According to Catholicism, is marrying a divorced woman a sin of continual adultery? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that marrying a divorced woman is a sin. Certainly having sex with a married woman is adultery, but Jesus also calls it adultery to marry a divorced woman.

However he says this in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. “You have heard it said X, but I say to you Y” where Y seems to really redefine terms to be much more expansive and broad.

No one is really going around gouging their eyes out to prevent looking at married women lustfully.  And Jesus says “if your eye offends you” which implies the sin of adultery already took place. However, it ony took place in the heart.

Same with being angry with your brother. The sin of murder has taken only place in the heart.

But when it comes to divorce, Jesus seems to describe real adultery. It doesn’t make much sense to me when he is quoted as saying that te man commits adultery if he marries another woman. Adultery was ONLY defined as a man sleeping with a married WOMAN, in fact Jewish men had polygamy, and in fact it was commanded to marry your deceased brother’s wife even if you already were married, an example brought to Jesus by the Sadduccees.

So, according to Catholicism, how does the definition of adultery and the context of the Sermon on the Mount affect what we should do? No one is plucking their eyes out or cutting off their hands, so was it just meant to shock people? Mentioning adultery, I mean.

Yes it is a sin, provided the divorced person was truly married.

What is meant by “truly married”, you say?

In short it is when two people get married AND the outward appearances
of marriage do indeed reflect the inner convictions of both.  If this is not the case, it is possible to get what is called an annulment, which can be considered a divorce but properly speaking if the marriage was truly a marriage then it would be impossible to separate the two persons. Rather an annulment is about recognizing that the marriage wasn't really a marriage in the first place.

The long version is presented here in the Code of Canon Law:

  CHAPTER IV.

  MATRIMONIAL CONSENT

  Can.  1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

  1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;

  2/ those who suVer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment
  concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be
  handed over and accepted;

  3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of
  marriage for causes of a psychic nature.

  Can.  1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting
  parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent
  partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of
  offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

  §2. This ignorance is not presumed after puberty.

  Can.  1097 §1. Error concerning the person renders a marriage invalid.

  §2. Error concerning a quality of the person does not render a
  marriage invalid even if it is the cause for the contract, unless this
  quality is directly and principally intended.

  Can.  1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage
  deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some
  quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely
  disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

  Can.  1099 Error concerning the unity or indissolubility or
  sacramental dignity of marriage does not vitiate matrimonial consent
  provided that it does not determine the will.

  Can.  1100 The knowledge or opinion of the nullity of a marriage does
  not necessarily exclude matrimonial consent.

  Can.  1101 §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform
  to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.

  §2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of
  the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage,
  or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.

  Can.  1102 §1. A marriage subject to a condition about the future
  cannot be contracted validly.

  §2. A marriage entered into subject to a condition about the past or
  the present is valid or not insofar as that which is subject to the
  condition exists or not.

  §3. The condition mentioned in §2, however, cannot be placed licitly
  without the written permission of the local ordinary.

  Can.  1103 A marriage is invalid if entered into because of force or
  grave fear from without, even if unintentionally inflicted, so that a
  person is compelled to choose marriage in order to be free from it.

  Can.  1104 §1. To contract a marriage validly the contracting parties
  must be present together, either in person or by proxy.

  §2. Those being married are to express matrimonial consent in words
  or, if they cannot speak, through equivalent signs.


What prompted the second century writers to adopt the concept of οὐσία to refer to God's nature? My question When did the concept of οὐσία begin to refer to God's nature? has been answered and the answer was actually great. However, the answer has led me to ask another question.

Conceptually, I do hold onto the applicability of οὐσία to refer to
God's nature since nature is what innately belongs to someone.
I agree that the Greek word homoousios (same substance) faithfully
preserve the meaning of Scripture in creedal form (Nicene Creed cf.
John 1:1, 18 10:28-33; Hebrews 1:3).

What prompted the second century writers to adopt the concept of οὐσία to refer to God's nature?

Did the second century church writers adopt οὐσία to refer to God's nature because they wanted to summarize what the Bible has to say on the relationship of the Father and the Son?
Or did they adopt it because they were trying either to defend the Christian faith to Greeks or to convert contemporary Greeks ?

This seems to have been prompted by Greek Philosophy beginning about 600 BC. This is most pronounced in the teachings of Plato, specifically his Theory of Forms in Plato's cave allegory.

Details

In Plato's theory, εἶδος (eidos) represents the "Visible Form" while, μορφή (morphē) represents the "shape". Additionally, within Greco-Roman philosophy, there were also the φαινόμενα (phainomena), "appearances" which underwent significant philosophical discussion.

In Plato's allegory, Plato asks Glaucon to imagine a prisoner in a cell in a dungeon or cave. Out of view of the prisoner is a light source. This light source illuminates an object - again out of view of the prisoner. The prisoner in the cave is only able to see the shadow cast by the object:

In terms of the Allegory, the εἶδος (eidos) is the object or vase while the μορφή (morphē) is the projected image of the object, or the shadow of the vase.

As Wikipedia notes,

  The English word "form" may be used to translate two distinct concepts that concerned Plato—the outward "form" or appearance of something, and "Form" in a new, technical nature, that never

    ...assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner....

  The objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms.

So in terms of God, the form of God as it appears to us (where we are the prisoner in Plato's cave) is the μορφή (morphē). This term acknowledges that our ability to view God is imperfect, and we are not capable of truly seeing God fully and directly. In trinitarian thought, the incarnation of Jesus might be thought of in some contexts as μορφή (morphē) - as Jesus, that was how God was able to appear to us.

Conversely, God's true form could be thought of as εἶδος (eidos). It holds the concept of God's true and actual form which we lack the ability and perspective to view properly due to our humanly limitations.

John and Philippians appears to reference this as do many other passages, I am sure:

  who, though he was in the form [morphe] of God, did not count
  equality with God a thing to be grasped (Philippians 2:6 ESV).

  And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His
  voice you have never heard, his form [eidos] you have never seen,
  (John 5:37 ESV)

Similarly, the Holy Spirit at Pentecost might be thought to be the φαινόμενα (phainomena) of God.

So, how do we get from form to substance?

The obvious problem for the philosopher here is that if Jesus is merely the form [morphe] of God, then he is not truly God. If Jesus is form [morphe] then he is not εἶδος (eidos). If the holy spirit is a φαινόμενα (phainomena) then she is not εἶδος (eidos).

This presents a problem for the trinitarian scripturally, with Jesus's claims to be God.

This can then easily be corrected by asking "well, what if Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are different forms, but are all of the same substance?" What if Jesus is but is a different form [morphe] of God, but is ὁμοούσιος (Homooúsios) as God?

Conclusion

From this context, we can easily see how we arrive at the Arian Controversy. With this background in place, it is clear that when the language of Plato's Theory of Forms is used to describe Jesus as a form of God, it lends itself to the idea that Jesus is not God, but is merely a shadow or projection of God - not God himself. The language and concept of οὐσία therefore became necessary for the Trinitarians to explain both how Jesus could be both a form of God and BE God.


Is the marital act of consumating marriage part of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church? How far back does the idea of consummating a marriage go?

Is it tied to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony?  Is it like going to confession, but not fully receiving the sacrament of reconciliation because you obstinately refuse to perform your penance?

It is tied to the Sacrament, if you take a look at the rules for obtaining an annulment (which declares that a sacramental union does not exist).

One of the acceptable cases to have an annulment granted is if consummation never took place.


Innocent until conception or birth? Does Psalm 51 imply that an unborn child will have no sin?  Assuming that is true, are there any denominations that support that all unborn children have salvation?  Is there newer scripture (in the NT) that reverses this?

Psalm 51:3-5 ESV

  For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.

  Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

  Behold, (K)I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalm 51:3-5 CEV

  I know about my sins, and I cannot forget my terrible guilt.

  You are really the one I have sinned against; I have disobeyed you and have done wrong. So it is right and fair for you to correct and punish me.

  I have sinned and done wrong since the day I was born.

No, Psalm 51:5 does not claim that an unborn child is sinless, quite the opposite, it says (in every translation I checked except the CEV) that they were either "conceived in sin" or "sinful since conception" which I would take to be equivalent in any case.

We are tainted by Adam's curse at conception; at no point are we without sin until we are washed of it by the blood of Christ. Therefore unborn children are as much destined to hell as any unrepentant sinner outside of the womb.

That said, there is the doctrine of the "age of accountability" that many Christians hold to, which while not strictly part of this question may be relevant to the overall answer.


How many commandments in the New Testament are in the imperative in the Greek? How many commandments in the New Testament are in the imperative in the Greek?

I ask this, because I came across a Christian book that says, there are over 1,000 commandments in the New Testament, but when someone checked each of the so-called commandments, he found that not all the underlying text is in the imperative in the Greek. Perhaps another question is, does it have to be in the imperative in the Greek, why or why not, before a commandment can be designated as a commandment in the New Testament?

The answer to the last part of the question, in the body rather than the heading, is no. A commandment is not necessarily in the imperative. Jesus said

  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the great and first commandment.  And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself.  On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.  Matthew 22 37-40

This is in the future indicative tense, rather than the imperative. This applies to the original Greek, and to some modern translations. Other modern translations use the imperative in English, but the Greek text is future indicative.

In English we might be told "You will report for duty at 0600 hours".  This would be a command expressed in the future indicative.

Even many of the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament are in the future indicative (e.g. "Thou shalt have none other gods but me") while others are in the imperative (e.g. "Honour thy father and mother").

Just as not all commands are imperatives, not all imperatives are commands. "Come in" called by a parent whose children are playing outside is a command, but addressed to a friend at the door is an invitation. In the Lord's Prayer we say "Give us our bread". Addressed to a servant this would be a command, to a baker a request, and to God a prayer. There is no grammatical difference and whether an imperative is a command, a suggestion, an invitation or a plea sometimes requires subjective judgement.

Apart from the two commandments mentioned by Jesus in the above passage, there are no other commands in the New Testament which are very widely referred to  by the specific term "commandment"; although many could be considered as such.  Some commands of Jesus or of the writers of the epistles may be considered to apply to all Christians. Some clearly applied only to a specific situation and were not intended to apply  generally. When, on Palm Sunday, Jesus told two of his disciples to go and fetch a donkey, He clearly wasn't issuing a universal commandment  (at least, as far as I know, nobody thinks He was). Some instructions have been argued over as to whether they applied only to those they were directly given, or to all Christians, or to the successors of the apostles (however defined).

James Boyer, of Grace Theological Seminary, counted 1,632 imperatives in the New Testament and discussed the grammatical use of the imperative, in this article


Are there any Christian sects that allow for the existence of other "God" claims? Are there any Christian sects that allow for the existence of other "God" claims?  That is, allow for claims that are (semi-)polytheistic in nature.  I'm excluding claims that the Trinity is polytheistic for purposes of this question.

I may have just found my answer. It turns out Mormonism allows for the existence of other "Gods" – their afterlife claims include the belief that they become "Gods".  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Are there any other Christian sects that allow for multiple "God" claims?

I suppose some would consider Unitarian Universalists to be a Christian sect, and they certainly allow for belief in other gods.


The concept of being bought at a price 1 Cor 6:18-20 (NEB)

  Shun fornication. Every other sin that a man can commit is outside the body, but the fornicator sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a shrine of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the Spirit is God's gift to you? You do not belong to yourselves; you were bought at a price. Then honor God in your body

I have heard many time that we were bought at a price. Who did Jesus buy us from, I don't want to believe its satan?

A ransom or price is not a payment to the Devil to redeem his slaves but a payment to God’s justice to redeem us from sin, world, law, Devil and death. This payment is owed to Gods law due to the sin of man. This debt needs to be paid.

  the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (The New International Version. 2011, Mt 20:28)

The price of redemption is the blood of Christ, which atones for sin.

  The word ransom (λυτρον) is derived from the Hebrew verb כִּפֶּר “to atone”…The idea is not that of simple freeing from a fault, but of its recognition and expiation in the substitutionary offering. Thus when λύτρον (-α) is used for כֹּפֶר, it always denotes a vicarious gift whose value covers a fault, so that the debt is not just cancelled. Indeed, in the equation כֹּפֶר == λύτρον the offering is always for a human life (ψυχή). (Vol. 4: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (329). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.)

This ‘payment’ is therefore substitutionary ‘life for life’. Christ died to pay the penalty of our sins, and as the law also demands positive and perfect obedience, his perfect righteousness is also included in the payment. His perfect obedience is counted as ours. His obedience is charged as an alien gift to the sinners account so that they are ‘declared righteous and obedient’, even while still sinners.

  While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.  Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! (The New International Version. 2011 ,Ro 5:8–10)


What is the biblical basis for God being omnipresent? I believe that God is omnipresent, but what are some Bible verses that back this up?
Here are some counterarguments:

Exodus 3:16
"...I have surely visited you and seen what is being done to you in Egypt."
Genesis 28:12  And he dreamed: There was a ladder set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.
28:13  And there was Jehovah, standing above it..."

David speaks of God's ability to be everywhere in Psalms 139:

  Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy
  presence?
  If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in
  hell, behold, thou art there.
  If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost
  parts of the sea;
  Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold
  me.
  If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall
  be light about me.
  Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as
  the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. (Psalms 139:7-12;)

Another passage in the Old Testament is Jeremiah 23:24:

  24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him?
  saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.

There are a few other scriptures in the New Testament that could also be referring to omnipresence:

  "For in him we live, and move, and have our being..." (Acts: 17:28)

  "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head
  over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him
  that filleth all in all." (Ephesians 1:22-23)

  "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;"
  (Colossians 1:19)


Obligated fasting in Christianity Is there any Christian denomination which obligates its believers to fast (no drink no food) as the bible mentioned and in Jewish practice? I've never heard of obligated fasting in Christianity but I want to ensure it.
I know that there are different interpretations to the mentioned bible, but I just wanted to point out this place rather than discussing the interpretations. Just want to know if such tradition exists anywhere in Christianity world.

A similar question What denominations don't believe in fasting? And Why? mentions the following under the heading Who fasts and who doesn't?:

Both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches have required fasting periods for their members, as shown by the links.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to fast for the first Sunday of every month, which they call their fast and testimony meeting. Instead of speakers, members come up to the microphone and bear their testimony about the truthfulness of their experiences in the Gospel [per Gilbert LeBlanc]

(italics added for identification)
For a scriptural viewpoint, the Jehovah's Witnesses article What Does the Bible Say About Fasting? under the heading Is fasting required for Christians? supplies the following:

No. God required the Israelites to fast on Atonement Day, but he eliminated that observance after Jesus permanently atoned for the sins of repentant people. (Hebrews 9:24-26; 1 Peter 3:18) Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, of which Atonement Day was a part. (Romans 10:4; Colossians 2:13, 14) Therefore, each Christian may decide for himself whether to fast.—Romans 14:1-4.
Christians recognize that fasting is not the focus of their worship. The Bible never associates fasting with happiness. In contrast, true Christian worship is marked by joy, reflecting the personality of Jehovah, “the happy God.”—1 Timothy 1:11; Ecclesiastes 3:12, 13; Galatians 5:22.

Going by what Romans 14:1-4 says, the decision would be up to the individual whether to fast or not. The article does give additional information on fasting that you may consider.
On a personal note, I have fasted both for dietary and spiritual reasons. As for the spiritual, I fasted during the anniversary of Christ's death to focus more on the spiritual than the physical.


Angelology: Can Archangels Have More Than 1 Set of Wings? I know the seraphim, cherubs, and thrones have 3 sets of wings:

According to Isaiah 6:1-8, the Seraphim are described as fiery six-winged beings.

From the angelology wiki page.

But, I've been reading about Michaelmas and found a picture of Michael, the Archangel:

from here, and the wikipedia article here

I think, I see 6 wings on Raphael and 6 on Michael but as we all know Archangels only have 1 set of wings?

I was completely unaware that Archangels only have one set (one pair) of wings.  Where in the Bible does it say that?  As for Seraphim, the Bible informs us that they have three pairs of wings:

NLT Isaiah 6:2: Attending him were mighty seraphim, each having six wings. With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew.

As for the mighty cherubim, the Bible does not mention multiple pairs of wings:

NLT Genesis 3:23-24: So the Lord God banished them from the Garden of Eden, and he sent Adam out to cultivate the ground from which he had been made. After sending them out, the Lord God stationed mighty cherubim to the east of the Garden of Eden. And he placed a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
NLT Exodus 25:17-22: Then make the Ark’s cover—the place of atonement—from pure gold. It must be 45 inches long and 27 inches wide. Then make two cherubim from hammered gold, and place them on the two ends of the atonement cover. Mold the cherubim on each end of the atonement cover, making it all of one piece of gold. The cherubim will face each other and look down on the atonement cover. With their wings spread above it, they will protect it. Place inside the Ark the stone tablets inscribed with the terms of the covenant, which I will give to you. Then put the atonement cover on top of the Ark. I will meet with you there and talk to you from above the atonement cover between the gold cherubim that hover over the Ark of the Covenant. From there I will give you my commands for the people of Israel.

Another biblical reference to a mighty angelic guardian (NLT) or a guardian cherub (NIV and ESV) or anointed cherub (KJV and YLT) is found in Ezekiel 28:14, but no mention is made of wings.
Regardless of how many pairs of wings the various angelic spirt creatures have, if the Bible doesn’t say then you can be sure we do not need to know.  What is important is their function:

Holy angels fall into special classes, and certain individuals are named and mentioned. Michael the archangel is likely the head of all the holy angels, and his name means "who is like unto God?" (Daniel 10:21; 12:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 1:9; Revelation 12:7-10) Gabriel is one of the principal messengers of God, his name meaning "hero of God," and was entrusted with important messages such as those delivered to Daniel (Daniel 8:16; 9:21), to Zechariah (Luke 1:18-19), and to Mary (Luke 1:26-38). Most holy angels are not named in the Bible but are described only as "elect angels" (1 Timothy 5:21). The expressions "principalities" and "powers" seem to be used of all angels whether fallen or holy (Luke 21:26; Romans 8:38; Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; Colossians 1:16; 2:10, 15; 1 Peter 3:22). Some angels are designated as "cherubim," which are living creatures who defend God's holiness from any defilement of sin (Genesis 3:24; Exodus 25:18, 20). "Seraphim" are another class of angels, mentioned only once in Scripture in Isaiah 6:2-7, and are described as having three pairs of wings. They apparently have the function of praising God, being God's messengers to earth, and are especially concerned with the holiness of God. - What are the different types of angels?

Furthermore, human attempts to depict the holy angels will never come close to reality.


What are the arguments of those who believe that the prerequisite stated here by John is yet not sufficient for being born of God? Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (1st John 5:1)

John seems to be both liberal and absolutistic in his statement here: on one hand, he doesn't add any more prerequisites for a human to be a regenerate (while today's main stream Christianity would most likely add some more like believing that Christ is God,  that Christ and God the Father are the same One God, etc.), on the other hand, he says "whosoever", which sounds like he is very explicit about his statement being true for all cases that meet his prerequisite (which is believing that Jesus is Christ).

What are the arguments of those who believe that the prerequisite stated here by John is yet not sufficient for being born of God? I know that many Christians don't consider, for example,  Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be regenerate (because they don't believe that Jesus is the same God as God the Father). However, both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses seem to meet this prerequisite stated here by John.

We must be always cautious when we remove a sentence from its context, because it can often lead to misunderstanding.  The verse you quoted was in the context of an entire letter.  It was not intended to be separated from that context.  Authorial intent is a critical consideration.

Furthermore, the audience should be considered as well.  The people to whom John wrote the letter believed certain things about Jesus, so He wasn't addressing misconceptions or heresies about who Jesus is.  They didn't have those misconceptions or heresies, while some who read that letter today certainly do.  It is important to note that Scripture can never mean what it was never intended to mean.

If we do divorce this verse from the context and the audience, we would have to conclude that someone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, but who didn't die on the cross, was not the Son of God, wasn't resurrected, wasn't sinless, and that salvation comes through the works of the law, and that adultery and lying and cheating are alright for him, would still be considered born of God.  Is it rational to assume that the Apostle John, if asked for clarification, would have agreed with this?  Of course not.  This is absurd, of course, and is an improper manner in which to treat Scripture.

Those that read this letter from John originally understood his intent.  Had they been believing heresy, like the Galatians, John would certainly have taken a different tone altogether.

So, from the perspective of a Biblical literalist, everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and Spirit, who died on the Cross the make atonement for our sins, and who rose from the dead, and trusts the work of Jesus for salvation and forgiveness, is born of God.


Has the Catholic Church made any comparative study of the faith of Martha vis-a-vis that of Mary? At Luke 10:40-42 we read : " But Martha was distracted with much serving; and she went to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things;  one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.”

But, at John 11:20, we see Martha taking the lead role in the events which  lead to the resuscitation of Lazarus by Jesus : " When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary sat in the house "

My question is: Has the Catholic Church made any comparative study of the faith of Martha vis-a-vis that of her sister, Mary, though the words of Jesus at Luke 10: 42 would have one believe that Mary was better  at expressing her faith?

Catholic theologians have compared Martha and Mary. The distinction they make is between the active life (of Martha) and the contemplative life (of Mary), not between their degrees of faith.

For example, St. Thomas Aquinas has a question on the active life in comparison with the contemplative life in his Summa Theologica II-II q. 182, where he mentions Martha and Mary frequently.

Addressing "Whether the active life is more excellent than the contemplative?" (a. 1 c.), he says:

  …the contemplative life is simply more excellent than the active.

He mentions several reasons, some of which are:

  because the contemplative life is more delightful than the active; wherefore Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. Serm. ciii) that "Martha was troubled, but Mary feasted."

&

  because in the contemplative life man is more self-sufficient, since he needs fewer things for that purpose; wherefore it was said (Lk. 10:41): "Martha, Martha, thou art careful and art troubled about many things."

&

  because the contemplative life is according to Divine things, whereas active life is according to human things; wherefore Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. Serm. civ): "'In the beginning was the Word': to Him was Mary hearkening: 'The Word was made flesh': Him was Martha serving."

In a. 2 he shows that the contemplative life of Mary is more meritorious than the active life of Martha because (ibid. c.):

  the root of merit is charity; and, while…charity consists in the love of God and our neighbor, the love of God is by itself more meritorious than the love of our neighbor

So, although Martha and Mary might have the same degree of faith in God, the contemplative life of Mary is superior to and more meritorious than the active life of Martha (cf. Lk. 10:42: "…Mary hath chosen the best part.…"). Mary is not divided (cf. 1 Cor. 7:33) between God and the world, but can devote herself 100% to God.

An excellent work on the relationship between the active and the interior/contemplative lives, the necessity of the latter for the former, etc., is:

The Soul of the Apostolate by Dom Jean-Baptiste Chautard

Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. discusses the necessity of contemplation for all Christians, because the "infused contemplation of the mysteries of faith and the union with God which results therefrom" is "in the normal way of sanctity" (i.e., everyone must pass through this way to become a saint / go to heaven). Cf. his works:

The Three Ages of the Interior Life: Prelude of Eternal Life

and

Christian Perfection & Contemplation


According to Catholic Teaching, what is sinning against the Holy Spirit? According to Catholic Teaching, what is sinning against the Holy Spirit and why is this unpardonable? [cf. Matt 12:31-32 (RSVCE)]

What are the the sins that are considered sinning against the Holy Spirit?

The desirable answer will be the one that draws from the Church's patrimony e.g. from Church Fathers, Saints & Doctors, and Papal Magisterium.

"Augustine says . . .

  (Enchiridion lxxxiii) that 'he who dies in a state of obstinacy is
  guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost,' and (De Verb. Dom., Serm.
  lxxi) that 'impenitence is a sin against the Holy Ghost,' and (De
  Serm. Dom. in Monte xxii), that 'to resist fraternal goodness with the
  brands of envy is to sin against the Holy Ghost,' and in his book De
  unico Baptismo (De Bap. contra Donat. vi, 35) he says that 'a man who
  spurns the truth, is either envious of his brethren to whom the truth
  is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by Whose inspiration the Church is
  taught,' and therefore, seemingly, sins against the Holy Ghost" (ST
  2b:14:2, Sed Contra).

Pope John Paul II writes:

  "Against the background of what has been said so far, certain other
  words of Jesus, shocking and disturbing ones, become easier to
  understand. . . . They are reported for us by the Synoptics in
  connection with a particular sin which is called 'blasphemy against
  the Holy Spirit.' . . . Why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
  unforgivable? How should this blasphemy be understood? Saint Thomas
  Aquinas replies that it is a question of a sin that is 'unforgivable
  by its very nature, insofar as it excludes the elements through which
  the forgiveness of sin takes place' (ST 2b:14:3). According to such an
  exegesis, 'blasphemy' does not properly consist in offending against
  the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept
  the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working
  through the power of the Cross. If man rejects the 'convincing
  concerning sin' which comes from the Holy Spirit and which has the
  power to save, he also rejects the 'coming' of the Counsellor . . . If
  Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven
  either in this life or in the next, it is because this
  'non-forgiveness' is linked, as to its cause, to 'non-repentance', in
  other words to the radical refusal to be converted. . . . Blasphemy
  against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who
  claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil—in any sin at all . . .
  [T]he Church constantly implores with the greatest fervor that there
  will be no increase in the world of the sin that the Gospel calls
  'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.' Rather, she prays that it will
  decrease in human souls" (Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem
  ["The Lord and Giver of Life"] 46-47).

You can read more on this subject here: THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN, James Akin | EWTN.

Summary

The sins that appear here are:

Obstinacy in sin.
Final impenitence.
Rejecting salvation.
Envy at another's spiritual good.

  cf. CCC 1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will
  be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be
  forgiven." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who
  deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the
  forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.
  Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

  cf. PENNY CATECHISM 326 Which are the six sins against the Holy
  Spirit?

  The six sins against the Holy Spirit are:

  Presumption
  Despair
  Resisting the known truth
  Envy of another's spiritual good
  Obstinacy in sin
  Final impenitence


According to Martin Luther, which Councils contradicted each other? At the imperial Diet of Worms, Luther famously said:

  I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other [...]

What did he mean? Is there a particular pope or Council that he is referring to?

Luther, at the Diet of Worms, offered to show, at any time that might be assigned to him,  that councils had erred. He does not seem to have been taken up on this directly, although conversations may have been held in private.  About a week later Luther was summoned to see the Archbishop of Treves (Trier), where were assembled several others including Hieronymus Vehus, Chancellor of Baden. The Chancellor began a "long harangue" in which he said that:

  the church, like any other power, had its constitutions which might be modified according to the requirements of the particular nations to which they were applied, the diversity of manners, of climate, of epochs; and that herein lay the apparent contradictions which Luther had denounced as existing in the internal system of the church. These contradictions, in fact, only proved more emphatically the religious care with which the church regulated its spiritual administration, and in no degree affected the integrity of the catholic dogma. That dogma was yesterday what it is to-day, and what it will continue to be till the end of time.

Vehus concedes that councils have differed on what today are called "disciplinary" matters,  but denies that they have differed on matters of dogma.

Ref: Famous Trials

Luther had previously said, during the Leipzig Disputation of 1519, that Councils contradicted each other and so could not all  be certainly correct.  It is no necessary to go back far to find an instance of a Council doing exactly that, and in no uncertain terms.  The Fifth Lateran Council ran from 1512 to 1517. In 1516 the following was issued at Session 11 (paragraph 15 of December 19th):

  Just as pope Leo I, our predecessor of holy memory, whose footsteps we readily follow insofar as we can, gave orders and brought to pass that the measures which had been rashly carried out at the second synod of Ephesus, contrary to justice and the catholic faith, were later revoked at the council of Chalcedon, for the sake of the constancy of the same faith, so we too judge that we cannot, or ought not to, withdraw from or abandon the revocation of so evil a sanction {the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges}  and its contents if we are to preserve our own honour, and that of the church, with a safe conscience. The fact that the sanction and its contents were published at the council of Basel and, at the instance of the same council, were received and recognised by the meeting at Bourges, ought not to influence us since all those happenings after the transfer of the same council of Basel took place — the transfer being made by pope Eugenius IV, our predecessor of happy memory — have remained the deeds of the quasi-council, or rather the conventicle, of Basel,

Here the Fifth Lateran Council is very clearly contradicting the Council of Basel.(1431 - 1445).  The Fifth Lateran Council also overturned the Sacrosancta Decree from the Council of Constance in 1415, asserting that Popes were subordinate to Councils. In its second session in 1512 it had condemned the  Council of Pisa, 1511, and declared everything it had done null and void.

The Fifth Council is justifying this power to contradict earlier Councils,  by the fact that Chalcedon had overturned Second Ephesus more than a thousand years previously.

It is also making the point that some Council are  seen, wholly or partly,  as lacking legitimacy. In the case of Sacrosancta,   it was never approved by a Pope, and so can be, and was, regarded as invalid.

The denunciation by the Fifth Lateran Council, of those earlier councils, was so recent, and so unequivocal, that it must have been clearly in the minds of all involved, as a recent instance of a Council contradicting another Council.


What are the main tenets and/or beliefs of the 'Emergent' Church? 'Emergent' is a word I see gets thrown around a lot. Is there any definition to what is and what isn't emergent?

Is it a catch-all for certain points of view?
Are there people out there that actively identify themselves as 'Emergent'?
What are, or what is considered to be the main tenets and/or beliefs of the Emergent Church?

DeWaay, in The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity, (on Amazon but in stock on CICstore) asserts that Emergents believe in a hopeful view that "the kingdom of God is emerging through the processes of history because God is the future, drawing everything into Himself" (DeWaay 11).  See DeWaay's book for that case, but I think this is a fair assessment.

How this looks in a few details:

Emergents usually reject final judgment, preferring to think God will "save" everyone in a tangible paradise here on earth.
Their mission is not first to spread the saving Gospel message of Jesus Christ to individuals, but instead to do good in society and make life better to all.
They want to create coherent meaning specific to a church or other community, rather than seeking objective meaning and absolute truth.
Truth and meaning are experienced, rather than known.
Conversely, experiences are more important than doctrine.
They seek spiritual growth in many various ways, usually rejecting that the biblical means of grace (Bible teachings, prayer, fellowship, the Lord's Supper) are paramount.
Many even go so far as to reject basic logic as useless: they won't acknowledge the self-evident basic logic laws that all people follow every day, that A is A, A is not non-A, and A and non-A cannot be both true.

Some identify themselves as Emergent or emerging; many followers or proponents of emergent thought do not identify themselves as such. One such self-identifying source is the Emergent Village.

I do not think it should be regarded as a catch-all term.

Emergents will try to avoid any straight, direct answers, and they may object to my broad strokes here.  Their beliefs also vary among each other, of course.


What are the differences/distinctive between the Anglican and Episcopal churches? I've never been very sure what the difference is between the Anglican and Episcopal churches. Is it safe to assume that in core doctrines their doctrinal stance would be pretty similar, i.e. Christology, soteriology? The impression I get is that the Anglicans are more traditional (e.g. view of authority of the Bible) and Episcopal more "progressive" (forgive me for using a loaded term).

What would be the differences in terms of the following: doctrine, practice, polity, confessions/creeds?

Any other differences of note?

Anglican Churches and Episcopal churches are almost all members of the Anglican Communion, a group of churches all associated with the Church of England. As such they all subscribe to a similar theology - e.g. the historic creeds, ordained minsters overseen by bishops, infant baptism, liturgy, sacraments. You can read more details at the Anglican Communion Doctrine page.

Whether a church within the Anglican Communion is called 'Anglican' or 'Episcopalian' is more a matter of history than doctrine. Churches tend to use the name 'Anglican' in countries with strong historic ties to England (Australia, Canada, South Africa), and Episcopal in countries without those ties (Brazil, USA, Philippines) but there are exceptions to both of those. Some members of the Anglican communion use neither. Doctrines of individual churches within the Communion also vary, but there is no correlation between the name and the doctrine.

Anglican and Episcopalian churches are also well-know for the breadth of their beliefs. Beliefs of Anglican congregations, or individual members, can range from 'virtually Catholic' to 'strongly evangelical'.

So there are no distinctives between Anglican and Episcopalian churches in general, although there will be differences between individual Anglican or Episcopalian churches. There are beliefs and practices that distinguish the Anglican/Episcopalian community from other churches, but even then there is widespread variation in practice.


How do Calvinists go from "X is Sinful" to "X is unable to accept Christ on his own?" I was recently reviewing Piper's TULIP notes. I'm also aware of What is the Biblical Basis for Total Depravity

Here, however, is something that I no longer understand. How do Calvinists jump

from: "X is sinful"
to: "X is incapable of believing in Christ"

It seems like we need one of two intermediate steps:

A. "X is sinful" -> "everything X does is sin" -> "X is incapable of believing in Christ" or

B. "X is sinful" , "no one with sin can accept Christ" -> "X is incapable of believing in Christ"

I don't see biblical scripture for the intermediate steps for either (A) or (B). How do Calvinists make this work? [I'm really looking for Biblical verses, rather than Edwards's Freedom of the Will or Luther's Bondage of the Will]

Question:

What is the intermediate step?

You have it right: "X is sinful" -> "everything X does is sin" -> "X is incapable of believing in Christ without the additional work of the Holy Spirit" --> is the basic belief held by Calvinism. One of the best explanations of the doctrine of original sin is by Jonathan Edwards, entitled ‘without surprise’, ‘The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended; Evidences of its Truth Produced.’ Here he argues, among other things, the imputation of guilt on infants as displayed in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah.

In a nutshell I have found many classic authors, including Luther, Owen and Edwards, often start by using this verse to say that anybody born of ‘flesh’ is only ‘flesh’.

  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (ESV John 3:6)

In other words anyone born in the sinful nature is in ‘entirely sinful.’ This means they can’t do anything good but are totally depraved.

The idea of ‘flesh’ is derogatory as ‘human nature separated from God’. Even as a believer who has ‘both’ good and evil natures, as a result of the new birth, only a sinful disposition remains in that nature they first obtained through Adam.

  For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. (ESV Romans 7:18)

This is understood by all classical Calvinists (as far as I know) as a description of Paul ‘as a Christian’.

Edwards’ book which I referenced argues the case so very well. Unlike Owen who is difficult to read, I challenge anyone to read ‘even just a dozen pages’ of Edwards and they will quickly understand the concepts of original sin as 'originally taught' by the reformers.


Are there evil acts which are not sins? The answers to the question on the essence of sin seem to form a consensus that sins are acts of disobedience against things God specifically told us not to do.

Since sin is defined as disobedience and not related to evil, are there evil acts which are not sins?

(Sins which are not acts of evil might also be considered with the special exception of course for the disobedience itself being the only evil)

Since sin is in essence any act of disobedience towards God or disbelief and we know that God is good1 we can conclude that there are no evil acts which are not sins.

1In fact good and evil are defined by and measured against His nature.


Are there or have there been any Christian traditions that follow Kosher food laws? Kosher food laws are part of Judaism, from which Christianity grew.

But what Christian denominations or traditions follow, or historically have observed Kosher food laws?

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church maintains a practice that resembles Kosher food laws. (There are similarities and differences: the members of this church avoid pork, but they do commonly mix meat and dairy products in their cuisine.)


How widespread was the observance of the Jewish Sabbath among Christians during Early Christianity (A.D. 30–324)? Question
How widespread was the observance of the Jewish Sabbath among Christians during Early Christianity (A.D. 30–324)?
Further Details
As a reminder, the Jewish Sabbath is defined as:

[...] the Sabbath, is Judaism's day of rest on the seventh day of the week—i.e., Saturday. On this day, religious Jews remember the biblical story describing the creation of the heavens and the earth in six days and look forward to a future Messianic Age. Since the Jewish religious calendar counts days from sunset to sunset, Shabbat begins in the evening of what on the secular calendar is Friday.

And Early Christianity is commonly understood as:

Early Christianity is generally reckoned by church historians to begin with the ministry of Jesus (c. 27–30) and end with the First Council of Nicaea (325). It is typically divided into two periods: the Apostolic Age (c. 30–100, when the first apostles were still alive) and the Ante-Nicene Period (c. 100–325).

And to be more precise, given that Early Christianity spans about 300 years, it's quite likely that the answer to the question depends on what specific period of time (and location) we are looking at. For this reason, I would rather like to know how the popularity of Jewish Sabbath observance among Christians has evolved over time. Was it very popular at the beginning and then gradually became less widespread as time went on? Were there specific places where Christians were more likely to be Sabbath-keepers than in others?

How widespread was the observance of the Jewish Sabbath among Christians during Early Christianity (A.D. 30–324)?
The Sabbath was the consecration of one day of the weekly period to God as the Author of the universe and of time as seen in the book of Exodus.

12 This, too, was the Lord’s word to Moses: 13 Give the sons of Israel a warning from me, Be sure that you observe the sabbath day.1 It is a token between us, that is to last all through the ages which lie before you, reminding you that I am the Lord, and you are set apart for me. 14 Keep my sabbath; it has a binding claim on you, on pain of death for all who violate it. The man who does any work on that day is lost to his people. 15 You have six days to work in; the seventh is the sabbath, a day of rest set apart for the Lord, and if anybody works on that day, his life must pay for it. 16 It is for the sons of Israel to observe my sabbath and honour it among themselves, age after age. It is an undying covenant, 17 a perpetual token between me and the Israelites; the Lord spent six days making heaven and earth, and on the seventh he rested from his labours. - Exodus 31:12-17

Christ, while observing the Sabbath, set himself in word and act against this absurd rigorism which made man a slave of the day. He reproved the scribes and Pharisees for putting an intolerable burden on men's shoulders (Matthew 23:4), and proclaimed the principle that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). He cured on the Sabbath, and defended His disciples for plucking ears of corn on that day. In His arguments with the Pharisees on this account He showed that the Sabbath is not broken in cases of necessity or by acts of charity (Matthew 12:3 sqq.; Mark 2:25 sqq.; Luke 6:3 sqq.; 14:5). St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10; Romans 14:5).

4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. - Matthew 23:4

The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day.

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. - Acts 20:7
2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. - 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

So we can see that even in Apostolic Times, the first day of the week as replacing the Saturday Sabbath Day (7th day) at least for gentile converts.
But how widespread was the observance of the Jewish Sabbath among Christians during Early Christianity?
Certainly some of first Christians were mainly Jewish and thus observed the seventh-day sabbath with prayer and rest, but as the gentile converts grew, they gathered on the first day, Sunday, reckoned in Jewish tradition as beginning, like the other days, at sunset on what would now be considered the Saturday evening. At the beginning of the second century Ignatius of Antioch (Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1: “If, then, those who had lived according to the ancient practices came to the newness of hope, no longer keeping the sabbath but living in accordance with the Lord’s day [μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες ἀλλά κατά κυριακήν ζῶντες], on which our life also arose through him and his death…) approved non-observance of the Sabbath.
The Coptic Churches in Egypt and Ethiopia certainly maintained this practice until the Council of Nicea. Not surprising since they maintain many Jewish traditions to this day and also claim to possess the Arc of the Covenant.

W. B. Bishai has attempted to shed some light on the development of the custom of observing Sunday as a rest day in addition to the seventh-day Sabbath in early Coptic (and related) Christianity. He suggests that it may have been under the influ- ence of the first Council of Nicea (A.D. 325)that this situation first came about:

It seems possible that Sabbath observance among the Copts in Egypt and Ethiopia may have passed through three stages: I) Only the seventh-day Sabbath observed from apostolic times until the Council of Nicea;  Sunday and the seventh-day Sabbath both observed-from the Council of Nicea until perhaps a century or two later; and 3) only Sunday designated as a day of public worship-a practice still observed today (p. 31).

Some Notes on the Sabbath in Early Christianity

Outside of this unique setting the observation of the Sabbath on Saturdays seems a rather rarer occurrence.
One of the most popular arguments against the doctrine of the Sabbath is the purposed silence of the Early Church fathers on the issue.

Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indicated in Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; in Apocalypse 1:10, it is called the Lord's day. In the Didache the injunction is given: "On the Lord's Day come together and break bread. And give thanks (offer the Eucharist), after confessing your sins that your sacrifice may be pure". St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Magnes. ix) speaks of Christians as "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again". In the Epistle of Barnabas (xv) we read: "Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day (i.e. the first of the week) with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead".
St. Justin is the first Christian writer to call the day Sunday (I Apol., lxvii) in the celebrated passage in which he describes the worship offered by the early Christians on that day to God. The fact that they met together and offered public worship on Sunday necessitated a certain rest from work on that day. However, Tertullian (202) is the first writer who expressly mentions the Sunday rest: "We, however (just as tradition has taught us), on the day of the Lord's Resurrection ought to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude, deferring even our businesses lest we give any place to the devil" ("De orat.", xxiii; cf. "Ad nation.", I, xiii; "Apolog.", xvi).
These and similar indications show that during the first three centuries practice and tradition had consecrated the Sunday to the public worship of God by the hearing of the Mass and the resting from work. With the opening of the fourth century positive legislation, both ecclesiastical and civil, began to make these duties more definite. The Council of Elvira (300) decreed: "If anyone in the city neglects to come to church for three Sundays, let him be excommunicated for a short time so that he may be corrected" (xxi). In the Apostolic Constitutions, which belong to the end of the fourth century, both the hearing of the Mass and the rest from work are prescribed, and the precept is attributed to the Apostles. The express teaching of Christ and St. Paul prevented the early Christians from falling into the excesses of Jewish Sabbatarianism in the observance of the Sunday, and yet we find St. Cæsarius of Arles in the sixth century teaching that the holy Doctors of the Church had decreed that the whole glory of the Jewish Sabbath had been transferred to the Sunday, and that Christians must keep the Sunday holy in the same way as the Jews had been commanded to keep holy the Sabbath Day. He especially insisted on the people hearing the whole of the Mass and not leaving the church after the Epistle and the Gospel had been read. He taught them that they should come to Vespers and spend the rest of the day in pious reading and prayer. As with the Jewish Sabbath, the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday. Until quite recent times some theologians taught that there was an obligation under pain of venial sin of assisting at vespers as well as of hearing Mass, but the opinion rests on no certain foundation and is now commonly abandoned. - Sunday (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

Sabbatarians or Sabbatarianism is the name, as appears from its origin, denotes those individuals or parties who are distinguished by some peculiar opinion or practice in regard to the observance of the Sabbath or day of rest. In the first place it is applied to those rigorists who apparently confound the Christian Sunday with the Jewish Sabbath and, not content with the prohibition of servile work, will not allow many ordinary and innocent occupations on the Sunday.
The following may be beneficial to some to peruse at leisure:

The Sabbath: A Hallowed and Holy Day
Sabbath Laws and Early Church
Where is the Sabbath in the Early Church? (Part 1)
Where is the Sabbath in the Early Church? (Part 2)


Can someone tell more about this artwork of Jesus Christ? Another piece in the belongings of my late grandmother may she rest in peace.

This is a part of 7 pieces in total.

I am really intrigued by the artwork itself.

Is it possible for someone to identify this scene?

The image depicted is of the Crucifixion of Jesus.

  The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely between AD 30 and 33. Jesus' crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources, although there is no consensus among historians on the exact details.

  According to the canonical gospels, Jesus was arrested and tried by the Sanhedrin, and then sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged, and finally crucified by the Romans. Jesus was stripped of his clothing and offered wine mixed with myrrh or gall to drink after saying I am thirsty. He was then hung between two convicted thieves and, according to the Gospel of Mark, died some six hours later. During this time, the soldiers affixed a sign to the top of the cross stating "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" which, according to the Gospel of John, was written in three languages. They then divided his garments among themselves and cast lots for his seamless robe, according to the Gospel of John. According to the Gospel of John after Jesus' death, one soldier pierced his side with a spear to be certain that he had died, then blood and water gushed. The Bible describes seven statements that Jesus made while he was on the cross, as well as several supernatural events that occurred. - Crucifixion of Jesus

The Latin words are the opening words of Matins in the Divine Liturgy. The Church praises her redeemer for Christ saving humanity on the Cross.

  V: Domine labia mea aperies.

  R: Et os meum annunciabit laudem tuam.

And in English:

  V: Thou O Lord wilt open my lips.

  R: And my mouth shall declare thy praise.


Church Giving to the Poor The Bible and Jesus clearly speak of giving money to the church and in turn fellow Christians should give up all they have and look out for one another.

So my question is why does this not happen now a day. I know many in my Church who tithes a lot (I do it myself) but it saddens me that my same Church would probably not give me a grant of money If I suddenly lost my Job or something.

Why has this has happened?

From the days of Paul, Jesus and Timothy to now the church now (was outside of the world) and now it appears (the world is in the church).

There is a fallacy in your argument.  You said:

  The Bible and Jesus clearly speak of giving money to the church and in turn fellow Christians should give up all they have and look out for one another.

You are conflating two bits of Scripture.

Jesus told the Rich Young Ruler (here from Mark)

  21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

In Acts 4, the early church was clearly looking out for each other

  32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

The conflation being made here is that Jesus told the church to live as one.  This communal form of living together arose from a belief that Jesus would return immediately.  (Indeed, as a side point, 2 Thessalonians is written to just such a community)

The possessions that are to be "sold and given to the poor" are given to just that - the poor.  Losing your job may or may not qualify you for that. Indeed, as a pastor, I have specifically hired people in the church who had temporarily lost jobs, and yes, I usually pushed the benevolent fund to church members first, but the point is - it is the poor, not the community that the intended beneficiary.


Whether Ignatian spiritual exercises are good for the discernment of vocation according to Thomistic understanding of vocation? All I know about Ignatian spiritual exercises was orally transmitted to me from priests and others, therefore I may misunderstand Ignatian spiritual exercises and in that case please correct me.

According to this video and from what I hear from people around me, is that Ignatian spiritual exercises are good for the discernment of vocation (whether one should be married or live as a monk or become a secular priest) for one's life. In these Ignatian spiritual exercises, one should listen internally for some kind of spiritual movement of the soul that comes from Holy Spirit and based on these feelings discern what path in life to take. These movements from the Holy Spirit are conferring some grace to one's soul, but why believe that one should feel the receiving of grace? One typically does not feel grace, rather, it is perceived through a longer time by considering objectively one's life. From what I understand about these Ignatian spiritual exercises it seems to me that they just add to what solid Thomist Rev. Fr. Richard Butler O.P. calls "An Unnecessary Mystery".

Question: Whether Ignatian spiritual exercises are good for the discernment of vocation according to Thomistic understanding of vocation?

Some related questions that shed more light on the Thomistic understanding of vocation and which will help in understanding my question:

Catholic doctrine on spiritual vocation.
History of the doctrine of a religious vocation in the Catholic Church.

Father Romanus Cessario, O.P.'s essay, Thomas Aquinas and Vocational Discernment may be of use to you.  There he argues that the Ignatian commentarial tradition deviates from a Thomistic understanding of grace and vocation.  For example:

  Aquinas does not encourage a man to practice a “discernment” of Dominican life in order to distinguish it from other possible vocations in the Church. The reason is simple. Growth in charity results only from a divine gift given. We call this gift, the gift of grace. Strictly speaking however, no one can discern a grace, no one may discover by human means whether or not he possesses sanctifying grace. The Church in fact disallows a direct knowledge of the presence of habitual grace in a given individual: “Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith.” (29) Aquinas reasons as follows: God is the principle and source of all graces given. God, however, remains “beyond the reach of our knowledge on account of his sublimity.” (30) So no man can discern with certainty, that is, grasp, perceive, apprehend, or judge, that he possesses the gift of divine grace.

From what I remember, the gist of the article is that simple things guide discernment, such as love of God, a desire to serve him, and a free choice of the will.  For Cessario the tradition that has come out of Ignatius' Exercises is too complex and seeks out a kind of certainty that just isn't attainable or realistic.


What religious beliefs did the Galatians hold when Paul first preached the gospel to them? When Paul originally proclaimed the Gospel to the Galatians, were they at that time pagan, Jewish, or something else. Did they ever hear of Christ Jesus before Paul?
For reference:

You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
Galatians 4:13-14

The Wikipedia article on Galatia states that the Galatians were Celts who invaded the area about 275 BCE, and who were reported to be in the area until about 475 CE, or so. It is likely that the Celts would have been considered "pagans" by the local population as they seem to have taken some time to adopt local ways. However, the Galatians do not seem to have comprised the entire population of the area, but rather only a ruling class. And the reports of Paul's activity refer to "in Galatia", which seems to be the region, and in the absence of other evidence, does not seem to be any to prove that the Galatians were the primary group among which Paul was evangelizing.

Acts 18:23 relates that after spending time in Caesarea and Antioch, Paul traveled through Galatia "strengthening the disciples there" (RSV). The fact that Paul "strengthened", rather than "made" these disciples suggests that some had already been evangelized, but there is not enough information to determine whether the earlier evangelization was by Paul himself, or by someone else. We also don't know whether among those with whom Paul interacted, that there might not have been some who had heard of Jesus Christ, but were not yet believers. However, it is likely that Paul also interacted with non-Christians, and non-Jews in Galatia, so some of the people he evangelized may have not already have heard of Jesus, or if they had heard of him, may not have believed he was the Christ.

Galatians 4:13-14, seems to suggest that when Paul originally traveled through Galatia, he suffered some sort of unspecified infirmity; and seems to be an exhortation to some of the Galatians to maintain steadfast in faith.  We're not given enough information to determine what that infirmity might have been.


What's the first recorded case of the Church's persecuting heretics? What's the first recorded case of the Church's persecuting heretics?

By persecution I mean not only the act of stopping fellowship with a heretic, but also something more than that - things like, for example, taking away all his books that he wrote or, perhaps, stripping him off of some social rights - that is when the Church already had such power.

It's difficult to give a definitive answer because of the ambiguity of words like "heretic" and "persecute". I presume that if Mr X says to Mr Y, "No, I disagree with you", that's not persecution. If he has him tortured and killed over the disagreement, that pretty clearly is persecution. But there's a wide range in the middle. If X tells people that Y is a dangerous kook and they shouldn't associate with him, is that persecution? What if so many people follow X that Y is completely ostracized from society, can't get a job, etc?

All that said, I suspect the first case would be the repudiation of Arianism at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. The Arians were exiled and their books banned, which I think qualifies as persecution. This took place shortly after Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, and so suddenly Christians went from being outlawed and persecuted themselves to having political power and influence.

Constantine was an emperor, i.e. a dictator, so it's not surprising that when he learned that his new-found religion was facing division and disagreement, he decided to step in and "solve" the problem by declaring which side was right and ordering everyone to fall in line or else. AFter all, that's what he would do if his generals disagreed about how to wage a war, or if his bureaucrats disagreed about how to administer some law.


According to the Catholic Church, does abortion need to be confessed, and is it a mortal or venial sin? I am not Catholic yet, but am attending RCIA and my first confession is next week. I had an abortion years ago.

According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church:

Do I have to confess this?
Is this a mortal or venial sin?

I'm going to disagree slightly with Andrew Leach on this one.

As far as excommunication: since you obviously weren't a member of the Church at the time, excommunication is obviously impossible. The information Andrew gives on excommunication for abortion is valuable, though; you should certainly be aware of just how seriously the Church takes this action.

As far as "Do I have to confess this?"—Canon 988, section 1, of the Code of Canon Law states:

  A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.

You have, thus, an obligation to confess the abortion if it is a mortal sin. If it is a venial sin, you are encouraged, but not strictly obliged, to confess it:

  Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1458)

Similarly, the Roman Catechism (or Catechism of the Council of Trent) states:

  All mortal sins must be revealed to the priest. Venial sins, which do not separate us from the grace of God, and into which we frequently fall, although they may be usefully confessed, as the experience of the pious proves, may be omitted without sin, and expiated by a variety of other means.

So the question becomes whether the abortion was, at the time you arranged for it, a mortal sin.

For a sin to be mortal, three things are necessary (see Catechism paragraphs 1857–1860):

Grave matter. The sin must be a serious offense against God's love; often this is interpreted as "a direct violation of one of the Ten Commandments".
Consent of the will. A sin, particularly a mortal sin, cannot be committed by accident, negligence, or coercion. It must be something chosen deliberately.
Full knowledge. The sin must be committed in the knowledge of its sinfulness.

Procurement of an abortion (which is how we refer to the action of a woman who has an abortion), as Andrew Leach points out, is very definitely "grave matter"; it is, in the Church's teaching, arranging for a human being to be killed. So that box is checked.

I don't think there's enough information in the question to assert baldly that full consent of the will took place. It appears probable from the way the question is phrased, though not definite, that there was no physical coercion taking place; nor do we know anything about the mental or physical stress that you were going through. This might—and I stress might—mitigate the seriousness of the sin.

Finally comes the question of full knowledge. Unfortunately, simply stating that you didn't believe at the time that the fetus or embryo was a human being is not necessarily enough to demonstrate that you didn't have full knowledge of what was being done. The Church does teach that certain moral truths are "written on the heart", and that if a human being could conclude, simply using natural reason, that an act was wrong, then you should have known it. But the question of whether one can conclude from natural reason alone that abortion is wrong essentially turns into the question whether one can conclude using natural reason alone that the fetus/embryo/etc. is indeed a human; and this I think is a vexed question. Thus, absent some more pastorally relevant information which doesn't appear in the question, I don't know that there's enough information to conclude with certainty that your act was based on "full knowledge" as the Church defines it.

All the above considered, my conclusion is: The information given in the question is insufficient to enable one to conclude with certainty whether or not this sin was mortal.

What does that imply about the necessity of confessing this sin? If the sin is not mortal, it is not necessary to confess it; but if the sin is mortal and one deliberately does not confess it, one abuses the Sacrament:

  So important is it that confession be entire that if the penitent confesses only some of his sins and wilfully neglects to accuse himself of others which should be confessed, he not only does not profit by his confession, but involves himself in new guilt. Such an enumeration of sins cannot be called sacramental confession; on the contrary, the penitent must repeat his confession, not omitting to accuse himself of having, under the semblance of confession, profaned the sanctity of the Sacrament.

(Roman Catechism)

What to do then?

The point of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is to restore and renew one's relationship with God:

  It is called the sacrament of conversion because it makes sacramentally present Jesus' call to conversion, the first step in returning to the Father from whom one has strayed by sin. ... It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the love of God who reconciles.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1423–24)

As with any relationship, openness is indispensable. Thus, it is probably a good thing to confess anything you might suspect to be a mortal sin, and certainly anything that is weighing on your mind.


What are the Biblical reasons for getting married? The basis for this question comes from a conversation I had with a friend. She said to me 'The only reason that two people should get together and get married is because they can do more for the Kingdom of God together than they can do apart.' On the face of it, this viewpoint makes sense and is not without some positive aspects, and it is certainly one that I have heard in the church for years. But I don't believe that there is a specific biblical passage that would support this viewpoint.

This led me to ask myself, and to ask here, what reasons does the Bible give for getting married? Is the notion that married people can do more for the Kingdom a Biblical one, or is there another reason given for getting married?

I'd say there are several biblical reasons, and one could come up with other good reasons that are non-biblical (but not anti-biblical).

First, there's the matter of close companionship and mutual support (Gen 2:18: where God himself says, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."). Marriage, like work, was given pre-fall, so it is not an institution given because of sin. In other words, it is good, God-ordained institution for how we should live together. Post-fall, God sanctifies through this relationship like no other.

Second, God has gifted most to desire sexual intimacy and children, for he desires godly offspring (Mal 2:15). God wants to expand his kingdom this way, pre-fall and post-fall. If one is so gifted, one should probably marry, "for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Cor 7:8f).

Third, God presents a picture of his relationship to the church in marriage (Eph 5:22-33; Is 54:5; Jer 31:32; Hos 2:16).

That said, there are also good reasons not to marry. The locus classicus for this is 1 Cor 7 (cited above in favor of marrying). Under persecution (how most take Paul's phrase "present distress"), marriage can make it harder to stand up and be faithful (e.g., if you're about to be executed unless you recant, you have to consider what will happen to your family). Additionally, Paul notes here that there are earthly concerns related to family that necessarily impede on one's ability to do other things for the kingdom. Family is a godly, kingdom-building activity too (see above), but there are other forms of service that are easier for unmarried persons to undertake. (I knew a fellow who had a strong ministry among the poor who said if he had known the sacrifice required and the many more opportunities he would have to use his time and emotional energy, he would probably not have gotten married. He would have poured himself fully into the community around him.)

Whether one should personally seek marriage is thus based on gifting, opportunities for service to the kingdom, and of course, God's provision of a godly spouse.


Bible phrase from the Gospel of Matthew In Matthew 16:28

  28 Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Was Our Lord Jesus speaking literally or figuratively?

He was speaking literally in a way: "six days later", at the transfiguration, they did see some of the glory that Jesus would have at that time, and seeing Peter's reaction it was quite impressive.  Read on in chapter 17:1-9, that's where your answer is.

In verses 10-13, Jesus explains a bit more about the time they lived in at that point.


What is the "path" of a prayer? When we pray, does Jesus hear us? Is there a direct point of contact or is it received by all three persons of the trinity simultaneously?

There is no way to know for certain, and given that God knows your prayers before you pray them, if you will, before the foundation of the world, the direct path of your prayer is somewhat immaterial.

Those who dwell in him, indeed, must also have this knowledge as well; but in a more limited fashion since they are not God.

For the second part, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit fully indwell one another, thus aside from the aspect of incarnation, it is impossible to make such a distinction.


Why do Seventh-day Adventsists believe in a great end of days conflict about the Sabbath day? In an official statement on the Roman Catholic Church, Seventh-day Adventists claim that the Roman Catholic church will be wrapped up in a great conflict about the Sabbath day:

  Adventists believe, on the basis of biblical predictions, that just
  prior to the second coming of Christ this earth will experience a
  period of unprecedented turmoil, with the seventh-day Sabbath as a
  focal point. In that context, we expect that world
  religions--including the major Christian bodies as key players--will
  align themselves with the forces in opposition to God and to the
  Sabbath. Once again the union of church and state will result in
  widespread religious oppression.

What are the "biblical predictions" that this view is based on?

This idea primarily comes from the teachings of Ellen G. White, whom the Seventh-day Adventists consider a modern-day prophet.
Early Writings, p 65:

The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first
day. He has thought to change the very commandment that was given to
cause man to remember his Creator. He has thought to change the
greatest commandment in the decalogue and thus make himself equal with
God, or even exalt himself above God. The Lord is unchangeable,
therefore His law is immutable; but the pope has exalted himself above
God, in seeking to change His immutable precepts of holiness, justice,
and goodness. He has trampled underfoot God's sanctified day, and, on
his own authority, put in its place one of the six laboring days. The
whole nation has followed after the beast, and every week they rob God
of His holy time. The pope has made a breach in the holy law of God,
but I saw that the time had fully come for this breach to be made up
by the people of God and the waste places built up.

This is based on her interpretation of Daniel 7:25 (ESV):

He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the
saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law;
and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half
a time.

In the same vein as many Premillenial Dispensationalists, White identifies the 4th beast in the above passage as the Antichrist who will appear before a great tribulation prior to the return of Christ and a subsequent 1000-year reign.
But although Adventists are not the first regarding the interpretation of the Papacy being identified as the Antichrist (prominent protestants, such as Luther, Calvin, Knox, and others have held that position), they do understand this in the context of what they call the Great Controversy (more on this below).
The important phrase relevant to the question is "shall think to change times and the law;" which is understood to specifically by the Seventh-day Adventists to mean changing Saturday worship (one of the Ten Commandments) to Sunday worship.
There are plenty of SDA books regarding the Sunday/Sabbath conflict, the most important being White's "The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan", published in 1911. There she also talked about the role of the United States of America in the final conflict (identifying it as the Second Beast of Revelation 13) . This view is also present in other popular, more modern books, like Jan Marcussen's, National Sunday Law.
Some background facts which make this an especially important point to the Seventh-day Adventists:
1. Spirit of Prophecy
Ellen G. White is regarded as the modern day SDA prophet having the "spirit of prophecy" referred to in Rev 19:10. See also Rev 12:17.
This leads the SDA church to regard themselves as a special "last days" remnant (because only they properly keep the commandments) and having their own special revelation (Ellen White's writings).
2. The Great Controversy
The Great Controversy is a very important theme in the SDA church. National Sunday Law (the pope changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday) is an acute representation of this larger conflict.  According to the SDA church, Sunday keeping will be forced by civil laws all over the world, separation of State and Church will be lost (even in the USA), and the Papacy will lead the final movement against God's Law.
3. Sabbath Day
Although the Ten Commandments are all of equal importance for the SDA Church, keeping the Sabbath holy is considered of special importance during the final conflict, due to the following reasons:

It's the only Commandment of the Ten that is not universally shared by other Christians, not even Protestants. That will make the Sabbath very difficult keep in the final context described in the Great Controversy.

According the SDA beliefs, God's law must be kept as a whole (whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it - James 2:10). So Sabbath can not be negotiated, not even for the sake of union with other Christian denominations.

For the SDA church, the mark of the Beast during the final days (Rev. 13:16-17) is Sunday's observance, as a system instituted by men (the Papacy), in contrast to God's real Commandments (Sabbath observance).
Conclusion
Put these three facts together, and you get a great end-times controversy over the Sabbath commandment which the faithful remnant follow because they alone have the "Spirit of Prophecy."


How does intercession of saints and Exodus 20:3 not clash? Possible Duplicate:
  Praying to people outside the Trinity

There are several denominations and traditions that believe in the doctrine of intercession of the saints.

  Exodus 20:3 (NIV)
  You shall have no other gods before me.

What is the doctrine regarding praying to Saints and how does this relate to praying to God?
If there is only one God and prayer is petitioning him, how does praying to people other than God not run afoul of the commandment to have no other Gods?

I'm a Methodist now, so praying to Saints in a group setting is not done. I grew up Catholic, so I don't find asking saints to intercede on my or someone else's behalf unusual, for the reasons given on catholic.org. Here is one relevant bit:

Do Catholics pray to saints?
We pray with saints, not to them. Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you when you were having a hard time? Why did you choose to ask that person?
You may have chosen someone you could trust, or someone who understood your problem, or someone who was close to God. Those are all reasons we ask saints to pray for us in times of trouble.
Since saints led holy lives and are close to God in heaven, we feel that their prayers are particularly effective. Often we ask particular saints to pray for us if we feel they have a particular interest in our problem. For example, many people ask Saint Monica to pray for them if they have trouble with unanswered prayers, because Monica prayed for twenty years for her son to be converted. Finally her prayers were answered in a way she never dreamed of -- her son, Augustine, became a canonized saint and a Doctor of the Church.

As for Biblical references for this belief, take your pick from this article: Saints and Intercessory Prayer
Edited again:  Here's Exodus 20:1-3 (NRSV) to provide some context to verse 3.

Then God spoke all these words:
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.

God is telling Moses that the people should worship God and not anything else, like a golden calf.  As the catholic.org reference says, people pray with saints, not to saints.  So those people aren't setting another god before God.


How many practicing Canon Lawyers are there in the USA, and the world? To me, it seems Canon Lawyers are hard to come by. In fact, I've never met one and 19 out of 20 times I see the phrase "canon lawyer" it is usually in the form "I am not one".

It seems becoming a Canon Lawyer is probably one of the largest educational undertakings in existence. That would explain their scarcity. However, with such a vital role in the Church's governance, how available are they really to the dioceses that need them? What about the laity? It seems like you can hire them, which I did not expect when I first looked into this, and their prices are about what you'd expect for a lawyer. But are there currently enough Canon Lawyers to effectively serve the Church in the USA? What about the rest of the world?

The question title asks for a number, but you're not going to get the green check mark that easily. I'm looking for some analysis on their distribution and if that is enough to be effective. Your own opinion on if that is enough is not really what I'm looking for.

I just want to highlight a great resource on what exactly a Canon Lawyer is and what they do and don't do: canonlaw.info.

Disclaimer

My answer is hardly based upon poor database, wild speculations and extrapolations. If you have access to any of the data I claim to have no access or any other useful data or suggestions for extrapolations, please write a comment.

What is a canon lawyer?

I am not sure what kind of persons you mean when you say "canon lawyer". According to Wikipedia the word "lawyer" is inconsistently used in the English speaking world. As I am from Germany I have no idea in which way the term "canon lawyer" is used. One of your sources and EWTN use the term for someone who has an license in canon law (academic degree). In this answer I will do the same and use the terms "canon lawyer" and "canonist" in a synonymous way.

How many of them are there?

Ask the universities

To find out how many canon lawyers exist means to find out how many people got a license in coanon law. The universities know how many graduate with this degree. I searched on the websites of the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C, the Papal University Gregoriana in Rome, the Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität in Munich and the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität in Münster. The only information I found was a list of all license theses since 1990 in Münster and statistics of all degrees in 1998-2003 in Munich. Acoording to these sources they gave about 7 licenses per year in Münster and no licenses at all in these years in Munich. I believe Munich was in an extraordninary situation in these years and an average of ca. 7 students per year seems to me a minimum for regular teaching for a faculty.

Who else could know figures?

The Congregation for Catholic Education (for Educational Institutions) ist the Vatican supervisory authority for the universities and could know the the figures for every university and the whole world. Unfortunately, I found no such figures on their website. I suspect such numbers can be found in the Annuarium Statistica Ecclesiae (statistical yearbook), but I do not have access to it.

Extrapolation

We know there are 43 faculties and institutes, 48 if we count outpots, which award the licenciate. If we assume there would be at least 7 graduations per year and the canonists work at least 30 years in this field, we have at least 48*7*30 = 10,080 active canon lawyers worldwide. For at most 50 students per year (only my gut feeling) we would have 48*50*30 = 72,000.

As it is asked explicitly for the US: The only faculty of canon law is at the Catholic University of America. So there may be between 1*7*30=210 and 1*50*30=1,500 active canon lawyers in the US.

Distribution

As we have no total figures we have no data about distribution. But I assume that density of canonists correlates with densitiy of faculties and institutes of canon law. We see in the maps of faculties and institutes, that they are not uniformly distributed in the (catholic) world. In countries without such an institution there wont be many canon lawyers, only the ones who study abroad at next faculty or in Rome (there are 8 faculties of canaon law in Rome). In Europe there are many faculties and institutes, in every bigger catholic country at least one. In the rest of the world there are only a few institutions. In North America may be the best situation out of Europe, because there is a faculty in each of the three countries.

Are they enogh?

For the whole world the Congregation for Catholic Education (for Educational Institutions) says: No. In April 2018 the congregation released a new instruction "The Study of Canon Law in light of the Reform of the Matrimonial Process". Apart of new norms for the universities the instruction complains about the situation of the jurisprudence and teaching. Because of the need it even calls for new courses below the level of licenciate for a part of the staff of the courts.

  There is a general decline in the number of students, such that in some situations a balanced academic life cannot be ensured.

  Having Tribunals staffed by those who are competent and well-prepared is not a luxury. The good of souls demands a solid formation, which is the main task of academic institutions.

  To meet the urgent need for a greater number of clerics, lay men and women, and religious who are well formed in canon law, even though they do not (yet) possess the degree of Licentiate or Doctorate, so as to make up for the lack of competent personnel in many dioceses around the world, some possible formation courses are proposed.

So we see, there is need of good educated canonists. We may assume that the biggest need is where only few faculties are. I have no idea about the situation in the US.

More speculative figures, please!

How many canon lawyers do the world and the US need? Let's make a extrapolation again. I assume based on my experiences that there are enough but not way too many canonists in Germany. So we have 2 canon law institutes in Germany for 23,300,000 Catholics according to the German bishops' conference in 2018. Worlwide there are 1,285,000,000 Catholics according to the Vatican for 2015. So we would need 1,285,000,000/23,300,000 * 2 = 110.3 institutions. We only have 48. So we would need to double the number of canonists. As this number is very speculative, I believe the more important problem is the distribution of the canon lawyers over the world.

Same calculation for the US with (officially) 68,500,000 Catholics in 2017 according to the Center for applied research in the apostolate: 68,500,000/23,300,000 * 2 = 5.9 faculties. There is only one. I do not know whether their is really a lack of canonists in the US or the whether the Catholic University of America just has more students of canon law than the institutions in Germany.

Conclusion

Based on public avavible internet sources it is very hard to find any exact number of canon lawyers or needs for them. The first may be easier with the printed yearbooks of the universities and the Vatican. The latter has to remain speculation (but maybe based on better database). The only thing we know for sure is: The Vatican thinks the church needs more well educated canonists.


What is the source of this quote from Augustine about thanking heretics? I am trying to find the source or reference for the following quote by St. Augustine of Hippo (P. S.: I translated this from Arabic, so the verbatim of the English version must be different):

We thank the heretics and "innovators" for what they brought of heresies and doubts against the scripture (bible), that made us understand deeply the scripture, and gain strength in knowledge, and discover treasures that we would not have discovered.

I found out that it is not an exact quote, but like a summary of an article published in:
"St. Augustine: Sermons for Christmas and Epiphany"
Publisher: Longmans, Green And Co., 1952, P. 35
Article: The good that comes of heretics. The good that came through the traitor Judas.


Does a Roman Catholic priest have to intellectually understand a confession in order to grant absolution? The concept of confessing a sin, seams to imply that the person has to subjectively believe they have sinned—otherwise how could they confess? According to Roman Catholic doctrine, does the priest have to understand the nature of the sin, or merely understand that the penitent believes they have sinned? Can a priest hear a confession in a foreign language? I ask this because this seems like the limit case for understanding what the person is saying in the confession booth. What if the sin seems like gibberish to the priest?

There are several aspects to be considered here. The first situation is the general obligation of confessing grave sins. This is addressed in Canon Law, No. 960:

"Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary means by which a member of the faithful conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and the Church. Only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type; in such a case reconciliation can be obtained by other means."

The lack of a common language between penitent and confessor would enter into the category of a "physical or moral impossibility" which would excuse either the obligation of confession or its integrity, and allow for reconciliation to be obtained by other means.

In the present case we would be dealing with the confessor making a prudential judgment that the penitent is excused in virtue of a physical and moral impossibility and presuming the latter's sincerity in manifesting those sins confessed in his native language.

Thus in this particular situation the sacrament would be valid.

However, canon law does foresee the possibility of confessing by using an interpreter, although the penitent may not be obliged to do so. To wit: "Canon 990: No one is prohibited from confessing through an interpreter as long as abuses and scandals are avoided and without prejudice to the prescript of can. 983, §2."

Canon 983, §2, requires absolute secrecy on the part of the interpreter analogous to the priest's sacramental seal: "The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy."

The violation of the secrecy of confession by an interpreter may be punished by the imposition of a canonical penalty not excluding excommunication (see Canon 1388, §2).

An interpreter need have only a sufficient command of the two languages involved and requires no official certificates of competence.

You can read more here.


A older man and woman living under the same roof What is the position of the Catholic Church regarding an unmarried post menopausal woman living under the same roof (maintaining separate bedrooms) as an unmarried permanently impotent man? Are they living in sin if there is absolutely no form of intimacy whatsoever? (The man has mild autism and cannot abide any form of intimacy, either physical, not even an accidental touch of a shoulder in passing, or psychological. The woman is his care taker. There is no one else living in the home.)

Per my understanding, the Catholic Church would reserve judgement or position on this because it is not in the context of Marriage or Sexual relationships.
There are vast situations where people need in-home care by caregivers of the opposite sex.

If there is possibility of scandal or abuse, then there should be steps taken to mitigate these and put some "checks and balances" & transparency.