How do the Father and Son differ if they have the same particular essence? My question assumes ousia in Christian orthodoxy means a particular (not universal) essence or form, and not a concrete instantiation (hypostasis).
If the Father and Son have the same ousia, where are the properties that distinguish them? Does the hypostasis have additional distinguishing properties? If so, are these properties necessary or contingent? If necessary, how are they definitionally excluded from the ousia?

I think the traditional Trinitarian answer would be that (prior to the incarnation) the three persons of the Trinity do not differ by any properties; instead they are distinguished by their relationships with each other. The three persons of the Trinity all share the one singular divine essence. Faculties such as the will and mind belong to the divine essence, so there is one single divine will which each person possesses, one single divine mind which each person possesses. Attributes like God's omniscience, omnibenevolence, justice, impassibility, transcendence, these are all attributes of the divine essence.
Without implying that the Son is in any way non-eternal, created, or subservient, the Father is first, and the Son comes from the Father; he is the eternally begotten Son. Likewise the Spirit comes from the Father (and possibly the Son, depending on who you ask). Likewise, in their relationships with each other, the persons of the Trinity cooperate in their creation of the world, and in their salvation of humanity, but in their cooperation they each assume a particular role. This has been called the Economic Trinity. But the traditional Trinitarian position is not that we should think the roles each person assumed are arbitrary or interchangeable; though we do not fully understand how the persons of God relate with each other, it was not chance that the Son became incarnate, but it is infinitely fitting that the Son, as the Word of the Father, would become the incarnate Word to fully reveal God to us. Likewise it is fitting that the Spirit of God would indwell us, breathing new spiritual life into us. (Spirit and breath are one word in both Hebrew and Greek.)


In LDS doctrine, why isn't repentance possible without eternal punishment? Alma 42:16

  Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a
  punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be,
  affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also
  as the life of the soul.

Why is repentance not possible without eternal punishment? I understand why punishment must exist (it's explained well in the chapter), but it doesn't explain why the punishment must be eternal.

There are similar discourses elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, notably in  2 Nephi 2 and 2 Nephi 9.  Especially in 2 Nephi 9:6-8 it is explained that without the atonement of Christ, the judgement that came on Adam would have been eternal and unending, but not why that is a precondition for repentance.

2 Nephi 9:6-8
6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil
the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of
resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason
of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and
because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the
Lord.
7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be
an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption.
Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have
remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid
down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.
8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh
should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who
fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the
devil, to rise no more.

It appears that Alma is using "repentance" as shorthand for the plan of redemption including repentance, as summarized in Alma 42:13. Otherwise, this particular verse is difficult to interpret.


Is there a unique characteristic for all canonical books? Is there any one unique characteristic that would be common for all the books of the Bible besides being chosen by the Church to be a part of canon? I am interested here in the main-stream Protestant tradition.

Technically, the only "criteria" for canonicity is widespread acceptance.  Looking at canonical lists up through the Festal Letter canonicity was always based on "what seemed most profitable to the reader" at the time. That said, the Council of Trent said

All New Testament Books share a claim to apostolic authority:

Matthew & John were disciples
Luke (&hence Acts) travelled with Paul
Mark was probably a close friend of Peter's
All of the Pauline Epistles (Rom - Philemon) were written by Paul, who is considered an aposotle
Hebrews was mistakenly attributed to Paul
James & Jude were brothers of Jesus
Peter (I & II) & John (I, II, III, and Revelation) were disciples

The Old Testament books had their authority by the Jews, and several theories including the Council of Jamnia have been put forward that describe their assembly.

By contrast, the NT Apocraphya (Acts of Thecla, Gospel of Barnabas, Gospel of Peter, etc...) were never widely held to have been of apostolic origin, and the Church Fathers (the Didache, I Clement, Matrydom of Polycarp, etc...) were written by people who were more than a generation removed from Jesus.


Meaning of Acts 10:34-35 according to Protestantism Acts 10:34-35 (DRB) And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him.

How do Protestants interpret this passage?

Specifically the parts "not a respecter of persons" and "worketh righteousness" (DRB uses the Latin "just" instead of the Germanic "righteous", used for instances in KJV)?

In this specific section up until verse 43 Peter is speaking about Jesus' life and ministry.

The answer to the claim God is "no respecter of persons" but accepts the ones that fear Him and "worketh righteousness" is in verses 42 and 43

  And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believed in him shall receive remission of sins.

Peter concludes with an image of Jesus as the One appointed to judge humanity, yet makes it clear forgiveness and salvation are available to everyone who believes Him. God doesn't respect persons because they don't do His will, they are sinners and God is a just God. Nonetheless, those following Jesus receive "remission of sins" and a righteous status before God becoming "acceptable" to Him.


Did St. Joachim prevent the transmission of original sin to Mary by overcoming concupiscence? St. Joachim is known to live a pious and humble life. If St. Joachim lived according to God's will and followed His inspirations in making a marital procreative act with St. Anne under the grace of God, is this how original sin was not transmitted to Mary?
The Council of Trent defined the de fide dogma that original sin is transmitted by natural generation. It says:

propagatione, non imitatione transfusum omnibus. (D 790)
In the baptism of children that is expurgated which they have incurred through generation. (D 791)

As original sin is a peccatum naturæ, it is transmitted in the same way as human nature, through the natural act of generation. Although according to its origin, it is a single sin (D 790) that is the sin of the head of the race alone (the sin of Eve is not the cause of original sin) it is multiplied over and over again through natural generation whenever a child of Adam enters existence. In each act of generation human nature is communicated in a condition deprived of grace.
The chief cause (causa efficiens principalis) of original sin is the sin of Adam alone. The instrumental cause (causa efficiens instrumentalis) is the natural act of generation, which gives rise to the connection of the individual human being with the head of the race. The actual concupiscence associated with the act of generation, the sexual pleasure (libido) is, contrary to the view of St. Augustine (De nuptiis et concup. I 23, 25; 24, 27), neither the cause nor the inescapable condition for the reproduction of original sin. It is only an accompanying phenomenon of the act of generation, which in itself alone is the instrumental cause of the transmission of original sin. Cf. S. th. 1 II 82, 4 ad 3.
Based on the Council of Trent definition on concupiscence, it is the "instrumental cause of transmission" and in the Gospel the concupiscence can be overcome as testified by St. Paul (Galatians 5:24-25):

Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

Galatians 2:20:

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God,who loved me and gave himself for me.

Is there a Church teachings or writings that states St. Joachim may have overcome "concupiscence" and thus prevented the transmission of original sin?

The Blessed Virgin Mary's immaculate conception was not due to the merits of St. Joachim but to "a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ" (Ineffabilis Deus).

Also, St. Thomas writes (Summa Theologica suppl. q. 41 a. 3 arg. 3) that

  the marriage act is always connected with concupiscenceactus matrimonialis habet concupiscentiam adjunctam (Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 26 q. 1 a. 3 arg. 3)

(Certainly concupiscence in the marriage act can come in degrees, but, as your citation to the Summa mentions, original sin does not.)

Even if the marriage act between Sts. Jochim and Anne involved no concupiscence, original sin would still be transmitted, if it were not for God's "special grace and privilege" to the Blessed Virgin Mary.


According to the Catholic Church, in Luke 10:19 what kind of authority & power Jesus had given the Apostles & Disciples? What I'm looking for:

Scriptures said

  'See, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and
  over all the power of the enemy. Nothing will harm you. Nevertheless,
  do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you... (Luke 10:19)

Is the Authority & Power only given during Jesus time or can any Christian believers can possess it even during our times?

Is the Authority only given to Church Authority, or to elders in the community?

I will limit the desired answer to be based upon Roman Catholic Church teaching and any biblical basis it provides.

The Catholic Haydock Commentary says on Lk. 10:19:

  Ver. 19. Given you power, &c. By these words our Saviour seems to insinuate, that the venom of serpents, and the other noxious qualities of some animals, proceed from the malice of the devil. These are the arms and the instruments he makes use of to kill us, being the prince of death and a murderer from the beginning, as the Scripture styles him. The Jews attributed sickness, poisons, and every thing of the same kind to evil spirits.

cf. also what St. Thomas Aquinas collected, in his Catena Aurea, from the Fathers on this verse


What is the policy for Latter-Day Saints' leaders (like bishops) being politically engaged? Recently a bishop in the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints said a politically tinted or motivated remark publicly. I don't mind lay members being involved like Harry Reed or Mitt Romney, but when I heard someone in an actual leadership position say something it really bothered me.

Isn't there something in their policy and from their leadership that says saying or doing anything that could be considered political is not permissible?

A friend told me that what he did was in very poor taste and should be reported to his stake president or a "general authority", but I just don't know what to do since I hate to stir pots.

Per the LDS website, “stake presidents and bishops are free to contribute, serve on campaign committees and otherwise support candidates of their choice”.
So, it seems that bishops are free to participate in politics. However, the church goes on to say that these officials should not imply or infer that their political stance is endorsed by the church, use church generated addresses, email systems, buildings etc for political promotions, or “engage in fundraising or other types of campaigning focused on fellow Church members under their ecclesiastical supervision."

From what I can gather, the only members for whom it is not permissible to participate in politics are full time General Authorities, general officers, General Auxiliary Presidencies, mission presidents, temple presidents, and their spouses. The hyperlinked article, which cites a presidency letter the church released that outlined their stance on political neutrality, states that these full time servants “should not personally participate in political campaigns, including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions.”


What is unique about Christianity? Inspired by this question: How do Christians explain commonalities between their religion, other major faiths and obscure isolated tribal belief systems?

What is fundamentally unique about Christianity?  Obviously there are different stories, texts, and traditions associated with Christianity than with other religions.  But if we cut away all the fluff from all the world religions...  Is there anything that stands out as unique about the core of Christianity?

To clarify what I'm asking:

Many religions have prophets that claim to speak on behalf of god(s).
Many religions have scriptures, often claimed to be inspired by their god(s).
Many religions report miracles, or other supernatural phenomena.
Many religions claim to be the only "true" religion.
Many religions claim to offer forgiveness of sin.
Many religions claim to be historically based and accurate.
Many religions claim to improve society.

If Christianity just has a "better version" of all of these points, it sounds like Christianity is fundamentally the same as most/all other religions, it's just "more completely evolved."  So what I'm asking for is any characteristics of Christianity that are fundamentally unique and important, and not just improvements on existing ideas.

Many religions are attempts to please a god or "gods" in order to gain their favor.
Many religions focus on becoming more like a god ourselves, elevating man in some way or another
Others deny God or the Supernatural at all (often viewing man as already being the ultimate being)
Many focus on using or harnessing powers of the universe to improve our lives (Wicca, and other new-age religions)

The primary difference between Christianity and other religions that I've either "dabbled in" or studied is this:

Christianity is unique in stating that we cannot possibly hope to please God by being "good enough", and that God reached down and made the ultimate sacrifice for us.  Our good works can do nothing to please Him.  All we can do to please Him is to accept His gift and love Him.

In other words, all of the other religions that I'm aware of are man-centered, focusing on improving or glorifying man, whereas Christianity is about glorifying God alone.  Instead of trying to appease Him in some way or other, which encourages pride, we are grateful to a God that loves us in spite of our own unrighteousness.  Christianity gives all the glory to God, and leaves no room for us to take any credit on our own.


What is the Biblical basis for the "one" in "the Trinitarian God is one being in three persons"? In the Trinity, the one divine being is three persons whereas one human being is only one person (source: Is The Trinity a philosophical contradiction?).

A "being" is an independently existing thing.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three "beings".
For instance, Adam is a human being, Eve is a human being and Seth is a human being. You have three human beings because you have three independently existing things.
But the persons of the Trinity are not independently existing things, so we cannot say that there are three divine beings. But rather the Trinity is one being existing as three divine persons.
The point is that they are not three separate things in the way Adam and Eve are three separate beings precisely because they cannot exist apart from each other.
The three do not exist independently. They cannot exist apart from each other. They are one being (literally, one independent thing) and thus, they are one God.
What is the Biblical basis that Trinity is "one being in three persons"?
Did the Scripture say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three separate beings?
Usually, the Trinity is being defined as of one substance, nature, essence and being. This question specifically asked what exactly does "one being" mean in regards to the Trinity because being is different from nature and person.

My understanding is that the scriptures convey that three Divine Persons share one divine nature.

I and the Father are one. [John 10:30, Young's Literal Translation] . . .

. . . . expresses a shared nature but different personalities.
One could re-word this and say that three Divine Persons share one divine existence.
Fulness being an attribute of divine nature means that the divine nature is shared perfectly, in fulness.

And of His fullness (the Word made flesh) we all have received, and grace for grace.

[John 1:16, KJV]

For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

[Colossians 2:9, KJV]

But the word 'being', when it refers to 'human being', has a specific meaning in that human persons, although they share the characteristics of humanity do not actually share the same humanity, that is to say the same human body and the same human soul.
I think that this causes a confusion of wording.
So I therefore, myself, prefer to say that three Divine Persons share one divine existence.
That is to say, three Divine Persons, dwelling in a perfection of unity, co-exist in the fulness of one divine nature.
(This wording therefore expresses person, unity, being and nature.)
And I know that some word this as 'three Divine Persons share one divine essence'.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

First Council of Nicea 325 - Wikipedia

Then, also :

... who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

[Philippians 2:6 KJV]

Here, existence (being) nature (form) deity (God) and person (he) are seen together.
The Son of God exists (being) in the form or nature of deity. That is how his person exists and that is the form in which he exists : deity.
It is similar to the expression 'I am that I am' Exodus 3:14, which expresses the  fact of existence (of being) - I am - and the mode of being or the form of being or the nature of being - that I am.
This existence, this form, he shares (equal with God) : it is an equivalent, an equal, mode of existence with God.
This form of being is a shared form of being - the form or nature in which he exists and which existence he shares : is deity.
It is one form of existence which is shared.
One mode of being - is shared.


Catholic Theology and Transubstantiation I'm a bit rusty on my Catholic theology, but I don't every recall any specific set of rules or parameters that govern which substances can and cannot be subject to transubstantiation. Basically, the discussion of ingredients of wafers and wine came up in a discussion, and a friend of mine claims there is nothing that specifically proscribes lager (for example) to be transubstantiated in place of wine, especially in a situation where wine may not be available.

Does anyone know the official Catholic position on this, especially within the context of theological debate?

Form General Instruction of the Roman Missal (319-324):

  Following the example of Christ, the Church has always used bread and wine with water to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
  The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition
  of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.
  The meaning of the sign demands that the material for the Eucharistic celebration truly have the appearance of food. It is
  therefore expedient that the Eucharistic bread, even though unleavened
  and baked in the traditional shape, be made in such a way that the
  priest at Mass with a congregation is able in practice to break it
  into parts for distribution to at least some of the faithful. Small
  hosts are, however, in no way ruled out when the number of those
  receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral needs require it. The
  action of the fraction or breaking of bread, which gave its name to
  the Eucharist in apostolic times, will bring out more clearly the
  force and importance of the sign of unity of all in the one bread, and
  of the sign of charity by the fact that the one bread is distributed
  among the brothers and sisters.
  The wine for the Eucharistic celebration must be from the fruit of the grapevine (cf. Lk 22:18), natural, and unadulterated, that is,
  without admixture of extraneous substances.
  Diligent care should be taken to ensure that the bread and wine intended for the Eucharist are kept in a perfect state of
  conservation: that is, that the wine does not turn to vinegar nor the
  bread spoil or become too hard to be broken easily.
  If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he
  pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into
  the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the
  institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice,
  without being obliged to consecrate the bread again.

Jesus celebrated his Last Supper with bread and wine, so bread and wine is necessary. There is not a consensus between Western and Eastern Christianity whether the bread should be leavened or not. This is based on accounts different evangelist and of Paul whether the original Last Supper of Jesus was a Passover supper with unleavened breads or not; due to this uncertainty, both variants are OK.
About wine, I've heard that some of early churches celebrated Eucharist with unfermented grape juice, so it could be theoretically possible to substitute this for wine. But lager is definitelly not suitable.

Addendum: in bad conditions like a prison (many priests are still being arested in some Christianity unfriendly, usually Islamic or communist countries), any bakery suits for "bread" and even a raisin smashed in water can qualify as "wine". No priest would approve to celebrate mass with this instead of standard bread and wine if he can choose, but such exceptions are possible in really harsch conditions.

And an anecdote for the end: I don't know where this happened, but once a drunken priest came to a baker's shop and started to pray a eucharistic prayer. Then he had to buy everything in the shop and destroy it with piety, because nobody could be sure what is ordinary bakery and what is Body of Christ, and risking desecration of Eucharist was not an option.


Where can I find the text of "Prayer" by Father Faber? I'm reading a book from the 1920's that mentions Father Faber's book "Prayer" as a good reference on the two main forms of contemplation in the 15th century.  It claims that "Prayer" was then available in any Catholic book shop, but searching today I find no references to it.  Has this text been collected in some other compilation of Faber's writing, or is there a catalog for this kind of text that I might have overlooked?

You must be referring to:

Faber, Frederick William & John Fitzpatrick, O.M.I. 1920. Prayer: Selections from Father Faber. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne.

You can find it in a library near you by clicking the above link.

Chequamegon Books (Washburn, WI, U.S.A.) has a copy of it for purchase, only $10.


Why did Theodore of Mopsuestia interpret John 20:28 as an exclamation? John 20:28 says (KJV)...

  And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Greek...

  ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

According to Meyer's NT Commentary...

  ὁ κύριός μου κ. ὁ θεός μου] is taken by Theodore of Mopsuestia (“quasi pro miraculo facto Deum collaudat,” ed. Fritzsche, p. 41) as an exclamation of astonishment directed to God.

I know his writings were condemned several centuries after his death, but I can't find his reasoning for this particular interpretation. Why did Theodore of Mopsuestia believe1 John 20:28 was an exclamation?

1 In his commentary to St. John. This particular passage is from the Latin text quoted in the Second Council of Constantinople (Search for the words "My Lord and my God.") .

It is difficult to judge the motives of Theodore, but his reluctance to say that the Apostle Thomas confessed the divinity of Christ probably stems from his Christology.
Theodore was a sustainer of the Logos-anthropos or Antiochene Christological school, which tried to understand the Incarnation as the union of the Word with a man (Greek: ánthropos). The Antiochene school used this model in order to emphasize the completeness of what (we would call) Jesus’ human nature.
A possible pitfall, however, is emphasizing the completeness of the human nature so much as to affirm that Jesus is (in addition to a Divine Person or Hypostasis) a human person: that is the error of Nestorius.
It is debatable whether Theodore actually intended to teach this error;* nevertheless, that is certainly how the Second Council of Constantinople interpreted his commentary on John 20:28:

If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who has said that the Word of God is one person, but that another person is Christ … [and] likewise has said that the profession of faith made by Thomas when he had, after the resurrection, touched the hands and the side of the Lord, viz.: My Lord and my God, was not said in reference to Christ, but that Thomas, filled with wonder at the miracle of the resurrection, thus thanked God who had raised up Christ …: let him be anathema (Acts of the Second Council of Constantinople, Can. 12, Denzinger-Hünermann 434).

The Council here is interpreting Theodore as espousing a Nestorian-like distinction between the Person of the Word and Jesus’ (supposed) human person. If this is the case, Theodore is effectively arguing that the Apostle Thomas cannot call the human Jesus “God,” because the human Jesus is merely a human person (not a Divine Person, as orthodox Christology holds).

* The Antiochene, or Logos-anthropos, model is not necessarily heretical. We still see echoes of it in the Te Deum (a hymn dating from the fourth century, before the Council of Ephesus):

Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem, non horruisti Virginis uterum.
In order to free [man], you took on man; you did not spurn the Virgin’s womb.

Here, however, when we say that God “took on man”, we take “man” to mean what we would call “human nature” today.


Trinity and incarnation If the Son does whatever the Father does (John 5:19), does that mean the Father also incarnated for the Son to incarnate?

In a word, no. According to Jesus Himself He rightly said at John 1:18, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." And at John 6:46, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, except he who is from God, he hath seen the Father."
John 4:24 states, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." In other words, God is a spiritual being and as noted God the Father cannot be seen.
God's Son, Jesus Christ is the one and only Son of God as in there are no others. (John 3:16). Since this is true Jesus as the Son of God shares the same nature as His Father. Jesus did not have a biological father. On the other hand, Jesus also identified Himself as the "Son of Man." On His mother's side He has the same nature as His mother which is human being.
So Jesus Christ has two natures, one on His Father's side and one on His mother's side. It's a universal law that all sons share the same nature as its father. Philippians 2:6-8 teaches that Jesus Christ who always existed as God took on another form which was that of a bond-servant/man. Philippians 2:8, "And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross."
At John 14:8 Philip said to Him/Jesus, Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Vs9, Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who sees Me has seen the Father, how do you say, Show us the Father?"
Jesus here is not saying that He is God the Father, look at vs10, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father; and the Father is in Me? (Please notice two persons are in view here.) The words I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works."
The point of this is the fact that the Father has no separate manifestation from the Son. The Son is the only manifestation and revelation of the Father. What is known of the Father is revealed through the Son. To see the Son is to see the essence of the Father. Please read John 1:1,18; John 10:30; John 12:45; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.)
Everything Jesus did was to please His Father and to glorify the Father. This also means that we are to follow Jesus' example in our daily life. Goin back to Philippians 2, notice what the Apostle Paul states at verse 3-5.
Starting at Vs3, Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you REGARD ONE ANOTHER AS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HIMSELF." Vs4, do not merely look out for your own personal interest, BUT ALSO FOR THE INTEREST OF OTHERS."
Vs5, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus." I already went over the verses that follow. The point is to follow the example of Jesus Christ and honor Him just like were suppose to honor the Father. (John 5:23).


Under what basis does the Catholic Church consider animals, in particular great apes, not to be persons? The Catholic Church teaches that out of earthly beings, only humans, and not animals, are persons and therefore many rights, like the absolute right to live, are enjoyed only by humans.

As the CCC says,

  2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created
  in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food
  and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and
  leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a
  morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits
  and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

  2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die
  needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should
  as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals;
  one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

And notably, the above canons are placed in a chapter whose title is:

  II. Respect for Persons and Their Goods

If I’m not mistaken, this position stems from the definition of “person” proposed by Boethius, which is most commonly accepted among theologians:

  A person is an individual substance with a rational nature.

The problem is that some modern scientists claim that according to the new research we must consider some animals, in particular the great apes, as self-aware and intelligent, and therefore persons. They assert that these animals are also capable of self-control, planning, abstract thinking, mental time travel, comprehending past, present and future, empathy, establishing relationships, etc. They assert these animals are sentient.

Therefore these scientists claim these animals should be granted the right of bodily liberty, bodily integrity, and must not be considered properties of other people.

For sources, please see e.g. the following Wikipedia articles: Great ape personhood, Nonhuman Rights Project and Personhood § Non-human animals.

By such mentality denying animals human rights is an example of an unmadated supremacism, chauvinism and discrimination, similar in nature to the historical discrimination of people born as slaves and later of people of other races.

Yet under the Church’s teaching it would seem impossible to classify these animals as persons. Given these scientific claims, seemingly fulfilling Boethius’ definition of a person, how does the Catholic Church defend its teaching with regard to animals not being persons?

Humans have the gift of free will given directly by God [CCC 1730], as well as a soul [CCC 1703]. Only humans have an immortal soul.

Many higher mammals have the traits you speak of: wolves, most domesticated dogs and cats, dolphins and porpoises, and most primates. Sentience is not a function of humanity.

Scripture specifically makes humans special from the time of creation:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,  and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the heaven, and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep along the earth. 27: And God created man in his image; in his image he created him; man and woman he created them. 28: And God blessed them, and God said, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth.

CCC 1704 goes on to say By free will, [man] is capable of directing himself towards his true good.

In these regards, both scripture and Catholic theology recognize the supremacy of humans over all other species on the planet.

I'm not sure if this is a defense, per se, as you have asked, but God was very specific about the supremacy of humans. Of interest, cultures which are not monotheistic have by and large less empathy towards nonhumans than the Church. If anything, Catholic theology supports animal rights and the relief of suffering as long as it is not to the detriment of humans [CCC 2415-2418].

To sum up, sentience, if present,  is not a substitute for humanity. (Of note, the CCC specifically prohibits slavery of persons [CCC 2414].) Your argument that "some modern scientists" believe sentience makes a nonhuman a "person" is not a replacement for scripture or dogma.


According to Catholicism and/or Eastern Othodox, if we have Guardian Angels do we also have an assigned Demons? The idea of having a demon assigned to us isn’t new to anyone who is familiar with C.S. Lewis and the Screwtape letters.  Since the idea (according to Catholic and Orthodox Tradition) is that God “assigns” us each a Guardian Angel is it likely we also have a demon assigned to us?

I can’t comprehend how the world of angels and demons exists but if there is an eternal struggle for our souls it would make sense.

From a biblical perspective Acts 12:15 New International Version (NIV)
15 “You’re out of your mind,” they told her. When she kept insisting that it was so, they said, “It must be his angel.” - Seems to support the notion of guardian angels.

King James Bible  Matthew 18:10
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven - Is another example.

Through my research the term guardian angel or guardian demon is not found within scriptures.

Jesus says of the little ones who make up the kingdom of heaven :

  Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 18:10 KJV.

So, yes, I also believe that the children of the Father, born from above, redeemed by Christ, have angels (one at least) "assigned" to them.

From the incident regarding Peter, quoted in the question, it seems clear to me that the angel which assisted Peter to escape from prison had probably helped him previously and this was known among the church, therefore they said (on this occasion), 'It is his angel' because they were already acquainted with the angel's existence and guardianship.

The redeemed, previously, were indwelt by unclean spirits, demons, as we see in many places in the gospel accounts. Out of one man, the Gadarene, there went a whole legion of demons, enough to cause a whole herd of swine to rush off a precipice into the sea, Matthew 8, Mark 5, Luke 8.

Out of Mary of Magdalene, there went seven demons, and she was delivered of them.

  And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, Luke 8:2 KJV.

Jesus warns us that, being once delivered, and the house (of our soul) being 'swept and garnished' we should not have the place just . . .  vacant.

  When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Matthew 12:44 KJV, also Luke 11:25.

Those who believe the gospel and follow Jesus Christ are to be full of the Holy Spirit and are advised, by the apostle Paul :

  That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Ephesians 4:22 - 24 KJV.


Why doesn't Paul sign all of his letters like he says? 2 Thessalonians 3:17 (NLT)
Here is my greeting in my own handwriting—Paul. I do this in all my letters to prove they are from me.

But such a greeting only appears in five of Paul's letters: 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Why, then, do we trust the other epistles without Paul's proof?

The answer might be as simple as this:

It is Paul's final salutation, not the caveat we find in 2 Thessalonians 2:17, which Paul wrote in all his letters. If he did not add the 2 Thessalonians caveat, then we can assume he wrote the entire letter, including the final salutation.
In other words, the final salutation in all his letters was in his own hand, whether he or whether an amanuensis wrote the letter.


In what countries is it illegal to own a Bible (the most banned book in the world)? It is my understanding that in many countries of the world, it is illegal to print or own a copy of the Bible.  Is there any compilation of which countries have banned the Bible?

As an aside, if you know of any other widely banned books, I'd be interested to know what they are.

Regrettably, there are many countries with legal or customary restrictions on the Bible. While a total ban is comparatively rare (e.g., North Korea punishes any possession of religious literature by death or imprisonment), it is more common for ownership or distribution to be limited:

To certain government-approved groups only. For example, China allows distribution of Bibles for churches or seminaries that are part of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement / China Christian Council, and they are sold in some bookshops, but cannot generally be mail-ordered by individuals or unregistered churches. Several other nations require government approval before religious books (or any books) can be printed.
To foreigners only. Maldives says citizens must be Muslim, and foreigners are allowed to practice their religion in private; Bibles can be imported for personal use.
In certain languages only. Morocco allows Bibles in French, English, and Spanish, but not Arabic.
Can't publish, but can import. Turkmenistan does not allow publication of Bibles. They can be imported, in limited numbers and with permission, by registered churches.

Restrictions on attempts to convert members of other religions may also result in de facto bans on Bibles. Similarly, government actions in the name of "public order" may have the same effect, even if there is no law specifically banning Bible publication or ownership. In several cases, effective bans on religious freedom take place despite supposed constitutional guarantees to the contrary. Experiences may vary in different parts of the same country, or at different times.

So "illegal" is perhaps the wrong word, and we should instead be thinking of "Can anyone easily obtain a Bible in this country without attracting official difficulties?". Any such list will have fuzzy edges, of course. One indicator might be the ease with which Bible societies are able to do their work. They are organized groups with a missionary element and so the bar is higher for them than for private individuals.

The Gideons have a list of countries where they are not allowed to operate:

  Afghanistan, Algeria, China (People's Republic), Comoros, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Yemen

However, for some of these countries, other groups exist: there are United Bible Societies chapters for Algeria, Iraq, Morocco, and China, and some presence in Comoros, Djibouti, Mauritania and Somalia. The Catholic Bible Federation also operates in Iran. Not all of these efforts may be entirely government-approved.

For more detailed information, the US State Department issues annual reports on religious freedom with detailed assessments of the conditions on the ground in each country.  In particular, they distinguish between what the country's law says, how the government acts, and how the wider society responds.


According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy, is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person, both, or none? I'll give you an example of a divine person: God the Father.
I'll give you an example of a human person: the apostle Paul.

According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy (note: cite it), is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person, both, or none?

According to Chalcedonian Doctrine (that is shared by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestant churches) Christ is fully God and fully human.

Christ is however one person which is both God and human. He isn't a person of God that dwelled in a separate human person (which is the teaching of nestorianism).

The Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Coptic) churches reject the teaching of Chalcedonian Council, however they mostly declare, they are not monophysitic. The argument here is partly about the meaning of the work 'nature'.


Mormons, for how long can I be forgiven of all my sins? What I understand is: Upon baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost, I'm sin-free, 100% forgiven, not perfect, but clean, clean like I could dwell in the presence of God if I died right after I was baptized. From then on, every time I take the sacrament I can be forgiven of my sins. Also, every day if I have repented and asked for forgiveness, God may clean me of my sins through blood Christ shed in payment for my sins during the Atonement.

  Moses 6:59-60
    That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;

  For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;

Yet, the process of repentance seems to be a constant thing, one we don't really start and end, especially because we can't be 100% sure that we will never sin again.

As you've said, being saved is a process more than an event. You can think of repentance as a continual process or something you do over and over again. The definition becomes blurry when you consider something you do over and over again as a process.
Sometimes we look at repentance within the scope of a particular sin, and once we stop doing that thing, it could be said we've repented of that thing. But how long that repentance lasts is up to us. You ask, "How long can I be forgiven of all my sins?" Well, the answer is ultimately the same as any other Christian would give: forever. But that does not come until heaven, and only if we've done our part (2 Nephi 31):

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

Also from 2 Nephi 25:

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

In Moroni chapter 10, Moroni explains that we can "become holy, without spot" if:

33 ... if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

That is the lifelong quest.
And how do we become "perfect in Christ" (i.e. fully repented)? The previous verse:

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

This is what the lives of Latter-day Saints are all about.
You wrote:

It's kind of hard to believe I can really be 100% clean again because there's always more to repent of.

I don't think the record of our lives are tallied and supposed to sum to 0 at the judgment. In other words, I don't think there really is a "100% clean" compared to God.1 Constant repentance is necessary so that we can become who are we are supposed to become.
In summary, being forgiven is something we must always strive for, because while we live in this fallen world, we will be subject to temptation and also the "natural man" (our carnal desires/habits) that King Benjamin talked about. We will be forgiven as often as we repent, and we must repent until we are "fully ripe" (as the Lord told the Brother of Jared). And if we die or rise perfect in Christ as Moroni talked about, our forgiveness will be everlasting.

1. Consider what Einstein postulated with special relativity: even if you were going 99.9% the speed of light, and something moving at 100% the speed of light passed you in the next lane, it would appear to be going the speed of light as if you were not moving at all.


Will there be a second chance for salvation after the Rapture? Does the Bible say anything about there being a second chance for salvation after the time of rapture? I would assume that God is doing this rapture so that people would recognize Him and repent. But I don't have a Biblical basis for my assumptions.

For starters, the Bible doesn't contain the word "rapture" nor does it clearly state that such an event will happen. Different people have read between the lines to infer a rapture at different points in the book of Revelation, but it is not clearly stated anywhere.

Since the Bible doesn't clearly state that there will be a Rapture and those who believe that it will happen disagree significantly on when it will happen, the only clear answer that can be given to your question is:

"No, the Bible does not make a clear statement about there being a second chance for salvation after the time of rapture."


Who were the eyewitnesses mentioned by name who were still living to the audience of the book/letter in question? My wife and I are wracking our Brains, and we cannot remember where the reference is or who the reference is about, but there is somewhere in the New Testament that mentions people who were eyewitnesses of Jesus and that they were still among the believers at the time of the writing.  Does anyone know where this is located?

You are certainly thinking of 1 Corinthians 15: 4-7 where the Apostle St. Paul speaks about 500 eyewitnesses of which some were still living and names all the Apostles as witnesses also.

  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


What reason did a group of Christians have that the world would end on Oct 7, 2015? A vocal minority of Christians claimed that the world would end Oct. 7, 2015. What was the basis for their belief? What passages or reasoning were they using to support this claim?

This appears to a revised prediction based on an earlier failed prediction from Harold Camping. Camping predicted that the "rapture" would occur on May 21st 2011, followed by five months of calamitous events before the world would end on October 21st 2011. After this failed to eventuate, He kept a relatively low profile until his death in 2013; however followers of his system (in particular, Chris McCann of the eBible fellowship) modified it slightly, claiming that the end of the world would be 1,600 days after the "beginning of Judment Day" on May 21st 2011, bringing the revised date of the end of the world to October 7th 2015.

One of the bases of the system that Camping employed to come up with his dates was from a particular day-age interpretation of Genesis 7:4 -

  Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made. - Genesis 7:4 NIV (emphasis added)

He interpreted this to have a double fulfillment, meaning that as well as Judgment coming (by the great flood of Noah's time) in seven days, there would also be a final Judgment that would come after 7,000 years (applying a literal interpretation from Psalm 90:4/2 Peter 3:8 that to the Lord, one day is as a thousand years).

His system of fixing both the beginning of the world at 11,013 BC and the date of the flood at 4,990 BC diverged from Ussher's dates (4004 BC / 2349 BC) and was based on a radical reinterpration of the patriarchal genealogies in Genesis 5 & 11, interpreting that the underlying original language implied that (some) of the descendants were not direct (ie sons) but that the lists skip generations, with some of the lifespans starting from the death of the preceding "reference" patriarch rather than much earlier in their lives. I admit that I don't understand his logic at this point myself, a few more details are available at the linked (Wikipedia) article, but if you want more of the story, you would have to either read his book Adam when? or the article(s) linked in the question.

From there, adding 7,000 years gets us to the ballpark (depending on year length chosen and type of calendar used etc.) of the present where Camping identified 1988 as the 13,000th year of human history and an important milestone with regard to calculating the final timeline of human history, being the end of "the Church Age" - it certainly was for him, as this was the year he left the Christian Reformed Church, later declaring:

  that all churches have become apostate and thus must be abandoned. He encourages personal Bible study and listening to his Family Radio broadcasts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping

He made his first prediciton for the return of Christ as being on September 6th 1994. After that date came and went, Camping revised it's significance to being the start of the great tribulation and eventually came up with the dates mentioned in the first paragraph.

After admitting to being flabbergasted that things hadn't turned out the way he'd expected, Camping apologized in March 2012 - "We humbly acknowledge we were wrong about the timing." and announced he would no longer make doomsday predictions. However after his death, his family and supporters vowed to continue to promote his teachings.


Does the Catholic Church have a policy on how altars are to be destroyed? Recently, I saw some articles about how a Catholic priest got defrocked following his arrest for performing indecent activities in a public place, after a bystander walking past his church one night noticed that the lights were on, and looked through a window and saw him on top of the church's altar with a couple of dominatrices.
The articles I've seen go on to specify that once the local archbishop was made aware of this, he had the altar disposed of by burning and replaced with a new one.
This got me wondering: the Catholic Church is well known for having piles and piles of rules and regulations governing its activities, and I wondered if the way that the archbishop responded to this event was mandated by those rules, or if he was acting on his own recognizance.
Does the Catholic Church have any rules for how to dispose of profaned church altars? If so, does it mandate that they be burned?

Does the Catholic Church have a policy on how altars are to be destroyed?
Churches and altars may loose their sacred consecration in any number of ways!
Normal loss of an altar’s consecration is due to damage because of age.

Loss of consecration
An altar loses its consecration: (1) when the table of the altar is broken into two or more large pieces; (2) when at the corner of the table that portion which the consecrator anointed with holy oil is broken off; (3) when several large stones of the support of the table are removed; (4) when one of the columns which support the table at the corners is removed; (5) if for any reason whatever the table is removed from the support, or only raised from it — e.g., to renew the cement; (6) by the removal of the relics, or by the fracture or removal, by chance or design, of the small cover, or slab, placed over the cavity containing the relics.

The scenario the OP has written involves an act of desecration and as such the the whole church and it’s altar must be reconsecrated by the local ordinary (bishop) as soon as possible.
The vast majority of Catholic Churches have stone altars and not wooden altars, thus both altar and church would need to be reconsecrated to sacred usage after doom serious profanity happened within the walls of a consecrated church such murder or a scenario mentioned above.
The Archbishop of New Orleans reconsecrated both altar (wooden) and church on October 10th, 2008.

The archbishop of the New Orleans Archdiocese visited the church to perform a ritual that would restore the sanctity of the altar. - Priest arrested for having threesome with corset-wearing dominatrices on church altar

Archbishop Aymond reconsecrates church and altar; calls priest's acts 'demonic'
Does the Catholic Church have any rules for how to dispose of profaned church altars? If so, does it mandate that they be burned?
General usage would be to reconsecrate the altar (and church) since Rome requires at least one fixed altar in stone be present in each parish church.
Catholics are instructed to dispose of old sacramentals in a way that shows due reverence. All sacramentals can be either burned or buried in order to properly dispose of them. This type of disposal honors their sacred purpose and returns them to the earth in a dignified way. If a person is unable to do either, the sacramental may be dropped off at the parish office and someone on staff can take care of it.
Stone and metal can not be burned, so burying it in the ground where people would not walk over then is an option.
Canon Law deals with sacred objects thus:

Can.  1171 Sacred objects, which are designated for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated reverently and are not to be employed for profane or inappropriate use even if they are owned by private persons.

The Church takes seriously the sacred and a grave violation of this means the sanctuary and it’s altar must be reconsecrated as soon as possible so the faithful may have a sacred place to worship again. In Latin the prayers used in the old rite are called Ritus Recconciliandi Ecclesiam Violatam (Page 214) of the Rituale Romanum of Pope St. Pius V
Even the desecration of a Catholic Cemetery must be reconciled backed to it’s proper usage after a desecration or sacrilegious usage. See: Ritus Reconciliandi Coemeterium Violatum (Page 218) of the Rituale Roamanum of Pope St. Pius V.

Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us. - Catechism of the Catholic Church

According to Matters liturgical worn out priestly vestments are permitted to be disposed of in the typical manner (fire or burial) as well as transformation. Old priestly vestments may be cut up and made into some other usage as long as one can not distinguish their original usage and it is not intended for sacrilegious purposes.
A little note:
Sometimes churches are sold or in danger of being desecrated as in times of war. In such times, the Church though the local ordinary (bishop) may pray the ritual of deconsecration (us consecrating prayer) asking Almighty God to take it’s consecration or blessing away, before the building are turned over to secular hands.


According to Catholic Teaching: Why is God allowing COVID-19, when there seems to be no physical or moral good resulting from it? According to Catholic Teaching: Why is God allowing COVID-19, knowing that many deaths are involved and many, many more are constantly getting sick.
No moral or physical good seems to be resulting from the Coronavirus? Even vaccines are probably being produced from aborted fetuses.
If we could talk directly to God, would He tell us that He created the natural order of things, and that COVID-19 emerged from the natural order of things?
Or would He say that humans have invaded animals' natural habitat and COVID-19 was a natural consequence of that?
My stumbling block with all of this is the death and illness of so many innocent people. Certainly, a benevolent God couldn't have sanctioned COVID-19. So if not, then what?

In the Book of Job, that man's greatest insights into his need for a savior and what that savior needed to do for him came in the midst of his suffering. In my own life, times of suffering have also pushed me to deeper understanding of my failings, need for change, and drove me to seek God. Are there people in the world today who are finding in COVID-19 a force urging them toward God? I have been forced to work from home most of the past year. The savings in commute time is about 12 hours a week. I have used about half that time for additional prayer, Bible study, and writing. I doubt I am alone; many people have seen their priorities change. I just finished the first draft of a book on how to find peace. I would not have chosen the topic or had the time to do the research and write it without the disruption of the pandemic.
Some people are isolated because of the disease. What will they do with this isolation?
Some people are spending more time with their children than before. I am one; all my daughters are in college, but college is now on Zoom from home. What will that do with their relationships?
Some people will die. What effect will this have on the people they leave behind? Years ago, I visited a terminally ill woman a few times, to pray for her and console her. She died and I was changed. Seeing the strength of her faith in the midst of such horrible pain and suffering transformed me. That experience set me free from over a decade of depression. Will God waste so many deaths, or make good use of them?
The Bible has examples of how horrible times can yield surprising results. My church is studying Ruth. In that story, Naomi and her husband leave Israel during a famine to try their luck in Moab. It doesn't work out. Her husband and two sons die and she returns to Israel with her daughter in law, Ruth, because the famine is starting to lift. In the end, Ruth ends up marrying Boaz and from their union come the ancestors of King David and after that, Jesus.
A famine drove Naomi from Israel and then it brought her back, but with a daughter-in-law in tow. That would not have happened without the famine.
What caused the famine? Scientists reconstructing ancient climate believe that the time of Ruth was during the Great Drought. It lasted 50 years and was the worst drought in recorded history. It caused the Late Bronze Age collapse and destroyed several empires, like the Hittites. Archaeologists say every single major city from Greece all the way to Gaza was burned to the ground by the fighting that attended that civilizational collapse. The destruction of those empires cleared the stage for the rise of Israel under David.
The big picture is hard to see. Will Covid-19 spell the downfall of great powers as ordained by God, who is preparing superior replacements? We won't know until many years from now. One of the vaccines going through trial was developed in under two months - a record. When one of the vaccines is ready for distribution, it will hav e been the fastest vaccine developed ever. Perhaps God is using this pandemic to train our scientists and factories to ready them for rapid response to an even worse disease in our near future? Time will tell.
The most important thing to realize is that God has given us free will and given us jobs to do. Our actions count. They matter. Our lives are consequential. How we respond to tragedy is a test of our love. A world of suffering is a stage for us to prove who we are. There is no other way. The only test for a doctor is if they can cure the sick. All our diseases have been the force driving us to understand biology and every other science.


What important Mormon doctrines are taught in the book of Mormon that we couldn't find in the Bible already? I've never seen a Mormon establish doctrine on the Book of Mormon, only arguing that the Book of Mormon is "another testament of Jesus Christ."  So, since Mormons believe that is the case, surely they base some doctrine on the book of Mormon. So what important doctrines do Mormons believe are taught in the book of Mormon that we couldn't find in the Bible already?

First, I am slightly surprised that you've never seen Mormons use the Book of Mormon to teach/establish doctrine. (Talk to the missionaries; I bet they'll use the Book of Mormon quite extensively.)

This was a bit tricky to think of at first, since the Bible does indeed mention the main, important doctrines. Because of that, the Latter-day Saints use the Bible often in their studies and in church. However, there are many doctrines/principles are explained in the Book of Mormon that the LDS believe are not clear from the Bible alone:

The Apostasy and Restoration. The Bible does refer to an apostasy and eventual restoration, however, it is vague at best. The Book of Mormon clarifies that the Priesthood keys and fulness of true scripture will be taken from the Earth for generations, then restored through heavenly messengers in the last days to prepare for the second coming of the Savior. It even describes that a continent (America) will be set apart and preserved for the Restoration. (1 Nephi 13)
The Fall. While the Bible rehearses to us primary events of the placement of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and their subsequent choices, it isn't entirely clear why their choice to eat the fruit was important, or whether it was good or bad. The Book of Mormon drills the point home that the Fall of mankind was an essential part of God's plan: fully anticipated, with a redemption through the Atonement of Christ prepared for the salvation of mankind. (2 Nephi 2).
Life After Death. The Book of Mormon explains that death is not simply the transition from mortality to the eternal heaven/hell. We lose our physical bodies at death and enter the spirit world, where we remain until the resurrection and judgment, at which point, we eventually enter the kingdom prepared for us. (Alma 40; 2 Nephi 9).
The Purpose of Christ's Suffering in Gethesemane. The word "Atonement" appears dozens of times in the Book of Mormon, but at least it does show up once in the Bible. It is the central event of all the ages, and without it, we would be lost forever. The Book of Mormon clarifies this over and over, and helps us understand what really took place in the Garden of Gethsemane, and the far-reaching effects of His having completed the Atonement perfectly. (Mosiah 3; Alma 7)
The innocence of children. The Book of Mormon teaches that little children need no repentance, nor baptism, and that baptizing children is an evil abomination. Children are alive through the Atonement of Christ, and children who die before an age of accountability will be saved. (Moroni 8)
The Nature of God. The Bible documents the doings of God quite extensively, and the Book of Mormon more clearly explains His character and disposition. For example, in Ether 12, Moroni is comforted by the Lord who teaches him that weakness is a boon for coming closer to Him and remaining humble: that the Lord gave us weaknesses so He could draw us to Him and make us strong.
We are saved by grace after all we can do. Different Christian religions believe different things about the requirements for salvation. The Book of Mormon helps us understand that it is grace that saves us, after all we can do, and the Book of Mormon emphasizes that good works are necessary, but not sufficient, to gain salvation. We must truly become a new being through the Atonement of Christ. (See these passages; Mosiah 27; Alma 12)
The meaning of baptism. The Book of Mormon explains why the sinless Christ was baptized beyond simply "to be born again" -- and why each of us needs to follow that example. (2 Nephi 31)
The importance of religious freedom. The Book of Mormon teaches about good leadership and government, especially as it pertains to the free practice of religion. Latter-day Saints and the Church are thus strong advocates for religious freedom. (Mosiah 29)

Again, many of these are touched on in the Bible, but not wholly or completely enough to be unambiguous or not leave significant room for interpretation (hence the many different Christian denominations). But off the top of my head, these are the primary doctrines that are the least clear or mentioned in the Bible and the most clear and discussed in the Book of Mormon.


Do any Christian traditions hold the belief that Adam was androgynous? Genesis 1:27 reads:

  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The Hebrew word for "man" here is אָדָם (adam). This seems to imply that Adam was created with both genders. Some Jewish traditions propose this interpretation. Are there any Christian traditions that hold the belief that Adam was created with both genders?

You are correct - the Hebrew word for Adam is as androgenous as a word can be in a language which has no gender neutral pronouns. There are many, though obviously not all in Christian community who believe that humankind was fist created androgynous.

The Junia Project's article "Quick Start Guide to Equality in Genesis" says the following:

  The Hebrew word used for mankind in verse 27 is “‘adam” which refers
  to humanity as a whole [1]. We don’t see the proper noun, Adam, used
  until Genesis 4:25, so this common noun refers to the whole human
  race. One thing that is important to note is that the Hebrew language
  does not contain a gender neutral
  pronoun,
  therefore the word mankind was used.

  ...

  Genesis 2:22 states that God,
  “fashioned into a woman the rib which he had taken from man”.  This
  formation of woman was the culmination of all creation. Yet again we
  find that the English word “rib” used here doesn’t adequately depict
  what was taken from man. The Hebrew word used is “zela” which often
  means “a component, or more often, a side-wall” (alternatively, a
  chamber), indicating that more than simply a rib was taken [2].  Many
  scholars believe that the entire female essence was removed from man
  and fashioned into a woman. This would mean that the “mankind” in
  chapter 1 could have been an undifferentiated or androgynous person,
  with the blessing of male and female being a declaration in
  anticipation of the separation of the sexes in Genesis 2. The woman
  was then brought to the man who said, “This is now bone of my bone and
  flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken
  out of man”. The Hebrew words used for woman and man here are
  “ishshah” and “ish”, respectively [3]. This is the first time that a
  specifically male reference is made, and it happens at the time of the
  creation or extraction of woman. (Up to this point, the more generic
  “adam” was used.) Instead of pointing out differences, I think the man
  was actually pointing out similarities. They were both two of the same
  kind, and suitable for each other. Man was identifying woman as “of
  himself”.

  References

  Fee, Gordon D., Pierce, Ronald W., Groothuis, Rebecca Merrill, eds. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 2005.]
  Reisenberger, Azila Talit. “The Creation of Adam as Hermaphrodite–And Its Implications for Feminist Theology.” Judaism 42.4 (1993): 447-452. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. Web. 15 July 2015.

The Junia project describes itself as "an online community of women and men advocating for the inclusion of women at all levels of leadership in the Christian church and for mutuality in marriage."

Therefore, we can imply that those denominations believe this are those that support women in ministry, though that conclusion is a bit tenuous as I doubt that this interpretation is not discussed in the capacity of any formal doctrine by these denominations. This would include:

The Emergent tradition
Lutheran
PCUSA (Presbyterian)
Episcopalian
Vinyard Movement
Alliance of Baptists
ABC USA (Baptist)
Non-denominational
Mennonite
Methodist
Evangelical Catholic Church
7th Day Adventist
Foursquare
Quaker
Probably others


What do Catholics think of the Philokalia? The absence of a "mysticism"-oriented text in Catholic Christianity has always struck me. The Philokalia are an incredible source of ascetic instructions for the believer who seeks communion with God.

(1) In what consideration do Catholic Christians keep the Philokalia?
And, (2) is there a similar text in the Catholic tradition?

The Catholic Church has no problem with the Philokalia; it is a legitimate mystical text in the Eastern Christian tradition. Eastern Catholics make use of it all the time. (I am not aware of any official pronouncement by the Magisterium, but all of the authors are well regarded monks.)

As far as mysticism in the Western Church, there is not a “single” work, but there is long tradition of mysticism. For example, among many others works, there is the following:

El castillo interior (The Interior Castle) of St. Theresa of Avila.
The works of St. John of the Cross.
The works of St. Hildegard of Bingen.
The works of St. Bernard of Clairvaux.
Many works inspired by the writings of (Pseudo)-Dionysius the Areopagite, including the anonymous Cloud of Unknowing.


How was 'years' defined in the book of Genesis? Genesis 5 clearly shows the number of years people lived from Adam to Noah. In the modern world, we know that 1 year equals to the number of days the earth revolves around the sun, but this knowledge was just claimed in the 17th century by Galileo while the book of Genesis should have been written much earlier.

As another point of view, the calendar system that most parts of the world use today dated back to 45 BC through the introduction of Julian calendar. This may be the first time a wide group of society agreed on how long 1 year is.

How did the author of Genesis define how long 1 year was?

EDIT:

While Why did people live so long before the Flood concerned about the ages (specific to Genesis 5), my question wonders more on the way a year was defined in general, possibly valid across the Pentateuch, by giving Genesis 5 as one example. It does not ask why men lived with such long ages, which had answers such as: bodily well-being was enhanced; a greater degree of nourishment; water before the flood protected human ages; etc. These answers in that discussion did not address my question.

Hence my question could have been, "How did Moses define 1 year in Pentateuch?" The problem with this phrase is that it could mistakenly viewed as a duplicate with other discussions, such as who wrote the Pentateuch, or whether the Pentateuch was written by the same author.

In contrast, my question emphasizes the definition of a "year" written across the Pentateuch. To avoid conflicting discussions, herewith I specify one example by pointing to Genesis 5. An example of satisfying explanation is from one comment below, that one didn't need a calendar to know the years, but used winter and summer.

It is hugely wrong to suppose that there existed poor levels of sophistication in the ancient civilisations before the Roman/Greek era especially when it comes to calculations of the length of the year.
If we accept the Bible's own testimony, then the Pentateuch was written by Moses who died 1406 BC, having been very well educated in Egypt.
Egypt
At the time of Moses the Egyptians used a Civil Calendar of 365 day, with no extra days to make up for discrepancies.  (So New Year's Day would shift about a quarter of a day each year and circle round and back to the same day of the solar year after 1461 years.)  The year had 12 months of 30 days each and 5 extra "epagomenel"/filler days at the end of the year.
The Egyptians used the 365 day year for so long that New Year’s Day drifted round the solar year to cycle back to the starting point almost 3 times.  They used it for almost 4500 years. https://pumas.jpl.nasa.gov/files/04_21_97_1.pdf
Does this mean that Ancient Egypt was unaware of the actual length of the Solar Year?  No. It became apparent to them that the seasons, particularly the beginning of the inundation/flood of the Nile season was falling further and further out of step with the Egyptian Calendar year of 365 days (by roughly 1 day every 4 years, of course). This innundation was important for them to be able to predict. They also found that the star Sirius (they called it Sopdet, the Greeks called it Sothis) was a better predictor of when the innundation would begin (this being because Sirius follows the Solar year very accurately).  When observed from the Egyptian city of Memphis the rising of Sirius in the morning is too close to the Sun to be observable for 70 days of the year from early May to the middle of July.
(Sirius is the brightest true star in the sky, because it is the nearest star.  It is pointed to by Orion's belt and is down nearer the horizon than the belt. If you travelled there on a bicycle [remember the flying bicycles in the film "ET"?] at 10 mph, 24/7, all year round it would only take about five hundred and ninety million years to get there.)
The first morning in July when Sirius became observable after the 70 day break thus became a critical observation for the ancient Egyptian priesthood, because it anchored their lunar months with the Solar Year.  (It also enabled a prediction of the Nile innundation/flooding.) The priests wanted their lunar celebrations to be in harmony with the Solar Year, by which I mean they wanted their lunar months to be as close to the Solar Year as possible.  So they added an extra month every so many years to try to keep their religious celebrations at the same time of the Solar Year.  So even though the New Year's Day of the Egyptian 365 day Civil Calendar wandered around the Solar Year until it was back to where it started every 1461 years, the Priests in the Temples ensured their religious celebrations happened the same time of the Solar Year and the critical anchor for their year was the first summer "Heliacal rising of Sothis/Sirius" (and possibly they thought of this as the New Year's Day of the Religious year). (A heliacal rising is where a star rises in the morning sky before sunrise, sunrise being the appearance of the first segment/blinding ray of the sun's disk.)
God did not want the his people to be observors of the heavenly host because this would have tempted them to worship the heavens
During the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness (Leviticus 18:3) after the Exodus, and more specifically when at the foot of Mount Sinai (Leviticus 27:34), Moses wrote Leviticus, in which was instituted a lunar/solar year.  The Israelites followed a lunar calendar of 12 lunar months (354 days) but (the High Priest) added an extra lunar month to the length of the year if the last harvest of the autumn had not been gathered in by the fifteenth day of month 7 (This is what I think Leviticus 23:39 is saying, i.e. it is my opinion).  So the Israelites between the time of Moses and the Captivity (about 600 BC) were not taken up with attempts to measure the length of the year by astronomical observations, in the way that other cultures around them were, but rather were guided by the timing of the last harvest of the agricultural year in the autumn.  What they did observe was the moon to decide when each month began.
In practice obedience to Leviticus 23:39 would have resulted in the addition, on average over the centuries, of 7 months per 19 years. The extra month could have been an additional month 7 (Tishri) so in a year where a month was added there would have been Tishri 1 and Tishri 2.  Or, more likely, it would have been an additional month 6 where the High Priest would anticipate whether the harvest could be fully gathered in before the set date (15th of month 7), and if not he would add an extra month 6 (Elul) making Elul 1 and Elul 2.
So 12 of the years in the 19 year cycle had about 354 days, and 7 of the 19 years had about 384 days.
(A lunar month is 29.53059 days, so 19*12 lunar months and 7 lunar months is 6939.69 days.  And 19 solar years is 365.2421875 * 19 = 6939.6 days.)
The Babylonians
By the time of the end of the Babylonian Empire (539 BC) a system of adding 7 lunar months every 19 years had been formalised and adopted by the Babylonians to keep the year in step with the solar year to err by about 129 minutes every 19 years. ((A vast improvement on the Egyptian Civil Calendar which erred by about 4.5 days over 19 years.)) Thereafter it was adopted by the Jews from the Babylonians. For religious purposes the Jews still follow the same calendar.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar
The Sumerians
The even more ancient Sumerian city states (more ancient than Babylon) were the first we know in the Middle East to produce a calendar with added intercalary months from at least as far back as 2000 BC. See http://www.projectglobalawakening.com/sumerian-calendar/
But who was first between the Egyptians and the Sumerians I am not sure that we know for certain.
Knowing when the Full Moon would happen was useful for doing many things in the cool of the night when it was also light, such as religious festivals, travelling large distances, or even heavy work around the house or on the farm.  Knowing when there was a New Moon, ie no moon at all was useful to know in order to avoid planning these same activities on a cool night.  In particular knowing about the lunar cycles were valuable for travelling large distances as a trader, and religious festivals, because both of these need at least some amount of long term planning.
Before the time of Moses, and especially before Noah's Flood
It is quite possible that some agricultural societies, well before the time of Moses, measured a year to be the length of time between one annual harvest and the previous one.
The question about the book of Genesis is how did Moses produce it?  Did he receive all the information by a direct revelation from the Lord, or did he receive all or some of the information from previous sources (which we can assume were themselves writing under divine inspiration). If he received them from inspired sources then we would need to know the length of a year understood by those original sources.  For more on this see my answer to:
Who documented biblical events before Moses?
In addition to this we do not know if conditions before the Flood were precisely the same as they are now.  God could have used a natural cause to bring about the Flood which could have had other consequences as well such as the earth's distance from the sun and the orbit of the planet.  Or God could have judged mankind with other changes to the planet by a direct Divine act.  We do not know, unless Scripture tells us, if the earth's orbit and the length of the year were different before the Flood, though it is difficult to imagine such a difference would be anything more than a few days per year.


What countries today have severe restrictions against Christianity as state policy? What countries today have severe restrictions against Christianity as state policy?
Is it possible to give a short overview with description of those policies?

This source is quite good, however, it doesn't give precise wording of the state policy in a country, and in many countries on that list the persecution is more a result of clashes between clans rather then of the state policy.

The top five countries listed there are: North Korea, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

North Korea has severe restrictions against Christianity as state policy, with imprisonment and forced labour the penalty for even being a committed Christian, but not only Christians face persecution.  Margaret Stutley reports, in Shamanism that North Korean persecution of shamanism has caused the religion to go underground.

China has placed some restrictions on Christianity, including on the building of new churches, a restriction that has forced the existing churches visibly to overflow with worshippers on Sundays. The Vatican is not permitted to nominate bishops in China, so the official Catholic Church in China is somewhat disconnected from the worldwide Catholic Church. Both these policies, which have their origins in the humilities of the nineteenth century, have resulted in the development of underground churches. In spite of this, Christians can worship quite openly, as I have observed.  The greatest religious persecution is against the Falun Dafa, which is banned in China, with adherents subject to imprisonment and possible execution.

Islam recognises Christians as "people of the book", so in Muslim-majority nations there tends not to be overt state restrictions on Christianity as a matter of policy, although more subtle persecution may exist, and in some countries there is hostility from the Muslim people. The World Watch List list the fifty countries where persecution of Christians is most rife, with most of them being Muslim-majority countries. Again, the existence of persecution is not always due to overt state policy but may be societal. For example, in Somalia, second on the World Watch List, the government is impotent, but grave danger exists in the form of the militant Islamist group al-Shabaab.


Tower of Babel dispersion after the Table of Nations? Genesis 11 has the story of the Tower of Babel, which is the event which caused all the nations to be dispersed into the World.

But the chapter before, Genesis 10, called the Table of Nations, describes the descendants of Japheth, Ham and Shem and their clans, languages, territories and nations.

If they had already been dispersed in chapter 10, who was left to be dispersed in chapter 11?

If they had already been dispersed in chapter 10, who was left to be
  dispersed in chapter 11?

The time frame covered in the table of nations in Chapter 10 of Genesis is quite wide as you would expect in a multi-generational listing. The dispersion event described in chapter 11 may represent simply a greater explanation of the dispersion.


Did Jesus ever say in the Bible to preach Christianity or his message to the Non-Jews? My question is very simple: did Jesus mention or command his followers to go and preach Christianity (worshiping Him) to Indians or the Non-Jews? If he did not mention it why are Christians preaching around the world? Does this mean that Jesus's message was only for a particular group of people and not for the whole of humanity? Please  be specific.

Yes.  While Jesus did tell his followers to focus on the Jews and not the Gentiles during his lifetime, after the Resurrection that changed, quite explicitly:

  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

  --Mark 16:15

Matthew records a slightly different version of this commission:

  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

  --Matthew 28:19

The wording differs between the two passages, but both quite clearly mention the universal nature of the charge to teach the Gospel.


Patron saint of professional excellence? Professional excellence and holiness? Are there saints that were excellent at performing their duties as professionals? Of course, there can be legends that Saint Joseph was perfect master, but there is no evidence of his dedication, skills and mindset that can be role-model for following. I feel that professional excellence and mastery is the hardest achievement that one can make and the ultimate virtue that benefit the others. Why the notion of holiness is so silent about it? Why we can not hear about professionals-saints?

Before going on, lets look at what Wikipedia has to say about saints:

  A saint is a person who is recognized as having an exceptional degree of holiness or likeness or closeness to God. However, the use of the term "saint" depends on the context and denomination. In Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Oriental Orthodox, and Lutheran doctrine, all of their faithful deceased in Heaven are considered to be saints, but some are considered worthy of greater honor or emulation; official ecclesiastical recognition, and consequently veneration, is given to some saints through the process of canonization in the Catholic Church or glorification in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

And now for Wikipedia on what is a patron saint:

  A patron saint, patroness saint, patron hallow or heavenly protector is a saint who in Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodoxy, is regarded as the heavenly advocate of a nation, place, craft, activity, class, clan, family or person.

Although the above definitions are somewhat generic, they do allow us the ability to resolve the problem of a patron saint of professionalism and holiness.

First of all there is no particular patron saint for genuine holiness because that is one of the things that all patron saints are occupied with for those under their protection. Thus our names day saint is very concerned with our true holiness before God.

  A name day is a tradition in some countries in Europe, Latin America, and Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries in general. It consists of celebrating a day of the year that is associated with one's given name. The celebration is similar to a birthday.

  The custom originated with the Christian calendar of saints: believers named after a saint would celebrate that saint's feast day, or in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the day of a saint's death. Name days have greater resonance in the Catholic and Orthodox parts of Europe; Protestant churches practice less veneration of saints. In many countries, however, name-day celebrations no longer have connection to explicitly Christian traditions.

Patron saints can be named for various professional trades and these particular saints should be invoked that we may execute our duties with professionalism and holiness. Thus a patron saint for professionalism excellence and holiness do not exist.

But let us  not stop here. We are always free to take on a new patron saint unto ourselves due to some particular devotion or incident in our lives.

It is in this sense that many have taken to have a devotion to St. Saint Therese of  Lisieux, "The Little Flower".

  The world came to know Therese through her autobiography, "Story of a Soul". She described her life as a "little way of spiritual childhood." She lived each day with an unshakable confidence in God's love. "What matters in life," she wrote, "is not great deeds, but great love." Therese lived and taught a spirituality of attending to everyone and everything well and with love. She believed that just as a child becomes enamored with what is before her, we should also have a childlike focus and totally attentive love. Therese's spirituality is of doing the ordinary, with extraordinary love.

  Her inspiration and powerful presence from heaven touched many people very quickly. She was canonized by Pope Pius XI on May 17, 1925. Had she lived, she would have been only 52 years old when she was declared a Saint.

  "My mission - to make God loved - will begin after my death," she said. "I will spend my heaven doing good on earth. I will let fall a shower of roses." Roses have been described and experienced as Saint Therese's signature. Countless millions have been touched by her intercession and imitate her "little way." She has been acclaimed "the greatest saint of modern times." In 1997, Pope John Paul II declared St. Therese a Doctor of the Church - the only Doctor of his pontificate - in tribute to the powerful way her spirituality has influenced people all over the world. - Saint Therese, "The Little Flower"

But, then depending on how one view's things, St. Expeditus who is the patron saint of speedy cases, emergencies, expeditious solutions, against procrastination, merchants and navigators may fit better for you.

Or perhaps St. Maximilian Maria Kolbe who is the patron saint of families, imprisoned people, journalists, political prisoners, prisoners, pro-life movement, Esperantists, Militia Immaculatae and as Pope St. John Paul II declared of him: "The Patron Saint of Our Difficult Century".


How do paedo-baptists interpret the Great Commission? In the Great Commission of Matt.28:19 (NIV) we read:

  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Some people have argued that given Jesus' direct link between baptism and discipleship this command to baptise can only apply to those old enough to respond as active disciples (which would exclude babies and young children).

How do paedo-baptists interpret this text?

With regard to this particular verse there is nothing to explain beyond a very understandable misreading of a grammatical ambiguity.

The KJV has "teach all nations, baptizing them". The word "teach" is a translation of the Greek word mathetosate. The NIV translates this as "make disciples of," bringing out a somewhat stronger meaning of the verb. It is however still a verb.

In the following phrase "baptizing them," "them" refers to the antecedent noun, the only noun, "all nations."   It is easy to misread "them" in the NIV as referring to the noun "disciples" but here it is not a noun at all.

Jesus said to baptize all nations.


Denominations that interpret Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 as NOT permitting divorce in the case of adultery? Which denominations interpret these verses as not permitting divorce in the case of adultery, for those in a valid marriage?

  St. Matthew 5:32But I say to you, whosoever shall dismiss his wife, excepting the cause of fornication (porneia), maketh her to commit adultery. And he that shall marry her that is dismissed, committeth adultery.

  St. Matthew 19:9And I say to you, that whosoever shall dismiss his wife, but for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is dismissed, committeth adultery.

For example, the Catholic Church calls these "exceptive clauses." In other words: fornication does not make a marriage.It also seems these exceptive clauses could refer to "diriment impediments," which prevent there from ever being a marriage in the first place; examples of diriment impediments being incest, perpetual impotence, vow of chastity/celibacy, etc.).

Note: I am not asking about the Catholic interpretation of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, as this question here does, but which denomination(s) interpret those verses similarly to the way the Catholic Church does.

While I am aware of none which interpret the passage as referring to unlawful marriage as the Catholic Church does, there are a number of denominations which do not believe this passage grants permission for complete divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery:

Midwest Pilgrim Holiness Church
Hutterian Brethren
Amish
Beachy Amish Mennonite Churches
Old German Baptist Brethren Church New Conference Fellowship
Church Of God, International Offices
Southeastern Mennonite Conference
United Anglican Church
Protestant Reformed Churches In America
Apostolic Faith Church
Independent Fundamental Churches of America
Anglican Church In America
Anglican Catholic Church

That list is from Daniel R. Jennings (Ed.) Denominations That Officially Support The Permanency Of Marriage. Retrieved from http://www.danielrjennings.org/denominationspermanencyofmarriage.html. That page includes quotations from their official statements which can help you understand their positions and interpretations.

Importantly, a notable contemporary Christian teacher, John Piper, also holds this view. John Piper. Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper. July 21, 1986. Retrieved from http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper.

I also found arguments against this interpretation, indicating some historic debate on the issue. See G.C. Brewer, "Christ and Paul on Divorce," GA 75:29 [July 20, 1933],
   p. 674), in Steve Wolfgang. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage In
   Church History. Truth Magazine XXXIV.1 (January 4, 1990), pp. 27,
   29-31. Retrieved from
   http://truthmagazine.com/archives/volume34/GOT034012.html