Fr. Pedro de Corpa and Companions Franciscan Media:

Saint Pedro de Corpa and Companions’ Story
Another Saint of the Day for September 10
These five friars were martyred in Georgia for their insistence on
monogamy in Christian marriages...

Their names:

Pedro de Corpa
Blas de Rodriguez
Miguel de Anon
Francisco de Berascola

The article says they are saints. But couldn't find any details of the canonization online.

Are these friars really canonized?
If yes, who canonized them and when?
Is there any hagiography/biography written about them?

Fr. Pedro de Corpa and his Companions are currently not Saints, but Servants of God. There is currently a procedure for canonization started, which is now in the second phase.
An August 20, 2014 article in Our Sunday Visitor (J.J. Ziegler, Georgia martyrs died defending Church teaching, in OSV Newsweekly) gave the following information:

The path to the canonization of a martyr is different from that of other saints. First, a bishop begins the investigation of the life of the murdered person to find out whether his or her death is a true martyrdom — that is, whether he or she voluntarily accepted death inflicted out of hatred for the Christian faith. At this stage, the sainthood candidate is known as a Servant of God.
If the bishop approves, then the Congregation for the Causes of Saints continues the process in Rome. If the Congregation concurs that the death is a true martyrdom, then the pope may accept its decision and issue a decree on the martyrdom of the Servant of God. At that point, the martyr may be beatified and given the title “Blessed,” with public liturgical veneration limited to certain areas, such as a diocese, a nation or a religious community. No miracle is required for the beatification of a martyr.
If there are reports of a miracle granted through the intercession of the Blessed, then the Congregation may conduct an additional investigation. If the Congregation determines that the healing is a true miracle, then the pope may accept its decision and issue a decree on the miracle of the Blessed. At that point, the martyr may be canonized and given the title “Saint,” with public liturgical veneration extended to the entire Church.
The sainthood cause of the five slain friars — the Servants of God Pedro de Corpa and his companions (Blas de Rodríguez, Miguel de Añon, Antonio de Badajoz and Francisco de Beráscola) — is now in the second stage. In 2007, Bishop J. Kevin Boland, then bishop of Savannah, Georgia, concluded the cause’s diocesan phase, and the cause is currently under consideration in Rome.

Since the proceedings remain sealed until the investigation is concluded, I presume that there won't be official hagiographies yet until that point, besides stories written up by local investigators/historians/faithful.
At the present moment Father Giovangiuseppe Califano, OFM, the Postulator of the Cause, is overseeing the redaction of the final historical document which will be presented to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints next year.


Why is the Last Place on Earth St. Peter Founded the Seat of his Authority? The (Roman) Catholic Church agrees that Peter founded different churches, like at Antioch or Rome, but it claims that it is only at the last place Peter lived or died is to where his supposed authority from Christ as the head of the apostles remains.

What is the proof of this claim?  Why would it matter where Peter lived last or died at as to where his supposed authority remained?

The question is about the logical basis for the argument that the last place St Peter resided at should retain his authority as Pope.

When Peter left Antioch he did not confer his papal authority on anyone in that city, or on anyone anywhere else.  He retained it personally wherever he went. It was only when he came to die that it became necessary to choose a successor. We do not know whether St Peter nominated his successor, or arranged a process for his election. But the need for a successor arose only on his death and the person who succeeded him succeeded him as Bishop of Rome and Pope,  because these were the roles that his death left vacant.

It would not have been possible to summon a conclave from all over the world.  Even today, notionally at least, the Bishop of Rome is elected only  by the clergy of Rome,  and as Bishop of Rome is ex officio Pope.   The way this is done is that every cardinal, on appointment, becomes a deacon or priest or suburban bishop of a parish in the diocese of Rome itself or one of the suburban dioceses of Rome. In this way it is still the case that the Pope is chosen by the clergy of Rome.


Do Old Testament individual, family and social laws and guidance apply to Christians or did Jesus come to discard OT laws and guidance? If OT laws are to be ignored by Christians, does God/Jesus provide substitute laws in the New Testament texts? I.e., if God thought it important to provide laws (in addition to requiring certain beliefs) to guide people prior to the New Testament, why has He not deemed it important to either re-affirm these same laws in the New Testament, or provide substitute laws?

Most Christians believe (I think) that accepting Christ in their lives provides innate guidance on how to lead their lives virtuously, and this impacts the creating of virtuous family and social life.  The implicit problem is that individual understanding of what is 'virtuous' may vary significantly as it applies to organizing and governing society.  I am trying to understand why God/Jesus Christ would replace detailed written guidance with something open to individual understanding and interpretation.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did
  not come to abolish                           but to fulfill. 18 For
  truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest
  letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19
  Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and
  teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of
  heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great
  in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5: 17-19.

It is clear from the above verses that Jesus did not come to discard the Law, even though a lot of churches do preach that. However, us as Gentiles are not required to follow the Law since the Law was mainly given to the Israelites and those who attached themselves to Israel (i.e. either were their slaves, servants or those who converted to Judaism).

When God sent Jonah to Nineveh, he asked that they repent and that was that, he did not demand that they follow the Law of Moses.

Jesus does ask us to follow his commandments. So whatever he said to us in the Gospels is what we should follow. Whether that means following the Law of Moses or not is a different matter (I, for one, don't believe that the Law is discarded or any such thing, God and his people have a lot of love for the Law of Moses. I don't believe God just sent it to tell people that they can't follow God's commands, I believe the Law is good and that we should use it as a guidance even if we don't follow it as legally and morally binding).

  "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me" John 14:21

This is, of course, my opinion.


Idolatry in churches allowed? It is very frequent to see idols of Jesus or any biblical entities in  a Church , So is such idolatry allowed by  the bible,considering the following verses?

  "You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea".
  Exodus 20:4

History tells us that:

  sometimes objects that God instructed to be made were turned into
  idols by the Israelites. The Book of Numbers contains a narrative in
  which God instructed Moses to make a bronze snake as part of
  addressing a plague of venomous snakes that had broken out among the
  Israelites as a punishment for sin. The bronze snake is mentioned
  again in 2 Kings 18; however, rather than remaining a memorial of
  God's providence, it became an idol that the people named and
  worshiped. Thus the bronze snake was destroyed in King Hezekiah's
  reforms.

More specifically in India I see Christians carry idols of Jesus and other biblical  entities with them kiss them and revere them too. Infact they allow the Hindus in the Church and let them perform worship in their way(Like putting incense sticks, offering flowers , foodstuff to the Idol of Jesus etc) as shown below a very common view in India. I studied in a Christian school for 10 years and i am yet to see Christians not doing these things.

I have seen the same on TV and in videos of people venerating the Idol of biblical entities.

You're operating under a misconception that these are idols. Most Christians don't worship these images, statues, etc. Instead, they are considered art, something that we  create because we love the subject, not the work of art.

Asking your question is like asking if looking at a painting of my wife means that I am allowed to cheat on her by devoting my affection to an image of her. I love her, not the painting of her. Christians love Jesus, not the statues of Him.

So, the answer id no, idolatry isn't allowed in Churches.

Addressing the updates to the question, the things that people are "venerating" are likely "Sacrementals".

  Sacramentals are material objects, things or actions (sacramentalia) set apart or blessed by the Roman and Eastern Catholic
  Churches, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of
  the East, the Anglican Churches, the Independent and Old Catholic
  Churches, and the Lutheran Churches to manifest the respect due to the
  sacraments, and so to excite good thoughts and to increase devotion,
  and through these movements of the heart to remit venial sin,
  according to the Council of Trent (Session XXII, 15).

  In Roman Catholicism, sacramentals such as Holy water, the crucifix or
  the Saint Benedict Medal are recommended as a means of protection
  against evil.

Again, the devotion is not to these things, but to the God they represent. There are, those that do worship them like idols, and many view the idea that these could protect us from evil as superstitious, the point remains that officially, these aren't idols. They aren't to be worshiped. They are reminders of the one we should be worshiping.


According to the Catholic Church, is there any indirect mention of purgatory in the Gospels? While the Gospels make a number of references to eternal damnation, they do not appear to directly mention purgatory, which is a strong precept of the Catholic faith. My question therefore is: according to the Catholic Church, are there verses in the Gospels which indirectly refer to the existence or otherwise of purgatory?

In the encyclical Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict XVI provides an interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in which the rich man is in Purgatory:

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.
This early Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but, as the parable of the rich man illustrates, are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss. There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God. The early Church took up these concepts, and in the Western Church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory.


Were the islands/countries discovered by Hispanic explorers named after Mozarabic feast days? The Spanish and Portuguese normally named newly discovered countries and islands after the feast days they were discovered, especially during the late 15th and early 16th centuries. It always seems to be assumed these discoveries were named according to the liturgical calendar of the Roman Church. This therefore provides the means of determining the actual date of discoveries, which are often celebrated to the present day. However, especially during the period of Muslim occupation, the Hispanic countries tended to practise Mozarabic rather than Roman Catholic rites. Mozarabic rites seem to be based on the liturgy and rites of the Eastern Church which celebrates many feast days on different dates from the Roman Church. My question is this: How does anyone know whether the countries and islands discovered by Hispanic explorers were found on Mozarabic rather than Roman Church feast days? In other words, might the dates marked today for the discovery of these places be wrong? Incidentally, I would also be grateful to know whether anyone knows of a source of the Mozarabic liturgical calendar so that a comparison can be made against Roman Catholic feast days.

Were islands/countries discovered by Hispanic explorers named after Mozarabic feast days?

The short answer is no.

But that no has to be clarified. It could be yes or no, according to which Rite the person who named the said lands belonged to. Both Rites were in use in Spain at the time of the Spanish colonization of the Americas.

  The name "Mozarabic Rite" is given to the rite used generally in Spain and in what afterwards became Portugal from the earliest times of which we have any information down to the latter part of the eleventh century, and still surviving in the Capilla Muzárabe in Toledo cathedral and in the chapel of San Salvador or Talavera, in the old cathedral of Salamanca. The name is not a good one. It originated in the fact that, after its abolition in Christian Spain, the rite continued to be used by the Christians in the Moorish dominions who were known as Mazárabes or Muzárabes. The form Mostárabes is also found. The derivation of the word is not quite certain, but the best theory seems to be that it is musta’rab, the participle of the tenth form of the verb ’araba, and that it means a naturalized Arab or one who has adopted Arab customs or nationality, an Arabized person. Some, with less probability, have made it a Latin or Spanish compound, Mixto-Arabic. The meanings, which are not far apart, applied entirely to the persons who used the rite in its later period, and not to the rite itself, which has no sign of any Arab influence. The names Gothic, Toledan, Isidorian, have also been applied to the rite—the first referring to its development during the time of the Visigothic kingdom of Spain, the second to the metropolitan city which was its headquarters, and the third to the idea that it owed, if not its existence, at any rate a considerable revision. - Mozarabic Rite (Catholic Encyclopædia)

It should be noted that none of explorers of the 15th or 16th centuries were sent from the Archdiocese of Braga, Portugal. Braga also had it’s own liturgical Rite within the Church.

  The Rite of Braga (or Bragan Rite) is a Catholic liturgical rite associated with the Archdiocese of Braga in Portugal.

  The Rite of Braga belongs to the Roman family of liturgical rites and took shape within the Archdiocese of Braga between the 11th and 13th centuries.[1] The Missal of Mateus, which dates to the second quarter of the twelfth century, is the oldest known source for this Rite. It was more than 200 years old at the time of Pope Pius V's papal bulls Quod a nobis of 9 July 1568 and Quo primum of 14 July 1570. The rite was unaffected by the imposition of the Roman Rite throughout the Latin Church. This was due to the exception made for regions where another rite had been in use for at least two centuries. However, the Roman Rite was increasingly adopted within the archdiocese and non-traditional elements were admitted into celebrations of the archdiocese's rite.

  In the 20th century an attempt was made by Archbishop Manuel Vieira de Matos, with the approval of Pope Pius XI, to expunge these accretions, to revise the texts and to make the rite obligatory within the archdiocese. After the Second Vatican Council the priests of the archdiocese, while authorized to use the Rite of Braga, have in general opted to use the Roman Rite. The Rite of Braga

The Mozarabic Rite, also called the Visigothic Rite or the Hispanic Rite, is a liturgical rite of the Latin Church once used generally in the Iberian Peninsula (Hispania), in what is now Spain and Portugal. Thus we can call it a liturgical variation of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Since the liturgical reform of Pope St. Paul VI, the Mozarabic Rite has almost completely disappeared within Spain. The Mass according to this liturgical Rite can still be found in Spain if one looks hard enough.

Here is the real conundrum with this question. The feast days of the Tridentine Roman Rite and the Mozarabic Rite for the most part followed the same liturgical calendar with a few minor exceptions. In this sense the naming of the lands discovered in the 15th and 16th centuries could be literally named according to either liturgical Rite. It would all depend on which Rite the person who named the islands belonged to. It is sure that both Rites were in use in Spain at the time.

It should be noted the Spain has (and did have) some local feasts not celebrated in other countries and this also applies (and did apply) to both liturgical Rites.

As I have already stated above that the true answer to this question will depend on which Rite the person of authority belonged to. As it happens, both Queen Isabella of Spain and Christopher Columbus were of the Roman Rite.

Christopher Columbus in fact was Italian and that says volumes to this subject matter:

  Christopher Columbus [(before 31 October 1451 – 20 May 1506) was an Italian explorer, navigator, and colonist who completed four voyages across the Atlantic Ocean under the auspices of the Catholic Monarchs of Castile and Aragon. He led the first European expeditions to the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, initiating the permanent European colonization of the Americas. Columbus discovered a viable sailing route to the Americas, a continent that was then unknown to the Old World. While what he thought he had discovered was a route to the Far East, he is credited with the opening of the Americas for conquest and settlement by Europeans. - Christopher Columbus (Wikipedia)

The Catholic Encyclopedia further states that in Queen Isabella’s day the Roman Rite prevailed and that she allowed the Mozarabic Rite to be used within the Spanish Kingdom:

  When Ferdinand and Isabella took Granada in 1492, there were certainly some Mozarabic Christians there, as well as Christian merchants and prisoners from non-Moorish countries, but whether the Mozarabic Rite was used by them does not appear. With the discouragement which began with Alfonso VI came the period of decadence. The civil privileges (fueros) of the Toledo Mozárabes, which, though in 1147 Pope Eugene III had definitely put them under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese, included a certain amount of independence, were confirmed by Alfonso VII in 1118, by Peter in 1350, by Henry II in 1379, and by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1480 (later also by Philip II in 1564, by Charles II in 1699, and by Philip V in 1740). But in spite of this the "Roman Rite prevailed so much that it was introduced even into Mozarabic churches, which only used the old rite for certain special days, and that in a corrupted form from old and imperfectly understood manuscripts This and the dying out of many Mozarabic families gradually brought the rite very low. - Mozarabic Rite (Catholic Encyclopedia)


Is the Comforter a person? There are some sentences which are difficult to read in the Gospel of John, some of them lead me think that the Comforter will be a person, which has not come yet (A) whereas there are some which lead me to believe that the Comforter was the Holy Spririt (B).

(A)

  When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. John 16:8-11

It seems to me that it has not happened already that those 3 fact were fulfilled, in particula the last one, I can't say Satan has been defeated again since Jesus death.

  13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. John 16:13

How can we say that a spirit hears? Additionally the greek word is ἀκούω, https://studybible.info/strongs/G191 shows the common usage on persons.

(B)

  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever, the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. John 14:16-17

This can only be the spirit because of the last sentence, and because otherwise how can he be forever?

So what are your thoughts?

The common interpretation for all Trinitarian Christian denominations are as follows:

John 16:8-11 : Jesus is referring to His still being in a human (bodily) form, but He will later send His Spirit (who is essentially the same as God the Father's Spirit) to "stand in" as Comforter for His disciples just in the way He was while in bodily form on earth before His Resurrection and Ascension.  But the dialog was set before crucifixion, so the 3 facts (sin, righteousness, judgment) were not yet clear.  At Resurrection Jesus 1) received glory because the Father raised him from the dead and 2) defeated death and Satan.  At Ascension Jesus 3) sat at the right hand of the Father.  And at Pentecost His Spirit came.

The Holy Spirit is the one who shows the world those 3 facts, testifying to what Jesus did to 1) convict the world of sin, 2) making righteousness available (because now Jesus is our High Priest in the heavenly temple interceding for us), and 3) pronouncing judgment to those allying themselves with Satan (Satan was defeated at Resurrection).   We are now in the era between Pentecost and Second coming where Satan is still allowed to rule the world, although his power is diminished, and the "underground resistance force" through the church is growing.

About judgment: In the "first coming" Jesus didn't come as a judge, but there is language in John about "pre-judgment" for those who didn't accept Jesus as the Son of God.  The "definitive" and "public" judgment will happen at the Second Coming when Jesus will come again, this time in glory, and all the world (saved and not saved alike) will see who are really the children of God and who are not.  See a more comprehensive explanation with Bible references here.
John 16:13: This Spirit is a person and therefore the language in John Gospel reflects this, as what the doctrine of the Trinity says.
John 14:16-17: You are correct in that the Spirit in this passage refers to the Holy Spirit who is eternal.  John's focus is to show how the world rejected the incarnate Word of God (Jesus) who came to the world created through Him but who didn't recognize Him (John 1:10-12).  The world didn't believe that Jesus was sent by the Father, and consequently the world didn't accept the Father either (despite the Pharisee's claims to know the Father better than Jesus, and who in fact executed Jesus thinking that they were doing the will of the Father).  That's what John meant by "neither sees him nor knows him", because the world did see Jesus physically, but not spiritually.  Only those who accepted Jesus as the Son of God will have the Holy Spirit living in their heart.


Could a lowborn during the middle ages read the bible? I'm starting to read about the christian faith with more effort and this question popped up in my head. I've read that the bible at that time were really expensive because it was handmade but, could a lowborn from Italy (or the region that would later become Italy) read it at the church with the help of a priest or someone else?

Rev John O'Brien wrote in The Faith of Millions* that in the Middle Ages (1000s to renaissance) the Bible was chained in various churches so it would be accessible to the greatest number of people.

He also says that St. Jerome, the Latin translator of the Vulgate (people's) Bible wrote words of encouragement that all should love and honor the Bible.

Luther apparently had the invalid assertion that the Bible was just sitting around collecting dust before he came around and lots of people still think there were no vernacular translations before him, but in reality, O'Brien wrote, there were more than 20 in German alone. (Maybe not Luther's German, but various high and low forms).

But in the Middle Ages the translation was more abstract and in Italy, you've got the best examples of the translation from page to art. The art was still being refined, but it's still intelligible, what exists, the Gospels were hanging up on the walls and being internalized.

St. Mark's Basilica is a prime example of such work in the 1200s.

Dominican preachers would be well acquainted with the Bible and even if you were unlucky enough to have a priest in your village who didn't think much of your lowbornness, there's a chance, at least, that an itinerant preacher would come to your aid and help you to learn your Bible.

The middle ages were truly a much more pleasant time to be a Catholic, and hopefully following Pope Francis' advice we can all shut out our techno-wizardry, learn from the sages of the past and go back there.

* see "The Chruch: Interpreter of the Bible" under subheads Bible in the Middle Ages; Luther, First Translator and Chained Bibles"


What are the main biblical interpretations used to defend the point of view that Nicodemus had inferior faith? I was reading a post by John Piper here where he said this:

  But it is not saving faith. Nicodemus was not born again

The same week my Pastor made a derogatory reference to the faith of Nicodemus, which took me by surprise.  I read some more online.

On bible.org I found this quote in a larger work on faith and some that included Nicodemus.

  Nicodemus seems to be John’s first example of one who “believes” by
  virtue of our Lord’s signs, yet he is also one to whom our Lord does
  not “entrust” Himself

Finally, when doing a simple read through wikipedia I find this:

  He is venerated as a Christian saint.

While some might gloss over this topic in my mind this is actually a very, very drastic difference in opinion.  From a Saint, to a false believer, and somewhere in between there are educated opinions all over the map on Nicodemus.  I think this creates a great litmus test for my own view of one snapshot of what saving faith is and if there is a ranking system to it as some obviously contend.

This question isn't about my opinion, of which I do have a strong one.  I would like for you to present information about existing research and viewpoints of different vetted sources on the ultimate judgement that Nicodemus had inferior or unsaving faith.

♣ Bible references are best (I would think James might have something to say, and probably Paul would argue with him  ☺)

♣ Existing  doctrines on the topic are good (I have no clue if these exist)

♣ Denominational statements on the topic are good (same as above)

Your opinion, like mine, should be left out of this discussion.

What are the main biblical interpretations used to defend the point of view that Nicodemus had inferior faith?

As Jesus had not yet ascended into heaven, those with faith could not yet receive new and eternal life in Jesus.

Hebrews chapter eleven is often called the “hall of faith” as numerous old testament figures are commended for their faith. Yet they are said to have been incomplete;

  Hebrews 11:39-40  And these all, having obtained a good report through
  faith, received not the promise:   God having provided some better
  thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

I would rather call the faith of Nicodemus weak or incomplete rather than “inferior”. It is difficult make an accurate comparison of the faith of someone who has the indwelling Holy Spirit as proof of his new life in Christ with the faith of someone who has this future hope as his faith.

  Ephesians 1:13-14  In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the
  word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that
  ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,   Which
  is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the
  purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.


What is the Biblical basis for opposing State Brutality? If there was ever a case of a completely innocent man being beaten and killed for crimes he did not commit, it would have to be Jesus. Yet, when Peter sliced off the ear of a slave, Jesus told Peter to put back his sword ... and healed the ear of the slave.

When Paul was imprisoned and beaten 39 lashes he did not incite a riot. Instead, he sang, preached, and converted the prisoners and guards.

Thus, I must ask: from where does one get scripture support that Christians should march against police brutality; what is the biblical basis that they might do this? The case of Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament seems to suggest otherwise.

The bible makes a case for civil disobedience when it comes to loving our neighbor as ourselves, and standing up to authorities regarding justice for the poor and oppressed, at the expense of disregarding governmental law. That's how Martin Luther King Jr. was justified in his stance on biblical, non-violent protest.

Reference such scripture examples as: The Samaritan woman at the well; the Good Samaritan; the Persistent Widow, and others (some supporting scripture to follow below).

The bible suggests that Christians should be willing to give up our lives unto death in the pursuit of petitioning for justice for others, whether they are Christian or not. We show our love by showing, and thus teaching, God's actionable love. Isaiah 58 poses the problem of the religious showing themselves as righteous by praying and fasting, yet neglecting 'true religion', allowing fighting, instead of becoming peacemakers. Police brutality is a lack of peace; we're called to petition them for peace, in a non-violent manner, which is not to say that's the same as 'making' peace. We aren't commanded to 'keep' peace, but to 'make' it where it does not currently exist - this requires taking action in addition to prayer.

“No, this is the kind of fasting I want: Free those who are wrongly imprisoned; lighten the burden of those who work for you. Let the oppressed go free, and remove the chains that bind people. (Isaiah 58:6)

“No, this is the kind of fasting I want: Free those who are wrongly imprisoned; lighten the burden of those who work for you. Let the oppressed go free, and remove the chains that bind people. Then your salvation will come like the dawn, and your wounds will quickly heal. Your godliness will lead you forward, and the glory of the Lord will protect you from behind. Then when you call, the Lord will answer. ‘Yes, I am here,’ he will quickly reply. “Remove the heavy yoke of oppression. (Isaiah 58:6, 8-9)

Christians who do not actively work against injustice of others maintains the unjust system (an example of which is the white privilege/systemic racism in America). Someone eventually must take action for change; the bible says that's us (Christians).

"By faith these people overthrew kingdoms, ruled with justice, and received what God had promised them. They shut the mouths of lions, quenched the flames of fire, and escaped death by the edge of the sword. Their weakness was turned to strength. They became strong in battle and put whole armies to flight. Women received their loved ones back again from death. But others were tortured, refusing to turn from God in order to be set free. They placed their hope in a better life after the resurrection." (Hebrews 11:33-35)

The above found in the New Testament refers to Old Testament events, yet is summed up in the New Testament for our instructing for the present time. This is part of the 'Heroes of the Faith' chapter, and we're to take note that the heroes had active faith, rather than simply a praying/fasting/evangelistic type of faith. Unfortunately, many Christians are not willing to encounter and engage in such struggle for others (all talk, no walk when it comes to getting involved with others against authorities, like the religious who crossed the street on the Sabbath to avoid caring for a Jewish man in critical condition because it was against Sabbath law - Luke 10:30-37)

Plenty of references regarding our actions toward maintaining justice in the Bible:

Blessed are they who maintain justice . . . . (Psalm 106:3)

This is what the LORD says: Maintain justice and do what is right . . . . (Isiah 56:1)

This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. (Jeremiah 22:3,13-17)

Follow justice and justice alone. (Deuteronomy 16:19, 20)

For the LORD is righteous, he loves justice . . . . (Job 11:5,7)

Learn to do right. Seek justice ... (Isaiah 1:17)


Is the tripartite God the judge in the Old Testament, and Jesus the appointed only judge in the New Testament? In the Old Testament, Justice was meted out immediately by God, when Uzza touched the Ark, was this LORD the tripartite Godhead or the pre-incarnate Jesus.
All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation unless otherwise noted.

1st Chronicles 13:10 (New revised King James version) And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he stroke him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.
Revelation 20:11-12  And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Jesus said:

John 5:26 and 27  For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27  And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

and also:

John 5:25  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

It is hard for me to determine if the Trinity or the pre-incarnate Jesus was the judge in the Old Testament, because of Jesus statement that he is the son of man, and whether that would be applicable prior to his earthly existence.
my question is not concerned with the immediate judgment, but who is making the judgment. In my use of the Old Testament quote was not to emphasize the quickness, but rather the fact that Uzza was killed by the 'LORD' while in the Revelation it is clear that it is Jesus who is judging. And if these are the same.
The use of the word 'LORD' in the Old Testament seemingly does not have the same connotation as it does in the new. Since in the New Testament it is used for Jesus also.
Old Testament:

Genesis 2:4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

New Testament:

Matthew 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 24:42  Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

In Matthew 24:42 it can only be referring to Jesus since it refers to his second coming.

I draw your attention to the past tense in:

  For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son - John 5:22 KJV (emphasis added)

This said pre-resurrection and glorification; Together with the implications of -

  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. - John 3:17 KJV

ie Judgment was not part of Jesus' mission during his 'first coming' (the incarnation); and also:

  Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. - Hebrews 13:8 KJV

It should be fairly clear that the one who is referred to in:

  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. - Acts 17:31 KJV

was, is and will be the judge of all mankind from the very beginning and until the very end of all ages.


How to light incense like a pro? So, perhaps needless to say, we've been WFHing a lot lately, and maybe you're like me, finishing up Exodus 90, super sick of cold showers, but not needing to go out much...  And maybe your wife bought some incense a while ago for Family Rosary time, but you never really got the hang of lighting it because the priest always did it for you when you were an altar boy.

So, if you're in this stinky barque with Peter, as it were, how do you burn incense in one of those handy little brass censer things.

I'm using these little briquette circles covered in some sort of ignition fluid, but it never seems to take.  Burns for like 2 minutes and dies out (perhaps that's a sign, I dunno).

Is there a trick to lighting this stuff or do you just have to pray harder?

How to light incense like a pro?

First of all, a word on safety. Most thurifers light the charcoal in or near the sacristy.  I can not stress the point enough about having a  fire extinguisher mounted somewhere in close proximity of where one lights the charcoal. Fires happen and I have seen the results. One parish close to where I live lost it’s entire sacristy (vestments and all). To burn incense like a pro, the first step is to be careful at all times, know your surroundings and act like a pro. Safety first.

  Safety Notes

  The thurible should always be handled with care, whether or not it contains live coals. Treating the thurible with care on a consistent basis will form solid habits that will prevent injury.

  When using the thurible, the following practices should be observed:

  A fire extinguisher and water must be at hand when lighting coals
  Lit coals and matches must always be extinguished in a bucket of water
  Tongs must always be used to handle hot coals
  When the thurible has contained hot coals, never touch the cover with your hands

To light charcoals like a true professional a few things can be taken into consideration from my own experience. Although married, I still serve Masses when I attend Masses on week days or when special circumstances require it. (I am the only server at a monastery of contemplative nuns.)

First of all, not all charcoals are equal. The older they are, the harder they are to light. Broken ones are also harder to light.

Generally speaking one should not wait to the last minute to light the briquette. If incense (especially if when employing incense in “powder” form) is put onto the charcoal too soon there is a fair risk that it may smother the fire so to speak. For this reason, I prefer using incense in large grain form. Here is my favourite: Damascus Rose.

The biggest problem is exactly what K-HB wrote down in his comment:

  In my experience the biggest problem is oxygen. The censer may or may not be well constructed to serve this issue. Try it with open cover and blow a bit at the briquette. The thuribles in church are normally better constructed and the swinging helps too.

However, it does helps to keep the thurible open when not in use to help keep the briquette hot and blow air over if necessary to keep hot, especially when first lite. Moreover, one should know when it is necessary to add another charcoal to the fire pot, especially during long liturgical functions such as ordinations. Normally fire pot will accommodate 2 - 3 coals.

Here is an example of what a liturgical thurible as used in the western liturgies. In Eastern liturgies, thuribles have bells attached to them.

Parishes and Religious Institutions that are more traditional use thuribles that silver toned at Masses like funerals and High Masses on ordinary Sundays. Brass toned thuribles are used on major feast Days and on special occasions.


Blaspheme one part of the Trinity but not the whole? Luke 12:10 NIV

  And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be
  forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it
  will not be forgiven

How is it possible to blaspheme the Son of Man but not the Holy Spirit since the trinity is one?

While the three persons of the Trinity are one God, they are three persons. If it is possible to talk about one of the persons alone (and it clearly is) then it is also possible to blaspheme against only one.


What process was used to translate the KJV? Who were the translators that created the venerate KJV translation and what guidelines did they use? What "kind" of translation was intended and how is it generally categorized today?

Note that there is a separate question for the historical motivation and context so this question is just about the linguistic style and translation methodology employed in the making of the text, not the historical context.

Full disclosure: I believe the KJV was a landmark translation as far as quality and impact and am thankful for it, but don't believe it to be inerrant or more guided by the Spirit than other scholarly translations and that it is showing it's age because English is not the same as it was 400 years ago. I'm not asking if it should be revered or discredited, only what went into the making of the text.

The King James Version or Authorized Version as it was originally known, was translated by a group of 47 scholars.

It was actually a thought-for-thought translation, rather than word-for-word translation.  The idea is that they tried to take the original meaning of the text (not just the individual word) and translate that into the (then) common language.

Compared to modern paraphrase translations, the King James version is almost a word-for-word translation.  However, there were places where the scholars explicitly rejected the word-for-word translation in favor of wording that would make more sense to the contemporary English reader of the day.

Here's an example in Romans 5:2-3

  2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

  3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

The words "rejoice" (in verse 2) and "glory" (in verse 3) are the same word in the original text.  A word-for-word translation would have given the same word for those in both cases.

Having said all of this and in light of today's translations, it's commonly accepted as a word-for-word translation.  If you compare this, for example, to a thought-for-thought translation or a paraphrase, this translation is much closer to the original text (dramatically so in the case of a paraphrase).

While the original scholars intentionally rejected word-for-word translations, it's commonly accepted as a word-for-word translation when compared to thought-for-thought or paraphrase translations.


Did Pentecostalism lead to Cessationism in the modern Reformed churches? I understand that several theologians throughout church history believed that the gifts of the Spirit had ceased or mostly ceased. It didn't seem like a huge point of contention for them as it is today.

So my questions is: Is the modern day doctrine in Reformed churches that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased a response to the Pentecostal movement in the 20th Century or is it consistent with pre-Pentecostal ideas of the cessation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit?

Citations would be most appreciated. Thanks.

Churches associated with Reformed theology actually have a variety of views on the gifts of the spirit – many are in the "continuationist" camp.  But among those that are cessationist, their views long precede Pentecostalism.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.1, like most varieties of cessationists, rejects the possibility of new Scripture:

  Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) was a strict cessationist:

  It is this miraculous gift [prophecy] which the apostle here says shall vanish away, together with the other miraculous gifts of which he speaks, such as prophecy, and the gift of tongues, &c. All these were extraordinary gifts, bestowed for a season for the introduction and establishment of Christianity in the world, and when this their end was gained, they were all to fail and cease. (Charity and its Fruits, 439)

Other cessationists generally hold this but aren't quite so adamant.  For example, John Calvin:

  Those who preside over the government of the Church, according to the institution of Christ, are named by Paul, first, Apostles; secondly, Prophets; thirdly, Evangelists; fourthly, Pastors; and, lastly, Teachers (Eph. 4:11). Of these, only the two last have an ordinary office in the Church. The Lord raised up the other three at the beginning of his kingdom, and still occasionally raises them up when the necessity of the times requires. (Institutes, 4.3)

All these writings long precede Pentecostalism, and all these views are shared by many Reformed cessationists today.  Thus it wouldn't be fair to say that Reformed cessationism is a reaction to Pentecostalism, though for some individual Reformed thinkers that may be the case.

And as mentioned before, there is such a thing as a Reformed continuationist.  Wayne Grudem is a prominent example, but even at the time of the Reformation some fit that category, such as John Knox.

So it's important to note that at the time of the Reformation, just like today, there are Reformed theologians who are cessationist and others who are continuationist.  The biblical arguments they use to defend their views haven't changed much either – overall, the rise of Pentecostalism has not directly influenced Reformed cessationism.


Does the Catholic Church have any (quasi) interdiction against the Harry Potter books? Does the Catholic Church or any particular Catholic dioceses forbid the reading of J. K. Rowling's series of books known as Harry Potter? This same question could be applied to the movie series based on these same books.

If so what are it’s theological and moral reasons for doing so.

We know that there are some Catholic schools that have forbidden these books in the libraries of some Catholic Independent Schools. However I am interested if this is the case at any diocesan level or higher?

Or does the Church leave such decisions about reading these books and/or watching the movies at the discretion of the individual or even the local pastor?

Harry Potter books removed from school library because they contain 'real' curses and spells

Does the Catholic Church have any (quasi) interdiction against the Harry Potter books?

The short answer is no.

Nevertheless some priests have taken a more personal stance within their own diocese or country.

  The Catholic Church has taken no official position on the books, but various Catholics, including officials of the Roman Curia, the hierarchy, and other official bodies have presented mixed views on the subject.

  Beginning in 2001, Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, has occasionally written on the Harry Potter series in his regular column in The Sunday Telegraph. In his columns, he praised the books for displaying values that are "deeply compatible with Christianity." .In his book Be Not Afraid, Pell praised the books as having a "good dose of moral truth" and for being "a good yarn."

  In 2003, Peter Fleetwood, a priest incardinated in the Archdiocese of Liverpool at the time serving as an official of the Pontifical Council for Culture, made comments supportive of the novels during a press conference announcing the release of Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life—A Christian reflection on the "New Age". In response to a question asking if the magic presented in the Harry Potter series should be considered in the same light as some New Age practices warned against in the document, Fleetwood stated, "If I have understood well the intentions of Harry Potter's author, they help children to see the difference between good and evil. And she is very clear on this." He added that Rowling is "Christian by conviction, is Christian in her mode of living, even in her way of writing." This comment was seized on by the media as an endorsement of the novels from the Catholic Church, and by extension, the Pope at that time, John Paul II, though there is no evidence that the Pope officially approved of the novels.

  The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, dedicated a full page to the debate in its 14–15 January 2008 issue. Essayist Paolo Gulisano said the Harry Potter novels offer lessons in the importance of love and self-giving, but Professor Edoardo Rialti described Harry Potter as "the wrong kind of hero" and said that, "Despite several positive values that can be found in the story, at the foundations of this tale is the proposal that of witchcraft as positive, the violent manipulation of things and people thanks to the knowledge of the occult, an advantage of a select few: the ends justify the means because the knowledgeable, the chosen ones, the intellectuals know how to control the dark powers and turn them into good… This is a grave and deep lie, because it is the old Gnostic temptation of confusing salvation and truth with a secret knowledge." However, in July 2009, L'Osservatore Romano praised the moral stance of the sixth Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, saying, "There is a clear line of demarcation between good and evil and [the film] makes clear that good is right. One understands as well that sometimes this requires hard work and sacrifice." It also noted that the film made clear that "the search for immortality epitomised by Lord Voldemort" was morally wrong.

  In Poland, priests from northern city of Koszalin or Gdańsk, publicly burned books and other objects they believe promote magic and sorcery, such as several copies of such books as Harry Potter, Twilight and one about the controversial guru Rajneesh, as well as African tribal masks on April 1, 2019. As a justification, they quoted following biblical passages: A passage from Acts of the Apostles, quoted in by the group, said "many of those who had practiced magic collected their books and burned them in front of everyone. So they calculated their value and found it to be fifty thousand pieces of silver". Another passage, from Book of Deuteronomy, said: "Burn the images of their gods. Don't desire the silver or the gold that is on them and take it for yourself, or you will be trapped by it. That is detestable to the Lord your God."

  In August, 2019, after consulting with exorcists in both the US and Rome, Rev. Dan Reehil, a pastor at the Roman Catholic parish school of St Edward in Nashville, Tennessee, banned the books from the school library on the grounds that "The curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text". - Religious debates over the Harry Potter series


Is a bishop in Roman Catholic tradition equal in authority with the apostles? According to an answer to this question When did Peter become the first Pope, according to Roman Catholic doctrine?, the Pope is the bishop of Rome.

So this made me wonder - since Peter was ordained an Apostle (not bishop of Rome) and he is considered the first Pope - are bishops equal in authority with apostles according to Roman Catholic tradition?

I understand what apostolic succession is, but it doesn't seem clear from this that it's the actual apostolic authority or just a part of it handed down to the bishops from the original apostles.

Bishops (from the Greek, epi-scopus = overseers) are the successors of the Apostles. Their primary responsibility is shepherding the faith of the people in their diocese. They ordain priests, perform the sacrament of confirmation on the faithful, and serve to teach, provide guidance and support for the faithful. So in that sense, they indeed have the authority of the Apostles. However, a tenet of the Catholic Church is that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.

The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ
Vatican II, Dei Verbum 4

Only apostles had firsthand knowledge of the teachings of Jesus. Therefore, no Bishop can add to public revelation. They may explain or further develop the implications of sacred revelation, whether by Scripture or the sacred Tradition of the Apostles.


What is the basis of the LDS/Mormon prohibition of facial hair for men? I have read in a few places the LDS Church has at least a general practice, if not an official teaching, that prohibits men from growing facial hair--at least for men in any position of leadership.  Apparently, Joseph Smith was "clean shaving", but many of the other prophets and leaders in times past did have significant beards and moustaches.

So, my question concerns what the basis is for this teaching and when that basis came about.  Is it an official church teaching or an unwritten policy, and is there any reason given for why facial hair, which God seems to have intended for men in some way, is inappropriate or wrong?

Short version: The rule is about appearing nice, clean-cut, and respectable in line with current cultural norms.  It's a matter of practicality - just look nice, in order to better represent the Church and therefore, God.

From an address President Dallin H. Oaks gave to the 25,000 students of Brigham Young University.

  Unlike modesty, which is an eternal value in the sense of rightness or
  wrongness in the eyes of God, our rules against beards and long hair
  are contemporary and pragmatic. They are responsive to conditions and
  attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time.
  Historical precedents are worthless in this area. The rules are
  subject to change, and I would be surprised if they were not changed
  at some time in the future. But the rules are with us now, and it is
  therefore important to understand the reasoning behind them.

  In the minds of most people at this time, the beard and long hair are
  associated with protest, revolution, and rebellion against authority.
  They are also symbols of the hippie and drug culture. Persons who wear
  beards or long hair, whether they desire it or not, may identify
  themselves with or emulate and honor the drug culture or the extreme
  practices of those who have made slovenly appearance a badge of
  protest and dissent. In addition, unkemptness—which is often (though
  not always) associated with beards and long hair—is a mark of
  indifference toward the best in life.


Were the medieval popes examined on a toilet-lid-like chair to establish their masculinity? Is one of the consequences of the Pope Joan story, whether it was true or false, the use of a marble chair with a large, toilet-like hole in its seat?

As the picture above shows, it seems that that chair has been a part of the papal enthronement, when the pope-elect had to sit on the seat naked from the waist down while cardinals filed past, either peering or feeling to confirm his masculinity.

According to this Wikipedia article (which is in Dutch; there is no English version), the cardinals said 'Testiculos habet et bene pendentes' in confirmation of the pope having passed the inspection.

What is the truth of such a papal testing?

The chair was real, but its actual function is different from what the legend says. And actually, it seems to have been three chairs: one "commode"-type seat, and two porphyry "pierced" chairs. Read on for more.

In Misconceptions About the Middle Ages (page 66-7; ed. Harris and Grigsby), a description is given of the chairs' function in papal coronations:

  The alleged manual examination of the papal claimant's genitalia, performed by a junior deacon through a [sic] opening in the papal chair, aimed, of course, to guard against the election of another woman Pope. ... By 1406, the humanist Jacopo d'Angelo ... denies in his report of the coronation of Gregory XII that such a rite existed, and accounts for the false belief along largely correct lines by explaining the meaning of function of various chairs in the coronation ritual: one chair at the Lateran, called the sedes stercoraria [which means "dung chair" or "toilet"], on which the Pope sits to remind him "that he rises out of clay and dung," that is, that he is subject to the failings of our human nature; and two porphyry seats in the Chapel of San Sylvester (which, because they are pierced, Jacopo says, "the common people tell the senseless fable that someone touches him as he sits to prove that he is indeed a man"). Seated in the latter, the Pope receives, respectively, the papal staff and keys (i.e., the power to govern, granted by Christ to Peter) and a red belt hung with twelve precious stones (invoking the Old Testament priesthood). The two porphyry chairs had first been noted in the investiture of Paschal II in 1099, as found in the Liber Pontificalis. ... The "stercory chair" was eliminated from the rite of investiture in 1560, while the two pierced chairs were last used in the accession of Leo IX [sic; that should be Leo X] in 1513. One was taken from the Vatican by Napoleon after the Treaty of Tolentino and is now in the Louvre; the other is still in the Vatican Museum.

The writing of Jacopo d'Angelo to which they refer is a letter to a certain Emmanuel Chrysoloras, which doesn't seem to be available in English. The editors claim indebtedness to The Myth of Pope Joan by Alain Boureau, so if you want to know more then that's probably a good place to look.

The renowned 19th century historian of Rome, Ferdinand Gregorovius, described the sedia stercoraria in further detail in History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, Volume 5, Issue 1:

  Advancing across the forums and through the triumphal arches of Septimius Severus and Titus the procession skirted the Colosseum passed by S. Clemente and reached the piazza of the Lateran. Here the clergy of the Lateran received the pope with solemn song. They escorted him to the Portico where he took his seat on an ancient marble chair, the sella stercoraria. This symbolic ceremony of the deepest abasement of the supreme Head of Christendom on a seat bearing such a name is perhaps the most curious custom of the Middle Ages, a custom which we can only now contemplate with a smile. Cardinals however hastened to raise the Holy Father from the inappropriate seat with the comforting words of Scripture, "He taketh up the simple out of the dust and lifteth the poor out of the mire." [Psalm 113:7] The pope standing erect took three handfuls of gold, silver, and copper from the lap of one of his chamberlains and threw them among the people saying "Gold and silver are not mine but what I have that I give thee." [Acts 3:6]

In conclusion, though reports of the testicle verification rite go back a long way, so do contrary reports. The contrary reports make more sense (to me at least) and the reports of the testicular examination come chiefly from opponents of the Papacy and give confused accounts of what actually took place. My verdict, personally, is that it never took place but that someone saw the chairs with the holes and let their imagination do the rest.


Do we find any (even hazy) references in non-Jewish traditions about Jesus, as promised saviour? God prepared Jewish people throughout their history and moulded them according to His requirement so that they become ready for accepting His Saviour for all the mankind. Even then many of His chosen people failed to recognise Jesus as promised Saviour.

Since Jesus was supposed to be the saviour for all humanity, there is every possibility that God would want to reveal His plan of saving humanity, to other non Jewish people around the world. Hence it is likely that God would make aware to other non-Jewish people also, for a need of a saviour for this world. So it is possible that such revelation did came to many other groups of people around the world, yet the same was most probably misinterpreted in the subset of their geographical as well as regional belief system.

One such instance that comes to my mind is close resemblance in some of the details, between Jesus and Krishna. The recording of these details was close to the period (century) of Prophet Isaiah, when very clear references to birth of Jesus were revealed.  While there is no evidence to back up the claim that this story of Krishna was of the events that had already happened, it is surely a shaded reference to Jesus who was to come somewhere in future. It is highly possible that over the years, it was presumed by these groups of people, that whatever was revealed has already come to pass, because of their ignorance of God’s actual plan in that region of the world.

So are there any other such references in non-Jewish traditions where the manifestation Jesus Christ was prophesised?

In his book, Eternity in Their Hearts, Don Richardson details what he calls "A World Prepared for the Gospel", which is the title of the first section of the book.

People of the Lost Book

Chapter 2 is entitled "Peoples of the Lost Book", which details tribes that bemoan the fact that their ancestors had lost "the book" from God.  Some of them looked forward to the day when this book would be restored.

People with Strange Customs

Chapter 3 speaks is entitled "Peoples with Strange Customs", which detail the customs of very remote tribes with strikingly similarities to things in the Bible.  In Don Richardson's own experience as a missionary to a remote tribe, he identifies the custom of the "Peace Child".  When he presents Jesus as God's peace child, the tribe responds to the Gospel in a powerful way.

The Ancient Chinese

The ancient Chinese also have some interesting writings from Lao Tze and others.  Prior to Mao Tse Tung, the emperor actually offered what was called the Border Sacrifice every year in the Temple of Heaven.  This closely resembles the offering of the Jewish High Priest once a year for the sins of the people.

The Chinese alphabet itself has some extraordinary parallels to Genesis 1-11.  Interestingly enough, the word for righteousness is a combination of two other characters--the word for Lamb and the word for me.  Righteousness is a lamb over/covering me.


How far are priests and other religious allowed to go in terms of political endorsements (or non-endorsements)? In the USA, I've heard priests say that they can't endorse any candidates but the Bishops put out a fairly unambiguous voters guide every election that clearly says there are non-negotiable issues (mainly concerning life and marriage) which align themselves squarely with the more conservative parties.
But Fr. James Altman of the diocese La Crosse in Wisconsin is of the mind that "You can't be a Catholic and a Democrat. Period" and made it known on a widely circulated youtube video.
Possibly in response to this, a pastor at a local parish posted on Facebook:

The Catholic Church does not endorse a political candidate or a party. This means, that as a priest, I cannot endorse anyone.

and Fr. Altman seems to be in a bit of hot water from his Bishop for his statements.

However, why can't a priest tell a person not to vote for someone.  If a Catholic is running for office who is excommunicated, wouldn't that be a non-endorsement of that person's character by the Church and if a person is running for office who is not excommunicated, but probably deserving of that excommunication, does that mean the Church cannot excommunicate that person for fear of looking like a political endorsement for his or her rival?

The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who introduced it in a preliminary draft of the law in July 1954.
The Internal Revenue Code prohibition against political campaign intervention applies to religious organizations as tax-exempt organizations and to the actions of clergy or other religious leaders acting as representatives of their religious organizations. The prohibition does not apply to the political activities of clergy or other religious leaders undertaken in their individual capacities. Thus, clergy or other religious leaders, in their individual capacities and outside the context of any religious
organization-sponsored function or publication, may endorse or oppose candidates and otherwise participate in election campaigns. When engaging in personal political activities, however, clergy and religious leaders should take steps to ensure that their actions are not imputed to their religious organizations.
While the amendment states that the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes, only churches are automatically considered exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS, although religious organizations are not treated more harshly than schools, hospitals, social services agencies, colleges and universities, scientific organizations, museums or other charitable organizations exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the code.4 None of these organizations may intervene in political campaigns.
The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...” Although the Internal Revenue Code prohibition against political campaign intervention may burden the exercise of religion to the extent that a religious organization must choose between the receipt of the benefits of tax exemption and intervention in a political campaign, not every burden on religious exercise is constitutionally prohibited.
To date, courts have been unsympathetic to First Amendment challenges to the political campaign intervention prohibition. In the most prominent ruling on this prohibition, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld in 2000 the constitutionality of the political campaign intervention prohibition as applied to a church, concluding that the prohibition did not violate either the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
This prohibition encompasses a wide array of activities. It precludes direct
political campaign intervention, including the making of statements, whether oral, written or in an electronic medium, supporting or opposing any candidate, political party or political action committee (“PAC”); creating a PAC;8 rating candidates;9 and providing or soliciting financial support (including loans10 or loan guarantees) or in-kind support for any candidate, political party or PAC. It also precludes indirect political campaign intervention of a sort that reflects bias for or against any candidate, political party or PAC, such as distributing biased voter education materials or conducting a biased candidate forum or voter registration drive.
The political campaign intervention prohibition does not restrict discussions of issues that are not linked to support for or opposition to candidates. The fact that candidates may align themselves on one side or another of an issue does not restrict the ability of religious organizations to engage in discussions of that issue. That said, a religious organization may nonetheless violate the political campaign intervention prohibition if it communicates preferences for or against particular candidates as part of its issue discussions.
For a more exhaustive document on all aspects of politics and religion, see this Pew research paper.


According to LDS (Mormon) theology, is friendship eternal? I am familiar with the doctrine of the sealing power, which "refers to the marriage of a husband and wife and to the joining together of children and parents in relationships that are to endure forever." (Encyclopedia of Mormonism)

It's obvious that family relationships will endure beyond the grave, however what about deep friendships? There are those who might even consider certain friendships to be as strong as family ties. What is the official position of the Church regarding whether these also "are to endure forever"?

The larger meta-question is "what is the nature of the celestial society?" What kind of associations will there be among those who aren't sealed to each other as opposed to those who are? If there isn't a statement addressing this directly, what can be reasonably inferred from existing statements and doctrine?

There's no official doctrinal statement on eternal friendship that I'm aware of.  However, there is something that can be reasonably inferred from doctrine.  In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 130, we read:

  1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.

  2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.

This tells us that the Afterlife is not intended to be some alien experience that would render the concept of "mortal life as a preparatory state" meaningless, but that it will be a truly familiar thing, organized around the same social structures that we know in this life.  For that concept to be valid, it is reasonable to infer that it would have to include friends as well as family.

People are sealed to their families because family bonds are formal and eternal, but friendships are a much more informal and loosely-defined thing.  (You can probably name two people, both of whom you would call "a friend," but with whom you have two very different types of relationship.  And likewise, you have people who became your friend long after you first met them, or who stopped being your friend.  But a brother or a sister is always your brother or your sister.)  So it's reasonable to assume that, within celestial society, we will have the same inherent freedom of association with people that we have no formal relationship with as we do in mortality.


What is older: Dead Sea Scrolls or Septuagint? Which is more reliable? In the future, I will learn Koine Greek and I will read the New Testament in it’s original language. I will also read the Septuagint. The Dead Sea scrolls are all fragments so They are defined not proper to read the Bible. But which is older? And when were the Dead Sea Scrolls finished being written? God bless you all.

A question of reliability ultimately appeals to a method for determining such, an answer this open is hard to answer except for by the answerers feelings, as is demonstrated in the first answer to this question.

The reliability of the dead sea scrolls is that of fragments and many are isolated fragments, meaning they have no counterpart to know the whole text.  And in cases where the text is whole, such as the 'Great Isaiah Scroll', the preservation of the transliteration in to the Masoretic is very close.

However:
Presuming that by the word 'reliable' it is meant accurate?
The LXX offers more consistent and refined comparison when view beside the totality of the Masoretic text as a standard for comparison. The Dead sea scrolls as fragments then only help in comparing the Greek LXX Septuagint with the 9th-10th century Masoretic Hebrew Text.

Presuming by the word 'reliable' means the doctrinal quality as to attain a more complete doctrine of the testament of scripture prior to the Christian era?
The LXX offers a more complete comprehension of the intertestamental period as well as well known working classic language to understand the meaning of certain Hebrew words which the Masoretic text is the possessor of alone (Hebrew which is only found in the bible).


Are elders needed to have an "ordered" church? Are elders needed in a local church in order for it's structure to be "ordered"?

It seems that Paul was implicitly telling Titus that his work in the churches wasn't finished until elders are appointed within each congregation.

  Titus 1:5

  NASB For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you
  NIV The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.
  ESV This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—

The implications of this are fairly big--saying there are a lot of "unordered" churches around: Elder-less churches, independent bible studies, etc...

I find your question as stated quite perplexing in view of the references that you give. Your question asks if the elders are necessary for and ordered church, while your references all distinguished them as two separate actions.

In order to better understand your question I have done some research into what constitutes an orderly church and what are the duties of the elders. Below are some examples of the duties of the elders as it pertains to the functions of the church.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

I have begun with an expansion of your original reference:

  Titus 1:5-9 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:  If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;  Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

After reading verses 5 through 9 I am left with a sense that Titus might have been somewhat remiss in the selection of Elders and Paul was chastising him for that, thus he reiterated his qualifications for Elders. there also may be some reinforcement for that in verse 3.

  Titus 1:3  But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

To my mind Paul might be telling Titus, that God had made Paul the church starter for the Gentiles, and that Titus was undercutting Paul's work by not appointing Church leadership in those critical areas of keeping the correct teachings in the Church.

In 1st Peter verses 1 through 9 we learn that Dependable Eldership in a church is indispensable. And Peter gives us some of the reasons for their allegiance along with the rewards they will receive.

  The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

We must remember that Christianity was in it's infancy and as with any new concept there were some pretty far out ideas being introduced. Christianity was subject to being completely dismantled, and dismissed as Heretical in most of the world at that time. Christianity remained in a state of turmoil up until the time of Constantine and the Council of Trent when some uniformity of belief was established. This is born out by many Church history sites on the internet, which you can google or by Church historians in innumerable books.


When did the practice of bringing non-believers to church originate? A practice used for Church growth is bringing non-believer friends to church so that they'll like what they see and join the church.

Now, the questions are:

Did this ever happen in the New Testament?
If not, when did this practice start?

When I look at NT, I get the impression that:

The church is a gathering of believers
Believers are asked to go OUT into the world to preach

This practice is mentioned in the New Testament, specifically in 1 Corinthians 14:

  23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

This is clearly talking about how believers ought to behave in a worship setting, for the sake of unbelievers, so it is assumed that unbelievers will, at least at times, be present at the believers' worship gatherings.


Can a non-baptized Jehovah's Witness publisher date a non-believer? Can a non-baptized publisher date or marry a person who is not a Jehovah's Witness?

It is worth noting that a person who has not been baptised as a Jehovah’s Witness but attends the meetings and shares in the preaching activity is known as “a publisher”.   Unbaptised publishers are therefore seen as potential members.  Since they have not yet been baptised, they are not officially identified as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The general advice that is given in official publications is this:

  Why Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they should marry only within their religion: The Witnesses heed the Bible’s instruction to marry “only in the Lord,” that is, to marry a person who shares their faith. (1 Corinthians 7:39) This command is both Biblical and practical. For example, a 2010 article in the Journal of Marriage and Family said that “couples in which partners share common religious affiliations, practices, and beliefs” tend to have higher quality relationships.   Source: Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Break Up Families or Build Them Up?


Can Mass be celebrated at any hour of the day? In the Eucharistic Prayer III, we read:

  You are indeed Holy, O Lord, and all you have created rightly gives you praise, for through your Son our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power and working of the Holy Spirit, you give life to all things and make them holy, and you never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name.

I believe the above is somehow linked to the Jewish practices of sacrifices, which seem to have taken place between the morning and the evening. For instance, in Exodus 29:38-39 we read:

  This is what you are to offer regularly on the altar, each day: two lambs that are a year old. In the morning offer one lamb, and at twilight offer the other.

Is the above implying some restriction regarding the times in which Mass can be celebrated? Mass can be normally celebrated as early as 6am, and throughout the day. The latest mass I'm aware of is celebrated at midnight - the Midnight Mass, in Christmas. Is is possible for a Mass to be validly celebrated at, say, 3:00 am?

Can Mass be celebrated at any hour of the day?

The short answer is: Yes, if there is a valid reason for it.

Masses can be said at any time day or night if there is a real necessity or spiritual need for it.

This answer will be based more on actual experience than with concrete sources. For some reason rubrics on this point are quite hard to locate for those who follow the Ordinary Form of the Mass (OF). Geremia gives a good answer, but the references treated are in reference to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (EF). I can not locate any guidelines for the New Mass.

Yet the rubrics that Geremia lays out could also be altered by some real need, circumstance or local custom.

  Under certain circumstances rubrics may be modified by custom, but in this respect they do not differ from laws in general. - Rubrics

I spent some 20 years affiliated with religious communities that say both forms of the Mass used in the Latin Rite. It is not uncommon for a priest in a religious community to say Mass extremely early because of the necessity of driving a great distance that day. This applies to both Forms of Mass of the Roman Rite.

New Years Day may be celebrated at midnight too. We had Mass celebrated by an Abbot in the Extraordinary Form on New Years Day 2000 as a way of welcoming in the New Millennium. I am sure some priests still do this.

In the monastery I stayed in for several years, one priest was assigned the task of saying Mass at 4:00 AM, so that the Brothers could be free to go and milk the cows. They called this the Farm Mass.

I can not tell you how many times I served a Mass (of either Form) between 2:00 AM and 5:00 AM because a priest (Religious or secular) had to leave on a long trip on that particular day.

Thus Mass may be celebrated at anytime day or night, if there is a valid reason for doing so. And that goes for both Forms of the Mass (OF and EF) in the Latin Rite.


On the Eucharist and Human Digestion? My Question: Does the real presence of the Eucharist persist even after digestion to the point of being taken out of the body by defecation?

Yes this is a serious question. In case the answer is no, where does the real presence go then? Is it integrated into our bodies like vitamins?
I realize that Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. I understand that there are spiritual advantages to taking the Eucharist, but what I would like to now understand is also how those advantages are communicated to us when we eat Christ. The process.

When the host is digested and it no longer has the appearance of bread, it is no longer the body of Christ. The Lord is only present as long as the appearance of bread is present.

  The sacramental body of Jesus remains with us for about 15 minutes,
  until the external species are digested. But that does not mean Jesus
  leaves us when the species are digested. He remains with us but not
  sacramentally. Fr. Bob levis  EWTN

Another quote:

  They are only there in order to point out "Here is Christ!" So, when
  we see what would commonly be called bread or bread crumbs, the
  visible signs tells us "Here is Christ". When we can no longer say
  this is bread or this is bread crumbs, then, that is no longer true.
  Source

From Fr. Ripperger:

  it teaches man that things of the senses are there for us to come to
  knowledge of spiritual realities when we see the accidents of the
  bread by the supernatural virtue of faith we know that God is present.
  This helps man to direct his life of the senses to God by looking
  beyond the life of the senses to something deeper. On another level God
  knows that man has a natural desire for physical closeness to things
  which he loves and this is due to the nature of his body soul
  composite. This is why it is not enough for someone to merely hear the
  beloved's voice but he actually wants to see and to touch the beloved. -
  source


According to Catholicism, does Matthew 16:18 justify that the Catholic Church is the one true church? According to Catholicism, does Matthew 16:18 ("thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.") justify that the Catholic Church is the one true church?

The section "Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in blessed Peter" of the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Pastor Æternus) quotes Matthew 16:18 and related verses:

  We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: 'Thou shalt be called Cephas,' [St. John 1:42] that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' [St. Matthew 16:16] addressed these solemn words: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.'[St. Matthew 16:17-19] And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words: 'Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.' [St. John 21:15-17] At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.

St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, the greatest Doctor of ecclesiology, wrote a De Romano Pontifice or On the Roman Pontiff (part of his De Controversiis or On the Controversies series) in which he shows—in more detail, against the errors and heresies of Calvin, Luther, et al.—how the above scriptural verses support the papacy.

source: this answer to the question "What is the origin of the Catholic Pope in the Bible?"


Where do Mormons believe heaven is right now? Do Mormons believe heaven is outside of the universe or do they believe it's a city/kingdom floating in space or do they believe its on a planet in another star system?

Where do Mormons believe the current heaven is?

"Heaven" has three principal meanings.

Place of the righteous, pre-judgement

Earth.

Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). Yet days later, when he appeared to Mary, he said "I am not yet ascended to my Father" (John 20:17). Mormons believe that the afterlife ("paradise") is distinct from the habitation of God.

Brigham Young taught that the spirit world is on Earth:

  When you lay down this tabernacle, where are you
  going? Into the spiritual world....Where is the spirit world?
  It is right here....Can you see it with your natural eyes? No. Can you see spirits in this room? No. Suppose the Lord should touch your eyes that you might see, could you then see the spirits? Yes, as plainly as you now see bodies.

  Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. Widtsoe

The separation between the physical and spiritual "dimensions" is frequently called the "veil."

Place of the righteous, post-judgement

Earth -- purified, and in the presence of God.

  Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

  Matthew 5:5

Mormons call it the the celestial (heavenly) kingdom. Its inhabitants will dwell in the presence of God.

  ...the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it.

  Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory;

  For after it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father;

  Doctrine and Covenants 88:17-19

Throne of God

Near Kolob.

  And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

  And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me

  Abraham 3:2-3

P.S. If it seems strange that Mormons have astronomical references and unusual words like Kolob when referring to the location of heaven, it may be because you are used to having no specifics about its location. Think about it, (e.g. is heaven in the clouds?), and it might cause you to see the topic differently :)


What is the basis for the belief that Christianity and Islam worship different gods? Another question entitled "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?" requested the basis for the belief that Christians and Muslims do worship the same god.

In this question, I am requesting the basis for the belief that Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god, but worship different gods.

This question is specifically addressed to Christians who believe that Islam worships a distinctly different god, and that Judaism worships the same God as Christianity.

The answer to your question lies in what each religion teaches about who God is.
Islam
From The Truth About Islam by Dr. David R. Reagan*:

God — The Koran asserts that the god of Islam is the God of Christians and Jews (Sura 29:46). Nothing could be farther from the truth.7
The god of Islam, Allah, is most definitely not the God of the Bible. Allah is presented in the Koran as an autocratic ruler who is aloof and arbitrary (Sura 5:40). Allah is unknowable whereas the God of the Bible is knowable (2 Timothy 1:12). Allah is impersonal, unlike the personal God the Scriptures reveal (1 Peter 5:6-7). Allah is unitarian (Sura 4:48) whereas the God of the Bible is trinitarian (2 Corinthians 13:14). Here is what the Koran says about the God of the Bible (Sura 4:171): “Believe in Allah and say not ‘Trinity.’ Cease! It is better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son.”
Allah is capricious (Sura 2:284), whereas the true God is trustworthy. And Allah is never anywhere presented as a god of love — which is the essence of the nature of the true God (1 John 4:7-16).
Jesus — The Koran denies point blank that Jesus was the Son of God (Sura 112:2-3). It also denies His atoning sacrifice by claiming that he never died (Sura 4:157). A substitute died for Him on the Cross. Jesus was translated to Heaven, like Enoch, where He will remain until He returns to kill all pigs, destroy all crosses, and convert the world to Islam. Jesus will marry, reign for 40 years and then die and be buried next to Muhammad in Medina.8 Jesus is characterized in the Koran as nothing more than “an apostle of Allah” (Sura 4:171).

The god that Islam teaches about is very different from the God of the Bible. Muslims and Christians may trace their roots back to Abraham but it's hard to claim they're the same god when they act so dramatically different.
Judaism
Because Christianity stems directly out of Judaism, it's clear they are worshiping the same god. The God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament. For example:

Same character

Redeemer (OT - Isaiah 47:4)(NT - Luke 1:68)
Knowable (OT - Jeremiah 9:23-24)(NT - John 17:3)
Trustworthy (OT - 2 Samuel 7:28)(NT - Revelation 21:5)
Love (OT - Exodus 34:6)(NT - 1 John 4:8)
Just (OT - Psalm 145:17)(NT - Revelation 15:3)

Consistent interactions with man (do a Google search for "old testament types of Christ")
Same expectations of man (OT - Leviticus 11:45)(NT - 1 Peter 1:15-16)
Same consequences for sin (OT - Genesis 2:17)(NT - Romans 6:23)

Jesus himself even acknowledges that salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22). Christians may believe the Jews overlooked the Messiah but they undoubtedly worship the same God.
*More info about Dr. David R. Reagan and his denominational ties can be found here:
http://christinprophecy.org/?staff=dr-david-r-reagan
http://christinprophecy.org/about/#Purpose


Did Pope Benedict XVI grant permission for heterosexual couples to use artificial birth control methods? In a book of interviews by Peter Seewald, Light of the World, Pope Benedict is quoted as saying something to the effect that homosexual prostitutes would be better off if they used condoms than if they didn't.

Did he ever issue any subsequent opinion or even hint that it would be acceptable for heterosexual couples to use any birth control methods other than natural family planning?

(I hate asking questions prompted solely by other questions asked here on the site, but I think this is broad enough and may help to clarify things and otherwise improve the Internet.)

No. The Pope did not permit or condone artificial birth control.

There's a full critique of a number of statements from Light of the World, together with statements from the Vatican which provide a gloss, on the website of the Holy Family Monastery, although it appears they consider that the Pope has erred simply because his statements will be used to misrepresent his and the Church's teaching on contraception.

In Light of the World p117–119, we read this:

  Question: “In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV.  Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.”

  Answer from Benedict XVI: “The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement… In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms.  Much more needs to be done… There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.  But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.  That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

  Question: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

  Answer from Benedict XVI: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated on 19 December 2010 (my emphasis):

  Some interpretations have presented the words of the Pope as a contradiction of the traditional moral teaching of the Church. This hypothesis has been welcomed by some as a positive change and lamented by others as a cause of concern — as if his statements represented a break with the doctrine concerning contraception and with the Church’s stance in the fight against AIDS. In reality, the words of the Pope — which specifically concern a gravely disordered type of human behaviour, namely prostitution (cf. Light of the World, pp. 117–119) — do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church... The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought.

  [L’Osservatore Romano 22-27 December 2010, p11]

TL;DR: Condoms are not to be used to prevent pregnancy, but they can be used to prevent the spread of disease. Someone recognising that this is necessary may be a first step towards the moral and responsible stance of abstinence.