Is Jesus still suffering in heaven for our sins? That is what sometime I hear some preacher mentioning.

Heaven is a place where there is no suffering but all happiness and that is what we are aiming for, by trying to live a good life on earth. Jesus came to this world to save sinners. He suffered for our sins and was crucified to save all those who believe in Him. He was raised from the death so that we all can have an everlasting life in heaven with Him.

It is sometime preached that for all the sins that are being committed by us and for all the sins that are being committed in this world, Jesus continues to suffer. Is Jesus still suffering for sins that are being committed everyday in this world? I find it a bit difficult to believe this because Jesus after His glorification, His suffering came to an end and there is no need for Him to again suffer and die for us again.  Is it not that God has to be happy in heaven and not grieve for His creation because heaven is a place where there is no pain and hurt but only happiness?

Is this teaching correct or is it that we are being just reminded to live a good life by recalling that, because of our sins, Jesus has already suffered and died a miserable death not commensurate with His stature as God?

No Jesus suffered once in the flesh then he said it is finished.

Joh 19:30  When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Notice the once:

1Pe 3:17  For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
1Pe 3:18  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Notice this once as well:

Heb 9:28  So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

And finally this once:

Heb 10:10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Also notice the tense here is past:

1Pe 4:1  Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1Pe 4:2  That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

However there does remain suffering left to be done for the work of Christ just not by Christ Himself and not as a sin offering for the World. As we correctly suffer for Christ persecution, affliction and resisting temptation we fill up what remains of the afflictions of Christ.

Col 1:24  Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:


If faith without deeds, or actions, is dead, then what are these concrete actions? I have been very concerned lately with James 2, starting with verse 14, especially with actions related to faith:

  What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don't show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone?
  Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, and you say, "Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well"—but then you don't give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?

  So you see, faith by itself isn't enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless.

  Now someone may argue, "Some people have faith; others have good deeds." But I say, "How can you show me your faith if you don't have good deeds? I will show you my faith by my good deeds."

  You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.
  How foolish! Can't you see that faith without good deeds is useless?

  Don't you remember that our ancestor Abraham was shown to be right with God by his actions when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see, his faith and his actions worked together. His actions made his faith complete. (James 2:14-22, NLT-SE translation)

I would like an overview of how published Bible commentaries have addressed the following questions in reference to this passage:

What specific action or actions show one's faith?
Are these actions required for salvation, or simply evidence of living a Christian life?

The motivation for this question is that I want to become a Christian and not just believe in Christ. I would like my actions to speak by themselves as a testimony of Christ in me. My end goal is to build a list out of your answer, so if possible please quote verses.

In the Protestant belief, works are a sign of faith, and the Holy Spirit working in the life of the believer.

The ESV commentary elaborates on this interpretation thusly:

  Faith without Works Is Dead. James continues the theme that hearing/faith must lead to doing/works. It may seem that James contradicts Paul’s “by grace you have been saved through faith . . . not a result of works” (Eph. 2:8–9). In reality there is no contradiction between faith and works. Paul and James agree that the basis of salvation is grace alone through faith. Works are not the basis of salvation but the necessary result (Eph. 2:10).

Similarly, from the HCSB Study Notes:

  2:15-17 Giving a blessing to someone in need without offering tangible aid is useless. If faith is not accompanied by works, it is dead by itself. 2:18 The argument turns to the relationship between faith and works. Beginning in this verse James answered a “straw man” argument (but someone will say) against his assertion that faith without works is dead. 2:19-20 The demons also believe—and they shudder is an answer to the mistaken assertion that belief in God by itself is sufficient for salvation. Demons believe, but it is impossible for them to be saved. Saving faith entails more than mere knowledge. It includes trust and obedience, for faith without works is useless.

As to what specifically the good works are, James cites 2 historical examples of works as a result of faith in Abraham, and Rahab.

From the ESV published commentary:

  James 2:21 Abraham . . . justified by works. James may seem to contradict Paul here (compare Rom. 4:2–3). However, while Paul cites Gen. 15:6 to show that Abraham was justified by faith, James bases his claim on Gen. 22:9–10, where Abraham was willing to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Thus James apparently has a different sense of the word “justify” in mind here. Paul uses “justify” to express being declared righteous by God through faith, on the basis of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice (Rom. 3:24–26). James seems to use “justify” to stress the way in which works demonstrate that someone has been justified (compare Matt. 12:33–37). Paul emphasizes how one is justified; James focuses on what justification looks like in practice.

But to your question, about application, I would start broadly with the Great Commandment.  Jesus tells his disciples:

  37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
  38 This is the great and first commandment.
  39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
  40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 22:37-40 ESV

And similarly:

  34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
  35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." - John 13:34-35 ESV

So, worship is loving the Lord with all your heart and your actions, and good works is the love and actions you show one another.  To drill down deeper to see what some examples of these works of love might look like, there are a couple of verses in which Jesus elaborates:

  34 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
  35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
  36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
  37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
  38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
  39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'
  40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' - Matthew 25:34-40 ESV

Another example given by Jesus is in Luke:

  29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
  30 Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.
  31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side.
  32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
  33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion.
  34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him.
  35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, 'Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.'
  36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?"
  37 He said, "The one who showed him mercy." And Jesus said to him, "You go, and do likewise." - Luke 10:29-37 ESV

These are a few of the biblical examples of the good works of those of faith, but they are by no means intended to be complete or exclusionary.  We are commanded to love our neighbors and seek ways to be servants to others as Christ served and lived on Earth.


Is Christ's love for us greater than the Father's? The Father's love for us:

  See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be
  called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world
  does not know us is that it did not know him. (1 John 3:1, NIV)

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John
  3:16, NIV)

The Son's love for us:

  This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for
  us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.
  (1 John 3:16, NIV)

  Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s
  friends. (John 15:13, NIV)

Which one is a greater love; to give the one and only son, or to give one's own life?
Is the love of the Father and the Son for us equally same? Who has greater love for us?

It is problematic whenever we attempt to separate the inseparable Trinity, so let us acknowledge that to begin with.

The Bible never seems to suggest that the Holy Triune God has the capacity to love in varying measures.  Indeed, God only knows one way to love.  His love is complete and total--not partial.  His love, like He Himself, does not increase or decrease.  His love does not grow, diminish, expand or contract.

Thus, the fact that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) each love mankind indicates that their love is equivalent and complete.


How do Catholics view the role of conscience in determing morals? Once in a while I come across statements from Catholics that seem to say that there isn't an absolute truth. It sometimes sounds very like the postmodern mantra that "what is true for you isn't necessarily true for me".

Today I read an NPR article where a reporter from the National Catholic Reporter comments on the recent apostolic exhortation about love in the family.

I read the comment that

  That's something that the church talked about 50 years ago, but the
  last couple of popes did not expand upon. And what Pope Francis is
  saying is that conscience means that people can be hearing something
  from God, kind of in the depths of their heart, that may even be not
  quite in accord with what the church teaches generally, as a general
  norm, but can still be true and can still be discerned to be God's
  will in their life. So he's allowing for a little bit of discord
  between individual cases and the general church teaching.

Reading this makes me wonder if there are any laws that are not open to this personal interpretation. I would assume that Catholics would say that murder is objectively wrong and that this isn't depending on your inner voice.

So, my questions are

What is the role of the conscience in determining what is and isn't a sin?
Are there any general rules to distinguish between the "general norms" of the Church and the absolute rules/laws?

In order to answer this question, it is necessary to understand precisely what is meant by “conscience” and its relationship to human acts (that is, those actions that can be qualified as morally right or wrong).

The Church, generally taking its cue from Medieval Scholasticism (see, e.g., Summa theologiae [S.Th.], Ia, q. 79, a. 13), defines the conscience in these terms:

  Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1778; see also no. 1796. The number goes on to describe some of the properties of the conscience, but this is the actual definition. For a more detailed overview, see Veritatis Splendor [VS] 57-61.)

Some clarification of terminology is in order. The human intellect (according to the most common model used in Catholic philosophy) is fundamentally capable of two kinds of acts: apprehension, by which a person knows what sort of thing something is (see Sentencia De anima [SdA], iii, lc. 11, no. 746); and judgment (sometimes called composition and division), by which a person comes to know that what he has apprehended actually exists (or not) in reality (SdA, iii, lc. 11, no. 747).

For example, upon seeing a pine tree (say), a person will understand first what sort of thing it is (namely, a pine tree), and then with a second action will see that it does, in fact, exist in reality. (These actions can occur simultaneously in time, but the apprehension is logically prior to the judgment.)

Hence, when the Catechism says that conscience is a judgment, it means that it is an act of the human intellect of the second kind: it affirms (or denies) the existence of something in reality. The existence of what? Of the moral rightness (or wrongness) of a past, present, or future action.

In other words, it affirms, “This particular action that I propose to do (or am doing now, or have done in the past) is right (or wrong).” Or more specifically, “This action that I am about to do (or this action that I am refraining from doing) is obligatory (or prohibited) for me.”

The habits of the intellect that help the conscience

How does the intellect arrive at this judgment? As with any other use of the intellect, it uses its prior knowledge to make an inference.

The intellect cannot make this judgment (at least, not make it correctly), however, without the help of three habits, or stable dispositions:

The synderesis, or the habit that grants us knowledge of the first and highest moral principles: for example, the principle by which we know that we are obligated to choose the good and avoid evil. This habit is universal to all men, without exception, because it is present in every moral action whatsoever (even if the person chooses to act evilly—i.e, he sins; he can only sin if he knows that he is choosing something evil at the expense of the good). (See S.Th. Ia, q. 79, a. 12; also CCC 1780.)
What could be called moral science (“science” in the classical sense), or moral knowledge, by which we come to know (through personal reflection, the help of society, and—especially for Catholics—the help of the Church) the general principles by which we are to guide our actions. For example, moral science teaches us that human life is always to be respected; that sexual relations are reserved for marriage alone; and so forth. (This, as we will see, is what constitutes the formation of conscience; see CCC 1783-1785.)
Prudence, or moral wisdom, which is the habit that helps us apply the general principles to particular situations. (For example, it is prudence that helps a police officer to decide whether, in this situation, using lethal force is licit and still in keeping with the general principle that human life is always to be respected; also, it is prudence that helps a person decide that watching this particular movie, say, would be detrimental to the practice of chastity.) (See CCC 1806; also, also S.Th. IIa-IIae, qq. 46-47 on prudence.)

If these habits have been formed correctly, then they remain with us, even when the intellect is not is use (e.g., when we are sleeping). Whenever the intellect makes a judgment about a particular human action (past, preset or future), we call that conscience. Naturally, it will make much better judgments if it has properly formed moral science and prudence.

The erroneous conscience

The problem is that our intellect does not always judge correctly: we can be mistaken. For instance, if I see a tree at a large distance, I might mistake it for a pine tree, whereas it is really a spruce.

In a similar way, a person might think that a particular action is morally acceptable, when in fact it is morally wrong, and vice-versa. In this case, we are dealing with what is called an erroneous conscience. (See CCC 1790-1794.)

This helps us to make the following observations:

Man is absolutely obligated to follow the dictates of his conscience, even if it is erroneous. In other words, if he honestly thinks that action x is obligatory for him, then he must do action x; if he thinks that action y is prohibited, then he must not do y. (See CCC 1790.)
There is an objective moral order that transcends the subjective order. In other words, whether I think something is right or wrong does not affect whether in actual fact it is right or wrong.
Man has a grave duty to form his conscience, so as to avoid discrepancies between what he thinks is right and wrong, and what actually is so. Even though the person is not morally guilty for following an erroneous conscience, he will still experience the evil effects of doing actions that are objectively evil. “Forming one’s conscience” means honing two of the habits that I mentioned earlier: moral science, and prudence. (See CCC 1783-1785.)
General moral principles admit of no exceptions; the concrete applications of those principles often do. (See CCC 1787.) For instance, human life is always to be respected; there are, however, situations in which the best that can be done is the limitation of evil (e.g., self-defense; see CCC 2263).

Conscience and the marital act (regarding the O.P.’s question)

À propos to the O.P.’s question: that sexual relations are reserved for marriage alone is a general moral principle. (See CCC 2348-2350.) Hence, it admits of no exceptions whatsoever. (I.e., all of the actions mentioned in CCC 2351-2356 are intrinsically immoral; see also VS 67 regarding intrinsically immoral actions.) A person might conceivably be mistaken about that principle, and hence commit no sin when he violates it, but in that case his conscience would be erroneous, and he would still suffer the consequences of his objectively evil actions.

The idea that the conscience might “overrule” a general moral principle, especially one taught and affirmed by the Catholic Church, is, therefore, absurd. Someone who is mistaken about a moral principle might escape being culpable for his actions, but it would not make his actions right.

What might confuse people is that the application of those principles is seldom easy. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions (as we saw above in the example of self-defense). It tends to be easier, however, to apply negative precepts, such as “you shall not commit adultery,” since these effectively delineate the point beyond which it is not possible to respect the general principles involved.

For instance, a married couple clearly cannot have sexual relations outside of their marriage (not even with a partner through an attempted civil marriage); conversely, an unmarried person clearly cannot engage in sexual relations at all. That much involves no discernment at all.

However, whether today, here and now, a couple should engage in the marital act is a much more complex issue. Within a marriage, the marital act is, of course, generally licit—indeed holy and encouraged. But there could be situations that make it unadvisable, or even illicit (e.g., if one of the spouses is very ill or in pain, or if pregnancy would be dangerous or unduly burdensome). In those situations, careful discernment is warranted.


"Ask and it will be given to you" vs. "Not my will, but yours be done." So, please clarify something for me. I'm trying to get a better understanding of presenting my requests to God, but also recognizing that it is not my will, but His will be done. Here are three verses that I am trying to connect (I have italicized the most key parts):

Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will,
but yours be done. (Luke 22:42 NIV)
Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer
and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. (Philippians 4:6)
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the
door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one
who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
(Matthew 7:7-8 NIV)

So, whenever I pray, I will present my requests to God, and then I will finish it off with: "yet not my will, but Your will be done always and only." But the Scripture says to "ask and it will be given to you." But, are there times when it won't be given to me, because if God doesen't want something to work out, it won't be given to me. It all around just confuses me, and I have ignored it for a long time. But, I was thinking about all of this earlier today and decided to finally get some clarification.
Please don't criticize my faith. That is definitely not why I came to this forum. I am a devout Christian and care about what God wants above anything else. I just need some clarification so I can advance with my prayers. =)

There are three occasions in scripture when I can think of someone not receiving an 'answer' to prayer. But on all three occasions, they did receive a response from God the Father.
The person asked, but did not receive what they asked for. But they received a response.
Firstly, the one you mention : Jesus prayed that the cup should pass from him yet only if it was within the Father's will. The response was :

And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. [Luke 22:43 KJV]

Jesus did not receive an 'answer' as such, but he did receive a response.
The second occasion is when Paul prayed three times :

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. [2 Corinthians 12: 7-9 KJV]

Paul did not receive an 'answer', as such, but he did receive a response.
And, lastly, there were certain people who prayed yet their prayer was 'amiss' and it was not answered. But they did receive a response, and it was James who was sent to respond to them :

Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. [James 4: 3 KJV]

They did not receive an 'answer' to their prayer but they did receive a response.

So, today, you have sought an answer and what I am saying to you may not be what you expected, it may not be what you wanted.
But it is a response. You are not being neglected.
I, too, began to follow Jesus Christ at the age of sixteen, as do you. I am now sixty eight years old and I have been helped every single step of the way, without fail.
I wish you well on your journey.


In 1820 how were the Canons of Durango installed? I am trying to figure out the date when Agustín Fernández became canon priest of Durango, Mexico. I know these steps were taken:

Some time in 1820, the bishop and cathedral chapter chose him as canon, seemingly with no formal oral examination. In January 1821, because of the Patronato Real, the King of Spain appointed him. In October, the Regency of the newly independent Mexican Empire accepted the King of Spain's appointment. Also in October, Fernández was prevented from going to Durango because the Regency was arranging a political appointment for him. In April of 1822, the Regency asked Durango to start paying his salary despite him "not having taken possession" of his prebend.

With both the approval of the cathedral chapter, the King and the Regency, were there still more steps he needed to take to become a fully installed member of the cathedral chapter? Even though there is a long tradition of non-residentiary canons, would he have had to show up once, maybe just to make an oath before the bishop?

I will put out some points and hope that it at least narrows the target sufficiently.
Under the list heading of this document:

Capitulares de la Catedral de Durango mencionados en este volumen. [Google translated meaning:] Capitulars of the Cathedral of Durango
mentioned in this volume.

It seems that Agustín Fernández de San Vicente receives this cryptic entry (p.319):

Fernández de S. Vicente, D.José Agustín. Murió Arcediano el
15 de Mayo de 1855 [Google translated meaning:] Fernández de S. Vicente, D. José Agustín. Archdeacon died on
May 15, 1855

From this it seems clear that (1) he was canonized as the Capitular of the Durango Cathedral. Furthermore, it must have been before his death in 1855.
Under the same heading, a certain: Dr. D. Francisco Fernández Valentín died on October 21st, 1822 (p.320). Here (p.230), it is this same Valentin:

...who was vicar general of the Vacant See of Durango at the time [...1813...]

Since Fernandez de San Vicente was Vicar Capitular:

...the administrator of a vacant diocese, elected by a cathedral chapter...[o]n the death of a bishop...

(2) It seems he would have officially received that canon only after the death of the current Vicar General. Since Vicar Capitular must be appointed within "eighty days" of the death of the Bishop by the canons of the cathedral chapter to avoid that power passing to the metropolitan, and since we know given what you have written above he was appointed by cathedral chapter, we know he must have been canonized some-time before 80 days after the death of the Vicar General on October 21, 1822. This irregular situation which chose him as Vicar Capitular might explain why there was not oral examination etc.
Next we know that he never took up residency due to an appointment to a secular post as a commissioner in California in March, 1822:

The Plan de Iguala and the news of Mexican independence reached
California in March 1822 with a special mail shipment, and the
citizenry learned of the formation of an empire (1822-23) under
Augustin Comse Damian de Iturbide y Arambara. A Mexican commissioner,
Comissioner Augustin Fernandez de San Vicente, arrived later in March
1822…

(3) Since he was sent in 1822 according to this document (p.59), and it makes no sense to have canonized him non-residentially after he had already left on this separate commission, I think he must have been canonized between October 21, 1822 and the end of that year.
This may not give you an exact date, but within this approximately two-month period he must have been canonized as Vicar Capitular of Durango Cathedral. I'm not sure if he was canonized in a previously position which is implied by your claim that he was required to be paid by that chapter in April of 1822.
(4) In response to your question regarding non-residentiary canons, Global Perspectives on Legal History
A Max Planck Institute for European Legal History Vol. 5 seems to suggest that those appointed by the crown were considered canons even when they refused to physical go to their see (100-101). Though officially recognized as such, their actual power seemed ineffective against de facto coups.
Here is the Spanish:

Ortega Montañés y la sustitución de la facción de la sede vacante, 1700–1708
El inicio de la gestión arzobispal de Juan de Ortega Montañés, en 1700, fue una coyuntura favorable para el regreso del grupo clerical que encabezaba la curia con su antecesor, desplazando a los nombrados durante la sede vacante. Con esta acción, el arzobispo le dio continuidad a trayectorias de juristas eclesiásticos que servirían de modelo a futuras generaciones. Una consecuencia de tal sustitución fue la serie de fricciones que tuvieron con el provisor destituido, Escalante Mendoza. En 1700, quizá buscando una solución a tal situación, la corona nombró a Escalante como obispo de Durango, la diócesis más pobre y alejada de la capital novohispana. Sin embargo, el aludido se negó a dejar la capital, porque confiaba en una nueva promoción a un mejor obispado. En tanto, el arzobispo Ortega comenzó a desgastar el poder acumulado por el chantre Escalante: no permitió que la congregación de San Pedro, donde el segundo era abad perpetuo, usara estolas en una procesión; después, nombró administrador de la fábrica de catedral al doctor Miguel González, en lugar de Escalante. Igualmente, el arzobispo le dio al doctor Rodrigo García Flores la capellanía del colegio de las Niñas, que tenía Escalante, a quien ni siquiera se le avisó.31 Poco antes de estos sucesos, el arzobispo en persona asistió a la toma de posesión de Torres Vergara de la cátedra de Prima de Leyes de la universidad, misma que Escalante había conseguido para un protegido en 1698 provocando un pleito en el Consejo de Indias.32 Era claro que el arzobispo Ortega había maniobrado rápidamente para formar un nuevo grupo para su curia, el cual estuvo conformado por su provisor-vicario general, el canónigo Antonio Aunsibay Anaya; su juez de testamentos, el cura de catedral José Torres Vergara; el defensor de este mismo tribunal, José Hurtado de Castilla, catedrático sustituto; el canónigo Miguel González de Valdeosera, administrador de la fábrica de catedral; y el canónigo Rodrigo García Flores, flamante capellán de uno de los conventos más importantes de la capital.

And the Google translate version in English:

Ortega Montañés and the replacement of the faction of the vacant seat, 1700–1708
The beginning of the archbishop's administration of Juan de Ortega Montañés, in 1700, was a favorable juncture for the return of the clerical group that headed the curia with its predecessor, displacing those appointed during the vacant seat. With this action, the archbishop continued the careers of ecclesiastical jurists that would serve as a model for future generations. One consequence of such substitution was the series of frictions they had with the dismissed provisional officer, Escalante Mendoza. In 1700, perhaps looking for a solution to such a situation, the crown named Escalante as Bishop of Durango, the poorest diocese and far from the capital of New Spain. However, the aforementioned refused to leave the capital, because he trusted a new promotion to a better bishopric. Meanwhile, Archbishop Ortega began to wear down the power accumulated by the cantor Escalante: he did not allow the congregation of San Pedro, where the second was perpetual abbot, to wear stoles in a procession; later, he appointed doctor Miguel González as administrator of the cathedral factory, instead of Escalante. Likewise, the archbishop gave Dr. Rodrigo García Flores the chaplaincy of the girls' school, which Escalante had, who was not even notified.31 Shortly before these events, the archbishop in person attended the inauguration of Torres Vergara from the university's chair of law school, which Escalante had obtained for a protégé in 1698 by provoking a lawsuit in the Council of the Indies.32 It was clear that Archbishop Ortega had quickly maneuvered to form a new group for his curia, which was conformed by his Provisor-Vicar General, Canon Antonio Aunsibay Anaya; its testament judge, the cathedral priest José Torres Vergara; the defender of this same court, José Hurtado de Castilla, substitute professor; Canon Miguel González de Valdeosera, administrator of the cathedral factory; and Canon Rodrigo García Flores, brand-new chaplain of one of the most important convents in the capital.

However, this occurred some time before Agustín Fernández, and law may have changed. Early in the period of colonization, the possibility of vacant seats seemed common (suggesting a rationale for allowing non-residentiary canons) due to the need to travel across the ocean. Under their entry for 1558 Global Perspectives:

La finalidad propia y específica del cabildo en el derecho vigente es la de celebrar las funciones litúrgicas más solemnes. Tal función, que, como se ha visto, era una de las obligaciones tradicionales del cabildo, se ha preservado procurando que los cabildos llegaran a ser una institución litúrgica modélica.4 Pero lo que daba un mayor prestigio al cabildo era el hecho de que eran los encargados de gobernar la diócesis durante los períodos de sede vacante, que eran con frecuencia largos en Nueva España.5
The specific and proper purpose of the council in current law is to
celebrate the most solemn liturgical functions. Such a function,
which, as has been seen, was one of the traditional obligations of the
council, has been preserved by ensuring that the councils become a
model liturgical institution.4 But what gave the council greater
prestige was the fact that they were those charged with governing
the diocese during vacant periods, which were often long in New
Spain. 5

I am not an expert in Canon Law so I may have gotten some of the terms confused, but I hope this helps!


Israel without spears and the value of a shekel It is stated in 1 Samuel 13:19-22 that Saul's army didn't have any swords or spears, due to the Philistines "not allowing" Israeli blacksmiths.

  [19] Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land
  of Israel, for the Philistines said, “Lest the Hebrews make themselves
  swords or spears.” [20] But every one of the Israelites went down to
  the Philistines to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, or his
  sickle, [21] and the charge was two-thirds of a shekel for the
  plowshares and for the mattocks, and a third of a shekel for
  sharpening the axes and for setting the goads. [22] So on the day of
  the battle there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any
  of the people with Saul and Jonathan, but Saul and Jonathan his son
  had them. (ESV)

How did the Philistines achieve this? I assume this has to do with cost - what is the modern day equivalent of 2/3 or 1/3 of a shekel?

Is there some other reason that Israel didn't arm themselves - or did they use mainly non-metal weapons?

The Philistines had disarmed the Israelites to prevent rebellion.
Gill's Exposition on 1 Sam. 13:19,

"Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel,.... The Philistines, when they ruled over them, having removed them into their own country, and forbid any to learn or exercise that trade in Israel:
for the Philistines said, lest the Hebrews make swords or spears: this they did to prevent their having arms, and the use of them, that they might not rebel against them, and fight with them, and overcome them; it was a piece of policy to keep them subject to them; so Nebuchadnezzar, when he conquered the Jews and carried them captive, took care particularly to carry away their smiths, and left none but the poorest sort of people in the land, 2 Kings 24:14 and Porsena, king of the Etrusci, when he made a covenant with the Romans, upon the expulsion of their kings, made this a condition of peace with them, that they should use no iron but in husbandry (h). When this course was taken by the Philistines with the Israelites, and how long it had continued is not certain; it is probable it might be in the space of forty years they ruled over Israel, in which Samson was born, for we never read of any sword or spear that he made use of; and though there were two battles in the times of Eli, in both which Israel were beaten, they might make use only of bows and arrows, slings, and stones, clubs, &c, as also in the battle of Saul with the Ammonites; and as for the defeat of the Philistines in the time of Samuel, it was by thunder; and though the Philistines were then subdued, yet, as Samuel grew old, they regained their power in a good measure, and the Israelites had not spirit enough to oppose them, nor diligence and industry to learn and revive the trade of smiths among them; not even for what was necessary to husbandry, as the following verse shows.

(h) Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 34. c. 14. "   Source: here
A shekel was a weight.  There are three different shekels mentioned in scripture: silver shekels of Gen. 23:16 ; the shekel of the sanctuary in Ex. 30:13, which was 20 gerahs; and shekels measured by the king's weight in 2 Sam 14:26.  These may have varied.  An article discussing weights and measures can be found here.
Another source identifies the gerah as being 1/50th of an ounce, or 0.6 grams.  Then, the sanctuary shekel would have been 0.4 ounces, or 12 grams.  See here.
But, 1 Sam. 13:21 is not translated the same in the English versions.
Verse 21 In Young's reads:

"and there hath been the file for mattocks, and for coulters, and for three-pronged rakes, and for the axes, and to set up the goads."

The KJV reads:

" Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads."

Excerpt from Gill's Exposition on vs. 21:

"(The word for "file" in the verse is "pim", and occurs only here in the Hebrew scriptures. It is not used elsewhere in other Hebrew writings. Therefore the translators of the 1611 Authorised Version had only the root derivation to deduce what the word meant. Literally, it means "a file with mouths". However, recently archaeologists have found a stone inscribed with this word. Also they found a stone inscribed with the word "shekel". Hence they deduced that the word was really a weight of measure equal to about one third of a shekel. Newer translations usually translate this as "the charge was a third of a shekel ...", hence removing the obvious contradiction between this verse and the preceding one. Editor.) "  Source: here

Ellicott's Commentary offers:

"The LXX. read this 21st verse with considerable changes: “And the vintage was ready to be gathered, and the tools were three shekels to the tooth to sharpen], and to the axe and to the scythe there was the same rate” (or, as the Greek has been rendered,” tools cost three shekels apiece [to sharpen]”)."  Same source as above.

There appears to be differences in the amount the Philistines charged.  But, Interlinear has it as "a shekel" for all of the tools.


Why did Jesus keep himself and the disciples hungry and thirsty on some occasions? We see at Matthew 12:1 (NRSVCE) :

"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat."

We also see at Mark 11:12:

"On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. "

Taking a cue from the above instances, one would surmise that Jesus kept himself and the disciples hungry and thirsty at least on a few occasions. My question therefore is: Did the Lord have a purpose of allowing himself and the disciples to be hungry and thirsty sometime during his ministry , say strengthening of their  will-power , or, were those occasions the result of sheer chance ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell us about those occasions ?

Matthew 12:1
St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Matthew 12:1 gives two reasons for their hunger:

The disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck the ears of grain. Here two things should be considered: first,

the need, because they were hungry. And why? Because they were poor; hence 1 Corinthians (4:4): "Even to this hour we hunger and thirst..."

The second reason

is that they had been impeded on account of the crowds; hence they hardly had time to eat, as it says in Mark (4:31). But how did they satisfy their hunger? And example of abstinence is given to us, for they did not look for dishes of food but grains, in keeping with 1 Timothy (6:8): "If we have food and clothing, with these we are content."

Mystically by the plucking of the grains is understood the manifold understanding of Scripture or the conversion of sinners.

Mark 11:12
Commenting on Mark 11:12, St. John Chrysostom says in his Matt. Hom., 87 (as quoted in St. Thomas Aquinas's Golden Chain on Mark 11):

How is it that He was hungry in the morning, as Matthew says, if it were not that by an economy He permitted it to His flesh?
There follows, "And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came, if haply He might find any thing theron." Now it is evident that this expresses a conjecture of the disciples, who thought that it was for this reason that Christ came to the fig tree, and that it was cursed, because He found no fruit upon it. For it goes on: "And when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever." He therefore curses the fig tree for His disciples' sake, that they might have faith in Him. For He everywhere distributed blessings, and punished no one, yet at the same time, it was right to give them a proof of His chastising power, that they might learn that He could even cause the persecuting Jews to wither away; He was however unwilling to give this proof on men, wherefore He shewed them on a plant a sign of His power of punishing. This proves that He came to the fig tree principally for this reason [of showing His power], and not on account of His hunger, for who is so silly as to suppose that in the morning He felt so greatly the pains of hunger, or what prevented the Lord from eating before He left Bethany? Nor can it be said that the sight of the figs excited His appetite to hunger, for it was not the season of figs; and if He were hungry, why did He not seek food elsewhere, rather than from a fig-tree which could not yield fruit before its time? What punishment also did a fig tree deserve for not having fruit before its time? From all this then we may infer, that He wished to shew His power, that their minds might not be broken by His Passion.

St. Bede interprets Jesus's hunger as "desiring the salvation of mankind":

Just in the same way as He speaks parables, so also His deeds are parables; therefore He comes hungry to seek fruit off the fig tree, and though He knew the time of figs was not yet, He condemns it to perpetual barrenness, that He might shew that the Jewish people could not be saved through the leaves, that is, the words of righteousness which it had, without fruit, that is, good works, but should be cut down and cast into the fire. Hungering therefore, that is, desiring the salvation of mankind, He saw the fig tree, which is, the Jewish people, having leaves, or, the words of the Law and the Prophets, and He sought upon it the fruit of good works, by teaching them, by rebuking them, by working miracles, and He found it not, and therefore condemned it. Do thou too, unless thou wouldest be condemned by Christ in the judgment, beware of being a barren tree, but rather offer to Christ the fruit of piety which He requires.


If the Bible has been changed over the years, can we still trust it? I read that there are passages that exist today that are not in some of the oldest scrolls.  Since these passages were added along the way—maybe to help explain something—can we trust that the Bible is the same original word of God?

These possible later additions include the following:

the ending of Mark, see Mark 16.
Jesus sweating blood in Luke (Luke 22:43–44).
the story in John of the woman taken in adultery, the Pericope
Adulterae.
an explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, the Comma Johanneum.

While many of the changes are small and not important, "Comma Johanneum" is the only place in the entire Bible that the Trinity is directly addressed.  So if this wasn't part of the original text, that would be problematic.

If the original scrolls were inspired, why didn't God preserve them?  Alternatively, how can we trust that the Bible we hold in our hands today faithfully represents the originals?

It's important to understand something about the origins of the Bible. The authors of the various books within it did not sit down to write "The Bible". They intended to write stuff that would be helpful to other people for various reasons: in the case of the Gospels, so people would know the true story of Jesus' life and teachings, and for the letters to instruct the recipients in Christianity. These documents were not collected to form the Biblical Canon until much later, around 400AD.

It is certainly true that there exist manuscripts of New Testament documents (primarily the Gospels and Acts) which show variations. Some either have or have not certain passages: some use slightly different wording. However it is important to note that the vast majority of these 'differences' come from before the period where the documents were collected into 'The Bible'. These differences make a lot of sense. If you have a document that describes the life of Jesus, and you also know of a story that you are certain is true about Jesus, you might well add it in. Of course if people disagreed with you about the validity of the story they would not copy your document.

Once the Biblical canon has been more-or-less defined the variations become much less - again unsurprising, since making changes to the Word of God is a much more serious matter than to a 'true story'. Such differences as exist are likely copying errors.

So TL;DR : No, the Bible has actually changed very little since it became The Bible. Before that there were different manuscripts with some differences, but in reality not a lot of variation.


What is the Biblical basis for the "penal" in penal substitutionary atonement? I have been looking at different models of the atonement and am currently looking at penal substitutionary atonement.  While I can see the substitution, I'm struggling somewhat with the idea of Jesus taking the penalty for our sin.

So, what is the Biblical basis for the "penal" in penal substitutionary atonement?

The 'penal' in penal substitution is based on the idea that sin brings about punishment under the curse of the law.  The curse of Adam's sin is death, which is a punishment. Punishment = the curse under the law for sin.

  Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” (NIV Galatians 3:13)

For Christ to become a curse is the same thing as saying he became guilty for our sin, or more emphatically became our actual sin making the Law execute him under its wrath:

  God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (NIV 2 Corinthians 5:21)

To say the holy Son of God is 'sin' and is 'cursed' must presume at the same time that he deserves to be punished for us, otherwise these appellations have no actual meaning and are blasphemy.

What you will find in reviewing different theories of atonement is that there are actually only two. These theories either support what is called a forensic justification by faith, or a denial of such a thing. The penal theory is actually just a natural result of affirming the reformed doctrine of Justification by faith. Anyone else when using the term 'justification' merely mean an initial point of sanctification. They mean some sanctification is necessary involved in producing justification. Justification to them means more of an initial 'full sanctification' making a person personally and inwardly righteous. The reformers just call this justification by works under the gloss of fake grace. Just legal righteous to serve the self righteous desires of those who deny the full curse of original sin.

The reformers denied any kind of inner righteousness having any involvement in justification in any sense.  Therefore while the penal theory supports a means whereby an absolutely evil person can be declared righteous apart from any work whatsoever, non penal theories focus on some infused righteousness as a result of Christ's death and our faith in him. The result is they avoid the penal aspect clearly spelled out by Paul and look for other subjects such as moral improvements, fatherly relationships, mystical unions, spiritual redemption....or any other focus that would allow some righteous ability of a person to cooperate with the Spirit and somehow retain some kind of human goodness. In other words the penal concept come from both the doctrines of original sin and justification apart from works.

Historically the penal idea is simply the acceptance of Pauline legal arguments as a necessary result of abandoning humanity to an absolutely hopeless sate under original sin. When man is absolutely lost and no method to relieve his 'guilt' or deserved 'punishment' under the Law, someone must pay before any sanctification can occur. This order of Justification before any sanctification, is the 'forensic' or 'external legal' doctrine of justification.

What I am trying to say is that although scriptures that I have quoted explain the origin of the penal theory it is actually the entire New Testament doctrine of original sin, the Incarnation, the death of Chris itself and all of the Epistles, especially that of Paul's 'legal arguments' around justification that forced the penal theory out of the reformation.

Basically is is Paul the Apostle who insisted on it at first. By keeping justification 'apart from works', 'justification' must necessarily come before sanctification. Sanctification must be the immediate but separate result of being externally justified apart from previous or combined inner just qualities. Once justification has at least conceptualy been separated from sanctification there can be no moral improvement in the sinner involved in atonement (accept as the resulting reconciliation of the sinner). Therefore, to get rid of sin someone else has to take it as their own along with any curse and punishment sin deserves. So you see it's doctrinal. If justification comes first apart from works (sanctification) then to deny a penal substitution is simply to deny that sin should ever be punished.

In other words:

  For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NIV, Romans 8:3-4)

To a reformer of course God the Father punished / condemned sin in Christ as a sin offering for us. This with us initially and inwardly 'outside of the legal transaction', other than of course our own guilt and sin being legally transferred to Christ, in order to make him guilty for us and punished for us.

So if Christ is to be made sin, made a curse, to be condemned in the flesh for our sin, what idea could ever possibly arise that would make one attempt to avoid the 'penal' implications!?


Why would popes choose the name Pelagius in light of the Pelagian heresy? I was checking out the list of pope names by frequency on Wikipedia in search of minutia to defend my assertion that Pope Francis was the first new Pope name a long time and noticed that there were two popes named Pelagius (I and II) but there's also a Pelagian heresy that predates their pontificate.

So, why Pelagius? Or didn't the Popes think that hard about their names back then?

That's interesting! Catholics tend to avoid using heretical names. In fact, I believe that it's in canon law that baptismal names cannot be the names of heretics, and that it is the priest's duty to prevent such a name from being used. So it is very strange that any pope would the name of a known  heretic.

So why do we have two popes with the name of a heretic, and a very recent one, at that? Perhaps it is because Pelagius of the heresy himself might have denied important aspects of that heresy:

  This theological theory is named after Pelagius, although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. (Wikipedia)

Still it is strange, because the name would still have been associated with the heresy. So let's look further. From Wikipedia:

  Beginning in the sixth century, some popes adopted a new name upon their accession to the papacy; this became customary in the 10th century, and every pope since the 16th century has done so. [...] During the first centuries of the church, the bishops of Rome continued to use their baptismal names after their elections. The custom of choosing a new name began in AD 533 with the election of Mercurius.

It is because "Pelagius" is the original name of both popes! 1

Mercurius becomes Pope John II in 533 (first change)
Pelagius becomes Pope Pelagius I in 556
Pelagius becomes Pope Pelagius II in 579
Practice becomes customary circa 1000

It's still a question exactly why neither chose to follow the example set by Mercurius (named after the Roman god Mercury), but I suppose the practice was only taking root around that time.

1: This is not certain, but seems very probable: the name-changes of other popes around that time are well-recorded but no change is recorded for either of these popes, and I can find no record of either Pelagius being called by a different name before becoming pope.


What Christian groups do not observe or celebrate the Eucharist? Are there any groups who identify as Christian but who do not celebrate/observe the Eucharist?

Two significant groups at least loosely associated with Protestantism that don't observe communion are The Salvation Army and the Quakers.

The rationale for the Salvation Army's position is more fully explained here: Why does the Salvation Army not administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper?  But the short version is that they don't observe the Lord's Supper because (1) it has been a source of division in the church, and (2) it is not required for salvation.

The rationale for Quakers focuses more on all of life being "sacramental"; see, for example, this summary from the BBC:

  [Quakers] don't regard some activities as more sacred than others, nor do they believe that any particular ritual is needed to get in touch with God, so they do not believe in the sacraments practised in mainstream Christian churches. (source)

As for Messianic Jews, their practice varies on the actual denomination that they belong to.  Some tie communion closely to the annual celebration of passover, while others observe it regularly like other Protestants.


How long did Jesus know Judas? How long did Jesus know Judas before Judas betrayed him?

Jesus' public ministry most likely lasted about three years (see "How long was Jesus's ministry?"). He called his twelve closest disciples, including Judas, toward the beginning of that three year period (see Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16), and Judas betrayed him at the end of it. It's possible that Jesus knew Judas for an extended time before he called him as one of his twelve disciples, but we have no real information about that.

So based on what we know from the Bible text, the answer to your question is: Jesus most likely knew Judas at least three years (and possibly longer) before Judas betrayed him.


What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic teaching that infant baptism cleanses from original sin? The Catholic Church, possibly the Orthodox Churches, and even some Protestant churches practice Infant Baptism.  However, I understand that Catholicism teaches that infant baptism cleanses the infant from original sin, but I am unaware of where this doctrine draws its biblical foundation.  So, that is my question:

What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic doctrine that infant baptism cleanses from original sin?

There are biblical references to baptism as imparting new life in Christ on which to base the practice.

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." [Acts 2:38–40]
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [Romans 6:4]
God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. [1 Peter 3:20–21]

The Church cannot deny the grace imparted by baptism to a child simply because he is a child.

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called [Cf Col 1:12–14]. [Catechism of the Catholic Church]

The Catechism holds that infant baptism is "an immemorial tradition", practised from the earliest days of the Church recorded in Acts.

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized [Cf Acts 16:15, 33; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16]


According to the Catholic Church, what happens to a person who is in the process of learning about Catholicism, if that person dies? Suppose a person is learning about the teachings of the Catholicism, and dies before that person has reached a conclusion whether he or she would like to join the Church. According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, what would happen to this person in terms of salvation? Now suppose that person leans toward accepting Catholicism, what would happen instead?

Catechism of The Catholic Church has direct Answer for your question:

  For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament (CCC 1259).

Such a baptism is called Baptism of desire. But for this to be valid, their conversion should be accompanied by internal act of perfect love and contrition by which their soul is cleansed of all sin.

It is also to be noted that the ordinary magisterium of the Church has openly taught the three-fold Baptism (water, desire and blood) since the earliest days of the Church, and never has this teaching ever been condemned by the Catholic Church.


When the Bible talks about wine does it mean alcoholic wine? In discussions I have had in the past over the acceptability of a Christian drinking alcohol I have heard that some 'dry' believers say that the wine in the Bible was not wine as we know it commonly today. It was actually non-alcoholic grape juice.

I personally believe that the wine of Jesus' day is the wine that we know.

Is there any Biblical/historical evidence to the contrary, that the wine of the past was non-fermented juice?

It is simply impossible to keep the juice from crushed grapes from fermenting without modern refrigeration and pasteurization techniques. So yes, the wine was alcoholic.

There is plenty of textual evidence as well, but this should do:

  The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say,
  ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and
  sinners! Luke 7:34, Darby

Hard to be accused of being a drunkard if the wine isn't alcoholic!


Who calls the conclave? There must be someone to oficially call the cardinals to a conclave. Who is it?

It can't be the old pope - resignation is hardly the normal situation, so the old pope is supposed to be dead. I guess it's some of the cardinals, probably Cardinal Camerlegno, but I'd be interrested in some proof.

It is the Dean of the College of Cardinals, currently Cardinal Angelo Sodano. This role for the Dean is many centuries old. The present rules for the election of the Pope are mostly found in the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici gregis, issued by John Paul II in 1996. It contains the following:

  (19) The Dean of the College of Cardinals, for his part, as soon as he has been informed of the Pope's death by the Cardinal Camerlengo or the Prefect of the Papal Household, shall inform all the Cardinals and convoke them for the Congregations of the College. He shall also communicate news of the Pope's death to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See and to the Heads of the respective Nations.

Although this refers to the death of the Pope, the same provision applies in the case of resignation:

  (77) I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

The citations are to the canons describing how a Pope resigns. UDG §38 confirms the role of the Dean in convoking the cardinals.

Angelo Sodano, however, is 85 years old, and will not be taking part in the conclave - only cardinals under 80 at the time the See becomes vacant are electors. He is also restricted from presiding over the General Congregation, which is the daily meeting of all the Cardinals held before the conclave begins. He can still attend, but doesn't have to.

UDG provides that if the Dean is unable to preside over the conclave himself, then his place is taken by the Sub-Dean (aka Vice-Dean). But this is Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, who is 90 years old! So instead, the role falls (UDG §9) to the senior cardinal who is actually able to take part. This will be Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, because he is a cardinal bishop (first tier of precedence), and has been one for longer than the only other cardinal bishop who is under 80, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. (Cardinal Francis Arinze is 80, and Cardinal Jose Martins is 81. The patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches rank just below the other cardinal bishops.)

Nonetheless, the formal announcement of §19 above could still be made by Cardinal Sodano himself, since all other mentions of "Dean" in the document include a proviso about the  substitution if the Dean is impeded, and this section just says "Dean". However, §38 allows another cardinal to do it in his name. This situation arose for the two conclaves of 1978, when both the dean (Cardinal Carlo Confalonieri, 85) and the vice-dean (Cardinal Paolo Morella, 83) were above the age of 80. The next-ranking elector, Cardinal Jean-Marie Villot, was the one who presided over the conclave, and he also sent the messages of summons. Interestingly, he was both Secretary of State and Camerlengo at the time, which probably added some weight to the idea that he should be responsible for the summons as well. (This took place under Romano Pontifici Eligendo, 1975, the predecessor to UDG, but the relevant law is basically the same; see §§19 and 39.)

Update: A Catholic News Service report of 26 February 2013 quotes Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, saying that the Dean, Angelo Sodano, will send out letters of summons on 1 March, including email or fax versions as well as the hard copies.


Did the church fathers or OT talk about the visible and invisible church? In the Reformation, the doctrine of the distinction between the visible and invisible church was important in the Reformers' claim not to have started a rogue church. I am wondering...

Given that it was common for the Reformers to use the Patristics, did they reference any of the early church fathers on this question? More generally, did the early church fathers speak on it?
How did they relate this doctrine to the concept of the remnant in the Old Testament?

(I'm looking for actual quotes from church fathers, Reformers, confessional documents, etc.)

I'm not sure if this is precisely what you are looking for, but your question immediately reminded me of Augustine's City of God:

Chapter 35.—Of the Sons of the Church Who are Hidden Among the Wicked, and of False Christians Within the Church.
Let these and similar answers (if any fuller and fitter answers can be found) be given to their enemies by the redeemed family of the Lord Christ, and by the pilgrim city of King Christ.  But let this city bear in mind, that among her enemies lie hid those who are destined to be fellow-citizens, that she may not think it a fruitless labor to bear what they inflict as enemies until they become confessors of the faith.  So, too, as long as she is a stranger in the world, the city of God has in her communion, and bound to her by the sacraments, some who shall not eternally dwell in the lot of the saints.  Of these, some are not now recognized; others declare themselves, and do not hesitate to make common cause with our enemies in murmuring against God, whose sacramental badge they wear.  These men you may to-day see thronging the churches with us, to-morrow crowding the theatres with the godless.  But we have the less reason to despair of the reclamation even of such persons, if among our most declared enemies there are now some, unknown to themselves, who are destined to become our friends.  In truth, these two cities are entangled together in this world, and intermixed until the last judgment effects their separation.  I now proceed to speak, as God shall help me, of the rise, progress, and end of these two cities; and what I write, I write for the glory of the city of God, that, being placed in comparison with the other, it may shine with a brighter lustre.

I've emphasized several phrases that say:

Some of the elect are currently enemies of the Church,
Some within the Church are not among the elect, and
The Church and the World are currently intermingled.

It's not exactly the case that false Christians are "invisible"—Augustine notes that they may be found in the theaters with the godless.  (Augustine had a very low opinion of theaters at that time.  We could probably stand to be more critical of our entertainment choices in this day as my grandmother would have been quick to remind me.)


How did Martin Luther's views on Free Will differ from those of Erasmus? I understand that Martin Luther believed in the redemption of the will to serve God as part of  God's redemptive work. Can someone clarify how this differed from Erasmus' viewpoint? I know I could figure this out through self-research, but I'm looking for an abridged version.

I don't know how abridged a version can be, since it is a very subtle topic. If you really want to understand it in depth, I recommend "Luther: Right or Wrong" by Harry J. McSorley; I consider it one of the best works in the English language on this topic and soteriology in general.  This was a topic that affected me greatly in college and reading this book really revolutionized my understanding of justification and salvation, so I really recommend it. If you want a couple-page overview of the debate, here is a link that provides a lot of the context.

If you want a summary that is so general that people will take immediate exception to it (alas), Erasmus believed that free will played more of a role in salvation than did Luther; Erasmus said free will and God's will played a synergistic role and Luther totally rejected that and said our will is in complete bondage to sin or God.

I will happily add that the different perspectives on salvation were eventually reconciled in the Joint Declaration On The Doctrine of Justification, which heals a lot of this huge theological divide.


From a LDS perspective, when does the Holy Ghost get a Physical Body? I am looking for where we are told that the Holy Ghost gets a physical body.  I thought it was doctrine that He will get a physical body during the Millennium.  However, I am not able to find a reference.  I went through every verse which has the phrase "Holy Ghost" in the scriptures and did not find it.  Maybe I missed it.  Maybe I need to look at the verses which reference the Holy Ghost with a different name (e.g. the Spirit).  I could not find a reference on https://lds.org ... maybe I did not look long enough.  I see a few discussions on the Internet but no references.  Can you provide a reference which says when the Holy Ghost gets a physical body?

I am assuming that everyone (including the Holy Ghost) which chose Heavenly Father's plan will receive a physical body.  D&C 130:22 shows us that He cannot perform his functions with a physical body.

Perhaps, I am totally wrong and the Holy Ghost will never receive a physical body.  If that is correct, please show me a reference.

There is nothing in LDS canon about this, as far as I can tell. There are a couple statements from Joseph Smith that indicate that he felt the Holy Ghost would eventually receive a body, which I've copied from the linked article. The first is from the Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings:

  The Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and is waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did.

And the second is from the Words of Joseph Smith:

  The Holy Ghost is now in a state of probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has.

You would have to check the referenced print sources to obtain more detail on the context of these quotations.

However, note that other general authorities have failed to confirm these statements as doctrine, and have stated that there is nothing authoritative on the matter (see this link). Generally, a church leader, even Joseph Smith, making a couple of statements on a given topic doesn't automatically mean they are doctrine. In the case of Joseph Smith's recorded statements on the Holy Ghost receiving a body, we do not know if these statements are revelation or speculation.


Why did punishment differ in Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Kings 15:11-12? Is there any reason behind why punishment differed in Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Kings 15:11-12? What's the context?

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of
them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death;
their blood is upon them.
1 Kings 15:11-12 And Asa did what was right in the eyes of the Lord,
as David his father had done. He put away the male cult prostitutes
out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

I saw this in Project Reason, saying it is a contradiction of how homosexuals should be treated. One states death and the other says removal out of the land.

Leviticus 20:13 mentions what should be done to Israelites under the Law of Moses. 1 Kings 15:11-12 mentions how a particular King ruled the nations of Israel. It seems from the context that there were some Canaanite idolatry temples within Israel, which practiced cult prostitution. 1 Kings 14:24 indicates that there was actually both male and female prostitutes.  From what I know about these temples it is most probable that the prostitutes and the priests were not Israelites, so the law was not applicable to them. That the King forced them out of Israel seems to have been a move that God approved of.

It should be noted that there are many instances when people are congratulated in the Bible when they move in the 'direction of right', without actually going all the way. So even if this was incorrectly understood as a law that was to be applied to foreigners also, there is actually no contradiction in one person’s example being spoken well of, versus the actual prescription that should have been followed.


What happens to Lutherans who become Catholic? This question is a two-parter, I know that's bad form but I don't want to justify two questions.

Question 1 - if a Lutheran drifts into Catholic beliefs, like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Primacy of Peter and a belief in Salvation through Faith and Good Works are they free to do so?

Question 2 - if they are received into the Catholic Church at some point in time is there formal process of excommunication from the former Church.  I know that as a Catholic they'd be obligated not to take part in Lutheran services but from the Lutheran perspective what does the convert have to give up and what can he or she take?

Lutherans officially recognize the "Office of the keys"

  What is the Office of the Keys?*

  The Office of the Keys is that special authority which Christ has given to His church on earth to forgive the sins of repentant sinners, but to withhold forgiveness from the unrepentant as long as they do not repent.

  Where is this written?*

  This is what St. John the Evangelist writes in chapter twenty: The Lord Jesus breathed on His disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:22–23)

  What do you believe according to these words?*

  I believe that when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine command, in particular when they exclude openly unrepentant sinners from the Christian congregation and absolve those who repent of their sins and want to do better, this is just as valid and certain, even in heaven, as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us Himself.

as given in Luther's Small Catechism from Luther's te, though he may not have written these questions himself. And while there may be some today, and almost certainly some in the past who might have invoked this in the past with respect to someone who converted to Catholicism, it would not be the default action for most Lutherans today, with respect to someone who might choose to.join the Catholic Church as to Lutherans who come to accept certain hallmarks of Catholic beliefs, there is no particular problem with this, either, and it is probably the rare individual who does not agree with at least a few of them, though there are probably some beliefs that are rarely held by Lutherans.


Since YHWH and the Bible acknowledge other gods, does that mean that they literally exist? Exodus 20:3 (NIV) reads, "You shall have no other gods before Me."

According to the Tanakh (Old Testament), YHWH / Yahweh / (God) is an individual divine being, and the only God.

Some sections of the Scriptures seem to state that He is the universe’s only (truly existing) God; however, others portray him as a supreme god among other gods (that actually exist).

Deuteronomy 4:35, “YHWH is God; there is none else beside him.”

Isaiah 44:6–8, it says, “Thus says YHWH…: I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God… Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

Thus, Yahweh is the only God that exists.

But in Exodus 15:11, after the Israelites escape slavery in Egypt, they sing, “Who is like you, O YHWH, among the gods [Elohim]?”

Deuteronomy 6:14: "Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you"

In Deuteronomy 10:17, it says, “For YHWH your God is the God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and terrible, who does not regard people or take bribes.”

In Psalm 95:3, it says, “YHWH is a great God, and a great king above all gods.”

And in Exodus 12:12, it says, “On that night I will pass through the land of Egypt and smite every firstborn, both man and beast, and I will execute judgment against all the gods of Egypt. I am YHWH.”

What are we to make of this, then? Are there lesser/other gods? Do the words used for god, perhaps, have other implied contextual meanings in some passages?

I'm sure much could be written about the specific meaning of the Hebrew word for gods, but let me focus on one important interpreter's take: Paul the apostle.  In 1 Corinthians 8:4–6, he quotes Isaiah and Deuteronomy to make his case that eating food sacrificed to idols is not inherently wrong:

  Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. [ESV]

Isaiah 41:24, the Lord speaks to the gods, saying:

  Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you. [ESV]

And Deuteronomy 4:39:

  the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. [ESV]

Paul interprets these passages to teach that these "so-called gods" have "no real existence." But then, do they have an "unreal" existence, as a reading of verse 5 might suggest? Idols do exist, he says, in the sinful hearts of men:

  Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. [Colossians 3:5, ESV]


Does the Russian Orthodox Church recognize Adolf Hitler as a Saint? So, I recently found out about how the Main Cathedral of the Armed Forces in Russia maintains a section containing Adolf Hitler's hat and uniform as relics within a wing of its building. Since it's my understanding the Catholic and Orthodox churches only maintain relics of the saints, does that mean that the Russian Orthodox Church recognizes Adolf Hitler as a saint? Can someone go to visit the church to see Hitler's hat and pray for him to pray to God on their behalf? If they don't regard Hitler as a saint, then why do they maintain his relics?

Does the Russian Orthodox Church recognize Adolf Hitler as a Saint?
The short answer is no.
There is no liturgical celebration for the above said person known infamously as Adolf Hitler in the Russian Orthodox Church.
I can find no glorification process for him either.
The fact that the Main Cathedral of the Armed Forces in Russia maintains a section containing Adolf Hitler's hat and uniform as relics within a wing of its building is in a sense not surprising.
For example, many Catholic Churches in Italy, have museums attached to them, say in an adjacent wing just outside the church (proper) or in or around the cloister if it Church was at one time a monastery or convent. All sort of the ”museums” exist throughout Rome. It is not a new idea.
Many of these church museums in Italy are by paid admission only, but not all.
Seeing that this is the Main Cathedral of the Armed Forces in Russia, it does not seem so out of place that there exists in a wing of the building a section dedicated to World War II memorabilia. Referring to Hitler’s personal effects as relics (given the situation) is a poor choice of words. A better phrase might have been chosen such as historical artifacts or something similar.
The website you link to clearly states that Hitler’s personal belongings are housed in a separate military museum (with historical military paraphernalia) area within the complex, thus not in the actual worshiping section of the cathedral.

The cathedral complex also houses a museum section, housing Adolf Hitler’s personal belongings, including his uniform and military cap. - A giant BLACK cathedral from remelted weapons appears in Russia

As such, certain aspects of the design of the cathedral have proven to be controversial.

Putin and Stalin mosaics controversy
At the end of April 2020 photos were leaked which showed in the unfinished cathedral mosaics of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and other high-ranking Russian officials, as well as Joseph Stalin. The Russian Orthodox Church initially explained the presence of mosaics featuring Putin and Stalin according to the tradition of depicting historical events – in this case, the 2014 accession of the Crimea to Russia and the Great Patriotic War (World War II). However, later it was reported that the cathedral would not have any mosaics of Putin. The Russian Orthodox Church explained that this decision was made taking into account the President's own opinion.

Caveat: I am not a Russian Orthodox, but I believe I have answered this question in a spirit reflecting their own perspectives on this subject matter.


Has a Pope ever encouraged separated or civilly-divorced spouses to strive toward reunion? Has a Pope ever encouraged, such as in an official letter or audience, separated spouses to strive toward reunion?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), issued by Pope John Paul II, says that reunion is the ideal that should be sought, if that is possible:

Yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practically impossible for a variety of reasons. In such cases the Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart. The spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation. The Christian community is called to help these persons live out their situation in a Christian manner and in fidelity to their marriage bond which remains indissoluble (No. 1649).

Moreover the Code of Canon Law (CIC) says

Can.  1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

and

Can.  1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.
§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

and also

Can.  1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

Hence, yes, the Church does encourage couples to reconcile, if that is possible. (That does not mean, of course, that the Church encourages victims of abuse to remain in abusive relationships; there are many other reasons why separation might occur.)


In what way has belief in the Trinity decreased? I have heard that over half of Protestants do not believe in an  earlier theological conception of the Trinity.

I have heard  that this is especially true of Evangelicals, and that they consider the older type of  belief to be Catholic in nature.

In what sense has personal belief in (this older Protestant conception of) the Trinity decreased? Why?

Note that I am not asking  whether Christians believe in the Trinity (most do), nor about Church doctrine, but about some sort of broad shift in belief. This poll  provides an example, though I am not asking for analysis of that poll but rather about what further knowledge people have on this.

A poll conducted in 2014 by LifeWay Research for Ligonier Ministries might help answer this question. You can read the article here, but according to them...

Most American evangelicals hold views condemned as heretical by some of the most important councils of the early church.

...nearly a quarter (22%) said God the Father is more divine than Jesus, and 9 percent weren’t sure. Further, 16 percent say Jesus was the first creature created by God, while 11 percent were unsure.

More than half (51%) said the Holy Spirit is a force, not a personal being. Seven percent weren’t sure, while only 42 percent affirmed that the Spirit is a person.

These poll results are specifically for evangelicals and American Christians, and it seems to be the only poll of its kind. I've personally heard several heretical analogies used to explain the trinity, such as comparing it to H2O (modalism) or an egg (tritheism). This article does a good job of explaining all the bad analogies that get passed around, by possibly much more than 50% of trinitarians. The article concludes with...

One more thing. I often tell my students that if they say, “I get it!” or “Now I understand!” that they are more than likely celebrating the fact that they are a heretic! When you understand the biblical principles and let the tensions remain without rebuttal, then you are orthodox. When you solve the tension, you have most certainly entered into one of the errors that we seek to avoid.

So 98% of Christains belong to a trinitarian denomination, and if any of them think they understand the trinity, they're a heretic.


What is the biblical basis for Christians being instructed to tithe (10%) of their income to the modern day 'church'? I understand the commandment (principle & purpose) of tithing to the Levitical priesthood as defined in OT passages such as Leviticus 27, Numbers 18, etc.

But, my question is now (present day), when there is no temple or clear lineage of the sons of Aaron, what biblical proof texts do Christian (mostly Gentile) pastors use to claim that modern-day believers are commanded to tithe to them (namely, their non-profit organization) as obedience to God?

There are a couple of "proof" texts still used by pastors to command a tithe.

  Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
  Mal. 3:10

Then there's the next question phrased do you want to be the head or the tail based on Deut 28?  Pay your tithes or be the tail (cursed).

There are some groups that claim to be or hint at being of the Levitical priesthood and thus command their followers to tithe.

Lastly, there is the guilt trip.

  But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
  2 Cor. 9:6

To close, we are not under condemnation, but we give cheerfully.


Is Israel still God's Chosen Nation according to Catholic doctrine? I encountered an opinion that the Old Covenant is still valid and that Israel is still the Chosen Nation of God. I haven't checked the accuracy of the source, but I read on the Internet that St. John Paul II said that "God has never revoked the Old Covenant". Also, St. Paul wrote in Romans 11 a difficult passage about the Jews, particularly in Romans 11:29 :

  "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (RSV).

On the other hand, in my language, during the Liturgy of Good Friday, something like "Jews that used to be Chosen Nation in past" is said. (Some say that's a wrong translation; I didn't check the Latin original). Also, the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21 says:

  "Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it." (v. 43).

This seems to state that the Church replaced Israel as a Chosen People.

So, what is the Catholic solution to this seeming contradiction?

The apparent 'contradiction' you seem to note needn't be a 'contradiction'. I'll illuminate on that point.

In our 21st century eyes, Israel is the nation located in the Middle East. But in biblical language, 'Israel' is more precisely the people whom God graces and interacts with through covenants. God's promise is to 'Israel'. It should be understood however that throughout the bible we find that the covenants God makes are always upheld solely by God, where 'Israel' forsakes their end of the deal continuously. This point is relevant for it illustrates how God can be truthful to His end of a covenant while we can turn from such. God needn't 'abandon' a people (though He has and does sometimes to satisfy His justice) even if such a people do not satisfy the covenant.

This being said, in Christ God Himself as man fulfilled humanity's 'end of the deal' to the covenant by perfecting mankind in perfect penance. The true and most central covenant of God was one of a perfect relationship with God. The true and most central 'Israel' was always meant to be whoever is justified in the work and deeds of Christ. All other covenants to a specific people in certain covenants were temporary by nature, insofar as such means they were instilled in order to be fulfilled and completed in Christ, who offers salvation to all who believe in Him. The true covenant of God is founded in Christ, and the 'Israel' is all those who are founded in Christ. Christianity was born out of Jewish culture and Jewish understanding; it is not as though the covenant of Christ 'replaced' the old covenants of the Jewish faith. It is rather that Christ 'fulfilled the law' and founded all preparation covenants within His own perfection. Claiming that the Church is the 'New Israel' is not necessarily meant to mean the Church 'replaces the Old Israel' in a 'substitute' way. It is more so meant to mean that the Church is the eternal 'Israel' and that the 'Israel' denoted by its other distinctive covenants was always periphery to the Church, just as all good deeds and justifications earned by all souls prior to Christ were founded and dependent through timeless time upon Christ's sacrifice. In other words, the Church as the New Israel is substitute of the 'Old Israel' only in a way that is understood in a linear sequence, or through the lens of time. Christ's sacrifice did not nullify any promise in a meaningful way to any 'Israel'.


When, how, and why did the Moravians stop praying 24-7? The Moravians I speak of were a small group that established and resided in a small village named Herrnut on Count Zinzendorf's estate. They experienced a revival in 1727, and following that they did very noteworthy and significant things. Source: Wikipedia.

One of those things was establishing 24-7 prayer that went on uninterrupted for over a hundred years. Now, my question is threefold:

When did it stop? Wikipedia says that it went on for over 100 years, placing the end date past 1827. However, I'm curious to know if there's a precise date recorded.
How did it stop? Was it a sudden end, or did it peter out over the course of months or years?
Why did it stop? Was it because people just slowly got tired of it? Perhaps they were invaded and forced out of their home, an event so disruptive they couldn't continue the continual prayer unbroken? Maybe everyone left for some reason?

I realize that proving a negative is difficult, but an acceptable answer could also be that the answers to these questions were not recorded, though of course I would like to see proper justification for claiming that.

From a Moravian website in the UK:

The industrial revolution and 1870 Education Act brought changes to the settlement' way of life and the sisters' house and schools were closed in the latter half of the 19th century. The additional buildings were then converted into dwelling houses which are managed by the Unitas Estates Company. http://www.moravian.org.uk/index.php/uk-congregations-list-for-the-moravian-church/yorkshire-district/gomersal

Its only referring to the closing of a church school connected with one congregation, but it is most likely also involved in the general downturn.  After all, the inability to keep religious schools running, and their replacement by a secular school system, can very easily make a big dent in a minority denomination's numbers.
Looking up the Elementary Education Act 1870 we find on Wikipedia:

There were ongoing political clashes between the vested interests of Church, private schools and the National Education League followers. In some districts the creation of boards was delayed by local vote. In others, church leaders managed to be voted onto boards and restrict the building of board schools, or divert the school rate funds into church schools.

The vested church interests referred to there are of the Anglican church, not the Moravians.  Losing their own schools and having to send their children to secular or Anglican schools, either one, would undoubtedly have been of great consequence to the denomination's future.
Although divided by an ocean, this article about Bethlehem Pennsylvania seems to tell the same basic story:

Since 1741, Bethlehem has beckoned travelers to experience the warmth and hospitality of this delightful community. In that year, a small group of Moravians settled on the banks of the Lehigh River near the Monocacy Creek.....
On Christmas Eve of that first year, 1741, the Moravians' patron, Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf of Saxony, Germany, visited the new settlement. In their two-room log home that housed both man and beast, the Count christened the community "Bethlehem"....
With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Bethlehem became a center of heavy industry and trade....making the city a "melting pot" of cultures, blending one into the other.  http://www.bethlehem-pa.gov/about/history/

And again with LITITZ, PA:

Lititz was established in 1756 by the Moravian Church as an exclusive religious community until 1855, when the town welcomed people of all religious creeds. The town played an active role in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and industrial revolution, and served as an early musical, educational, and commercial hub.  http://www.moravianmanor.org/lititz.htm

Or again :

The cottage industries of the Moravian Settlement were eventually overtaken by the Industrial Revolution and members sought work and business outside the settlement. http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Hidden-past-village-founded-pioneering/story-16865225-detail/story.html#ixzz37ELK0udO

Who has time for 24/7 prayer when you've got to commute?