Did Mary desire to be the Mother of the prophesied Messiah? Before the Annunciation by St. Gabriel, did Mary desire to be the Mother of the prophesied Messiah?

St. Alphonsus of Liguori argues in Glories of Mary p. 484 that she valued her virginity more than being a mother, but she valued doing God's will above all:

  An author* says, that so much did the Blessed Virgin love this virtue [of virginity], that, to preserve it, she would have been willing to have renounced even the Dignity of Mother of God. This we may conclude from her answer to the archangel [St. Gabriel], "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" [Lk. 1:34] and from the words she afterwards added, "Be it done to me according to thy word," signifying that she gave her consent on the condition that as the angel had assured her, she should become a Mother only by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost.

*Thought to be "the author of Oratio in natalem Christi (possibly Gregory of Nyssa); PG, 46, 1140", according to Philip J. Donnelly, S.J., S.T.D., on p. 241n59 of his "The Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God" in Carol, Juniper B., O.F.M.'s Mariology (vol. 2)

Philip J. Donnelly, S.J., argues against this view (ibid. p. 241):

  This, however, by no means implies, as some ancient Greek ecclesiastical writers asserted,59 that Mary set her virginity absolutely above the incomparable privilege of her divine maternity, and that she equivalently laid down to God the following condition: "I shall become the Mother of God, only if I may remain a virgin." Such a view is not to Mary's honor; it is in reality a denigration of her sanctity; it minimizes the dignity of matrimony as a divinely instituted and holy manner of life; it leaves out of consideration the supreme dominion of God, who could command any human being to make use of matrimony without any loss of sanctity.60 Rather, Mary was prepared to submit herself completely to the manifest will of God, even to the use of matrimony; she merely wished to be certain that the renunciation of her resolution, made initially under the inspiration of grace would be conformed to God's will; this explains very probably why she used the present (ou gignosko, "since I do not know man" [Lk. 1:34]) rather than the future [tense].61

Appendix 4 of Scheeben's Mariology (vol. 1), pp. 249-252, argues that before St. Gabriel explained how she could be both a mother and a virgin, she thought he was asking her if she would be the mother "of an eminent earthly king", not the mother of God. Certainly, she knew the prophesy that the promised Messiah would be born of a virgin (Is. 7:14), so it's conceivable she didn't yet know he was asking her to be the Mother of God.

In any case, she valued doing God's will the most, and He wanted her to become His Mother.


Is my view of the Trinity accurate, and what is exactly the role of the Holy Spirit I am an Atheist from a Muslim background, I would like to know exactly how do Christians think of Trinity (Especially the Holy Spirit)?

Most Muslims see "Trinity" as three separate persons or entities (God, Christ and the Holy Spirit), although they truly believe (according to the Qur'an) that Jesus is a prophet (human), and that he was supported by the Holy Spirit (Ruh Al-Qudus روح القدس in Arabic, or Ruah Ha-Qodesh רוח הקודש in Hebrew).

The reason Muslims think Christians believe in three Gods, is because Qur'an says so, although it does not necessarily reflect what the doctrine of Trinity stands for.

Anyway, the way I think of it personally is as if God is a man (the father), deliberately controlling the movement of a puppet that looks like a human body (Jesus). And that Jesus is not independent of God as a person, in my own understanding of this idea, is that Jesus and God are actually one person, it is just that unlike other humans, who control their own bodies, Jesus is controlled directly by God Himself.

That is an analogy of what I understand when a Christian tries to explain it.

But I still fail to understand the role of the Holy Spirit? is it like the strings used to connect the Body (Jesus, Son) with the Soul (God, Father) ?

Am I wrong here? Thank you.

Note : Although the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Qur'an, it does not give a definition or account for the word. The Qur'an only states that God sent Jesus as a human prophet, and that He supported him with/through the Holy Spirit.

By the way, there is also a Hadith in Islam, that states that all humans sin, except Jesus.

The Trinity declares that there is only the One Being of God.  A Divine Being is not to be confused with a human being.  Also, God is Spirit.  Before Jesus came to earth to born as a human, he existed in heaven alongside God (the Father) and the Holy Spirit.  John chapter 1 verses 1 to 3 and 14 explain it this way:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.  We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Before Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, by the Holy Spirit, he was the eternal and uncreated Word of God.  The Word became flesh and dwelt with us.  That’s Jesus.  So the first thing to understand about the Trinity is that Jesus was no mere mortal, born of a woman, but came from heaven to earth to do the will of his Father, who sent him.  His humanity (physical body and nature) came from Mary but his divinity came from his pre-human being.  He was fully human and also fully divine.
Genesis chapter 1 describes how, at the creation of the heavens and the earth, God said “Let us make man in our image.”  God was not speaking to the angels (who already existed) because humans are not made in the image of created angels.  God (the Father) was speaking to the Word (the pre-mortal Son) and to the Holy Spirit.  Here is a brief extract from an article that explains it:

On the last day of creation, God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). Thus, He finished His work with a “personal touch.” God formed Adam from the dust and gave him life by sharing His own breath (Genesis 2:7). Accordingly, humanity is unique among all God’s creations, having both a material body and an immaterial soul/spirit.
The image of God (Latin: imago dei) refers to the immaterial part of humanity. It sets human beings apart from the animal world, fits them for the dominion God intended them to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables them to commune with their Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

Within the One Being of God subsist the three persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Not three Gods.  Here is a brief description of the roles each play within the Godhead:

The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.
The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); divine revelation (John 1:1, 16:12-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.
The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus, the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

To get a better understanding of how Christians view the Holy Spirit, please read this: https://www.gotquestions.org/is-the-Holy-Spirit-God.html
The reason Jesus never sinned was because he was not merely a human born of a man and a woman.  He was the eternal and uncreated Word of God who agreed to come to earth to save humanity from sin.  His death and resurrection mean that our sins can be forgiven and we can look forward to spending eternity with the Lord God.  No human could atone for the sins of the world.  But Jesus did – because he was God incarnate, God with us in human form.  It’s a big subject, but this article explains it well: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sinless.html
The Muslim view of Jesus does not agree with the Biblical view of Jesus.  That’s perhaps the reason why your view of the Trinity is not right.  Good question, and I hope you get some good answers.


What are the root causes of the recent clerical sexual abuse scandals within the Catholic Church? What are the root causes of the recent clerical sexual abuse scandals within the Catholic Church?
A comment to this question (Is it known which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of Catholic priests who were accused of sexual abuse in the USA?) lead me to ask this one:

Considering clerical abuse is a worldwide phenomenon that crosses all denominations, looking for a few seminaries as the root cause seems misguided.

Protestant churches have no requirement of celibacy, but they are not immune to these vices either.
What are the origins of this sinful phenomenon within the clergy of the Catholic Church.

The percentage of Catholic priests who indulge in sexual abuse may not be on higher side compared with that of doctors, teachers , policemen et al   who have direct interaction with their clients in fiduciary capacity or otherwise.   But unfortunately, the news value of alleged abuse by Catholic priests  is much more than the other cases put together. The simple reason is that  malpractice of priests is an affront to the very trust invested on them by the faithful. Children and the young alike choose to go unaccompanied, to the private room of a priest more easily than they would, to that of a doctor or teacher. Who will tell them that priests are also made of flesh and blood like every other human being  is ? It is the parents who miserably fail in their duty in this aspect. The Church needs to cultivate a collective consciousness towards the vice.


If Jesus was Emmanuel why was he named Yeshua? It was foretold that a virgin shall give birth and the new born will be named Emmanuel then why was Jesus named "Yeshua". (Isaiah 7:10) Please explain...

You are confusing titles with proper names.

Yesh'ua (Heb.) is rendered "Jesus" or "Joshua" today. It is his given name. It means "Jehovah Saves."
Christos (Greek) is a title translating the Hebrew "Messiah" or "Annointed One."  It highlights his annointed and special status.
Immanuel (Heb.) is a simple Hebrew construction that says "God is with us."  It is as much sign as name. It signifies that in coming to Earth, God has chosen to dwell among us.

It would be akin to asking "Why is Obama referred to as POTUS when his parents called him Barak and his friends call him Barry?"  Each title, name, and construct reveals more information about the identity of this man, or in the case of Jesus, this God who became Man and dwelt among us.


Were those who perished in the flood of Noah eternally damned? The following passages from Genesis led me to think that all who perished at the time of Noah were cast into Sheol to await the great white throne judgment.
Gen 6:5-7,17 KJV

5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved  him at his heart.
7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all
flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the
earth shall die.

What do theologians say about it?

Interesting that it is that passage that leads you to the conclusion that " all who perished at the time of Noah were cast into Sheol to await the great white throne judgment". I say that because there is another passage which explicitly agrees with your conclusion!

  For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) – if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.

2 Peter 2:4-9

We don't know for sure if they were eternally damned - only that they are being held for judgement. However, it is logical to think that they were / will be damned because they are being "held for punishment" and because they did not go to heaven when they died.


Does Total Consecration to Mary imply a supernatural wisdom? Pope St. John Paul II famously promoted Total Consecration including taking "Totus Tuus" as his motto.
Does a practice of Total Consecration, sincerely pursued, entail receiving any special degree of wisdom or safeguards over decisions? E.g. Does Pope St. John Paul II’s total consecration say anything about the quality of the acts of his papacy? Does it say anything about the merit of the soul if later canonized? (i.e. Do they become a "Great Saint"?)

Does Total Consecration to Mary imply a supernatural wisdom?
Generally speaking I believe it does imply a supernatural wisdom coming from God.
The Total Consecration to Mary of Pope St. John Paul II is based on the works of St. Louis de Montfort, notably True Devotion to Mary, which he often mentioned in various talks and communications.
St. Louis de Montfort (1673 – 1716) had a profound devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and wrote extensively on the virtues of Our Lady, what true devotion to her consists in, and how the faithful need to turn to her as the way to her Son, Jesus Christ.
In his classic writings (The Secret of Mary, The Secret of the Rosary, and True Devotion to Mary) St. Louis de Montfort recommends that the faithful formally consecrate themselves to the Blessed Mother.

True Devotion to Mary
Here follows the effects this devotion has on souls as explained by St. Louis de Montfort. In seems to follow that such a Consecration to Jesus through Mary will make one a “great saint” as you asked.

My dear friend, be sure that if you remain faithful to the interior and exterior practices of this devotion which I will point out, the following effects will be produced in your soul:

1. Knowledge of our unworthiness
By the light which the Holy Spirit will give you through Mary, his faithful spouse, you will perceive the evil inclinations of your fallen nature and how incapable you are of any good apart from that which God produces in you as Author of nature and of grace. As a consequence of this knowledge you will despise yourself and think of yourself only as an object of repugnance. You will consider yourself as a snail that soils everything with its slime, as a toad that poisons everything with its venom, as a malevolent serpent seeking only to deceive. Finally, the humble Virgin Mary will share her humility with you so that, although you regard yourself with distaste and desire to be disregarded by others, you will not look down slightingly upon anyone.
2. A share in Mary's faith

Mary will share her faith with you. Her faith on earth was stronger than that of all the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and saints. Now that she is reigning in heaven she no longer has this faith, since she sees everything clearly in God by the light of glory. However, with the consent of almighty God she did not lose it when entering heaven. She has preserved it for her faithful servants in the Church militant. Therefore the more you gain the friendship of this noble Queen and faithful Virgin the more you will be inspired by faith in your daily life. It will cause you to depend less upon sensible and extraordinary feelings. For it is a lively faith animated by love enabling you to do everything from no other motive than that of pure love. It is a firm faith, unshakeable as a rock, prompting you to remain firm and steadfast in the midst of storms and tempests. It is an active and probing faith which like some mysterious pass-key admits you into the mysteries of Jesus Christ and of man's final destiny and into the very heart of God himself. It is a courageous faith which inspires you to undertake and carry out without hesitation great things for God and the salvation of souls. Lastly, this faith will be your flaming torch, your very life with God, your secret fund of divine Wisdom, and an all-powerful weapon for you to enlighten those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death. It inflames those who are lukewarm and need the gold of fervent love. It restores life to those who are dead through sin. It moves and transforms hearts of marble and cedars of Lebanon by gentle and convincing argument. Finally, this faith will strengthen you to resist the devil and the other enemies of salvation.

3. The gift of pure love

The Mother of fair love will rid your heart of all scruples and inordinate servile fear. She will open and enlarge it to obey the commandments of her Son with alacrity and with the holy freedom of the children of God. She will fill your heart with pure love of which she is the treasury. You will then cease to act as you did before, out of fear of the God who is love, but rather out of pure love. You will look upon him as a loving Father and endeavour to please him at all times. You will speak trustfully to him as a child does to its father. If you should have the misfortune to offend him you will abase yourself before him and humbly beg his pardon. You will offer your hand to him with simplicity and lovingly rise from your sin. Then, peaceful and relaxed and buoyed up with hope you will continue on your way to him.

4. Great confidence in God and in Mary

Our Blessed Lady will fill you with unbounded confidence in God and in herself:

Because you will no longer approach Jesus by yourself but always through Mary, your loving Mother.

Since you have given her all your merits, graces and satisfactions to dispose of as she pleases, she imparts to you her own virtues and clothes you in her own merits. So you will be able to say confidently to God: "Behold Mary, your handmaid, be it done unto me according to your word."

Since you have now given yourself completely to Mary, body and soul, she, who is generous to the generous, and more generous than even the kindest benefactor, will in return give herself to you in a marvellous but real manner. Indeed you may without hesitation say to her, "I am yours, O Blessed Virgin, obtain salvation for me," or with the beloved disciple, St. John, "I have taken you, Blessed Mother, for my all." Or again you may say with St. Bonaventure, "Dear Mother of saving grace, I will do everything with confidence and without fear because you are my strength and my boast in the Lord," or in another place, "I am all yours and all that I have is yours, O glorious Virgin, blessed above all created things. Let me place you as a seal upon my heart, for your love is as strong as death." Or adopting the sentiments of the prophet, "Lord, my heart has no reason to be exalted nor should my looks be proud; I have not sought things of great moment nor wonders beyond my reach; nevertheless, I am still not humble. But I have roused my soul and taken courage. I am as a child, weaned from earthly pleasures and resting on its mother's breast. It is upon this breast that all good things come to me."

What will still further increase your confidence in her is that, after having given her in trust all that you possess to use or keep as she pleases, you will place less trust in yourself and much more in her whom you have made your treasury. How comforting and how consoling when a person can say, "The treasury of God, where he has placed all that he holds most precious, is also my treasury." "She is," says a saintly man, "the treasury of the Lord."

5. Communication of the spirit of Mary

The soul of Mary will be communicated to you to glorify the Lord. Her spirit will take the place of yours to rejoice in God, her Saviour, but only if you are faithful to the practices of this devotion. As St. Ambrose says, "May the soul of Mary be in each one of us to glorify the Lord! May the spirit of Mary be in each one of us to rejoice in God!" "When will that happy day come," asks a saintly man of our own day whose life was completely wrapped up in Mary, "when God's Mother is enthroned in men's hearts as Queen, subjecting them to the dominion of her great and princely Son? When will souls breathe Mary as the body breathes air?" When that time comes wonderful things will happen on earth. The Holy Spirit, finding his dear Spouse present again in souls, will come down into them with great power. He will fill them with his gifts, especially wisdom, by which they will produce wonders of grace. My dear friend, when will that happy time come, that age of Mary, when many souls, chosen by Mary and given her by the most High God, will hide themselves completely in the depths of her soul, becoming living copies of her, loving and glorifying Jesus? That day will dawn only when the devotion I teach is understood and put into practice. Ut adveniat regnum tuum, adveniat regnum Mariae: "Lord, that your kingdom may come, may the reign of Mary come!"

6. Transformation into the likeness of Jesus

If Mary, the Tree of Life, is well cultivated in our soul by fidelity to this devotion, she will in due time bring forth her fruit which is none other than Jesus. I have seen many devout souls searching for Jesus in one way or another, and so often when they have worked hard throughout the night, all they can say is, "Despite our having worked all night, we have caught nothing." To them we can say, "You have worked hard and gained little; Jesus can only be recognised faintly in you." But if we follow the immaculate path of Mary, living the devotion that I teach, we will always work in daylight, we will work in a holy place, and we will work but little. There is no darkness in Mary, not even the slightest shadow since there was never any sin in her. She is a holy place, a holy of holies, in which saints are formed and moulded.

Please note that I say that saints are moulded in Mary. There is a vast difference between carving a statue by blows of hammer and chisel and making a statue by using a mould. Sculptors and statue-makers work hard and need plenty of time to make statues by the first method. But the second method does not involve much work and takes very little time. St. Augustine speaking to our Blessed Lady says, "You are worthy to be called the mould of God." Mary is a mould capable of forming people into the image of the God-man. Anyone who is cast into this divine mould is quickly shaped and moulded into Jesus and Jesus into him. At little cost and in a short time he will become Christ-like since he is cast into the very same mould that fashioned a God-man.

I think I can very well compare some spiritual directors and devout persons to sculptors who wish to produce Jesus in themselves and in others by methods other than this. Many of them rely on their own skill, ingenuity and art and chip away endlessly with mallet and chisel at hard stone or badly- prepared wood, in an effort to produce a likeness of our Lord. At times, they do not manage to produce a recognisable likeness either because they lack knowledge and experience of the person of Jesus or because a clumsy stroke has spoiled the whole work. But those who accept this little-known secret of grace which I offer them can rightly be compared to smelters and moulders who have discovered the beautiful mould of Mary where Jesus was so divinely and so naturally formed. They do not rely on their own skill but on the perfection of the mould. They cast and lose themselves in Mary where they become true models of her Son.

You may think this a beautiful and convincing comparison. But how many understand it? I would like you, my dear friend, to understand it. But remember that only molten and liquefied substances may be poured into a mould. That means that you must crush and melt down the old Adam in you if you wish to acquire the likeness of the new Adam in Mary.

7. The greater glory of Christ

If you live this devotion sincerely, you will give more glory to Jesus in a month than in many years of a more demanding devotion. Here are my reasons for saying this:

Since you do everything through the Blessed Virgin as required by this devotion, you naturally lay aside your own intentions no matter how good they appear to you. You abandon yourself to our Lady's intentions even though you do not know what they are. Thus you share in the high quality of her intentions, which are so pure that she gave more glory to God by the smallest of her actions, say, twirling her distaff, or making a stitch, than did St. Laurence suffering his cruel martyrdom on the grid-iron, and even more than all the saints together in all their most heroic deeds! Mary amassed such a multitude of merits and graces during her sojourn on earth that it would be easier to count the stars in heaven, the drops of water in the ocean or the sands of the sea-shore than count her merits and graces. She thus gave more glory to God than all the angels and saints have given or will ever give him. Mary, wonder of God, when souls abandon themselves to you, you cannot but work wonders in them!

In this devotion we set no store on our own thoughts and actions but are content to rely on Mary's dispositions when approaching and even speaking to Jesus. We then act with far greater humility than others who imperceptibly rely on their own dispositions and are self-satisfied about them; and consequently we give greater glory to God, for perfect glory is given to him only by the lowly and humble of heart.

Our Blessed Lady, in her immense love for us, is eager to receive into her virginal hands the gift of our actions, imparting to them a marvellous beauty and splendour, and presenting them herself to Jesus most willingly. More glory is given to our Lord in this way than when we make our offering with our own guilty hands.

Lastly, you never think of Mary without Mary thinking of God for you. You never praise or honour Mary without Mary joining you in praising and honouring God. Mary is entirely relative to God. Indeed I would say that she was relative only to God, because she exists uniquely in reference to him.

She is an echo of God, speaking and repeating only God. If you say "Mary" she says "God". When St. Elizabeth praised Mary calling her blessed because she had believed, Mary, the faithful echo of God, responded with her canticle, "My soul glorifies the Lord." What Mary did on that day, she does every day. When we praise her, when we love and honour her, when we present anything to her, then God is praised, honoured and loved and receives our gift through Mary and in Mary. - Wonderful Effects of This Devotion

Do it the St. Louis de Montfort's Way:
Total Consecration
In the spirit of this devotion, it would like Pope John Paul II giving all the merits of his works as a Supreme Pontiff to Jesus through Mary and thus increasing his own merits when he gets to heaven. Everything he did would be consecrated to Jesus through Mary (Ad Jesum per Mariam)!


Where did the mockery of Jesus take place? Before he was crucified, Jesus was mocked by the soldiers and by members of the Sanhedrin.   Where did this mockery take place?

The soldiers mocked Him in the hall called the Praetorium (Matthew 15:16). The Jewish leaders spit on Him in the palace of the High Priest (Matthew 14:65) and also at the cross (Matthew 15:31).


Meaning of the word Anointed What does "anointed" mean? Is there a difference between the Old Testament definition and the New Testament?

There are 2 types of anointing.
According to Bible Study Tools, anointing, in Holy Scripture, is either material (with oil) or spiritual (with the Holy Ghost), and it doesn't seem to be different between the old and new testaments with material anointing, but there are slight differences with the spiritual anointing.
Material Anointing
In an ordinary sense
Anointing the body or head with oil was a common practice with the Jews, as with other Oriental nations. (Deuteronomy 28:40 ; Ruth 3:3 ; Micah 6:15) Anointing the head with oil or ointment seems also to have been a mark of respect sometimes paid by a host to his guests. (Luke 7:46 and Psalms 23:5)
In an official sense
It was a rite of inauguration into each of the three typical offices of the Jewish commonwealth.

Prophets were occasionally anointed to their office, (1 Kings 19:16) and were called messiahs, or anointed. (1 Chronicles 16:22 ; Psalms 105:15)
Priests, at the first institution of the Levitical priesthood, were all anointed to their offices, (Exodus 40:15 ; Numbers 3:3) but afterwards anointing seems to have been specially reserved for the high priest, (Exodus 29:29 ; Leviticus 16:32) so that "the priest that is anointed," (Leviticus 4:3) is generally thought to mean the high priest.
Anointing was the principal and divinely-appointed ceremony in the inauguration of the Jewish Kings. (1 Samuel 9:16 & 10:1 ; 1 Kings 1:34 & 39 ) The rite was sometimes performed more than once. David was anointed three times.
Inanimate objects also were anointed with oil, in token of their being set apart for religious service. Jacob anointed a pillar at Bethel. (Genesis 31:13 ; Exodus 30:26-28)

In an ecclesiastical sense
Anointing with oil is prescribed by St. James to be used for the recovery of the sick. (James 5:14) Analogous to this is the anointing with oil practiced by the twelve. (Mark 6:13)
Spiritual Anointing
In the Old Testament a Deliverer is promised under the title of Messiah, or Anointed, (Psalms 2:2 ; Daniel 9:25-26 ) and the nature of his anointing is described to be spiritual, with the Holy Ghost. (Isaiah 61:1) In the New Testament Jesus of Nazareth is shown to be the Messiah (Luke 4:18-19), or Christ or Anointed, of the Old Testament, (John 1:41 ; Acts 9:22 ; Acts 17:2-3 ; Acts 18:4 & 28 ) and the historical fact of his being anointed with the Holy Ghost is asserted and recorded. (John 1:32-33 ; Acts 4:27 & 10:38) Christ was anointed as prophet priest and king.
Spiritual anointing with the Holy Ghost is conferred also upon Christians by God. (2 Corinthians 1:21)
"Anointing" expresses the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit upon Christians who are priests and kings to God.


What are some criticisms of "Spirit-filled" church soteriology? I know that according to the teachings of some church groups that originated in the early 20th century, a person must receive 'Holy Spirit baptism', necessarily evidenced by the manifestation of the 'gift of tongues', to participate in certain church activities.

Can one present an overview of criticisms, specifically with regard to soteriology, of church groups that hold to this doctrine?

A fantastic answer would include specific references to the authors or organizations that have published criticisms.

I know some people may tar all Charismatics and Pentecostals with the same brush, but the reality is that 'Spirit-filled' is a description that crosses nearly all denominational boundaries and soteriological perspectives (eg there are Charismatic Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and Baptists and there are even some 'Reformed' believers who claim to be 'continuationists'). A legitimate critique should be focused on particular groups and their associated doctrines and praxis - to lump all in together is unhelpful and obscures the reality of the situation.
Nevertheless, it is true that "Spirit-filled churches" do attract a range of both internal and external critcism associated with the distinctive (and broadly in common with each other) doctrines and practices they promote ranging from mild rebuke over displays of 'zeal without knowledge' - akin to Paul's instructions to the Corinthian church regarding their disorderly meetings - right through to asserting they are a completely false demonically-empowered religion - preaching a false gospel and therefore leading people astray from 'the simplicity of Christ' (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3) and into damnable error. These last, of course, with clear soteriological implications.
These issues are not exactly new - in fact they've been around since the early church and in particular the days of Montanus - but more recently following the Charismatic renewal and especially the Third Wave Movement, criticism has been far more vocal, forceful and organized. One of the most prominent critics at the centre of this 'push back' is John McArthur whose 1993 book Charismatic Chaos argued for an acceptance of Cessationism and corresponding rejection of Charismatic theology and practice. More recently (Ocotber 2013), McArthur hosted the Strange Fire Conference dedicated to this purpose. Of particular relevance to your question is the following question and answer posted on this site:

Should I respond to charismatic people as straying brothers in Christ or as unbelievers?
I agree that the sign gifts have ceased.  But how should I deal with charismatics when I encounter them?  Do I treat their error as no big deal and ignore it or as a significant issues and address it with them as brothers in Christ?  Should I see their supposed gifts as coming from another god and treat them as unbelievers in need of the gospel?
There is so much variation within the charismatic movement that we shouldn’t pick one set method of approaching them.  Some charismatics are truly born again but many are not.  Some hold largely to sound doctrine, but many hold to doctrines which are seriously flawed.  So a one-size-fits-all method will likely be inappropriate most of the time.
Yes, there are many unbiblical and dangerous teachings in the charismatic movement, but our attitude toward charismatics and our conversations with them must be full of love, patience, and biblical truth.  Emotional overreaction and biblically weak argumentation will only hinder our efforts to help them see the truth.  On the other hand, calm but serious discussion of biblical teaching regarding the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts can bring them to an understanding of the truth.
Whether a person is born again or not, his need remains the same—he must learn the truth of God from Scripture.  Paul’s advice about how to approach those who teach false doctrine gives us guidance: “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Timothy 2:24–26). (source)


In Jerusalem around 600BC, who was Laban? The Book of Mormon speaks of an influential person in Jerusalem named Laban who was the keeper of the record of the Jews, and had power to command at least 50 men (see 1 Nephi 3:31).

  "Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my
  forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass." (1 Nephi 3:1-27)

We know Laban was a man of some degree of power and influence in Jerusalem, that he had servants, and a treasury, and kept the genealogy of the Jews in his treasury, but it apparently wasn't beneath him to go out and get black-out drunk in the streets (see 1 Nephi 4:7-8).

Who was Laban? What position did he hold in Jewish society?

Dr. Hugh Nibley, an LDS scholar who did extensive research on the Book of Mormon, discussed this issue in chapter 4 of his book "Lehi In The Desert", describing how Laban fits a quite well-defined role in the culture of his time and place: that of the local military governor.

  But what were the records doing at Laban's house, and who was Laban anyway?

  ...

  For ages the cities of Palestine and Syria had been more or less under the rule of military governors, of native blood but, in theory at least, answerable to Egypt. "These commandants (called rabis in the Amarna letters) were subordinate to the city-princes (chazan), who commonly address them as 'Brother' or 'Father.' " They were by and large a sordid lot of careerists whose authority depended on constant deception and intrigue, though they regarded their offices as hereditary and sometimes styled themselves kings.
  ... The Lachish letters show that such men were still the lords of creation in Lehi's day—the commanders of the towns around Jerusalem were still acting in closest cooperation with Egypt in military matters, depending on the prestige of Egypt to bolster their corrupt power, and still behaving as groveling and unscrupulous timeservers.

  ...

  One of the main functions of any governor in the East has always been to hear petitions, and the established practice has ever been to rob the petitioners (or anyone else) wherever possible. The Eloquent Peasant story of fifteen centuries before Lehi and the innumerable Tales of the Qadis of fifteen centuries after him are all part of the same picture, and Laban fits into that picture as if it were drawn to set off his portrait.

  ...

  A few deft and telling touches resurrect the pompous Laban with photographic perfection. We learn in passing that he commanded a garrison of fifty, that he met in full ceremonial armor with "the elders of the Jews" (1 Nephi 4:22) for secret consultations by night, that he had control of a treasury, that he was of the old aristocracy, being a distant relative to Lehi himself, that he probably held his job because of his ancestors, since he hardly received it by merit, that his house was the storing place of very old records, that he was a large man, short-tempered, crafty, and dangerous, and to the bargain cruel, greedy, unscrupulous, weak, and given to drink. All of which makes him a Rabu to the life, the very model of an Oriental pasha.

  ...

  As to the garrison of fifty, it seems pitifully small for a great city. It would have been just as easy for the author of 1 Nephi to have said "fifty thousand," and made it really impressive. Yet even the older brothers, though they wish to emphasize Laban's great power, mention only fifty (1 Nephi 3:31), and it is Nephi in answering them who says that the Lord is "mightier than Laban and his fifty," and adds, "or even than his tens of thousands" (1 Nephi 4:1). As a high military commander Laban would have his tens of thousands in the field, but such an array is of no concern to Laman and Lemuel: it is the "fifty" they must look out for, the regular, permanent garrison of Jerusalem. The number fifty suits perfectly with the Amarna picture where the military forces are always so surprisingly small and a garrison of thirty to eighty men is thought adequate even for big cities. It is strikingly vindicated in a letter of Nebuchadnezzar, Lehi's contemporary, wherein the great king orders: "As to the fifties who were under your orders, those gone to the rear, or fugitives return them to the ranks." Commenting on this, Offord says, "In these days it is interesting to note the indication here, that in the Babylonian army a platoon contained fifty men;" also, we might add, that it was called a "fifty,"—hence, "Laban and his fifty" (1 Nephi 4:1).

  ...

  Returning by night in a third attempt to get the records, Nephi stumbled upon the prostrate form of Laban, lying dead drunk in the deserted street (1 Nephi 4:7). The commander had been (so his servant later told Nephi) in conference with "the elders of the Jews . . . out by night among them" (1 Nephi 4:22), and was wearing his full dress armor. What a world of inference in this! We sense the gravity of the situation in Jerusalem which "the elders" are still trying to conceal; we hear the suppressed excitement of Zoram's urgent talk as he and Nephi hasten through the streets to the city gates (1 Nephi 4:27), and from Zoram's willingness to change sides and leave the city we can be sure that he, as Laban's secretary, knew how badly things were going. From the Lachish letters it is clear that informed parties in Jerusalem were quite aware of the critical state of things at Jerusalem, even while the sarim, "the elders," were working with all their might to suppress every sign of criticism and disaffection. How could they take counsel to provide for the defense of the city and their own interests without exciting alarm or giving rise to general rumors and misgivings? By holding their meetings in secret, of course, such midnight sessions of civil and military leaders as Laban had just been attending.

There's more (quite a bit more) and the chapter is well worth reading in its entirety if you're interested in the cultural details that Nephi's account left out, but these are the most relevant points.


Should Jewish Christians not work on Saturday or Sunday? I am Jewish, and this presents additional issues for me if I am considering Christianity, that non Jewish Christians don't have. For example, as far as I understand the Catholic Church has held that the covenant with the Jews has never been revoked

http://www.jcrelations.net/The_covenant_has_never_been_revoked.2250.0.html
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.560784

I mean if you read your own Bible, you can see a very strong case for believing that the Covenant Israel had with God was binding for ever and on all of their descendants - which includes Jews today:

http://biblelaw101.com/Home/Questions%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20God.htm

So Jews are instructed to rest on the "Sabbath day". And it is indisputable that throughout the entire time of Jewish History, that was the 7th day. Genesis talks about God resting on the 7th day. Yet, the Ecumenical councilat Nicaea ultimately proclaimed that Christians' sabbath should be on the 1st day of the week - which we call Sunday in English.

So what's a Jew supposed to do? When they are a Christian, that is! In your answer, please tell us what your denomination is and what position it holds on the matter.

PS: If your answer includes saying that the Covenant with Israel has been superceded, then please explain how exactly we are supposed to read the verses in biblelaw101.com above

In the book of Romans Paul clearly shows that this is a matter for each individual to make up their own mind about. All Christians have freedom from the Mosaic Law, so decide for yourself what you think will help you to practice godliness and be in the best position to serve others. And keep reconsidering it, because it may be wise to change your decision later.

  One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (Romans 14:5-9, NIV)


Was there baptism in the Old Testament? In my Bible I discovered that the word “baptism” is not present in the Old Testament.
Was there a ceremony or practice that represented baptism before John the Baptist?

Baptism was not practiced in the same way in the OT as it is in the NT. There were some other ritual washings in use before the time of Christ, but they had different meanings.

What did exist was circumcision. Most Christians believe in one way or another that the sacrament of baptism took the place of circumcision. How exactly they see that transition happening varies widely by tradition. Some see very close parallels and a continuity between the two, others think one was eradicated and the other inaugurated and that they only bear cursory similarity.


What religious order do these nuns belong to? The habit of these nuns includes no guimpe (or a black one), a black veil, a white wimple, a rectangular white coif:

Which order do they belong to?

(I couldn't find anything quite like it on NunsAndSisters.com.)

They are of the Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth (source).


Where did the artistic rendering of Jesus originate? There seems to be a pretty recognizable and consistent artistic image of Jesus Christ, despite the lack of evidence of what he looked like. Where did this initial image originate?

Popular Mechanics (of all sources) did a good article on "The Real Face of Jesus".

The article discusses how the current representations of Jesus came to be.  The European image with long wavy brown hair that we're all familiar with in Western cultures isn't universal at all.  Rather, it seems to simply have been an image that artists rendered, and that we, as a culture, find pleasing.  He looks Kind, loving, gentle, and everything we know Jesus was, but it it, of course, just an artist's interpretation, copied and emulated over the years.

From the article: (emphasis mine)

  Further clouding the question of what Jesus looked like is the simple
  fact that nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus described, nor have
  any drawings of him ever been uncovered. There is the additional
  problem of having neither a skeleton nor other bodily remains to probe
  for DNA. In the absence of evidence, our images of Jesus have been
  left to the imagination of artists. The influences of the artists'
  cultures and traditions can be profound, observes Carlos F.
  Cardoza-Orlandi, associate professor of world Christianity at Columbia
  Theological Seminary in Atlanta. "While Western imagery is dominant,
  in other parts of the world he is often shown as black, Arab or
  Hispanic."

Hopefully, the above will do for an answer.  I know it's vague. For a more specific answer, I believe you'd have to find the earliest representation of Jesus that you feel represents the western image we're used to.  This would be a difficult thing to do, and still meet with the site's strong bias toward objective answers (or those based upon commonly accepted canon or a specific doctrine.)

First, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of artist's depiction of Christ.  Selecting the first one would be like finding a needle in a haystack.
Second, whether or not an image seems to match the current accepted "look" is a bit subjective.  (Just look at the results here and try to determine which ones do and do not fit.)


How do some Franciscans brothers become priests? Watching EWTN, I see that some of the Franciscans are priests and some are brothers.  I'm pretty sure St. Francis himself went only as far as the diaconate (by his own choosing).

So, do some good brothers get promoted to study for the priesthood?  Who decides that and what's the ideal priest to brother ratio?

While spending some time at St. Bernard's discerning my vocation (before I met my lovely wife) I picked up on a few things:

Monastic orders are structured in a way so that daily spiritual life is lived out as a very intimate family.

Monasteries can perhaps be compared to villages. Everyone (especially the Abbott) has a good sense of what must be provided for the survival of the surrounding community.

The Abbott is the final authority within the monastery. As a "brother" is gradually received into the community his talents and/or prior education/qualifications are taken into consideration, and are then consequently deployed to serve the community.

Some guys are Notre Dame alum-lawyers...others have "special needs"...others are just average Joes (like me).

The Abbott is just like a general of the Army. He sends soldiers where they should be sent...no questions asked

At St. Bernard's, there is a private school that has to be kept in motion year round. There is also a large Catholic community in Cullman. The more priests the better.

At the end of the day...Monks simply pray and work.

BTW, I know you specifically asked about the "Friars Minor," but all monasteries are like little diocese and therefore essentially have the same hierarchical structure.

The EWTN Franciscans are somewhat unique, in that they have been specifically commission by Rome to produce television and radio for the world. I'm sure that there are unique strategics involved across the board.

  Through their familial association with the Eternal Word Television
  Network, the friars use as energetically as possible all forms of mass
  communication in the apostolate, especially television, radio,
  Internet, the printed word. Urged on by the love of Christ, with the
  assistance of Our Lady of the Annunciation and zeal for the salvation
  of others, the friars as modern day missionaries share in the Church’s
  mission of evangelization, a work of God’s mercy.

As an aside...

The biggest thing that jumped out at me while hanging out at St. Bernard's was that the most important thing for newcomers is permanent humility. Sometimes men come in to the community automatically assuming that they have all the right stuff to be a priest. Ironically, at least at St. Bernard's, the average Joes became priests before the former millionaire investors.


How did God's morality not change between OT and NT times? I really have a problem at times explaining to the unbelievers the fact that God wants all people to be saved. The problem is the difference between the morality seen in the OT and the morality seen in the NT.

In the OT God easily commanded a human to kill 3000 other humans (Exodus 32:27), seemed to be fine to go along with a prophet in his way of proving his genuineness by burning alive 102 other humans, many of which were in fact innocent (2 Kings 1:9-15), and helped some other humans in the way of killing other human beings by stoning them (Joshua 10:11).

In the NT, however, we see that He forbids humans to perform such acts against other humans (Luke 9:52-56, Matthew 5:39, 44).

The unbelievers firstly question such a drastic change in His teachings, thus, doubting either about His unchangeable nature or the credibility of Christian faith proclaiming that He is unchangeable, and, secondly, they express a kind of fear ("What if God commands you to kill, will you do that?").

How does Christianity deal with such questions?

Can anyone, please, provide an overview here? (Answers on behalf of only one tradition are also welcome)

The answer is actually pretty straightforward, but it is very difficult for people to accept.

1) God's values, desires, teachings, commandments and interactions with man were exactly the same in the Old Testament as the New Testament.

In the New Testament, we learn that God is love.  Jesus' "new commandment" is that we love one another.  But this really wasn't a "new" idea...
In the Old Testament we have this big, confusing Levitical Law.  But with a little study we can understand it.  One of the commandments is to love God, and another is to love your neighbor.  The rest of the commandments were actually based on these two, and love was the fulfillment of all of them.  Experts in the Old Testament law understood this.  The impossible commandments were intended to hammer it into our thick heads that we are "broken"; we are not loving people!  For instance, adultery is a very unloving action, and if our consciences were working right, that would be obvious.  As it is, we need a commandment to tell us not to treat people like that.
The idea that the Law was "just an Old Testament thing" is false.  The Law that was given in the Old Testament is just as important to understand today as it was back then.  It still teaches us about love, it is still impossible to live up to, we will still be judged by it (unless we are in Christ), and it is still a crucial element in teaching people about God.  (For example, see Matthew 5:17-19.)

2) This is very difficult for people to accept, but we are much more concerned about physical well-being than God is!  From God's perspective, the physical realm is kind of a lost cause.  God wants our focus to be on our spiritual well-being.  Everyone is going to die, because we all have sin!  God can use the timing of our death for His purposes, but death (in some form) is inevitable.  And yet, for some weird reason, when God decides a person's time on this wretched, broken planet is up, we accuse Him of evil for "taking their life."  I assure you - death was never part of God's perfect will.  Man is responsible for death.  But God can use the timing for His loving purposes.

Summary: So, often times we read the stories of the Old Testament and think God is a horrible, ruthless being who could not possibly be in agreement with the teachings of Jesus.  But the reality is, God is love, and everything He does comes from His loving nature.  We are just hopelessly ignorant and corrupt in our understanding of God, so we see the opposite of what is actually true.

Q&A: "What if God commanded you to kill someone?"  If God commands you to do something, it's probably a good idea to do it.  But the real question is, "Would God command you to kill someone?" and the answer is, "No."  We need to discern the voice of God by a proper understanding of Scripture, and it is clear from Scripture that this is not the way Christians are called to walk today.  So why were people in the Old Testament called to do these kinds of things?  Because the things that happened in the Old Testament were visual examples to help us understand spiritual realities.  Now that we have the examples, our job is to use those examples to teach people about spiritual realities.


How did Pope Urban II justify the first Crusade? According to the ten commandments, you shall not kill anyone. How did Pope Urban II justify from a theological standpoint the First Crusade? Since it was successful, Pope Urban II must have had to deal with the theological ramifications of killing all of the innocent people that were in the way of the armies.

What did he do/say to defend his position?

It is true that in the Ten Commandments we read that it is not permitted to kill. But we do have a duty to protect ourselves and our neighbors in times of war or persecution. The helpless needed to be defended in Palestine and the Holy Sites liberated from oppression.

We must not forget that the Greek Emperor Alexius Comnenus had sent letters to Pope Urban II asking for "aid against the against the infidels, representing that, unless assistance was extended immediately, the capital with all its holy relics must soon fall into the hands of the barbarians."

Causes of the crusades:

  The reason and cause of the crusades was a war between Christians and Moslems which centered around the city of Jerusalem and the Holy places of Palestine. The City of Jerusalem held a Holy significance to the Christian religion. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem commemorated the hill of crucifixion and the tomb of Christ's burial. Pilgrims throughout the Middle Ages made sacred pilgrimages to the Holy city of Jerusalem and the church. Although the city of Jerusalem was held by the Saracens the Christian pilgrims had been granted safe passage to visit the Holy city.
  Among the early Christians it was thought a pious and meritorious act to undertake a journey to some sacred place. Especially was it thought that a pilgrimage to the land that had been trod by the feet of the Saviour of the world, to the Holy City that had witnessed his martyrdom, was a peculiarly pious undertaking, and one which secured for the pilgrim the special favor and blessing of Heaven. The Saracen caliphs, for the four centuries and more that they held possession of Palestine, pursued usually an enlightened policy towards the pilgrims, even encouraging pilgrimages as a source of revenue. But in the eleventh century the Seljukian Turks, a prominent Tartar tribe and zealous followers of Islam, wrested from the caliphs almost all their Asiatic possessions. The Christians were not long in realizing that power had fallen into new hands. 3000 Christian Pilgrims were insulted and persecuted in every way. The churches in Jerusalem were destroyed or turned into stables.
  The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the preaching of Peter the Hermit, a native of Picardy, in France. Having been commissioned by Pope Urban II to preach a crusade, the Hermit traversed all Italy and France, addressing everywhere, in the church, in the street, and in the open field, the crowds that flocked about him, moving all hearts with sympathy or firing them with indignation, as he recited the sufferings of their brethren at the hands of the infidels, or pictured the profanation of the holy places, polluted by the presence and insults of the unbelievers.
  Whilst Peter the Hermit had been arousing the warriors of the West, the Turks had been making constant advances in the East, and were now threatening Constantinople itself. The Greek emperor (Alexius Comnenus) sent urgent letters to the Pope, asking for aid against the infidels, representing that, unless assistance was extended immediately, the capital with all its holy relics must soon fall into the hands of the barbarians.
  Pope Urban II & the Council of Clermont:
  Pope Urban II called a great council of the Church at Placentia, in Italy, to consider the appeal (1095), but nothing was effected. Later in the same year a new council was convened at Clermont, in France, Pope Urban purposely fixing the place of meeting among the warm tempered and martial Franks. Pope Urban II himself was one of the chief speakers. He was naturally eloquent, so that the man, the cause, and the occasion all conspired to achieve one of the greatest triumphs of human oratory. Pope Urban II pictured the humiliation and misery of the provinces of Asia; the profanation of the places made sacred by the presence and footsteps of the Son of God. Pope Urban II then detailed the conquests of the Turks, until now, with all Asia Minor in their possession, they were threatening Europe from the shores of the Hellespont. - Cause of the Crusades

In 1094 or 1095, Alexios I Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor, sent to the pope, Urban II, and asked for aid from the West against the Seljuq Turks, who taken nearly all of Asia Minor from him. At the Council of Clermont, Urban addressed a great crowd and urged all to go to the aid of the Greeks and to recover Palestine from the rule of the Muslims. The acts of the Council have not been preserved, but we have five accounts of the speech of Urban which were written by men who were present and heard him.

  1. Fulcher of Chartres (notes):

  "For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent."

  2. Robert the Monk

  From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness. They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font. When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent. The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it can not be traversed in a march of two months. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you.

  3. The Gesta Version

  When now that time was at hand which the Lord Jesus daily points out to His faithful, especially in the Gospel, saying, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me," a mighty agitation was carried on throughout all the region of Gaul. (Its tenor was) that if anyone desired to follow the Lord zealously, with a pure heart and mind, and wished faithfully to bear the cross after Him, he would no longer hesitate to take up the way to the Holy Sepulchre.

  And so Urban, Pope of the Roman see, with his archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priests, set out as quickly as possible beyond the mountains and began to deliver sermons and to preach eloquently, saying: "Whoever wishes to save his soul should not hesitate humbly to take up the way of the Lord, and if he lacks sufficient money, divine mercy will give him enough." Then the apostolic lord continued, "Brethren, we ought to endure much suffering for the name of Christ - misery, poverty, nakedness, persecution, want, illness, hunger, thirst, and other (ills) of this kind, just as the Lord saith to His disciples: 'Ye must suffer much in My name,' and 'Be not ashamed to confess Me before the faces of men; verily I will give you mouth and wisdom,' and finally, 'Great is your reward in Heaven."' And when this speech had already begun to be noised abroad, little by little, through all the regions and countries of Gaul, the Franks, upon hearing such reports, forthwith caused crosses to be sewed on their right shoulders, saying that they followed with one accord the footsteps of Christ, by which they had been redeemed from the hand of hell.

  3. Version of Balderic of Dol

  And turning to the bishops, he said, "You, brothers and fellow bishops; you, fellow priests and sharers with us in Christ, make this same announcement through the churches committed to you, and with your whole soul vigorously preach the journey to Jerusalem. When they have confessed the disgrace of their sins, do you, secure in Christ, grant them speedy pardon. Moreover, you who are to go shall have us praying for you; we shall have you fighting for God's people. It is our duty to pray, yours to fight against the Amalekites. With Moses, we shall extend unwearied hands in prayer to Heaven, while you go forth and brandish the sword, like dauntless warriors, against Amalek."

  4. Version of Guibert de Nogent

  "If in olden times the Maccabees attained to the highest praise of piety because they fought for the ceremonies and the Temple, it is also justly granted you, Christian soldiers, to defend their liberty of your country by armed endeavor. If you, likewise, consider that the abode of the holy apostles and any other saints should be striven for with such effort, why do you refuse to rescue the Cross, the Blood, the Tomb? Why do you refuse to visit them, to spend the price of your lives in rescuing them? You have thus far waged unjust wars, at one time and another; you have brandished mad weapons to your mutual destruction, for no other reason than covetousness and pride, as a result of which you have deserved eternal death and sure damnation. We now hold out to you wars which contain the glorious reward of martyrdom, which will retain that title of praise now and forever."

  5. Urban II: Letter of Instruction to the Crusaders, December 1095

  Urban, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to all the faithful, both princes and subjects, waiting in Flanders; greeting, apostolic grace, and blessing.

  Your brotherhood, we believe, has long since learned from many accounts that a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted an laid waste the churches of God in the regions of the Orient. More than this, blasphemous to say, it has even grasped in intolerabe servitude its churches and the Holy City of Christ, glorified b His passion and resurrection. Grieving with pious concern at this calamity, we visited the regions of Gaul and devoted ourselves largely to urging the princes of the land and their subjects to free the churches of the East. We solemnly enjoined upon them at the council of Auvergne (the accomplishment of) such an undertaking, as a preparation for the remission of all their sins. And we have constituted our most beloved son, Adhemar, Bishop of Puy, leader of this expedition and undertaking in our stead, so that those who, perchance, may wish to undertake this journey should comply With his commands, as if they were our own, and submit fully to his loosings or bindings, as far as shall seem to belong to such an office. If, moreover, there are any of your people whom God has inspired to this vow, let them know that he (Adhemar) will set out with the aid of God on the day of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary, and that they can then attach themselves to his following. - Pope Urban II's Speech Calling for the First Crusade

Pope Urban II also issued a "Crusader's Indulgence" for those partaking in the Crusades.

  The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance.


What did David mean in Psalm 39:13? In Psalm 39 (NIV) starting with verse 12, David said:

  "Hear my prayer, Lord, listen to my cry for help; do not be deaf to my weeping. I dwell with you as a foreigner, a stranger, as all my ancestors were.

So he's asking God to hear his prayer, listen to his cry for help, and to not be deaf to his weeping.

Then in verse 13, he says:

  Look away from me, that I may enjoy life again before I depart and am no more."

What is this supposed to mean? It sounds like he is contradicting himself.

If you take the entire Psalm in context, you'll see that the writer is being punished by God for some sin of which he is guilty.  The situation is described in verses 7-11 (NASB):

  And now, Lord, for what do I wait?My hope is in You.Deliver me from all my transgressions;Make me not the reproach of the foolish.I have become mute, I do not open my mouth,Because it is You who have done it.Remove Your plague from me;Because of the opposition of Your hand I am perishing.With reproofs You chasten a man for iniquity;You consume as a moth what is precious to him;Surely every man is a mere breath.

As you can see, the writer is being "chastened" by God for some "transgression".  He is asking God how long must he wait for the reproof to come to an end.  The "plague" from God is so bad that it makes him feel like he is close even to death.  He describes how God consumes "what is precious to him", so it's possible that the punishment involved the removal of something that he cherished.

Therefore, when in verse 13, he asks God to look away, he is asking God to end his punishment.  He wants God to look away from his sin and to forgive him.  In the first 6 verses, the writer describes what he has learned from the ordeal.  He seems to be saying "see, I've learned my lesson, now please make this stop."

Presuming the author of the Psalm is David, the events described do line up quite well with the death of his first child with Bathsheba.  As likely as that seems, however, it is speculation, since the text doesn't specify.  Here's the account of his child dying, as judgment for his sin:

2 Sam. 12:15-18 (NASB)

  Then the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.  David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.  The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.  Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, “Behold, while the child was still alive, we spoke to him and he did not listen to our voice. How then can we tell him that the child is dead, since he might do himself harm!”


What is the Christian counterpart of Sharia and Halakha? Both Islam and Judaism have religious law which cover matters from acts of worship to the principles of government. In Islam it is Sharia (Arabic: الشريعة; literally "law") and in Judaism it is Halakha (Hebrew: הלכה; literally "walking").

So my question is does Christianity also have anything similar? And if yes, then is it still considered valid?

What is the Christian counterpart of Sharia and Halakha?

Within the Catholic Church there is Canon Law. Other Christian Churches also have a type of Code of Canon Law unto their own denomination.

For the Catholic Church, the Holy See's government, Canon Law directs one to another special law  for it's legal makeup and framework:

  Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia which performs its function in his name and by his authority for the good and service of the churches. The Roman Curia consists of the Secretariat of State or the Papal Secretariat, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, congregations, tribunals, and other institutes; the constitution and competence of all these are defined in special law.

  Can. 361 In this Code, the term Apostolic See or Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia, unless it is otherwise apparent from the nature of the matter or the context of the words.

What is Canon law?

  Canon Law Definition

  Canon law has two functions: to govern churches with a uniform code of rules, and to guide church members in their conduct and worship. Canon law covers a range of issues, including human rights, property, relationships, becoming an adult member of the church, choosing church leadership and more. Of course, canon law is separate from legal codes enacted by governments. You won’t get arrested if you break your church’s canon law, but you may face consequences within your church community. The word “canon” means rule. So, think of canon law as a set of rules for churches and worshipers. Canon laws keep things smooth and uniform.

  The following churches use canon law: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Episcopal and Mormon. Some of these don’t have formal unified canon laws like those of the Catholic Church. However, they still incorporate some type of canon law into their practices. For example, the Anglican Church does not have a centralized canon law, but does use a canonical system within its member churches.

  Canon Law History

  Canon law has a long history dating back to early Christianity. The first Catholic canon law was called the Decretum and was adopted by the Church in the 12th century. The Decretum remained the standard law of the Catholic Church for centuries. After the first Vatican Council in 1869-1870, the church leadership decided to create a uniform code. Cardinal Pietro Gasparri led the project, and in 1917, the first Code of Canon Law was adopted by the Catholic Church.

  As the church grew over the 20th century, so did its need for updated rules and regulations. In 1983, a revised Code of Canon Law was enacted, still in use today. In 1990, the Catholic Church issued a Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. This means the Catholic Church now has two canon laws, one for its Eastern churches, and one for its Western or Roman Churches.

  List of Canon Laws

  Code of Canon Law (Roman Catholic): Originally codified in 1917 and last updated in 1983, the Code of Canon Law is the comprehensive set of rules followed by the Roman Catholic Church.
  Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (Eastern Catholic): This set of laws was adopted in 1990 to address the unique needs and practices of Eastern Catholic Churches.
  Constitution & Canons (Episcopal): The Episcopal Church officially adopted its Constitution at a General Convention in Philadelphia in 1789. Constitution & Canons lays out the Church's official rules for governance. It has since been updated many times, most recently in 2015.
  The Book of Discipline (Methodist): This set of rules addresses how Methodists agree to live together. The Book of Discipline has been evolving for more than 200 years. Every four years, Methodists update the Book at their General Conference. The latest update was released in 2016. -  What Is Canon Law?


Why did Pope Francis raise the minimum age for being granted 'Monsignor' from 35 to 65 years? 'Monsignor' is used for priests who have received certain specific honorary awards or who hold certain offices.

The grant is subject to the criteria of the Holy See, including a minimum age, which Pope Francis raised from 35 to 65 years.

My question is: Why did Pope Francis raise that minimum age from 35 to 65 years?

Also, did Pope Francis revoke that title to priests who have been granted before that new rule and who are, at that date, less than 65 years old?

To avoid carreerism. Young priests turning into monsignors can get really proud of their nobiliarchic title.
No. Current monsignors keep being monsignors.


Why is dividing 'event' versus 'process' driven views of justification important to separate Catholic and Protestant theology? In studying Roman Catholic theology it took me so so long before it dawned on me that justification is not viewed as an event as it is in Protestant theology. Why is this single concept so critical in dividing Catholic from Protestant theology?

Why Protestants see themselves as being able to break out of the cycle of sin through their personal affirmation that Jesus is their Personal Savior is more or less a mystery to Catholics.

Why Catholics think the mere act of eating what appears to be a piece of Bread can renew their life within them and give them a share in Sanctifying Grace is a more or less a mystery to Protestants.

It's probably decisive because Catholics are pretty convinced they're right and here's why.

As God's chosen people we (All Christians) are not a whole heck of a lot different today than they (The tribes of Israel) were 3000 years ago.  King David for instance, went through all the trouble of being a very good, wise and courageous youth, only to give in to temptation and then repent of it and die a good and saintly man.

The cycle is too alliterative to be of God, but this is what it looks like

Sin

The act that draws you away from God
Servitude to sin

The time you spend getting further and further away from God
Supplication

The cry for help that brings you back to God
Salvation

God's response to your cry
Silence

The period of time in which you get to decide whether or not to sin again.

Chances are pretty good you're going to go back up to step 1.  But there's no going from Step 5 to Step 4 (because those who are not sick don't need a physician) and there's no point going from Step 5 to Step 3.  God's grace will keep you from going from Step 5 to Step 2.  But your free will and passions may move you from step 5 to step 1.

As we grow in holiness we can extend our time inside of Step 5 land.  Mother Theresa spent most of her life there!

It's a process, because our earthly lives are finite, but it's more like a big ball of yarn all rolled up.  We're not Buddhists; our spiritual development isn't circular, because it isn't infinite.  But it is more or less round and messy and it's not instantaneous.

Protestants seem to on the other hand, cling to a translation of John 3:7

  Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’

which says "again" instead of "from above".  And regardless of the translation, this signifies some sort of a birth event that takes place after which you're saved once and for all.

Last week I heard of Go Ask Your Father.  The good Reverend Know-It-All expound on this.  He Pentecostal cited a friend of his who said neither Catholics nor Protestants understand what it means to be "born" in this context.  That what we talk about as "born" is really "conceived".  Because being born is a painful excruciating event (I've never done it myself, but I've been rather intimately involved in each of my children's births and he's right.  It's tiring, it happens unexpectedly, it is an event, but it's not a life changing event because the life has been in existence, hidden for 9 months already.

So, maybe what Jesus was saying was that you're going to have to go through life and have struggles and problems and carry your cross to unite your birth (through baptism) to his death.  Which, incidentally, is exactly what St. Paul says happens when we're baptized, regardless of if we're baptized as adults or wee infants.


When did Martin Luther begin to see the church as entirely apostate? Related to Martin Luther: "Therefore it is not a Christian Church either"? and What was Martin Luther's perspective on the apostasy of the early Christian church? and Is it true that Luther didn't consider anyone of the Catholic clergy to be a member of the true Church of God? but not the same question as any of those.

Martin Luther, of course, sparked the reformation by nailing 95 theses to the Wittenberg door. At that time he wanted to reform the Catholic Church from within, a la Erasmus, or at least that's my understanding. But somewhere down the line, he decided that the church was not "the church," and that they needed to break away in order to properly preserve the Gospel and safeguard it from apostate priests. When I've heard the chronology discussed before, it's sounded like the change occurred well before his actual excommunication by Rome, and that he decided the Pope was the Antichrist before the Pope decided Luther was a heretic. But what's the exact timeline here? When did he decide the Roman church needed to be left behind, and what developments -- either in history or in his own thinking -- precipitated that change?

The best source I have that actually does the homework necessary to trace the historical timeline of Luther's theology as well as the timing of its appearance into the world at large is in well written and accurate book entitled, 'MARTIN LUTHER’S THEOLOGY Its Historical and Systematic Development by BERNHARD LOHSE'

In answering your question I only need to provide a high level summary from this book and if you want the longer story I recommend that it be purchased.

In this book it had a historical timeline part and a theological development part. In the historical part the first steps of little Luther are found in his scribbles and noted in his own studies of St. Augustine as well as the scholastic works of Peter Lombard (a kind if standard theological text-book of his day) which he had not as yet made a full break away from. In a nutshell Luther kept scholastic norms, did not yet develop his doctrines but at the same time showed signs of understanding the nature of sin more towards an Augustinian view and more towards the Apostle Paul's view, avoiding the scholastic ways of defining sin and preferring Paul's own language which seemed to make more sense to Luther and seemed to side with Augustine as opposed to Lombard.

In these early years, before it would appear that Luther was clearly and without doubt a Christian believer (as judged by a modern day evangelical standard) he yet starts to begin in a lot of criticism against the theology of his day.

Luther repeatedly attacked the philosophy, evidently having in mind the extensive significance of Aristotelian philosophy for scholastic theology.13 Aristotle was a “chatterbox.” .....Luther engaged in comprehensive criticism not only of the theology of his day but also of the church and of particular aspects of church life. He reproached his contemporaries for holding the truth down in superstition, that is, in foolish and idle observatio, or in a superfluous, indeed, false, religio, like stupid old wives. While they wanted to be ever so “religious,” they were superstitious, as is evident in the sacrament of extreme unction.28 At this point as well as at many others in his marginal notes, Luther’s criticism could be interpreted of the Observantes, that is, of those in his own order who adhered to strict observance of the rules, thus not in any general terms. (P47-50)
We should make it clear though although Luther showed signs of rejecting philosophy and self-righteousness as well as beginning to understand a more radical sense of sinfulness he had not yet expressed the concept of justification by faith in his marginal notes of 1509/1510.

The next traceable stage of Luther in history is found in a series of lectures on the Psalms and a fairly new Christological hermeneutic which he began to trace (1513–1515).   In short Luther still did not break out in clear justification by faith teaching as a single event, but did more and more refuse to use any traditional distinctions about different types of graces while focussing more and more in the concept that Christ is the only source of forgiveness and all men are sinners, leaving little interest in other subjects. While taking this spiritual approach to the Psalms he even avoided almost all talk about sacraments, which would have otherwise been woven into the subjects by his contemporaries. Regarding criticism of the papacy he said not much and did not seem to suspect any great conflict with the Pope. However he did show serious signs of criticism of any religious person, including his own contemporaries who thought a strict following of rules would justify a person. Rather faith to Luther at this time was almost synonymous with humility, by confessing that we are sinners we glorify God and his judgment.

  Just like the Jews or the heretics, the observants were “much too holy,” trusting more in their merits than in the Word of the Lord. At times Luther could warn against works in any form and emphasize that everything depends on the imitatio Christi through faith and hope in him. Ignoring the works of Christ results in the many deeds that people believe they must perform themselves. (page 55)

To the point though all of this is a rumbling of a future change not the change itself. Luther did not yet attack the Papacy and did not yet teach the doctrine of justification by faith through an external righteousness occurring in one moment and lasting through to eternity apart from the moral works of the law.  The study of the Psalms seemed to basically coincide with Luther's greater sense of his sinfulness and the need of confession to God without much interest in external forms of religion of the sacraments. Yet he may have already had his Tower Experience around this time as is so evident in his next set of studies for his Lectures on Romans (1515/1516), Galatians (1516/1517), and Hebrews (1517/1518). What Luther historians know about his thought at this time is not the well developed post reformation thoughts laid out in his published commentaries available today but in notes recorded by his students.  But clearly during his lectures on Romans he had mention all the basic concepts of original sin and an un-polished version of justification by faith. Luther therefore attacked indulgences in (1517/1518) after he had already developed core doctrines that would be the cause of separating him far from the papacy.

Once the conflict was unleashed, if you read Luther's own account of the events, he seemed to be partly naive in how swiftly the Pope and papacy would oppose him.  In the back of his mind it almost seemed Luther thought he might be able to have is faith while remaining in the Catholic church and that the Pope would quietly tolerate him and he the Pope.  However, once he realized that the Pope would not allow what he considered essential Christian faith, he then realized that the Pope was actually an antiChrist and the two could never be reconciled.

In conclusion Luther was inwardly wrestling with two main ideas, original sin and justification by faith.  This is what separated him from the Catholic church. However the attack on something less important, triggered the comparison of beliefs and mad evident how impossible it was to have unity with these differences.   this ultimately led the Pope to denounce Luther which in turn made Luther realize he must denounce the Pope.

For illustration here is quote from his letter To John von Staupitz on May 30, 1518. He is trying to avoid conflict with the Pope as his 95 Thesis was meant to trigger a debate not to throw himself into danger and potential death as a heretic.

  And so I am asking you to receive this poor writing of mine and to forward it with whatever speed is available to you to our excellent Pope Leo X, so that it may serve me there as an advocate, so to speak, in the face of the contrivings of the evilminded. I ask this not because I want to get you involved in my danger; I prefer to take all the risk myself. Christ will know whether my words are his or my own. Without Christ’s command not even a pope can speak, nor is the heart of a king in his own hand.23 This Christ is the judge whose verdict I am awaiting through the Roman See. (Luther's Works Volume 48, page 70)

As is noted by the Editor of Luther's works on this passage:

  When Luther made this statement he obviously was still willing to acknowledge the authority of the Papal See. In the following months his view underwent a rapid change until, during the Leipzig Disputation, 1519 (see p. 126), he challenged this authority and made acceptance of any papal verdict dependent upon its agreement with Scripture. See also p. 74, n. 7; pp. 88 f.


Why did Mormons stop practicing polygamy? I know that early in the formation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, polygamy was common.  It's my understanding that it was an everlasting command from God to Joseph Smith.

Doctrine & Covenants 132

  4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

If the covenant is everlasting, why did the Mormons stop practicing polygamy?

If you look further through the chapter, every place where the words "everlasting covenant" are used, it's speaking of marriage in general, and not specifically of plural marriage.  The idea is that marriage itself is an everlasting covenant, not "until death do you part," but for all eternity.

As for why the practice of plural marriage was discontinued, an explanation can be found here, given directly by Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of the Church, under whose leadership the practice was ended.

The first part is a formal announcement to the world that the Mormons are done with polygamy; the second part, given some time later, was an explanation for church members of the rationale behind it.  He explains that the Lord revealed to him that political opposition would end up driving the church underground and cause the temples to be closed by force.  This would put an end to the work therein, which the LDS regard as sacred and of great importance.  Also, it would have forced an end to the practice of plural marriage as understood by the LDS anyway, as plural marriages were required to be performed in the temple.  In order to preserve the rest of the work, which the Lord saw as more important than continuing the practice of plural marriage, he instructed the church to stop practicing plural marriage and comply with the laws of the land.


Contradiction or translation problem with Moses in Exodus? Exodus tells of Moses meeting face to face with God.
Shortly thereafter there is a warning that nobody can see God's face or they will die.
So  contradiction,  translation problem,  or other explanation?
How can both statements be correct.
There are other instances that seem to contradict each other including some in the NT.

What Moses saw is described and defined in Numbers 12:8.

And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

What Moses saw was a 'similitude' (temunah Strong 8544). Such was the importance of all that was to be communicated to Moses, and thence to Israel, and thus to the whole earth, that God spoke through a mechanism, as if face to face.
God spoke to prophets by vision and by dream, previously and thereafter. But to Moses he spoke through a visible means, which gave, to Moses, the likeness of speaking to a man face to face.
But it was only a 'similitude'.
Nor was that similitude ever described. No doubt because, had it been described, people would immediately have fashioned a likeness to it and worshiped it.
Jesus told us that :

God is (a) Spirit.

He has no physical form, as Deity.
But God is 'manifest in flesh' (1 Timothy 3:16 TR) when 'the Word was made flesh' John 1:14 when 'Jesus Christ is come in the flesh' 1 John 4:2.
To draw near to God in prayer, with a sincere heart and with faith, in order to seek his real presence, his true person, is, once successful, once the Lord hears and answers and draws near : this is to see his face, as he truly is.
But it is not the physical eyes which see him who is Spirit, but the 'eye of
faith'.

Those who repent and believe the gospel and continue in the faith shall see God, as he is, when he comes, 1 John 3:2 :

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him;

for we shall see him as he is.

All quotations are from the KJV.


Why do Protestants worship on Sunday? If the Sabbath is Saturday and it's known that the Roman Catholic Church changed the day week to worship from Saturday to Sunday, why then would Protestants continue to worship on Sunday?  I understand that Protestantism is a large group - I believe all of the sub-denominations do this for the same reason.  If there are different reasons per denomination, I'll either change the question or make a question for each Protestant Denomination.

Cardinal James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (Ayers Publishing, 1978)

  But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will
  not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The
  Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which
  we never sanctify.

John A. O'Brien, The Faith of Millions: the Credentials of the Catholic Religion Revised Edition (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1974)

  But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it
  curious that non-Catholics, who claim to take their religion directly
  from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of
  Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made
  about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that
  time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the
  custom even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church
  and not upon and explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains
  as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects
  broke away—like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his
  pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair.

The choice of Sunday is traditional, but it is also harmonious with the Biblical account (emphasis added):

  Acts 20:7 NASB
  On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.

  1 Corinthians 16:2 (NASB)
  On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.

  Revelation 1:10 (NASB)
  I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and ...

There's a strong suggestion1 here that Sunday was day that the church met together. Because it was the day of Jesus' resurrection (Mt 28:1), it seems very sensible for the modern church to do this.

Also, bear in mind that there is no commandment from Jesus or the Biblical authors to worship or meet together on a particular day of the week. If one was not bound by the Law of Moses, why would it matter what day was chosen? Not all protestant groups believe that they are not bound, but of those who do, what compulsion would there be to worship on Saturday except for tradition and honor for the Jewish way?

1 In regards to the relevance and validity of including a passage about "the Lord's Day," I include the passage because is a possible example of Sunday having its own significance. It seems reasonable (though not the only conceivable reading) to understand this as Sunday because John used the word Sabbath nine times, never once referring to it as the Lord's day or giving it any other name. (The particular phrase doesn't appear anywhere else in the NT.) No other NT author referred to the Sabbath in any other way than the name already employed by the Jews. Revelation was presumably written later than his other writings, and so perhaps his understanding was better, or the phrase grew out of what was by that time established tradition (60-70 years after Jesus' death) of whatever day the Christians met together. To choose between the two most likely meanings, it seems to me that Sunday has a stronger case than Saturday.


What is the "New Theological Movement" within the Catholic Church? I've only seen 4 links so far to posts from  http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com on this site, but all it appears to be is a blog by a priest with a very staunch detractor who comes up with explanations to things that otherwise aren't answered explicitly in the Catechism like does Jesus know what God knows.

So, is the priest who blogs there (Fr. Ryan Erlenbush) a priest in good standing in his diocese and does he have any credentials as a Theologigian.

Like Chesterton, I am rather of an older fashion and usually skeptical of anything that has the words "new" and "theology" that close together. So, if someone could shed some light on this "movement", it would be much appreciated.

This "New Theological Movement" seems to be something specific to Fr. Ryan Erlenbush.

There is a movement called New Theology (Nouvelle Théologie), whose tenets were condemned in Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis. See:

Nouvelle Théologie New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II (2010) by Jürgen Mettepenningen
"The structure of the encyclical Humani Generis" by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

To the question "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?", Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange responded: back to Modernism.

There is also a movement called the New Theological Movement, which began in the early 20th century as a movement to educate the faithful about the Holy Mass, but in the years leading up to Vatican II, it was hijacked by Modernists who wanted to change the Mass (dumb it down) to accommodate "modern man". The New Theological Movement today has returned to the movement's original intentions.