In Luke 1:67, was Zechariah filled with the Holy Ghost as the Apostles were in the book of Acts? In Luke 1:67, was Zechariah filled with the Holy Ghost as the Apostles were in the book of Acts? It is my understanding that the Holy Ghost was sent after the death of Christ.

This answer is from a Pentecostal perspective.

We can see that the Holy Spirit was actually in operation in terms of empowering people for serving God in the Old Testament. The earliest explicit reference to this is in Exodus in regard to the artisan Bezalel:

  Then the Lord said to Moses, 2 “See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, 3 and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills— 4 to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, 5 to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of crafts. - Exodus 31:1-5 NIV (emphasis added)

It is a common refrain in the book of Judges that "the Spirit of the Lord came upon X" (Othniel, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson) prior to God using them to deliver the Israelites from their enemies, but it is also used elsewhere regarding David and many of the prophets (cf. Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 14:6; 1 Samuel 16:13; 2 Chronicles 20:14; 24:20; Ezekiel 11:5).

In the New Testament, as well as Zachariah, both John the Baptist and Jesus himself are described as being full of the Holy Spirit prior to the advent of Pentecost. (cf. Luke 1:15; 4:1)

So what was so special about Pentecost? Why did the disciples have to wait for that particular moment to be empowered when God had previously empowered others for his service on many different occasions?

The Apostle Peter clarifies the distinction by describing Pentecost as the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy:

  14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

  17
  “‘In the last days, God says,
      I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

  Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
      your young men will see visions,
      your old men will dream dreams.

  18
  Even on my servants, both men and women,
      I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
      and they will prophesy. - Acts 2:14-18

Prior to this event, God had poured out his Spirit on particular people at particular times for particular tasks. Pentecost marks the start of "the last days" where the Spirit is being poured out "on all people" - ie every 'ordinary' believer in Christ can be full of the Holy Spirit:

  37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

  38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” - Acts 2:37-39 (emphasis added)

Elsewhere in scripture, we are taught of the operation of the Holy Spirit within us - to convict of sin, righteousness and judgment; to comfort/edify; to teach/lead us in to all truth; to help us claim Jesus as Lord; to regenerate our hearts; to provide the seal of our adoption into the family of God etc. Some of these operations are actions of the indwelling Holy Spirit and are what is new in the operation of the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant.

The day of Pentecost on the other hand, was particularly about the Holy Spirit coming upon the Church to empower them  as witnesses for Christ - the operation of the Holy Spirit in this resepect it was quite similar to the operation of the Holy Spirit under the Old Covenant, the principal difference being not so much in the mode of operation, but in its degree.


What are the steps to become Confirmed in the Catholic church? What are the steps you have to take (general steps not necessarily church specific) as someone raised in the Catholic church to become Confirmed?

I am pulling from this specific forum response on the same question for my answer: Catholic Answer Forums.

For non-baptized believers, the process as an adult is basically to go through the "Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults" (RCIA).  This will end with the believer being confirmed.

  385 The high point of their entire formation will normally be the Easter Vigil. At that time they will make a profession of the faith in which they were baptised, receive the sacrament of confirmation, and take part in the eucharist. If, because neither the bishop nor another authorized minister is present, confirmation cannot be given at the Easter Vigil, it is to be celebrated as soon as possible and, if this can be arranged, during the Easter season.

For baptized believers, it is left up to the individual churches to determine when they may be  confirmed.  I would assume there would normally be some sort of curriculum to ensure the believer can "receive both doctrinal and spiritual preparation".

  391 The baptised Christian is to receive both doctrinal and spiritual preparation, adapted to individual pastoral requirements, for reception into the full communion of the Catholic Church. The candidate should learn to deepen an inner adherence to the Church, where he or she will find the fulness of his or her baptism. During the period of preparation the candidate may share in worship in conformity witli the provisions of the Ecumenical Directory. Anything that would equate candidates for reception with those who are catechumens is to be absolutely avoided.


Was Jesus' resurrected body the same as his glorified body that he now has in heaven? Most people understand that the Scriptures teach that the body in which Jesus was crucified was the same body that came out of the grave.  But regarding the body in which He now dwells, was that changed or transformed in His ascension into heaven? If so, how do we know from scripture?

St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this pretty deeply, and as I suspected, his answer was yes, Our Lord's risen body was a glorified one.  Although it differed in glory in some way from His body in Heaven.

  I answer that, Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Corinthians 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory." Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said (John 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Question 34, Article 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (14, 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.

[summa theologica part 3 question 54 article 3 ](
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm)

One good, convincing point St Thomas makes is that in no way could one consider Jesus' body given to corruption after His resurrection. He did as He chose. He came and went as He pleased. He appeared in the manner which He desired.


How to answer "Why do evil and suffering exist?" I believe that evil exists because God gave us free will. Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Because of this The Fall of man happened and drew us away from God. Suffering exists not only because God can exert justice on the evil of the earth but also because God can grow people and bring them to greater revelation through suffering.

Is this a correct argument? If so how do I expand and support it to make a good response to a non-Christian who says something like:

I can't believe in a good God when there is evil and suffering in the world.

*Note my argument assumes a non-Christian who knows some of the basics of Christianity. To be clear, I intend for my question to be broad in the sense that a non-Christian also includes those of various other faiths and those that might not believe God exists.

This is called the problem of theodicy. The assumptions usually made in the problem statement are, with a little variance:

God is almighty and all-knowing
God does not want evil in the world
God is good

The problem goes on to state the fact that there is evil in the world, and claims a contradiction between the assumptions and this observation.

I see really no problem here. If just (1) was true, God could certainly do anything.
If (1) and (2) were true, there certainly would be no evil in the world. But if (3) were true, God would do only things that are good, regardless of whether He could.

Now we have (1), (2) and (3). God could do anything, but since He is good he will not do just anything. There's no contradiction. God could remove all evil, but that would not be good.

Up to that point it's all just logic. The reason that removing evil would not be good is more a matter of speculation. I suspect it has to do with free will: people are allowed to choose between good and evil, and removing the choice would be worse than the evil that ensues. This is just my speculation. God surely has His reasons.

Goodness doesn't always mean doing what is the most convenient to me. Quoting C.S. Lewis in A Grief Observed,

  What do people mean when they say, "I am not afraid of God because I know He is good"? Have they never even been to a dentist?


Could you please help me locate this hymn? I heard a sermon that was recorded in the 1980s.  The speaker was Dr. Paul E. Toms, who at the time was senior pastor at Park Street Church in Boston, Massachusetts.  In his sermon, Dr. Toms referenced a hymn, but he didn't mention the title.  My mother and I would really like to find this hymn.  We would be very grateful for any clues or ideas that you might have!  Here is what I know:

The hymn is about a man who lived and died.  At the gates of Heaven, the gatekeeper said, "On whose authority should I let you in?  The man replied:

  "I come in the name of Jesus.
  For me He bled and died."
  And the pearly gates swung open
  and welcomed him inside.

This was all that Dr. Toms mentioned about the hymn itself; unfortunately, he did not mention the title.  Dr. Toms did mention that a certain visitor to Park Street Church, "Bill Hoyt" (or possibly "Hoight" or similar; since I only have the sermon on audio, I don't know the spelling) sang this hymn at the church.  (But since I'm not sure if "Bill Hoyt" is a famous person or not, I'm not sure if this is a helpful bit of information.)

Unfortunately, this is all that I know.  We will be really grateful for any clues that you might have!  Thank you!

I think your song might be This One's With Me by NewSong.  I stumbled across the service's lyrics while searching for another set of lyrics and found a combination of terms from your quote that located This One's With Me.

  I was dreaming about Heaven
  Dreamed I was standing at the Pearly Gates
  We're all there and I was so scared
  In the presence of One so great

  I felt so worried and worthy I felt like running away I bowed my head
  and I turn to go When I heard someone say

  "Father, this one's with me Part of the family One of the reasons I
  died on Calvary Father, welcome him in I paid the price for him
  Father, oh Father, this one's with me"

  I was dreaming about Heaven When I looked up the gates were opened
  wide And in the distance, I saw Jesus Our eyes met and I began to cry

  Angels robed in their beauty Were there to show me the way And all of
  Heaven singing When I heard His voice say

  "Father, this one's with me Part of the family One of the reasons I
  died on Calvary Father, welcome him in I paid the price for him
  Father, oh Father"

  Finally, we were there face to face And He placed on me Heaven's crown
  I fell down on my knees, laid my crown at His feet Then He said to me

  "Father, this one's with me Part of the family One of the reasons I
  died on Calvary Father, welcome him in I paid the price for him
  Father, oh Father, this one's with me"


Is Christianity functionally polytheistic? In principle, Christianity is monotheistic.  It posits that one god exists.  However, as a result of the 300k+ christian sects, there exists more than one definition of the "Christian God".

With the existence of multiple definitions of a "Christian God" amongst different sects and doctrines this creates a plurality of practices - each aimed at their respective notion of the "Christian God".

In other words, since these multiple definitions lead to a pluralism of practices, does this mean Christianity functions as a polytheistic faith?

If not, this would require that all 300k sects agree that they worship the same "God".

This is really more a logic/philosophy question than a Christianity one.

And it is logically similar to this scenario:

  Twin brothers get separated from their mother and from each other at a young age. As adults they later reunite and discuss their mother, to find that their childhood memories are imperfect, and sometimes conflict. Does this mean they have multiple mothers?

Clearly not.

While the brothers may have different memories or opinions about their mother, they are still borne of the same mother.

Another example:

  I love my boss. My coworker hates the same boss. Does this mean we have multiple bosses?

Clearly not.

Differing and conflicting perceptions and opinions of the same being/entity/object does not mean the being/entity/object in question is actually multiple beings/entities/objects.  It simply means our perceptions and opinions are different and often times imperfect.

EDIT

Following from these examples, it is clear that the twins, and me and my coworker do not indeed have multiple mothers/bosses. Likewise, Christianity does not indeed worship multiple Gods.

Going a step further, to more directly address the actual question, nor do the twins functionally have multiple different mothers--that is to say, one doesn't send Mother's day cards to one city, and the other to another city.  Nor do they function as if they have multiple mothers; that is to say, neither brother sends Mother's day cards to multiple addresses.

Nor do my coworker and I functionally have multiple bosses; I don't call my boss on one extension, while my coworker uses another.  Nor do we function as if we have multiple bosses; I don't call one of multiple extensions when I need a PO approved.

And as applied to Christianity, the various sects/denominations/faiths/traditions all functionally worship the same God1, so they do not functionally have multiple gods, and no Christian individual prays to multiple gods2, thus do not function as if they are polytheistic.

1Some minority Christian faith groups try to tie Christianity to other non-Christian belief systems; such as Christianity and New Age, where the nature of God is "changed" (i.e. "God is the Universe").  In such a belief system, where the adherents are worshiping "the Universe", they are not in the strictest sense worshiping the same God that main-line Christianity worships, who is distinct from the created Universe. In this regard, and in this regard only, it may be possible to claim that Christianity as a whole is "functionally polytheistic," in that two subsets worship each a distinct [Gg]od. But in my mind, this still is not the same as "functionally polytheistic."

2Some Christian sects do have polytheistic undertones.  Mormonism for example, has some polytheistic (or henotheistic) undertones. Sometimes Catholicism is considered "polytheistic," especially in certain parts of the world where praying to the saints is hard to distinguish from worshiping the saints. But these possible examples of "functional polytheism" have nothing to do with the various Christian faiths, and have everything to do with the specific faiths being (or appearing to be) truly polytheistic, so I don't believe they apply to this question.

EDIT #2

I think it comes down to a question of identity (or the external appearance of identity) of the [Gg]od(s) being worshiped.

Christian sects, with rare exception (see 1 above) believe in a God that share the same identity. They all believe God wrote (either directly or indirectly) the 66 books of the Bible, they believe God became human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, and they believe God died a torturous death on behalf of sinners.

Whether a Christian group worships the God thusly identified through song, acts of service, acts of war, or any other means, the identity of the God is the same.

This is distinct from the question of whether Muslims and Christians worship (or appear to worship) the same God, because in this case the identity of the two Gods is distinct (at least on the surface). Christians believe in a God identified above. Muslims believe in a God that never took on human form, and who sent a final prophet, Muhammad, etc.

(Whether, upon further investigation, we can determine that the identity of the [Gg]od worshiped by Christians and Muslims is indeed the same is for another discussion. The only point I'm making here is that it's easy to see how they may appear to be different Gods.)

Based on this identity-of-God argument, I would say that Christianity as a whole (not withstanding fringe groups that subscribe to an alternate identity of god), is not functionally polytheistic.


What is the history of the "Sunday School publishing industry"? As I understand it, Christian education over the centuries often involved a catechism, decade after decade, where both the student and teacher memorized a long and complete set of doctrines, often in question and answer format.

Today, it seems that Sunday School teachers are expected to use a book-- even magazine-- that provides new material each and every week. [Insert link to such publishers.] The teacher is as new to the material as are the students, even if it involves eternal truths.

When, historically speaking, did such publishing industries arise? (Bonus points: have any prominent theologians commented on such a trend in Christian education publishing?)

Sunday School was provided to conscripted labor as a way to become literate on the only day that they had an opportunity. Sunday School was a community service provided by the Churches in Europe, and as an outreach was an effective way to also give children a basis in theology by learning to read from Bible stories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_school is an acceptable summary. Christianity Today adds to this: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/whendidsundayschoolstart.html. Publicly funded schooling in partnership with child labor laws made this outreach take a turn towards the christian education.

To see this kind of Sunday School in action refer to the stories of DL Moody who spent great energy on recruiting street children into pews at the church that he rented in addition to inviting childrent to Sunday School in Chicago.

As an employee of a Sunday School publishing company I can speak to our intent. We provide underequipped and undertrained Sunday School teachers throughout Mexico and Latin America resources to teach with so that the teachers may put more energy and effort into working with the children.

As for the expectations placed on Sunday School teachers I think you may find that many churches only expect their Sunday School teachers to babysit the children so the important adults can be free from distration. I was told several times in one church that my goal was to make kids like church and if they learned some too, that would be ok. Many churches would not be so bold as to say it this way, however their children's ministries budget/volunteers reflect this mindset when compared to the rest of the church budget.

As a reference point consider the following:

Before a child reaches the age of 13 they have made up their mind on all major doctrines and will not change their mind on 90% of them in their entire lifetime.

Children are 5 times more likely to respond to a call to change than an adult.

Children usualy comprise about 30% of the church population.

These claims are pulled from Barna's work on Children's ministries today: http://www.amazon.com/Transforming-Children-Into-Spiritual-Champions/dp/0830732934

Teaching children the Bible in a way that makes them personally applicable, relevant, and meaningful to children is a need that is being met by the Sunday School publishing industry. Group Sunday School Publishing Board


Has the Roman Catholic Church ever issued an official response to the accusations of the Reformers? I just started reading Luther's Tabletalk, and the preface, written by Dr. John Aurifaber in 1569, roundly condemns the Roman Catholic Church, presenting an analogy which compares Christians' "servitude" under the ecclesiastical and political authority imposed by the Church of Rome prior to the 16th century with the Israelites' captivity in ancient Egypt. Over the course of several pages, Aurifaber uses striking language to enumerate the specific flaws that many Reformers claimed were evident in the Papal system, and he echoes Luther's oft-heard refrain which equated the Pope with the antichrist described in the First Epistle of the Apostle John, and the "man of lawlessness" described in Paul's prophesies in Second Thessalonians.

We have heard these condemnations of, and accusations against the Church of Rome repeated by countless Protestant leaders and teachers in every intervening century.

Excepting things like Luther's Papal Bull and the Diet of Worms, which were intended to accomplish other ends, has the Roman Catholic Church ever issued an official response to / defense against the accusations of the Reformers, such as those recounted by Dr. Aurifaber in his preface to Luther's Tabletalk?

The only response I know of it the counter-reformation amount the Catholics : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation.

period of Catholic revival beginning with the Council of Trent (1545–1563) and ending at the close of the Thirty Years' War, 1648 which is sometimes considered a response to the Protestant Reformation. The Counter-Reformation was a comprehensive effort, composed of four major elements:

Ecclesiastical or structural reconfiguration
Religious orders
Spiritual movements
Political dimensions


What is meant by the expression "living in darkness"? At my church (Calvary Chapel) we have guest speakers from time to time. Many of them mention the same phrase "living in darkness", refering to the time before they were saved.

Are there Biblical (or more specifically New Testament) references to this concept and a description of what it entails or is it just a relative and subjective phrase coined by man?

Variants of the phrase appear several times in 1 John

1 John 1:5-6 (ESV)
5   This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that  God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6   If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and  do not practice the truth.
1 John 2:9-11 (ESV)
9  Whoever says he is in the light and  hates his brother is still in darkness. 10  Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no  cause for stumbling. 11  But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and  walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Darkness is contrasted with the picture of God as light, and describes living in sin without knowing or seeing God.


Why do Mormons wait until the age of 8 to baptize their children? What is the doctrinal basis for this practice?

It is in D&C 68:25–27, a revelation Joseph Smith received in November 1831, that this doctrine is outlined with the age of eight years old specified:

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.
26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.
27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

As for why this age in particular is the age of accountability, I don't think a specific justification is given in any Mormon scripture. But there is a discussion in Mormon scripture about why the baptism of young children in general is considered wrong. The reasoning is that young children cannot repent and do not need baptism. See, for instance, Moroni 8:9–12:

9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

Going back to the age of eight: In the Joseph Smith Translation for Genesis 17:11, a connection is made between circumcision at the age of eight days old and baptism at eight years old. In that verse, it states that circumcision was established to help those living at the time to understand that their children were not accountable to God before the age of eight:

11 And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know forever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.

The idea that circumcision was performed when a child was eight days old is established in scripture that is not exclusive to the LDS Church, both in the Old Testament (Genesis 21:4, Genesis 17:12) and in the New Testament (Luke 2:21, Luke 1:59).
Interestingly, there is also a scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants, D&C 84:28, that states that John the Baptist was ordained and baptized at the age of eight days old, on the same day he was circumcised:

28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.


Did Joseph Smith create any secular writings? I'm interested in Joseph Smith's non-religious worldviews and I'm curious if he did any substantial writing outside of a strictly religious context (i.e. philosophy, politics, etc).

Joseph Smith’s worldview was almost certainly influenced by his religious upbringing and the Second Great Awakening that swept through North America between 1795 and 1830.  When Joseph Smith was about 10 years of age his family moved to Palmyra in the State of New York.

  Joseph Smith was born on 23 December 1805 in Sharon, Vermont.  At that time, there was religious excitement, especially within the Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist denominations.  Around 1820, his mother, two brothers and one sister joined a Presbyterian church, but young Joseph was more partial towards Methodists.  However, he was very confused over their conflicting doctrines and the “war of words” at that time. Joseph Smith took himself off into the woods to pray, and there had a vision of a pillar of light which delivered him from the enemy of darkness that overwhelmed him.  Two personages appeared before him, one pointing to the other and saying “This is my Beloved Son.  Hear Him!”  Smith asked which sect he should join and was told they were all wrong and they were an abomination.  Smith believed that the powers of darkness had combined against him throughout his young life and that the two personages who rescued him were God the Father and Christ Jesus.  Source: ‘History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet’ (History of the Church, volume 1, Chapters 1-5)

Joseph Smith’s experiences are recorded in his book ‘Pearl of Great Price’.  Clearly, that is not a secular book.  Given how young he was when he had his first vision (around 15 years of age) and taking into account the dramatic changes that ensued, it seems highly unlikely that Smith wrote anything to do with philosophy or politics.  It is not as if he went to a secular place of higher education or mingled with “worldly” and non-religious people.  I would refer you to a Wikipedia article that gives information on the ‘Joseph Smith Papers Project’ – here is the introduction:

  The Joseph Smith Papers (or Joseph Smith Papers Project) is a project researching, collecting, and publishing all manuscripts and documents created by, or under the direction of, Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. The documents, which include transcriptions and annotations, have been published both online and in printed form. The project is sponsored by the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), while the website and volumes are published under the department's imprint, the Church Historian's Press.  Source: The Joseph Smith Papers.


How widely held among Protestants is the belief that the authors of the books of James and Jude were half brothers of Jesus? The following Scriptures have been touted as indicating that Joseph and Mary had children of their own, after the birth of Jesus: (all Scripture is quoted from the King James translation)

Matthew 12:46  While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Luke 8:19  Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
MarK 3:31  There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
Matthew 13:55 and 56  Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Galatians 1:19  But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

How common is the belief among Protestant Denominations that the authors of these two New Testament books are Jesus' half brothers (the natural children of Joseph and Mary)?

Many Protestant churches I've visited, myself included, believe that Jesus had brothers, four of them - named James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas - all of which we believe to be the authors of the Book of James and the Book of Jude. Some Protestants believe them to be children from Joseph's prior marriages (which I don't believe I've ever seen Scripture supporting), or being born after the birth of Christ.
Why? Let's look in to Scripture. First we start with Matthew 1:25, which indicates it very possible (and as Jews, very likely) that Joseph and Mary had other children:

"But he [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."

Those familiar with the language at that time will tell you "knowing" a person, in this context, is referring to having intercourse. As Jews, and followers of the Law (which these same Protestants believe Mary and Joseph had to be in order to be so blessed), they would have been taught the Commandments given to Adam and Noah along with the Commandments laid out in Moses' books - the first two (Adam and Noah) containing the Commandment to "be fruitful and multiply".
We also see Jesus' brothers in John 7:1-10

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brothers therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brothers believe in him. Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is always ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brothers were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

And again, this time with Mary, in Acts 1:14:

These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

This article sums up how our belief is different from that of Roman Catholics, and also references the verses you provided as well as the ones I cited in this answer:

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.
A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph's being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?


What's the main logical basis that is put forth by those Christians who don't believe in the existence of God? What's the main logical or doctrinal basis that is put forth by those Christians who don't believe in the existence of God? I mean, in the Bible Jesus spoke of God the Father many times, so how do they logically explain their belief that God doesn't exist?

As an alternative to "Christian Atheism" as a belief system, there is another interpretation here of a Christian who does not believe in God, which is the "cultural Christian". This was reminded to me by a comment on the question referring to "Jewish" as both the adherents and / or the society - but is has been identified that this is very genuinely the case for Christianity too. This obviously is not based on a scriptural position, but on society and observation; there really are a large number of people who will identify (when asked in passing) as Christian, by which they mean (typically) they have been raised within Christianity, but don't really believe in it as such (and don't typically attend a church or worship, except maybe things like "saying grace" at mealtimes through habit and expectation).

This may be tied to the fact that to say "no, this is not what I believe, and I shall separate myself from it" can sometimes take a lot of effort and energy, jeopardise friendships and relationships (and humans are social creatures) and prospects (perhaps impacting business relationships). It can also cause friction within a family, etc. I can fully accept that it may be a lot easier to just "go along with", since that takes no effort (not even church attendance etc) - especially if their stance one way or the other on the matter is not of huge importance for them (compared with, say, more pressing needs like feeding the family and paying the bills). There are also sometimes additional factors if they want to get their kids into a particular school (alarmingly common), where rocking the boat may cause complications.

So - looked at from that perspective, the cultural Christian (in reality, not a true believer) is a very real phenomenon. This is not, however, a Biblical basis - it is, simply, an observation on the complexities of modern society.

(removed "modern", as there is no reason to suppose this is in any way new)


Biblical basis for non-practice of Kiss of Peace The "Kiss of Charity", "Holy Kiss", or Kiss of Peace is instructed several times in the New Testament, for example:

1 Peter 5:14 (KJV): Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity.
2 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV): Greet one another with an holy kiss.

But as far as I can tell, this is not widely practiced in Protestant denominations. I find some (mostly historical) references to Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Anabaptist practice but not much elsewhere.
Is there a basis in Biblical interpretation for Protestant rejection of this instruction as globally applicable? Or is it simply something that fell out of practice due to cultural differences?
Further background:
Catholic Encyclopedia entry:

at the present day the Pax is only given at High Mass, and is hardly anywhere communicated to the congregation. The celebrant kisses the corporal spread upon the altar (he used formerly in many local rites to kiss the sacred Host Itself) and then, placing his hands upon the arms of the deacon, he presents his left cheek to the deacon's left cheek but without actually touching it. At the same time he pronounces the words Pax tecum (Peace be with thee); to which the deacon replies, Et cum spiritu tuo (And with thy spirit). The deacon then conveys the salute to the sub-deacon, and the subdeacon to the canons or clergy in the stalls.

Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia entry:

...the "conservative" conferences such as Old Order Amish Mennonites, Old Order (Wisler) Mennonites, Church of God in Christ, Mennonites (Holdeman), Reformed Mennonites, and Conservative (Amish) Mennonites maintained either an absolute or a greater relative separation from all other groups and influences... As the Christian salutation it was practiced almost universally among all members, lay as well as ministers, except in the Conservative (Amish) Mennonite Conference where it was only practiced between brethren and ministers at the invitation of the ministers.

I have actually seen some Protestant churches like Assembly of God practicing this Holy Kiss but not very often. It depends on the pastor of the church. There is no rule for practicing Holy Kiss in many Protestant churches whether it should be practiced or not. Some encourage it, some ignore it. An example of encouraging Greeting of any form in Assembly of God.

  Greeting is often regulated by cultural acceptance and practices.
  Today, we embrace/hug, shake hands, pat backs or give high fives.
  There are not too many practices, even a kiss on the forehead or
  cheek, that are frowned upon as long as they reflect a genuine and
  godly spirit.  Don’t miss out on opportunities to express your
  appreciation, thankfulness and love for others. (source)

Greeting each other by kissing is a Jewish custom. They kiss the cheek or mostly on forehead, depends on your relationship with the person but never on the mouth and not between opposite sex. (More information on Jewish Greeting)

In the New Testament also, we see an example of Jewish greeting by kissing, the famous kiss of betrayal called Kiss of Judas.

  While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was
  called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus
  to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of
  Man with a kiss?”  (Luke 22:47-48, NIV)

Holy Kiss was indeed encouraged by the Apostles, who happened to be Jews, but it is not clear whether this Jewish custom should be continued by Christians or not. The most important message the Apostles left us is that Christians should love each other and greet whenever we meet.

  Whether or not the holy kiss should be a tradition we carry on today
  is not clear in Scripture. Whether or not our salutations to our
  brothers and sisters in Christ include the holy kiss, the important
  thing is that our greetings spring from real love and friendship, be
  characterized by sincerity, and represent true Christian fellowship.
  (source)


What is the Biblical basis for requiring someone to have faithful children to become an elder? Just had an enlightening chat with a preacher of a faith I'm not familiar with. When I congratulated him on his new pastorship, he corrected me saying that he wasn't a pastor, and among other things he believed he needed to have faithful children before he could become a pastor or elder.  He indicated that there was scriptural basis for this, but I don't recall which scripture he used, other than the New Testament in the KJV bible.

What scriptures support the idea that faithful children are needed prior to attaining a certain office or title?

For pastorship, it depends on the doctrine.

As for an Elder, this is what Titus 1:6 NIV says

  An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children
  believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient

I can recall an Elder loosing his sword/title because his teen daughter had an incident at a house party. He was very sad. He ended up droping out of the church.

The point is how can an elder take care of his church when he cannot take care of his own family.


Why do we only pray for things that are possible to happen? Why don't we pray for something that is impossible for natural phenomenon to happen. Like for example when a guy has a POLIO and his feet got amputated why don't we pray that his feet grows again instead we just pray the he survive? Why don't we pray that our love ones come back from the dead? Why we only pray about things that we know that would happen naturally or at least things that we know that are possible. If a person got shot in the head for example, why don't we pray to God that the bullet will just come out instantly and heal his head and be ok right that instant, instead we pray that he gets well soon.

We are praying to a great God. He makes impossible possible.

Is it because we know things that are not natural will not happen even if we pray?

There is nothing wrong with this question at all.  It simply illustrates that God has established certain rules of normalcy of which he rarely violtates.  When he does violate the paths of which he usually ordains the boundaries of life, it is an extraordinary miracle.  Miracles like Moses parting the Red Sea, or Jesus raising the dead are not normal possabilities otherwise they would no longer be 'miraculous'.  The reason why 'most' Christians do not pray for these things (some do and even convince themselves they are regularily answered although not provable to others) is that we innately know it is not God's will.  God does not promise to answer any prayer that is not his will, so why waste the time praying for what we know he will not answer?

  This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. (NIV, 1 John 5:14–15)

As far as genuine miracles go, it is understood in the Bible that an unusual divine knoweldge that it is his will through revelation and faith can make someone ask for what seems impossible and know with full assurance that it will be done. For example, David when he attacked Golliath knew it was God's will to cut the head off of that boaster. God gave David special knowledge and faith to do this. Such things are called 'gifts' as not everyone recieves them like everyday common graces to the faithful.

  To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledgel by means of the same Spirit, to another faithm by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healingn by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,a r and to still another the interpretation of tongues. (1 Cor 12:8-11, NIV)

Now clearly these gifts, especially the extraordinary miraculous ones have not always been given by God. He decides when and to who they are given. They are gifts not rewards for good deeds.  There are times in the Bible where they seem wholy absent and other times when they are very much in operation.  In our days they do not seem that active, otherwise more people would be praying in the way you suggest and the media would be all over it having no means of explanation through scientific analysis.

In other words the question is not 'why do we not pray such and such' but 'why is it not God's will for such things to occur as frequently as it has in the past' or for those more charismatic folks, 'why do we not believe as much as those in the past'?


Do any denominations teach that humans exist before birth? I'm agnostic, and there is is a specific symmetry in the timeline of life, when looking at it over all time.

To me, a person does not exist before it is born, and does not exist after it died. During the lifetime, there is a period of growth, and a period of decay.

Looking at it from the beginning of time to the end of time, this has a symmetry that has a certain beauty in it, I almost feel the symmetry is spiritual.

Whether time is finite or not does not matter for it.

It would be interesting whether it is seen that a person exists between conception and birth, but does not fundamentally change the question.

Is there a concept comparable to this in any Christian denomination?

The important and beautiful aspect is the symmetry in spacetime.

I'm not sure if you'd include Mormonism as a Christian denomination, but the Mormon church definitely believes this. They believe that people were "Heavenly Father's" spirit children in heaven, who are now in the flesh on earth: Spirit Children of Heavenly Parents.


What is an overview of different stances on whether and why it is a sin to pay taxes? Assuming your government participates in immoral wars that are unjust according to your personal beliefs and religious doctrine (for example Christian just war theory), what do Christian groups believe about giving support to the government in terms of ethics and sin?

The government also does useful things and it can be claimed the government saves lives as well, and your funds are being partly used for a good cause (fungibility). Note that it is possible other institutions would save those lives if the government didn't.

To put it in other terms, let's say someone asks you for a dollar and with that dollar they will buy some medicine to save someone and a bullet to kill someone.

Please provide an overview of the stances different denominations would have on this subject.

Some Protestant groups, like those represented by the conservative R.C. Sproul Jr and the Acton Institute, believe that even if the government does nothing but evil, one nonetheless is obligated to pay taxes to support it, because what the government does is not the responsibility of the people supporting it but the fault of the government itself.  This is similar to but distinct from the material v.s. formal assistance issue discussed below.

Some Catholic groups, like those represented by the extremist Catholic Worker movement, support the refusal to pay taxes in many cases, in accordance with the rule of conscience.  This is not technically different than mainstream Catholicism except that these extremist groups cultivate a spiritual culture that encourages members to question the fundamental aspects of their way of life and supports them even when mainstream society would (or does) condemn them, which makes the likelihood that members make choices like the decision to protest a government by refusing to pay taxes much more likely (since, whether or not they ought to morally, people will rarely take up stances that they know will ostracize them from their support network).

More official stances of the Roman Catholic Church tend to reference the differences between material and formal assistance and generally support refusal to pay taxes only as a method of opposing the whole of the government.  Paying taxes to an immoral government is argued to be licit from several directions, including the mitigation of moral culpability do to duress (a weak argument), the distinction between material and formal support and vested interest in the public good (a strong argument when it applies), and the principle of double effect.  In sum, Catholicism tends to support tax paying in general for most people living in most countries, but supports not paying taxes as a form of resistance in certain unusual circumstances.  Basically "It depends".  Again, the rule of conscience is the most typical method of actually determining answers within the Church, in combination with the Church's pastoral care and teaching authority.

Christian Pacifists, who oppose war unilaterally, often engage in war tax resistance.  Many of them do so in legal ways, simply by reducing the amount of money they have below the taxable threshold (most Christian Pacifists live in countries where this is a thing).  Such protestant denominations clearly believe that, at least in some cases, taxes ought to be denied to a government.

For most groups, this is a question of balancing the need to comply with righteous authority and serve the common good with the need to oppose evil and injustice in the world, it's just answered in different ways.


Do the people God sends to challenge His people (for His Glory) have salvation? Romans 9:17

  17 In the Scriptures God says to Pharaoh: “I made you king so that you
  could do this for me. I wanted to show my power through you. I wanted
  my name to be announced throughout the world.” [d]

God purposefully created the Pharaoh, the Canaanites, and every other enemy in real life at that time — to challenge His people to show His Glory.

Are his creations who are made enemies, have His salvation and blessings or are they cursed?

Does this have anything to do with why we are commanded to love our enemies?

I think the rest of the letter to the Romans can give a thorough answer to this question. Let's bear in mind, first of all, that the book is written by Paul (who formerly persecuted Christians, but was called by God to become his apostle to the Gentiles) to the church in Rome, the capital of the Empire that was occupying the Holy Land, persecuted Jews and Christians, and was the symbolic successor of all the big bad empires of the Old Testament. It's safe to say that the people who first read the letter would be very interested in knowing whether they, as Romans, could be saved, and what might happen to the other Romans who counted themselves against Christianity.

The theme of the book is set out in the first lines:

  I have an obligation to Greeks as well as barbarians, to the educated as well as the ignorant, and hence the eagerness on my part to preach the gospel to you in Rome too. For I see no reason to be ashamed of the gospel; it is God's power for the salvation of everyone who has faith - Jews first, but Greeks as well - for in it is revealed the saving justice of God: a justice based on faith and addressed to faith. As it says in scripture: Anyone who is upright through faith will live. (Romans 1:14-17, NJB)

So the text affirms, strongly, that salvation is available to anyone; and Paul's personal history proves that even previously being an "enemy" does not mean that one is cursed forever. Paul goes on to say that "there is no favoritism with God" (2:11), quoting Deuteronomy 10:17 (which goes on in v19 to say "Love the stranger then, for you were once strangers in Egypt"). Even worse,

  Are we any better off [than the condemned]? Not at all: we have already indicted Jews and Greeks as being all alike under the dominion of sin. (3:9-10)

However, faith is available to everybody - it is not the case that acting as an enemy of God cuts one off from salvation. If this were true then there would be no hope for anybody, since we are all slaves of sin. This theme is expounded throughout the letter. In 9:25-26, Paul loosely quotes Hosea, saying

  I shall tell those who were not my people, "You are my people," and I shall take pity on those on whom I had no pity. And in the very place where they were told, "You are not my people," they will be told that they are "children of the living God."

Even the governing authorities of Rome are meant to be respected (13:1-7, and likewise 2 Timothy 2:1-2, Titus 3:1). So it is clear from these passages that even those who set themselves up against God may be saved, in the same way as anybody else. This doesn't mean that they necessarily do enjoy salvation, just that they are not "cursed". Paul says in 13:14, "Bless your persecutors; never curse them, bless them," which is of course a direct echo of the words of Christ, in Matthew 5:43-44, "You have heard how it was said, You will love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

The remaining issue from your question is whether people like Pharaoh might be "automatically" saved or blessed because they are carrying out God's will. Paul dismisses this possibility in Romans 3:7-8,

  You might as well say that if my untruthfulness makes God demonstrate his truthfulness, to his greater glory, then I should not be judged to be a sinner at all. In this case, the slanderous report some people are spreading would be true, that we teach that one should do evil that good may come of it. In fact such people are justly condemned.

So, no such luck for Pharaoh: just because God managed to make something good out of the bad things he did, doesn't mean he gets a free pass. But, much more importantly, the "enemies" of your question have just as much access to salvation as anybody else.


Calvinism vs Independent Fundamental Baptist I would like to know how does Calvinism differ from Independent Fundamental Baptist teachings. If someone can point main differences in a form of points (f.e. 1st point, 2nd point and so on for Calvinism, and then the same for Baptists). I would also like to know their Definition of Faith and exegesis. I would very much appreciate if you could be specific and thorough in your answers. Thank you.

I know that it could be found on internet, but it is very hard to find the right examples (maybe organizations is a better word; or churches), so I plead for your help.

This is a difficult question to answer because IFB is not a denomination, and each church is independent, but there are Fundamentalist fellowships and congresses which have met on rare occasion and have mentioned Calvinism. You could look into resolutions by Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International or World Congress of Fundamentalists. You will find that there can be an acceptable spectrum of Calvinism among fundamentalism, but "hyper-Calvinism" is rejected by IFBs.
https://fbfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Complete-Resolutions-2010.pdf


Joseph reveals himself to his brothers, why the elaborate ruse? Genesis chapter 42 - 45 recount story of Joseph tricking his brothers who are in Egypt to buy grain, into going back and forth several times from Canaan to Egypt in an attempt exonerate themselves in the (feigned) accusation from Joseph of being a spy. Eventually Joesph reveals himself as their brother, and Jacob and his family move to Egypt as a result.

Why did Joseph trick them in this way? I can think of only a few reasons:

He wanted to get all of his brothers and father back to Egypt before he revealed himself.
He distrusted his brothers, since they had tried to kill him, and sold him into slavery years prior to this event, he was trying to ascertain if his younger brother and father were in fact still alive.
He was punishing his brothers by making them suffer this way in an act of revenge.

In any event the author of Genesis spends a lot of precipitous time and space recounting this deception, is there some cultural aspect to this that I am missing? Is there some context to the story that would reveal more about the characters involved or the nature of God or their relationship to him?

I am six months late answering this, but this same question, particularly, the "elaborate ruse", have been nagging me a long time; and this was the reason for me googling the topic, again, and this time stumbling to this site.

For if I imagined myself in Joseph's shoes, it seems only natural and human to declare who you are to your brothers the moment you realise who they are; but this was precisely not what Joseph did, and thus the BIG question, WHY? And then did Joseph schemed the entire elaborate ruse from the onset or was he led by the Spirit to do what he did?

My view at this moment is that Joseph did not scheme the ruse, in that he did not plan nor forsee every action and their chain of consequences to eventually lead to his brothers' repentance and his father coming to Egypt, but rather each step he was led by the Spirit, not entirely sure what the outcome would be.

In other words the ruse was designed by God for a purpose.

(And there are implications here for what it means to be led by the Spirit.)

And this purpose seems to be to demonstrate to the brothers the meaning of power, absolute power. For Joseph has the power to do anything he wants to his brothers, even to falsely accuse them and to concoct false evidence to prove such accusations. Joseph is literally life or death for his father and brothers: he can give them grain, or not, or put them to death on any whim or fancy.

For absolute power is completely arbitrary, and God wants the brothers, and Jacob too, to understand that. And such absolute and arbitrary power, that Joseph is, is but a mere reflection of the authority of God, and who God is. And in bowing to Joseph, Jacob and his brothers are, truly, worshiping God.

But it is this very same power that is for, and not against, the people of Israel.

And this same lesson, to know God, was played out again when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt.


Is there any evidence that Romans viewed Christian teachings on sexual restraint as a liberating influence? Sarah Ruden (via John Stonestreet) makes an interesting claim about the Roman Empire in the time of Paul:

  Dreher cites classics scholar Sarah Ruden, whose book “Paul Among the Gentiles” was the subject of a BreakPoint three years ago. According to Ruden, “it’s profoundly ignorant to think of the Apostle Paul as a dour proto-Puritan descending upon happy-go-lucky pagan hippies, ordering them to stop having fun.”  On the contrary, “Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time . . .”  Christianity “worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage—and marital sexuality—with love.”  (from BreakPoint Commentary 5/23/2013)

While it is common to think of Classical Rome and Greece as morally decadent societies, I do find it surprising that sexual restraint was positively received as Christendom advanced.

Outside of Ruden's claim, are there are patristic sources that suggest the introduction of sexual restraint was positively received by Rome?

"Are there patristic sources that suggest the introduction of sexual restraint was positively received by Rome?"

This question is a little too broad I think - what do you mean by received "by Rome"?

Clearly it WAS well received by many; since there were lots of converts.

Clearly it WAS NOT well received by many others, even to the days of Charlemagne who had multiple wives and concubines, and teaching it was ridiculed by pagan contemporaries.

A few things are clear - the teaching was revolutionary. Concubinage was well accepted as a perfectly good alternative to marriage when marriage was not possible (perhaps due to class). Sexual rights to one's slave was considered natural. The man of the house had life and death over the entire household.

Certainly the teaching was more appealing to women, than to powerful men.

It is hard to know how a "common man" reacted, but again, there were many converts.

So although I am not at the moment recalling any specific sources commenting on the issue, I am sure that the claim is historically defensible even without direct commentary.

NOTE - Rome was not a "morally decadent society" to the extent as described by some. We have lots of evidence of pagan "moral philosophers" that taught many "Christian" values. To claim otherwise would be to claim that God completely abandoned pagans.


For Catholics who object to Vatican II, what are the key issues? From time to time I see references to Roman Catholics who object to (part? all?) of Vatican II.  Most commonly I see ads in my local newspaper for traditional Latin masses, but I understand the objections to be more than vernacular versus Latin worship.  I've also heard (as a Jew) that not all Roman Catholics accept nostra aetate, the Vatican II declaration that Jews have a valid covenant with God and don't need to be sought as converts, but I don't know if the anti-NA folks overlap the Latin-mass folks and what other beliefs they share.  Do certain groups object to the whole thing or just parts of it?

I tried to find an answer on Google and it led me to this page at Catholic Answers (no idea how authoritative that is), which in turn led me to the name "Society of Saint Pius X".  This page on their site lists key concerns of: modernism, religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, and liturgical abuses (their wording, not mine), but I can't tell if that's all based on Vatican II or if it's something broader.  I also can't tell if SSPX comprises the Catholics who object to Vatican II or if they are just one such group.  (I don't remember seeing that name in the aforementioned newspaper ads.)  I found this C.SE question about whether SSPX is schismatic, which is helpful but doesn't answer my question, which is about the broader platform, not one specific organization.

So: is there a (denomination? ideology?) that describes objectors to Vatican II, or do such objections come from scattered groups or individuals with no over-riding ideology?  If there is an ideology beyond specific people/groups, does it have a name?  And what specifically do they object to -- everything decided at that council or just certain things?

In simplest form: Vatican II declared some very important things to be true which (in the minds of those who object) are radically incompatible with previous Church tradition. As the website of Sodalitium Pianum, an offshoot of SSPX, states:

  The teaching of Vatican II concerning episcopal collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenism, non-Catholics belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, non Christian religions and particularly Judaism, relations between the Church and the modern world, is in contradiction to the teaching of the Church, of many popes, and many ecumenical Councils. The reform of the liturgy, especially of the Holy Mass, and of Canon Law, are harmful for souls, favor the Protestant heresies, and declare sometimes licit that which by divine right is in fact illicit. ... The Institute [the Institute of the Mother of Good Counsel, which sponsors Sodalitium Pianum], in front of this unprecedented crisis that involves necessarily all that have approved the conciliar documents and the subsequent reforms, realizes that it cannot accept these new doctrines contrary to faith and morals nor incite the faithful to disobedience towards the legitimate authority in the Church.

The other objection they present, again in simple terms, is that Vatican II was only a 'pastoral' council, defining no dogma [and not convened to condemn heresies or resolve a particular issue], thus lacked the doctrinal weight of past Ecumenical Councils - another reason advanced by those at odds with the post-Conciliar Church to maintain their rift with the Church. The following quotes from a Pope and a  future Pope are presented to bolster their arguments e.g.:

  (1)Paul VI:General audience of Jan 12,1966:"In view of the pastoral
  nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of
  dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided
  us teaching with the authority of the ordinary Magisterium, which must
  be accepted with docility...." - cf.  Introduction: Doctrinal
  Authority of Vatican II | EWTN
  Library

and

  The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the
  entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a
  new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined
  no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level,
  as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had
  made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance
  of all the rest. - cf. Cardinal Ratzinger's Remarks Regarding the
  Lefebvre
  Schism.
  The translated text of an address by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,
  prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, given July
  13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation's bishops.

Since the Church does not change her teaching, traditionalists who hold beliefs of this sort feel they're faced with the choice to reject all of Church tradition as they understand it, or to reject Vatican II.


Can a Catholic marriage be annulled because one doesn't believe to Sacred Trinity anymore? The Roman Rota is the highest appellate tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church, with respect to both Latin-rite members and the eastern-rite members and is, with respect to judicial trials conducted in the Catholic Church, the highest ecclesiastical court constituted by the Holy See.

The Roman Rota is also the international marriage tribunal for the Catholic Church.

A mere generation ago few American Catholics could identify another Catholic whose marriage had been annulled, but nowadays that is pretty common, and it is even more common in Europe.

I don't want to know whether there is an abuse by Catholic Church in reference to the high frequency with which marriages are annulled nowadays, only I would ask whether a marriage can be annulled because one, the wife or the husband, doesn't believe to Sacred Trinity anymore. Can it be?

An annulment means (or at least should mean) that there was no valid marriage in the first place. The grounds for the annulment must therefore be something from the time of the (alleged) marriage.  Later events, including heresy (like denying the doctrine of the Trinity)  or even apostasy, cannot legitimately invalidate a marriage.


Why is the Eucharist referred to as «ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν» in consideration of "transubstantiation"? If indeed transubstantiation occurs, and the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, why does John of Damascus1 (as an example) refer to the Eucharist as «ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν», "a bloodless sacrifice" (or "unbloody sacrifice")?
1 John of Damascus: On the Immaculate Body which We Partake Of (Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν), Sec. I.
Compare the footnote on this page:

1988    unbloody Priesthood, ἀναίμακτον ἱερωσύνην, i.e. “sacerdotium,” not“sacrificium.” This, not θυσίαν, is supported by the Codd. The Eucharist is often called by the Fathers “the unbloody sacrifice” (e.g. Chrysost. in Ps. xcv., citing Malachi), and the Priesthood which offers it can be called “unbloody” too. Cf. Greg. Naz. in Poem. xi. 1—
῏Ω θυσίας πέμποντες ἀναιμάκτους ἱερῆες.
While these terms assert the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, might they not at the same time supply an argument against the Roman view of Transubstantiation, which teaches that the actual blood of Christ is received, and makes it still a bloody sacrifice?

On the contrary, St John of Damascus himself says:

  since it is man's custom to eat and to drink water and wine, He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural. The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. [...] This surely is that pure and bloodless sacrifice which the Lord through the prophet said is offered to Him from the rising to the setting of the sun.

So his words can't be used to "supply an argument" against Transubstantiation. John couldn't be more clear in his confession that the wine becomes blood. We should guess that he means something else. And he does.

When Jesus said the Last Supper He wasn't "bloody", even though He had blood inside of Him. But on the Cross, He was bloody. Because we all bloodied Him. The chalice contains His Blood, but Catholics don't call it bloody. The chalice contains Jesus: His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. And Jesus is not bloody in the chalice.

The Catholic priest, in persona Christi, isn't offering up the sacrifice in that way. We stopped offering sacrifices in that way a long time ago, and Hebrews explains why. If a person wanted to make a bloody sacrifice, he would kill an animal, let the blood pour out, and then sprinkle the blood on the Mercy Seat while asking God for forgiveness. We confess that we don't do that anymore by calling the Eucharist an unbloody sacrifice. Because:

Jesus, the Blessed Eucharist, the Bread of Life, isn't bleeding
The people doing the offering aren't spilling blood in atonement

Exactly the same sacrifice, exactly the same Jesus, but the offering of that same eternal sacrifice doesn't involve the spilling of blood and death. "Unbloody".


How many kinds of Catholics are there? Until recently I was under the impression that Catholics are unanimous in their beliefs and don't have the kind of fragmentation that Protestants have.

But I’ve learned that there are several small groups/institutions within the main church.

There are traditionalist catholics that reject reforms of Vatican council.
There are breakaway churches that maintain same doctrines but do not submit to authority of Rome. Then there are terms like Conclavist Catholics and Sedevacantists (I have no idea what it means I'm not knowledgeable on the subject).

My question is - In the 2000 years of history what significant factions have existed within the Catholic church? How have they been different from each other?

There is one Church. There are hundreds of factions (after all, any organization of sufficient size will have political infighting). Then there are many people who claim to be Catholic but are really heretics in sheep's clothing.

Sedevacantists are people who deny the validity of the current Pope as well as the Second Vatican Council. That is more-or-less like denying Nicea. You can't do it and manage to escape the title "heretic."

Conclavists are (most often) sedevacatists who have gone so far as to say, "since VAII was heresy, the bishops who supported it are heretics. Heretics are incapable of properly electing a pope. Therefore, there is no pope and the See is vacant."

I do think that it is a good idea to expand a bit on your title, even though that is not your full question. There are quite a few different liturgical and spiritual groups inside the Catholic Church. Most commonly, you will find Byzantine and other Eastern groups who closely resemble the Orthodox in both practice and theological expressions, but there are other, smaller sub-organizations in the Church (such as the Ambrosian Rite (which is largely liturgical) and the Anglican Ordinariate (which is only a few years old and closely resembles the ways of the Anglican Church)). Depending how you subdivide it, you could even argue that every major order (or even every abbey) can be considered a subset with its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. For that matter, even within a diocese, you will find different parishes behave different ways.

And now, a joke:

  Why is it easier to convert an atheist than a conclavist? At least an atheist believes that there's a Pope.


What is the Catholic teaching on technology and faith? We were asked this question in class today and I find it fascinating: Should our actions as scientists or engineers in the creation of our story be guided by our faith? I would like to hear what the Catholic Church teaches about this.

Catholic Church believes that Faith does not contradict science.

  Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."- CCC 159

Guided by our faith does not mean if Science disagrees with Faith we should throw science away. It means that the ethical part of Science should be always guided by faith.

For example just because we have technology that finds out a Human fetus has some disability, we cannot use technology to murder that baby. You may also know that the theory of evolution in wrong hands gave rise to eugenics. Science cannot or does not have any explanation on why these are Good or Bad, Right or Wrong. Only Faith does.


What is the Biblical and historical basis for Christian pacifism? My understanding is that early Christians were generally pacifists.  Today (at least in the U.S.) Christian pacifists are a bit hard to come by.  Many quote Romans 13:1-3 to support Christian involvement in war:

  1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

In light of this verse, and other Biblical or historical evidence, what is the case to be made for Christian pacifism?

The Biblical pacifist argument is usually founded in the Sermon on the Mount, which is held to prohibit any kind of violence (going beyond the law of Moses):

But I tell you, "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39, NIV)
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)

The Quaker philosopher Robert Barclay wrote in his Apology for the True Christian Divinity (1675), ch. 15:

Whoever can reconcile this, "Resist not evil", with "Resist violence by force", again, "Give also thy other cheek", with "Strike again"; also "Love thine enemies", with "Spoil them, make a prey of them, pursue them with fire and the sword", or "Pray for those that persecute you, and those that calumniate you", with "Persecute them by fines, imprisonments and death itself", whoever, I say, can find a means to reconcile these things may be supposed also to have found a way to reconcile God with the Devil, Christ with Antichrist, Light with Darkness, and good with evil. But if this be impossible, as indeed it is impossible, so will also the other be impossible, and men do but deceive both themselves and others, while they boldly adventure to establish such absurd and impossible things.

He also appeals to John 18:36 ("My kingdom is not of this world") and 2 Corinthians 10:4 ("The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of this world") among other passages from the Bible, as well as from the Church Fathers (like Jerome: "The Church was founded by shedding of blood, and by suffering, and not in doing of hurt. The Church increased by persecutions, and was crowned by martyrdom").
Regarding Paul's words in Romans 13, Barclay argues (in ch. 14) that the state has no authority over matters of Christian conscience. This is justified in that Paul was writing about Nero, who was not Christian, and therefore incapable of being a proper judge of what it is right for Christians to do. If Nero had unlimited authority then "in doing thereof he was not to be blamed; which is enough to justify him in his persecuting of the apostles, and murdering the Christians". If Nero had asked Paul to stop preaching the gospel, and to worship the Roman gods instead, would he really have done so? In fact, Paul was imprisoned and executed instead.
Equally, in the text, Paul was advising Christians what to do when governmental authority is brought to bear against them. He is not giving carte blanche to Christians in government to do whatever they like. Barclay says:

If the magistrate be truly a Christian, or desires to be so, he ought himself in the first place to obey the command of his Master, saying, "Love your enemies," &c., and then he could not command us to kill them: but if he be not a true Christian, then ought we to obey our Lord and King Jesus Christ, to whom he ought also to obey: for in the Kingdom of Christ all ought to submit to his laws, from the highest to the lowest, that is, from the king to the beggar, and from Caesar to the clown.

One argument among pacifists is whether one is obliged to submit to the government's punishment for refusing to take up arms, or whether it is acceptable to, say, flee to another country. Paul's words here are sometimes quoted in support of the former position.


Where in the Bible does it say we have a sin nature? Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Notice the verse says death is passed on and not that sin nature is passed on to all men. Many denominations make our sin nature as part of their doctrinal statement.

searching under doctrinal statements and checking some links:

Southern Evangelical: ( see http://ses.edu/about-us/doctrinal-statement ) says in point 9 "total depravity of human nature, has been transmitted to the entire human race"

Ariel Ministries: ( http://ariel.org/doctrinal-statement.htm ) says under Man: Created and Fallen "totally depraved; that this fallen nature is transmitted to every descendent of Adam"

We see that Romans 5:12 says "death" and the statements say "depraved" or "depravity" and I have heard the term "sin nature" used by other organizations. Are these doctrinal statements twisting scripture?

In fact in Calvinism we have TULIP where the T stands for Total Depravity so perhaps this doctrine is Calvinistic in nature (pun intended).

The phrase " sin nature " is not used in the bible I use, KJV. However, there are verses that imply such.

Psalms 51;5
 Behold,I was shapen in iniquity,and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalms 58;3
The wicked are estranged from the womb:they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Ephesians 2;3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

We are all children of wrath until we are born again, John 3;5.


Why was it important that Isaac's wife be from within Abraham's family? In Genesis 24, Abraham tells his servant to go back to his homeland and find a wife for Isaac from Abraham's country and Abraham's relatives.

First of all, I suppose I can understand why Isaac was not allowed to marry a Canaanite.  Abraham didn't want Isaac, the son of promise, to be led astray by a wife outside the covenant, right?

But that still doesn't explain why the wife had to come from within Abraham's relatives.  Sure, the servant could go back to his hometown; but surely there were other eligible young women among other families?

Why intermarriage with Canaanites was forbidden
It says in Exodus:

Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you. You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God). You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice. And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods. (Exodus 34:11–16, emphasis added)

And again in Deuteronomy:

When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you—the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you—and when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. But this is how you must deal with them: break down their altars, smash their pillars, hew down their sacred poles, and burn their idols with fire. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession. (Deuteronomy 7:1–6, emphasis added)

All of the seven nations listed except the Perizzites (whose origins are unknown) are descended from Canaan, son of Ham (see Genesis 10:15–19), who was cursed by Noah in the incident recorded in Genesis 9:20–27. This incident and curse on Canaan is the origin story for a lasting conflict between the Hebrew people, who were descendants of Shem, and the Canaanites, who occupied much of the Holy Land at the time Abraham, and later the Israelites, first entered it.
Aside from the implicit directive to avoid intermingling with the descendants of Canaan because they were seen as cursed, a more explicit reason for the prohibition on marrying them given in the above two quotations is that intermarriage with them would cause the Israelites to begin honoring and worshiping their gods, thus forsaking the God of Israel, who demanded their sole worship and obedience.
In a nutshell, then, the Hebrews, and later the Israelites, were forbidden to intermarry with the descendants of Canaan because:

Canaan and his descendants were considered cursed.
Intermarrying with them would cause them to become unfaithful to their God.

Abraham also wanted to avoid intermarrying with descendants of Canaan
Although the explicit commandment not to intermarry with the descendants of Canaan is recorded in the Bible narrative long after the time of Abraham, many of the commandments given to the Israelites after the exodus from Egypt were codifications of rules that had already long been in place. For example, the law of levirate marriage recorded in Deuteronomy 25:5–10 was already being observed much earlier, during the time of Judah (see Genesis 38:1–11).
We can therefore presume that even during the time of Abraham, intermarriage with descendants of Canaan was not acceptable for Hebrews such as Abraham. This is borne out in the opening lines of the story of Abraham sending his trusted servant to get a wife for his son Isaac:

Now Abraham was old, well advanced in years; and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his house, who had charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh and I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live, but will go to my country and to my kindred and get a wife for my son Isaac." (Genesis 24:1–4, emphasis added)

Here Abraham specifically mentions the Canaanites among whom he lives as not being suitable to provide a wife for his son Isaac. And though there were other, non-Canaanite nations in the region as well, they, too, would worship other gods, making it too risky to marry his son Isaac to one of their daughters. Instead, he chose to seek a wife for his son from among his own relatives.
The covenant with Abraham
Earlier in the Bible narrative, just before and just after the Great Flood, God had made a covenant with Noah, which would cover him, his descendants, and all living beings on earth. In this covenant, God promised never again to cause a flood that would destroy all living beings. See Genesis 6:18; 9:1-17.
Later, however, God made a more specific covenant with Abram, whom he renamed Abraham. This covenant is first recorded in Genesis 15, and repeated with further detail in Genesis 17. In this covenant, God promises to give to Abraham and to his descendants the land of Canaan. In return, Abraham, all of the males in his household, and all of his descendants and the males in their households must be circumcised as a sign of their covenant with God.
This more specific covenant did not apply to all of humankind, but only to Abraham and his descendants. Further, it did not even apply to all of Abraham's descendants, but only to his designated heir, Isaac, and Isaac's descendants:

And Abraham said to God, "O that Ishmael might live in your sight!" God said, "No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year." (Genesis 17:18–21, emphasis added)

This covenant, then, was very specific to Abraham and his designated heir Isaac, miraculously borne by Abraham's wife Sarah in her old age. Therefore a suitable wife for Isaac must not come from any of these other nations—even the non-Canaanite ones—but must come from as close to Abraham's own family line as possible.
Abraham therefore sent his trusted servant to his immediate relatives living north of the land of Canaan in Aram-naharaim, in the city where his brother Nahor had settled (see Genesis 11:27–32; 24:10). From there, as told in Genesis 24, Abraham's servant got as a wife for Isaac Rebekah, granddaughter of Abraham's brother Nahor, making her Isaac's first cousin once removed.


What does the Bible say about Science? It's a debate that atheists seem to thrive on. Fact vs. Faith.

Personally, I believe in a co-existence of the two, but I'm interested in what the Bible has to say about us learning about our environment and explaining His creations rather than accepting them as they are.

Does the Bible say anything about science?

EDIT:
I know that the bible does not directly use the word "science." Even though it didn't, it still discussed the idea of gathering knowledge and learning about things outside of Christianity... As many of your answers have indicated.

The Bible doesn't ever use the term Science because it didn't exist at the time.  However the Bible has a lot to say about gaining knowledge and wisdom.

  It is the glory of God to conceal things,but the glory of kings is to search things out.
  Proverbs 25:2

  The LORD said to Moses, "See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft.
  Exodus 31:1-5 Emphasis mine

The Bible often highly regards knowledge of the physical world and commends it's study.

  Go to the ant, O sluggard;  consider her ways, and be wise.
  Proverbs 6:6

We can infer that the Bible encourages us to study and learn about the world, and such would be approving of science (in its purest form).


The celebrant’s position and proximity to the participants We know that the apostles were present in a face to face relation to Jesus at the Lord's Supper.
When did the celebrants of the later Eucharist turn their backs on the participants, and why? Also when were the elements removed from proximity with the liturgy (or mass) participants, into the separate or remote altar or sanctum, that we observe in the Orthodox and Traditional Latin Rite churches of today?

The celebrant’s position and proximity to the participants?

There is certainly not enough historical evidence to give an exact date on this usage within the Holy celebration of the Mass. It may in fact have come from the Apostles, but we just do not have the proper data at hand.

What is certain, is the fact that this practice existed very early within the Church, along side of the priest saying Mass facing the people.

  Catholic Teaching and Liturgical Tradition

  First, let’s consider what the Church currently teaches about the the priest’s orientation at Mass. In September 2000, the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW) responded to the question whether the General Instruction of the Roman Missal should be read as dictating that the priest must always say Mass versus populum (“facing the people”). In a formal document signed by the prefect and the secretary, the CDW explained that the answer was “no.” Priests can also say Mass versus apsidem (“facing the apse,” which is the front of the Church). More important, whatever physical direction the priest faces, “his spiritual attitude ought always to be versus Deum per Jesum Christum [toward God through Jesus Christ]” (cf. GIRM, 78).

  Second, let’s consider the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Although the Council did not speak about the priest’s physical direction at Mass, it did say that what we do in the liturgy is a consequence of who and what we are before God. Since the human body “shares in the dignity of the ‘image of God’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 364), “in the Liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7). That action is principally “an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ” before the Father in heaven (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7), while “in the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 8).

  There are two primary ways in which Christians in their worship in the first centuries of the faith embodied this communal pilgrimage toward heaven:

  ‐ By facing one another for proclamation and dialogue. The priest in the patristic era faced the people during the Liturgy of the Word (as we now call it) so as to fulfill his role, which was to act in persona Christi, both when proclaiming the gospel to them and during those parts of the Mass when he prays in dialogue with them.

  ‐ By facing east for the eucharistic prayer. As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI points out in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, priests in the patristic era almost universally faced east, the direction of rising sun, during the eucharistic prayer, anticipating thereby the glory of Christ’s return to earth. In most churches, this also meant that they faced the apse, with the people. Acting again in persona Christi, priests embodied the fact that Christ the Priest became completely as one of us when he journeyed toward the cross and invited us to follow him. - Cardinal Robert Sarah proposes that the Church recover a piece of its tradition.

At some point in time, the tradition of saying Mass ad orientum became the norm. When this exactly happened is lost to history.

The tradition of facing East is as we see was well established in the Early Church, if not in the Apostolic Era itself.

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on this subject:

  Orientation

  The custom of praying with faces turned towards the East is probably as old as Christianity. The earliest allusion to it in Christian literature is in the second book of the Apostolic Constitutions (200-250, probably) which prescribes that a church should be oblong "with its head to the East". Tertullian also speaks of churches as erected in "high and open places, and facing the light (Adv. Valent., iii). The reason for this practice, which did not originate with Christianity, was given by St. Gregory of Nyssa (De Orat. Dominic., P.G., XLIV, 1183), is that the Orient is the first home of the human race, the seat of the earthly paradise. In the Middle Ages additional reasons for orientation were given, namely, that Our Lord from the Cross looked towards the West, and from the East He shall come for the Last Judgment (Durand, Rationale, V, 2; St. Thomas, Summa Theologica II-II:84:3). The existence of the custom among pagans is referred to by Clement of Alexandria, who states that their "most ancient temples looked towards the West, that people might be taught to turn to the East when facing the images" (Stromata, vii. 17, 43).

Cardinal Ratzinger held the tradition of facing East in high regard.

  Five years before he became Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger wrote that, notwithstanding various liturgical innovations, “one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying towards the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning.” As he wrote in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

    The common turning toward the east was not a “celebration toward the wall;” it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people.” . . . For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord.” . . . They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us. - Facing East