Revelation 10:4: "Don't write this down....?" (Catholic perspective) Reading into the book of Revelation, there seems to be some mystery behind it.

Particularly:

  When the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write. But I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Keep secret what the seven thunders said, and do not write it down." - Revelation 10:4 (NLT)

Why wasn't John (assuming he actually wrote the book of Revelation) allowed to write down what he heard? Was it to prevent false interpretation and/or claims of the end times? What was the purpose of keeping what the "seven thunders" said a secret according to a Catholic perspective?

Fr. Herman Kramer's commentary The Book of Destiny says this regarding Revelation 10:4:

Verse 4
According to this verse, St. John had been taking notes all the way through the visions and narratives. He is about to dip his pen into the ink and write what the Thunders had spoken. He therefore understood their message clearly and knew its import. But a voice came forth from the Church ordering him to seal up what the thunders had revealed by not writing it. Through the Seven Thunders, God gave him a special revelation of great importance, indicating what would immediately precede the coming of Antichrist, but it was to remain a secret to the Church. It was as with the revelation made to Daniel concerning the most savage persecutor of the Jews, Antiochus. The length of time he would oppress God's people was to be revealed through Daniel, 2300 days, but the time of his arrival was not to be revealed, was to be "sealed up" (Dan. VIII. 26; XII. 4 & 9). St. Paul likewise heard secret revelations which he was not allowed to communicate to the Church [2 Cor. 12:4]. The Thunders do reveal this: there will be special decisions made by the Church and these will complete the work of her magisterial office before the culmination of evil is due to arrive. The decisions may be the "reed" by which the wicked are separated from the good and expelled from the Church. This scene of the Seven Thunders is a scene within a scene leaving the Church at sea as to the time of Antichrist but foreshowing her preparedness for the attack. No creature will know his time until the Church has enacted what the Seven Thunders have spoken.


Was there any meaningful difference between the terms "presbyter" and "priest" in early Christianity? There has been much debate between Christian denominations on whether or not there is a special priesthood rooted in apostolic succession. I do not mean to disturb this debate with my question, but I would like some clarification.

Are there any early Christian sources that demonstrate that they recognized a difference between a "presbyter" and a "priest"? By early Christian, I mean ~2nd to 4th century.

For example, if there were a document where an early Christian distinguishes between presbyters and priests, that would be highly relevant here. Or if there were a document where an early Christian completely conflates presbyters and priests, that would also be highly relevant here.

If there are some who distinguish and some who conflate the terms, please cite both.

I don't have any documents to show you, but I do want to point out some linguistic aspects to this question that can lead to confusion.

In English, the word priest comes from a contraction of the word presbyter. In other languages, the word used for Catholic priests today is the word presbyter, so this question as worded doesn't really work in an early Church context that predates the English language.

However, in Greek, there is the word hieros, which fits the Old Testament concept of a priest in the Temple. The meaning of hieros is one who offers sacrifices. It also refers to one who represents God to man and man to God, performing an intermediary and intercessory role. However, the meaning of presbyteros is really just an older man who is a leader and does not have as much of a religious connotation.

I think the question you would be interested in would be to know if the words hieros and presbyteros were used to refer to the same person in the early Church. I remember hearing that they were because they refer to different aspects of the same role, with hieros referring to their intercessory role and presbyteros referring to their leadership role.

By the way, hieros is where we get the word "hierarchy" (literally rule by priests) referring to the leadership of the Church.


What denominations use the Revised Common Lectionary? What denominations use the Revised Common Lectionary? And in those denominations, is there typically a copy of the RCL in the pews? Does anyone using it read from other translations or always from the NRSV that is printed in the hard copies?

Speaking from the Episcopalian perspective, I can say that, a.) We use the RCL and b.) The Book of Common Prayer (BCP) includes a copy of the RCL references as well as a lectionary for the daily office readings. And the BCP is in the pews for sure.

As stated, a lectionary is often simply a list of scripture references. But it can certainly include the readings.


According to Catholic Tradition, did God create people to be prophets or did He choose people to be prophets based on good works? According to Catholic Tradition, did God create people to be prophets? Or did he choose people to be prophets based on good works?

For example, before Isaiah was born, did God know that he would be a prophet? Or did God choose Isaiah after he performed good works or proved his suitability to be a prophet in some way?

The Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that prophecy is a gift:

  CCC 2004 Among the special graces ought to be mentioned the
  graces of state that accompany the exercise of the responsibilities of
  the Christian life and of the ministries within the Church:

  Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us
  use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our
  serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; he who exhorts, in his
  exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with
  zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.1

  1. Rom 12:6-8.

This article Prophecy | New Advent says:

The gift of prophecy is an extraordinary grace bestowed by God. It has never been confined to any particular tribe, family, or class of persons. There is no distinct faculty in human nature by which any normal or abnormal person can prophesy, neither is any special preparation required beforehand for the reception of this gift.
Writing on the recipients of prophecy, Benedict XIV (Heroic Virtue, III, 144, 150) says: "The recipients of prophecy may be angels, devils, men, women, children, heathens, or gentiles; nor is it necessary that a man should be gifted with any particular disposition in order to receive the light of prophecy provided his intellect and senses be adapted for making manifest the things which God reveals to him. Though moral goodness is most profitable to a prophet, yet it is not necessary in order to obtain the gift of prophecy." He also tells us that the angels by their own natural penetration cannot know future events which are undermined and contingent or uncertain, neither can they know the secrets of the heart of another, whether man or angel.

Answer

From the foregoing, it is clear the gift of prophecy is an extraordinary grace bestowed by God upon whomever he chooses however unworthy (who is ever really worthy) they may be.

Did God create people to be prophets? God chooses or using Biblical and Church language, God chooses and calls whomever he chooses to whatever ministry he calls them to and this includes the prophetic ministry2.

Does God choose people to be prophets based on good works? From the foregoing, no he doesn't. Even devils may be the recipients of prophecy.

The initiative is always God's, his choice free and not dependent in any way on the recipient or their merits.

2. cf. Jn 15:15-17, I Cor:1:2, etc.

Endnote

In Num 11:29 Moses wished:

  29 But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his
  spirit upon them!”

Thanks to the gift of God the Father through His Son, Jesus, by the working of the Holy Spirit, all the baptized share in the prophetic mission of Christ beyond Moses' expectations.

  CCC 1268 The baptized have become "living stones" to be
  "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."3
  By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic
  and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy
  nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds
  of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous
  light."4 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of
  all believers.

  3. 1 Pet 2:5.
  4. 1 Pet 2:9.


How best for a Christian to explore the ethics of a Covid-19 vaccine that might use farmed cell-lines from aborted foetuses? I looked through the CMF website at their Briefing paper When demand outstrips supply: A Christian view of the ethics of healthcare resource allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic:

“The British Medical Association (BMA) has recently produced guidance
around the ethical issues presented by the COVID-19pandemic.8 NICE has
also produced a rapid guideline for adult critical care during the
pandemic, which includes guidance for decision-making around
escalation. 9 In addition, the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) has
issued guidance, in conjunction with other stakeholders such as the
General Medical Council, the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine, the
Intensive Care Society, royal colleges and faculties.10 As Christian
doctors, we must consider how we can respond to the ethical challenges
posed. Here we will attempt to consider some of the issues involved,
and how to think about them biblically, using Beauchamp and Childress’
widely recognised four pillars of medical ethics11 as a framework.”

However, it must be too soon for a briefing paper on whether any of the current seven Covid-19 vaccinations produced have utilised cell-lines from aborted foetuses. The matter of demand for vaccines was not included.  Then I looked at a tagged blog, posted 20 November 2020, which sounded promising, COVID-19 vaccines: the wider ethical questions for Christians. Alas, no mention was made of the ethical issue I wish to explore.
Some success came via a contact working professionally in the realms of Christian ethics. He sent a pdf of an article written by a colleague of his in a Catholic journal, Anscombe Bioethics Centre – Friends’ Newsletter, Summer 2020, Issue 47. (His link to the pdf will not open when I copy it.)
Dr Helen Watt, Senior Research Fellow of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, wrote the article, pp 9-12.

“… Vaccines are normally, though not always,4 produced in living
cells. While they can be generated (as with some COVID-19 vaccines in
the making) in cells derived from ethically uncontentious sources such
as insects,5 tobacco plants,6 and hamster ovaries,7 they can also be
produced in cell-lines made from tissue derived from an aborted unborn
child. One such cell-line used in COVID-19 vaccine research (including
a project of the University of Oxford8 ) is the HEK 293 cell-line
modified from tissue taken from the kidney of an unborn child aborted
probably in 1972, while another is the PER C6 cell-line from the
retinal tissue of an 18-week baby aborted in 1985.”

I wish to know both ethical considerations involved and how to identify which Covid-19 vaccinations might have such ethically questionable ‘ingredients’. I will not go to popular media outlets for this as a huge amount of disinformation is being bandied around. This question is addressed to Christians who have ethical compunctions against any use of aborted foetuses, which transcends denomination. I note this  related question indicates deep concern but I seek to know how to find out if that's being used with some vaccines.
Edit:  this question become more important since the Church has now made a statement regarding the newest vaccine from Johnson and Johnson.  See this

This is a matter of conscience, quite clearly.
I well know how these matters may be viewed by the ungodly as I was disciplined in a certain company many years ago (final written warning on the first instance of its occurrence) because of this very issue arising, suddenly, without my being prepared to meet it and I reacted in a way which was unacceptable to the management.
However in this case I wonder if the words of Paul are not relevant :

... asking no question for conscience sake: [1 Corinthians 10:25 KJV]

In the situation the apostle speaks of, one wishes food and wishes to buy it in a market but its origin is unknown. It could have been previously offered to an idol and one would not want to partake of that, but that is only one of a variety of possibilities.
Paul advises not to delve into origins for the sake of conscience. He advises to accept what is being traded at face value and not to make the enquiry.
In our current situation, what is being offered to us is not - principally, in a way of being an absolute necessity of its development and function - fundamentally dependent on the issue that has been here raised.
Certain cell lines have been incorporated into general medical research. A prime example is that of Henrietta Lacks' (1920-1951) cancer cells which became the HeLa line of cells and have been enormously productive, medically speaking, and her memory is now being properly recognised.
It may be that other cells, which in the past have been taken from a source that I would prefer they had not been, have been incorporated into the various research lines which are part of an established data base of genetics.
But as far as I know, the origin of those cell lines is not a fundamental necessity to the development of the product. The cells could have been from anywhere.
The efficacy of the product is not dependent on that issue for its success, is what I am emphasising.
To me, in this particular case, I feel it not necessary for me to make elaborate enquiries in order to free my conscience from any burden. I am content with the words of the apostle, in this instance.
When I was offered treatment by a dentist to strengthen the bone in my jaw, it was he who mentioned that 'donor' tissue (from a cadaver) could be used and I declined and he said he could use proprietary collagen instead.
Once I was injected and no longer aware of my surroundings, he could, for the sake of his own convenience, have used cadaver tissue in my jaw. But I do not feel the necessity to further interrogate him and to demand that he prove to me what he did or did not do. I stated my conscience and I have left it at that.
Looking back with hindsight, I could probably have avoided a final written warning over the matter of a supposed 'abortion' being the source of a sample I was testing, and looking back, it now becomes clear that someone knew my sensitivity and was merely trying to provoke me over it. But I later took voluntary redundancy and got a very generous termination package (thank you to all concerned) and I now reap the reward of a useful pension from the company.
I hope that this helps in the present situation.

I am a Licentiate of the Royal Society of Chemistry (1978) and was given further private training in Molecular Biochemistry when I worked in the Pharmaceutical Industry making products which incorporated radioactive isotopes (for medical research purposes and for cancer treatment).


How does free will fit with the doctrine of predestination? The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination states that God has chosen who will live and who will die.  That Christians are unconditionally elected for salvation or damnation.

However, how does this fit the idea of Free Will?  If it's God that is choosing whether we turn to him or not, do we not really have free will?

(Please, Calvinistic views only.)

First of all, Calvinists do believe in free will. This point is often mis-understood by non-Calvinists; but the position that men don't actually have free will and control over their own choices is not Calvinism but hyper-Calvinism -- a deterministic view that goes far beyond that of it's namesake Calvin and the general constituency.

With that out of the way, the most important thing about the Calvinistic understanding of free will is that men are free to make choices, but only capable of making choices according to their nature. We can make any choice we like inside the scope of the kind of beings that we are but cannot make choices outside the scope of that nature or that defy it.

This is essentially the same sense in which we are limited physically. As humans we have finite power. The ability to levitate or spontaneously generate fire is reserved for the heroes of the Silver Screen. As humans we can affect our surroundings only insofar as we have the power to do so. But that power cannot change our nature. We can choose to eat healthy and exercise and not jump in front of moving trains -- and thus possibly extend our lives -- but we are still mortal and we cannot prevent our own eventual death. Whether through old age or sickness, we will die. Statistics are clear on this point. Our free will may allow us to live longer than if we had made other choices, but it will not allow us to not die at all. It is according to our nature.

In a similar sense, Calvinists believe that man has free will and is sovereign over the aspects of his life insofar as he has been granted these rights by God. However, we believe that man is, by nature, dead in sin. This means that it is not within the realm of possibility to "choose" salvation. A sick man may choose to take medicine and thus affect his own healing, but a dead man can do nothing to change his fate. This is the doctrine of total depravity and outside the scope of this question.

Calvinists believe that God is sovereign over salvation. That is his domain and for him alone to choose. The how that God chose to use, however, is quite interesting. First he extends us Grace. He sent his Son, he paid the price, he made a propitiation, he died for the ungodly, he ... he ... he. Then he holds all this out in front of us and he calls us. This call may be heard by many but only those who have been chosen are given the grace to respond to it, and through the hearing of the call are given faith and literally made into new beings -- resurrected from death to life -- born again as spiritual sons. This birth process isn't something we choose, it's something that is done for us. It's grace: unmerited favor. Something we could not do and would not choose to do had not God done something on our behalf first.

Calvinists may believe that God predestines people to be saved but they believe that man's limited scope means that we don't know who those people are. Furthermore as recipients of Grace we are called to share this news -- this free grace -- the Gospel, with all. We don't only preach to some. We preach it to all. Who God chooses to change into people that respond to the call is his business, but our business is inform everyone of the choice. Jesus called people to make choices, so do we.


Good Samaritan - Chronology, Geography I'm currently studying the parable of the Good Samaritan, and I'm wondering why it was chronologically placed in Luke 10 which seems to indicate the encounter with the expert in the law occurred before Jesus entered Jerusalem as king.

The question asked by the expert in the law is "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" and Jesus asks him what his interpretation of scripture is.

The expert replies - "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and "Love your neighbour as yourself".

This is the same answer Jesus gave when asked what the greatest commandment was (Matthew 22:35–40 and Mark 12:28–34).

It seems to me there is a connection between the two stories.

In my mind I'd always thought Jesus was the one who originally summed up the whole of the Law in this way.

It makes more sense to me that the parable of the Good Samaritan should sit somewhere in Luke 20 when the authority of Jesus is questioned. It would line up with Mathew and Mark better.

Otherwise are we to assume that Jesus was quoting the expert when he gives his answer in Mathew and Mark?

Doesn't it make more sense that the expert in the law in Luke's good Samaritan had heard Jesus sum the law up in this way - but he wanted more clarification as to who his neighbour was... Therefore the encounter in Luke is more likely to have taken place in Jerusalem?

Or am I simply wrong in thinking there is a connection between these accounts?

Let me make some general points about the scriptures that I hope will help your understanding.

The gospel writers did not necessarily describe everything that Jesus did in chronological order. They grouped teachings according to themes and intent, to convey particular messages.
It is very unlikely that Jesus gave any particular teaching only once. As he traveled around he almost certainly repeated key teachings many times. The gospel writers would not have listed all the times he said a particular thing (why waste ink and paper saying something that was already written). So they may have recorded a saying the first,  second or ninety-ninth time he said it. See above.
The summary of the law may not be unique to Jesus.  Certainly the two parts are both Old Testament quotes,  and the combination may have been known before Jesus.


Has the Bible ever been translated into Egyptian Hieroglyphics? I'm very curious to see what the Bible looks like in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. There's an "ancient languages" department at one of the Universities in my city and one of the languages they offer is Egyptian hieroglyphics. When I'm learning a new language I like to refer back to a translation of the Bible into that language so that I can see how a text that I'm familiar with is translated in the language that I'm trying to learn.

I've done a bit of Googling and nothing has turned up. I'm sort of surprised that a hieroglyphics translation hasn't been done, even if just as an academic exercise. I'm not even expecting a full translation. Perhaps just one of the Gospels, or the Psalms, or the Pentateuch. I understand that there wouldn't be much demand for such a translation, but nevertheless I'm surprised it hasn't happened. Perhaps we don't understand hieroglyphics well enough?

Here is a link to a hieroglyphic "bible": https://archive.org/details/hieroglyphicbibl00mill

I don't believe you can translate the entire Bible to hieroglyphs, as there are not enough hieroglyphs to correctly translate the Bible. You would have to create many additional hieroglyphs!


What is the meaning of the phrase "Entertaining Angels"? For inexplicable reasons I've been listening to a lot of Newsboys lately and also recently finished reading Dorothy Day's Auto-Biography.  What do these things have in common?  Well there's an intensely catchy Newsboys song called "Entertaining Angels" and the biopic of the life of Dorothy Day is also called the same thing.

Since I'd never heard the phrase before I figured I'd ask about it here so I could impress my wife later on. Is it an old-fashioned sort of saying or a Biblical allusion (Gen 18) or something else?  Does it mean Angels are laughing at us foolish mortals or we should treat everyone we meet as if they're angels in disguise?

It's a phrase from Hebrews 13:2:

  Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. (ESV)

Most commentators do think that it refers to the Abraham story, as well as Lot, Gideon, and Samson's parents. See this BH question for more.


When did the term "evangelical" first start being used? The term "evangelical" is used to describe a particular set of Christian beliefs, and is generally considered orthogonal to denominations - you could get, for example, evangelical Anglicans and non-evangelical Anglicans.  I've also heard the term used (or at least implied) of Christians from past centuries who ascribe to those same beliefs. For example, I'm not sure if the likes of Spurgeon or Wesley would have called themselves "Evangelical", but they are often spoken of in those terms.

When did the particular set of beliefs currently referred to as "evangelicalism" gain that name, and what was the historic context that required the distinction?

Having done some more research, the Wikipedia article on Evangelicalism and this overview by the Gospel Coalition suggest the following timeline for the term coming into use:

1500s: Protestant reforms use the word "evangelical" in its literal meaning: the greek word meaning "gospel". This was to emphasise their message based on what they saw in the Bible.

1600s: In the wake of the reformation, a number of different movement appeared across Europe, such as Pietism and Calvinism, each emphasising different aspects of the reformation.

1700s: British and American reformers start to combine elements from all these different movements into movement, and take on the word "evangelical" that was used by the original reformers. In part, this movement was motivated by a renewed assurance in their faith, and in part a natural outcome of the changes happening in wider society.

I suspect this brushes over much of the historical nuance, but appears to serve as a general overview.


What is the biblical basis for the belief in generational curses? I've been watching testimonies of people who claim to have been involved in deliverances and spiritual warfare, and the concept of generational curse is brought up quite often. It's even taught as a doctrine in certain churches (e.g. see this Hungry Generation's sermon). In simple words, a generational curse basically means that some ancestor messed up (e.g. by dabbling into witchcraft, by practicing the occult, by doing some terrible sin, etc.) and, thus, gave to the dark side a legal right to influence them and their descendants in some manner, until the right gets eventually revoked (if ever) by someone down the lineage. What is the biblical basis for this belief?

I’m not prepared to defend the beliefs detailed in that link, nor do I think that the biblical statements of God in Exodus 20:4-6 apply to the idea you ask about. God depicts idol worshippers, and those who worship sun, moon, or stars, as having God’s curse brought down, up to the third and fourth generation “of them that hate me”. In contrast, God says he will show mercy to “thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” The Old Testament testifies to the truth of God’s warning with regard to later generations of his own people who turned to idolatry.
However, the Church Jesus establishes, which “the gates of Hades will not overcome” (Matthew 16:18) are commanded, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.” (1 John 5:21)  Further, all legal rights pertaining to the Church Jesus causes to grow belong to the risen Christ, who purchased her with his own blood (Acts 20:28). This means that where there are Spirit-born members of the congregation of Christ, keeping themselves free from idolatry (in all its forms), nobody and nothing can lay “a generational curse” upon them.
Yet there remains a real problem with many who associate with the Christian congregation who may have a family history of idolatry. This is where different biblical principles apply. For a start, there is the one of sowing and reaping. “Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Galatians 6:7). Many times, children suffer the bad results from what their parents have ‘sown’. But the matter you ask about goes deeper and can be illustrated by the experiences of two Christian friends of mine who spend several months each year in India, one of the most idolatrous nations on earth.
They maintain that the principles in Hebrews 12:14-15 & Ephesians 4:31, which warn Christians against allowing bitter roots to develop, is what can bring judgement (even to the third or fourth generation). Here is a true account from one of their letters to me (therefore, no link). They spoke with a young Hindu woman who was interested in learning about Christianity, and now I quote:

"Her father had died from drowning in an alcohol-related incident when
he was only 28 and now her husband is drinking alcohol heavily (to the
point of collapse) every day. We started talking about how sins
sometimes ‘run’ in families and that in the exact way that someone
dishonours their parent(s), things do not go well with them. We then
asked her if she had ever judged her father in any way. It turned out
that she had hated him in her heart, thought he was a bad person
because of his drinking and beating of her mother, and she vowed that
she would never marry anyone like that’.
"We explained to her the teaching we had received from Elijah House on
'bitter-root judgments'. She was willing to repent of dishonouring her
father, for judging him and also for judging her husband in the same
way; then she forgave them both.
"As she prayed she saw a picture of a wooden cross in front of her;
she was filled with joy and knew in her heart that she was forgiven.
"We were able to pray with the woman's mother and found that she too
had judged her father and subsequently her husband to be bad because
of their alcoholism and violence. Her father had also taken a second
'wife'... Like her daughter, she had reaped what she had sown.
"The woman's aunt had also judged her father as a bad man, partly for
his drinking and beatings but also for taking a second 'wife'. Her
mother, aunts and uncles had suffered terribly because their father
had two wives, two homes and two sets of children. And as we prayed
the aunt also saw that she had reaped what she had sown. With eyes
fully open and having experienced a difficult life from childhood, she
then went on to become the second 'wife' of a man who became violent
and alcoholic! She too repented and forgave. The marvellous good news
is that Jesus specialises in transforming messed-up lives.
"The following day we were all amazed when the husband of the young
woman asked us to pray with him! No-one was more surprised than he
was! He prayed a prayer of repentance for his drinking and said he
felt happy afterwards... since that day he has not taken alcohol (even
over New Year). His wife's bitter-root judgements that were defiling
him had been broken and he was no longer feeling the compulsion to
drink.”

Now, that is the experience of my Christian friends. I know personally that when I once allowed bitterness and resentment against my good husband to develop over several years – despite the Lord warning me through scripture and the testimonies of other ladies – I ended up suffering the Lord’s chastisement.  That brought me to repentance, and healing (spiritual, physical and marital) resulted. But I do believe that had I not eventually obeyed God and dug out that bitter root, our children would have gone on to suffer, perhaps their children too. It doesn’t bear thinking about. That is why I flag up this principle of “bitter roots judgment” as a main one that applies to Christians. But I stoutly deny that any “dark forces” can gain a legal foothold into the lives and families of the children of God, born again of the Spirit.


List of old heresies condemned by the Catholic Church now present in Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses The title says it all, I'd like a list of all heresies condemned by the Catholic Church, but note this, it must be before the Protestant Reformation. This time specifically those heresies identified in Mormonism and Jehovah's witnesses.

In 325 A.D. the Church produced the Creed of Nicaea (to distinguish it from the Nicene Creed) in order to exclude one particular heresy doing the rounds back then.  Examination of the Creed of Nicaea shows both the Latter Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witness religions supporting that heresy, in different ways, and to different degrees. I do not intend to do a comparison between the two modern groups (you only ask for a list), simply to state the Creed of Nicaea so that those familiar with LDS and JW doctrines on the Person of Christ will see how they fall foul of the heresy spelled out in that ancient document. I do not think Stack Exchange accepts simple lists, but requires evidence to support answers, hence the details I provide. Because the opening sentence runs on (and on, and on) I quote the first four paragraphs before picking out the various heresies each modern group supports. Here is what the Creed of Nicaea says:

  “We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, maker of all things
  visible and invisible;

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father,
  only-begotten, that is, from the substance (ousia) of the Father;
  God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not
  made, of one substance (homoousios, consubstantial) with the Father,
  through whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth; who
  for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, was made
  man, suffered, and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven,
  and is coming to judge the living and the dead;

  And in the Holy Spirit.

  And those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not’, and: ‘Before he
  was begotten he was not’, and: ‘He came into being from nothing’, or
  those who pretend that the Son of God is ‘Of another substance
  (hypostasis), or essence (ousia) [than the Father] or ‘created’ or ‘alterable’ or ‘mutable’, the catholic and apostolic church places
  under a curse.”

Please note how this ancient document is penned by “the catholic and apostolic church” and how they state that those disagreeing with this Creed are anathema – cursed. That is because they are viewed as supporting the heresy the Creed was designed to expose.

Now, the LDS are anathema (heretical) due to claiming there are many Gods/gods. They teach that the god Elohim fathered his firstborn via a spirit wife, and he was called Jehovah (who had, as a younger brother, Lucifer). This Jehovah became a god himself, and also became the man, Jesus Christ. They teach that there was a time when the Son of God ‘was not’. Hence the LDS violate the first sentence plus paragraph four. That amounts to two particular heresies.

The JWs are anathema (heretical) due to claiming that Jesus was created by Jehovah as the archangel Michael. The JWs disagree on the meaning of ‘only-begotten’, saying that it means he was the first-created creature of Jehovah God, whereas the Creed stresses that ‘begotten’ means the opposite of ‘made’. They are cursed because of disagreeing with paragraph four of the Creed; one particular heresy. They also claim Jesus is a different 'god' to Jehovah God, being 'a god' as per their rendition of John 1:1, which likewise makes them polytheistic, as are the LDS. That is a second heresy.

Please note, this answer does not claim to be an exhaustive list. But it should suffice to give a categoric answer to the question as to why LDS and JW denominations are viewed as heretical by Catholicism (and Protestantism also, let it be noted) today.

Source: Article ‘What Really Happened at Nicea?’ By James R. White, Christian Research Journal, Spring 1997 pp 30-34


Looking for the source of a Cardinal Ratziger quote regarding the liturgy Several years ago, I remember reading the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger in which the Cardinal stated (in essence) that he desired that those who use the Tradentine form of the Mass would use the Liturgical Calendar of 1969 as a sign of unity in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Of course some special provisions would have to be set in place because of the differences between the two forms of the Mass.

Does anyone know where I can find the source of this quote? I believe it was in a book(?) from the late 1990s or early 2000s and thus was prior to Cardinal Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict XVI.

The following occurs in Joseph Ratzinger: Collected Works Vol 11, Theology of the Liturgy, p.568, quoting a paper given by the then Cardinal which is cited as "Translated by Henry Taylor. From Alcuin Reid OSB, ed., Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger: Proceedings of the July 2001 Fontgombault Liturgical Conference (Farnborough, Eng.: St Michael's Abbey Press, 2003), 145–53." JRCW is published by Ignatius Press.

For the future, we ought to think—it seems to me—in terms of enriching the Missal of 1962 by introducing some new saints; there are now some important figures among the saints—I am thinking, for example, of Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, the martyrs of Spain, the martyrs of the Ukraine, and so many others—but I am also thinking of that little Bakhita in the Sudan, who came from slavery and came to freedom in her faith in the Lord; there are many really lovely figures whom we all need. Thus, opening up the calendar of the old Missal to new saints, making a well thought-out choice of these, that seems to me something that would be appropriate at present and would not have any destructive effect on the fabric of the liturgy. We might also think about the Prefaces, which also come from the storehouse of wealth in the Church Fathers, for Advent, for example, and then others; why not insert those Prefaces into the old Missal?
Thus, with great sensitivity and by showing a great deal of understanding for people's fears and preoccupations, maintaining contact with their leaders, we should be able to understand that this Missal is also a Missal of the Church and under the authority of the Church, that it is not an object preserved from the past, but a living reality within the Church, very much respected in its particular identity and for its historical stature, but also considered as something that is living and not as a dead thing, a relic of the past. The whole liturgy of the Church is always a living thing, a reality that is found above us and is not subject to our decisions and our arbitrary intentions.

This does not explicitly show that users of the 1962 Missal (or earlier versions; the Cardinal is explicit elsewhere in his rejection of discontinuity) should adopt the 1969 calendar wholesale, as the question assumes. But it does point clearly to his assertion earlier in the article that the 1962 Missal should not simply be abrogated:

What was until 1969 the liturgy of the Church, the most sacred thing for all of us, cannot become after 1969—with an incredible positivism—the most unacceptable thing. If we want to be credible, even with this slogan of modernity, we absolutely must recognize that what was fundamental before 1969 remains fundamental afterward: the realm of the sacral is the same, the liturgy is the same.

While this clearly led to Summorum Pontificum, the Cardinal (as Pope Benedict XVI) did not enact his prior ideas of a limited reform of the associated calendar.


Psalm 144:5 Bow Your heavens, O LORD, and come down; Touch the mountains, that they may smoke Psalm 144:5

  Bow Your heavens, O LORD, and come down; Touch the mountains, that they may smoke.

What are these moutains and why do they smoke?

According to the RCC

The Catholic New American Bible says that Psalm 144:5-7 is adapted in large part from Psalm 18:10, 15, 17; 104:32. Parallel passages:

  Psalm 144:5-7: LORD, incline your heavens and come; touch the mountains and make them smoke. Flash forth lightning and scatter my foes; shoot your arrows and rout them. Reach out your hand from on high; deliver me from the many waters; rescue me from the hands of foreign foes.

  Psalm 18:10: He parted the heavens and came down, a dark cloud under his feet.
  Psalm 18:15: He let fly his arrows and scattered them; shot his lightning bolts and dispersed them.
  Psalm 18:17: He reached down from on high and seized me; drew me out of the deep waters.
  Psalm 104:32: If God glares at the earth, it trembles; if God touches the mountains, they smoke!

We can see that the mountains in Psalm 104  are figurative, to portray the absolute power of God. No doubt the psalmist was aware of volcanoes and attributed the eruptions to the fury of God.  And so in Psalm 144, the mountains are not particular mountains but, once again, figurative. The psalmist want God to cause awe and fear in the minds of his enemies.


Reformed Theology, Pentecostalism, and Charismatic Movement on The Holy Spirit To a first degree approximation, is the following correct?

Reformed Theology: Spiritual gifts ceased after the apostolic age. The gifts were important to setup the initial church, but after the initial church was setup, they were no longer necessary.

Pentecostalism: People who believe that spiritual gifts are still being handed out. Furthermore, upon openly declaring this belief, they either voluntarily or involuntarily left their (cessation of holy gifts) church to a (holy gifts still exist) church.

Charismatic: People who believe that spiritual gifts are still being handed out. However, they stay with their church rather than leave.

Context

Somewhat confused after reading the different Wikipedia entries on Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement.

Note:

Contrary to previous questions; I'm actually not looking for resources; I'm merely trying to understand the distinctions when people throw these terms around.

Generally speaking you are correct but I would not say people left their own denominations to join the Pentecostal church, rather like all new denominations just some of the initial founders did, but as it grew it became its own proper denomination with its majority being its own converts.
It is interesting to look at the Holy Spirit under the heads that you have mentioned because if you put a wide-angel lens on the entire history, we could almost say the whole movement should have been expected as well as a kind of expected counter-movement.
Let me explain the high level history as I see it and this will give a good explanation of each of the term in context.
Starting with the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, etc.) it is true they taught the cessation of extra-ordinary gifts. The subject rarely comes up and when it does it is usually under the simple explanation as to why those extra miraculous gifts had ceased.
For example:

In the early Church the Holy Spirit was sent forth in visible form. He descended upon Christ in the form of a dove (Matt. 3:16), and in the likeness of fire upon the apostles and other believers. (Acts 2:3.) This visible outpouring of the Holy Spirit was necessary to the establishment of the early Church, as were also the miracles that accompanied the gift of the Holy Ghost. Paul explained the purpose of these miraculous gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 14:22, “Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.” Once the Church had been established and properly advertised by these miracles, the visible appearance of the Holy Ghost ceased. (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians 4:6)
Though Christ does not expressly state whether he intends this gift to be temporary, or to remain perpetually in his Church, yet it is more probable that miracles were promised only for a time, in order to give luster to the gospel, while it was new and in a state of obscurity. It is possible, no doubt, that the world may have been deprived of this honor through the guilt of its own ingratitude; but I think that the true design for which miracles were appointed was, that nothing which was necessary for proving the doctrine of the gospel should be wanting at its commencement. And certainly we see that the use of them ceased not long afterwards, or, at least, that instances of them were so rare as to entitle us to conclude that they would not be equally common in all ages. (John Calvin, Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels)
That they are not communicated unto any by a sudden afflatus or extraordinary infusion, as were the gifts of miracles and tongues, which
were bestowed on the apostles and many of the first converts That dispensation of the Spirit is long since ceased, and where it is now pretended unto by any, it may justly be suspected as an enthusiastic delusion; for as the end of those gifts, which in their own nature exceed the whole power of all our faculties, is ceased, so is their communication, and the manner of it also. Yet this I must say, that the infusion of spiritual light into the mind, which is the foundation of all gifts, as hath been proved, being wrought sometimes suddenly or in a short season, the concomitancy of gifts in some good measure is oftentimes sudden, with an appearance of something extraordinary, as might be manifested in instances of several sorts. (John Owens Works, Volume 4)

Yet this is not the whole story. Among reformers there is a wide range of emphasis of the spiritual life, awareness of the Spirit, necessity of the Spirit, etc.  Among those who seemed always mindful of the Spirit in the following generations, among the Puritans in the tradition of reformed theology, were men like John Owen. Possibly the most extreme, among 'the reserved Puritans', was Jonathan Edwards, who claimed to experience a revival and outpouring of the Holy Spirit in his own church.  After reading his accounts of that revival it seems very hard to deny it as nothing less than a genuine extraordinary work of God.
We now naturally find the stage for the Pentecostal movement in Los Angeles.   The most insightful thing I have ever heard a preacher say about the Devil is this: First the Devil will do everything to keep you from fully committing your life to God, once you finally give everything to Him, the Devil changes his tactics and he tries to get you into extremes, to make you over-committed to one thing in order to neglect another.  During the birth of the Pentecostal movement you had a few people zealously seeking God in prayer, in hopes that they could experience a revival, like that experienced by Edwards, and this was a good thing.  However to add to this good zeal, a devilish doctrine was added which said no such revival is real unless accompanied by speaking in tongues.  In other words, there was a doctrinal lie inserted into the movement at its root that basically did not recognize the biggest outpouring of the Holy Spirit ever since the gospel times, which was during the reformation!
The problem we face when trying to form an opinions about 'revivals' claimed by people like the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, which gave birth to the Pentecostals, is that we feel they must be fully good or fully bad, but can't be both.  We make this incorrect assumption because with Christ this was true. To deny the 'revival' in Christ and to accuse his works to be of the Devil, was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  So it seems to follow that we must not question any 'great work of the Spirit' without putting ourselves under the same risk of danger.  However, this is simply not true, even under the most amazing and genuine outpouring of the Holy Spirit, in the New Testament records, we find both the work of God and the Devil can run side by side.  For example, the Corinthians seemed to have been experiencing the gifts more than any other church, yet the Devil was at work in them more than any other church also. (I am not assuming in the pentecostal revival that it was the work of the Holy Spirit as I was not there, but hypothetically assuming there were a mixture of sincere ad insincere believers, all intently calling upon God, some may have had genuine experiences with the Spirit while others with the Devil, or their own ecstatic psychological state, all at the same location.)
We now naturally expect a Charismatic movement.  Imagine if you will, God meeting the answers of people prayers and truly manifesting his presence to sincere hearts going to Azuza Street. Now comes the cynic.  Contrary to their expectation a minister goes to see what's going on, expecting to find a good reason to reject it, yet to their surprise 'boom' they fall under the presence of God and are amazed to find his love revealed to them and they renew their commitment to him.  What is going on? how can this be? At the same time imagine the Devil pressing people to extremes, adding false teachings.  Also imagine basic weirdos joining in, acting strange, bringing dishonor to God' part in  it.  Well what happens? What happens is some people want the Holy Spirit experience, but start to recognize the Devil, so there is an acceptance plus a backlash.  This is the general charismatic movement.
After the charismatic movement calms down, some balance will be insisted like 'tongues is not the evidence'. Next messages like we must keep Christ the central message, not the Holy Spirit. Then God's sovereign  will decides when there is a revival, you can't always expect it.  Many have prayed for revival for years and it has not come, etc.  All of this avoidance of extremes exists among many mainstream Charismatics.  As the cycle completes, we find we are basically back at Jonathan Edwards as a state of total commitment and eager desire for the Spirit, yet without all the extremes that the Devil is so eager to push us into. However because the whole thing is a kind of theological whirlwind you will find good strong balanced believers scattered across all the denominations among many bad examples also crowding into each denomination.  True some denominations may be far healthier than others, but each and all of us are in a deadly all encompassing war over our souls and faith transcends one's particular station in life and denominational biases.


Is it a correct to say that Jesus did not entertain His family’s request in Mark 3:31-35? The verse clearly states by itself:

  Mark 3:31 Then Jesus’ mother and his brothers came. Standing outside, they sent word to him, to summon him. 3:32 A crowd was sitting around him and they said to him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are outside looking for you.” 3:33 He answered them and said, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 3:34 And looking at those who were sitting around him in a circle, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”

Is it correct interpretation to say that Jesus did not entertain His family’s request?

I have come across some interpretations of Mar 3:31-35, where this verse is being quoted by some to portray a kind of rejection by Jesus of His family. To interpret this verse in such a manner is to depict ignorance in understanding of the real and true nature (and message) of Jesus, who is source of all love and taught us to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. This interpretation is without any essence since Mary mother of Jesus is much nearer to Him.

This approach of His relatives emanated out of their concern to the safety and wellbeing of Jesus on account of His relentless and unorthodox teachings against the powers at the helm of religious affairs at that time. Jesus makes them known that He is not out of His mind but knows what He is doing by continuing His preaching in spite of their request to meet Him. Jesus never taught us nor did Himself practice rejection of any of His creations. We find at many places in Bible that He said that He has come to save the lost ones. He said that it is sick who needs a doctor not the who one is well.  So in a nutshell when it is not in His nature nor His teachings to hurt or reject someone not even sinners nor His own enemies then how one can say that He rejected His own family? When He is the author of the commandment “ Honour your father and mother" how in a figment of imagination can we say that He did not honour His family members.

We can imagine this scene similar to Luke 5:17-19, where Jesus was once again surrounded by a large crowd of people (Mark 3:32) in a hall. He is in the midst of His sermon and with no access to people from outside. Because of the crowd His mother and brothers possibly found it difficult to approach and converse with Him. So they sent a word through others.

In the midst of this teaching when someone from the crowd suddenly tells Him that His mother and brothers are looking out for Him, what Jesus said was in the right perspective.  Grabbing this opportunity and possibly stressing further on what He was already teaching them, Jesus proclaims that His relations are not confined to earthly relations in flesh with only a handful of humans but rather with whole of humanity. Jesus is also telling us that whoever hears, accepts and proclaims the Good News is a part of this family which is not bound by blood relations but are related spiritually to each other. We find a similar message being conveyed by Jesus in the following verse:

  Luke. 2:48 When his parents saw him, they were overwhelmed. His mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” 2:49 But he replied, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?

With these two instances Jesus is trying to convince to His close relatives that He is not to be confined to a small earthly family but has come to make all those who believe in Him as one big God’s family.  Whoever does the will of Father are His mothers, brothers and sisters. It is not that His family did not do the will of the Father. Mary always did the will of the Father and that is how our Saviour came visiting us:

  Luke 1:38 So Mary said, “Yes, I am a servant of the Lord; let this happen to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.


How do Anglicans, who recognize apostolic succession, trace theirs? It appears Anglicans claim apostolic succession.
How do they trace their apostolic succession?

The same way that the Catholics do.

Anglicans consider themselves catholic and reformed. The Anglican church was the Catholic Church in England until the reformation when they stopped recognizing the authority of the Pope.

  "The roots of the Church of England go back to the time of the Roman
  Empire when Christianity entered the Roman province of Britain.
  Through the influences of St Alban, St Illtud, St Ninian, St Patrick
  and, later, St Augustine, St Aidan and St Cuthbert, the Church of
  England developed, acknowledging the authority of the Pope until the
  Reformation in the 16th century." (An Ancient Church, Catholic and Reformed - www.churchofengland.org)

They trace their apostolic succession through the bishops who were members of the historical episcopate that remained in England after the schism.


On what basis does Thomas Aquinas say that the Church existed since the time of Abel? In Aquinas' Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum (Explanation of the Apostles' Creed), his explanation in Article 9 of the Church being "catholic" includes this statement:

Nam aliqui dixerunt, quod Ecclesia debet durare usque ad certum tempus. Sed hoc est falsum: quia haec Ecclesia incepit a tempore Abel, et durabit usque ad finem saeculi…
Some have said that the Church will exist only up to a certain time. But this is false, for the Church began to exist in the time of Abel and will endure up to the end of the world…

I presume that the Abel he is referring to is the one of Cain and Abel in Genesis. Unfortunately, Aquinas doesn't explain in this text his reasoning for why the Church began to exist at this time, as opposed to with Adam and Eve, with any of the Jewish heroes of faith, or with Jesus.
On what basis does Thomas Aquinas say that the Church existed since the time of Abel?

Abel was the first to offer sacrifice pleasing to God.
cf. You Shall Worship One God: The Mystery of Loving Sacrifice in Salvation History by Fr. Philippe, O.P., ch. 1, §"Sacrifice Before the Law"
Adam did offer sacrifice (to offer sacrifice as part of our nature), but it seems it was not pleasing to God on account of his Original Sin. According to St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica II-II q. 85 a. 1 ad 2),

Perhaps the reason why we read of no sacrifice being offered by Adam may be that, as the origin of sin is ascribed to him, the origin of sanctification ought not to be represented as typified in him.

Also, "the time of Abel" ("tempore Abel") needn't exclude Adam.
One can only offer pleasing sacrifice to God in His Church.
St. Thomas quotes 1 Cor. 10:20 in Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum article 1, when discussing four different motives that lead man to worship false gods:

the things which the heathens [gentes, έθνη] sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.

St. Paul distinguishes heathens/gentiles (gentes, Έλλησιν) and Jews from members of the Church of God ("ecclesiae Dei", εκκλησία του θεού) in v. 32.
Thus, the Church could be defined as that group of people which offers pleasing sacrifice to God.


What is so appealing about Christianity? Early Christianity soon after Jesus’ death, in spite of the whole powerful world being against the first believers, kept spreading rapidly in that region. More so because up to the point of Jesus' death he was a rebel and a heretic.  This is also in spite of the fact that people who were propagating it were just illiterate fisherman and ordinary people. I was imagining this scenario, when an ordinary fisherman coming and telling me stories about Jesus and strangely I believe whatever these simple chaps telling me.  No sword nor power but only a simple message of love. No amount of bloodshed or violence or any horrific punishment could muffle its spread.

Then after this initial struggle, a different kind of struggle continued over these two millenniums and is still continuing even now. During this period there were many forces acting against Christianity from outside but more dangerously from within. These internal forces were more dangerous elements who were in better position to discredit it and make it weak. Though this even continues till today, we find that it still striving and vibrant.

So what is that so appealing about Christianity in spite of its passive message?

{I don't think it is a duplicate of this question since that is about "how Christianity is different from other religions" whereas this  "how it survived and spread".

I think you've missed some key points in your imagined scenario.

It wasn't "a simple message of love" spread by a few ordinary fisherman. Jesus wasn't some hippie revolutionary who got a bunch of followers to parade around telling everybody they should just love each other.

What made Christianity appealing was that it was true. This would have been much more apparent to the early followers. As time went on this has gotten increasingly hard to see, but lets look at the scenario again.

Ordinary fisherman spend a couple years hanging out with this dude Jesus.
Said dude wows some crowds but ends up on the wrong end of the political stick.
Said dude gets executed (in dubious circumstances) for blasphemy/treason.
Ordinary fishermen go back to their nets.

Obviously there are more layers to this. What Jesus was actually teaching during this time, the addition of miracles, and quite a number of other factors are significant and should be given more treatment than I will here. The reason I filtered the scenario down to just these factors is to highlight one significant factor I think is underestimated.

The return to fishing is not an unexpected move. The fisherman were disillusioned, nobody really wanted to get strung up for association with a recently executed rebel and they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Bread wasn't going to put itself on the table and they no longer had (in their own estimation) a message that was going to change the world. Their own leader had failed — even let them down — and who were they to take up his mantle?

Then the resurrection happened.

  Acts 2:22-24 (ESV)
  22  “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23  this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24  God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

These fishermen weren't going to be taken in for a hoax. The real flesh and blood dude that they'd spent three years traipsing around the countryside with had just shown himself master over death itself. They could hear him, touch him and he ate their fish.

  The history of every nation revolves around Jesus of Nazareth. This is really an astonishing claim: to say everything depends on a guy who lived two thousand years ago, ate some fish, and got himself killed. And then ate some more fish. — Telford Work

What happened next is truly epic. After a couple weeks Jesus left the scene, heading back to his father. The disciples were now left with something completely different than what they had after three years of just hearing hearing the guy teach.

This time instead of heading back to their nets, they committed themselves to telling the world about this dude at the cost of hardship, torture and eventual death. To the last man.

These men would not have thrown their lives away for anything they were not absolutely convinced was true. In some circumstances it is possible to be absolutely convinced that a lie is true, but these men were were in a position to know if the guy was a fraud. And quite honestly they had their doubts for a while, but in the end nobody, least of all themselves had a motivation to perpetrate a lie.

The leading Jewish religious leaders would liked nothing more than to have pointed to his grave.
The Roman solders guarding his tomb would want to keep their heads. Attached to their bodies.
The disciples who the Jewish leaders tried to blame with a conspiracy would have the least reason of anybody to actually pull one off. And if it had been them, which of them would have gone to his death defending something he knew to be a lie that would have netted a fortune to revel.

Of course the power of God through his Spirit made this possible. But at heart it wasn't a "message of love" that was irresistible. It was truth.

  Acts 2:36 (ESV)
  36  Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”


Interpreting Acts 2:38 together with John 1:12 Acts 2:38, "Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"
John 1:12, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name . . .."

How do we interpret Acts 2:38 which seems to require baptism for forgiveness of sin, compared with John 1:12 which simply requires belief in Christ?

Peter does not say "and if you don't get baptized you won't be saved".

Almost all Christian denominations take the view that baptism is the normal thing to do, and that Christians should do it. That doesn't imply that failing to do so for some reason invalidates your faith or excludes you from salvation. Likewise there is nothing in the Acts passage that implies that.


What kinds of liquids can Catholics have while fasting? There are times of the year when Catholics are obligated to fast, such as Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. During that time, what kind of liquids are allowed? Water only? Juice? Smoothies? Meal replacement shakes?

What kinds of liquids can Catholics have while fasting?
First of all let us look at the rules for fasting and abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church. Here is what Pope St. Paul VI has to say in his Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini. The Code of Canon Law (1983) in the Latin Rite reflects this completely.

II. 1. The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rites. Their substantial observance binds gravely.

Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast is to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to the various practices of the rites, on the first day of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent) and on Good Friday.

III. 1. The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat.

The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, observing—as far as quantity and quality are concerned—approved local custom.

IV. To the law of abstinence those are bound who have completed their 14th year of age. To the law of fast those of the faithful are bound who have completed their 21st year and up until the beginning of their 60th year.
As regards those of a lesser age, pastors of souls and parents should see to it with particular care that they are educated to a true sense of penitence.

For the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches prescribes (Canon 882):

"Can. 882: On the days of penance the Christian faithful are obliged to observe fast or abstinence in the manner established by the particular law of their Church."

What we have thus noticed thus far is that Pope Paul's Paenitemini and Canon Law do not speak on the subject of liquids. Liquids consumed during the course of the major (principle) meal  would simply be part of that meal.

Besides a complete meal, the Church now permits a collation usually taken in the evening. In considering this point proper allowance must be made for what custom has introduced regarding both the quantity and the quality of viands allowed at this repast. In the first place, about eight ounces of food are permitted at the collation even though this amount of food would fully satisfy the appetites of some persons. Moreover, the attention must be paid to each person's temperament, duties, length of fast, etc. Hence, much more food is allowed in cold than in warm climates, more to those working during the day than to those at ease, more to the weak and hungry than to the strong and well fed. As a general rule whatever is deemed necessary in order to enable people to give proper attention to their duties may be taken at the collation. Moreover, since custom first introduced the collation, the usage of each country must be considered in determining the quality of viands permitted thereat. In some places eggs, milk, butter, cheese and fish are prohibited, while bread, cake, fruit, herbs and vegetables are allowed. In other places, milk, eggs, cheese, butter and fish are permitted, owing either to custom or to Indult. This is the case in the United States. However, in order to form judgments perfectly safe concerning this point, the Lenten regulations of each diocese should be carefully read. Finally, a little tea, coffee, chocolate or such like beverage together with a morsel of bread or a cracker is now allowed in the morning. Strictly speaking, whatever may be classified under the head of liquids may be taken as drink or medicine at any time of the day or night on fasting days. Hence, water, lemonade, soda, water, ginger ale, wine, beer and similar drinks may be taken on fasting days outside meal time even though such beverages may, to some extent, prove nutritious. Coffee, tea, diluted chocolate, electuaries made of sugar, juniper berries, and citron may be taken on fasting days, outside meal time, as medicine by those who find them conducive to health. Honey, milk, soup, broth, oil or anything else having the nature of food, is not allowed under either of the two categories already specified. It is impossible to decide mathematically how much food is necessary to involve a serious violation of this law. Moralists as well as canonists concur in holding that an excess of four ounces would seriously militate against the obligation of fasting, whether that much food was consumed at once or at various intervals during the day because Alexander VII (18 March, 1666) condemned the teaching of those who claimed that food so taken was not to be regarded as equaling or exceeding the amount allowed (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, tenth ed. Freiburg im Br., 1908, No. 1129). - Fast (Catholic Encyclopedia)

The key point to notice here is that, unlike the fasting required before Communion, the Lenten fasts were--even in stricter times--regarded as fasts from food only, not from both food and liquid. Therefore: If you’re taking a liquid that has considerable food value, you’re breaking the fast. If you’re taking liquid in the usual sense of “having a drink”, you’re not breaking the fast. Having a glass of wine during the main meal of the days is quite permitted during a fast day. However, enjoying an alcoholic drink outside a meal would definitely not be in the spirit of doing penance on Ash Wednesday or Good Friday.

Rauchbier, or “smoke beer,” is made using malts that have been dried over fire—-thus gaining the smoky taste of cured meats like ham and bacon. At one time all beers malts were produced over fire, but in medieval Bavaria beers of this type came to be associated with Lent when the rich, smoky tones of meat were dearly missed. There is, of course, an official blessing for beer (“Bless, O Lord, this creature beer . . . ”) which one may safely assume is more efficacious in the original Latin: ” Benedic, Domine, creaturam istam cerevisiae, quam ex adipe frumenti producere dignatus es: ut sit remedium salutare humano generi, et praesta per invocationem nominis tui sancti; ut, quicumque ex ea biberint, sanitatem corpus et animae tutelam percipiant. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.” - Rauchbier (First Things)

Bamberg Smoked Beers
I would like to conclude this answer on a personal note. I spent 20 years in a monastery attached to the Old Rite. The community practices the complete Lenten fast (40 days of fasting) for the complete season of Lent. The monks are quite free to drink a glass of wine (it is a French thing) at the principle meal of the day (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday included), but most do not.

“Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!” - Hilaire Belloc


A Christian that believe in one God and gives him no image. What kind of Christian is that? I always believed in One God, with no image( which for me means no mental image of something).
Jesus Christ is a prophet from God. I was taught in this way. I was in a Catholic College and I never heard from a priest that Jesus Christ is God. What type of Christian am I?

I ask this because many non-Christians tend to believe that all Christians believe that the son of Mary is God - I'm not talking about trinity here because as I said, I believe in One God.

Virtually all Christians consider Jesus to be the image of God because of this passage in Colossians 1:15-16

  The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

If you are concerned with the question of whether Jesus is actually God, rather than whether he is merely the image of God, then the word you are looking for is probably 'Unitarian'. Unitarians believe that Jesus is the best and ultimate prophet and messenger of God, but not actually God. There are other kinds of groups too, including 'Christadelphians'. If you want more specific information you would have to tell us more about what you believe. Unitarians and Christadelphians consider Jesus to be the image of God, for the reasons I said above.

If your Catholic priest never said at any time that Jesus Christ is God, then he either presumed you already knew that or, if you were of a different faith, didn't want to offend you by contradicting your faith. He almost certainly believed it himself.


In the book of Job, it suggests that angels sin. Do they? In the 4th chapter in the book of Job, it states in verses 17 and 18 that: ‘Can mortal man be in the right before[b] God? Can a man be pure before his Maker? Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error.'

"His angels he charges with error"? Do they sin or am I interpreting this incorrectly?

Here is a Christian perspective based on the New Testament.

Yes, angels can and did sin.

In 2 Peter 2:4 (A.V.), it is written,

  For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Hopefully that settles the matter.


How do Christians tell whether they lack or have the "power" promised in Acts 1:8? Acts 1:7-8 (NIV):

7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

What criteria do Christians normally employ to discern whether they have or lack the "power" promised in Acts 1:8? Similarly, what are the usual practices employed to attain/increase this "power" if it's lacking? If this requires a different answer per denomination, an overview type answer would be very much appreciated.

Not duplicates but related and probably relevant questions:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52554/is-the-promise-of-power-in-acts-18-only-for-the-apostles-or-for-christians-in
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52573/what-is-the-intended-meaning-of-the-word-power-as-used-in-acts-18/

In John 15 Jesus declares that He is the true vine and that the Father is the vine dresser.  Professing believers are the branches in the vine and they are there to produce fruit abundantly. The vine dresser (God) works to keep the vine healthy and increase fruit production by variously removing fruitless branches and pruning those that have some production so that it will increase.

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit." - John 15:1-2

Jesus then makes clear that the branch is helpless to produce fruit without maintaining vital connection to the vine, hence those who are cut off and burned have been without vital connection.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. - John 15:4-6

God the Father (vine dresser) is glorified when the branches bear much fruit and the bearing of much fruit by the branches demonstrates that they are disciples of Jesus.

By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. - John 15:8

Jesus has linked fruit bearing with abiding and now he links abiding with obedience to His commands, specifically the command to love one another as He has loved us.

If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. - John 15:10

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
These things I command you, so that you will love one another. -John 15:12-17

He then contrasts the hatred of the world with the love of God (vs. 18-25) and culminates the chapter with a promise that he would send them, from the Father, the Helper, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father.  This Spirit proceeds from the Father (vine dresser), bears witness about Jesus (vine), and enables disciples (fruit bearing branches) to bear witness about Jesus also.

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. - John 15:26-27

So the Spirit proceeding from God (vine dresser) is given to the branches (disciples) through the vine (Jesus) so that much fruit (love) will be produced and remain.  If the word picture may be pushed this far then the Holy Spirit is the sap that produces the love of God in the disciple through Jesus.
John further cements this in his first epistle, particularly in 1 John 4:7-21:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

The witness that Christians must give to the world by the power of the Holy Spirit is love for one another.  Not love as the world loves (love for friends but not enemies) but love as God in Christ has loved us:  While we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Galatians 5:22-23).  This singular fruit, described in it's many aspects, is not the power of the Holy Spirit itself but it is what the power of the Holy Spirit produces in the life of someone to whom that Spirit has been given.  Just as a branch cannot produce fruit unless it is connected to the vine (it has no power within itself), so also no human person, no matter how pious, determined or well-meaning they may be, can produce these qualities within themselves apart from the Spirit...the power does not lie within them.  This is the meaning of "Apart from me you can do nothing."
Power simply means "strength, ability".  In 1 Corinthians 2 Paul says that his preaching was not with eloquent words, etc. (in other words not his power or ability) but the ability of the Spirit.  "When I am weak, then I am strong."  Paul did not possess within his great learning and eloquence the power to proclaim the gospel to the saving of souls.  The Gospel IS the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16) and he announced it as such.
So when Jesus tells the disciples that they would receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon them He is telling them that they will receive the ability to do what they possess no ability within themselves to do.  The criteria then, for the believer to discern whether they have received the power of the Spirit is:

Confession (abiding over time) that Jesus is the Son of God
Love for others that is not self-generated and temporary but imparted and abiding

Practices to increase this power are an ever deepening abiding in Christ and yielding to the pruning activities of the Father.  We must examine ourselves daily to see whether we are in the faith.  Apart from Jesus Christ, the Son of God, we can do nothing.


Is there a Catholic ceremony for virgins who are not nuns or sisters? I once saw online that there is a Catholic classification or special private ceremony for women who are chaste and do not engage in any form of sex. This is for women who are not nuns or sisters. Is there such a thing?

Nuns (contemplatives) or sisters (active life, e.g., teaching, nursing, etc.) belong to religious orders. They take vows required by their order, which include the vow of virginity.
A lay person can make a private vow to observe virginity "under the virtue of religion."¹

a vow of perfect chastity by a lay person…could be a public vow only if it were made in the name of the Church and accepted as such by a legitimate ecclesiastical superior.¹

Although "such a public vow was forbidden by the Holy See in 1927,"¹ it is permitted by the 1983 Code of Canon Law canon 604, as it had been at other times in Church history.
On the difference between public and private vows (and solemn and simple vows), see 1917 Canon 1308 or 1983 Canon 1192 (commentary):

A vow is public if a legitimate superior accepts it in the name of the Church; otherwise, it is private.

A vow is solemn if the Church has recognized it as such; otherwise, it is simple.

Vows are also either perpetual or temporary. Vows differ from promises in that vows bind under the virtue of religion; viz., to break a vow is a sin against the virtue of religion.

ch. 5, "The Manner of Dedication," of The Mystery of Love for the Single: A Guide for Those Who Follow the Single Vocation in the World by Fr. Unger. For an explanation of the 1927 denial, see: "Explanations for the 1927 Denial" (PDF pp. 129-33) of the 2019 dissertation by Judith M. Stegmancf. also Pope Pius XII's encyclical Sacra Virginitas and this informative blog written by a consecrated virgin


Is it possible to believe in Jesus, pray to Him and be baptized and yet not get regenerated? What I mean here by "regenerated" is being born of God, i.e. become a child of God. Has this matter been discussed in Christianity? If the question is too broad, then I am firstly after the protestant-tradition answer here.

So, once again: Is it possible to believe in Jesus, pray to Him and be baptized and yet not get regenerated?

Acts 19:1-7 has an interesting story that may have bearing on this:

  1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
     They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

  3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

  “John’s baptism,” they replied.

  4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

Of interest here is the fact that John & Jesus preached the exact same same Gospel, so this was really, really close. The question is whether there is something magical about the syllables "G" and "Sus", which, especially bearing in mind that this wasn't originally in English, is unlikely.

What is more interesting is that clearly John's baptism was one of repentance - the very sine qua non of an altar call - and yet, clearly that's not enough.

What I surmise from this text is either:
(a) that inflowing of the Holy Spirit is therefore the choice of the Holy Spirit. While repentance was clearly a pre-requisite, it almost seems as though these people needed to accept the grace that the Spirit entails, even above and beyond repentance.
or (b) that it is in fact Jesus himself that is the key aspect of regeneration.


How Does the Copper Serpent Relate to Jesus? When the Israelites complained God sent serpents to bite them. As a way to reverse the plague, Moses put a copper serpent on a pole. Upon looking at the copper serpent, the israelites would be healed from the effects of the serpent bites.

I've been told this prefigures Christ in a way.

The symbolism is strange indeed, because serpents always represent ... the other guy... The Not Jesus.

How does the serpent on the pole represent Christ? Does the event have any other symbolic meanings relating to redemption?

According to 2 Kings 18:4, the serpent of Moses was subsequently placed in the Jerusalem temple, where it was known as Nehushtan and remained until smashed by King Hezekiah.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says that modern exegesis holds that the biblical Hebrew word Nehushtan, by which the bronze serpent is referred in 2 Kings 18:4, is explained either as denoting an image of bronze or as a lengthened form of naḥash ('serpent'), and thus as implying that the worship of serpents was of ancient date in Israel.

Referring to the Canaanite heritage of the Jewish people, Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger say, in Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, page 274, that we can no longer determine whether the copper snake was a genuinely Canaanite element or was Egyptian instead. They say that its Canaanite provenance was more likely because Hezekiah was quite receptive to Egyptian symbols of the day.

The Exodus tradition is perhaps less informative than the action of King Hezekiah. The Bible describes him as a strong monotheist who brought many reforms to Judaism. His destruction of Nehushtan means that he saw the idol as incompatible with Judaism. It would therefore also be incompatible with Christianity. It could not represent Christ, or have any symbolic meaning for redemption.


Why was a sign being sought? In Luke 11:29 we have Jesus saying:

  "...no sign will be given to [this generation] except the sign of Jonah."

Yet Jesus had just cast out a demon. Did He say this because the people in His midst were "seeking from Him a sign from heaven" and He felt his present miracles should be sufficient? In that case, why weren't his current miracles enough? Jesus also mentions "your sons cast them out." Was this common practice in His day? Is that why the casting out of demons wasn't enough for the crowd in order to prove He was the Christ?

To the question as to why casting out demons was not enough to prove to some that he was the Christ, some believed that such power was not from God:

  33 And when the demon had been cast out, the mute man spoke. And the crowds marveled, saying, "Never was anything like this seen in Israel."
  34 But the Pharisees said, "He casts out demons by the prince of demons." - Matthew 9:33-34 ESV

While the Pharisees witnessed these miracles, they did not believe that they came from God.  He of course also multiplied bread, walked on water, healed deformities, and resurrected the dead, but there were still many who refused to believe.  The understanding of who is and who is not able to truly believe is debated among Calvanists and Arminians, and is beyond the scope of your question, but the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man provides some additional context as to why no sign would be given:

  27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house-
  28 for I have five brothers-so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
  29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
  30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
  31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" - Luke 16:27-31 ESV

The sign that the Pharisees wanted was one from heaven.  They simply did not see Jesus's own miracles as being divine.  Much like Jonah, Jesus is delivering a message from the Father, rather than the Father sending a sign.

In short, no sign would have changed the minds of the Pharisees, and none would be given because all that is necessary for true faith was already being provided, as the disciples and followers demonstrated.


Under what circumstances does God act on His anger? While there is some debate over whether God is angry or loving (or both), it is clear that God sometimes acts on His anger with wrath and vengeance, and other times He does not. Do we know the criterion by which He makes these calls? Can we even pretend to know?

Because if we can't, then we have no way of knowing whether He is a God of love or anger. For example, maybe He's letting people He's angry with live so as to teach us a lesson, or to test our faith in Him. So it would be for the greater good, and thus an act of love. But maybe He's letting those people He's angry with—and other sinners—live as punishment to us, such that we have to endure them. Simply put, if we cannot speak to why He smites some and not others, if we don't have any idea of the criterion He uses, it's impossible to know if He is completely loving or completely hating, or somewhere in between.

By definition God is love, but sometimes you have to punish if you love, and when God is angry it isn't a sense of passion that drives Him, but judgement of justice, as explained in Objection 1 of Summa Theologica, Q47 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2047.htm).

I think the difficulty is that you are trying to relate your anger to God's anger, and making His anger to be similar, or comparable, to ours.

This is a problem as God is angry at the sin and the sinner, but, He understands perfectly what is going on, what the motives are, and at times may need to punish in order to help try to rectify the actions.

There is nothing wrong with being angry.  Jesus was angry, for example.  It is an emotion, but why someone gets angry and what is done with the anger is the issue.

We can't judge why God chooses to get angry at one and not at another, as, much like a mosaic, you see only a tiny bit of the picture, so the best we can do is to have faith that God has a reason for what He chooses to do or not do.

For a longer discussion on Is God Angry Anymore?, you can read:

http://www.ccwtoday.org/article_view.asp?article_id=18


Assumption of Mary (Salvific issue) Catholic Problem description
A protestant made the following two arguments about the assumption of Mary:

A catholic that doesn't accept the assumption of Mary will be excommunicated from the Catholic church
A catholic must believe in the assumption of Mary

Questions

Are these arguments correct?
Is the assumption of Mary a salvific issue for Catholics?
If it's not a salvific issue why is it "good" to believe in it as a Catholic?

The last question was asked from a Catholic perspective.

Public Denial of the Assumption Incurs Excommunication
Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, body and soul, into heaven in Munificentissimus Deus (1950):

For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

Dogmas of "divine and Catholic Faith" (also called: de fide, de fide Catholica, or de fide divina et Catholica) are those truths "proposed by the Church as revealed by God."¹
¶45 of Munificentissimus Deus makes it clear that those why deny the Assumption incur the highest theological censure: heresy. This is a "Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited."¹
1. On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J. (Rome, 1951).
The Assumption & Salvation
Mary is properly called Co-Redemptrix because without her fiat ("be it done"; Lk. 1:38), Christ would not have incarnated; and without Christ, there would be no redemption or salvation.
Fr. Hardon defines "Co-Redemptrix" in his Catholic Dictionary:

A title of the Blessed Virgin as co-operator with Christ in the work of human redemption. It may be considered an aspect of Mary's mediation in not only consenting to become the Mother of God but in freely consenting in his labors, sufferings, and death for the salvation of the human race. As Co-Redemptrix, she is in no sense equal to Christ in his redemptive activity, since she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by her Son. He alone merited man's salvation. Mary effectively interceded to obtain subjective application of Christ's merits to those whom the Savior had objectively redeemed.

Thus, there is a very close connection between salvation and the Blessed Virgin Mother.
For more information, see at least Part II (esp. its ch. 1, 2, & 3) of:

Mother of The Savior and Our Interior Life (1948) by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.


What is the Catholic view on frozen embryos We all know that IVF fertilization is against the catholic teaching. Recently I found out that when the treatment is carried out, some of the embryos are frozen for the future implantation in case if the couple want more children.

My question is: Do the catholic church allow couples to access the sacraments if they have children from IVF?

And if the couple realize the wrongness of IVF and have embryos frozen, what do they have to do with them according to the teaching? Let them die or try to implement them in woman's womb? Both, I see as wrong decision.

Starting with the second question, the Magisterial teaching of the Church likewise finds both decisions to be bad

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”
Dignitatas Personae - 19

And for the first question, I don't believe it's documented that a couple (or individual) receives a latae sententiae excommunication (automatic excommunication) for procuring IVF, but there is a good case to make for it on grounds that it is tantamount to abortion, which does receive that.


Mormon belief in Jesus Christ Does the Mormon Church teach that Jesus is God?  Hopefully this isn't too simple of a question.

According to http://mormon.org/faq/belief-in-jesus-christ:

  Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. His birth, life, death, and
  resurrection fulfilled the many prophecies contained in the scriptures
  concerning the coming of a Savior. He was the Creator, He is our
  Savior, and He will be our Judge (see Isaiah 9:6, 53:3-7; Psalms
  22:16-18).

I hope this clarifies your question.


How to reconcile Kierkegaard's model of worship with Existential authenticity? I've been told Kierkegaard suggested that worship be a form of theater where the congregants are actors and pastors are directors.  (This is the only on-line reference I could find, does anyone have a link to a more authoritative source for this?)

Kierkegaard is regarded as an Existentialist.  Existentialists stress the importance of Authenticity.

Can someone please explain how it would be possible to worship authentically if a worshiper is merely acting?

You are misunderstanding the point being made in the article linked to. The 'drama' description is being used as an analogy to what people are doing in the worship service, not to whether they are 'pretending'.  In other words some people are 'directors' (telling others what to do) some are 'actors' (doing stuff) and some are 'audience' (watching stuff being done). When they talk about people being 'actors' they don't mean they have to pretend - it means they have to do stuff rather than just watch (that's the original meaning of the word actor - one who takes action).

The point being made on the web page, and presumably by Kierkegaard (though there isn't any reference to back it up), is that there are churches where the congregation are mere audience - watching what is happening without taking any part. He believes this is wrong, and that the congregation should take an active part in the worship. It doesn't mean they have to 'pretend'.