Why are there different divisions of the Ten Commandments? The Ten Commandments is often shown as a nice list with ten short statements, whereas in the Bible it exists as a long block of text in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21. For reference:

  Exodus 20:2-17 (HCSB)

  2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the place of slavery.

  3 Do not have other gods besides Me.

  4 Do not make an idol for yourself, whether in the shape of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. 5 You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the fathers' sin, to the third and fourth [generations] of those who hate Me, 6 but showing faithful love to a thousand [generations] of those who love Me and keep My commands.

  7 Do not misuse the name of the LORD your God, because the LORD will punish anyone who misuses His name.

  8 Remember to dedicate the Sabbath day: 9 You are to labor six days and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. You must not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates. 11 For the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy.

  12 Honor your father and your mother so that you may have a long life in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

  13 Do not murder.

  14 Do not commit adultery.

  15 Do not steal.

  16 Do not give false testimony against your neighbor.

  17 Do not covet your neighbor's house. Do not covet your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

If I were given the above text without paragraphs nor verse markers (which are a later addition), I'd have trouble spotting how it should be divided to exactly ten commandments. This might be a reason that there are multiple "competing" divisions.

The different divisions that I know of are (adapted from a better table on Wikipedia):

                                                            A   B   C
I am the Lord your God                                     pre   1   1
You shall have no other gods before me                       1   1   1
You shall not make for yourself an idol                      2   2   1
Do not take the name of the Lord in vain                     3   3   2
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy                        4   4   3
Honor your father and mother                                 5   5   4
You shall not murder                                         6   6   5
You shall not commit adultery                                7   7   6
You shall not steal                                          8   8   7
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor       9   9   8
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife                    10  10   9
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor  10  10  10

For fun, see if you know which is used by whom! The answer is below, mouse-over to see it:

   A: Anglican, Reformed (pre = preface)
 B: Orthodox; Jewish (Talmudic)
 C: Catholic, Lutheran
 As far as I know, almost all other denominations use A or B.

What are the reasonings for these different divisions? Especially since the first division didn't stick, I'm quite sure the differences can't be arbitrary.

The reason why different groups view the Ten Commandments differently is because each group assumes different priorities from the text. Some of the commandments are long because they include a justification or explanation, so it's natural to shorten those to a single phrase when compiling the list. It is these expanded commandments that leave room for different number orders.

A lot of Protestants say that Catholics lumped "Thou shalt not make unto thyself graven images" in with the first commandment in order to avoid the issue of venerating icons. This shouldn't be the case, since Jews have put "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" with "graven images" since antiquity. During the time of Exodus, the Jewish worldview at the time stands out among it's Middle East peers. The first commandment in their version lays the basis for monotheism. It is the foundation of all the commandments.

Christians see the Jewish first command as a preface. For a long time, Jewish understanding of the Scriptures was lost to the Christian world, whether by lack of contact or simple ignoring. Therefore, in Protestant and Catholic minds, there is no need to establish monotheism, and the division of ten can only be in the rest of the list. At the same time, there is a different wording near the end of the list in the Exodus/Deuteronomy versions: Catholic tradition emphasizes the latter, where coveting your neighbor's wife comes before coveting your neighbor's house, so from a Protestant perspective, which emphasises the earlier decalogue, it doesn't even enter the mind to split them, so they go to the most natural section. Furthermore, Protestants are protesting, among other things, the veneration of icons, so they emphasize the commandment against graven images.

Even if making carved idols is a sub-unit of the first commandment, then it still would seem apparent that the rest of the explanation and justification for that commandment is concerned primarily with making idols. For ancient Jewry this is understandable since false worship always included idols in the world around them. Catholics also know that they only worship one God, so they don't see the reason to separate two ideas that are so connected. Protestants are critical of Catholic practices after the Reformation period, and they don't have the option of making two different covets because of the way the text they use is worded. Protestants feel like this commandment of God (even as a sub-unit of one of the ten, it still is a command) has been understated, and they elevate its status.

The divisions are competing merely because of historical reasons. They don't actually contradict each other. The Law is summed up in "Love the LORD your God" and "Love your neighbor.".


Did the early Church Fathers have a complete agreement on how to interpret 1 Peter 3:18-20? Did the early Church Fathers have a complete agreement on how to interpret 1 Peter 3:18-20 or did they also have some differences in the way they interpreted these words by Peter? I specifically mean the words highlighted in the verses below:

  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20 ESV)

Who are the spirits?
What is the prison?
What exactly did Jesus proclaim to them?

The most detailed analysis of various different views in the early Church concerning this verse is to be found in a letter by Saint Augustine to a Bishop called Evodius that wrote a letter to him asking for his opinion.(Saint Augustine, Letter 164, A.D. 414)

I will summarize the letter which illustrates both the different opinions at the time as well as Augustine's reasonable conclusion.

First Augustine admits this is a difficult passage, he then mentions the problems he has with various views other's propose.  First he can't see the logic of those who claim Christ went to hell to preach to just the souls who died in the flood:

  If the Lord when He died preached in hell to spirits in prison, why were those who continued unbelieving while the ark was a preparing the only ones counted worthy of this favour, namely, the Lord’s descending into hell? For in the ages between the time of Noah and the passion of Christ, there died many thousands of so many nations whom He might have found in hell. (Saint Augustine, Letter 164, A.D. 414)

Next he disagrees in the possibility that the Bishop suggested who originally asked the question, that maybe Jesus descended into hell preaching and potentially delivering every unbelieving soul from Adam to Christ. He disagrees because Augustine thinks it is presumptuous to decide who these souls could be and that maybe it's not referring to any soul.

  But who these were it is presumptuous for us to define. For if we say that all who were found there were then delivered without exception, who will not rejoice if we can prove this? ...These things being so, if the Saviour delivered all from that place, and, to quote the terms of the question in your letter, “emptied hell, so that now from that time forward the last judgment was to be expected,” the following things occasion not unreasonable perplexity on this subject, and are wont to present themselves to me in the meantime when I think on it. First, by what authoritative statements can this opinion be confirmed? For the words of Scripture, that “the pains of hell were loosed” by the death of Christ, do not establish this, seeing that this statement may be understood as referring to Himself, and meaning that he so far loosed (that is, made ineffectual) the pains of hell that He Himself was not held by them, especially since it is added that it was “impossible for Him to be holden of them.”  (Saint Augustine, Letter 164, A.D. 414)

He then makes a surprising and curious admission that "although the authority of the canonical Scriptures cannot be brought forward as speaking expressly in its support" it was the tradition that Augustine also supports that Adam was in hell and was a soul delivered by Christ when he descended into hell. Then he reject other opinions of the day that also included "Seth, Noah and his house, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the other patriarchs" in this release from hell, because he believes they were not in hell but in Abraham's bosom which was similar to paradise and not part of hell.

Augustine (in contrast to his believe that Christ did descend into hell and saved Adam) now argues against the idea that this verse actually speaks of saving anybody from hell. He hinges his idea that as 1 Peter 4:6 says "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit."actually i plies Christ only preached to those 'in the flesh' but those in hell had no flesh.

  For how can they be judged in the flesh, which if they be in hell they no longer have, and which if they have been loosed from the pains of hell they have not yet resumed?   (Saint Augustine, Letter 164, A.D. 414)

He also dismissed the idea that maybe those who rose from the graves when Christ was on the cross is being referred to.

Augustine then dismisses those who feel it unfair if Christ did not descend into hell to preach to those before the gospel was manifest because it was not clearly preached before. He argues that if that is the case then it is also unfair today for those who die before hearing the gospel, with no real difference.

Finally Augustine presents his own view, which answers your questions.

The spirits in prison are just symbols of rejectors of God in the past, applied in the present time. God has always preached the gospel in the past through Christ and those who died in the flood had rejected the gospel.

  Consider, however, I pray you, whether all that the Apostle Peter says concerning spirits shut up in prison, who were unbelieving in the days of Noah, may not after all have been written without any reference to hell, but rather to those times the typical character of which he has transferred to the present time....But to the men of Noah’s time the gospel was preached in vain, because they believed not when God’s long suffering waited for them during the many years in which the ark was being built (for the building of the ark was itself in a certain sense a preaching of mercy); even as now men similar to them are unbelieving, who, to use the same figure, are shut up in the darkness of ignorance as in a prison, beholding in vain the Church which is being built up throughout the world, while judgment is impending, as the flood was by which at that time all the unbelieving perished....For although he had not yet come in the flesh, as He came when afterwards He “showed Himself upon earth, and conversed with men,” nevertheless he certainly came often to this earth, from the beginning of the human race, whether to rebuke the wicked, as Cain, and before that, Adam and his wife, when they sinned, or to comfort the good, or to admonish both, so that some should to their salvation believe, others should to their condemnation refuse to believe,—coming then not in the flesh but in the spirit, speaking by suitable manifestations of Himself to such persons and in such manner as seemed good to Him. As to this expression, “He came in the spirit,” surely He, as the Son of God, is a Spirit in the essence of His Deity, for that is not corporeal; but what is at any time done by the Son without the Holy Spirit, or without the Father, seeing that all the works of the Trinity are inseparable? (Saint Augustine, Letter 164, A.D. 414)

So Augustine would answer this way.

Who are the spirits? (Those who rejected the gospel of Christ when being preached  to by Christ in the days of Noah)
What is the prison?(There ignorance when in the flesh in the days of Noah, am not sure why he did not think the present tense of those in hell but I guess as he was arguing against preaching to those in hell, Augustine also imagines the prison not to be hell either)
What exactly did Jesus proclaim to them?(The gospel was preached by Noah for the Promise of the Messiah in the Old Testament was the gospel in a more obscure form.)

However it must be said that not all the Fathers agreed with Augustine, for example, though only a brief mention, it seems clear that St Athanasius thought Jesus after he died literally preached to the souls in hell.

  This Body it was that was laid in a grave, when the Word had left it, yet was not parted from it, to preach, as Peter says, also to the spirits in prison. (Athanasius, Letter to Epictetus 5h


Why doesn't the Roman Catholic church defrock Richard Rohr? Richard Rohr is a popular author and retreat leader. His philosophy combines Christianity, Jungian psychology, and a variety of insights gained from eastern religions. He quotes often from the early church fathers and Thomas Merton, but also the Dalai Lama, Islamic Sufi writers, and Hindus. His books are often blurbed by popular TV personalities like Dr. Oz.

Now I don't have a problem with any of this. If Rohr wants to make his way as a spiritual self-help writer and speaker, that's fine. What bothers me is that he frequently touts his credentials as an legitimate Roman Catholic priest and member of the Society of St. Francis. It's always the first thing listed in biographical paragraphs and on the dust jackets of his books.

This question is not to discuss whether Rohr is sufficiently orthodox or not. I realize he has many fans. However, in most of the protestant denominations I am familiar with, he would have been formally defrocked ages ago for his public teaching. Why does nobody in authority in the RC seem to care? Does he slip through the cracks due to his status as a Franciscan friar rather than a parish priest? Does he perhaps have powerful friends or defenders among the leaders of the order? Is there some other kind of internal organizational dysfunction to explain this?

Any light that could be shed on this (or similar situations) from someone familiar with RC procedure would be helpful.

In the Catholic Church, laicization (sometimes called “defrocking”) of a priest is much more complicated and is imposed as a penalty much less frequently than, say, the removal of a minister in other denominations. That is because the Catholic Church has a properly sacramental understanding of the priesthood. According to Catholic teaching, once a man is ordained—whether as deacon, priest, or bishop—he retains that degree of Holy Orders for life. It is an indellible mark or character that no human power can remove, under any circumstances. See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1581-1589.

In the case of a cleric engaged in grossly immoral behavior, the best that the Church can do is to prohibit him from exercising his ministry. That can be done with differing degrees of severity, ranging from simple prohibition, to suspension, to reduction to the lay sate (laicization or “defrocking”). If the delict in question is grave enough, the priest could also have an interdict or excommunication imposed (excommunication being the severest penalty that can be applied).

(Simple prohibition occurs when the competent authority—generally the local bishop—forbids a priest from exercising a given kind of ministry. For example, although a priest with faculties from his diocese of residence can, in general, hear confessions in any part of the world, a local bishop could, for a just cause, forbid him from hearing confessions in his diocese. Similarly, a priest’s own bishop could simply refuse to grant him the faculties to preach or hear confessions. On the other hand, suspension is a censure that entails a cessation of public ministry—either all ministry or only part of it, depending on the severity—without loss of the clerical state. Laicization—which can be voluntarily requested or imposed as a penalty—is the most severe restriction on sacramental ministry, which means that from now on the given deacon, priest, or bishop is to be considered a layperson, as far as the law is concerned, without, however, ceasing to be a deacon, priest or bishop ontologically. See the Code of Canon Law 1331-1335 and 290-293.)

Although laicization can be imposed as a punishment for extremely flagrant crimes, in practice such flagrant crimes are rare, and so “defrocking” is uncommon in the Catholic Church. (For example, nowadays laicization is imposed when there are confirmed and verified cases of child abuse by priests.) However, for less grave offenses, lesser penalties are generally given.

Regarding the case of Richard Rohr, his actions are simply not grave enough to merit a laicization. Fr. Rohr’s mixing of New Age and Christian mysticism is certainly questionable, and one can legitimetely discuss why other forms of disciplinary actions have not taken place, but the proper penalty for a case like his would be administrative (e.g., a revocation of his license to teach or preach), or, at most, a suspension, but certainly not an imposed laicization.


Why did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon into Jacobean English, not in use in 1830? Victorian era (1830-1900)

1830 was the beginning of the Victorian era. This literary period was short and volatile, in terms of thought and style; daring use of words and letters, pressing the bounds of literary tradition. It is very distinct (victorian).

Notable examples of the authors of this period would be;  Charles Dickens (1812-1870), Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), Alfred Tennyson(Lord) (1809-1892), and many others whose works are as recognizable.

The only traces of Jacobean era English, at this time, were stylistic holdovers, like those seen in the poetic literature of Tennyson.

Meanwhile, in American literature, writers such as Emily Dickinson (1830-1886), had no such stylistic relics in their poetry, that I have come across. That is not to say that they did not exist.

Scriptural writings were, in their day, of necessity, written in the linguistic style of the translators; which to the reader of that day would appear non-stylistic, being, to them, of modern vernacular.

Why then was the Book of Mormon stylized, to match Jacobean era literature?

  http://www.victorianweb.org/vn/index.html  web. retrieved 1/7/17
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_literature web. retrieved 1/7/17

Joseph Smith did not just translate the Book of Mormon into Jacobean English, but into a very specific type of Jacobean English, as used in the King James Version of the Bible (KJV). W. H Stevenson (King James's Bible: A Selection, 'The Language of AV' - ebook) says King James was a virtual contemporary of William Shakespeare, but that the language is not the same as that of Shakespeare's plays. For example, he says "The formality of 'Forasmuch as ...'  (e.g. 2 Sam 19:30), was never 'ordinary' English." Presumably, Smith was at least influenced by his knowledge of the KJV to translate the Book of Mormon into the register of Jacobean English that had been used in the KJV, for example:

  2 Nephi 18:6: Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters ...
  2 Nephi 27:25: Forasmuch as this people draw unto me ...

Smith copied not only the Jacobean English of the KJV, but some other usages characteristic of the Bible. The phrase 'And it came to pass' occurs more than 200 times in the Old Testament and more than 50 times in the New Testament. Although these passages are sometimes translated in other ways in different English Bibles, what we see in  the KJV is a valid translation of the Masoretic and Greek texts.  I have not counted them, but there are said to be more than 1400 occurrences of 'and it came to pass' in the Book of Mormon. Another example is that Mark's Gospel is noted, more than any other book of the Bible, for beginning many sentences with 'And', which is as ungrammatical in Greek as in English. I point this out because Smith found many sentences in the Book of Mormon that he also translated in the same way.

The KJV twice referred, incorrectly, to seraphims, where the Hebrew seraphim is already plural. The 1830 version of the Book of Mormon faithfully adopted this Jacobean spelling, although later versions of the Book of Mormon adopted the Hebrew 'seraphim'.

Stevenson (ibid) says that the language of the KJV has "become familiar as the prototype of a kind of religious dialect whose very archaism is one of its distinguishing features."  I propose that Smith adopted this biblical English in his translations because his contemporaries would not have accepted a Victorian English Book of Mormon as authentic scripture.


Are Catholics not supposed to pray the St. Michael Prayer? I was looking up exorcism stuff on the Vatican website and stumbled across this from (then) Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI)

From these prescriptions it follows that it is not even licit that the faithful use the formula of exorcism against Satan and the fallen angels, extracted from the one published by order of the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII, and even less that they use the integral text of this exorcism. Bishops should take care to warn the faithful, if necessary, of this.
Letter to Ordinaries regarding norms on Exorcism

So does that mean that the St. Michael Prayer:

Glorious St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil, and do thou o Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the Earth seeking the ruin of souls. Amen

I learned by heart this prayer some 15 years ago and say every time the creepy crawlies pound on my windows at 3 AM is verboten?

The faithful may recite the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel freely.

The prohibition from Pope Leo XIII is against the faithful’s use of the rite of exorcism—in other words, the pope is prohibiting the faithful from attempting an exorcism themselves, as only a priest or bishop may do this.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1673, explains,

  The solemn exorcism, called “a major exorcism,” can be performed only by a priest [evidently, a bishop may perform it as well] and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church [emphasis added].

The Prayer to St. Michael, on the other hand, is a popular devotional prayer (at one time recited as a part of the so-called “low Mass”), which is never a problem to recite. (It is never a problem for people to ask for the intercession of the saints in protecting them from the influence of Satan.)

The similarity of the Prayer of St. Michael to the rite of solemn exorcism in use at the time does not itself make the devotional prayer illicit. In fact John Paul II recommended its popular use at least once in a 1994 Regina Coeli address.


Was it possible for Catholics to express their faith openly in England during the time of persecution? Was it possible for Catholics to express their faith openly (if at all) in Britain during the time of the of English persecutions (April 29, 1559)-(April 13, 1829)?

  On 29 April 1559, the English House of Lords by 33 votes to 12 passed a bill abolishing papal supremacy over the Christian church in England, and establishing the supremacy of the English monarchs over it. Also in April 1559, a bill abolishing the Mass and imposing an English language Book of Common Prayer liturgy passed in the House of Lords by a majority of three and was implemented on 24 June of that year. To refuse to take an oath of belief in royal supremacy over the church became a crime punishable by removal from public office and inability to hold any office. To defend papal authority over the church became punishable in the first offense by loss of goods; the second by imprisonment for life; the third offence was considered treason punishable by death. - The Persecution of Catholics in Elizabethan England

The persecution against Catholics officially ended on April 13, 1829.

  The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, passed by Parliament in 1829, was the culmination of the process of Catholic Emancipation throughout the UK. In Ireland it repealed the Test Act 1672 and the remaining Penal Laws which had been in force since the passing of the Disenfranchising Act of the Irish Parliament of 1728. Its passage followed a vigorous campaign that threatened insurrection led by Irish lawyer Daniel O'Connell. The British leaders, starting with the Prime Minister the Duke of Wellington and his top aide Robert Peel, although personally opposed, gave in to avoid civil strife. Ireland was quiet after the passage.

  The Act permitted members of the Catholic Church to sit in the parliament at Westminster. O'Connell had won a seat in a by-election for Clare in 1828 against an Anglican. Under the then extant penal law, O'Connell as a Roman Catholic, was forbidden to take his seat in Parliament. Sir Robert Peel, the Home Secretary, until then was called "Orange Peel" because he always supported the Orange (anti-Catholic) position. Peel now concluded: "though emancipation was a great danger, civil strife was a greater danger." Fearing a revolution in Ireland, Peel drew up the Catholic Relief Bill and guided it through the House of Commons. To overcome the vehement opposition of both the House of Lords and King George IV, the Duke of Wellington worked tirelessly to ensure passage in the House of Lords, and threatened to resign as Prime Minister if the King did not give Royal Assent. - Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 (Wikipedia)

They sang "The Twelve Days of Christmas" as an expression of faith and quite openly!

In 1870, the song of The Twelve Days of Christmas was first published in England, shortly after the time when it was a criminal act to practice the Catholic faith. According to the Tridentine Mass of Pope Pius V (1570), the Christmas season lasted from the Solemnity of the Birth of Our Lord until the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord, on February 2 (40 days). However, the Liturgical Year counted Sundays as being in the time of the Epiphany, instead of ordinary time as we do now, thus making the “Twelve Days Of Christmas” to be taken as being from the Solemnity of the Birth of Our Lord until the Vigil of the Epiphany (January 5). The Twelve Day of Christmas carol had a totally different historical meaning for the faithful living in Britain during the persecutions against Catholics from April 29, 1559 to April 13, 1829 (Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829), when it was a criminal offence to practice the Catholic religion. Catholicism remained illegal for some 232 years. The singing of this carol was a way for persecuted Catholics to express their faith openly in England as laid out in the twelve points in the Apostles’ Creed.

Being a time of persecution, the faithful would naturally not have any written works on its' real interpretation in order to avoid linking them to the Catholic Church.

None of the numerated parts of the song could be used to distinguish Catholics from Anglicans (or Protestant for that matter), and could thus be sung quite openly as an expression by the faithful of the Catholic Church.

Other interpretations do exist for numerated parts of this carol as to the symbolism they meant to Catholics living in England during the persecutions for their faith. None other than the Apostle’s Creed interpretation makes this a uniquely Catholic carol sung at Christmastide. Here is the most popular interpretation of “The Twelve Days of Christmas.”

The partridge in a pear tree is Jesus.
The two turtledoves are the Old and New Testaments.
Three French hens stand for faith, hope and love.
The four calling birds are the four Gospels.
The five gold rings recall the Hebrew Torah (Law), or the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament.
The six geese a-laying stand for the six days of creation.
The seven swans a-swimming represent the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.
The eight maids a-milking are the eight Beatitudes.
Nine ladies dancing are the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit.
The ten lords a-leaping are the Ten Commandments.
Eleven pipers piping represent the eleven faithful Apostles.
Twelve drummers drumming symbolize the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostles Creed.

Here is “The Twelve Days of Christmas” sung on YouTube: “The Twelve Days of Christmas” - Hayley Westenra, Russell Watson, Aled Jones (Songs of Praise).

  In 1982, Fr. Stockert put this online in 1982. Since then there has been controversy on whether or not the story of the origin is correct. Much of the story makes sense, because there are other "Catechism songs" that have similar hidden meanings, such as "Green Grow the Rushes". Could some people be disputing the origin because they refuse to acknowledge the persecution of Catholic in England during 1558 to 1829? Perhaps the objection is just to the fact that there is no paper trail to this explanation. Regardless if the origin is accurate or not, as Catholics we can use this song as a catechism, to apply religious meanings to a secular song. - Origin of the Twelve Days of Christmas


What have past theologians written about preparing to die? Note: this is NOT a personal question.

It's of personal interest only because I find that thinking about death separates the important from the trivial, pushes secular needs into the background, and makes it easier to focus on spiritual thoughts.

For example:

I find it easier to forgive when reading sermons like:

Preparing to Depart, Are you prepared to Die?

I find less temptations for earthly desires.

In the face of death, questions about startups, romance, become significantly less important than what Jesus said.

In a certain sense, all Christian literature is about Christ; and one can not talk about Christ without talking about the second coming; and one can not talk about the second coming without talking about death.

However, there's a wide spectrum going from "How to use Christianity to live a better earthly life" to "Foxe's book of Martyrs." Thus, the question:

1) What has past Theologians written about "preparing to die?"

2) What theological works continuously bring death back into the picture when explaining the solemn nature of theology?

I have not encountered specific works dedicated to the subject, but certain authors seem to permeate everything they wrote with death in mind.  The subject of death permeates in almost everything written by Jonathan Edwards and Martin Luther.
Of all the people I have encountered Jonathan Edwards made me think about my own death more than any other. I was in University when I first encountered his sermons on the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.  After that time I have probably had at least one wondering thought thought every day about my own death and if I am properly prepared to die.
It is said that Edwards lived a life prepared to die.  Here is some sample snippet that indicates Edwards typical way of arguing:

Be persuaded for your own safety, to look a little forward and be concerned about your welfare an age hence, and not only what you shall eat, and what you shall drink, and wherewithal you shall be clothed for that little time you are to remain here. Frequently ask yourself the question, what you intend to do if death comes and summons you out of the world, and from all your earthly good things. If you are not prepared to die, you cannot resist the summons: none are able to grapple with the king of terrors. When death comes, he will hale you from all your dear enjoyments, whether you will or no, never to set your eye on those things more. And as there will be no encountering death, so neither will there be any entreating it; he'll not be wrought upon by cries and tears; he is altogether inexorable. He'll not wait for you one minute, that you may have a little opportunity to be better fitted and prepared to go with him. Jonathan Edwards Sermons)

Luther also brings up death quite a bit.  He usually is a little more positive about then Edwards and possibly a little more mature about it, but both seem angled in the same direction.
For example, Luther compares death to childbearing:

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

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

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

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

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


Why is the Feast of the Visitation held on May 31st, during the Easter/Pentecost season? The Feast of the Visitation is held on May 31st (May 30th in Eastern churches), which depending on the year will fall into either the Easter or Pentecost season.

It seems really strange to me that the Feast celebrating a pregnant Mary visiting a pregnant Elizabeth is celebrated at a time when the church is focused on the direct aftermath of an adult Jesus being resurrected and the sending of the Holy Spirit. Celebrating an event concerning an unborn Jesus at that time seems to distract from that, whereas it likely would not if it were held sometime later.

So why is the Feast of the Visitation held on May 31st, during the Easter/Pentecost season?

The Wikipedia article you link to actually gives a clear explanation: quoting from the Roman Calendar, "so that it would harmonize better with the Gospel story."
From 1389, when the feast was first made universal in the Western Church, until 1969 when the most recent edit was made to the Roman Calendar, the feast was held on July 2. This is exactly 1 week (the end of the octave) after the Feast of the Nativity (Birth) of St. John the Baptist on June 24. The idea was apparently to cluster feasts relating to John the Baptist.
In 1969, the Roman Calendar was updated, and several celebrations of the Latin Rite of the Church were added, removed, or moved—this was the case with the Visitation. The entry in the Calendar's chapter "Variationes in Calendarium Romanum Inductae" ("Changes Introduced into the Roman Calendar") for July 2 reads:

In Visitatione B. M. V.
Ss. Processi et Martiniani
Festum Visitationis die 31 Maii reponitur, i.e. inter sollemnitates Annuntiationis Domini et Nativitatis S. Ioannis Baptistae, quo aptius consentiat narrationi evangelicae.
On the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Saints Processus and Martinian (i. e. these saints are celebrated instead)
The Feast of the Visitation is restored to the 31st day of May, that is between the solemnities of the Annunciation of the Lord and the Birth of Saint John the Baptist, by which [movement] it more appropriately agrees with the story of the Gospel.
(Calendarium Romanum 1969; my translation)

Pope Paul VI and his advisors seem to have had in mind the Gospel according to Luke:

The angel said to [Mary] in reply ... "Behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren." ...
During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. ... Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home.
(Luke 1:35, 36, 39, 56; New American Bible, Revised Edition)

We are not told exactly how long after the angel's announcement Mary set out, but traditionally the Church has held that Mary was with Elizabeth from approximately the sixth month of the pregnancy until birth; that is, from the conception of Jesus until approximately the third month of pregnancy. This would have been about six months before the birth of Jesus, or about June 25. The birth of John the Baptist is, indeed, celebrated on June 24. Any time between March 25 and June 24 would seem appropriate, but it's not clear why May 31 in particular was chosen. May 31 had been used to celebrate the Queenship of Mary, and that feast was moved to August 22, the week after the Assumption.
As a note, there is no "Pentecost season" in the Western Church. If Easter falls between March 22 (the earliest possible date) and April 11, Pentecost will fall no later than May 30, putting the Visitation in Ordinary Time (during, I believe, the 9th week of Ordinary Time). If Pentecost falls later (it can fall as late as June 14), then the feast is during the Easter Season.


How do Young Earth Creationists account for the arising of millions of species after the flood? In this debate, about 1:07:18, Bill Nye calculated that about 11 species per day must have been born since the time of the flood in order for the millions of current species to have evolved* from the mere thousands of different kinds that Ken Ham states would have been on the ark.  Ken Ham didn't address this issue later on in the debate.  How do Young Earth Creationists account for this great diversity of species?  Were every single offspring of each kind of animals separate species so that most of the species evolved* quickly after the flood?

EDIT: Here is how Bill Nye came up with his number:

4,000 Years since Ken Ham's flood:
7,000 Ken Ham's "kinds"
16,000,000 species today

4,000 years * 365.25 days per year = 1,461,000 days

Number_of_new_species_per_day = 15,993,000 species / 1,461,000 days = 11 new species per day since the time of the flood

*(By "Evolve," I am referring to micro-evolution)

I started to comment but I think I’ll turn it into an answer

That is illogical.

You cannot take the axioms/constants of one paradigm and use them to argue against another paradigm. By design they will conflict. They have entirely different presupposition and therefore modes of interpretation.

You must prove within a paradigm that the axioms of that same paradigm are conflicting.

Thus far the Christian Young Earth paradigm is consistent both in its claims and its interpretation of the observable data because it doesn’t interpret the data from an evolutionary standpoint.

The proposal Nye is putting forth is preposterous, he is superimposing big bang evolution over Creator and creation and expecting to find what the former claims as axiomatic, to be true in the latter.

I do see his angle and for that reason he needs to correct course because his math is deceiving

Firstly he is counting from the flood, let’s say it’s 4,000 years use round numbers. He cannot include all life forms in the waters because they were not destroyed by the flood.

Also he is including microorganisms, there is no evidence they were destroyed.

Furthermore he is back tracking down to zero/one organism but the flood did not start with zero animals.

Another point even though there is much more to be said from so many other angles, each animal after its kind diversified from 1 to 2 then to 4 then to 8 then to 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1,024, 2,048, 4,096, 8,192, 16,384, 32,768, 65,536, 131,072, 262,144, 524,288, 1,048,576...Its exponential not linear. Within 20 replication cycles you can create whole different variation from the original mother and father genome combinations. Start switching off due to environmental selection or removing certain genes from the gene pool and you’re on you way to selecting one gene over another. You don’t even need 4,000 years.

Factor into the above paragraph that most animals reproduce more than once in a life time and that they may also have many offsprings from the same copulation. That is an even greater climb than exponential growth.

average implies a linear growth when it was most likely exponential

Adding one other detail. YEC starts from the premise that the genome for each kind started whole and with different alleles but with time was selected for certain genes; genes being selected out of the gene pool. That is not very difficult to understand, the process of losing information as opposed to the evolutionary model that necessitates an increase of new information. Granted YEC starts with a Creator but within the paradigm it remains consistent. Evolutionist have not yet proven one example of novel genetic sequence that has not been introduced artificially.

So his premise is wrong. It’s an interesting idea but again intellectually dishonest because he chose not to inform himself of what YEC actually claim but rather strawmans a paradigm using axioms from a paradigm he favors and use a form of sophistry and debate rhetorics to overwhelm or command superiority when in fact it should be unemotional and well informed arguments that disprove the opposition in science not oratory
!


What is the difference between Systematics and Dogmatics? In what ways does systematic theology differ from dogmatic theology? From my understanding they seem to be almost identical in that they're dependent upon the particular denominations, traditions, confessions on which they lean.

Can they be distinguished? Or is Systematics just Dogmatics in modern dress? For some reason when I hear "dogmatics" I think of its modern use as borderline pejorative, as in "you shouldn't be so dogmatic."

The two terms are basically synonyms, but there are some differences.

First, it's not merely a matter of "age."  Karl Barth wrote Church Dogmatics  in 1932, while Charles Hodge wrote Systematic Theology in 1872.

On the other hand, there seems to be a geographical bias.  Barth, Berkouwer, Heppe, Pieper, and Ott all wrote originally in German or Dutch, and their works are translated into English with a variation of the word "dogmatic."  Heppe is a good example: his Reformierte Dogmatik became Reformed Dogmatics.

There are exceptions: English writers Edward A. Litton (Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, 1882) and William Shedd (Dogmatic Theology, 1889) eschewed "systematic," even though their peers Boyce, Dabney, Miley, and Hodge preferred it.

Some attempt to draw a strong distinction in the meaning of the terms, arguing that "Dogmatic" implies a closer relation with the teachings of schools and denominations, and less of an emphasis on the Bible, than is implied by "Systematic."  For example, the Grace Institute for Biblical Leadership puts it simply:

  Systematic theology [...] uses the Bible as its primary source. [...] Dogmatic theology uses as its primary sources the creeds or statements of faith.

John Miley does not paint so stark a picture, describing the difference and similarities as follows:

  Dogmatic theology has its proper distinction from both biblical and systematic, though often used in the same sense as the latter.  It is not limited to the Scriptures, like the biblical, nor has it by any requirement the comprehensiveness of the systematic.  [....] Mostly, dogmatic theology devotes itself to the creed of a particular school. [...] [It] may be just as free from dogmatism in any philosophic sense of the term, and just as scientific in its principles and method, as systematic theology. (Systematic Theology, vol. 1, Introduction)

One author particularly involved in the discussion is Louis Berkhof, as his treatise was first published as Reformed Dogmatics in 1932, and then republished several years later as Systematic Theology (1938).  The preface of a modern publication of that work states:

  [Berkhof] yielded to the suggestion, perhaps from his publisher, that Reformed Dogmatics was not a term and title as clear to the American readership as Systematic Theology -- although he continued to view the original title as more fully descriptive of his purpose.

Berkhof makes his case for the term Dogmatics in an early chapter:

  Reformed scholars in Germany and in the Netherlands show a decided preference for the title Dogmatics, with or without a modifier.  In our own country, however, the term Systematic Theology seems to have a more popular appeal.  From an ideal point of view the former certainly deserves preference, (1) because it is the more specific of the two, and designates the real object of study with greater precision; and (2) because the modifier 'systematic' in 'Systematic Theology' is apt to create the impression that the study under consideration is the only theological study which treats its subject matter in a logical order.

But he does not consider this a crucial distinction:

  For practical reasons, however, it seems more desirable, especially in our country and in our day, to use the title Systematic Theology.  This does not require the sacrifice of any principle.

In fact, Berkhof notes that Benjamin B. Warfield (Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 7-26 (1896)) prefers Systematic.  Warfield disputes Berkhof's second point, writing:

  What is meant by calling this discipline "Systematic Theology" is not that it deals with its material in a systematic or methodical way, and the other disciplines do not; but that it presents its material in the form of a system.

In Berkhof's definition of Dogmatic Theology from a reformed perspective, he like Miley points out its tie to a particular system of doctrine but emphasizes the importance of scriptural backing:

  It seeks to give a systematic presentation of all the doctrinal truths of the Christian religion. [...] The dogmatician must demonstrate the truth of the system which he presents as his own.  He must show that every part of it strikes its roots deep down into the subsoil of Scripture.

It thus seems safe to say that in general, the terms can be viewed as near synonyms, with minor, technical distinctions, and that their usage depends more on geography, language, and personal preference than a universally accepted difference in meaning.


What rules does the Catholic Church have for venerating crosses/crucifixes on Good Friday? Each year on the Good Friday service at my parish we venerate the cross, but I really wish it were a crucifix, and I've wondered why we don't have one for that purpose.  I've been trying to find one to just drop off at the church with a note saying "this is better, keep it", but before I do, I would like to know if the  Catholic Church has any restrictions as to what kind of a cross can be venerated during the Good Friday service?

Does the cross have to be a certain size, of a certain material, or are we even allowed to venerate a cross sans-Corpus?

The rubrics for the pre-1955 Missale Romanum (PDF p. 326) seem to assume there is a front and back side of the cross, which could only be possible were there a corpus on it:

  Completis Orationibus, Sacerdos…accipit a Diacono Crucem jam in Altari præparatam: quam, versa facie ad populum… etc.

  The orations having been completed, the Priest…takes the Cross,
  already prepared at the altar, from the Deacon: which, [the cross] turned
  toward the people… etc.

It can also be inferred that the cross shouldn't be so big that it can't rest on the altar.


What is a good starting point for a study of the early Church? I'm very interested in the Early Church (after Christ's Ascension) and was wondering what Orthodox writings are available? So far, I have found Eusebius, Papias, Irenaeus, James the Martyr and Philo Judaeus. Does anyone have any additional suggestions? Basically, looking into the first century AD.

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.

This and others may be found here.


Is there any relationship between Aquinas teaching on the analogical knowledge of God and Christ teaching in parables? Is there any relationship between Aquinas teaching on the analogical knowledge of God and Christ teaching in parables (ie. via analogies)?

Parables & Metaphors
To speak parabolically is to speak in metaphors, and metaphors pertain to poetry, "the least (infima) of all the sciences" because it "makes use of metaphors for the sake of (propter) representation" (Summa Theologica I q. 1 a. 9 arg./ad 1).
Unlike analogy, metaphors can be used to conceal knowledge (or reveal it):

Matthew 13:10-11Why speakest thou to them [the multitudes] in parables [and openly to the Apostles]? […] Because to you [the Apostles] it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.

St. Thomas's commentary on Matthew 13:3:

And he spoke to them many things in parables. The reason is twofold[: that]

[…] by parables of this kind, sacred things would be hidden from the unbelievers, lest they blaspheme: for it was said above, “Give not that which is holy to dogs” ([Mt.] 7, 6). […]

spiritual things are hidden; for that reason, they cannot fully be made known through temporal things, hence, they have to be made known through different things; “I wish that God would speak with thee, and would open his lips to thee, that he might shew thee the secrets of wisdom” (Job 11, 5-6).

Metaphor is "improper supposition" according to John of St. Thomas. This means "that a word is predicated of something which does not fall under what the word signifies." (McInerny Logic of Analogy p. 146).
Analogy
Thesis 4 of the 24 Thomistic Theses states:

Thesis IV.
Ens, quod denominatur ab esse, non univoce de Deo ac de creaturis dicitur, nec tamen prorsus aequivoce, sed analogice, analogia tum attributionis tum proportionalitis.
Being, which derives its name from existence, is not predicated univocally of God and creatures; nor yet merely equivocally, but analogically, by the analogy both of attribution and of proportionality.
Commentary: If the actuality of existence is in God a Pure Act and is in creatures an Act mixed with Potency, Being cannot be predicated of God and creatures in an identical way [univocally]: God is self-existing, creatures have their existence from God. Still, because the effect in some manner reproduces its cause, Being does not belong to God and creatures in a totally different sense [equivocally]. Being, as predicated of God and creatures is an analogous term. Its analogy is first that of attribution, since Being appertains to creatures as far as they have it from God, to whom it appertains by essence; and is secondly that of proportionality, since the actuality of existence is intrinsic to God and creatures as existing beings. [Summa Theologiae, Iª q. 13 a. 5; Contra Gentiles, lib. 1 cap. 32 et cap. 33 et cap. 34; De potentia, q. 7 a. 7]

Cf. McInerny's Aquinas & Analogy and this constructive criticism of it; its ch. 6 is on "Metaphor and Analogy".
cf. also: "Are analogical middle terms sufficient for a valid demonstration?," a distinctive feature of Thomism, and St. Thomas on the three types of predication from his De Principiis Naturæ


On what basis does the Catholic Church oppose penalisation of women guilty of abortion? There is a very heated public debate about abortion in Poland at this moment. Pro-life organizations, seeing opportunity in the fact that the current government claims to be pro-Catholic, formally proposed a complete prohibition of abortion, with the possibility to penalize women guilty of it. This proposal has, however, recently been rejected by the Parliament, with prominent members of the governing party citing the position of the episcopate, who keep reiterating that while they support any propositions to prohibit abortion, at the same time they oppose any possibility to penalize women who have performed abortion.

Is this the position of the Polish episcopate only, or is it the teaching of the whole universal Church that women guilty of performing abortion should not be penalized?

Canon Law already punishes Catholics involved in abortion with automatic (latæ sententiæ) excommunication:

  Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latæ sententiæ excommunication.

This includes all Catholics involved: the woman, her family, the abortionist, assisting nurses and doctors, and even those on medical ethics boards who approve of the direct killing of the unborn (cf. the 2010 case of the excommunication of Sr. Margaret McBride).cf. canonist Dom Augustine's commentary on those who perform abortion.

The question the Polish bishops are dealing with is whether those involved in abortion should be penalized by civil authorities. When Church and State were not so separated as today, Catholics guilty of a crime could choose whether to be tried in an ecclesiastical court or a civil court. Perhaps the Polish bishops believe Catholic women who procure abortions do not need to be tried twice when the Church has already judged and punished them with excommunication. Non-Catholics cannot be tried in ecclesiastical courts because the Church only has jurisdiction over Catholics. Thus the question becomes: Can Church authorities tell civil authorities how to punish non-Catholics involved in abortion?

This is related to the question St. Thomas Aquinas addresses in the Treatise on Law of his Summa Theologica I-II q. 96 a. 2: "Does it belong to the human law to repress [as with punishment or coercion] all vices [e.g., abortion]?." He answers (c.):

  [H]uman law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder [e.g., abortion], theft and such like.

Thus, human law should repress abortion. Exactly how it should be repressed inside the civil sphere is outside the jurisdiction of leaders of the Church and must be left to the prudence of civil authorities (cf. St. Thomas's Summa II-II q. 67 a. 1 question "Can a man justly judge one who is not subject to his jurisdiction?").


What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches? What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches?

The differences are almost too great to list in an answer like this! The real problem in answering your question is that it isn't just a list of "things Roman Catholics believe" and "things Greek Orthodox believe". (NB that "Greek" Orthodox probably isn't accurate here: it's more accurate to talk in terms of "Eastern" Orthodox.) The problems are much more fundamental and enormous than that, and ultimately amount to entirely different methods of theology, theological reasoning, ecclesiological assumptions, thinkings about authority, worship, etc. A major factor is the simple fact that the Western Church (which became the Roman Catholic Church) spoke and wrote in Latin, whereas the Eastern Church used Greek. Translation (particularly of theology) is hard.

But here are some headlines:

Authority The Roman Catholic Church believes in the infallible teaching authority of the Church. This most famously means the doctrine of papal infallibility, though the concept of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium (teaching office of the church) is also stated. This is a concept foreign to the Eastern Orthodox, who see the authority of the Church as stemming from the Holy Tradition, seen most fully in the Ecumenical Councils. But the Orthodox would be careful not to pin the question of "infallibility" down: it's not a concept that really works in Eastern thought.

Papacy For the Roman Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, has universal jurisdiction over all the Church. This is not true in Eastern Orthodoxy. They recognise the Bishop of Rome as being primus inter pares, first among equals, but as essentially equal to the other major patriarchs (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem).

The filioque clause The famous cause of the Great Schism of 1054. This was a modification to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The question was whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father and the Son. (filioque means "and from the Son".) For the Catholics, it is important that the phrase is used; for the Orthodox, it is breaking with tradition and perverting the doctrine of the Trinity. This problem is closely related to the above problems.

Church unity What is necessary for the Church to be one? For Roman Catholics, it means participation in the organisation headed by the Pope. For the Orthodox, it means membership in one of the Orthodox churches, which are fully in communion with one another.

These are all "dividing" issues, which contribute to the continuing division between the Orthodox and the Catholics. There are other differences as well, which aren't divisive in the same way:

Liturgy The Roman Catholic Mass is very different to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
Married clergy In the Roman Catholic Church, priests may not be married (except in some narrow circumstances, and in some Eastern Catholic Churches). For the Eastern Orthodox, married men may become priests, but not bishops.
Bread and the Eucharist Roman Catholics typically use unleavened bread (wafers) whereas the Orthodox use leavened bread. This is due to a very old dispute about the precise date of Easter, and whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal.

And, moreover, culturally there are very different attitudes. A summary would be that Catholics tend to systematise things (e.g. the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas) whereas the Orthodox tend to prefer a more discursive, poetic, less precise way of doing theology.


How will the earth be cleansed by fire? (LDS perspective) I'm preparing for a Sunday School lesson that includes 3 Nephi 25 where Christ quotes Malachi 4.

1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

That verse is part of a prophecy that the earth will be cleansed when Christ returns. The cleansing is frequently described as fire, such as in the passage quoted above. How will this happen?
The verse I quoted has figurative language, so it could be assumed that the fire is figurative. But whenever this topic comes up in church, the discussion seems to imply that the burning will be literal with people occasionally going so far as speculating it will be caused by nuclear bombs (that is not doctrine of the LDS church).
The Gospel Principles manual also implies that it's a literal burning:

When Jesus Christ comes again to the earth, He will do the following things:

He will cleanse the earth. When Jesus comes again, He will come in power and great glory. At that time the wicked will be destroyed. All things that are corrupt will be burned, and the earth will be cleansed by fire (see D&C 101:24–25).

So which is it? If it's figurative, do we know what the fire represents? If it's literal, do we know what will cause the fire? How will the righteous escape?

Fire is often symbolic of the purifying power of the Holy Ghost, and I wouldn't be surprised if the "burning" is both physical and spiritual in this case. For example, missionary work may be one way that the wicked are "burned" (cleansed) and are uprooted from their ways.


What is the biblical basis for singing in church? I know music is a form of worship that is expressed several times throughout the Bible, but how did singing gain such a pivotal role in church services? What biblical basis is there for congregational participation in music? Is there any, or is does the practice originate from traditional spirituals and hymn sings?

I have no complaints against music, but it strikes me that it is not necessarily everyone's forte when it comes to artistic expression and I've been wondering if there are other practices which might be suitable substitutes for those of us who don't have the same aptitude for song (besides the art of lip-syncing of course :). I'm pretty good at that by now).

EDIT: Great answers. Thanks, folks. This has my mind going and I've posted a follow up here for those interested: Is song a critical component of worship or something that we've just borrowed from example?

It's very ancient! Song has been used in worship since before the Psalms were written, and certainly continued into New Testament times. And through Christian history to the present.

See Psalm 81 (among lots of other references):

  81:1Sing aloud to God our strength;
  shout for joy to the God of Jacob!
  2 Raise a song, sound the timbrel,
      the sweet lyre with the harp.

And the disciples sang too, as referenced in Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26, following the Last Supper, and it appears to have been common at the time of Christ:

  And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

  Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as you teach and admonish one another in all wisdom, and as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

I'm an organist, and I've often wondered what to do for those for whom singing is a bit of a trial. Generally, the advice is just to do it. It doesn't actually matter what you sound like (although perhaps joining the choir wouldn't be ideal). Raise a song with thankfulness in your heart that God accepts you.

However, if there are other opportunities which might suit better where music is concerned, why not explore those. Do you play an instrument, for example?

On the other hand [third hand!] if lip-synching allows you to join in without embarrassment, that's not wrong either.


Why did Stephen have authority to ask God to forgive the sins of his nonbelieving executioners? Consider the following verse related to Stephen's stoning:

Acts 7:60
Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin
against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Clearly a Christian can forgive another person and, in fact, we are commanded to do so. But to wipe that sin off The Lord's books, my understanding is that's something only the individual sinner can do through true repentance via God's grace. The justification occurs between two parties: God and the sinner. The third-party victim of the sin can't act as a mediator.
Jesus proactively canceled others' sins on a number of occasions, most notably at the cross where He said, regarding his executioners, "Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do." But I had assumed that was something that only He could do; He's God, after all. But why was Stephen able to request that God forgive the sin of others? What authority did Stephen have to make that request of God and further, do we as Christians have that same authority?
Example: Let's say a non-believer is caught stealing $50 from you. You grant him forgiveness but he's still guilty of the sin before God. Do you then also have the authority to ask The Lord to forgive him for the theft, despite that he's a non-believer who doesn't fear God, nor feels any need of repentance whatsoever?
This question is being asked from a Protestant evangelical perspective.

If someone trespasses against me, personally, I can dismiss that trespass and require no remuneration, no restitution, no resolution. I can simply dismiss the event and give it no consideration whatsoever.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. [Matthew 6:12 KJV]

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: [Matthew 6:14 KJV]

I require nothing. I dismiss the debt. I am owed nothing at all.
Thus Stephen prays, that what had been done to him, in his humanity, by other humans, should not be given any consideration by God. He asks that God should take no notice of what had been done to him.
What had transpired between those persons and God, himself, of course, is another matter. That is between themselves and their Maker. But as to Stephen, Stephen has requested that, on his behalf, and for his sake, God should not lay it to their account.
No 'authority' is required for this. It is a request, a prayer.
It is not an authoritative demand.
It is a humble request from Stephen to the Lord his God.

I have responded to this question as a lifelong Protestant Evangelical, baptised at the age of sixteen, over fifty years ago, into a professing congregation.


How is Hal Lindsey regarded in the Christian faith? In "The Late Great Planet Earth," Hal Lindsey presents a view of Armageddon referred to in Revelation.

Is this view considered "valid, and if so, by which Christian
groups?"
Is Lindsey considered a "false prophet, and if so, by which
Christian groups?"
Has a consensus yet formed as to whether or not Lindsey's view "holds up?"

It is considered invalid by many Christians. It's also considered valid by many Christians. The closest you'll get to an objective answer is to look at the Amazon book star-reviews, which is what I encourage you to do. It indicates that the book is very polarizing. And I suspect that the answers which will accumulate here will look very much like the written reviews there.

There is absolutely no way to "decide" whether Lindsey's view holds up, so the question is impossible to answer. As you may predict from the book's reviews, you are sure to get quite polarized answers. For example, a random Catholic from the internet says:

  I recommend Catholics stay away from Lindsey's stuff and go read something by a saint instead.

And from an article on general subject matter:

  The Church does not endorse pre-millennialism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: "The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism." Indeed, the Nicene Creed, which is said at every Sunday Mass, appears to reject pre-millennialism, holding that Christ will return "to judge the living and the dead," not to reign on earth for a thousand years and then judge the living and the dead. Since the Church is not pre-millennial, the question of a pre-trib Rapture does not arise, as pre-tribulationism is a variant of pre-millennialism.

From all this we can only assume that mild answers will range from the mild "well, many consider him ok" that Narnian presents, to the mild "read something better" I quoted above.

Questions you may consider asking instead:

"Is Hal considered a prophet by any body of Christians?"
"What is the view presented by Hal in ... called?"
"Why does the Catholic Church reject pre-millennialism?"
"Do [insert denomination that you identify with the most]s like Hal?


Referencing a Biblical narrative for a piece fiction I am writing? I have a fiction where I need to reference why the great flood in Noah's day and when man turned back to evil after the flood. Is it legal to reference a Bible story?

This is more of a legal question and a literary question in general.  As pointed out, the King James Version and others are in public domain and therefore should be free to reference (not rewrite verbatim).

I think the question for the legality and literary porion would ask is "how" you are planning on referencing the story.  Is there an excerpt or chapter that or segment of the fiction that will have the story word for word?  Or will a character be paraphrasing as they are talking about story within your fiction piece?  Or possibly somewhere in between?  Or something very different?  Is the reference in the fiction actually a reference to another fiction referencing that story?  Or possibly the reference is to another historical document that references the story?  Or again, some where in between?
These are questions made for you to think about it which will change the legal frame of reference.  This is not meant to be answered here, but more of a rhetorical question to think about and then ask someone with some legal background.

Very general, there may be some general disagreements and debates over the story of Noah in the Christian communities (and outside as well), but as long as the reference isn't controversial, offensive, rude, a mockery, misleading, or taken completely out of context there shouldn't be an issue with referencing the story.


Are there souls in hell who contributed to other soul's salvation? This question is from a Catholic perspective. Is there any writings or some teaching whether a person who highly contribute to someone else's salvation could in fact end up in hell if abandon faith at the end of life or stay in sin?
For example: If a person in early life lives faithfully, offers many indulgences for souls in purgatory to the point of getting them out of there or are a cause of many conversions. But at the end of life end up in mortal sin and end up unrepented or don't really think repentance is necessary for whatever reason. What comes to my mind are priests, religious who left their vocation and ended up married, especially if they even ended up marrying a divorced person and living in adultery or illicit marriage and so on. They might feel sorry but stuck in their situation believing this was God's will...but objectively living in sin...

Are there souls in hell who contributed to other soul's salvation?
The short answer is probably, but seeing to the fact that the Church does not know who is in hell, it remains an impossible question to answer with absolute certainty.
The Catholic Church can declare a person a saint, thus in heaven, but has never declared another damned!

The Popes as successors of St. Peter hold the keys to bind and loosen things on earth as well as in heaven (Matthew 16:19 and 18:18). The Popes have not even pronounced on the question as to the demise of the apostle Judas Iscariot and we all know the grave words that Jesus spoke about him shortly before the Passion: "Better for this man that he had never been born" (Mark 14:21).
Michelangelo (1475-1564) in his Last Judgment placed the Papal Master of Ceremonies, Baigio da Cesene (1463-1544) in hell. When he complained about his image being in hell, it is widely believed that Pope Paul III (1534-1549) responded: "That his jurisdiction did not extend to hell and the portrait would remain" as it is! - Why can the Catholic Church declare one person a saint but has never declared another damned?

Even St. Paul explicitly admits that this is a real possibility in life:

But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. - 1 Corinthians 9:27

Impossible it is to answer I say. But perhaps not so sure, at least not until the general judgement day!
Dietrich Richard Alfred von Hildebrand (12 October 1889 – 26 January 1977) was a German Roman Catholic philosopher and religious writer.
He was converted to the Catholic Church by Max Scheler, through whose influence (and through his depiction of St. Francis of Assisi) in 1914. Max Scheler died excommunicated by the Catholic Church for his divorce and remarriage with Märit Furtwängler in 1912. Is he in hell or heaven, no one knows, but he did influence Dietrich von Hildebrand‘s conversion to Catholicism. Max Scheler was actually given a Catholic burial by a priest who unaware of his state of excommunication.
Pope St. Gregory the Great writes about a curious story in his Dialogue, of how a Jews was converted by an apparition of Demons appeared to a Jew on a voyage and the Chief Demon said to the group: "Alas, alas, here is an empty vessel, but yet it is signed.” The Jew fearful of his life had blessed himself, making the sign of the Cross and afterwards went and got baptized.

But as I am thus busied in telling the acts of holy men, there cometh to my mind what God of his great mercy did for Andrew, Bishop of the city of Funda : which notable story I wish all so to read, that they which have dedicated themselves to continency, pre- sume not in any wise to dwell amongst women : lest in time of temptation their soul perish the sooner, by having that at hand which is unlawfully desired.
Neither is the story which I report either doubtful or uncertain: for so many witnesses to justify the truth thereof may be produced, as there be almost inhabitants in that city. When, therefore, this venerable man Andrew lived virtuously, and with diligent care, answer- able to his priestly function, led a continent and chaste life: he kept I n in his house a certain Nun, which also had remained with him before he was preferred to that dignity; for assuring himself of his own continency, and nothing doubting of hers, content he was to let her remain still in his house : which thing the devil took as an occasion to assault him with temptation : and so he began to present before the eyes of his mind the form of that woman, that by such allurements he might have his heart wholly possessed with ungodly thoughts. In the meantime it so fell out, that a Jew was travelling from Campania to Rome, who drawing nigh to the city of Funda, was so overtaken with night, that he knew not where to lodge, and therefore, not finding any better commodity, he retired himself into a temple of the god Apollo, which was not far off, meaning there to repose himself : but much afraid he was, to lie in so wicked and sacrilegious a place : for which cause, though he believed not what we teach of the cross, yet he thought good to arm himself with that sign. About midnight, as he lay waking for very fear of that forlorn and desert temple, and looked suddenly about him, he espied a troop of wicked spirits walking before another or greater authority: who coming in took up his place, and sat down in the body of the temple : where he began diligently to inquire of those his servants, how they had bestowed their time, and what villany they had done in the world. And when each one told what he had done against God's servants, out stepped a companion, and made solemn relation, with a notable temptation of carnality he had put into the mind of Bishop Andrew, concerning that Nun which he kept in his palace : where unto whiles the master devil gave attentive ear, considering with himself what a notable gain it would be, to undo the soul of so holy a man the former devil went on with his tale, and said that the very evening before he assaulted him so mightily, that he drew him so far forth, that he did merrily strike the said Nun upon the back. The wicked serpent and old enemy of mankind hearing this joyful news, exhorted his agent with very fair words, diligently to labour about the effecting of that thing which he had already so well begun, that for so notable a piece of service, as the contriving the spiritual ruin of that virtuous Prelate, he might have a singular reward above all his fellows. The Jew who all this while lay waking, and heard all that which they said, was wonderfully afraid : at length the master devil sent some of his followers to see who he was, and how he durst presume to lodge in their temple. When they were come, and had narrowly viewed him, they found that he was marked with the mystical sign of the cross : whereat they marvelled and said : "Alas, alas, here is an empty vessel, but yet it is signed": which news the rest of those hell-hounds hearing, suddenly vanished away. The Jew, who had seen all that which then passed among them, presently rose up, and in aU haste sped himself to the Bishop, whom he found in the church: and taking him side he demanded with what temptation he was troubled : but shame so prevailed, that by no means he would confess the truth. Then the Jew replied and told him, that he had cast his eyes wickedly upon such a one of God's servants ; but the Bishop would not acknowledge that there was any suchthing. "Why do you deny it,” quoth the Jew, "for is it not so true that yesternight you were brought so far by sinful temptation, that you did strike her on the back.'"' When the Bishop, by these particulars, perceived that the matter was broken forth, he humbly confessed what be fore he obstinately denied. Then the Jew, moved with compassion to his soul, and tendering his credit, told him by what means he came to the knowledge thereof, and what he heard of him in that assembly of wicked spirits. The Bishop, hearing this, fell prostrate upon the earth, and betook himself to his prayers : and straight after he discharged out of his house, not only that Nun, but all other women that attended upon her. And not long after, he converted the temple of Apollo into an oratory of the blessed Apostle, St. Andrew : and never after was he troubled with that carnal temptation : and the Jew, by whose means he was so mercifully preserved, he brought to everlasting salvation : for he baptized him, and made him a member of Holy Church. And thus,by God's providence, the Jew having care of the spiritual health of another, attained also himself the singular benefit of the same : and almighty God by the same means brought one to embrace piety and virtue, by which he preserved another in an holy and godly life. - Chapter Seven: Of Andrew Bishop of Funda (Page 113).

I imagine if the Demons can provoke a conversion which they obviously would not want, then a Soul in hell could have contributed to another’s salvation.
Others sources of interest may be perused at one’s own leisure:

The Letter from Hell


What is the difference between immediate judgment after death and the final judgment, according to Catholicism? According to this site, adapted from the United States Catechism for Adults,
"Our Church teaches that immediately after death, our soul separates from our earthly body and we stand before God for judgement. We then enter heaven, Purgatory or hell."
but then
"At the end of time, our Lord will come again to judge the living and the dead. All souls will be rejoined with their bodies, and those in Purgatory will be joined to the blessed in heaven."
From an individual's perspective, what is the difference between the first, immediate judgment (for those who have died before the 'end of time') and final judgment? Is it solely that the souls in purgatory are 'judged' ready for heaven?

This answer is based on a Catholic Answers website article by Catholic Apologist Tim Staples:  Why Are There Two Judgments.
From an individual's perspective, according to CCC 1022, upon death the immortal soul immediately enter into one of possible 3 states (as particular judgment):

the blessedness of heaven immediately [for the saints]
the blessedness of heaven through a purification [purgatory]
immediate and everlasting damnation

It is important to understand purgatory and hell properly, not principally locations, but states of being, since the soul is not yet joined to its body.

They are pure spirits. So we can’t really speak of hell being a “place” right now, at least, not as we understand “places.” However, after the resurrection, because those in hell will have bodies we could certainly speak of them having a “location” or “place” of sorts.

Hell is, as CCC 1033 says "[the] state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed."  CCC 1472 says:

These two punishments (speaking of purgatory and hell) must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.

If the soul has been judged, what's the purpose for final judgment?  The article cites 3 reasons what the soul can expect at Final Judgment:

The final judgment will reveal in full the justice and glory of God for all to see. This is not accomplished in each man’s private and particular judgment.  (see CCC 1040)
The full implications of the good and evil that we do in our lifetime will not be fully realized at the time of our particular judgment
Since we sin and perform virtuous acts as a body/soul composite, it is fitting that we be judged as a body/soul composite as well. This too does not occur at our particular judgment, at the final judgment.


What evil things did Alexander the copper-smith do to Paul in 2 Tim. 4:14 that led to Paul saying God will recompense him? In 2 Tim. 4:14, Paul said that

  Alexander the copper-smith did many evil things to me; the Lord will recompense him according to his works.

Is there any tradition on what exactly Alexander did here?  That is, what did the Chruch Fathers have to say about this passage?  Assuming there is some tradition, how much credibility have modern scholars assigned to it?

John Chrysostom, one of the Early Church Fathers, wrote, in his Homily 10 on Second Timothy, that Paul was referring to his trial when he said Alexander had done him much harm. The next verse relates that he (Alexander) greatly withstood Paul's words, opposing his message, and the verse after that is clearly about Paul's trial , saying he had nobody to support  him during it.   On this view Alexander was a principal and effective opponent of Paul and probably a witness, and major complainant,  against him. He may also have turned others against Paul, perhaps being the cause of the lack of support for him which he mentions in verse 16. Gill's Exposition suggests Alexander had done great injury to Paul's character and had reproached and reviled him as a man of bad principles and practices.

It is likely Alexander was from Ephesus, and may have travelled to Rome expressly to cause difficulties for Paul. Timothy is thought to have been either at Ephesus, or on his way there, when Paul wrote to him which suggests he (Alexander) may have returned there.

Many commentators suspect that this Alexander the Coppersmith was the same Alexander mentioned in Acts 19 v33. This was at a riotous assembly in Ephesus provoked by Demetrius, a silversmith. Demetrius was concerned that Paul's preaching was damaging their trade, causing a slump in demand for religious artefacts associated with the temple of Artemis. Demetrius gathered together other metalworkers to protest Paul's damaging influence on their trade. The word "Coppersmith" doesn't just mean coppersmith, it refers to any manufacturer of metalic products, and so Alexander the Coppersmith  would likely have been involved. A large and tumultuous gathering resulted, many participants not knowing what was going on or why they were there(verse 32).  This Alexander was then thrust forward by the Jews and attempted to speak to the crowd, gesturing them to quiten down so that he could make a speech. He was presumably seen as a potentially powerful orator, which again suggests he may be the same man as our Alexander 'Smith.  We do not know what he wanted to say, partly because he never got to say it. Instead the crowd began chanting "Great is Artemis, Great is Artemis", and continued doing so  for two hours until eventually the Town Clerk succeeded in dispersing them (verse 41).

The fact Alexander didn't, in the end, get to make his speech has not stopped later generations from speculating about it. Calvin, in his commentary, suggests that Alexander was a Christian believer and intended to speak in defence of Paul and of Christianity, and that he was willingly risking martyrdom by attempting to do so. Chrysostom, however, wrote that Alexander was attempting to inflame the matter. Matthew Henry suggests that the Jews who thrust him forward wanted Alexander to denounce Paul as an enemy of Judaism, as well as of Artemis and the metal industry.

If Alexander was not  a Christian his animosity for Paul may have begun there.

Another mention of the name Alexander occurs in 1 Timothy chapter 1 verse 20. This Alexander is a pparently a renegade Christian believer who Paul has "delivered to Satan" for blasphemy, speaking against the truth. If this is Alexander the Coppersmith then the animosity between the two men may date from there, if not before.

Paul's remark that God will recompense Alexander Coppersmith may simply mean Timothy should not attempt to do so himself. Leave it to God.  Paul is warning Timothy to be careful of him.


What are the first references to a tradition of fasting before partaking of the Lord's Supper? I recently learned that in Roman Catholicism, it's expected that partakers of the Eucharist will fast for at least an hour.  Canon 919, §1 reads:

  A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine.

I'd like to know how long this practice has been around.  What is the origin of requiring a fast of some duration prior to the receiving of communion?

I know 1 Corinthians 11 is often referenced as a basis for this practice, but I find it insufficient in itself.  Verses 33–34, for example, could be read to suggest that one should eat prior to communion.  Thus I'm looking for clear evidence of this practice in the post-apostolic church.

Note that this is different from the twice-weekly fast in the early church, at least in theory.  I'm not aware of evidence that indicates that those fasts were done immediately prior to taking communion.

Related: What are the reasons for the Catholic Church's law regarding the Communion fast?

This practice is attested as early as the first half of the third century, by Tertullian and particularly Hippolytus.
Tertullian addresses the topic tangentially while addressing the dangers of women marrying non-Christians.  Their husbands will notice their Christian practices, such as fasting before taking communion, and may put pressure on them to stop:

Will not your husband know what it is which you secretly taste before (taking) any food? and if he knows it to be bread, does he not believe it to be that (bread) which it is said to be?
(To His Wife, II.5)

Hippolytus is more direct.  In the Apostolic Tradition, he writes:

The faithful shall be careful to partake of the eucharist before eating anything else. (36)

At the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), the practice is codified in Canon 29 (Mansi, III, 913), and again a few years later at the Synod of Carthage (Canon 28 (Mansi, III, 884)).  And around this time, Augustine indicates that the practice is universal:

It pleased the Holy Spirit to appoint, for the honour of so great a sacrament, that the body of the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering the mouth of a Christian; and it is for this reason that the custom referred to is universally observed. (Letter 54, VI.8)

Conclusion
Thus we have evidence for the practice of fasting before the Eucharist as early as the beginning of the third century, and by AD 400 we see it being widely observed, at least in the Western church.


What role does The Word have in The Trinity? So in John 1, it says that the Word was God, and I am curious as to whether the Word of God is considered part of the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit? Or is it distinct, and if so, why is it not included in part of the Trinity?

Welcome, and thanks for your question.

The Apostle John made clear that the Word is indeed the Son. In the first chapter of his gospel, he frames the narrative to follow as the story of the Word of God becoming a man, Jesus Christ. Here are some verses from that text:

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. ... 9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. ... 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. ... 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

So, when used in a trinitarian sense, the "Word" or "Logos" of God is synonymous with "the Son", each being interpreted to mean the person Jesus Christ.


How can we be sure our specific Christian confession is true, when every other Christian group claims that it's not? I'm a recent convert to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but I've started to doubt the faith recently, and I’m really desperate for help. The doubt I have is really one I've had since the beginning of my conversion process, and one I have never seen anyone satisfactorily answer, and it is currently the biggest impediment to my fully believing, namely: what if I'm wrong? And I don't just mean about Christianity, although that's certainly a concern too, but just about the particular Church I belong to.

Historic Christianity (and all churches that currently exist from apostolic times, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church, etc.) all claim to be the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" founded by Jesus Christ, and outside of which there is no salvation. Similarly numerous Protestant groups claim that if you don't adhere to their interpretations of scripture, you're most certainly hellbound.

And my problem is this: why must I become a historical and theological scholar to believe in Jesus? Deciding between the historic Churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian churches, Protestant, etc.) requires immense amounts of historical and theological study, and at the end of the day I could still be wrong. There will ALWAYS be that doubt in my mind, “what if you’re wrong about X doctrine, and you’ve been a part of the wrong Church this whole time,” no matter where I end up, this doubt is always going to be there. There will always be people claiming that I don’t “really understand” some doctrine or historical event, and therefore my faith is completely wrong and I’m essentially damned.

Christians talk a lot about us “submitting to the Truth, and not claiming it for ourselves,” but how am I supposed to do that if everyone is claiming they have the one Truth, and everyone is saying everyone else is just being deceived by demons or something? How can I submit to the Truth, if I don’t know what it is? Even if God decided to “reveal” something to me, how could I be sure it’s of God? At the end of the day, no matter what I believe, I’m always just relying on my own interpretation of the data. What I believe is decided by me, no matter how much “evidence” I may have for it, I’m a fallible human being and I could totally be wrong. I’m not a theology expert, I’m not a historian, I’m not a philosopher, and yet even if I was, would it matter? There are scholarly theologians, historians, and philosophers who all think they have the one Truth and everyone else is wrong, while completely contradicting one another. The same is true of all historic forms of Christianity that have canonized saints claiming that their Church is only right one, and all those outside are damned.

We can’t even rely on this notion that “well our saints perform miracles, and I’ve witnessed some of these miracles,” because the same holds true in Roman Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, Assyrian Orthodoxy, and even non-Christian religions, and they can’t all be right. In fact, according to each group, they’re the only ones who have valid miracles and everyone else is just being demonically deceived. I really don’t know if there’s any actual response to this question, and so far I haven’t found it, and I don’t expect to find it from anyone here but I’m desperate here. I really want to believe, I really do, but if I can’t be sure, what’s the point?

Very simply put, your assumption here is wrong:

  ... founded by Jesus Christ, and outside of which there is no salvation.
  Similarly numerous Protestant groups claim that if you don't adhere to
  their interpretations of scripture, you're most certainly hellbound.

Salvation is in Jesus Christ, not the church.  As a result of sin, everything on this earth is corrupt in some way, including the institutional church.  As a protestant, I would not condemn you for being an orthodox Christian.

Truth is in the Bible, not the interpretation.  Pursue discipleship - following Jesus.  Trust the work He did for you on the cross.  Join a church as a means of fellowship and serving Jesus.  Try to find the truest doctrine you can, but don't think that you will be condemned if your church isn't perfect.

If you have doubts, pursue them.  The study of apologetics can help you reason through them.


Is Mary Our Mother? Evangelicals please explain John 19:26–27 John 19:26–27 (NIV)
  When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Roman Catholics interpret this verse as referring to Jesus entrusting her mother to be the mother of the church in the person of John.What is the explanation of Born Again Christians about this Johannine passage? Is Mary Our Mother? http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/preview.aspx?id=238

Behold thy mother: What Does Jesus Mean By Such Utterance in John
   19:26-27?

The teaching of the Roman Catholic church that Jesus entrusted his physical mother as the spiritual mother of the church is unfounded in these texts. In fact, that sort of interpretation is out of context.

Jesus entrusted his mother to the care of John (John 19:26,27).

Jesus did not entrust his mother to his siblings/ relatives because these were still unbelievers at that moment of Christ’s crucifixion (John 7:1-5).

Christians care for widows ( James 1:27).

Jesus considered not only his mother’s physical needs but also his spiritual needs when he entrusted his mother to the care of John.

Jesus did not give Mary to the church as its mother is evident in the other New Testament Scripture.

For Paul, the church/ Jerusalem is our mother:

But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother (Galatians 4:26).
But we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children. (1 Thessalonians 2:7).

For Paul, it is not Jesus’ mother who has been a mother to him:

Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too(Romans 16:13).

Jesus himself refers to the church as his mother in the spiritual sense.He is telling us that blood relations are not what is important. It doesn’t matter if you are a relative of Jesus - as if that were something to boast about. . What is important is to hear the Word of God and obey.

"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:33-35)

While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” (Luke 11:27,28)

CONCLUSION

Jesus didn’t give his mom to be the mom of his church in John 19:26,27 for the context does not permit it. In reality, the first-century church does not give any evidence that Mary functioned as a mom to the entire church.