What is the difference between apostolic pardon and absolution? I was preparing for Catechism Class tonight on the the last things, the notes in my teachers manual say that unconscious people receive "apostolic pardon" if they get the anointing of the sick while unconscious, and should go to confession if they regain consciousness.  What does that mean and how is it different from absolution that comes from the sacrament of reconciliation?

related question

cf. Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI Indulgentiatum Doctrina

  NORMS n.18—To the faithful in danger of death who cannot be assisted by a priest to bring them the sacraments and impart the
  apostolic blessing with its attendant plenary indulgence (according to canon 468, para. 2 of the Code of Canon Law) Holy Mother
  Church nevertheless grants a plenary indulgence to be acquired at the
  point of death, provided they are properly disposed and have been in
  the habit of reciting some prayers during their lifetime. To use a
  crucifix or cross in connection with the acquisition of this plenary
  indulgence is a laudable practice.

From this and other reading online, the Apostolic Blessing is [a sacramental] to grant a plenary indulgence (under the usual conditions).

Therefore absolution [via the sacraments] forgives sin and the apostolic blessing with its attendant plenary indulgence is imparted for the removal of all the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin.

Please note: "Canon 468, paragraph 2 of the Code of Canon Law" refers not to the current (1983) Code of Canon Law, which was not yet in force at the time of Indulgientiarum Doctrina, but to the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Latin translation) which was binding at the time (the numbering of sections was changed greatly between the two Codes). In that Code, Canon 468 paragraph 2 reads:

  Parocho aliive sacerdoti qui infirmis assistat, facultas est eis concedendi benedictionem apostolicam cum indulgentia plenaria in articulo mortis, secundum formam a probatis liturgicis libris traditam, quam benedictionem impertiri ne omittat.

which could be translated roughly

  Any parish priest at all who cares for the sick has the power of giving the apostolic benediction with a plenary indulgence at the point of death, according to the traditional form in approved liturgical books; giving this blessing is not to be omitted.

cf.
 - Apostolic Blessing with the Plenary Indulgence | iBreviary.
 - Apostolic blessing at the hour of death | Rituale Romanum.

Endnote

cf. "apostolic pardon" | Wikipedia. "Apostolic Pardon" = "Apostolic Blessing with attached plenary indulgence".


Did Paul preach Jesus's message? In the four Gospels, Jesus seems to talk a lot about the Law, about how to behave, about "the Kingdom" and how to restore social order. It doesn't seem like he talks about what Paul talks about: grace, law vs. gospel, gentile-inclusion. Mostly, what most Christians mean by "Gospel" and grace.

What are some examples of passages that demonstrate how (or how not) Paul preached the same gospel Jesus did?

I'm looking for passages of Paul or Jesus that match up with each other, not external verification that they are on the same page.

There are a number of passages that suggest that Paul preached the same message as the first eleven apostles.

Paul says so:

  I went up because of a revelation and set before [the Jerusalem church] (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.—Galatians 2:2 (ESV)

Luke implies that the Jerusalem church approved of Paul's message:

  Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. —Acts 15:22a (ESV)

And later:

  On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God.—Acts 21:18-20a (ESV)

The author of 2nd Peter put Paul's letters under the banner of Scripture:

  And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.—2nd Peter 3:15-16 (ESV)

According to Paul, he got the gospel directly from God by revelation:

  But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.—Galatians 1:15-17 (ESV)

Acts 9, 22 and 26 detail Paul's conversion and show us that he spoke directly to the resurrected Jesus.  We read in various places (e.g., Acts 13:4-12) that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit.  And, of course, he did spend time with the Jerusalem church, Peter and the other apostles.  Perhaps Barnabas, John Mark, Silas, and others traveled with Paul was so that they bare witness to the events of Jesus' earthly ministry and repeat His teachings.

As to why Jesus didn't preach more about the Gospel of Grace, I think that stems from a greater mystery: for some reason God wants us to be part of His grand story.  God was surprisingly "hands-off" in the Old Testament period.  Sure, He brought down fire on wicked cities and rescued His people miraculously on occasion.  But for the most part, God expected His people to be faithful and remember His provision for them without intervention.

In the same way, Jesus did surprisingly little to establish His Kingdom while on earth.  And the bulk of the church's work to reach the gentile world fell on their shoulders only after He ascended to heaven.  Jesus spoke the language of the Jewish peasant, fisherman, merchant, rabbi, and priest, but He didn't have much to say to gentiles.  Paul was the right man at the right time for the job of translating that message into a philosophical framework that a Greek-educated person would understand.  His struggle for the church was primarily in helping the gentiles see why a provincial Jew's teaching mattered to them.


What does "in persona Christi Capitis" mean? The Church says that the Priest acts "in persona Christi Capitis".
Where is this term taken from?

It means: "in the person of Christ the Head [of the Church]".
Christ is the High Priest, in Whose person all other ordained priests act when they offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
When a Catholic priest consecrates the host and wine, he truly identifies Himself with Christ when he says "This is my body." and "This is my blood."
St. Robert Bellarmine writes (Controversiis t. 2, De Missa, 1, c. 27), as quoted in Pope Pius XII's encyclical on the sacred liturgy, Mediator Dei §86:

The sacrifice is principally offered in the person of Christ. Thus the oblation that follows the consecration is a sort of attestation that the whole Church consents in the oblation made by Christ, and offers it along with Him.
Sacrificium, inquit, in persona Christi principaliter offertur. Itaque ista oblatio, consecrationem subsequens, est quaedam testificatio, quod tota Ecclesia consentiat in oblationem a Christo factam, et simul cum illo offerat.


What is the current Catholic church's view on Haitian Vodou? Haitian Vodou is the syncretic result of African spiritual systems and Catholicism, basically merging as a result of the transatlantic slave trade and travel to the new world.  Many Haitians who practice Vodou consider themselves Christian.

What does the Catholic church currently think of it?

The voodoo is frowned upon by the Catholic Church, but (in practice) it is tolerated as many other pagan practices, especially in underdeveloped countries.
This is what We call "religious syncretism".

In 2011, Benedict XVI blasted "occultism and evil spirits" in an audience of priests, seminarians, religious and laity in the St. Gall Seminary in Ouidah.

  "The love for the God who reveals himself and for his word, the love
  for the sacraments and the church, are an efficacious antidote against
  a syncretism which deceives,” the pope said this morning in Ouidah.

  “This love favors the correct integration of the authentic values of
  cultures into the Christian faith,” he said. “It liberates from
  occultism and vanquishes evil spirits, for it is moved by the power of
  the Holy Spirit.”

  When John Paul II visited Benin in 1993, his trip coincided with a
  major national celebration of the country's voodoo heritage titled
  "Ouidah 92." The pope met a voodoo high priest, with a picture of that
  encounter splashed across the front page of L'Osservatore Romano, the
  daily Vatican newspaper.

  That encounter has long been controversial in more traditional
  Catholic circles, who regarded it as tantamount to a papal endorsement
  of heterodox worship. On this trip, Benedict has expressed admiration
  for elements of traditional African religion, but has also been
  careful to condemn "syncretism" and to condemn what he sees as its
  negative elements.


What was St. Thomas Aquinas's view on the difference between punishment accorded to original sin and punishment accorded to individual sin? Many different thinkers in Catholicism have proposed different theories regarding what original sin is compared to individual sin. From this, different theologians have thought that original sin incurs different punishment than individualistic sin.

I am reading St. Thomas Aquinas and it would seem to me that he believed original sin's punishment is an immediate loss of fullness, where 'human nature is left to itself, and deprived of original justice'. Does this punishment however equate to eternal damnation, or does eternal damnation follow as a consequential punishment to the fallen state of deprived justice? In other words, is the punishment of original sin equatable to death and subsequent orientations to sin and does specific punishment (being possibly eternal damnation, punishment in purgatory, etc) accorded to certain individuals, follow as a possible consequence if not prevented by grace?

Also, Aquinas notes the distinction between satisfactory punishment (punishment of a penitent nature serving the potential of merit) and penal punishment (punishment accorded legally to the individual to fulfill justice).

Would the punishment for original sin, if the previous suggestion that original sin's punishment is not an eternal damnation but rather only the 'loss of original justice', be of a satisfactory punishment nature (if such were to be possible through grace)? And if such is so, would the individual facing eternal damnation be of a penal punishment nature?

St. Thomas Aquinas was born in 1225 or 1227 and died in 1274. Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) had already defined the dogma:

  "We say that a distinction must be made, that sin is twofold: namely,
  original and actual: original, which is contracted without consent;
  and actual which is committed with consent. Original, therefore, which
  is committed without consent, is remitted without consent through the
  power of the sacrament; but actual, which is contracted with consent,
  is not mitigated in the slightest without consent. . . . The
  punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but
  the punishment of actual [mortal] sin is the torments of everlasting
  hell." (DZ 410) - Source: Limbo in Church Doctrine | Question
  from John Harden on 01-01-2008 | EWTN Catholic Q&A.

We should then expect that St. Thomas Aquinas would adhere to this Church dogma and teach it; and he does so in  New Advent: Summa Theologica > Supplement > Question 69. Matters concerning the resurrection, and first of the place where souls are after death > Article 7. Whether so many abodes should be distinguished?

  The abodes of souls are distinguished according to the souls' various
  states. Now the soul united to a mortal body is in the state of
  meriting, while the soul separated from the body is in the state of
  receiving good or evil for its merits; so that after death it is
  either in the state of receiving its final reward, or in the state of
  being hindered from receiving it. If it is in the state of receiving
  its final retribution, this happens in two ways: either in the respect
  of good, and then it is paradise; or in respect of evil, and thus as
  regards actual sin it is hell, and as regards original sin it is the
  limbo of children. On the other hand, if it be in the state where it
  is hindered from receiving its final reward, this is either on account
  of a defect of the person, and thus we have purgatory where souls are
  detained from receiving their reward at once on account of the sins
  they have committed, or else it is on account of a defect of nature,
  and thus we have the limbo of the Fathers, where the Fathers were
  detained from obtaining glory on account of the guilt of human nature
  which could not yet be expiated.

Summary: According to St. Thomas [in line with Church Teaching], the punishment of those dying in actual [mortal] sin and those dying only in original sin is eternal hell, though punished with different penalties and in different places. The former going to hell proper and the latter to limbo of children.

Further Reading: The Four Sections of Hell (St Thomas Aquinas) by Dr Taylor Marshall.


The Power of Satan over Believers and Unbelievers In tormenting Job, Satan had to ask God for permission concerning what he could do (economic damage, family, health).

Before sifting Peter, Satan had to ask Jesus for permission.

Question:

For believers, is there some time mark after which Satan needs to ask for permission (i.e. ask for permission after conversion, but not before?)
Does the Bible indicate anywhere whether Satan needs to ask God for permission before dealing with Unbelievers? [I suspect the answer might be yes, given that permission was requested even for entering animals (i.e. the pigs going off the cliff)].

When we consider where this 'permission' comes from we can answer points 1. & 2.  First, every molecule in the universe, in a sense needs permission to do anything, because God is infinite in power. An infinite God can not allow anything to be done, without his permission. Therefore, for the Devil to exist, he needs, in a sense, God's permission. However the permission you are referring to is an abstraction from that more general permission and pertains to God's particular sovereignty, in rare specific cases. Here we are really dealing with God's sovereign control over the universe and we can have a window into it by this verse:

  And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (NIV Romans 8:28-30)

(I have posted some details about this verse here, which supports this post, if you are interested in more details.)

This takes care of (1.) because for the elect God has planned out his blessing from eternity, so there can be no point where the Devil is not 'bound in chains' (Mark 3:27, Rev 20) in terms of the limits of his cruelty which he can unleash upon the elect.

With regard to (2.) I would say that the Devil is also clearly under the chains of God to limit his ability to inflict cruelty, otherwise, the whole world would due dead, or worshipping him, or some other great evil which we could not imagine. However this is a different case because he already has permission to rule their minds as he is the prince of darkness and ruler of the world.

The problem with all of this is our understanding of 'permission'.  In general the Devil does not seem to need permission to carry on his work, but as he runs into brick walls of protection by God, he is bound. He is sort of free to cause havoc, without every second running to God for permission.

  Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.(NIV 1 Peter 5:8)

However, in very narrow cases, such as Job and Peter, the Bible moves into a special circumstance when God seems to remove part of his protection for mysterious purposes that align with the Devil's wishes. These mysterious cases are called a kind of'permission' with Job and Peter. usually the Bible does not indicate that the Devil is asking God anything, but Job and Peter are on God's and the Devils radar specifically, so there cases have special attention in the bible. In fact God is the one who brings up Job! But these specific cases are still examples that not only work out higher blessing in those two person's lives (Romans 8:28-30) but draw out principles for us all who read them.

It is not really in line with scripture to think of the Devil as asking special permissions all the time, and God sometimes granting them and sometimes not. Rather God has generally granted the Devil to go about as he pleases under strict limits, and sometimes let's him go a little further when it suits God perfect will in working our his mysterious purposes in peoples lives and manifesting his glory to men. Both Christians and non Christians are i this open field of spiritutual warfare. Since this is the landscape God also wants us to enter into the conflict because it is not all going on without the effect of our own choices and decisions. We are to wrestles and pray because it makes a difference to the level of 'protection' we have obtained. This protection is primarily from sin.  Therefore we are to 'wrestle' that means constant, tiring close contact, unlike boxing, or shooting.(Ephesians 6:12)


Overview on the Theology of Forgiveness vs Reconcillation What are the main theological stances on the doctrine of forgiveness vs Reconciliation?

I think at the far far extreme (or perhaps the most biblical definition is):

we should forgive others as God forgave us
God forgives us for our sins, not bringing them into  account
God treats us with the imputed righteousness of Christ
therefore, we should not bring others sins into account and treat them with the righteousness of Christ.

I'm interested in an overview of other theological stances on forgiveness / reconciliation (I suspect there's a spectrum).

The ideal answer would be something that present an ordered list, where each item has a name along with a description of how forgiveness / reconciliation is viewed within that stance.

Thanks!

From a protestant perspective I think the teaching is clear.  We are to never withhold forgiveness towards an offending brother or sinner.

Peter asked this question to Jesus himself:

  Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”
  Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy- seven times. (NIV Matthew 18:21-22)

The 'seventy seven' phrase implies unlimited, for as Alfred Edersheim notes, it responds to a 'quantitative question' with a 'qualitative answer'. The whole concept of turning the other cheek and not judging our brother implies walking in constant forgiveness.

However, although this ensures continual personal reconciliation and prevents us from personally 'judging' (which is implicit in every unforgiving thought which wickedly resents the sins if others) - this is not meant to imply social reconciliation.  On the contrary. For the sake of the benefit of the sinner and society, the murderer, though possibly 'personally' forgiven and reconciled to the families of Christian survivors, must still face prison to be reconciled to society.  The same goes within the church for those who commit scandalous sins which they remain unrepentant of. Such should face excommunication from the local church. With such people, while in that state, we must do our part in opposing reconciliation, while holding no personal judgment or resentment:

  But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. (NIV 1 Corinthians 5:11)

By separating the personal from the social, we can follow the subject of forgiveness an reconciliation as proposed in scripture.


Is there an appropriate response to "Jesus Loves You"? For Catholics we've got a lot of cool call and response stuff built into our liturgies that can easily translate to everyday life.  So if someone in a truck shouts at me "Dominus Vobiscum", I know to say "Et cum spiritu tuo”.

I was wandering around down in the southern US a few day ago and someone in a truck yelled at me "Jesus Loves You".  I thought that was wonderful and it really cheered me up.  I waved and said "thanks".

Is there a cool thing that Protestants say (like "ping" - "pong" on IRC or that cool sign Harley guys do)?  I know Bill Cosby thought it was cool that Protestants say "Amen", but I don't think that's an "Amen" moment.  I want to say "Thanks for remembering me, Jesus loves you too!",  I don't want to say "I know, ain't I cool".

Also, and this may be pertinent information to the question at hand,  I really did look like a hobo at the time.  I was walking from a Motel 6 to a Wafflehouse wearing 3 shirts, a jacket, a scraggly beard a stocking cap and carrying a mug and I'd just been camping for the weekend, the fact that I left my sleeping bag and over-stuffed backpack in the hotel room didn't seem to improve my appearance.

I guess if I was in Italy and someone said "Jesus loves you" in Latin, I might reply "et tu frater" or "et tu sorror".  Don't know if I could get away with "Jesus te amo" or if that would give out the wrong signal, though.

In English, I would probably respond with "You too, brother" or "You too, sister".  Or perhaps "Such love! Amazing love!" accompanied by a great big smile and a cheery wave.


By what mechanism could the Bible be inerrant? For those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (or those who understand the positions of those who do), how can the Bible have this status given all the opportunities for any message delivered by God to be corrupted by human failings?

In particular, humans have free will and thus fell; but a being with free will may choose to convey a different message than one they have been given, and even without such will, imperfect beings make mistakes.  Did God suspend the exercise of free will and ability to err (at least without catching it later) of those who wrote the Bible and those who transcribed it?

By the mechanism of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - that is the supernatural power of God.  The human authors of the Bible wrote under the direct inspiration of the Spirit, writing exactly and precisely what God wanted them to write in their native language.  They willed to submit to God and his will was done, so neither the author's will nor God's was violated.
Note that inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts, not subsequent translations, nor even copies of them.
According to H. C. Thiessen, giving the Evangelical Pentecostal point of view:

Not only is Scripture inspired and authoritative, it is also inerrant and infallible. By this we mean that it is without error in the original manuscripts. It is inerrant in all that it affirms, whether in historical, scientific, moral, or doctrinal matters. Inerrancy extends to all of Scripture and is not limited to certain teachings of Scripture.
-- Lectures in Systematic Theology, Thiessen & Doerksen, William B. Eerdmans, 1979. [Emphasis mine.]

The Catholic position is similar, though worded less concretely, probably to protect the duality of scripture and tradition within that body:

II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”
107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”
-- Catholic Catechism. [Emphasis original.]

The most salient section being the last bit: "firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures".


Do any denominations use the full form of INRI? At John 19:19-20 we read:

  Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”  Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.

In the crucifixes that we see today, we only see the inscription as INRI which is the short-form of what Pilate actually wrote. It is  quite unlikely that Pilate used the abbreviated  form, since the inscription was meant to be  form of charge-sheet, as is evident from John 19:21 :  " Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’”

My question is: is there any denomination which uses the full text of the inscription that Pilate placed on the Cross of Jesus, in the crucifix used by it ?

Do any denominations use the full form of INRI?

The short answer is yes.

First of all, there are several denominations that have the tradition of have of displaying  crucifixes in their church, such as Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans. Although these churches have  crucifixes in them, the vast majority of these works of art, simply have the abbreviated form of Titulus on the cross.

There is nothing contrary to having a crucifix with the full title within these denominations. It simply is not the prevailing custom of any denomination.

That said, if one looks hard enough, someone will eventually find a few churches here and there that display a crucifix with the full title of Christ’s condemnation, in various Christian denominations throughout the world.

Here is just one example of a crucifix with the full title which I found in a Lutheran church.

A crucifix in the chancel of a Lutheran church.

With a little more research I am confident one could find more examples in other denominations as well.

  The Latin title, being the official indictment, would undoubtedly have been written first on the board. This then would have determined the length of the board and/or the size of the letters required to fit the inscription into one line and for it still to be readable by the crowd from a distance (John 19:20).

  In those days they did not use spaces between the words in any of the languages as we do now, and so John's Latin “title” contained just 26 letters and no spaces.

  Luke's Greek “superscription” contained 30 letters, and so must have been written in slightly smaller letters than was the Latin. It is easy to see that there would not have been room for 16 more letters for the words “Jesus of Nazareth” (i.e. “Jesus the Nazarene”) in Greek.

  Matthew's “accusation” in Hebrew contained just 19 letters, which is rather fewer than the two other languages, because the Jews did not write vowels in Hebrew. Whoever translated the title into Hebrew apparently did not think it worth adding “of Nazareth.” Perhaps he thought that to have lived in Nazareth was not an indictable offense!

  If we put all of this together, it is highly probable that the board with the inscriptions looked as shown above, with the Latin written first, probably at the top, and then either the Greek or the Hebrew. -
  The inscription(s) on the cross


Concept and permanence of hell and the "outer darkness" according to LDS beliefs [Edited because I first got confused from the answers about for whom should "hell" be a permanent place (I had assumed that the SE answers meant that it was not a permanent place for anyone).]

This is related to this other StackExchange question about who ends in hell according to LDS doctrine.

In this other question, the topmost of two current answers state about hell:

  Instead of a place of suffering and torment, it's a temporary
  prison where they will get a chance to learn about the Truth, and if
  they are willing, repent and embrace the Truth.

  Those who reject it are cast into outer darkness with Satan and his
  angels, and the "sons of Perdition".

The second answer states that:

  While some refer to spirit prison as 'hell' it is not actually
  referred to as that in any official church teaching. It is as @David
  said a temporary place where people have a chance to accept the
  gospel of Christ. See: 1 Peter 3: 18-20

  In all actuality no place in LDS teachings is actually called hell.
  The 'Sons of Perdition' are relegated to outer darkness, after the
  final judgment (as opposed to right when you die) So after the second
  coming of Christ.

However the page at lds.org (quoted in the first answer) says that:

  Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it
  is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal
  world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who
  were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of
  Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition, who are not
  redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

I am not intending to nitpick on answers, but I probably need some clarification.

On one hand the official lds.org answer refers to hell as a permanent place for Satan, his followers, and the sons of perdition.

On other hand the answers here refer to hell as a temporary place where people can learn about God.

The questions I wanted to ask about this:

Is the hell that is a spirit prison in the lds.org answer, or the
place were people learn the truth about God, the same as the hell
that is a permanent place for Satan and the sons of perdition?
What is the "outer darkness" referred to in both answers?
Is anyone tortured in hell or in the "outer darkness", by God or
because of the will of God, according to LDS beliefs?

Please indicate whether your answer is the official church answer (or if that is what you have been taught in church) or if it is your own interpretation.

Is the hell that is a spirit prison in the lds.org answer, or the place were people learn the truth about God, the same as the hell that is a permanent place for Satan and the sons of perdition?

No, they're different. Alma 40 says:

6 Now there must needs be a space betwixt the time of death and the time of the resurrection.
7 And now I would inquire what becometh of the souls of men from this time of death to the time appointed for the resurrection?
...
13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
14 Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.

(Alma was not a very concise speaker.)
This refers to a temporary place between death and the resurrection for those who were wicked. (It's confusing that sometimes the terms are used interchangeably, but in the eternal scheme of things, it probably doesn't matter, since the one who is consigned to hell, was always there in the first place (CS Lewis).)

2 . What is the "outer darkness" referred to in both answers?

Those answers refer to a place called "outer darkness" which is permanent.

3 . Is anyone tortured in hell or in the "outer darkness" according to LDS beliefs?

Yes, I think so. The scriptures refer to hell as a state of "weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity" and being led captive by the devil. Sounds pretty torturous to me, anyway. (I should clarify too that Mormon belief sends way fewer people to this hell than "traditional" Christian belief systems.)


What is the difference between "person" and "substance"? According to the answer here:

  St. Thomas Aquinas explained the preceding definition [of person] in terms that practically constitute a new definition: a substance, complete, subsisting per se, existing apart from others (Summa Theologica, III, Q. xvi, a. 12, ad 2um).

According to trinitarian theology, the triune god is said to be "three seperate persons" consisting of "one substance".

Does this mean the triune god is "three separate substances, each existing apart from other substances, consisting of one substance"?

In other words, what are the key differences between a "person" and a "substance"?

The terms substance and person are (in the context of Trinitarian theology and Christology) Latin translations of the Greek terms ousia and hypostasis.

The background from Greek philosophy.

Plato and Aristotle were the ones who first formulated the terms ousia (substance or essence) and hypostasis (individual substance) in a philosophical sense. Plato did not make any treatises; it was his student Aristotle who was the first to deal with substance (ousia) in a systematic way.

Substance

A lot could be said, but, briefly, a substance is any individual being that exists separately from—and is not merely a characteristic “inherent” in—other beings. For example, an oak tree is a substance; its color, size, weight, location, and so forth, are not substances but accidents. The tree exists “separately” from other substances; the tree’s accidents cannot possibly be separated from it.

As Aristotle famously remarked,

  “Being” (τὸ ὂν) is used in many ways, but referring to one, and one nature only, not ambiguously (Metaphyiscs 1003α32; my translation).

The “one thing” to which being always refers is οὐσία; that is, substance (1003β5). In other words, although the verb “to be” can be used in a lot of different ways, it always refers ultimately to some substance. For example, we say, “The tree is green,” or “The tree is in such-and-such a place,” and so forth, but we can affirm neither greenness nor location without a tree (the substance) to go with it.

Note that for Aristotle (in opposition to his teacher Plato), substance primarily denotes individuals, not universals. That is, for Aristotle, an individual tree is a substance in the primary sense; tree-kind can also be called “substance,” but only in a secondary sense.

In contrast, Plato thought that reality is to found principally in the ideas: hence, for Plato tree-kind is more real than individual trees. (See, for instance Plato’s Phaedo 78c–79a, and 100b–101d.) Not so for Aristotle.

This distinction becomes important when it is applied to Trinitarian theology and Christology, because those who formulated that theology were fundamentally Platonists, not Aristotelians.

Hypostasis and Person

The term hypostasis simply refers to substance in (what for Aristotle is) its primary sense: an individual. The Greek term can refer to any individual with a separate existence: a tree, a human being, a dog, a stone, and so forth.

The Latin term person—according to Boethius’ famous definition—refers to an “individual substance (hence a hypostasis) with a rational nature” (Boethius, Liber de persona et duabus naturis, chapter III, PL 63:1343C). In other words, the term person in Latin has a more restricted meaning than the Greek hypostasis—that is, it is limited to substances capable of intellectual knowledge (men, angels, and God). In a Trinitarian or Christological context, however, the two terms are identical in meaning.

Substance and Hypostasis (Person) in Trinitarian theology

When the Council of Nicaea condemned the heresy of Arius, it affirmed that the Son is one in substance (homousios) with the Father. (See text of the Council of Nicaea in Denzinger-Hünnermann [DH], Enchiridion symbolorum, 125.) The council fathers, however, failed to distinguish well between hypostasis and ousia, as is evidenced by the following condemnation:

  Those who hold that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance [ousia] from God … are anathematized by the Catholic Church (Council of Nicaea, DH 126).

This condemnation is not false, but was written at a time when the terms hypostasis and ousia were not yet used in the technical sense they have today. (The Nicene condemnation reflects the fact that in most of the philosophical discourse of the day ousia and hypostasis were essentially synonyms.)

It was the Cappadocian Father Basil of Caesarea who first made that distinction (probably influenced in part by Origen). It should be noted that Basil’s training was Platonic, not Aristotelian, so he was drawing from the Platonic interpretation of the terms substance (ousia) and hypostasis. Basil, therefore, interprets ousia to mean universal or common nature (e.g, tree-kind, as opposed to individual trees) and hypostasis to mean a concrete individual.

It is, however, very important to note that Basil went to great lengths to explain that in applying these terms, he was not attributing them to God in the same way that they apply to creatures. Among creatures, individuals belong to “genera” or “species” that are constituted by other individuals of the same kind. Thus, for instance, oak trees belong to a species of other trees that are also oak trees; human beings belong to the species called “man,” and so forth.

The Hypostases (Persons) of the Trinity, however, are not “individuals” in the “species” called God; such would be tantamount to tri-theism. Rather, each Hypostasis possesses the Divine Substance (and the very same Divine Substance) in its entirety. (That is possible, as Gregory Nazianzen explains, because each Hypostasis is fundamentally a relation of origin with respect to the other Hypostases [Orat. 31 de Spiritu Sancto, IX, PG 36:141C].)

The Persons (or Hypostases) of the Trinity, therefore, are immanent relations of origin that operate within the Godhead. They are the subjects of God’s action and answer the question Who?

The Divine Substance, on the other hand, answers the question of what kind of being God is.

Again, it should be stressed that the Persons do not “divide” the Divine Substance in any way; God remains utterly simple and undivided.

Substance and Person in Christology

The terms ousia (and its synonym physis or “nature”) and hypostasis also appear in the context of Christology.

The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man; the technical way that Chalcedonian Christians affirm this is to say that Jesus has two natures (physes). Evidently, Jesus’ Divine Nature (or Substance) is the same one that he has always had as the Divine Son; in this regard he is one in substance (homoousios) with the Father. At the Incarnation, he acquired a human nature; in this regard, he is one in substance (homoousios) with man. (See the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, DH 301-303; note that that the Council of Chalcedon, in affirming this, understands ousia in the Platonic sense—even though, of course, it recognizes that the Divine Substance is utterly one had does not have “individual members” the way the human species does.)

However, Jesus is one hypostasis or Person, not two, as was clarified in the Council of Ephesus. (See DH 250-258.) Over the course of the century that followed the Council of Chalcedon (451), it gradually became clearer that the Hypostasis (Person) of Jesus is the very same Hypostasis that is the Son, that is the Second Person of the Trinity:

  there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity (Council of Constantinople II of 553, DH 424).

In Christology, just as in Trinitarian theology, “nature” or “substance” answers the question, “What kind of being is Jesus Christ?” and the answer, is “God and man.”

“Person” or “hypostasis” answers the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?” and the answer is, “the Divine Son, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity.”

In answer to the O.P.’s specific questions:

Is the triune God “three separate Persons”?

No, the Persons are in no way separate from each other. The are really distinct (that is, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit, and so forth). However, they cannot be considered “separate” from one antother, because each person is perfectly identical to the Divine Substance. (Each Person possesses the Substance in its “entirety”—which we say very improperly, because God does not have parts—and possesses the very same, undivided Divine Substance as the others.)

Of course, God is infinitely “separate” (in the sense of infinitely independent) from His creatures—which is what makes Him, so to speak, the Substance par excellence. (He is not, however, “separate” in the sense of “distant;” indeed, there is no one more “present” to creation than He is.)

Does this mean the triune God is ”three separate substances”, each existing apart from other substances, consisting of one substance?

No. God is a unique, undivided Substance. He is unique, undivided, and also triune; that is, within the Godhead, there are three subjects that can be the answer to the question “Who?” The Persons (or Hypostases) differ from one another only in relation of origin (Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession); in every other respect—that is, with respect to the entire Divine Substance—they are perfectly identical.


Limited Atonement and Perseverance of the Saints in Light of 1 Corinthians 8:11 (Calvinism) The acronym T.U.L.I.P summarizes five core doctrines of Calvinism concerning salvation. I hope I've summarized them accurately enough for the question's purpose.

T. Total Depravity — The doctrine that fallen man is 'dead in trespasses and sins' to the point of not even being able to accept salvation where such an offer thereof to be said to be possible or made possible in Calvinism.
U. Unconditional Election — The doctrine that God's election is, for lack of a better word, arbitrary, or not based on a condition on the creature—everyone saved is just as worthy of it: that is to say, not worthy at all.
L. Limited Atonement — The doctrine that since the grace of God is irresistible and is beneficial without exception to its recipients, this necessitates that Christ died only for such recipients, whose technical term are the elect.
I. Irresistible Grace — The doctrine that those whom God has elected to receive His grace, cannot resist it—according to Calvinism, any notion of 'resist' it would imply that His grace wasn't powerful enough in the first place, since grace means an action God does to someone, and not a spiritual help (which would naturally be able to be refused).
P. Perseverance of the Saints — The doctrine that if God has elected you, you are not among those that are damned, but of the infallibly saved: therefore it is impossible that you will be lost.

In light of these, how do Calvinists answer the objection that 1 Corinthians 8:11 (among other verses, of course) disproves in a marked way the Limited Atonement and Perseverance of the Saints (but also all of T.U.L.I.P since each point can be said to rely on the truth of the others)?
Here is 1 Corinthians 8:10-11 (NA28; my translation):

ἐὰν γάρ τις ἴδῃ σὲ τὸν ἔχοντα γνῶσιν ἐν εἰδωλείῳ κατακείμενον, οὐχὶ ἡ συνείδησις αὐτοῦ ἀσθενοῦς ὄντος οἰκοδομηθήσεται εἰς τὸ τὰ εἰδωλόθυτα ἐσθίειν; ἀπόλλυται γὰρ ὁ ἀσθενῶν ἐν τῇ σῇ γνώσει, ὁ ἀδελφὸς δι’ ὃν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν
For if someone sees you, who know better, sat eating in the temples of idols, will not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrifices to idols? For by your knowledge he that is weak has been destroyed: a brother for whom Christ died.

This appears to me to invalidate both Limited Atonement and Perseverence of the Saints, since scandal is described as destroying one for whom Christ died.
In the same context, St. Paul writes the following to the church at Rome (Romans 14:14-15, 20: NA28; my translation):

οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι, ἐκείνῳ κοινόν· εἰ γὰρ διὰ βρῶμα ὁ ἀδελφός σου λυπεῖται, οὐκέτι κατὰ ἀγάπην περιπατεῖς· μὴ τῷ βρώματί σου ἐκεῖνον ἀπόλλυε ὑπὲρ οὗ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν. ... μὴ ἕνεκεν βρώματος κατάλυε τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ. ...
I know and am fully convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself, but that to him who considers anything to be unclean, for him it is unclean. For if by food your brother is offended, you are no longer walking according to love: do not destroy for the sake of food him for whom Christ died. ... Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. ...

Thanks in advance.

The answer to Paul's question :

  Shall the weak brother perish ? (I Corinthians 8:11 - KJV - απολειται ο ασθενων αδελφος)

is ... no he shall not perish.

The reason that the weak brother will not perish is :

  ... for whom Christ died. (I Corinthians 8:11 - KJV - δι ον χριστος απεθανεν)

The brother will not perish (or 'be destroyed') because Christ died for him and Jesus Christ loves him and Jesus Christ will not permit the sin of one brother to cause the other - weak - brother to be overcome and to be cast away.

Thus He sends a messenger to instruct both the 'strong' brother and the 'weak' brother - and we have the documented record of the messenger's epistle, proof positive that Jesus Christ is risen, and ascended, and ministers as a Priest at the right hand of the Father in the heavens.

And thus Paul addresses the errant - 'strong' - brother (so full of his superior knowledge and so sure of his own 'strength') and questions him. Because of you and your superior knowledge, will you damage your brother ?

Will you cast a stumbling block - a 'scandal' - in his path ? Will you trust in your own strength of knowledge and care nothing for the weaker composure of your brother who will be tempted to do what is - actually - against his own conscience ?

For the weak brother might be emboldened to follow suit but, afterwards, his conscience will smite him (for his knowledge is not strong) and he will be overcome of guilt.

And Paul questions him to the ultimate - because of you and your attitude, will this brother ultimately perish ? Will he commit sin against his own conscience and be overcome of guilt and be destroyed ?

But the question of that weak brother's ultimate destiny is not up to the errant 'strong' brother.

Nor is up to the weakness of himself (else would we all perish).

It is ultimately a matter of what God, in Christ, will or will not do.

For the Lord (I Peter 3:9) is not slack ... but is long-suffering to us-ward (that is to say to the 'them', also, who have obtained like precious faith with 'us' - see I Peter 1:1) not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[And I do respect what (I think) prompts the OP question - that repentance is necessary, else we perish. And I do not respect the attitude of those who think that a knowledge of doctrine is carte blanche to commit sin.]

The Lord is not slack. He sees every sparrow which drops to the ground in the forest, Matthew 10:29. He knows the number of the hairs of the head of them that seek him, Luke 12:7. He is aware of every single thought - not one is withheld from him, Job 42:2.

And he will not let one single one perish, for whom sacrifice was made and for whom righteousness has been satisfied . . . it cannot be.

Otherwise, righteousness would be no more righteousness.

Note : I do not subscribe to 'tulip' myself. Jack Glass, in Glasgow, conveyed it to me fifty years ago when I was seventeen but I found it to be not a sufficiently spiritual expression of the gospel for me to embrace it. But I have answered the question as one who believes that the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ are effectual and are not dependent on the works of men to supplement them.

But I do believe that all for whom Jesus Christ suffered and died shall be brought to repentance and shall be brought to faith and that they shall be fully justified and, ultimately, glorified.

And in that, some might call me a follower of John Calvin and I would not disagree.

I would say that the argument of the posed question falls down because the argument has left Jesus Christ out of the process and has considered only the two brothers and their relevant 'strength' and 'weakness'.

It is the Lord who is above all.


Are there members in people's ancestry who claim to have seen Jesus, or witnessed His acts? Historians/writers were able to get written accounts of Jesus's life and acts from the eyewitness accounts of people who had seen Him during His lifetime. It occurred to me that I have not seen or heard claims from people in this lifetime (or a few previous) stating that their ancestors met or saw Him, whether based on story passed down or diary/journal documentation.

I know there's got to be an obvious reason, but I'm stumped on why not?

There are some families amongst the Ancient Churches of the Levant (Syria, Lebanon etc.) that do claim descent from particular apostles. For example, some members of the Semaan family claim descent from the Apostle Peter. Similarly for the families Andraos (Andrew), Hanna (John) and Matta (Matthew).


Mary as the road that we must travel in order to reach God? According to Pope Francis:

Mary is not only the bridge joining us to God; she is more. She is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel in order to reach him.

How do catholics explain this in light of John 14:6 (NASB)

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me?

According to Pope Francis

Mary is not only the bridge joining us to God; she is more. She is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel in order to reach him.

Pope Francis like Pope St. John Paul II famous "Totus Tuus" originated from the Total Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary written by St. Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort.
The phrase known to Catholic was the phrase, "To Jesus through Mary". More on this can be found in the book True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort.
Other expression instead of the word "road" is "path, ladder of paradise, gate of heaven, etc", the expression was, like in the Franciscan:

"Mary is our path to Jesus Christ"
And St. Lawrence Justinian asks: "How can she be otherwise than full of grace? She has been made the ladder to paradise, the gate of heaven, the most true mediatrix between God and human beings."
St. Bonaventure says Mary is called "the Gate of Heaven because no one can enter that blessed Kingdom without passing through her."

But the most famous one came from St.Louis de Montfort and this is shared also by St. Maximillian Kolbe and other Church Theologians: see below.

To Jesus through Mary, Origins
Q: What is the origin of the expression "To Jesus through Mary"?
A: The origin of "To Jesus through Mary" is generally attributed to Louis Grignion de Montfort in his True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. That is to say that he used the expression most explicitly, and presented devotion to Mary as the most effective means of consecration to Jesus. Therefore, according to Grignion, we ought to entrust ourselves to Mary in imitation of Christ (True Devotion 121, 123, 124). According to Montfort, true devotion "consists in giving oneself entirely to the Blessed Virgin, in order to belong entirely to Jesus Christ through her." (True Devotion, 121) However, the idea of going through Mary to Jesus is much older, and was promoted by such authors as Ildephonse of Toledo (+667), Germanus of Constantinople (+773), John of Damascus (+750), Ambrose Autpert (+781), Fulbert of Chartres (+1028), Odilo of Cluny (+1049), Peter Damian (+1072), Anselm of Lucca (+1086), and Anselm of Canterbury (+1109). Geoffrey of Vendôme (+1132) would say, for example, "...let us hasten to his mother, and through her to the Son Himself." (PL 157, 266A) And Bernard of Clairvaux insists: "...be careful to commit to Mary the little thou desirest to offer, that the Lord may receive it through her hands...." ("De Nat"., in: Bernard's sermons on the Blessed Virgin Mary. Augustine Publ.: Devon, 1987, 101-103). In Odo of Canterbury (+1200) we find a passage which is even closer to the consecrated expression attributed to Montfort. Odo uses these words: "In fact, one goes to Christ through Mary, one goes to the Son through the Mother. By means of the Mother of Mercy one reaches mercy itself." (Testi Mariani, ed. L. Gambero, vol. 3, 490).

How do Catholics explain this in light of John 14:6 (NASB)

Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.

Since, Pope Francis, St.John Paul II and other well known Marian Pope's like Pope Leo XII, Pope St. Paul VI and numerous great Marian Saints like St. Liguori, St. Kolbe, not to mention the well know Church Fathers and Theologians, etc. have embraced and taught the important role of Mary in the salvation of souls. It follows that the Catholic Church affirmed Pope Francis view when he said:

Mary is not only the bridge joining us to God; she is more. She is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel in order to reach him.

If Mary is the "road", it doesn't mean that there's no other road as scriptures teaches us;

The Narrow Gate
13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves - Matthew7:13-15

Pondering deeply this passage, one may ask who or what is the "narrow gate"? Because if one do not know the narrow gate, then it follows as the passage immediately speaks of false prophets, that one is following the false prophets and wolves in sheep clothing and can be deceive.
What is the narrow gate?
We can find the answer to Pope Francis himself, and the explanation of the cited statement saying Mary is the road to God.

Pope Francis: Mary helps Christians enter heaven through the 'narrow gate'
The way to heaven is difficult and the gate to enter small, but Jesus’ mother, Mary, who herself entered through the narrow gate, will help those who ask, Pope Francis said Sunday.
Mary can be invoked under the title “Gate of Heaven,” he explained in his Angelus address Aug. 25.
“She welcomed [Jesus] with all her heart and followed him every day of her life, even when she did not understand, even when a sword pierced her soul.”
The Blessed Virgin Mary is “a gate that exactly follows the form of Jesus: the gate of the heart of Jesus, demanding, but open to all,” he said. “May the Virgin Mary help us in this.”

In closing, "Jesus said I am the Way", and Jesus came down from Heaven to show us the way, it's called the "Way of the Cross". If we follow the path of Jesus Christ in carrying our own cross like Jesus, we also need the accompaniment of a Mother. Like Jesus, we cannot endure the weight of the cross and climb the Calvary without the powerful intercession of a Mother. That's is why, the agonizing Jesus at the Foot of the Cross, commanded all the redeemed with His words and this words was both a command and a gift. Jesus gave us the most precious gift of all, Jesus gave us his Mother who accompanied Him from "womb to tomb".
If we want to enter the narrow gate, and travel the road, the shortest and safest road to the Kingdom of God and not be deceive by false prophets and wolves in sheep clothing. All the redeemed, the People of God including the Christian and Non-Christian, all must heed Jesus command saying,

"Son, behold your Mother..." (John19:26)

If we do not welcome Mary in our home especially in our hearts, then, when the Blessed Virgin Mary knocks at our door, to help us in our Christian journey like St. Elizabeth and St. John the beloved Apostle did, then, we are missing the gifts of the Holy Spirit, because if we hear the voice or greetings of the Theotokos, that's enough for us to be "filled by the Holy Spirit", and proclaim "Jesus is Lord".
All the redeemed must welcome Mary's visitation as She brings salvation to all souls who seek it, because seeing the Face of Mary the Mother of Mercy, we can also see the Face of God, the Mercy of God which is Jesus Christ the Divine Mercy made flesh. And hearing the voice or greetings of Mary, we can experience the sanctifying gifts of the Holy Spirit because Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces, all graces pass thru the Maternal hands of Mary.

By the merits of Jesus, Mary was made the mediatrix of our salvation; not a mediatrix of justice, of course, but of grace and intercession --- as St. Bonaventure expressly calls her: "Mary, the most faithful mediatrix of our salvation."
This necessity goes back to the very will of God Himself, Who had decreed that all the graces He gives human beings should pass through Mary's hands. This is the opinion of St. Bernard --- an opinion which we may now safely call the general opinion of Theologians and Doctors.

More on this teaching coming from the Catholic Church thru the words of the Church Fathers, Saints, Doctor of the Church and Theologians can be found here in this link.


When did Arabic enter into usage as a liturgical language among Christians? Today, many Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the Middle East use Arabic as the language of the Divine Liturgy, often mingled with Greek. When did this practice begin?

I assume that at the time of the Muslim invasions the only liturgical languages in use were Greek and Syriac, and I can't imagine that the Orthodox Christians at that time were too keen on immediately adopting the language of the conquerors. Nonetheless, this clearly happened eventually. How and when did this shift occur?

Different communities adopted Arabic at various times. The earliest community to start using Arabic were the Greek Orthodox of Palestine, who started translating the liturgy and theological books into Arabic in the 8th century. For a more general history of Arab Christianity, I'd consult The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque by Sidney Griffith. For evidence of possible pre-Islamic use of Arabic as a Christian liturgical language, browse through the series Byzantium and the Arabs by Irfan Shahid.


Other than Augustine, which Church Fathers have directly influenced John Calvin's teaching of "double-predestination?" "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he
  determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to
  every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are
  preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and,
  accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends,
  we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." (Calvin,
  Institutes, Book III)

I've noticed, from my theological discussions with various Calvinists,  that the "go-to" early Church Father figure concerning the Calvinist view of double-predestination is St. Augustine.

Who else in the early Church directly influenced Calvin's doctrinal formulation of predestinarianism.

I prefer references to writings of the Church Fathers preceding St. Augustine, but any Patristic texts will do...as long as they are not Augustine's.

From Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 2, Section 4

  Moreover although the Greek Fathers, above others, and especially Chrysostom, have exceeded due bounds in extolling the powers of the human will, yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings.

Clearly Calvin felt that only Augustine understood predestination correctly. But, in the same section of the Institutes he invokes at least 3 other Church fathers:

Cyprian

  What, then, is meant by Cyprian in the passage so often lauded by Augustine, “Let us glory in nothing, because nothing is ours,” unless it be, that man being utterly destitute, considered in himself, should entirely depend on God?
  Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 2, Section 9
  Here Calvin is referring to Chapter 36 of A Treatise on the Gift of Perserverance by Augustine. Augustine is in turn quoting Cyprian's Testimonies Book III Section 4

Eucherius of Lyon
In the next sentence Calvin invokes Augustine and Eucherius:

  What is meant by Augustine and Eucherius, when they expound that Christ is the tree of life, and that whoso puts forth his hand to it shall live; that the choice of the will is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that he who, forsaking the grace of God, tastes of it shall die?

John Chrysostom
And in the following sentence he quotes John Chrysostom

  What is meant by Chrysostom, when he says, “That every man is not only naturally a sinner, but is wholly sin?” If there is nothing good in us; if man, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is wholly sin; if it is not even lawful to try how far the power of the will extends,—how can it be lawful to share the merit of a good work between God and man?

It's hard to say whether these other fathers directly influenced the doctrine of double predestination since so few of them, by Calvin's research, taught predestination at all. The closest would be Cyprian especially since I was able to find Cyprian's own books. The reference to John Chrysostom is interesting since Calvin condemns him and then quotes him to support his doctrine.


What is the biblical basis or precedent for restricting women from serving in war? In the United States, the Secretary of Defense just lifted the ban on women in combat.  Many Christians seem to oppose this idea and believe that women should not be put in combat.

What is the biblical basis or precedent for this position?

Just because there is no explicit prohibition on a thing does not mean that the Bible "endorses it."
Unwritten Expectations
There is, for example, to the best of my knowledge, no biblical prohibition cannibalism. Possibly it wouldn't fall under definition of kosher, but it is at best ambiguous! In spite of this, the author of the text rightfully expects that the reader is revolted when, (in 2 Kings 6:24-33), during a siege, two women concoct a plan to eat their children.  When the second woman reneges and the first brings it before the King, the King rends his garments to show how he too understands how appalling this situation is. That, even in the absence, of an explicit prohibition in the Torah.
Likewise, the idea of women in combat would have simply been so outrageous as to not need explicit mention.   Women simply did not fight* or if they did, something was wrong.
This is not to say that every Jewish custom is somehow holy - but "unthinkable" things don't need explicit mention in a contract between two parties - which is what the Old Testament laws were.
*But back to that "women didn't fight."  There are two notable exceptions to that rule, but both fall into the category of 'the exception that proves the rule':
1. Judith
In the apocraphyal book of Judith, for example, Judith uses sex and cunning to murder Holofernes, the invading general.  Scholars all agree, this fictional tale was written, in many ways, for its shock value. Like David defeating Goliath, this story simply assumes the incongruity of the weak defeating the strong in combat, leaving the reader to marvel at the tables being so turned.
2. Deborah and Barak
Within canonical Scripture, however, the most important story to remember is that of Deborah and Barak (no relation to the current President). Here, like in most of Judges, the Children of Israel have been beset by the enemy for their wickedness, and must now rise up and defeat the enemy. The chosen leader, however, is too reluctant.  (Yeah, it really is a different Barak!) He demands that Deborah - the woman God sent to encourage Barak, must accompany him and assist in leading.
Now, on the face of it, you might say: Hey! See - a Woman fighting in combat!  The precendent is not only absent, but wrong!
But here's the rub - God (and Deborah) bring judgement against Barak for his lack of cohones. The author writes:

8 Barak said to her, “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go.”
9 “Certainly I will go with you,” said Deborah. “But because of the course you are taking, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman.” So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh.

That Barak would have no honor from this battle is quite the indictment.  The assumption that a woman should not be in battle is so implicit as to be laughable.
Women encourage, Men fight. That's the model.  Are there exceptions? TO be sure - but the Bible is clear its not the model to follow.


What are the 'things offered to idols'? What are the 'things offered to idols' written about in Acts 15:29 and the 'things polluted by idols' of Acts 15:20?

How was this understood by the Apostles and their followers?

On what laws in the Old Testament is this 'rule' based?

Can Sunday be a religious day for Christians if it was already a religious day offered to the pagan sun god?

What are the 'things' offered to idols? In days of old, the leaders of different communities would make for themselves statues of creatures, then to obtain obedience from the general population, they would threaten that the creature would kill them or devour them if they did not work as expected. To continue with the illusion, feasts were assembled and pagan priests would do what they could to make it appear that the statue was eating. Or sacrifices where made, to make the illusion appear that the statue killed someone.

Acts 15:29 NKJV

  that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

The main point is that by eating of the things offered to idols, you would stand as a affidavit witnessing that the events of the illusion where true. They obviously are not true. So standing in any form of position to help conclude this illusion was real was supporting a lie.

Acts 15:20 NKJV

  but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

Now knowing above, If I where to abstain from eating the meat, but was part of the ceremony , and made some elaborate display for them like presenting the knife, or playing a trumpet. This still all would fall under helping to conclude this illusion was real and supporting a lie.

To understand How was this understood by the Apostles I assume it was given to them by God's Holy Spirit either supernaturally, or as a common truth.

Acts 15:23

  They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.

To understand how their followers perceived it. I guess here, but I would assume that they have witnessed such gatherings and displays due to the location. I do not know at this moment about what idols where being sacrificed to in Antioch, Syria, or Cilicia. I feel it safe to say though that the command would have been elaborated on if not to be naturally understood by the audience of that time.

This 'rule' is based on the Second Commandment of the Ten Commandments the Old Testament law. According to the Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex, Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only), and also the Septuagint.

Exodus 20:4-6 NKJV

  “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Can Sunday be a religious day for Christians if it was already a religious day offered to the pagan sun god? Yes. Not for the purpose of raising the pagan sun god to honor. Yet God explains through Paul.

In Hebrews 3:7-11 we are directed to understand Psalm 95:7–11.

Psalm 95:7–11 NKJV

  For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, And the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will hear His voice: 8 “Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion,
  As in the day of trial in the wilderness, 9 When your fathers tested Me; They tried Me, though they saw My work. 10 For forty years I was grieved with that generation,
  And said, ‘It is a people who go astray in their hearts, And they do not know My ways.’
  11 So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest.’”

So in the fullness of Hebrews Chapter 3 he concludes that the rest was no longer available to them because of their unbelief.

Hebrews 3:19 NKJV

  So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Then in Hebrews Chapter 4 he points out that a new day has been created to enter into rest.

Hebrews 4:7 NKJV

  again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.”

The need for this is pointed out

Hebrews 4:8 NKJV

  For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.

Going back to point out that the day was to continuously be today.

Hebrews 3:13 NKJV

  but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Therefore here is logic. If today you enter into his rest, and continually enter into his rest for every today. Then all the Sabbath days would then be covered, so the fulfillment of the duty to honor the seventh day would always be completed. Also since when today happens also to be a Sunday. That day is also considered a "Today". Therefore the festival may continue for any day that becomes today!

So then know in case this is your situation. If you do happen to know a Pagan Sun Worshiper I say be careful not to include yourself in any of the duties, or offer respect that supports any illusion. But instead love them and show them the perfect way. Amen.


How do the Eastern Orthodox view using the term 'catholic', particularly in regard to Roman Catholicism? The terms orthodox and catholic have immense significance to those that seek to make exclusive truth claims about their particular Christian Tradition. Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox trace their descent from (prior to schism) one catholic and orthodox Church. As a result, it would seem to be virtually impossible to concede the exclusive use of one of these terms to "the other side".

How do the Eastern Orthodox view using the terms catholic or Catholic generally, but particularly in regard to describing Roman Catholicism?

This is one of a number of related questions I intend to ask regarding the Great (East-West) Schism, terminology and self-identication of the resulting Churches.

The others so far:

What is the Roman Catholic view on using the term 'orthodox', particularly in regard to Eastern Orthodoxy?
At what point did the Roman see start self-identifying as the Catholic Church?
At what point did the Eastern Church start self-identifying as the Orthodox Church?

The term "catholic" appears in the revision to the Nicene Creed accepted at the 2nd Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381:

  We believe ... in one holy catholic and apostolic Church1

The Greek word is καθολικός (katholikos) and is taken to mean "general" or "universal".  It is not a word that really appears in the Bible, though it is found in some manuscripts in the title of the Epistle of James (i.e. The Catholic Epistle of James).

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains the understanding of the word as follows:

  The word catholikos in ancient Greek, pre-Christian literature is encountered very rarely. However, the Christian Church from antiquity chose this word to signify one of the principal attributes of the Church, namely, to express its universal character. Even though it had at its disposal such words as cosmos (the world), or oikoumene (the inhabited earth), evidently these latter words were insufficient to express a certain new concept which is present only to the Christian consciousness. In the ancient Symbols of Faith, wherever the word “Church” appears, it is unfailingly with the definition “catholic.” Thus, in the Jerusalem Symbol of Faith we read: “And in one, holy, catholic Church”; in the Symbol of Rome: “In the holy, catholic Church, the communion of the Saints”; etc. In ancient Christian literature, this term is encountered several times in St. Ignatius the God-bearer, an Apostolic Father, for example when he says, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.” This term is constantly to be found in the Acts of all the Ecumenical Councils. In the direct translation of the word, it signifies the highest degree of all-embracingness, wholeness, fullness (being derived from cath ola, meaning “throughout the whole”).2

The Eastern Orthodox Church sees itself as "Catholic".  Question No. 270 of the Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church asks:

  Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?

Metropolitan Philaret (the author of this particular catechism) writes:

  Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

  The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Col 1:5-6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all (Col 3:11). They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham (Gal 3:9).

Elder Cleopas (Ilie) of Romania expands on this understanding in his book, The Truth of Our Faith:

  With the word "Catholic" we may suggest that the Church has it as Her purpose to spread throughout the whole world, comprising Christians of every place, every age, and of all people.  This is confirmed by the following commandment of Christ: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations ...  Moreover, the Church is called Catholic since its entire teaching is the undistorted truth, which was given by Christ to the Apostles and through them to the world.  While on the contrary, heresy possesses but a portion of the truth.3

While many outside the Eastern Orthodox Church presume that the major difference between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church is the recognition of papal authority, in reality I think that this is a relatively minor point.  The Pope having jurisdiction over territories outside of the See of Rome would be seen as non-canonical (in violation of the canons of the 1st Ecumenical Council), but not heretical.  Within the Eastern Orthodox Church today there are dozens of such jurisdictional disputes, including the overlap of non-canonical episcopates from several Patriarchates within the Unites States.

The issue touching on how the east views the catholicity of Rome has to do with Elder Cleopas' point about catholicity also implying holding the fullness of truth.  The Roman Catholic Church, which grew from the ancient See of Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, which includes the other four ancient Sees,  differ on a number of significant theological points to such an extent that Rome is actually seen as being in not only schism but heresy.4  For this reason, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not recognize the Roman Catholic Church as being truly "Catholic".  It is understood to possess a portion of the truth, but not the fullness of truth.

1. Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
2. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), pp.245-6
3. pp.42-43.
4. See, e.g., the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs


Is it true that Luther didn't consider anyone of the Catholic clergy to be a member of the true Church of God? Someone  told me that Luther had a teaching about the true invisible Church that was a far cry from what could be seen as the Church at his time. Is it true that Luther didn't consider anyone of the Catholic clergy to be a member of the true Church of God?

As an Augustinian monk himself who tried desparately not to leave the church, but rather only to reform it, I think this would be a hard claim for someone to make of Luther.

That said, the "invisible church" or what we moderns would probably call "real Christians" is always a subjective term.  I'm sure he thought many clergy weren't truly Christian, but I also know that he thought there were Catholics who were as well.  At the very least, Augustine would have been a Catholic clergyman that Luther would have seen as part of the invisible Church, albeit 1000 years predating himself.


What is the Wesleyan Church's View of Initial, Progressive, and Entire Sanctification? Entire Sanctification, sometimes referred to as Christian Perfection,  is a doctrine that was re-popularized by John Wesley. He rediscovered it in his readings of the Church Fathers, and through biblical reflection. My question is specific to the Wesleyan Church.

This answer is taken from the, Wesleyan Church’s Articles of Religion 14.

Sanctification: Initial, Progressive, Entire

We believe that sanctification is that work of the Holy Spirit by which the child of God is separated from sin unto God and is enabled
to love God with all the heart and to walk in all His holy
commandments blameless. Sanctification is initiated at the moment of
justification and regeneration. From that moment there is a gradual or
progressive sanctification as the believer walks with God and daily
grows in grace and in a more perfect obedience to God. This prepares
for the crisis of entire sanctification which is wrought
instantaneously when believers present themselves as living
sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God, through faith in Jesus
Christ, being effected by the baptism with the Holy Spirit who
cleanses the heart from all inbred sin. The crisis of entire
sanctification perfects the believer in love and empowers that person
for effective service. It is followed by lifelong growth in grace and
the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The life of
holiness continues through faith in the sanctifying blood of Christ
and evidences itself by loving obedience to God's revealed will.


When did tradition become first used as Tradition? When did the idea that tradition (pious, informed, well-meaning) is actually Tradition (divine, sacred, God-breathed) first become used and defined in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions?

To be clear, I'm not asking when any particular tradition became a Tradition, but rather when was the idea promulgated that a tradition apart from Scripture could be Tradition as equivalent to Scripture?  What Pope or Patriarch of other influential writer defined that something, like pious tradition, apart from God-breathed, divine, sacred Scripture is a Tradition, the equivalent of God-breathed, divine, sacred Scripture?

When did Tradition become equal to Scripture to some denominations?

Please don't answer with "just so" comments.  Assertions that Tradition is always from God don't answer the question.  For example, we know that RC and EO have different Traditions, yet believe their Traditions are divine, but since their Traditions contradict each other, there was obviously a time when Traditions were only traditions.  When did this attitude change?  Please provide details and examples from your church history that shows when the idea of Tradition apart from Scripture became equivalent to Scripture.

This is actually a very interesting question, which we could rephrase as "When did Tradition [in the Catholic/Orthodox sense] became a Dogma?"

Every historical declaration of dogma/doctrine by the Catholic Church is recorded in the Enchiridion (usually cited as DS; English version online here). Therefore, we can search that document for "tradition". As can be seen from the quotes and the heading in the DS document however, this concept is in the beginning often found tied with that of "Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff". In effect, under the view of the Catholic Church these are inseparable because, as expressed in Lumen Gentium:

  In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(Jn 21,15f.) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(Mt 16,19) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.( Mt 18,18; 28,16-20)

So, if we look for these concepts, we can find the following, in chronological order:

417 AD: Pope (saint) Innocent I, in the letter In requirendis, writes:

  In seeking the things of God . . . preserving the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened the vigor of your religion . . . with true reason, for you have confirmed that reference must be made to our judgment, realizing what is due the Apostolic See, since all of us placed in this position desire to follow the Apostle, from whom the episcopate itself and all the authority of this name have emerged. Following him we know how to condemn evils just as (well as how) to approve praiseworthy things. Take this as an example, guarding with your sacerdotal office the practices of the fathers you resolve that (they) must not be trampled upon, because they made their decisions not by human, but by divine judgment, ...

418 AD: The letter Quamvis Patrum traditio by Pope saint Zosimus:

  Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare to disagree wholly with its judgment, and it has always preserved this judgment by canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline up to this time by its laws pays the reverence which is due to the name of PETER, from whom it has itself descended . . . ; since therefore PETER the head is of such great authority and he has confirmed the subsequent endeavors of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is fortified . . . by human as well as by divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold power of the name itself, nevertheless you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you ought to know, although we have such great authority that no one can dare to retract from our decision, yet we have done nothing which we have not voluntarily referred to your notice by letters . . . not because we did not know what ought to be done, or would do anything which by going against the advantage of the Church, would be displeasing.

422 AD: Pope (saint) Boniface I also wrote a doctrinal document with these issues, but it is a bit too long to put here. See the DS website linked above. It has the same type of "indirect" claims.

433 AD: Pope (saint) Sixtus III says (in the Latin version, sorry):

  De Dei autem Genetrice Virgine quemadmodum et sapimus et dicimus et de modo humanationis unigeniti Filii Dei necessariae, non additamenti causa, sed ad satisfactionem proprie desuper tam de divinis scripturis quam de traditione sanctorum patrum adsumentes habuimus, breviter dicimus, nihil omnino addentes fidei sanctorum patrum, quae in Nicaea exposita est.

The key is where he says (my translation) that the Truth about the human nature of Jesus through Virgin Mary, "has been received from old, both from the sacred Scriptures and the tradition of the Holy Fathers".

There are plenty of these - some might argue - "indirect" mentions. Yet, the issue seems to become clearer over time. One of the last examples is from Pope (saint) Simplicius, in 476 AD, and found under the heading of "The Unchangeableness of Christian Doctrine":

  Those genuine and clear [truths] which flow from the very pure fountains of the Scriptures cannot be disturbed by any arguments of misty subtlety. For this same norm of apostolic doctrine endures in the successors of him upon whom the Lord imposed the care of the whole sheepfold [John 21:15 ff.], whom [He promised] He would not fail even to the end of the world [Matt. 28:20], against whom He promised that the gates of hell would never prevail, by whose judgment He testified that what was bound on earth could not be loosed in heaven [Matt. 16:18 ff.]. (6). . . Let whoever, as the Apostle proclaimed, attempts to disseminate something other, than what we have received, be anathema[ Gal. 1:8 f.]. Let no approach to your ears be thrown open to the pernicious plans of undermining, let no pledge of revising any of the old definitions be granted, because, as it must be repeated very often, what has deserved to be cut away with the sharp edge of the evangelical pruninghook by apostolic hands with the approval of the universal Church, cannot acquire the strength for a rebirth nor is it able to return to the fruitful shoot of the master's vine, because it is evident that it has been destined to eternal fire.

Yet, what seems to be the first direct treatment of this as doctrine (i.e. in the DS), occurs in the acts of the Council of Constantinople, in 553 AD. We read, under the heading of "Ecclesiastical Tradition" :

  We confess that (we) hold and declare the faith given from the beginning by the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ to the Holy Apostles, and preached by them in the whole world; which the sacred Fathers both confessed and explained, and handed down to the holy churches, and especially [those Fathers] who assembled in the four sacred Synods, whom we follow and accept through all things and in all things . . . judging as at odds with piety all things, indeed, which are not in accord with what has been defined as right faith by the same four holy Councils, we condemn and anathematize them.

From all this, I conclude that, just as so many other dogmas, and without diminishing the value of such clarified truth (see below), the Church came to realise about the dogma of Tradition over several centuries, and was declared as such in 553 AD. Importantly, this does not mean that other Early Church Fathers did not write about it (even in dissimilar ways like Irenaeus or Augustine). It only means that it was not "entrenched" as doctrine until later.

I think it is worth adding here perhaps the clearest doctrinal declaration on the issue of the sources of Revealed Truth. It comes (perhaps unsurprisingly) from the fourth session (1546) of the Council of Trent. The entry in the DS is as follows:

  The sacred and holy ecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, with the same three Legates of the Apostolic See presiding over it, keeping this constantly in view, that with the abolishing of errors, the purity itself of the Gospel is preserved in the Church, which promised before through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded "to be preached" by His apostles "to every creature" as the source of every saving truth and of instruction in morals [Matt. 28:19ff., Mark 16:15], and [the Synod] clearly perceiving that this truth and instruction are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down even to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand, [the Synod] following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and holds in veneration with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament, since one God is the author or both, and also the traditions themselves, those that appertain both to faith and to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

Having said this, the way you put the question is loaded, particularly knowing that you do not believe Tradition is a valid concept at all. Why is it loaded? Because for someone who does not believe in it, tradition became [wrongly] Tradition at a given time, because of non-supernatural inspired human decision. The answer to this perspective is then (if correct), the one given above. For someone who believe Tradition is Revealed Truth however, we know that the Catholic Church (Orthodox?) tells us that the establishment of a Dogma is not the creation of new truths, but the clarification of already Revealed Truths, made possible through the passage of time. Thus, in this sense, tradition never really became Tradition, since it always has been (as in the other answer).


Why didn't David ascend into Heaven? Acts 2:34 NKJV:

  “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘ The
  LORD said to my Lord,“ Sit at My right

Why didn't David ascend to heaven? Is this past tense? Is David in heaven now, or has he just never ascended into heaven all at?

This verse is contrasting Jesus and David. Jesus ascended:

Luke 24:51
While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.

David went to heaven the old fashioned way: by dying first.
This is evidenced by David's body being buried:

Acts 2:29
“Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.

By contrast, Jesus was not "abandoned" (left) in the grave:

Acts 2:31
Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

That David is in heaven is clear from Hebrews 11:32-40. David is named in verse 32 with other faith heroes. Then in verse 40 it says, "together with us would they be made perfect" (since they can only be perfected in heaven).


Which angels and fallen angels are named in the Bible? Which angels and fallen angels are named in the Bible. and what are they responsible for?

Angels

There are only two angels mentioned by name in Scripture:

Michael, the archangel, mentioned in Daniel 10 (and also in Jude). He is described as fighting the prince of Persia.
Gabriel, who announced the birth of Jesus to Mary in Luke 1.  Here Gabriel is being an angelos quite literally - a messenger.

Other Angels appear in the OT (One to Manoah in Judges to announce the birth of Samson, three to Abraham in Genesis), but they are unnamed.

An angel has only one job, as implied by the name - they deliver messages.

When they are not doing this job, they are usually in the presence of the Lord, praising him and announcing his glory (Isaiah 6, Revelation)

Fallen Angels

Debatedly, the only fallen angel is Lucifier in Isaiah 14 - the "Star of Morning" who is the Devil.

One could also describe "Legion" as a demon in Luke 5 (at Genesseret), but that isn't a proper name, rather a collection of Demons.


How would it be Just to have Jesus blaspheme against his own Law? For those who believe that Jesus was being put to death by crucifixion because he had committed blashphemy by claiming to be of divine nature, how does that hold at a theological level?

If Jesus is divine (God), then he is also the God of Moses and as a result the one who legislated the Law of blasphemy.

How would it be even theologically possible or Just to knowingly send someone to a people (the Jews) who had been taught very clearly that there is only One God and that there is no likeness to him, to then have Jesus being a man claiming to be God?  (And then to be crucified which again was a proof to them that he was not a Prophet and was cursed).

So to summarize, how is this theologically plausible or Just:

God (who Christians say is Jesus) sends a Law to Moses saying there is only 1 God and to not make any likeness to him
God then sends Jesus teaching the opposite to the core belief system
Jesus (who is God) dies for your sins (Jews don't believe God can die)

Note:

Please don't get confused when you read the word 'JUST' and then start explaining on how we can't live up to the commandments and thus Jesus died for our sins.  I'm referring to the fact that God sent Moses with a Law, the Law says there is One, Unique God and even went to to say there is none like him, don't make images, He is not a Man.
Then to have Jesus come and commit blasphemy before them.  How is this Just?  Is this not confusion and trickery?

I think most people miss this point because they don't put themselves in the shoes of the followers of Moses and his Law.

Firstly, if Jesus is God, it is of course impossible for Him to blaspheme against His own law.
Secondly, Jesus did not overtly claim to be God directly and consequently inevitably stumble the lost sheep of Israel that He was sent to.  He answered the question:

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” - Matthew 26:63 NIV

with:

“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” - Matthew 26:64 NIV

Which was not a direct claim to be God, so the response:

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.” - Matthew 26:65 NIV

Was an error in law and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
In that conext, there is a sense that you're right (just not the way you mean it), it is definitely not 'Just' that Jesus died in this way, it's actually the very epitome of Grace.
Grace is God acting in a way that transcends the principles of justice and Christianity just doesn't make sense without understanding that.

6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. - Romans 5:6-8 NIV

EDIT in response to OP EDIT:
Why this is not 'trickery', is that it was prophesied before-hand and for those who earnestly desired to look into these things, they could search the scriptures and find them out. Nicodemus as a member of the ruling council would have been challenged by the things Jesus said, but ultimately, he was not offended - instead he placed his faith in Jesus as the Christ and refused to vote in condemnation with the other council members. Although Jesus was a stumbling-block to the Jews (no Christian denies this!) - the choice between being broken on him (and receiving salvation through repentence and faith) or being crushed by him (judged and excluded from the house of God because of a rejection of the Son - whoever rejects the Son, rejects the Father also) is a real one.
The suffering Messiah is typified throughout scripture from the death of righteous Abel to the death of Zechariah the son of Berakiah - all the Prophets and the Law speak to it.
In the same way that God used the (real) injustice of Jesus' death to work the salvation of all mankind; he also used the (imagined) injustice of the Jews stumbling over Jesus as the Christ to further His purposes also - the rejection by (most of) the Jews opened the way for the gospel to be preached to the Gentiles (as was prophesied also).
To characterise God's plan in these respects as 'Unjust' is a category error - it is only possible to view God as unjust from man's perspective, but justice is not applied from man to God, but from God to man. Men might feel that God acts unfairly towards them, but they are wrong if they assert that those feelings are an accurate reflection of reality.