, O.P.'s intro. to the 24 Thomistic Theses)
The Dominicans of Avrillé are Thomists in the "Strict Observance Thomism" sense, too.
#Strict Observance Thomism vs. Resourcement Thomism
Yves Congar, Marie-Dominique Chenu, et al. were adherents of the Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology) / Resourcement Thomism, which asserts that St. Thomas's philosophy and theology doesn't have perennial value but can only be understood in his medieval historical context. It was condemned in Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis.
Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. condemned the Nouvelle Théologie movement in his 1946 Angelicum paper "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?" His answer: back to the heresy of Modernism.
Congar supported ecumenism and the Charismatic Renewal movement, too. He said: "The charismatic renewal is a grace for the Church."
From The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church ch. 3 "The Church's Magisterium" §22:

Who is Yves Congar?

Yves Congar (Dominican, 1904-95) was the father of the “new ecclesiology,” that is, the new way of conceiving the Church. A disciple of Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenu, he took classes at the Protestant Faculty of Strasbourg just after being ordained to the priesthood. He decided to consecrate his whole life to the rapprochement of the Church with the heretics and schismatics, going so far as to claim:

Luther is one of the greatest religious geniuses of all history. In this regard I put him on the same level as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, or Pascal. In a certain way, he is even greater. He entirely rethought Christianity....I studied Luther a lot. Scarcely a month goes by without my revisiting his writings.54

Subject to strict surveillance after 1947, (he would later say: “From the beginning of 1947 until the end of 1956, I experienced nothing but an uninterrupted series of denunciations, warnings, restrictive or discriminatory measures, and mistrustful interventions”55) he cleaved to the same ideas (in his intimate diary, he relates that twice while at Rome he went to urinate against the door of the Holy Office as a sign of revolt!56). Nevertheless, Yves Congar was summoned as an expert to Vatican II by John XXIII and greatly influenced the Council. John Paul II named him cardinal in October 1994.

**Footnotes**

Congar, Une Vie pour la Vérité (Paris: Centurion, 1975), p. 59. Pope Adrian VII, in the Bull Satis et Plus, designated Luther as “the apostle of the Antichrist,” and St. Alphonsus Liguori called him “a baneful monster from hell.”
Informations Catholiques Internationales, June 1, 1964, p. 28.
On May 17, 1946, and then on November 27, 1954. See Yves Congar, Journal d’un théologien (1946-56), presented and annotated by Étienne Fouilloux (Paris: Cerf, 2001), pp. 88, 293.


What happens to the Vicar of Christ when Christ returns? The Pope is the Vicar of Christ according to the Catholic church.

  A vicar (/ˈvɪkər/; Latin: vicarius) is a representative, deputy or
  substitute; anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior
  (compare "vicarious" in the sense of "at second hand").

According to Papal teachings, what happens to the Pope when Christ returns?  What if the Pope (who is human and can/does make mistakes) doesn't believe that he has returned?

Catholics do not hold to a theology in which there is an allotted sequence of time (such as a 'seven year tribulation' or a 'one thousand year millennial reign of Christ' after the said 'seven year tribulation') for souls to either believe or not believe in the return of Christ. Pope John Paul II referred to such ideas as 'millenarian fantasies', bereft of both common sense and susceptible to biblical cherry-picking. This would mean that the the pope's belief in the return of Christ would have little to do with the pope himself and more to do with the nature of Christ's return.

Matthew 24:29-31

  ... and then shall all tribes of the earth mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty. And he shall send his angels with a trumpet, and a great voice: and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the farthest parts of the heavens to the utmost bounds of them.

It seems clear that Christ's second coming fulfills the other half of Jewish prophecies that suggest Christ comes in great power and as a king, in which all nations believe. This suggests that 'belief' in Christ, a matter dependent upon the Church and subjective reasoning, shall be universal since Christ is in his power and glory present to the world at this time. This power and kingship was revealed to a select few in Christ's resurrection appearances. It is upon these appearances and testimonies that the Church is founded in faith. The Church typically thus holds that the 'one thousand millennial reign of Christ' is occurring presently in the Church itself. The number, in this case, is not being taken literally, but figuratively (as much of Revelations is typically interpreted by the Church).

Regardless of these points, it is generally understood that the nature of Christ's coming is to gather the elect and to prepare the world for its final judgement. What exactly this means for the structure of the Church as we know it we cannot say. But we can say what shall vaguely happen to the general population that the Church just happens to be a part of. The population shall endure a final judgement, which is prepared by the second coming of Christ. We are given a few verses that indicate the nature of the second coming and how it relates to the final judgement:

Matthew 13:37-40

  He answered and said unto them, He that sows the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Matthew 25:31-35

  But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. "All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

Romans 14:11

  It is written: 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.'

There seems to be judgement due to deeds that are already done, in which there is no opportunity for further justification (hence the final judgement), and judgement due to souls that have little ability to not believe in the greatness of God (though this of course is not justifying belief). Thus, in terms of what happens to a specific man (which the pope is), we are not granted the opportunity to understand, especially since that said pope is not even a real person yet. To assume we could know the judgement God has in mind for a hypothetical person is rather silly, since the Church firmly states that the judgement of a soul's internal and eternal state is not necessarily in our power to discern about any real person.

We can conclude that there are probably a limited amount of possibilities for such a man in this judgement: he can be of the elect or he cannot be. But those two possibilities are about as in depth as we are going to get in terms of knowing what's coming down the pike for a specific man. Although there might be speculation regarding what happens to the office of pope, I think such speculations are rather unfounded and bordering on being entirely irrelevant to what we actually know. This is not to mention how vague and nearly nonexistent the specifics of how Christ shall prepare the world for the last judgement are. Thus, talking about ideas and people in the context of their relationship to the coming of Christ can only be vaguely understood in terms of the general final judgement; specifics and further conversations veer towards foolish banter. In short, the most we can know about the papal office in terms of Christ's second coming, and hence in terms of the last judgement, is that the specific pope, just like the rest of us, shall either see his name written in the book of life or find himself bound to hell.


All this is yours, but this one is mine I have a vague notion of a quote that says something about offering everything freely, but reserving some small part as absolutely off-limits.

I seem to recall the phrasing was short and sweet. I can't put my finger on it, but I'm quite sure I've seen allusions to this used as a literary device, perhaps humorously. Is there something like that in the Bible? How does it go and what was it about?

Genesis 2:16-17 is the closest that comes immediately to my mind. (quoted from NIV):

  16And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”


From a Trinitarian perspective, does the term 'only begotten Son' make sense outside of the concept of the incarnation? From a Trinitarian perspective, does the term 'only begotten Son' make sense outside of the concept of the incarnation? If so, how? If not, why not?

The Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed states (in part):

  We believe...in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds... (emphasis added)

My question in extended form: Is the 'begotten-ness' eternal if and only if the incarnation is viewed from an eternal perspective as well (our sense of what begotten means would consequentially be inextricably linked to the incarnation) or is there some logic in conceiving that somehow a temporal locus of the incarnation imparts a distinction between it and 'eternally begotten'?

I imagine this is the sort of issue Thomas Aquinas would have considered - if so can someone direct me to how he addresses the issue.

I am also interested in the views of any other relevant trinitarian theologians as well.

This question: Is there any proof from the Bible that the second Person of the Trinity was the Only-begotten Son of the Father before His incarnation? is related but distinct.

Aquinas addresses the question from different angles a number of places in the Summa Theologica, in various parts of the "Treatise on the Most Holy Trinity" (First Part, Questions 27–43).
The fundamental question is answered more or less directly in Question 27, "The Procession of the Divine Persons". Article 2 of this question, "Whether any procession in God can be called generation?", talks about what it might mean to say that the Son "is begotten by" the Father. Thomas' answer is:

... We must observe that generation has a twofold meaning: one common to everything subject to generation and corruption; in which sense generation is nothing but change from non-existence to existence. In another sense it is proper and belongs to living things; in which sense it signifies the origin of a living being from a conjoined living principle; and this is properly called birth.
Not everything of that kind, however, is called begotten; but, strictly speaking, only what proceeds by way of similitude. ... the procession of the Word in God is generation; for He proceeds by way of intelligible action, which is a vital operation:—from a conjoined principle (as above described):—by way of similitude, inasmuch as the concept of the intellect is a likeness of the object conceived:—and exists in the same nature, because in God the act of understanding and His existence are the same, as shown above. Hence the procession of the Word in God is called generation; and the Word Himself proceeding is called the Son.

The Son, in other words, is "begotten" not in virtue of the Incarnation, but because the Son is the Word of God proceeding from, and in that sense "begotten by" (one could say "generated by"), the Father.
There are a few other places where Aquinas discusses different aspects of the question (such as "Is it appropriate to call the Father 'unbegotten'?"), but this is the clearest exposition of Aquinas' actual position, and it appears from his discussions as a whole to be a standard Trinitarian answer.


How can Jesus rule the earth during the second coming, if he is only in Jerusalem? I don't understand, how Jesus comes down in the clouds and rules on the mount of olives, how can the people in other countries see him? I know the clouds all will see him, but once he actually steps on earth, how will I see him or be with him? Do we all go to Jerusalem?

Put aside the question of whether the Jerusalem which Jesus will enter and rule from is:

1) The Jerusalem we know (but fixed up)

2) A new physical city that descends fully built from Heaven, as described in Revelation

3) An image of the Church, where the people of God are the walls and buildings to be inhabited.

How can Jesus be seen by the world?

1) Television and the internet, via TVs, cell phones, tablets and watches which are in the possession of most people today.

2) Supernatural means. If man is capable of creating the internet, God is capable of even greater marvels.

How can Jesus rule the world?

1) Delegation. At his disposal, Jesus has:

a. angels. Matthew 26:53 says:

  Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my
  disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

b. the church, whom he promised will judge the world. The apostles will sit on thrones. 1 Corinthians 6:2 says:

  Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if
  you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial
  cases?

Luke 22:29-30 says:

  And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,
  so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on
  thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

2) Action at a distance. In Matthew 8, Jesus heals a centurion's servant while that servant was sick in bed miles away. He does not need to be physically present to accomplish the Father's will.


Does the Catholic Church rank the cardinal virtues? The three theological virtues which serve as the basic foundation for all others are faith, hope, and love. The cardinal virtues which build upon them are temperance, justice, wisdom, and courage.

Does the Catholic church have or condone any sort of official ranking system for the virtues? There are numerous minor virtues which flow out from the cardinal virtues- is there a map or chart which organizes and shows the causal connection?

From the Recapitulatio of Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s De Virtutibus Theologicis (p. 20), a commentary on St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II, he gives the following categorization of the virtues (virtutes), following the organization of St. Thomas's treatment of the virtues in his Summa:

Here's a rough translation:

The Virtues

Theological (regarding the end)

in the will

virtue uniting us to God according to the beloved itself: CHARITY
virtue tending to God desired by us: HOPE

in the intellect

virtue knowing God according to the authority of God revealing: FAITH

Cardinal (regarding the means)

in the reason

regarding the right direction of the acts of the moral virtues: PRUDENCE

in the appetite

rational

regarding the operations toward another, rendering according to strict duty: JUSTICE

sensitive

regarding the passions

withdrawing from it what reason dictates (for fear): FORTITUDE
impelling toward something against reason (for sensual desires): TEMPERANCE

Prudence is indeed first among the cardinal virtues because it it deals with the "right direction of the acts of the moral virtues." Thomistic thought holds that "The will follows, does not precede, the intellect" (Thesis 21 of the 24 Thomistic Theses.)

St. Thomas Aquinas also wrote a Disputed Questions on the Virtues, and he distinguished three types of virtues—intellectual, moral, and theological—in Summa I-II q. 57.

The intellectual virtues are divided as follows (cf. Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought ch. 47 art. 2 "Classification of the Virtues"):

Intellectual Virtues

Speculative Order

Wisdom
Science (knowledge)
Understanding

Practical Order

Prudence
Art


What is the basis for arguing that the gospel has already been preached to "all nations"? In Matthew 24:14 (cf. Mark 13:10), Jesus says:

  And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Many Christians understand this to be a sign of the end times: that Christ's Second Coming will only occur after every "nation" (or people group) on earth has heard the gospel. There are many unreached peoples around the world, the argument often goes, so Jesus won't return until this missions work is accomplished.

Is this the only way to understand this verse?  Specifically, if this verse is a true prophecy of Jesus, what biblical arguments are used to show that it has already been fulfilled?

Some argue that "throughout the whole world" here is best interpreted as an

  indication of the universal offer of the gospel to all nations, i.e. outside the confines of the Jewish community.

This is possible since the literal meaning of the word for "world" here is "the inhabited area," and often indicated simply the Roman Empire or the known world.1,2

Two verses in particular are often used as evidence of this alternative interpretation. Colossians 1:5–6 reads:

  Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and increasing (ESV)

Colossians 1:23 is even more clear:

  if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister. (NKJV)

Paul's language here and elsewhere (cf. Romans 1:8, Romans 10:18) is seen by some to be a confirmation of the words of Jesus, that the gospel had spread "universally" during the apostolic age.

Preterist J. Stuart Russell also sees a parallel passage in Matthew 10:23:

  Truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

This he sees as consistent with Matthew 24:14, and argues that 10:23 refers to evangelizing Israel just as 24:14 refers to evangelizing the Roman empire.  He concludes:

  The wide diffusion of the gospel, both in the land of Israel and throughout the Roman empire, is sufficient to justify the prediction of our Lord [in Matthew 24:14].3

References and notes

R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew
Many commentators take the passage this way, including Albert Barnes, People's New Testament, John Wesley, and Thomas Coke.  Wayne Grudem mentions this understanding as a possibility in his Systematic Theology, 1101–2.
The Parousia, 71


If one divorces is it considered adultery to marry again no matter what the circumstances were for this decision? Jesus teaching on marriage said:

  Matthew 19:9 (NKJV)
  9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Yet regarding divorce Paul writes says:

  1 Corinthians 7:15 (NKJV)
  15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.

What church doctrines touch on the issue of divorce and take into consideration both of these verses? Specifically, how would each doctrine apply to a case where one partner gets saved after being married?

If there are different interpretations of these text, what would each doctrine say about my case? I was saved after I was married. My husband was not happy with my Christian faith. He decided to file for divorce.

What teachings need to be considered in order to determine whether I am no longer “under bondage” as it states in the 1 Corinthians reference or if I would be committing adultery if I wanted to, at some point, marry again?

An important consideration is the audience to which each of these statements was made.  Jesus was speaking to Jewish people living under the Law of Moses prior to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.  Paul, however, was speaking to believers in Jesus Christ, who may have been Jewish, but had a spouse who was not a believer.

From a purely biblical perspective and very strict adherence to biblical standards, a Christian is bound to the marriage vows until they are dissolved, either by death or marital unfaithfulness--whether before or after divorce.

A key thing to note is that once a couple is divorced, the departing spouse commits marital unfaithfulness upon either remarriage or a sexual relationship with a new partner.  At that point, the requirement of marital faithfulness has been met, and the other partner would then be free to remarry.

So, a believing spouse whose partner departs is freed after a divorce when the departing spouse engages in marital unfaithfulness with another partner.

Paul adds the exemption of a departing unbelieving spouse as well.  This condition would not have existed at the time of Jesus' word.  The New Covenant went into effect upon the resurrection of Jesus, which then gave rise to divisions between believing and unbelieving partners.


Do any Christian traditions exist as to what type of animal skin did God clothe Adam and Eve with? I must be alone to understand that since man failed to listen to God more than the female that both failed to be innocent, Therefore not being as lambs in spiritual dogma they must have been dressed with goat skins. A more coarse material than the softness of lamb skins. An irritating material which was why Moses said: The women who's heart stirred them up in wisdom spun goats hair. The dark color of sackcloth worn by men of God in penance was a reflection of the darkness of Adam and Eves heart when God banished them from Eden and they mourned in tears as they fled. Abraham conquered love for God and kept Gods command secret from his wife, his servants, and even his own son Isaac. Likewise Gods Ram substitute was a fully grown lamb which took the place of Isaac. Men of over sensual desires are called goatish in the dictionary because goats eat everything just like Adam wanted what was good fruit and fruit that made the heart void.

I have yet to find any satisfactory 'tradition' which adequately explains the absence of designation of the actual animal used by God in this instance. There is a lot of conjecture expressed about the matter but none that I have yet found to be accurate, only superstitious.

The traditions which I have found all attempt to improvise on what is not actually expressed by the scripture - and therefore miss the whole point of the allegory.

There is no information given in scripture as to the species which God used in order to clothe Adam and Eve with coats (kethoneth, long sleeved tunic, Strong 3801 ) of skins. It was an undefined species. The lack of information is highlighted by not being there.

  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. [Genesis 3:21, KJV.]

My own understanding of the lack of information is that what was to clothe humanity in the future did not - yet - exist. Therefore it could not - yet - be expressed. Therefore it is left un-defined in allegory.

That which clothes humanity unto righteousness is the humanity in which Christ came, as Head of a new humanity.

'Clothing' - the 'robe of righteousness' mentioned by the prophet Isaiah (61:10), and mentioned by the Apostle John in Revelation, the 'righteousnesses of the saints' being 'fine linen' (19:8) - is a matter of clothing the human soul with a new humanity, in righteousness.

  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. [I Corinthians 15:22, KJV.]

In order to be so clothed, in the 'skin' of Another, that 'other' must die, in sacrifice.


How to reconcile the Didache's instruction with Apostolic succession? As it pertains primarily to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and other large denominations that not only lay claim to an unbroken successive line, but who also put significant emphasis on it:

The Didache instructs congregations to "elect" Bishops and Deacons "for themselves."

  Chap. XV.

  Elect therefore for yourselves Bishops and Deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful, and
  approved; for they too minister to you the ministry of the Prophets
  and Teachers.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/didache.htm

My initial understanding of this would be that these communities are in charge of [democratically?] naming their own clergy. That in itself isn't terribly contradictory sounding, but there's no mention of any formal process or Church approval -- let alone a consecration of the "elected" by the Church. The omission of such formality in what appears to be a very formal and detailed early "Church Handbook" seems to call into question the notion that a strict Apostolic Succession was present in the early Church.

In the very least, one might wonder whether some congregations in the early Church did elect their own Bishops, without pre-approval or education by the Church, blurring the line of succession.

How do we adequately square the Didache's instruction with Apostolic Succession?

Henry Chadwick writes about this in his book The Early Church (Penguin, 1993), on page 50.

First he explains that the role of the "bishop" (episkopos) evolved to be a primus among the elders (presbyters) in the late apostolic or early post-apostolic era. But it would take a while until the bishop received a more formal recognition as a separate tier of leadership. The writings of Ignatios of Antioch thus do not describe a common practice at his time, but something he recommends, and that gradually became accepted as a way to guarantee unity. The pressure from gnostic movements was the primary influencing factor.

The episkopos thus remained a presbyter as well. The first thing that differentiated bishops from other elders, was the power to ordain. He would be the primary layer on of hands, when a new presbyter was ordained, though others might join in.

But when a new episkopos was ordained, all of the other presbyters would lay hands on him, though "some variations in custom appears".

  At Alexandria we are told they did so, until the third century and
  there is no mention of visiting bishops; but in Rome by the time of
  Hippolytos (early 3d century presbyter) only the bishops who came from other
  churches laid hands on the one consecrated, the chief consecrator being chosen
  by the bishops themselves... The actual choice of the candidate rested with
  the whole congregation... Election by the people likewise played a large part
  in the ordination of presbyters and deacons.

This of course is a secondary source, but from my reading of other books on Church History, the explanation is non-controversial.


Are the gifts of the Holy Spirit still active today? In first Corinthians and other places, there is a lot of talk about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. For example:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. (NIV 1 Corinthians 12:7-11)
We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith;  if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach;  if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.(Romans 12:6-8)

Were these gifts just for those early Christians, or are some or all of them still active in some churches today? If only some how can we tell which ones?

Short Answer: There are all sorts of opinions on this topic, but I will present what I believe to be the most clear and coherent argument - from Scripture, logic, history, and observation - which is that the gifts have always been "offered", but not always "accepted".  Thus, it can be seen that both the cessationist and non-cessationist views are built upon some truth: the former, historical; the latter, doctrinal.

I grew up in conservative churches (Nazarene, etc.), got "saved" and "baptized in the Spirit" in a Latter-Rain Movement church, spent some time in an Assemblies of God church, and am currently serving in ministry at a Baptist church.  I have heard, accepted, and believed each of the major positions at various points, and now feel that I understand the topic well enough to make a claim about the truth.

Scriptural Groundwork

First, "receiving the Holy Spirit" is the same as "the baptism in the Holy Spirit."  (See here for full justification.)  As such, there are not two classes of Christians (the "saved" and the "charismatic"); if you are born again, you have been baptized in the Spirit.

Second, this baptism is a promise to all believers for all time:

  And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” -Acts 2:38-39

This passage is in the context of an explanation of the "baptism" of Acts 2, not the isolated (and often misinterpreted) statement of John 20:22.

Third, the gifts are given according to the will of the Spirit, and are exercised according to the obedience of the individual.  That is to say, if you don't speak in tongues (for instance), either the Spirit hasn't given you that gift, or you aren't walking in it.

Fourth, the gifts did "cease" (as far as we can tell) after the time of the Apostles.  There may be exceptions, but let's face it, the scene in Acts was not the scene in AD 500.

However, it would not be correct to say that "because the gifts ceased, it must have been because God wanted them to cease."  That's just bad logic.
It would also not be correct to say that "because the gifts ceased, they are not for today."  It is entirely possible that the gifts are not in widespread operation today because modern Christians are unwilling to step out and look like a fool (by claiming to have a message from God, for example.)

A More Subjective Argument

To argue that "the Spiritual gifts are not for us today", one would have to show that the Spirit does not want believers to move in these gifts today.  Since the gifts were given to empower the church for ministry, build the church, and edify the church, I think it is strange to argue that they were only needed during the time of the Apostles; the job is not yet complete!  We still need His help!  The argument becomes stranger when we consider that there is not a single passage of Scripture to support this!  If we were to just look at Scripture, and ignore history for a moment, it would seem clear the gifts were intended for every generation.

The confusion comes in when we look at history and ask "why do they appear to have ceased?"

Some claim that God didn't want them in operation anymore, but this argument is unfounded.
The alternative is: the church began to reject the gifts of the Spirit - or at least, those gifts which were most uncomfortable!  (People generally don't claim that "teaching" or "evangelism" or "exhortation" has ceased... but when it comes to "healings" or "tongues" or "prophecy" they get nervous.)

With all of that "reasoning" aside, I can testify personally to the fact that all of the gifts are in operation today, but are not in widespread operation.  There are some who give themselves over to the Spirit when He leads them to lay hands on a person for healing; some who will prophesy; some who will give with liberality.  But let's face it - this stuff is 100% rejected by modern post-Enlightenment (humanist) thinking.  It's not "science" so it can't be true.  But it is true.

However, I can also testify that there are many "charismatic" things going on that are driven more by emotion and mimicry than the Spirit.  If a "prophecy" about the future doesn't come true, it wasn't coming from a "Spiritual gift" in the first place.  If a person can "pray in tongues" before they are even in relationship with God, it wasn't coming from a "Spiritual gift".  (Not to mention some of the made-up gifts modern churches have invented.)


Was the first gospel written in Hebrew? I found this website that basically says that some if not all of the gospel could have been written in Hebrew.

Is this theory supported today and by whom? Scholars and school of though would be appreciated.

I know that the article quote sources, but they are getting old (1991 for the earliest). Is there more recent development on this question.

Jesus would have spoken Aramaic which is descended from Hebrew, but is not the same language.

This is evidenced by the fact that in the few places where Jesus words are left untranslated, he is speaking in Aramaic—Abba, father. And Talitha cum (Daughter arise)

Also, whether or not Matthew is the first gospel is a matter of some debate. The Greisbach hypothesis, for example, suggests that Mark is the first Gospel, from which Matthew and Luke drew in order to flesh out their accounts. If Mark is the first Gospel, then its main witness, Peter, would probably have spoken to Mark in Aramaic.

Many manuscripts of the time would be dictated to an emaneusis—a scribe who would listen and then write. Since Aramaic was such a limited language, it is not altogether unlikely that the emaneusis would have listened to what was said by the author, but written it down in Greek. Greek was the lingua Franca of the old world, even if not the language that people spoke. It would be akin to English today.

An analogy might be as if you were an obscure Swedish band in the 70s, but then you had an idea for a song you wanted to get out to the whole world. Your thinking process would be in Swedish, a few drafts might even be in Swedish, but the translation would be so early that everybody would have thought of it in English.

So too with Koine Greek. The area may have spoken Aramaic, but the world spoke Greek. As such, you'd use Greek.


Do Evangelical Christians interpret James 1:2 and Romans 5:3 to mean that we should enjoy our problems? Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds,

  James 1:2 (NIV)

  We can rejoice, too, when we run into problems and trials, for
  we know that they help us develop endurance.

  Romans 5:3 (NLT)

Does these verses tell us that we should enjoy our problems?

How do Evangelical Christians interpret these passages?

Evangelical theologians teach that these two passages do not instruct us to "enjoy" trials in the sense of getting pleasure out of them.  Rather, we are to have joy despite the trials, because we recognize them to be profitable.
On James 1:2, Thomas Constable writes that the trials themselves are not the source of joy, but rather what they produce:

James counseled his readers to view the "various" kinds of "trials" and tribulations they were encountering in their lives as opportunities for growth. He did not urge them to rejoice that they were undergoing trials. He did not advocate a masochistic attitude that unnaturally rejoices in painful experiences. Rather, he commanded them to view their trials as profitable—even if unpleasant.1

James Burton Coffman similarly writes that James is not suggesting that Christians "pretend that they get joy out of things which are disagreeable" but rather that they view the trial as "an opportunity to gain new strength through overcoming."2
Regarding Romans 5:3, Constable writes that we have joy in difficulties for a reason, and Tim Keller makes this explicit, focusing on the word "in":

Christians, however, rejoice in suffering.  That means there is no joy in the actual troubles themselves.  God hates the pain and troubles of this life and so should we.  Rather, a Christian knows that suffering will have beneficial results.  A Christian is not a stoic, who faces suffering by just gritting their teeth.  Christians "look through" the suffering to their certainties.3

Constable's Notes on James 1
Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible, James 1
Keller, Romans 1–7 For You, p112