Was "No prophet ever came out of Galilee" sarcastic? Were the Pharisees being sarcastic in John 7:52, when they claimed that "no prophet ever came out of Galilee"? It is written that Jonah came from Gath-hepher, in Galilee (2 Kings 14:25).

Many commentators have enjoyed pointing out the Pharisees' mistake, which is just one of several errors they make in this chapter.

A "pure" sarcasm would mean that the Pharisees considered Galilee to be the place where prophets came from - a bit like associating Washington, DC with politicians. But the context is their rejection of Jesus (known to them as a Galilean) as a prophet, which makes that reading a bit tricky. It is more likely that they are being rude or sarcastic, but at the same time, incorrect to dismiss Galilee as a prophet-free zone.

Thomas Aquinas in the Catena Aurea collated some earlier discussion on this passage. This includes John Chrysostom (Homily 52 on the Gospel of John) characterizing the tone of the Pharisees as "rude" and "insulting" (rudius, iniuriose), which would cover sarcasm; and on the other hand Alcuin of York's Commentary on the Gospel of John, where the emphasis is on their ignorance. If it is sarcasm, then it is still misaimed sarcasm, because the Pharisees are incorrect.

But their mistake is significant. The story of Jonah prefigures that of Jesus in several important ways, and so it is interesting that the two prophets are, in a sense, rejected together.

N. T. Wright says of this verse:

  The Pharisees further show their ignorance of Scripture in that both the prophets Jonah and Hosea came from Galilee. And when John has them say that no prophet "rises up" or "arises" from Galilee, the word he uses is almost always used elsewhere in the book to refer to the resurrection. Jonah was proverbial for coming, so it seemed, "back from the dead" after three days in the belly of the fish; and Hosea contains the prophecy that God will "raise us up on the third day" (Hosea 6:2).1

The Greek verb in question is ἐγείρεται (ἐγείρω), which originally meant "to wake up" or "to arouse", and was later applied to rising from a sick-bed or death-bed, as well as from sleep. It can also mean rousing someone to activity from a previous state of torpor. The other instances in John's gospel are as follows:

Jesus's resurrection / metaphor of raising the Temple: 2:19, 2:20, 2:22, 21:14
Healing at the pool of Bethesda: 5:8
Raising the dead in general: 5:21; and Lazarus specifically: 12:1, 12:9, 12:17
Standing up  / being called to action: 11:29, 13:4, 14:31

The "resurrection" sense is also strongly present elsewhere in the New Testament. So we could say that John's account has a certain level of irony, even if the Pharisees are not themselves being sarcastic.

Some versions of John 7:52 have the Pharisees talking about the prophet, rather than a prophet. They would then be arguing about whether the Messiah ought to be from Galilee, as opposed to whether prophets in general could come from there. If this is the reading then the Jonah question does not arise - but instead, we have to ask about the Pharisees' knowledge or interpretation of the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 9 (or in the Hebrew, starting at 8:23). Here, "Galilee" is to be made glorious by a son who is to be called "Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace". The application to Jesus hinges on him being "from" Nazareth as well as Bethlehem, and of the line of David - facts which were not generally known (John 7:42). As before, the tone of the argument could very well be sarcastic, with the Pharisees being wrong, but this time for a different reason.

1. N. T. Wright. John: 26 studies for individuals and groups (InterVarsity Press, 2009). Chapter 10, Disputes about Jesus, p. 60.


What does Colossians 2:11 mean in light of Evangelical Protestant Soteriology? And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without
  hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of
  Christ;

  Colossians 2:11 (NASB)

  When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised," but not by a physical
  procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision--the cutting away
  of your sinful nature.

  Colossians 2:11 (NLT)

Colossians 2:11 talks about circumcision which is removing a certain part of a male's fleshy body , specifically, the foreskin and Paul used this spiritually as an analogue to Christ's salvific act. What, then, does this have to do with the forgiveness of sins? The NLT translated the text to mean that the sinful nature was removed.Did Christ thoroughly remove the sinful nature? If so, why do believers still have the ability to sin?

What does Colossians 2:11 mean in light of Evangelical Protestant Soteriology?

Colossians 2:11 (and following) does not teach that the Christian's salvation results automatically in the inability to sin. The old nature, as Paul defines it, was dealt a death blow at the cross of Christ, but we as Christ followers need to put it to death regularly. That is why Jesus told his followers to take up their cross daily and follow him.

In Colossians, as elsewhere in Paul's writings, Paul distinguishes between our standing in Christ, on the one hand, which is once and for all, and our state in Christ, on the other hand, which varies from day to day and sometimes even from minute to minute! Sinless perfection is not possible, and Paul does not suggest it is.

A proper understanding of the phrase "the circumcision of Christ" is crucial in this regard. Verse 12 tells us clearly that Christ's circumcision is a kind of death. At conversion, when Christians embrace Christ's death on their behalf for the forgiveness of sins, metaphorically they too die. Paul calls it being "buried with Him in baptism."

Burial, of course, signifies separation of the spirit from the body through death. That separation for Christ happened literally at the cross. When he had made full atonement for the sins of the world and said "It is finished," he then committed his spirit into the hands of his Father and died (Luke 23:46).

For his followers, however, that separation--though not the separation of spirit from body--happens figuratively. The figure Paul uses here is that of circumcision. It is, as Paul puts it,

  ". . . a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ" (v.11).
  We Christians.

As for our spiritual standing before a holy God, we in Christ have been made complete (v.10). In 2 Corinthians chapter 5, Paul expresses this thought differently by saying that we in Christ "have become the righteousness of God" (v.21). We cannot get any better than that, positionally.

As for our spiritual state before a holy God, our challenge as Christians is to "reckon" ourselves to be dead unto sin.

  . . . reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:11).

This reckoning ourselves (or considering ourselves) dead to sin is perhaps the most challenging aspect of discipleship. Had God, upon our conversion, made sinning impossible, then how could our obedience to Christ ever be a conscious act of love? It would not.

After conversion, as before conversion, God gives us the ability to make decisions and to choose good or evil. The battle of "the body of flesh" versus the regenerated spirit is a life-long struggle, as Paul found out the hard way (see Romans 7:14 ff.). Without this lifelong struggle, we could not possibly grow in Christ Jesus, nor would our sanctified lives bring glory to God if there was not even the potential to sin.

Sinless perfection, therefore, is but a pipe dream and is unachievable this side of heaven. Progressive and lifelong sanctification, that gradual process of growing in Christ and bearing fruit which remains (see John 15) is made possible through a daily, intimate relationship with God whereby we decide to "let go and let God" (as those who are struggling to recover from addiction like to say). This letting-go process is the only way God is then free to do in our lives what he needs to do.

Yes, we are to "work out our own salvation," but always in concert and in cooperation with
God, realizing that

  . . . God is at work in us to will and to do his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13).

In conclusion, the separation of our souls from sin involves a figurative circumcision. Just as a literal circumcision removes a part of a man's anatomy from him while the rest of the body lives, so also does the figurative circumcision made "without hands" underscore the importance of living separated lives, separated from the body of flesh (or simply "the flesh"--in Greek, sarx), but alive unto God through daily crucifixion and resurrection to newness of life.


What is the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and Pentecostals? What are the dogmatic differences between Jehovah's Witness Churches and Pentecostal Churches? Until recently I thought both churches were one and the same in beliefs.

The short version is that they are not related at all. In fact, in many major ways they are quite opposite to each other.

The Jehovah Witnesses are a "reconstructionist" sect that began in the late 1800's. They do claim to be Christian, but the reason I use the label reconstructionist sect is that they believe they are the only true Christian church, and that the rest of Christianity has become corrupt. Their organization is not based on historical Christianity but on new revelation through their prophetic publications, which have in turn guided them in the creation of a special translation of Scripture fixing what they claim to be the issues with other translations.
Pentecostalism, on the other hand, is known as a "renewal" movement. Although they have many doctrines that are distinct from the rest of Christianity, they don't claim that the rest of Christianity is totally devoid of truth. Rather than starting from scratch, they only seek to revise things a bit. Although it is a fairly new movement, dating from just the early 1900's, it has grown and taken many different shapes. Not being centrally organized, it's harder to pin any specific doctrines to Pentecostalism (as it is easy to do with the JWs because their beliefs are so precise and centrally dictated). They use the same Bible translations as other Protestants but certainly have a unique spin on some aspects of it.

There are some similarities in the early roots of Pentecostalism. One of several main roots of the movement can be traced through the Foursquare Church. Although that particular church has since taken a bit more moderate approach, its beginnings are tied up in the affairs of one Aimee Semple McPherson and her teachings, "healing ministry," and other extensive influence. Because it has many roots, and later many branches, the Pentecostal movement is not as organized or definable as a sect, but it does have some characteristic teachings such as an emphasis on continued revelation, spiritual gifts, miraculous healings, and so on.

On the other hand, the JW doctrine tends to be much more concrete. They believe in various specific end times predictions (some of which have morphed as dates come and go), and are very precise about things like terms of service to the church, doing good deeds, and so on.

In summary, while they both began at roughly the same time and some parallels could be drawn in the way they first started, they are completely different entities. Early on they were driven by very different influences, and they have become very different beasts. Their teachings bear little resemblance to each other, and many of their teachings are mutually exclusive.


Why did the medieval church become involved with marriage? It seems, through my research, that the Christian Western marriage was created during the Middle Ages (cf. this question).

So, does that mean that before the Middle Ages, the Western Christian church did not really care about marriage? And if that is true, why and how did the medieval Christian church become involved with marriage?

Before the Middle Ages, the Western Christian church did not really care about marriage?

For most of Church history, matrimony had been celebrated without clergy and was done according to local customs. The first available written detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates only from the 9th century and appears to be identical to the old nuptial service of Ancient Rome. However, early witnesses to the practice of intervention by the clergy in the marriage of early Christians include Tertullian, who speaks of Christians "requesting marriage" from them, and Ignatius of Antioch, who said Christians should form their union with the approval of the bishop - although the absence of clergy placed no bar, and there is no suggestion that Ignatius' recommendation was widely adopted.

Over a period of centuries, the Catholic Church began to take control of the wedding and began to provide the sacrament of marriage. Taking the lead of Augustine (354-430), the Church developed the sacramental understanding of matrimony. James A. Brundage says, in Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe page 236, Gratian [the 12th-century "Father of canon law"] held that it was consummation that turned marriage into a sacrament, thereby making it indissoluble.

In time, the Church regarded a  clandestine marriage as being subject to annulment.  The  Catholic Church forbade clandestine marriage at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which required all marriages to be announced in a church by a priest. Prior to that time, an unwitnessed exchange of marriage vows was deplored but still valid. The decree was enforced only in those regions where it could be proclaimed in the vernacular.

The Council of Trent (1545–1563) introduced more specific requirements, ruling that in the future a marriage would be valid only if witnessed by the pastor of the parish or the local ordinary (i.e., the bishop of the diocese), or by the delegate of one of said witnesses, the marriage being invalid otherwise, even if witnessed by a Catholic priest.


What is mortal sin? Is agression a mortal sin? What is a mortal sin? Is physical or verbal agression to a family member, father, brother, sister, mother, uncle, cousin, aunt or friend a mortal sin. What are the effects and can it be forgiven and in what way?

Thanks.

From Wiki we learn:

  A mortal sin (Latin: peccata mortalia), in Catholic theology, is a
  gravely sinful act, which can lead to damnation if a person does not
  repent of the sin before death. A sin is considered to be "mortal"
  when its quality is such that it leads to a separation of that person
  from God's saving grace.

  ...

  Its subject matter must be grave.
  It must be committed with full knowledge (and awareness) of the sinful action and the gravity of the offense.
  It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

And from BeginningCatholic.com we read:

  … a single act of mortal sin is a bold declaration that you do not
  accept God’s love.

  Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation
  of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and
  his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him…. Mortal sin is a
  radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in
  the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is,
  of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s
  forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal
  death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever,
  with no turning back. (Catechism, 1855 & 1861; The entirety of Catechism section IV is of great value here and should be read carefully.)

From these perspectives, verbal aggression COULD be a mortal sin IF the aggression is remarkably substantial, the perpetrator is fully aware that he/she is comitting a mortal sin, and the action is not spontaneous nor an act of passion, but is deliberate --- even planned.

That describes a remarkably evil person, but in my experience, the vast majority of people who are verbally aggressive are no where near comitting a mortal sin (though a sin, certainly, Matt 18:6 and Matt 18:3-4).  However, perhaps the most important aspect is this line of the Catechism...

  If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness...

A mortal sin is something that must either be declared by the authority of the church, or judged by the Lord after death.  Therefore, the simplest answer to your question is "no."

As for forgiveness, that begins with repentance, which begins with stopping the sinful behavior.

If your circumstance or the circumstances of someone you know led to this question, I strongly recommend contacting your priest/pastor.


Is it appropriate (as a Catholic) to make the sign of the cross when passing an Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East church? It is an old tradition in Catholicism to make the sign of the cross when passing a Catholic church, as a sign of respect to the Eucharist contained in the tabernacle, located within the Church.

I am wondering:

Do Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East also have tabernacles in their churches?
If they do, is it appropriate for a Catholic to make the sign of the cross when passing these churches?

Is it appropriate for a Catholic to make the sign of the cross when passing an Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East church?

Of course it is!

It is also a tradition for some Catholics to make the sign of the cross when passing in front of cemeteries, whether a Catholic one or otherwise. Of course there would be some of the faithful departed in many of these cemeteries I imagine.

Seeing that the Orthodox Church does have valid sacraments which includes the  Eucharist, it would be appropriate for a Catholic to make the sign of the cross when passing in front of a Orthodox church in order to show an external sign of respect of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the consecrated host.

Yes, the Orthodox Churches do have tabernacles in their churches (No. 8) as this image from Wikipedia shows:


Is it allowed to receive the Precious Blood before the Body of Christ in a Catholic Mass? I've never seen such a reversal of orders, but I wonder if it is allowed by the regulation of the rites. For example, the official norms about communion in the US seem not to make mention on the order, as if it were totally obvious. When it comes to the distribution of the Body and Blood of Christ, the regulation states:

Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words "The Body of Christ." The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue. When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost."

Among the ways of ministering the Precious Blood as prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Communion from the chalice is generally the preferred form in the Latin Church, provided that it can be carried out properly according to the norms and without any risk of even apparent irreverence toward the Blood of Christ.

So, here we see the implicit order, but no suggestion this is compulsory. The instruction Redemptoris Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament in 2004, does not seem to suggest any rule regarding the order. Is there some regulation about this, or is this pure tradition?

Communion in more than one kind is a relatively recent introduction. The Roman Missal of 1962 does not generally permit it, nor does the Interim Missal published in 1965. Both of those publications have the priest saying only "Corpus Christi" or "The Body of Christ" respectively¹.

As you say, there is nothing in the recent editions of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal to indicate that the order is important. In cases like this, it's useful to go back to the last concrete instruction, which appears to have been given in 1969 in the  Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani in the first post-Consiliar Missal.

This is what it has to say on the matter, with my translation (which is of course open to correction).

  De Communione sub utraque specie

  Ritus Communionis sub utraque specie quando Communionem
  suscipientes directo e calice bibunt.

  Si adest diaconus vel alius sacerdos assistens:

  c) Singuli communicantes accedunt, debitam reverentiam faciunt, et stant coram celebrante. Celebrans hostiam elevando dicit: Corpus Christi, communicandus autem respondet: Amen, et a celebrante Corpus Christi accipit.

  d) Communicandus deinde transit ad diaconum et stat coram eo. Diaconus dicit: Sanguis Christi, communicandus respondet: Amen et diaconus porrigit ei purificatorium et calicem, quem communicandus ipse, pro opportunitate, manibus suis ori admovet. Communicandus, tenens manu sinistra purificatorium sub ore, attendens ne quid Sanguinis defluat, paulum e calice bibit, et postea recedit; diaconus autem partem externam calicis purificatorio absterget.

  Of Communion in both kinds

  The Rite of Communion in both kinds when the recipients of Communion drink directly from the chalice.

  If there is a deacon or another assistant priest:

  c) The communicants approach in single file, make a reverence and stand before the celebrant. The celebrant raises the host, saying "The Body of Christ"; the communicant responds: Amen and receives the Body of Christ from the celebrant.

  d) The communicant then passes to the deacon, standing before him. The deacon says: "The Blood of Christ"; the communicant responds, Amen, and the deacon extends to him the purificator and the chalice, which the communicant himself raises, if appropriate, to his mouth. The communicant, holding the purificator in his left hand under the mouth, taking care so that nothing of the Blood may drip, drinks a little from the chalice, and afterwards recedes; the deacon wipes the outer part of the chalice with the purificator.

There are specific instructions laying down the order in which the Sacrament is received, and even how it is done.

It's interesting to note in passing that this Missal does not envisage Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion: only priests and deacons distribute the sacrament; and that kneeling to receive is at least discouraged (it's never been forbidden and is now explicitly allowed). It's also not envisaged here that the faithful take the chalice themselves, and that's now explicitly forbidden.

¹ The 1965 form in England & Wales was "The Body of Christ". The form for use in Scotland, which has always been more Presbyterian, was still in Latin.


Was the First Apocalypse of James written after the Second Apocalypse of James? The current version of the Wikipedia article for the First Apocalypse of James has the following sentence at the end of the article:

  One of the most curious features of the First Apocalypse of James is that the range of dating of its original text, assigned to it by scholars, requires that it was written after the Second Apocalypse of James.

Unfortunately, there is no citation for this.

Was the First Apocalypse of James written after the Second Apocalypse of James? If so, on what criteria is this based? And why are the names so confusingly ordered?

The terms "first" and "second" in these two titles are "scholarly conventions to distinguish the two,"1 not meant to indicate the date of origin.  Instead, they reflect their original ordering in Codex V of the Nag Hammadi documents, in which the First Apocalypse precedes the Second Apocalypse.  Still, this ordering was no accident:

The presence and order of the two James apocalypses in Codex V are undoubtedly due to deliberate scribal organization.  The two apocalypses stress different aspects of the James tradition and actually complement one another.  The setting of 1 Apoc. Jas. emphasizes the period prior to the suffering of James, while 2 Apoc. Jas. describes his suffering and death in line with the predictions in 1 Apoc. Jas.2

Next we can turn to the dating of the works.  There is little certainty about the dating, but the Second Apocalypse is generally dated before the First Apocalypse based on comparisons of the texts to those of other early movements.  Thus Robinson writes, regarding the Second:

The absence of allusions to the later developed gnostic systems, and the almost total absence of allusions to the New Testament tradition suggest an early date for the origin of the tractate.2

Primarily on this basis, numerous scholars date the text to the early or middle second century.3 4
On the other hand, the final text of the First Apocalypse reveals some similarities to Valentinian writings:

The Valentinian theologoumena utilised in it (cf. especially the doctrines of an upper and a lower Sophia, or of 'Sophia' proper and Achamoth', which also occur in the text outside the mystery formulae quoted: p. 36.5, 8) seem to presuppose the fully-developed Valentinian system, and therefore suggest the composition of the document at the earliest towards the end of the 2nd century.5

Similarly, "the rejection of a bodily fraternal relationship between Jesus and James (p.24.15f.)"5 points to a later date.
Summary
The names of these two works are based on the order in which the appear in the codex in which they were originally found.  This seems to have been the deliberate ordering of a scribe based on their contents, not the presumed date of origin.
Textual analysis points to an earlier date for the Second Apocalypse due to its lack of allusion to early Gnostic texts, as compared to the use of developed Valentinian thought in the First Apocalypse.  Thus the Second Apocalypse is dated to early or middle second century, while the First Apocalypse is dated to the late second century at the earliest.

References:

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, 427

Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library in English, 270

Myllykoski, "James the Just in History and Tradition," part II, Currents in Biblical Research 6.1 (2007), 54

Funk, in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 328

Funk, in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 315


How are American non-denominational campus outreach lay ministries conducted? How are American non-denominational campus outreach lay ministries conducted? I think the purpose is either to serve the greater community's needs as a form of community service or to convert people to Christianity or to serve the greater community's needs as a form of community service, which can attract people into Christianity (aka convert to Christianity).

What I wish to know is whether or not it is more community service or more proselytism/Christian education. What roles do clergy and laity play in this sort of ministry?  How can a non-denominational lay ministry cater to Catholic students who may believe in the importance of the clergy in educating the populace about Christian history, doctrine, and practice, or are these ministries interested in proselytizing Catholics and Orthodox Christians to Evangelical Protestantism?

When I was in college, I was involved in Baptist Student Union, I attended a few meetings of the Newman Society (a Catholic group), and ... I forget the name of the other group, it was a long time ago, but it was a Pentecostal group. Oh, and I attended one or two meetings of a forth but they weren't very active, so I migrated over to the Baptist group.

I'd say all of them functioned much like a lay-led Bible study slash Christian social club. They each had a lay leader who would present some sort of Bible study or message at each meeting. And they'd have social activities. Mostly they were intended to give Christian students an opportunity to meet with other Christians, learn a little about spiritual things, and have some refuge from secular culture.

None of the groups I was involved with was particularly evangelistic. I'm sure that a non-Christian who came seeking answers to spiritual questions would have been welcomed. I don't recall any activities specifically aimed to convert non-Christians. There are probably campus Christian groups out there that are seriously working to bring in converts, but that wasn't really the primary purpose of the groups I was with.

I recall the Newmans bringing in a priest to conduct a mass on at least one occasion. I don't recall if that was a regular thing or a special case. So I guess they had some respect for the clergy; there was certainly no indication that they saw their own leaders as an alternative to the clergy. Protestants don't have the same view of the clergy that Catholics do, so I don't recall anyone even talking about it in Protestant groups.

AS to converting Catholics to Protestantism ... I'm sure any Protestant group would welcome a Catholic who wanted to convert. And they'd see that as a good and positive thing. I mean, doesn't everybody figure that his group is better than any competing group? If he thought some other group was better, he'd join them. But I never ran into any campus Protestant group that saw it as their mission to convert Catholics.


Can an uncatecized but baptized Catholic receive absolution from a priest? I'm a baptized Catholic but I have not been confirmed.
I've gone to mass on and off for a couple of years but I have not compled RCIA or any instruction. I fall under the category of baptized uncatecized.

I went to confession and the priest said that he cannot grant me absolution because I've not done RCIA. I thought that this was odd because baptized persons are allowed to do the sacraments.

I did the confession anyways and at the end he gave me a penance. 5 hail Mary's was all.

Does this mean that the confession did not count? Why give  a penance if it didn't count? I'm really confused. When I do RCIA will I have to basically repeat the confession?

The answer is simple: no, a priest cannot deny absolution simply because one is an “uncatechized” Catholic. The Code of Canon Law says,

  Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments* to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them (Can.  843 §1).

“Uncatechized” Catholic is simply not a Canonical category, and so, on principle, such Baptized Catholics cannot be denied Confession or absolution.

Of course, to receive absolution, a person needs to be truly repentant and have a firm purpose of amendment (i.e., make the decision not to commit the sins confessed anymore), but that is the requirement for everyone.

As far as the validity of the sacrament, if the priest did not give absolution, then, unfortunately, there was no sacrament.

My suggestion would be to go to a different priest, and explain the situation. It would also be necessary to confess to him at least any mortal sins (those that one can remember since the last valid confession), in number and kind.

(As a side point, I would encourage those Catholics who have not received confirmation to look into receiving it. Confirmation completes the initiation that was begun in Baptism and gives them the strength of the Holy Spirit.)

* In this context, the law is referring to the Sacraments that the baptized faithful need in order to be right with God: confession, anointing of the sick, matrimony, confirmation, and especially the Eucharist. Holy Orders is a bit different, since it is never necessary for one’s personal salvation or friendship with God. The Church is never under an obligation to ordain someone, and, indeed, is gravely obliged to ordained only those persons that, in her judgment, really have a vocation to the priesthood or diaconate.


Purgatory, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Protestantism 2 Corinthians 5:10 reads:

(NA28) τοὺς γὰρ πάντας ἡμᾶς φανερωθῆναι δεῖ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον.
(My translation) For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that each one may receive for things done in the body, whether good or bad.

How do Protestants interpret "we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ that each one may receive for [bad things done in the body]?" (not just rewarded for the good). Catholics call this 'Purgatory' (Cf. 1 Cor 3:15).

Regarding Purgatory and Protestantism, I found an article that starts thus:

  According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Purgatory is “a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” To summarize, in Catholic theology Purgatory is a place that a Christian’s soul goes to after death to be cleansed of the sins that had not been fully satisfied during life.

The article goes on to explain how Protestants view the Catholic teaching on Purgatory.  Here is the link for anyone who wants to know more:  https://www.gotquestions.org/purgatory.html

Regarding 2 Corinthians 5:10, the 2000 edition of my NIV Study Bible makes this comment:

  This accounting has nothing to do with justification, which is credited to the Christian fully and for ever through faith in Christ; instead, it refers to what we have done with our lives as Christians.

This verse is cross referenced to 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.  Verse 13 says that the quality of each man’s work will be revealed with fire.  The NIV Study Bible makes this comment:

  Fire = God’s judgment.  The work of some believers will stand the test while that of others will disappear – emphasising the importance of teaching the pure word of God.

With regard to verse 15, which says that if a believer’s work is burned up, “he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames” the NIV Study Bible comments:

  Perhaps a Greek proverbial phrase, meaning “by a narrow escape”, with one’s work burnt up by the fire of God’s pure justice and judgment.

The Protestant view of the judgment seat of Christ has to do with believers giving an account of their lives to Christ.  No doubt part of this will involve answering for the sins committed while alive.  James 1:12 is a good summary of how we should think about the judgment seat of Christ: “Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.”  That testing happens while the believer lives.

There is no mention of the soul of the believer suffering in some post-death purgatory.  Rather, the refining by fire is an illustration of the process of sanctification while still alive – it is our works that will be tested by fire.

John Wesley taught that the perfection we seek in this life is completed at "the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body" (Brief thoughts on Christian perfection, 1767).  Here is a short extract from a Protestant article on God’s refining fire (1 Corinthians 3:10-15):

  Every believer will give an account of himself, and the Lord will judge the decisions he made—including those concerning issues of conscience. This judgment does not determine salvation, which is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), but rather is the time when believers must give an account of their lives in service to Christ. Our position in Christ is the “foundation” spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. That which we build upon the foundation can be the “gold, silver, and precious stones” of good works in Christ’s name, obedience and fruitfulness—dedicated spiritual service to glorify God and build the church. Or what we build on the foundation may be the “wood, hay and stubble” of worthless, frivolous, shallow activity with no spiritual value. The Judgment Seat of Christ will reveal this.  The gold, silver and precious stones in the lives of believers will survive God’s refining fire (v. 13).  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/judgment.html

No doubt we shall all be the wiser after we pass from this life into the next, and stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an answer for the things we did as believers.  I’m already squirming in my seat, knowing full well that I have often failed to point others to Christ and to be worthy of calling myself a Christian.  But I have no fear of any punishment in the after-life, because I believe the promise that “neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:37-39).

EDIT for clarification and in response to additional points:

Nowhere can I find a scripture that says believers have to undergo further sanctification after death.  Scripture is clear:

  “If we walk in the light... the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from ALL sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from ALL unrighteousness” (1 John 1:7-9).

John is not speaking of purification after death.  John is speaking of the here and the now, while the believer lives.  He goes on to remind us that if we sin, Jesus Christ the Righteous One, speaks to the Father in our defence.  HE is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.  It is Jesus, the Son, who has made substitutionary atonement for the sin of the believer, who has satisfied and appeased the righteous wrath of God against sin and sinners.  It is Jesus, the Son, who took upon himself our sins and it is through our faith in what God, in Jesus, has already accomplished that the believer is forgiven. That forgiveness is not partial – that forgiveness is absolute.  When God looks at the believer he sees only the righteousness of Christ.

  “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (Hebrews 8:12).

Hebrews 9:12 goes on to declare that the shed blood of Christ has obtained ETERNAL redemption. Verse 14 says that our consciences are now cleansed from acts that lead to death (sin) so that we may serve the living God.  It does not say our consciences will be cleansed at some future point beyond death.  Verse 15 brings the joyful news that all who have entered into the new covenant they have been set free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Not a word about not being good enough in this life and having to face cleansing or sanctification or refining by punishment after death.  That’s why it is difficult for Protestants to grasp the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.  And that’s why I am unable to accept that the believer has to somehow pay for their sins after death because they were not “fully sanctified” while alive.

Regarding 2 Corinthians 5:8, we need to read on to the end of that chapter to understand that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (verse 17) and focus on verse 21: “God made him [Christ] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”  Finally, Philippians 3:9 reminds the believer that we do not have any righteousness of our own, “but that which is through faith in Christ – the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.”  It’s a done deal!  We are judged on what we do now, before we go to be with the Lord.  There is no biblical basis for thinking we have to pay for our transgression beyond the grave.  Jesus had done it all.


What is the biblical basis in the Old Testament for the belief that the Messiah must be God? Christians believe that Jesus, the Messiah, is God. My question is: What is the biblical basis in the messianic prophecies and other passages in the Old Testament for the belief that the Messiah must be God?

I have read this: "Why does the Messiah have to be God?"
But I'm looking for the biblical basis in the OT of the belief that Jesus must be God.

In the Old Testament there are two general strains of prophecy commonly read by Christians as being about the Messiah who was to come:

Prophecies of a king in the line of David
Prophecies of God himself coming to his people

Judaism generally accepts the first class of prophecy as being about the prophesied Messiah, but not the second. And a strict reading of the Old Testament for passages mentioning an "anointed one" (Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ mashiyach) and a king in the line of David generally does support this interpretation—though there are some passages that can be read as fitting into both classes of prophecy at once.

Christians commonly accept the second class of prophecies as also being about the Messiah to come, even when they are not specifically linked to a coming anointed king in the line of David.

Here are some examples prophecies that fall into this second class, or span both classes:

In the Psalms:

Lift up your heads, you gates;
    be lifted up, you ancient doors,
    that the King of glory may come in.
Who is this King of glory?
    The Lord strong and mighty,
    the Lord mighty in battle.
Lift up your heads, you gates;
    lift them up, you ancient doors,
    that the King of glory may come in.
Who is he, this King of glory?
    The Lord Almighty—
    he is the King of glory.
                        (Psalm 24:7–10)

In Isaiah:

The people who walked in darkness
    have seen a great light;
those who lived in a land of deep darkness—
    on them light has shined.
You have multiplied the nation,
    you have increased its joy;
they rejoice before you
    as with joy at the harvest,
    as people exult when dividing plunder.
For the yoke of their burden,
    and the bar across their shoulders,
    the rod of their oppressor,
    you have broken as on the day of Midian.
For all the boots of the tramping warriors
    and all the garments rolled in blood
    shall be burned as fuel for the fire.
For a child has been born for us,
    a son given to us;
authority rests upon his shoulders;
    and he is named
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
His authority shall grow continually,
    and there shall be endless peace
for the throne of David and his kingdom.
    He will establish and uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
    from this time onward and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.
                              (Isaiah 9:2–7)

And another in Isaiah:

The Lord saw it, and it displeased him
    that there was no justice.
He saw that there was no one,
    and was appalled that there was no one to intervene;
so his own arm brought him victory,
    and his righteousness upheld him.
He put on righteousness like a breastplate,
    and a helmet of salvation on his head;
he put on garments of vengeance for clothing,
    and wrapped himself in fury as in a mantle.
According to their deeds, so will he repay;
    wrath to his adversaries, requital to his enemies;
    to the coastlands he will render requital.
So those in the west shall fear the name of the Lord,
    and those in the east, his glory;
for he will come like a pent-up stream
    that the wind of the Lord drives on.
And he will come to Zion as Redeemer,
    to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the Lord.
                                                (Isaiah 59:15–20)

And yet another in Isaiah:

"Who is this that comes from Edom,
    from Bozrah in garments stained crimson?
Who is this so splendidly robed,
    marching in his great might?"
"It is I, announcing vindication,
    mighty to save."
"Why are your robes red,
    and your garments like theirs who tread the wine press?"
"I have trodden the wine press alone,
    and from the peoples no one was with me;
I trod them in my anger
    and trampled them in my wrath;
their juice spattered on my garments,
    and stained all my robes.
For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
    and the year for my redeeming work had come.
I looked, but there was no helper;
    I stared, but there was no one to sustain me;
so my own arm brought me victory,
    and my wrath sustained me.
I trampled down peoples in my anger,
    I crushed them in my wrath,
    and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth."

I will recount the gracious deeds of the Lord,
    the praiseworthy acts of the Lord,
because of all that the Lord has done for us,
    and the great favor to the house of Israel
that he has shown them according to his mercy,
    according to the abundance of his steadfast love.
For he said, "Surely they are my people,
    children who will not deal falsely";
and he became their savior
    in all their distress.
It was no messenger or angel
    but his presence that saved them;
in his love and in his pity he redeemed them;
    he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.
                                            (Isaiah 63:1–9)

In Jeremiah:

"The days are coming," declares the Lord,
    "when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
    and do what is just and right in the land.
In his days Judah will be saved
    and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
    The Lord Our Righteous Savior."
                                      (Jeremiah 23:5–6)

In Malachi:

  See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. (Malachi 3:1)

These are just a few of many passages in the Old Testament that are read by Christians as applying to the prophesied Messiah, and as saying that the Messiah will not be a mere human being, but will be God himself.


Was there a different method of counting of age at the time of events of Old Testament? (Catholic perspective) Genesis 5:6-32(RSVCE) gives an account of the generations of Adam. Prima facie,  eldest sons were born to  the forefathers when some of them had  completed or were about to complete a hundred years of age! For instance, Genesis  says:  When Seth had lived a hundred and five years, he became the father of Enosh.
 When Enosh had lived ninety years, he became the father of Kenan.
 When Lamech had lived a hundred and eighty-two years, he became the father of a son,  and called his name Noah. After Noah was five hundred years old, Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

All that puts one is serious doubt whether there was a different method of counting of age, during the ancient times. My question is: has the Catholic Church made any studies into the system of counting of age that was prevalent at the time of events of the OT?

As far as "from a Catholic perspective", I had a similar question when going through school.  It was answered by my professor, a priest of the Basilian Order, in a two-fold manner.  He stated that, when it comes to the Old Testament, the Church is happy to allow its followers to believe it is "historically accurate" or "stories told to tell a moral Truth and lay the groundwork for the coming of Jesus Christ."  In this way, one must decide to take the numbers given as literal, or given as a moral example to their holiness.  The other point made was that in the Hebrew language, characters are both letters and numbers.  In this manner, certain numbers may be equal to certain words and the other way around.  This is something which the Western mind can have trouble grasping. An example being the Hebrew word for "having completed" or "completeness" equaling the number 40. So, when the People of Israel wandered the desert for 40 years, did they truly wander that long, or until they had completed their imposed tasks by God for their actions at Mount Sinai? I find it to be an interesting notion to contemplate! And as far as from a Catholic perspective, both are correct. This could apply to ages as well. So, did they live that long, literally? Does the longer they lived represent their being Holy and in fellowship with God? Or could these ages be numbers akin to a word, descriptive of the person to whom the age is attached, that would have been easily recognized by those using the ancient Hebrew language? Each of these could be "True" in the sense that, no matter which you use, they are morally true in the context of the Books and stories they are found and in laying groundwork for the coming of Jesus Christ. Since then, I have kept this in mind whenever examining such things as age in the Old Testament and I have made sure to put this before the minds and hearts of those I have taught or conversed with concerning this topic.


What is the Biblical Basis of a "water canopy", and is there scientific evidence to support it? Some Creationists have asserted that in the pre-flood world that there may have been some sort of water vapor canopy that perhaps doubled the air pressure and caused things to be much healthier than they are today (post-flood).

What is the biblical basis for this and what is the scientific evidence the proponents use to support this theory?

In Genesis 7:11, we read:

  11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

The implication here is that water came from two directions - springs from the deep (i.e. underground water) and from above (the floodgates of heaven).  Extending the metaphor ever so slightly, a floodgate is holding something back - according to the Institute for Creation Research, that is the canopy.

The Institute for Creation Research has published this paper to explain the physics behind it:

This study, however explains some of the problems. Amongst these problems:

A water canopy of more than about 40 feet would, by the pressure, boil itself away
A water canopy of more than a few inches would also block all the sunlight.

In the link, however, the paper argues that these problems are not insurmountable depending on the assumptions made about the canopy, but I'll admit, it gets a little stretched for my tastes.


Did any other early church fathers besides Origen teach the pre-existence of souls? Origen taught about the pre-existence of our souls, which, among many other of his teachings, was later condemned as heresy. Did any other early church fathers teach this doctrine?

It's at least true that others in the early church taught doctrines that resembled Origen's.  However, not all who did would normally be considered "church fathers," and even among those who unambiguously are, there's debate over how similar their teachings actually were to Origen's.
Of course, proponents of the doctrine will naturally find more similarities than others, as will be seen shortly.  However, even a "mainstream" treatment (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church) mentions others as holding views similar to Origen:

Even Gregory of Nyssa, although, like Nemesius and Cyril of Alexandria, he supposed the soul to be created before the body, compares Origen's theory to the heathen myths and fables. (Vol. III., page 831)

Schaff also mentions on the same page that Augustine spoke at least relatively favorably of the doctrine in De libero arbitrio, though he later emphatically rejected it.
Louis Berkhof, no friend of the doctrine, says that it was limited to the Alexandrian school and that Origen was its chief representative—but not its only adherent (Systematic Theology, 2.1.2.B).
Turning now to proponents of the doctrine, whose objectivity some might call into question, we find many claims of support from the church fathers.  First, Henry More (1614–1687) wrote a number of works on the subject, and tracks the history of the doctrine in the preface to his Collection of Several Philosophical Writings.  Starting on page xx, he cites Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, Books I and III, and a letter to Julius Cassianus), Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Synesius, Arnobius, Prudentius, and Augustine (though he cites only De libero arbitrio, and not Augustine's later works).  Unfortunately, most of More's specific examples are in Latin or Greek, making it difficult for non-scholars to judge the original intent of the quoted authors.  Those who want to examine the quality of his interpretations can review them in the linked work.
A second proponent, I. M. Oderberg, presents several examples in his essay, Reincarnation as Taught by Early Christians (also on WebCite), but does not always clearly source them:

After the original generations of Christians, we find the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr (AD 100–l65), St. Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–220), and Origen (AD 185–254) teaching the pre-existence of souls, taking up reincarnation or one or another aspect of reimbodiment. Examples are scattered through Origen's works, especially Contra Celsum (1, xxxii), where he asks: "Is it not rational that souls should be introduced into bodies, in accordance with their merits and previous deeds . . . ?" And in De Principiis he says that "the soul has neither beginning nor end." St. Jerome (AD 340–420), translator of the Latin version of the Bible known as the Vulgate, in his Letter to Demetrias (a Roman matron), states that some Christian sects in his day taught a form of reincarnation as an esoteric doctrine, imparting it to a few "as a traditional truth which was not to be divulged."
Synesius (AD 370–480), Bishop of Ptolemais, also taught the concept, and in a prayer that has survived, he says: "Father, grant that my soul may merge into the light, and be no more thrust back into the illusion of earth." Others of his Hymns, such as number III, contain lines clearly stating his views, and also pleas that he may be so purified that rebirth on earth will no longer be necessary. In a thesis on dreams, Synesius writes: "It is possible by labor and time, and a transition into other lives, for the imaginative soul to emerge from this dark abode." This passage reminds us of verses in the Revelation of John (3:12), with its symbolic, initiatory language leading into: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out."


What biblical (scriptural) basis does a Christian have to command the blessings? I hear some Christians say that we should command the blessings or command our morning to align itself with our day and faith. I believe this is true, but I want a biblical framework to reference when this topic comes about. I believe the kingdom is based on Kingdom principles, and when we act in faith upon these biblical principles, it becomes the key that unlocks Heaven's riches to us.  However, it's something I just believe, but where is that found? How do I explain this theory to a newbie, or a young believer in Christ from a scriptural basis?

There is none to support commanding our God to do anything. Would you walk into court and command a judge to reduce your sentence? Absolutely not, you would ask respectfully and explain your circumstance.

The same would go for your fleshly father. If you needed something all you have to do is ask respectfully. What father wouldn't give his children something they needed? How much more so our heavenly father. This is demonstrated by Jesus at Luke 11:11-13:

  "Indeed, which father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will hand him a serpent instead of a fish?12  Or if he also asks for an egg, will hand him a scorpion? 13  Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!”

Then at Matthew 6:32

  "For all these are the things the nations are eagerly pursuing. Your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things."

So we see that God knows what we need and is eager to give it to us when we ask. If we want to show our love for god we show "fear" or respect for him. This means asking and not demanding. When we command something to happen, it is as if by our own hands or power we can make it happen. When we do that we take away from the glory of our father. Look at the example made of Moses when he didn't glorify god at numbers 20:10. We don't want to take the credit for something god does. We show humility and meekness by just asking and those are qualities God finds very favorable.


Did Luther ever acknowledge that his Catechism would require textual changes as language evolves? In the preface of Luther's Small Catechism, Martin Luther warns twice that people should be taught a fixed version of important church doctrine and that not a syllable should be changed (emphasis mine):

The honored fathers understood this well, and therefore they all consistently used one form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments. We should do as they did by teaching these materials to the young and the common man without altering a single syllable and by never varying their wording when presenting or quoting them year after year. […]
Second, after they have well memorized the text (of the catechism), then explain the meaning so that they understand what they are saying. Do so again with the help of these charts or some other brief uniform method of your choosing; adhere to it and do not change a single syllable, as said above concerning the text, taking your time with it. For it is not necessary to teach everything at once, but one thing after the other. After they understand well the meaning of the First Commandment, proceed to the Second, and so on, otherwise they will be too overwhelmed to the point of remembering nothing.

Luther must have been well aware that language changes over time; he insisted on having the Bible available in the common German people spoke instead of using the Latin Bibles that would have been more accessible to the people of a thousand years ago.
Did Luther ever acknowledge that his Catechism, or any of the other things like the Lord's Prayer, would need to have textual changes as well? At some point, the

Whether Luther expected language to evolve in the future is not clear. The introduction of printing, and the political situation, had led to increased standardisation of different German dialects, although it was Luther's Bible that really came to define the German language. The trend in his time, to which he contributed more than anyone else, was towards a common German language.

In any case it was of fundamental importance to Luther that the Bible be in a language understood by the mothers in the home  the children in the street, and the man in the market place. Henry Zecher wrote:

  Luther, a relentless perfectionist who might spend a month searching out a single word, talked at length with old Germans in the different regions. To better understand the sacrificial rituals in the Mosaic law, he had the town butcher cut up sheep so he could study their entrails. When he ran into the precious stones in the "new Jerusalem" that were unfamiliar to him, he had similar gems from the elector's collection brought for him to study.

Luther said sometimes translating the prophets into German was like asking a nightingale give up its glorious melody and instead to sing like a cuckoo. He felt the poetry of Job suffered more from his translation than Job had from his comforters.  He didn't claim to have a perfect translation, and made amendments as late as 1545, the year before his death.

This being so, it seems almost inconceivable that Luther would have forbidden any alteration to the text of his catechism if changes in the German language rendered them necessary.

So, what could Luther mean by saying in the preface to the Small Catechism:

  "do not change a single syllable"

as quoted by the OP?.

The following paragraph is from the same preface, and sheds light on Luther's meaning:

  So adopt whatever form you wish, and then stick with it at all times. If, however, you happen to be preaching to some sophisticated, learned audience, then you certainly may demonstrate your skill with words by turning phrases as colourfully and masterfully as you can. But with young persons keep to a single, fixed, and permanent form and wording, and teach them first of all the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, etc., according to the text, word for word, so that they can repeat it after you and commit it to memory.

Luther was not saying that a particular form, his or otherwise, must be used. He urged pastors to adopt whatever form they wished and then stick to the same form when educating the young. By using the same form year after year they would be able to memorise and learn.

He was not advocating that every future generation of German children be taught using the exact same words, for ever unchangeable. He was merely suggesting  that having started to teach a group of children using a particular form of
words it makes sense to keep on using that same form of words, until they have learned them. Introducing a new version before they have learned the old version will merely make it harder to learn.

There is nothing to say that their younger brothers and sisters, even, must learn the same exact words.


Do any traditions hold that the Jews will return to Israel prior to Christ's Second Coming? I have heard that the Second Coming of Jesus must be preceded by Jews returning to their homeland of Israel.

Does such a view exist?
Is it a generally shared Christian belief, or is it specific to
certain Christian ideologies?

Yes! There is a tradition that came from Israel, which is now nearly 2,000 years old.

It depends on how you look at it. You could call it a Jewish tradition. You could call it a Christian tradition. You could call it an Israel tradition. The reality is, it's all 3. (There are people who are simultaneously Jewish + Christian + Lutheran. It's possible to be all 3 at once.) So the tradition is simultaneously all 3 of these: Jewish + Israel + Christian, as Jesus Christ was a Jew who was born in Israel & is the Christ (The Anointed, Promised One), of which the term Christians are derived from, as followers of Jesus Christ.

The most Famous Jewish Rabbi, Prophet, Priest & King - Jesus Christ - mentioned this. It's recorded in Matthew 23:37-39 (NKJV):

  37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”

So far, the Jews haven't said that as they don't all currently believe that He is the Messiah. Some do like the Chai v'Shalom congregation, but not all.

Then Jesus prophesies of the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. when He says the following as recorded in Mark 13:2 (NKJV):

  2 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

Here is an article on the history of Israel from 70 A.D to 1948 A.D. and how it was not populated by the Jewish people for that period of time.

Now to follow up what will happen in the future, we can look at some more Jewish traditional history. Thus we can explore how & why Jerusalem gets restored.

An older tradition talks about the coming of the day of The Lord. It's recorded in Zechariah 14 & it's still in the future. Here are some excerpts:

Zechariah 14:1 & part of v.2 (NKJV):

  1 Behold, the day of the Lord is coming,
  And your spoil will be divided in your midst.
  2 For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem;...

Did you note that part about all the nations. When the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. it was destroyed by 1 nation: The Roman Empire. So verse 2 discusses the future, as in post 2017... I don't know when... but in the future.

Then from 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (NKJV), where a Jewish Pharisee wrote:

  16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

This tradition from the past also talks about the return of the saints in Heaven accompanying Jesus, right before the battle of Armaggedon:

Zechariah 14:3-5 (NKJV):

  3 Then the Lord will go forth
  And fight against those nations,
  As He fights in the day of battle.
  4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
  Which faces Jerusalem on the east.
  And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,
  From east to west,
  Making a very large valley;
  Half of the mountain shall move toward the north
  And half of it toward the south.
  5 Then you shall flee through My mountain valley,
  For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal.
  Yes, you shall flee
  As you fled from the earthquake
  In the days of Uzziah king of Judah.
  Thus the Lord my God will come,
  And all the saints with You.

Did you catch that the Mount of Olives will be split in two & replaced by a valley, next to Jerusalem? That hasn't happened yet. Neither have all of the saints in Heaven returned to Earth yet. According to the 2,000 year old tradition from Israel, which has been passed down through the ages to us today... those events are still in the future. The Mount of Olives doesn't look like a valley yet.

Then after that we see what will happen in the future, according to another tradition. This one was written down by John in Revelation 21:1-2 (NKJV):

  1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Then later in Revelation 21:10-11 (NKJV):

  10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy[h] Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.

Apparently, God is designing a new Heavenly city & it will be called Jerusalem. God will live here on Earth in the new Jerusalem. Imagine it looking like this rendition. If you read the Jewish traditions in the Bible, you can find out more details about it!

Here is why that's important: Revelation 21:3 (NKJV):

  3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.

Which is a pretty cool tradition about why "the Second Coming of Jesus must be preceded by Jews returning to their homeland of Israel."


Why is faith so much more important than being a good person? I recently had a debate with one of my friends in which he asked "Why would a good and just God not make salvation dependent on ethics, but rather on gullibility, as the Christian God has?" and I couldn't provide him with an honestly good answer, and in fact it's a question that I need an answer to as well.

In Christian teaching we are taught that 'man is saved through faith and grace' and while there are scriptures that put emphasis on morality and service, that aspect seems to downplayed, and in fact there are some denominations in which you can be saved wholly by faith. What I'm getting at is that Morality seems to play a Robin to Faiths Batman.

Is morality really important in Christianity?

Who says that faith plays a more important role? As James 2:26 reminds us, "faith without works is dead."

Faith plays a greater role than works in salvation (at the point of "getting saved") simply because none of our works were good enough before God to earn us righteousness. So by faith alone we are saved when we trust Jesus for righteousness.

Then works start to play a significant role as they line up with one's profession of faith. Without works, our faith will be a mere intellectual practice; but God is a God of love and wants to express Himself through those who profess faith in Him, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is on God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7). And so the epistles (and Jesus) encourage good works.

In the end, at the judgment seat, we will be rewarded according to our works (Matthew 25:14-30, the Parable of the Talents). Those works will be an expression of our heart and faith life.


Does the Roman Catholic church recognize marriages outside of the church? I'm curious about the status of marriages performed outside the auspices of the church. For example, if a non Catholic converts to the Roman church, but was married beforehand, does it "count". Based on an earlier question, I understand now that the church annuls marriages - but, if these two went on to divorce, wouldn't the church be in the position of denying a marriage they never blessed?

Along these lines, what happens if two people get married by a justice of the peace, or If ignoring the advice of a priest, they choose to find some other minister to perform the ceremony.

I realize that the church's recognition of a marriage is completely different from the state's recognition (and truthfully the practical effect of a non recognition by the church is slim), but it still makes me wonder if, say, two baptists who marry and then convert are "living in sin" until the priest recognizes the marriage.

At the extreme side of things, Im assuming that the church would never recognize a "gay marriage," considering it annulled from the beginning- but would that extend to legitimate unions simply conducted outside the aegis of the church as well?

Just curious.

The Roman Church does recognise marriages outside the Church. See Canons 1055 and 1056:

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.
Can.  1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

A marriage between two baptised people is by definition a sacrament: it's the couple who are ministers of that sacrament, not the officiant at the ceremony. Consequently it doesn't really matter who the officiant is (although there are rules, just to make sure that everything is done properly and legally).
As I noted in my profile and an earlier comment, I used to be an Anglican and am now a member of the English Ordinariate.
Members of my Anglican church considered joining the Ordinariate, but their previous dissolved marriages would have caused difficulty. In practice, the Church attempts to be compassionate in justice and in most cases the reason for divorce would have been a valid reason for annulment and there would be no problem — but all the circumstances would have to be investigated thoroughly.

Perhaps I should qualify the opening sentence as

The Roman Church does recognise marriages outside the Church which accord with Canon 1055.


What does the Lutheran Church teach about Justification by Faith and is the sacrament of Baptism essential to salvation? Recently I have been doing research into the Lutheran Church and it seems that they believe in baptismal regeneration.   My understanding is baptismal regeneration is the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, or, more precisely, that regeneration does not occur until a person is water baptized.  If this is the case, it would seem that the Lutheran Church believes water baptism is essential to a person’s salvation.

In America the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) hold to the Augsburg Confession, which teaches that all men are born in sin, and therefore need to be justified through faith in Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Along with faith in Christ, baptism is “necessary for salvation” and therefore “children should be baptized, for being offered to God through baptism they are received into his grace” (Art. IX).

What I want to avoid is discussion about whether or not baptismal regeneration is “right” or “wrong”.  The subject of baptismal regeneration is merely one example of what the Lutheran Church might teach about salvation.  What I am looking for is an official source that clearly declares what the Lutheran Church believes a person must to do be saved.  Simple would be good!

Having been raised in the Lutheran church, and being born again as an adult, I spent a lot of time trying to understand this question, because It never made sense to me.

It's the type of question that requires a lot of context. The first thing is to understand that Lutheranism is NOT the same as reformed, calvnist, or baptist theologies.

They have a lot of common elements, and intersections, but these old ideas about baptism point more towards Catholicism than what other reformers would teach after Luther.

Here is an excerpt from the LCMS frequently asked questions page which explains quite frankly, that while they do indeed teach baptismal regeneration, they stop short of saying that baptism is REQUIRED for salvation.

  Lutherans do not believe that only those baptized as infants receive faith. Faith can also be created in a person's heart by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's (written or spoken) Word.
  Baptism should then soon follow conversion (cf. Acts 8:26-40) for the purpose of confirming and strengthening faith in accordance with God's command and promise. Depending on the situation, therefore, Lutherans baptize people of all ages from infancy to adulthood.
  The LCMS does not believe that Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. All true believers in the Old Testament era were saved without baptism. Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of Baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, and there are clearly other ways of coming to faith by the power of the Holy Spirit (reading or hearing the Word of God).

Heres the link to the whole FAQ. https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/doctrine#baptism
This link is from the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod). In my experience, this is about the best straight forward answers you can find. They have a bunch of stuff on baptism, and salvation in general. I think this will answer your question nicely.

With that being said,and the request for an official source being satisfied, I will give some brief points to help you contextualize the situation.

Lutherans believe human beings are saved by grace alone, through faith. They however differ from other protestants in that they believe that the sacrament of baptism, is an actually effectual means of grace, which benefits the baptized person. They talk about baptism as being "Water and the Word". So by baptism, the infant receives the word with faith.

They also teach that one can lose their salvation. Admittedly this is not brought up very much. But Lutheranism does not teach that an unbeliever, tho baptized as a child is any more saved than an unbaptized unbeliever.

By this they maintain that it is grace through faith that saves. They just do some "hand waving" and equate infant baptism with faith and grace.

As mentioned in the above quote, they do not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

This can all be somewhat confusing if you are coming from a Baptist/reformed understanding of things. I hope this helps!


Why did God create a new covenant? Why did God create a new covenant?  It seems as if he had a covenant set in place in the Old Testament and provided a means for Israel to follow the covenant and offer sacrifices to atone for their sins.  Why did he create a new covenant in the New Testament which is the basis of Christianity?  Did mankind or God change in a way that a new covenant needed to be set up?

If God had created Christianity first, people would not have known their need for a Saviour. "What do we need to be saved from?
So God first sets up a do-it-yourself religion; by which I mean that if the Jews followed all the laws they could save themselves earning their right to heaven.
That didn't work. Worse, some people became more interested in the laws than the purpose of the laws:

Matthew 23:23-24
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

See also: a brief summary of how salvation works.
But now people could at least compare their standards to God's and realise the gap between themselves and God:

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

If you want to read more about this, the book of Hebrews explains more about how Judaism (and particularly the law) was a shadow of the forthcoming revelation. For example, the animal sacrifices in Judaism teach us that a sacrifice is required for the forgiveness of sins. This is how we can understand passages like this:

Hebrews 9:23-28
It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.
Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.


What is the purpose of the rosary and why do some differ in the amount of beads they contain? Should a Rosary be made of six or twelve beaded sections?

Does it symbolize something specific or is it simply an object created to reflect something in the Catholic religion?

What is the purpose of the rosary and why do some differ in the amount of beads they contain

The traditional 15 mystery rosary containing 150 Hail Marys symbolizes or represents the 150 Psalms in the Old Testament. In the Middle Ages many could not read. Thus as the intellectuals of the Church could pray the 150 Psalms, the poor and uneducated prayed the Rosary in its’ place.

Why do we pray the rosary?

The simple answer is: Catholics pray the rosary because it’s a powerful prayer to God, through His Most Holy Mother, Mary and a great way to contemplate the sacred mysteries of our faith.

  Praying the rosary has been a tradition in the Church for a long time. It’s a bit fuzzy who made it more formal; some say it was St. Dominic and others say it wasn’t. What really matters is that this prayer is super powerful.

  The rosary begins with the recitation of the Apostle’s Creed, an Our Father, three Hail Mary’s and a Glory Be. Then there are five decades which each begin and end with an Our Father and Glory Be, and have ten Hail Mary’s in between. When you pray the rosary, you meditate on the events in Jesus’ life. There are the joyful, luminous, sorrowful, and glorious mysteries.

  Rosaries are not just decorations. Battles have been won because people prayed the rosary! There have been hearts converted, and impossible intentions answered too. Your life can only be blessed if you start praying the rosary. - Why Do Catholics Pray the Rosary?

That’s right battles have been won praying the Rosary.

  On October 7th, 1571 a fleet of ships assembled by the combined forces of Naples, Sardinia, Venice, the Papacy, Genoa, Savoy and the Knights Hospitallers fought an intense battle with the fleet of the Ottoman Empire. The battle took place in the Gulf of Patras located in western Greece.  Though outnumbered by the Ottoman forces, the so-called “Holy League” possessed of superior firepower would win the day. This victory would severely curtail attempts by the Ottoman Empire to control the Mediterranean, causing a seismic shift in international relations from East to West. In some respects, and I do not want this claim to be overstated, the world that we know came into being with this victory. This event is known to history as the “Battle of Lepanto.”

  Pope Pius V, whose treasury bankrolled part of this military endeavor, ordered the churches of Rome opened for prayer day and night, encouraging the faithful to petition the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary through the recitation of the Rosary. When word reached the Pope Pius of the victory of the Holy League, he added a new feast day to the Roman Liturgical Calendar- October 7th would henceforth be the feast of Our Lady of Victory. Pope Pius’ successor, Gregory XIII would change the name of this day to the feast of the Holy Rosary.  - Our Lady of the Rosary and the Battle of Lepanto

Each decade (10 bead section) of the Rosary commemorates a certain mystery of the faith.

  The Mysteries of the Rosary are meditations on episodes in the life and death of Jesus from the Annunciation to the Ascension and beyond. These are traditionally grouped by fives into themed sets known as the Joyful (or Joyous) Mysteries, the Sorrowful Mysteries, and the Glorious Mysteries.

  Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae (October 2002), recommended an additional set called the Luminous Mysteries (or the "Mysteries of Light").

  Joyful Mysteries

  The Annunciation. Fruit of the Mystery: Humility
  The Visitation. Fruit of the Mystery: Love of Neighbour
  The Nativity. Fruit of the Mystery: Poverty, Detachment from the things of the world, Contempt of Riches, Love of the Poor
  The Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. Fruit of the Mystery: Gift of Wisdom and Purity of mind and body (Obedience)
  The Finding of Jesus in the Temple. Fruit of the Mystery: True Conversion (Piety, Joy of Finding Jesus)

  Sorrowful Mysteries

  The Agony in the Garden. Fruit of the Mystery: Sorrow for Sin, Uniformity with the Will of God
  The Scourging at the Pillar. Fruit of the Mystery: Mortification (Purity)
  The Crowning with Thorns. Fruit of the Mystery: Contempt of the World (Moral Courage)
  The Carrying of the Cross. Fruit of the Mystery: Patience
  The Crucifixion and Death of our Lord. Fruit of the Mystery: Perseverance in Faith, Grace for a Holy Death (Forgiveness)

  Glorious Mysteries

  The Resurrection. Fruit of the Mystery: Faith
  The Ascension. Fruit of the Mystery: Hope, Desire to Ascend to Heaven
  The Descent of the Holy Spirit. Fruit of the Mystery: Love of God, Holy Wisdom to know the truth and share it with everyone, Divine Charity, Worship of the Holy Spirit
  The Assumption of Mary. Fruit of the Mystery: Union with Mary and True Devotion to Mary
  The Coronation of the Virgin. Fruit of the Mystery: Perseverance and an Increase in Virtue (Trust in Mary's Intercession)

  Luminous Mysteries

  The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. Fruit of the Mystery: Openness to the Holy Spirit, the Healer.
  The Wedding at Cana. Fruit of the Mystery: To Jesus through Mary, Understanding of the ability to manifest-through faith.
  Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Fruit of the Mystery: Trust in God (Call of Conversion to the Messiah)
  The Transfiguration. Fruit of the Mystery: Desire for Holiness.
  The Institution of the Eucharist. Fruit of the Mystery: Adoration.

Satan truly hates this prayer.

  The Rosary is a weapon. And it is a big chance of salvation. Satan, terrified, cursed it, when asked by exorcists what he was most afraid of. It has been the most important prayer in lives of many saints and the blessed. Probably also because it is an exceptionally difficult prayer.

  “Give me an army saying the Rosary and I will conquer the world” – Blessed Pius IX said one day. This way the helmsman of the Catholic Church expressed the power of this prayer. After all it is not any abstract power but a totally real one. On many levels. It was probably the Rosary that rescued that Franciscan monastery in Hiroshima from destruction after its bombardment. The powerful bomb, which wreaked havoc in the city in 1945, turned out to be weak confronted with Our Lady’s intercession. On the other hand, one of the shepherd children to whom Our Lady of Fatima appeared, was saved precisely thanks to the Rosary. Mary, asked by Francisco if he would go to heaven, answered: “You must say many rosaries”. He obeyed the Queen of the world and moved the beads with his fingers regularly. - Rosary: a powerful weapon against Satan and a chance of salvation

Historically there are several different types of rosaries. A Rosary may be made of one; five; fifteen; or even Twenty beaded sections? These are only the most common or well known ones.

  Many of us are familiar with the standard, five decade rosary, the centuries-old favorite devotion of Roman Catholics throughout the world. An ornate crucifix on a strand of rosary beads is an image that most associate with devout and faithful prayer. But sometimes confusion arises with other terms, such as “chaplet” or “Franciscan rosary.” Aren’t they all the same? Well, not quite. The term rosary is used for various sets of prayers counted on beads, but the prayers may vary from those used in the Dominican Rosary – the most widely known form of the rosary. Additionally, there are some rosaries that use the standard prayers, but serve a specific purpose, like the wedding rosary. Here is some clarification on some of those different rosary terms.

  Five Decade Rosary

  The five decade rosary is the one most people picture when they hear the word rosary. It consists of a crucifix, then a short set of 5 beads, for praying the Our Father, 3 Hail Marys, and a Glory Be, and then a rosary center, followed by a loop of 5 decades (sets of ten beads) to count the Hail Marys prayed as one meditates on the mysteries of the rosary, with a bead for praying the Our Father between each decade. This traditional rosary (both the physical strand of beads and the prayer) is also known as the Dominican Rosary, due to St. Dominic’s role in encouraging and spreading devotion to the holy rosary at the request of the Blessed Mother.

  Franciscan Rosaries

  The Franciscan Rosary can refer to two different rosaries associated with the Franciscan order. One is the Franciscan Crown, sometimes called a seven decade rosary. As the name suggests, it consists of 7 decades, rather than 5, plus two additional Hail Mary beads, for a total of 72 Hail Mary beads. When praying the Franciscan Crown rosary, one is to meditate on the seven joys of Mary, one joy per each decade. The seven joys are the Annunciation, the Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth, the Nativity of Jesus, Epiphany, the presentation of Jesus in the temple, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the Assumption & coronation of Mary.
  The Franciscan Rosary can also refer to a fifteen-decade rosary. Prior to 2002, when Pope John Paul II instituted the addition of the 5 luminous mysteries, the three sets of the mysteries of the rosary (glorious, sorrowful, and joyful) added up to a total of 15 mysteries. When one would pray a fifteen decade rosary, all fifteen mysteries were meditated upon. One could simply use a standard size rosary and continue around the loop to pray the full fifteen, or now twenty, decades, but a strand of rosary beads consisting of 15 decades of beads was common as well. Franciscan rosary is also a term that may be used to describe a standard five decade rosary with a Franciscan Tau cross in place of the crucifix many are accustomed to seeing.

  Chaplets

  The word chaplet simply comes from the French word for Rosary, which is chapelet, but the term has now come to be associated with specific sets of prayers, intended to ask the help of Mary, Jesus, or the saints. The standard five decade rosary is in fact a chaplet, but chaplets can vary in size, in pattern or grouping of beads, and in the prayers said on each bead. Typically, the basic prayers, such as the Hail Mary and Our Father are still recited, but chaplets commonly also include prayers to a specific image of Christ or Mary, a particular saint or angel, or a litany. Often, a chaplet is based on a certain intention, and so prayers to the patron saint of that intention or subject will be included.

  One of the most common chaplets in recent years is the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, a chaplet Jesus instructed St. Maria Faustina to pray. It can be said anytime, especially for the dead or dying, but is also often said as part of the Divine Mercy novena which lasts from Good Friday to Divine Mercy Sunday. Another popular chaplet is the St. Joseph Chaplet, a set of prayers asking for the protection and intercession of St. Joseph.

  Servite Chaplet or Rosary

  Though it can be prayed by anyone, the Chaplet of the Seven Sorrows of Mary is especially connected to the Servite Order (also called Servants of Mary) and so this unique chaplet is commonly referred to as the Servite Rosary. Rather than decades, it consists of seven sets of seven beads; the sets of seven beads are called ‘weeks.’ Where the Franciscan Crown is focused on the seven joys of Mary, the Servite chaplet is focused specifically on the seven sorrows, or dolors, of Mary. These are the prophecy of Simeon, the flight into Egypt, the loss of Jesus in the temple, Mary meeting Jesus on the road to Calvary, the Crucifixion, Jesus being taken down from the cross, and the laying of Jesus’s body in the tomb. The intent behind the Servite rosary is a devotion to Mary and the real pain she suffered in watching and sharing in Jesus’s pain, as we are called to share in Jesus’s suffering as well.

  Wedding Rosary

  The wedding rosary, also called a lasso, or lazo, rosary is an over-sized rosary formed of two rosaries joined together at the center. The lasso rosary will share a crucifix, the first five beads, and the rosary center, with two, rather than one, loops of 5 decades each. The lasso rosary is part of a wedding ceremony, especially in Hispanic culture, where the loops of the rosary are put over the head of the bride and groom by the priest. This is symbolic of the joining of the two in God; their prayer lives will now be joined as well. Since the rosary is to be placed over the heads of both the bride and groom, the beads are typically oversized with larger spaces between beads in order to make the rosary long enough. While the use of the lasso rosary is largely figurative, it can also be used after the wedding for the husband and wife to pray the rosary together.

  One Decade Rosary

  The one decade rosary is, as it sounds, a rosary consisting of only one decade. They are sometimes called pocket rosaries or tenners. The idea behind the one decade rosary is that it is easy to carry around and use for prayer. After the crucifix on a one decade rosary, the initial 5 beads (for saying the Our Father, 3 Hail Marys and a Glory Be) are commonly represented with only one bead. After the rosary center is one decade, one set of ten beads. Some chaplet instructions come with a one decade rosary, and you can also use a one decade rosary to pray five, or even the full 20 mysteries, by circling around and using the ten beads to count for as many decades as needed. The one decade rosary closely resembles the prayer beads or prayer ropes which have been in use in the Eastern churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) from the earliest years.

  There are also a few specific types of one decade rosaries:

  Auto Rosary:

  This one decade rosary is the same as one described above but with one difference. Rather than a continuous unbroken loop, there is a clasp in the middle of the set of ten beads. This is in place so that the rosary may be hooked around a rearview mirror, and used for prayer in the car. The clasp is also useful for clipping the rosary to the steering wheel while praying so you do not drop the beads while driving.

  Rosary Bracelet:

  This is a one decade rosary meant to be worn on the wrist. The bracelet varies slightly from the appearance of the standard one decade rosary. The rosary bracelet has one decade plus one Our Father bead, but rather than a center and a dangling crucifix, there will often be a miraculous medal and small, charm sized crucifix or cross hung together, or a cross shaped bead in place of the hanging crucifix. The bracelet is not intended to be a fashion statement but rather a way to easily bring a rosary with you, to be used for prayer. In the Middle Ages and beyond, it was not uncommon for people to hang a rosary from their waist, which they could easily reach for and use to pray with at any time. Many religious orders still do this, but for many other people, hanging a long rosary from their waist would be impractical. However, the rosary bracelet can be worn easily and so it can be used anywhere as a prayer aid.

  Rosary Rings and Finger Rosaries

  A rosary ring can be an actual wearable ring, or it can also be a small, mini one decade rosary to tuck into a wallet or purse, or on a key ring. These non-wearable rings are also called finger rosaries. Similar to the bracelet, there is a crucifix, followed by ten little bumps or beads for the decade. The idea of a small, easily transportable rosary one could reach for and pray with anytime stands true for the rosary ring as well. - What Are the Different Types of Rosaries?

On October 16, 2002 Pope St. John Paul II, in his Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariaeadded the Luminous Mysteries  to the centuries old 15 decade Rosary, making it now a 20 decades long Rosary. Catholics are not obliged to say the 20 decade Rosary, but are freely encouraged to do so.

A 20 Decade Rosaries


Is it true that Martin Luther used some bad language in his own writings? Is it true that Martin Luther cursed a lot and even used some bad language in his own writings?

It should be noted that profanity is a relative cultural concept. That is, what one culture considers to be profane may not be offensive in another. For example, various hand gestures that are perfectly acceptable in the USA would be highly offensive in the Middle East. Similarly, the word "bloody" in the UK carries a harsher connotation than in American English. Thus we should not be quick to dismiss quotes because they do not match what our culture considers to be profanity, especially in Western culture that allows horrific words, violence, and sexuality to be displayed routinely on public television. With this in mind, I offer some quotes by Martin Luther:

  "Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?" (On the Jews and Their Lies)

  "He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw pig poop at him when he sees him and chase him away." (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Of course "fart" was highly offensive at the time and "pig poop" (older translations say "sow dung") can be translated more harshly - I don't think I need to spell it out ;)