What is the Catholic Church's stance on baptism after death? This came up in a discussion. What is Rome's opinion on baptism after death, or more generally, baptism when a body is not available?

We were both pretty sure that the Catholic Church would say such a practice is heretical but we don't know why.

In the opinion of the Catholic Church, is baptism after death permissible? If not, why?

There is a Wikipedia article on baptism for the dead but it's understandably oriented toward the LDS practice and doesn't go into depth on the Catholic opinion on this subject.

From the PoV of the Roman Catholic church, baptism is a sacrament for the living.  (For that matter, so are all 7 Sacraments).  Once the body dies one is subject to judgment, which in the case of individuals is particular judgment.  Put simply, we have our whole life to come to Jesus, to open ourselves to salvation, and to accept God's sanctifying Grace.  To be baptized is to be reborn in Christ and to wash away the stain of sin.

  CCC 1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments.  Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."
  CCC 1214 ... to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."
  CCC 1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."

To baptize after the body has died and the soul has moved on to judgment would be a case of "closing the barn door after the horse left."

  I. THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT
  CCC 1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.  The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the
  soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.
  1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a  purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.

  At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love. (~St. John of
  the Cross, Dichos 64.)

Put another way, if you don't have a relationship with Christ while living, there is no basis for a favorable judgment. (I suppose that hope is always an option, part of why the Catholics pray for the dead ... but that's getting off topic).   In Matthew (7:21 – 23) Jesus teaches that some will come to judgment and be told "Depart from me, I never knew you."  If we don't have a relationship with Him before death, this passage points to us being out of luck at judgment.  The foundation of that relationship is the gateway sacrament: Baptism.

Caveat: the above isn't the only way to parse Matthew 7's larger point, but I've heard this referred to on multiple occasions among Catholics, both lay and clergy, when emphasizing how important it is to have a relationship with Christ.

For a better understanding of Catholic views on Baptism, articles 1213-1228 in the Catechism are helpful.


How do practicing Catholics keep track of all the sins they commit before going to Confession? How do practicing Catholics keep track of all the sins they commit before going to Confession? Do they have to confess all of them or as many as they can remember? Is contrition the sign of having committed a sin, so every time the person feels guilty or remorseful of something (i.e. stuffing the whole chocolate cake slice into one's mouth and leaving none for brothers and sisters), would that be counted as something to confess to the priest the next time that person goes to Confession?

How do practicing Catholics keep track of all the sins they commit before going to Confession?

They don't keep track of sins. Before going to confession they do something called examination of conscience. This is in layman term trying to recall all the sin one has committed.

  An examination of conscience is a “prayerful self-reflection on our words and deeds in the light of the Gospel to determine how we may have sinned against God” - Glossary, CCC

There are many ways to examine one's conscience. Some of them are listed in USCCB website.

Do they have to confess all of them or as many as they can remember?

They have to confess as many as they can remember. They have to say all mortal sins that they are aware of, and the number of times they’ve committed them, if they know that number. Venial sins do not have to be named, but can also be said.

Is contrition the sign of having committed a sin?

No, contrition is not a sign of having committed a sin. Contrition is a sign of good conscience but not a necessary one to know that you have committed a sin. Feeling bad or guilty is not a necessity for confession. But will to be sorry is. that is, even if you don't "feel" sorry, you should want to be sorry with your will.

  There is an enormous difference between regret and repentance. Regret is simply rooted in emotion. I “feel” bad. This can be a good first step, but it cannot be the only step. And it is not even a necessary step. While there is something very healthy about “feeling bad” for “doing bad” (it shows that your soul is a bit more sensitive to the reality of sin), it alone is not a return to God. That’s what repentance is. In fact, this is what “repentance” means: it simply means “turning”. Repentance is the choice to return to God. You do not need to regret what you’ve done (believe me, that will come with time), but you do need to make the decision that you will no longer continue on in this particular sin.src

stuffing the whole chocolate cake slice into one's mouth and leaving none for brothers and sisters, would that be counted as something to confess to the priest the next time that person goes to Confession?

One can't be a judge to the actions of others. Only God will know. Assuming generic conditions, eating food that is excessive in quantity and eating too eagerly or too soon looks like gluttony (mortal sin), and not sharing with siblings looks like greed (mortal sin). So these have to be confessed.


Why is purple the color of Lent? I was just reading Mark 15:17-20 (ESV) (emphasis mine):

  And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on him.  And they began to salute him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they were striking his head with a reed and spitting on him and kneeling down in homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak
  and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.

Is this why purple is the color of Lent?

It's actually kind of a contradiction.  Which isn't surprising as Christ was a sign which would be contradicted (see Luke 2:34).  Purple is a kingly color, which is why they put it on Jesus to mock Him.  Purple is also, or has become, the penitential color for the Church, it is also the color worn and used to decorate churches during Advent.

Purple is certainly penitential in contrast to Rose, which is the color of Joy, worn on Laetare in Lent and Guadete sunday in Advent. But, the only other person to wear Purple clothes in the New Testament was the rich man (who went to Hell) in the parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:19). But his wearing purple is a sign of his wealth and vainglory.

Each of the ways the soldiers mocked Jesus have become for Christians a sign of His eternal glory.


What does the Bible say about being a witness to sin? I want to know what guidance the Bible has for Christians who are witness to sin, and adultery specifically.

This answer points to the scripture only because that is what was requested.

Being a witness to adultery is really no different than being a witness to any sin. The Bible gives a blanket answer for all sins you witness a Christian brother or sister commit.

It is in Matthew 18, starting in verse 15, and it is commonly called the Matthew 18 Principle.

  Matthew 18  (NIV)
  15  “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17  If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Every Christian should desire not to sin. However, many of us do sin regularly and sometimes we continually commit the same sins. Matthew 18 covers this circumstance. So if the Christian brother in question committed this sin only once, the advice the Bible gives is not exactly clear what you should do, if anything. The key, though, in all circumstances is repentance. The sinner, compelled by his love for Christ, should desire to sin no more and turn from sin and evil ways.

Matt. 18 is a passage about forgiveness, however, is quite clear that you give a christian sinner a few chances to repent and if he does not then separate him from the body and call him a fellow believer no more.

Now we should note that the parable of the unmerciful servant immediately follows the Matthew 18 principle described above. Forgiveness for the repentant sinner is central to Christian doctrine.

I adapted this from a previous answer for a different question, but is not a duplicate


In view of Mark 9:1 why say the kingdom of God will come at Jesus' second coming? And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” (NIV)

Jesus was in the presence of his followers when he made the statement in Mark 9:1 that there would be some alive to see the kingdom of God come. When I listen to the radio or watch TV the message I hear quite often is that Jesus will come and establish a kingdom and reign for 1,000 years. If someone could explain this contradiction I would appreciate it.

I would prefer if when someone gives an answer that it be a biblical answer and not something based on a opinion. (people with a pre-millennium view)

To understand this verse you must have a clear understanding of what "The Kingdom of God" actually is.  A King's kingdom is where he is obeyed completely.  His rule and reign are complete.  So when Jesus uses this term it can easily be misinterpreted to mean a coming "thing" or heaven or some other such distant and more nebulous unexplained item.

The more scripturally congruent interpretation is the one above.  Using those terms it is easy to see in Matthew 6:10

  Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

or in Matthew 6:33
But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Here in Matthew 7:21

  Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of
  heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

shows that entering the kingdom of God is not possible without repentance, which is also congruent with Luke 13:3 and 13:5

  No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

In Matthew 13:45-46 there is further congruence

  Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine
  pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all
  that he had and bought it.

Clear after you apply the correct logical premise by comparing it to related passages in scripture.


According to Catholicism, do evil spirits need bodies to manifest themselves to people? Can the Devil and his followers communicate to people without the intermediary of someone in a bodily form?

I would appreciate a response that quotes Scripture, Tradition and examples of the Saints if at all possible.

If the demons cannot speak directly to people, how can they manifest themselves to mankind?

Demons can communicate with humans without bodily intermediaries

(My source throughout will be the First Part of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica)

Although spiritual creatures can take on a bodily form, they are able to influence humans and creation without doing so.  First consider that the assaults of demons consist primarily in temptation and instigation to sin, and that this can be achieved through evil thoughts or near occasions of sin apart from bodily mediation.

Secondly, consider the fact that demons can work miracles (cf. ST Ia, Q. 110, A. 4; and ST Ia, Q. 114, A. 4).  St. Thomas defines the miracles that demons are able to work in a particular sense:

  But sometimes miracle may be taken in a wide sense, for whatever exceeds the human power and experience. And thus demons can work miracles, that is, things which rouse man's astonishment, by reason of their being beyond his power and outside his sphere of knowledge. (ST Ia, Q. 114, A. 4, corpus)

  So when the demons do anything of their own natural power, these things are called "miracles" not in an absolute sense, but in reference to ourselves. In this way the magicians work miracles through the demons; and these are said to be done by "private contracts"... (ST Ia, Q. 110, A. 4, ad 2)

Such a miracle could obviously include a communication with man apart from the mediation of a bodily form.  For example, a demon could tempt man by placing an evil thought into his mind.  This is an example of a "miracle" (in the broad sense) that a demon is capable of working, and the demon can do this directly, without the mediation of a bodily form.


Why pray if God is omniscient? Possible Duplicate:
  What is the purpose of Prayer?

What the question says, why do people pray if God knows everything?

This is kind of like asking, "Why should you tell your Dad you love him if he already knows?" It's not about conveying information, it's about fellowship. God created us for fellowship with Him. We don't pray because God needs to be reminded of our needs, we are supposed to pray because we are to partner with Him to see His will be done. He choose not to force us to do His will, but that we are to choose to seek His will. Jesus told us to pray in this way:

  Pray in this way "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

Prayer recognizes God as our Father, who is holy, and seeks to put our mindset in alignment with His.


Why keep baptismal fonts full in the Roman Catholic Church? In our (Presbyterian) church, we have a stone baptismal font in which we fill with water whenever we need to baptize somebody. At other times, it's empty, more for reasons of plumbing than doctrine - apparently there's some chance it could be damaged if kept full, due to its age and design. Our minister mentioned that in the Catholic Church, this would be considered wrong, as the font is meant to be kept full at all times, with the water traditionally being replaced each year at Easter.

What is the reason for this custom of keeping the baptismal fonts full? Is it a strict requirement or just a common practice? And as a practical matter, how is the water kept clean if it has to last all year?

They're not kept full all year long,  there is a  blessing concerning Holy Water that takes place solely during the Triduum. But that is not the water kept in the font.

There is a fairly erroneous Catholic tradition that some priests take part in where they dump all the Holy Water before Lent starts then fill them back up when Easter comes around.

What we do get fresh before Easter are the three Holy Oils and the Easter candle for the year. But a priest could bless water, salt or whatever whenever he wants to.  It could be said that Easter Blessed water is better, but it's probably just as good.

http://www.fisheaters.com/water.html


Are Israel and the Church two different kingdoms? Are Israel and the Church two different kingdoms?

Israel - Psalm 114:2

Church - Matthew 16:18-19

I am asking this question because a Catholic friend of mine insists that there is one kingdom which is the church and that means that Israel was replaced by the church.There is no more the nation Israel but only the church. God is done with Israel since the inception of the church.

I want to know the view of Protestants regarding this.

There is only one kingdom because there is only one king.

The kingdom was offered to Israel and not accepted at that time. The kingdom will come and a remnant of Israel will glady receive her king.

Gentiles were being added to the kingdom during the period of Acts. This was a mystery that Paul describes had been hidden.

The end of Mark describes a little of what the kingdom on earth would be like (such as making disciples of all nations).

This kingdom is described briefly in a few places. There will be no more war, people will live longer, nature will be less hostile.

Until the kingdom comes on earth, Christians are like ambassadors of that kingdom in a foreign and hostile country.

Romans 11:12  Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?


Is there a biblical basis for the division caused by theology? Is there a Biblical basis for the division caused by various theologies?

Let us take James into account:

  James 1:26-27
  If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
  Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

As well as Paul:

  1 Corinthians 1:10
  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

In reading these, I'm sure we can all agree that we are, in fact, not doing either of these at all. We have Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, JWs, and many many more - all doing and saying and teaching different things. This becomes problematic for some people who are trying to learn the Truth (emphasis on that capital T), and many people incredibly devoted to what is (or appears to be, rather) wrong will quote such verses as 1 Corinthians 14:33 - however you will find someone do this, then immediately go and contradict Scripture itself.

There are many, many denominations out there - and I'm sure an equal or greater amount of theologies. And if my usage of the term theology appears off, that's because theology today does not do what it was supposed to. Instead of studying God, much of it (from personal observation) is finding out "what the book means to you". God did not inspire the Bible to appeal to each individual, but to His people.

So, is there a Biblical basis for the division it is causing?

INTRODUCTION

Your specific question is not overly clear, but it seems you are essentially asking if there is any doctrine worth dividing over, and you mention the many denominations that exist as problematic.

I'm reminded of the satirical quote by Steve Turner:

We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least the one we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness, they only differ on matters of creation, sin,
heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

In short, yes, there are doctrinal differences worth dividing over, and there is, indeed, a biblical basis for this.  Yet, there are also doctrinal differences that are not worth dividing over as well.

An old axiom is instructive at this point:

In Essentials Unity,
In Non-Essentials Liberty,
In All Things Charity.

So, we have to determine what are the essentials and what are the non-essentials.  People will differ on this, but the essentials should probably include 1) the nature of God and 2) the doctrine of salvation at the very least.

ESSENTIALS

Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians to specifically correct heretical doctrine, and he uses some pretty strong language to do so.

  I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.  Galatians 1:6-7 NASB

Paul continues with strong words against those that had perverted the purity of the gospel:

  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!  Galatians 1:8-9 NASB

Thus, the purity of the gospel of grace is, indeed, worth dividing over.  Paul preached salvation by grace and not of works and was willing to divide with those who preached a salvation based on law.

NON-ESSENTIALS

Non-essential issues include many things, including church order, musical preference, the use of certain spiritual gifts and other things.  Here in America, we have the luxury of going to the particular church that best aligns with all of our individual idiosyncrasies and personal preferences, yet in many other parts of the world, much more unity is displayed, particularly in places where Christianity is under persecution.  Still, most mature Christians maintain healthy fellowship and unity with those with whom they differ in non-essentials.

CONCLUSION

So, yes, if someone distorts the nature of God or the doctrine of salvation, we should follow the example of Paul and divide over that.  Draw the line in the sand and do not compromise.

Yet, for many other things, we in the West can choose to gather in different buildings and segregate based on peculiar non-essential issues, but we should certainly maintain unity in the faith with all our brothers with whom we can unite in the essentials.


Is there any real significant difference between Protestantism and Catholicism? I know a lot of people who have very strong views against Catholics and was really starting to wonder, just as the title suggests, other than Catholicism having priests, what differences are there?

The question makes the assumption that "Protestantism" is easily defined, and can easily be compared.

"Protestant" simply means "Not Catholic or Orthodox", and could refer to one of hundreds of different denominations, all with subtle and not-so-subtle differences in beliefs.  Some hold doctrine that is similar to Catholic doctrine, and some that is vastly different.

There's a comparison chart of Catholic to Protestant views here, but as I said in the above paragraph, on the Protestant side, there are a wide range of beliefs, and this chart only shows one particular protestant view.  (Glancing at it, it appears to be a Calvinistic point of view.)

An entire book could be written on this subject alone, but some differences include:

In general, Protestant Churches adhere to the concepts of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.  These are probably the biggest differentiating beliefs, but even they are not universall held by protestant denominations.
The Catholic Church includes Apocryphal writings as part of their accepted Scripture.  This includes a few extra books to the Bible, and two extra chapters to the Book of Daniel.
The Catholic Church accepts the concept of Purgatory, which is almost universally rejected in protestant denominations.  The same can be said for Transubstantiation, indulgences, prayer to saints, confession to a Priest rather than direct confession to God through prayer, and a host of other teachings.

In general, your question can be answered as "yes, there are some significant differences between Catholicism and Protestantism", but the difference varies based on which Protestant denomination you're referring to.


About the intercessions of Saints to God, on one's behalf? From a Catholic standpoint, and AFAIU, one prays to saints to intercede for one, on one´s behalf, to God. That being said, if you ask for help or a miracle to a saint through a prayer, and if you at some point get it, then the help/miracle was done by God but because of the saint´s intercession.
Now, I've read about a miracle by Saint Charbel. In summary, a woman named Nohad El Shami was diagnosed with hemiplegia and the doctors said that there was no cure, and that a surgery might help. Their sons asked  help from St. Charbel, got consecrated oil and soil from St. Charbel´s tomb for his mother, and at some point  St. Charbel  healed her from hemiplegia, with the help of Saint Maroun. Then St. Charbel said the following to Nohad through a dream:

"I did the surgery to let people see and return to their faith. I ask you to visit my hermitage in Annaya on the 22nd of every month and attend Mass regularly for the rest of your life."

Does this means that God gifted him to perform miracles or to give help? Or did God "sent" him somehow to do the miracle, in this case the surgery? What happened here?
I apologize in advance if I'm saying something wrong, I don't much about religion.
Could someone clarify this please, from a Catholic point of view, please?

About the intercessions of Saints to God, on one's behalf?
Now if you ask for help or a miracle from a saint through a prayer, and if you at some point get it, then the help/miracle was done by God though a saint´s intercession!
That is basically saying it in a nutshell.
I can ask a friend to pray for me, but I can also ask my spiritual friends in Heaven also to pray for me. In the end it is God who works the miracles!
According to Catholicism, saints are individuals who are in heaven with God and are enjoying the Beatific Vision. Though many more people are in heaven and technically saints, those deemed official saints of the Church are ones that the Catholic Church knows are in heaven. As such, people can pray to these saints, who sometimes intercede on our behalf with God.
But determining who is in heaven is a tricky proposition. That's where miracles come in. According to the church, miracles are divine events that “have no natural or scientific explanation”, and serve as proof that the person is in heaven and can intercede with God to change the ordinary course of events.
Only God can make miracles. Saints can ask the Sacred Trinity to produce a miracle on the behalf of someone on earth though their intercession. This is all part of the communion of saints (Church Militant, Suffering and Triumphant).
The Catholic Church uses a formal process to determine who is a saint. First, that person's life is thoroughly investigated. If deemed virtuous enough, the person is said to be a servant of God. If they've exhibited heroic levels of virtue in their life, they are considered venerable. To become saints, however, they need to have “performed” two miracles after death. Some saints are known to perform many miracles, while others “perform” only enough to get canonized. There is generally no reason for this other than a particular saints popularity.
In reality it is not the saints who ”perform” such miracles. Only God can perform genuine miracles, on behalf both the recipient and the saint involved.
Toward that end, a Vatican-appointed Miracle Commission sifts through hundreds or even thousands of miraculous claims. Typically, the commissions are composed of theologians and scientific experts.
Nearly all, or 99.9% of these are medical miracles, and they need to be spontaneous, instantaneous and complete healing.
The following articles may be of interest:

The Process of Beatification and Canonization
Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of Pope John Paul II
What is the basis of the teaching that souls in purgatory can intercede for the living?


Am I a party to the covenant of atonement? Jesus prayed (Jn 17:21) that “they may be one in us as you are in me and I am in you.” (Easier to comprehend if in means in union with.) This is the original sense of at-one-ment. “We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Ro 5:11; KJV uses atonement)

Our sins have put us on a path different from God’s. “Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you,” (Isa 55:3a,b). "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Jer 31:33) God certainly takes the initiative, but if atonement brings God and me together, it is I who must change, not God.

Paul alludes to at least 10 different aspects of God’s activity in the atonement. Three major theological attempts to explain it involve Jesus and the Father; one even involves the devil. But none involve me, and the picture they suggest of the Father does  not fit the image that Jesus gives us. A fourth explanation, first proposed by Peter Abelard in the mid-1100s, is sometimes called “emotionally responsive”. Abelard declared that God, Jesus, loved us so much that He called us through the compassion of our hearts, from the position of an innocent man dying an unjust death. He phrased it: “Love answers love’s appeal.” I don’t know how to explain this to someone.

A covenant is an agreement between two or more parties. If I am not involved, am I still a party to the covenant of atonement? Verses like “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (Ex 4:21, 9:12) make me wonder, did God soften my heart? Without my cooperation? I can think of three verses, other than Paul’s, to ponder: “Go and sin no more”, “Love one another as I have loved you”, and “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Mica 6:8)

What verses (or wisdom) from the Bible might support the idea of a continuing covenant, with my involvement, rather than a one-time event, without my participation, with regard to the atoning death of Jesus?

If you are "in Christ", then any reward, inheritance, covenant, etc. that is given to Him is given to you. Gal 2:20. You are a joint-heir with Christ. Rom 8:17


Are politicians who are integral to passing pro-abortion laws automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church? According to this article,

"Any Catholic accomplice in the act of procuring an abortion, even
though not specifically mentioned in Canon #1398, receives the same
penalty of automatic excommunication. Here an accomplice is one who
assists in such a way that the heinous act would not have been
committed without his assistance."

If a politician votes for legislation that passes, say, that legalizes abortion in some capacity, is that politician therefore automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

Excommunication is not exactly the same as recognizing grave matter.   Excommunications can't simply be overturned by going to confession.  A politician who votes for evil laws, like expanding people's rights to kill babies, may in some people's eyes be accomplices to abortion, but the particular sin they're culpable for before the congregation is scandal.

Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
CCC 2284

That Catechism passage had the word "grave" in it twice, which means it is very bad. It's the thing that Jesus said you'd be better off at the bottom of a lake than doing.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."
CCC 2286

So, not to let anyone off the hook, creating conditions where people want abortions is bad too.

However, to answer your question, it is not excommunication to be guilty of grave matter, but it is scandal upon scandal to allow people who are guilty of something like this to present themselves for communion.
And, for the record, at least one priest has denied Joe Biden, communion. The episcopacy just hasn't been using excommunication as a tool to tell people how to vote. I'd imagine they have reasons and I can only hope that they're being guided by the Holy Spirit.

In 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Church’s doctrinal office, wrote a memorandum to the U.S. Catholic bishops, explaining the application of canon 915 to the question of pro-choice politicians.

The case of a Catholic politician who is “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” would constitute “formal cooperation” in grave sin that is “manifest,” the letter explained.

In such cases, “his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist,” Ratzinger wrote.

If the individual perseveres in grave sin and still presents himself for Holy Communion, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”

CNA News - Analysis: Will anything change on pro-choice politicians and holy communion?

But in the end, the US Bishops said each diocese is going to decide how to approach it.
Bishop Strickland in Texas would be on the side of the communion deniers but he might have it easy since the number of notable pro-choice Catholic politicians in the diocese of 55,000 people is pretty small.


What is the role of a permanent lector at a Traditional Latin Mass? Our parish started Latin Masses a few months ago and I'm finally getting in the hang of it, but one thing I noticed is that the priest reads everything (except for a few things that the servers recite) but with Pope Francis' new moto proprio and a friend of mine who has recently been ordained a deacon choosing the lector ministry.  What I don't know, is if this is a traditional role in the Church, what would a lector do prior to Vatican II?

What is the role of a permanent lector at a Traditional Latin Mass?
Both lectors and acolytes were known as minor orders and as such were steppingstones towards priestly ordination.

A lector (reader) in the West is a clerk having the second of the four minor orders. In all Eastern Churches also, readers are ordained to a minor order preparatory to the diaconate. The primary reason for a special class of readers was the need of some persons sufficiently educated to be able to read the books in church, for the Christians continued the Jewish practice of reading the Sacred Books publicly. The first mention of a Christian liturgical reader is by Justin Martyr (d. about 165) in I Apol., lxvii, 3, 4. The homily known as "II Clem. ad Corinthios" also contains a reference to a lector, anaginoskon (xix, 1). The position of reader was honourable and dignified. It involved a higher standard of education than that of most offices. Although Justin says that the bishop preached the sermon, it appears that the reader himself often went on to expound what he had read. As the idea obtained that a special blessing and dedication should be given to everyone who performs an office for the Church, the reader too was instituted by prayers and some ceremony. Readers were blessed and set apart, as were the fossores who dug graves, the notarii who kept registers, and widows. All the group of rituals that depend on the "Apostolic Constitutions" contain the rite of ordaining readers. "Apost. Const.", vii, xxii, tells the bishop to ordain a reader by laying on his hand and saying a prayer, which is given. The derived documents however forbid an imposition of hands. ("Epitome Const. Ap.", xiii; Funk, "Didascalia", Paderborn, 1905, II, p. 82; see also the "Egyptian Church Order", V, ib., p. 105).
During the first centuries all the lessons in the liturgy, including the Epistle and Gospel, were read by the lector. Cornelius I (251-53) in a letter to Fabius of Antioch mentions that the Church of Rome has forty-two acolytes and fifty-two exorcists, readers and doorkeepers. (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", n. 45). In the fourth century in Africa the Church of Cirta had four priests, three deacons, four subdeacons, and seven readers. The account of the persecution ("Gesta apud Zenophilum" printed in the appendix to Optatus of Mileve in the Vienna edition of "Corp. Script. eccl. lat.", XXVI, 185-97) describes how the readers kept the sacred books which the magistrate demanded to be given up (p. 187). An old set of Western canons, ascribed (wrongly) to a supposed Council of Carthage in 398, but really of the sixth century, gives forms for all ordinations. Canon 8 is about our subject: "When a reader is ordained let the bishop speak about him (faciat de illo verbum) to the people, pointing out his faith and life and skill. After this, while the people look on, let him give him the book from which he is to read, saying to him: Receive this and be the spokesman (relator) of the word of God and you shall have, if you do your work faithfully and usefully, a part with those who have administered the word of God" (Denzinger, op. cit., n. 156). But gradually the lectorate lost all importance. The deacon obtained the office of reading the Gospel; in the West the Epistle became the privilege of the subdeacon. In the Eastern Churches this and other lessons are still supposed to be read by a lector, but everywhere his office (as all minor orders) may be supplied by a layman. The lector is still mentioned twice in the Roman Missal. In the rubrics at the beginning it is said that if Mass be sung without deacon and subdeacon a lector wearing a surplice may sing the Epistle in the usual place; but at the end he does not kiss the celebrant's hand (Ritus celebr. Missam", vi, 8). On Good Friday the morning service begins with a prophecy read by a lector at the place where the Epistle is usually read (first rubric on Good Friday).
Everywhere the order of reader has become merely a stepping-stone to major orders, and a memory of early days. In the Roman Rite in is the second minor order (Ostiarius, Lector, Exorcista, Acolythus). The minor orders are conferred during Mass after the first Lesson; but they may be given apart from Mass, on Sundays or doubles, in the morning. The lectorate involves no obligation of celibacy or of any other kind. The Byzantine Office will be found in the "Euchologion" (Euchologion to mega, Venetian 8th edition, 1898, pp. 186-87). The Armenians (Gregorian and Uniate) have adopted the Roman system of four minor orders exactly. Their rite of ordaining a reader also consists essentially in handing to him the book of the Epistles. Lector

As for acolytes the Catholic Encyclopedia says the following:

An acolyte is a cleric promoted to the fourth and highest minor order in the Latin Church, ranking next to a subdeacon. The chief offices of an acolyte are to light the candles on the altar, to carry them in procession, and during the solemn singing of the Gospel; to prepare wine and water for the sacrifice of the Mass; and to assist the sacred ministers at the Mass, and other public services of the Church. In the ordination of an acolyte the bishop presents him with a candle, extinguished, and an empty cruet, using appropriate words expressive of these duties. Altar boys are often designated as acolytes and perform the duties of such. The duties of the acolyte in Catholic liturgical services are fully described in the manuals of liturgy, e.g. Pio Matinucci, "Manuale Sacrarum Caeremoniarum" (Rome, 1880), VI, 625; and De Herdt, "Sacrae Liturgiae Praxis" (Louvain, 1889), II, 28-39.
According to the ancient discipline of the Roman Church the order of acolyte was conferred as the candidate approached adolescence, about the age of twenty, as the decree of Pope Siricius (385) to Himerius, Bishop of Tarragona, in Spain, was interpreted (P.L., XIII, 1142). Five years were to elapse before an acolyte could receive subdeaconship. Pope Zosimus reduced (418) this term to four years. The Council of Trent leaves to the judgment of bishops to determine what space should elapse between the conferring of the acolythate and subdeaconship; it is also interesting to note, with Dr. Probst (Kirchenlex., I, 385), that the Council's desire (Sess. XXIII, c. 17, de ref.) concerning the performance of ministerial services exclusively by minor-order clerics was never fulfilled. In ancient ecclesiastical Rome there was no solemn ordination of acolytes. At communion-time in any ordinary Mass, even when it was not stational, the candidate approached the Pope, or in his absence, one of the bishops of the pontifical court. At an earlier moment of the Mass he had been vested with the stole and the chasuble. Holding in his arms a linen bag (porrigitur in ulnas ejus sacculus super planetam; a symbol of the highest function of these clerics, that of carrying, as stated above, the consecrated hosts) he prostrated himself while the Pontiff pronounced over him a simple blessing (Mabillon, op. Cit., II, 85, ed. Paris, 1724). It may be well to mention here the two prayers of the ancient Roman Mass-book known as the "Sacramentarium Gregorianum" (Mabillon, Lit. Rom. Vetus, II, 407), said by the Pontiff over the acolyte, and the first of which is identical with that of the actual Roman Pontifical "Domine, sancte Pater, aeterne Deus, qui ad Moysen et Aaron locutus es," etc.
According to the aforementioned "Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua," which give us the ritual usage of the most important churches in Gaul about the year 500, the candidate for acolyte was first instructed by the bishop in the duties of his office, and then a candlestick, with a candle extinguished, was placed in his hand by the archdeacon, as a sign that the lights of the church would be in his care; moreover, an empty cruet was given him, symbolical of his office of presenting wine and water at the altar for the holy sacrifice. A short blessing followed. Acolyte


Why did Jesus use a Greek proverb when He spoke Aramaic to Saul in Acts 26:14? Saul spoke Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin (there are many references). Jesus spoke Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew (again there are many references). In Acts 26:14, Paul (who at this time was using his second name Paul, being a Roman, rather than his first name Saul), testified to Agrippa, possibly in Greek, that when Jesus confronted him on the road to Damascus, Jesus spoke to him in Aramaic and said, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" (KJV), or "it is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (in other versions), which is a Greek proverb.

Is there any significance or relevance here of Jesus speaking in Aramaic and using a Greek proverb to Saul (who became Paul later on), who spoke four languages?

Acts 25:14, "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks," is a direct quotation from a play by Euripides (d. 406 BCE), the Bacchae, with Jesus speaking instead of the Greek god Dionysus. Euripides had used the plural ('pricks') for reason of meter, and Acts uses the same plural, although it would normally be a singular. In his own epistles, Paul never mentions a conversion on the road to Damascus; in fact he said that after "it pleased God to reveal his son in me," he conferred with no one but went immediately to Arabia (Galatians 1:16-17). So, this was a literary elaboration by the author of Acts, ostentatiously saying that Jesus spoke in Aramaic probably to draw some attention away from the popular Greek saying.

Uta Ranke-Heinemann says, in Putting Away Childish Things, page 163, the really strange thing is that with both Jesus and Euripides we have the same “familiar quotation” and the same situation. In both cases there is a conversation between a persecuted god and his persecutor.  In the Bacchae the persecuted god is Dionysus and his persecutor is Pentheus, king of Thebes.  Just like Jesus, Dionysus calls his persecutor to account, “You  disregard my words of warning . . . and kick against the pricks a man defying god.” She says Jesus even uses the same plural form of the noun kentra ('pricks') that Euripides needs for the meter of his line.

To eliminate any doubt that this is just a coincidence, we can also look at Acts' story of Paul's release from prison (Acts 16:26).  This also has reasonably close parallels to words in the same ancient play, the Bacchae, and there is no written or archaeological record of an earthquake powerful enough to have somehow released Paul and Silas from their chains.

Peter Kirby notes the parallels between the Bacchae and Acts, but says that the author of Acts need not necessarily have had the Bacchae in mind, since other ancient Greek works use similar phraseology and would also serve as sources for these two scenes in Acts. The Bacchae stands out as a single source that provides the potential source material for both the conversion (with the plural form of kentra) and the prison escape in Acts.


Baptismal names in the Greek Orthodox Church! Where can I find an EXHAUSTIVE list of baptismal names in the Greek Orthodox Church; i.e an EXHAUSTIVE list of Names that have been given to a person (the frequency; i.e the number of people given each name are secondary) by the Greek Orthodox Church?

There are certainly some ancient Greek names like Alexandros, Leonidas, Aristotelis, Socratis, Hermis, Afroditi, Dimitra, Aris, Paris, Ektoras, Euklidis, Achilleas e.t.c

But others like Anaximandros, Anaxagoras, Dias e.t.c are unheard of. At least I know no person named as such.

Probably the only entities capable of figuring out the span and frequency of baptismal names, at least since September 1st, 1979 (a liturgical new year), are the Registry Department of each Archdiocese. You could try contacting them individually, although it's possible that their records are not digitized, in which case it would take a lot of effort to figure out your question. My modern Greek is only elementary, I am not sure if this is true outside of the Greek Orthodox church in America, unfortunately.

As you may know, baptismal names are taken from the names of saints. Each saint has a day they're celebrated--often their date of martyrdom, if it is known. Therefore, calendars of "name days" will contain the names that are suitable for baptismal names. The two I have linked two are particular to Greek Orthodox saints. Of course, any Eastern Orthodox saint's name would be acceptable as a baptismal name, but each Patriarchate has its favorites!


The first conception or the first coitus? Genesis 4:1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she
  conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a
  manchild with the help of the Lord."

Why do some theologians (Aquinas for example, quoting Augustine in Summa Theologica 1, Q98, article 2) take this to mean sexual relations for the first time when it is equally plausible for it to refer to:

the first sexual relations that resulted in conception, or
the first sexual relations that resulted in conception and birth of
a male child

Did Adam and Eve have sex with each other in the Garden of Eden?

Sure, it is possible, since the Scriptures do not say clearly one way or another. According to tradition, these theologians do not think so. If Adam and Eve did have intimacy of a sexual nature before the fall, there would have been, to what degree I do not know, a chance the Eve could have conceived a child and that child would have been born without original sin! This fact alone must be weighed in on the minds of all the Church Fathers in this issue.

From reading Scriptures alone it is impossible to say one way or another.

  The Bible does not say whether or not Adam and Eve had sexual relations in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, we cannot say they did or did not.  Still, let's take a look at the issue a little more deeply.

    "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth," (Genesis 1:26-25).

  God commanded them to multiply and fill the earth.  But, we do not know if they had begun to fulfill that command by having relations in the Garden. Furthermore, we do not know how long they were in the Garden before they fell.

  In Genesis 2 there is a more detailed account of the creation order that Genesis 1:26-25 goes over.

  Man is formed.  "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being," (Genesis 2:7).
  Not good for man to be alone. "Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him," (Genesis 2:18).
  God made Eve. "So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place, 22 the LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:21-22).

  So, there is no way to know for sure whether or not Adam and Eve actually had sexual relations before they were expelled from the Garden of Eden. - Did Adam and Eve have sex with each other in the Garden of Eden?

Thus we a forced to take a look at one more sacred text before moving on.

When God put Adam and Eve out of the Garden, He told Eve the following:

  I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. - Genesis 3:16

This last text tends to imply that both Adam and Eve did not have sexual relations while in the Garden, for now they knew that such relationship could result in a painful delivery of a child for all women. God had foreseen this moment to reveal this punishment for sinning in the Garden.

Again tradition holds that both Adam and Eve were virgins in the Garden. St. Justin Martyr, writing about 155 A.D. in his work 100 Dialogue with Trypho, and St. Irenaeus, writing about 189 A.D. in his work 3, 22 Against Heresies, both say Eve was still a virgin at the time she and Adam committed the first sin.


Since God provided for the forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament, why do we need Jesus? I thought of this when I was researching this question.

Leviticus 4 goes into great detail about the sacrifice that must be made in order for a sin to be forgiven.  However, we see here that God actually provided a way for these sins to be forgiven.

Specifically, Leviticus 16 shows that this sacrifice and the Day of Atonement did provide forgiveness of sins:

  Leviticus 16:30 (NIV)Emphasis added
  because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.

Now, Jews no longer provide sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, however God has still provided a way for these sins to be forgiven. (See Why don't Jews sacrifice animals anymore? for more information.)

So, if God has previously given us a way to have forgiveness of our sins, why did he send Jesus to be our ultimate sacrifice?

Edit:
I believe that there is some doctrinal basis for this.  I'm not sure which specific doctrine would best be applied to this, but I am seeking a mainstream Protestant doctrine on the matter.

Actually, it never worked.

  Hebrews 10:4 (ESV)
  For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

All the OT sacrifices were useless in an of themselves. What they did all along was not actually solve something but point people to the idea that something needed to be solved and the way that had to happen was through sacrifice. All the OT sacrificial rules only served to point us to Christ, who was already arranged as the Lamb to come.

In other words, the forgiveness for sins that God "provided" in the Old Testament was through Jesus from day one, so you can't just take him out of the picture. There isn't another way.

See also: How were people saved before ~33AD?


What is the Biblical basis for God's divine decree in Scripture (Calvinism)? I have listened to Calvinists state that all that happens in time is a result of God's divine decree. Where in Scripture do we find evidence for the existence of such a decree, or where in Scripture can the existence of such a decree be inferred?

Not that I am a Calvinist, but perhaps these may be some examples:

Isaiah 14:24

The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, [so] shall it stand:

Isaiah 14:27

For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul [it]? and his hand [is] stretched out, and who shall turn it back?


Why does God punish us for sin I know this question has been asked many times but I am still struggling with it. A post I read earlier today someone answered with if you tell your child don't touch that it's hot, when they get burned it's not punishment it's the consequences of your actions. Which yes I agree, but according to the Bible when you disobey God (sin), will allow you suffer the consequences. E.G. failing a test, breaking your leg, going bankrupt whatever the circumstances are. I don't kick my kid out of the house because he touched the stove and he disobeyed me and then throw him into a pit and leave him there. That is punishment. Yet God says if we sin we will be separated from him (kicked out) and thrown into the lake of fire (thrown in a pit) for eternity (leaving him there). I cannot see how the kind of God that is perfect love (1 Corinthians 13:4-7) can allow that to happen because I told you so. I didn't ask to be here he forced me into this and now I have to play the game by his rules or I will literally be tortured and burned for eternity. I'm trying to understand and to put them together but I cannot.
Sorry for the word wall

The reason is because God is perfect love, but God is also simple. That means all His attributes are present and none can be divided from the others. So He is loving, just, truthful, faithful, patient, and many other things all in perfect balance.
Did God not say He would exact eternal punishment upon sinners who refuse to repent? He is truthful, so He could not lie about this.
Will God do it? He is faithful, so He keeps all His promises.
Is God just? Then He must punish wrongdoing.
Is this punishment a just punishment? For one, is there an alternative path He could take to achieve His goals that enhances His love without diminishing His other attributes? God is infinitely wise so must have considered every option. If Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane asked His Father if there was another way besides the cross and this infinitely wise and loving God when addressing His sinless Son whom He loves said, "No", then it is certain that there is no better way that ensures the salvation of as many as can be saved. If God is wise and loving and truthful and declares that this punishment shall go forward, then it is just.
You say, "I didn't ask to be here..."
Isaiah said,

You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it,
“You did not make me”?
Can the pot say to the potter,
"You know nothing”?

(Isaiah 29:16)

Paul in Romans said,

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For
who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to
talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it,
‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the
right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special
purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power
known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for
destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory
known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for
glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but
also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:19-24)

If we harbour ideas that the punishment is too great for the crime, yet God is just in punishing sin as He does, it must be because we grossly misjudge the severity of sin. Jesus died to pay for that sin, if only we accept his work by having faith in him. God does not take sin lightly. He paid the ultimate price. Consider the severity of sin to be equal to the payment made to eriadicate it. Infinite God offered His Son, of infinite worth, to fix the problem. That means that sin is far more deadly than we can possibly imagine. Our inability to see that or accept it is a measure of our spiritual blindness.
Yet that is not the only reason God punishes us for sin! A measure of the suffering that we endure is really a message from God. Jesus suffered on behalf of others. Such character and love is highly valued by God. God wants all His children to possess exceeding virtue. He wants us to become more like Jesus. To do that, we must suffer as he did so that our lives may produce the fruit of righteousness. The greatest faith is displayed by those who trust in God's goodness in the midst of great suffering. Such a person is a witness to all around them of a miracle. Only a miraculous faith can persist in the midst of suffering. This is what Job displayed to the people around him. Job's reward was that the longest single speech in the Bible that God ever delivered to any person, He spoke to Job.
As a personal example, years ago I several times visited a woman named Janet  in a nursing facility who suffered horrible pain from rheumatoid arthritis. She was a believer in Jesus Christ and continued to share her faith with all who visited her. After leaving her room after my first visit, I was overcome with tears and sobbing. But a half hour later, the tears were replaced with peace, and then ecstatic joy. The joy stayed for an entire week. A few months later I attended her funeral. One of the people there said something I will never forget: "When you were with Janet, it was like the Holy Spirit was pouring out of her." Amen. After that meeting with Janet, I was delivered from over a decade of depression. Why do we suffer? Some of that suffering, if we believe that God loves us no matter what, becomes spiritual power to shower blessings on the people around us. Broken but faithful people are channels of God's love.

12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater
love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
14 You are my friends if you do what I command. (John 15:12-14)

God's desire is that we be people who love. Love means laying down your life for the ones you love.

For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses
their life for me will save it. (Luke 9:24)

The ones who go to Hell try to save their life by not loving others in a costly way. The ones who go to heaven are willing to lose their life to help the ones they love. The responsibility is ours. God shows us the respect to accept our decision as people with free will.
UPDATE:
In a comment, the OP asks:

Why not just leave those who don't want to follow him alone?

What do you suppose being alone for eternity would be like? In The Great Divorce, C. S. Lewis took a stab at it. His shining example was Napoleon, on a planet by himself, endlessly arguing with himself over who was to blame for his defeat. Lewis showed people arriving in Hell. At first they hang out with their former family and friends, but with no light of goodness from God, every good part of the people they knew on earth is gone, they figure it out, and eventually can't stand being near each other. Every person in hell slowly moves away from every other person until they are completely alone.
We have a conceit that we are all in this world together: good people, bad people, good things, bad things, God and Satan. We can imagine putting up a fence and separating the good from the bad so that each would leave the other alone. What is it like to exist in a world without God? A world with no goodness? A world of comlpete loneliness?
What happens to prisoners in our world that are put in solitary confinement for too long? They go crazy. The emotional pain of being separated from human contact grows until it exceeds the worst physical pain. It is a pain without hope of ever diminishing. That is Hell. The only antodote is to be in the presence of God, which they have rejected. There are no good things apart from the presence of God.
Lewis shows a woman from Heaven going to visit her husband at a waypoint in the middle. She tries to convince him to come to heaven and share her joy. He is mad at her for not sympathising with his pain and torment. However, she is wrapped up in the beatific vision. She can no longer experience sadness or pain, only joy. Her husband cannot guilt her by his old put downs into feeling shame and powerlessness. He cannot cut her down and it infuriates him. He can no longer oppress or control her, the thing he desires more than happiness. So he leaves and returns to hell. His every inclination is to do to the saints things which God will no longer permit. The frustration at having a sinful will opposed in all its actions forever is exhausting and agonizing. That is hell.


Did the Apollo 11 mission result in a Catholic "bishop of the moon"? I've heard that the bishop of the Diocese of Orlando during 1969 claimed that because Apollo 11 was launched from Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center, which were under his jurisdiction, he became "bishop of the moon" because they were the first to land on it. Is this true? If so, what is the justification?

Is there a Catholic bishop with jurisdiction over space?

The short answer is yes and no.

There is at least one bishop who claims jurisdiction over the moon and that is in space.

  An obscure law from 1917 places the moon under the purview of the Diocese of Orlando, Florida.

  The Diocese of Orlando, Florida, covers much of the greater central Florida area. It encompasses nine counties, hundreds of cities, nearly 401,000 Catholic residents, and, strangely enough, the moon.
  nearly 401,000 Catholic residents, and, stran
  UCatholic explains the unusual circumstances that led to the moon’s spiritual jurisdiction landing with the diocese that ministers to Disney, Universal, and Cape Canaveral:

    The Apollo 11 space mission began with the launch from Cape Canaveral on July 16, 1969. The mission fulfilled the national goal proposed by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 of “landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth, before this decade is out.” However, when Apollo 11 made its famous flight from Cape Canaveral to ultimately fulfill that goal, they inadvertently made Bishop Borders the first Bishop of the Moon thanks to an obscure rule from the 1917 Code of Canon Law in effect at the time.

  In 1968, William Donald Borders was named the first bishop of Orlando. When Apollo 11 launched, one year later, there was still a law in the books that stated that any newly discovered territory would fall under the bishopric from whence the discovering expedition departed. Since Cape Canaveral was under the purview of the Diocese of Orlando, Bishop Borders was effectively the first bishop of the moon.

  UCatholic notes that, if taken seriously, the Diocese of Orlando would become the largest, at fourteen and half million square miles, although it would be hard to call it the largest diocese in the world.

  Father John Giel, chancellor for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Orlando, commented that being able to boast the moon is ultimately fruitless since it “means nothing if there is no one to have jurisdiction over.” Father Giel did, however, commend Bishop Borders for the gig:

    “Since we have yet to find any life on the moon, the story only emphasizes Bishop Border’s good and humorous nature that allowed him to be such a good first bishop for central Florida.”

  Yes, the moon has its own Catholic bishop


Why did Lot's wife look back? Genesis 19:15–26 (ESV)

  15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city.” 16 But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city. 17 And as they brought them out, one said, “Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away.” 18 And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords. 19 Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die. 20 Behold, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there—is it not a little one?—and my life will be saved!” 21 He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. 22 Escape there quickly, for I can do nothing till you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

  God Destroys Sodom

  23 The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. 24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven. 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26 But Lot's wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

The text doesn't answer or indicate why Lot's wife looked back, and Googling the question doesn't really turn up very much that's useful. Is there anything in the doctrines of Protestant denominations (the closer to Wesleyan, the better) that explains why Lot's wife looked back?

Jesus refers to this episode in Luke 17. Here are verses 28-33 in the NIV:

  "It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it."

She is used here as an example of people who are too attached to their old life, indicating that she looked back in regret for what she was losing. There is a double meaning: attachment to physical goods, and to the unregenerate life.

John Wesley's Explanatory notes upon the Old Testament (1765), which is surely as Wesleyan as could possibly be expected, says:

  Probably she hankered after her house and goods in Sodom, and was loath to leave them. Christ intimates this to be her sin, she too much regarded her stuff. And her looking back spoke an inclination to go back; and therefore our Saviour uses it as a warning against apostasy from our Christian profession.

Other commentators have made the same interpretation, so it's not exclusive to the Wesleyan school of thought. Here's John Calvin in his Genesis commentary (1563; English translation 1578):

  First, the desire of looking back proceeded from incredulity; and no greater injury can be done to God, than when credit is denied to his word. Secondly we infer from the words of Christ, that she was moved by some evil desire; and that she did not cheerfully leave Sodom, to hasten to the place whither God called her; for we know that he commands us to remember Lot's wife, lest, indeed, the allurements of the world should draw us aside from the meditation of the heavenly life. It is therefore probable, that she, being discontented with the favor God had granted her, glided into unholy desires, of which thing also her tardiness was a sign; for Moses intimates that she was following after her husband, when he says, that she looked back from behind him; for she did not look back towards him; but because by the slowness of her pace, she was less advanced, she, therefore, was behind him.

and here's Augustine in City of God 16.30 (5th century):

  For what is meant by the angels forbidding those who were delivered to look back, but that we are not to look back in heart to the old life which, being regenerated through grace, we have put off, if we think to escape the last judgment? Lot's wife, indeed, when she looked back, remained, and, being turned into salt, furnished to believing men a condiment by which to savor somewhat the warning to be drawn from that example.


Purgatory for those who are saved outside the Church? The Catholic Church teaches that some might be saved outside the Catholic Church.
This question relates to those, for example a non-denominational Christian that lives his life ignorantly but faithfully to what he believes is the Truth. Such a person dies, without the Graces of the Sacraments, but by God's grace alone is seen to be one of his children and graced with eternal Salvation.  According to Catholicism, would that soul be responsible to pay the punishments for sin, which where not expiated during this life?

I thought I would share some relevant words from 'The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich':

  “I was present when God passed sentence on notorious sinners. Great is
  His justice, but still more inconceivable is His mercy. He damns only
  those who are determined not to be converted; they who have a spark of
  good will are saved... I have seen in Purgatory Protestants who were
  pious in their ignorance; they are very desolate, for no prayers are
  offered for them... I saw that by our prayer and suffering, many a
  soul who labours not during life, can be converted and saved at the
  hour of death.”

It is important for us to remember the Church's doctrine: they are saved who die in a state of grace. Who knows how many accept God in their final moments e.g. through an act of perfect contrition.

Revelation 21:27

  but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any[one] who does abominable
  things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in
  the Lamb’s book of life.

Matthew 5:26

  Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the
  last penny.


Why aren't the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches in communion with each other? Both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Church worship the same God and the Blessed Mother Virgin Mary and the Saints and the Holy Trinity. Do language and cultural differences separate them? What current issues prevent the churches from being in full communion with each other?

Nestorianism was condemned at the third and fourth ecumenical councils (Ephesus I & Chalcedon I), so calling Oriental Christians 'Orthodox' is incorrect from a mainstream Eastern Orthodox point of view—but this is the title they use for themselves so it is what it is. While some Eastern Orthodox Christians do lump Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox Christians together as monophysite churches, Oriental Orthodox Christians reject this label and distinguish themselves from Nestorians as miaphysite churches.

Concerning Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, the difference is that the latter accept only the first three ecumenical councils (Nicaea I, Constantinople I, & Ephesus I), while the former accept seven ecumenical councils. There are some Eastern Orthodox Christians who consider the controversy between Oriental Orthodox and themselves to be primarily semantic (and some dialogue has been made in the 20th century to reunite the churches, but full communion has not yet been restored), but officially they are not considered to be 'Orthodox' (despite their use of the title) as they were condemned as heretical for rejecting the fourth ecumenical council (Chalcedon).

In summary, officially Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that they are the only Church that can rightly be called 'Orthodox,' and thus Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox Christians are actually heterodox. Their refusal to accept these Church councils keeps them separated.


When did Peter become the first Pope, according to Roman Catholic doctrine? Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that the apostle Peter was the first Pope.  Exactly when did this occur?

I can imagine a few different options

When Jesus addressed Peter in Matthew:

  I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19 NASB

At the death of Christ
At the resurrection of Christ
At the reinstatement of Peter (John 21:15-17)
At the Ascension of Jesus
At Pentecost

So, that is the question.  At what specific time did Peter become the first Pope?  (I assume that this coincides with the point at which Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven as well.)

The birth of the Church was at Pentecost and Peter was definitely present and immediately made his presence felt as the vicar of Christ on Earth subsequent to the descent of the Holy Spirit on him and the other apostles and Our Lady in the upper room.

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them,
Acts 2:14 NABRE

But, the Pope, is the Bishop of Rome and after Peter's marvelous martyrdom, St. Linus was chosen as the next leader.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.
St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies 3.1.3

and after him came Cletus and Clement etc... until Francis and the collapse of humanity as we know it.
Oh, but I'm getting ahead of myself and so are you in this question.
I think the best sense to read some of what Jesus says to Peter is in the anagogical (eternal) sense.  Jesus even talks about Peter's death before it happens. There's no reason to think He's not also going to talk about his ministry before it happens. And after Peter's death, a lot of sacred scripture would have very little meaning if it didn't also apply in a very real sense to today and until the (imminent) end of the world.
So, I think you're right on all the points you make about when Peter's ministry begins.  When you want to call him Pope is up to you.  If you're talking about when he was able to proclaim Ex Cathedra, keep in mind he didn't have a chair to proclaim from.  And beyond that, even today, it's the Pope or the Pope in Communion with the Bishops, who make infallible magisterial teachings.
So, back then, Peter, Clement, John and James the less (as well as any other Apostles and Bishops in town) could have gotten together to figure out what to do with all the power they'd been given by Christ and all the trouble they were given by the emperors.


Are the teachers and prophets who laid hands on Saul & Barnabas in Acts13:1-3 ordained Bishops? Some Catholics justify St. Paul’s apostolic succession by citing Acts 13:1-3:

  Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

St. Paul’s testimony on Galatians 1:1-2 seems to contradict Acts 13:1-3:

  Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brothers and sisters with me

To clear out the contradiction, does the  Church have a record who ordained St. Paul or did St. Peter ordain St. Paul?

If no one from Apostles ordained St. Paul, then St. Paul testimony on Galatians 1:1 prevails.

Is there a clear explanation on this two passages?

”And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. - Acts 13:3”

The passage does not tell exactly what is the laying of hands. Is it a blessing prayer for their journey or a sacramental ceremony? Let’s take a look on what is says in this commentary below.

  Fasting and prayer, imposing their hands upon them. By which is clearly expressed, the manner in which the ministers of God were, and are still ordained bishops, priests, deacons in the Church. (Witham)
  Interpreters are much divided in opinion, whether this imposition of hands be a mere deputation to a certain employment, or the sacramental ceremony, by which orders are conferred. Sts. Chrysostom, Leo are of the latter opinion; nor does it any where appear that St. Paul was bishop before this. Arator, sub-deacon of the Church of Rome, who dedicated in the year 544 his version of the Acts of the Apostles into heroic verse to Pope Virgilius, attributes this imposition of hands to St. Peter:

  -Quem mox sacra it euntem Imposita Petrus ille manu, cui sermo magistri Omnia posse dedit.

  See his printed poems in 4to. Venice, an. 1502. Arator was sent in quality of ambassador from Athalaric to the emperor Justinian.
  Following the practice of the apostles, the Church of God ordains a solemn and general fast on the four public times for ordination, the ember days, as a necessary preparation for so great a work, and this St. Leo calls also an apostolical tradition. See St. Leog, serm. ix. de jejun. and ep. lxxxi. chap. 1. and serm. iii. and iv. de jejun. 7. mensis.
  Nor was this fasting a fasting from sin, as some ridiculously affirm, for such fasting was a universal obligation: nor was it left to each one's discretion, as certain heretics maintained. See St. Augustine, hæres. liii.

  George Leo

  “2. And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them.
  And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. - Acts 13:3”

Here is another commentary that explains further:

  What means, Ministering? Preaching. Separate for Me, it says, Barnabas and Saul. What means, Separate for Me? For the work, for the Apostleship. See again by what persons he is ordained (γυμνοτέρα . Cat. σεμνοτέρα, more awful.) By Lucius the Cyrenean and Manaën, or rather, by the Spirit. The less the persons, the more palpable the grace. He is ordained henceforth to Apostleship, so as to preach with authority. How then does he himself say, Not from men, nor by man? Galatians 1:1 Because it was not man that called or brought him over: this is why he says, Not from men. Neither by man, that is, that he was not sent by this (man), but by the Spirit. Wherefore also (the writer) thus proceeds: So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

  John Chrysostom


Why did priests begin to sacrifice? I attended a class on the Sacraments last night and the presenter was talking about how Bishops, priests and deacons were specifically mentioned in the NT. It made me wonder, how did Christians get their start putting constant and unchanging liturgical elements into their worship?  Most of all, how did early Christian presbyters learn to sacrifice.

I'm not asking so much how did newly minted Christians go from believers to those called to act "In persona Christi" as that's the work of the Holy Spirit and a direct reaction to Jesus' commands, but how did ordinary folks adopt the standards and practices for worship that were common only to the Levitical Priesthood?

Did they do it in imitation or were there actual Jewish Priests who converted and instructed the first Christian priests?

Remember that for the first century of Christianity, it was really difficult to distinguish Christianity from Judaism. See Acts 15, for example, where the Jews are being to accommodate Christian Gentiles.  As such, Jewish practices in the first century would have largely set the  tone for Christian worship.

Likewise, the book of Hebrews presents Christ as the sacrifice and the High Priest, and represents the earliest Christian understanding of sacrifice.

By the time of the Didache (one of the earliest Church Fathers - a "manual" that early Christians used to "do" church), we already see that early Christians were equating communion with sacrifice, as evidenced by this reference from Book Five:

  Now according to the Lord's day, gather together and break bread and give thanks, after acknowledging your wanderings to one another, so your sacrifice would be a clean one.

It wasn't until the late 300s AD that Gentiles outnumbered Jews, so "imitation" isn't really the right word. "Just doing what they've always done" might better describe it, but in reality, it is just an extension of existing practice.

The extension of this perogative to non-Jews would have been substantiated by Acts 10 (the Cornelius vision, declaring formerly unclean things clean), Acts 15 (the Apostles' letter saying that Gentiles were not subject to the restrictions of the law), and Galatians 3:26 (In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek...)

What made this accessible to the average person was the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, promulgated during the time of the Reformations.


does sword in Matthew 10.34 mean a branch? does sword in Matthew 10.34 mean a branch as in a branch of Judaism?

if one translates the Greek word sword (macherion) back into Hebrew it can mean a literal sword or figuratively it can mean a branch as in Isaiah 27.11

In the context of the Chapter, it seems more likely that here Jesus is actually talking about a sword as in "I bring unrest/war". Observe how he says

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.
(emphasis mine)

He actually talks about giving your life and turning on your family to follow him, so it is reasonably to say this is not a branch, but a sword in the metaphorical sense of non-peace or conflict.


Does the Bible espouse moral absolutism or moral relativism? I believe that throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament, the Bible espouses moral absolutism.

Yet, I recently read on this site a response to a question about slavery:

  As stated, slavery was a fact of the Ancient World, and so when the
  Bible addresses the topic, it should not be compared against the
  sensibilities of the modern world, but rather against the
  sensibilities of the ones to whom the Bible was addressed.

...

  It is an anachronism to apply questions of, for example, feminism
  or communism, to the Scriptures, because the original audience would
  have had no means of apprehending it as such.

If this statement is correct, then the Bible cannot appropriately speak to issues like slavery or women's rights because it was written in a different era. Therefore are we all left to interpret and filter the Bible through the lens of our current times and adopt moral relativism for ourselves?

P.S. Here's a quick refresher about the differences between moral relativism and moral absolutism.

I'd like to stand by by statement that it is an anachronism to judge the Scripture from modern biases.
One of the first rules of hermeneutics is that a text cannot mean today what it could not mean to the people who received it. This is a simple enough postulate, buttressed by the fact that not every word of God was for every time, and that the canon we retain consists of that which has proven to speak to all throughout the
ages. But, if it is to speak to us today, it had to have spoken to them then, too.
So, how then can we retain the fact that God is unchanging, and that the moral rules he laid down are transcendent?  We need to remember that God and Man are different.
1. God doesn't change, but people do
First and foremost, God doesn't change, but we do.  Imagine, if you will, one of those cheap holograms that they used to put in kid's cereal boxes.  You could hold the hologram completely still, but depending on your position, it could display two different images.  Even if God is unchanging, very few people would argue that we do. The problems that we face in the 21st Century are different from the problems that we faced in the 1st. Oddly enough, the Bible has nothing to say about the morality of nuclear power! Why? becuase any explanation would have been nonsensical to the original recipients.
The way in which we face our problems also dictates the way in which we will face God. If God were distant, the parallax would make the movement irrelevant. But God is close, and God is involved. As such, he will necessarily appear different, if he has stayed put and we have moved.
In the 1st Century, slavery was a fact of life. As such, it made sense to say, "if you're going to have slaves, treat them well."  That implied "if" is a very different beast then "you should have slaves."  In the milennia before Christ, it was permissible to have multiple wives, and so the injunction was given, if you have multiple wives, treat them all well.  That was not a command to marry multiple times by any stretch either. But in an age where silence is now equated with acquiensence, it will appear to us like a tacit endorsement. But to say that is not to make a statement about God, but rather about where we are.
Remember also that laws & principles can remain constant while their interpretation varies.  In 1787, the writers of the Constitution said that Congress should not make any law regarding the establishment of a religion or to prohibit the free exercise thereof.  That had a very specific meaning - In Virginia, the Anglican / Episcopal Church was the established church of Virginia.  The government collected taxes on its behalf, outsourced the institution of marriage, and generally proscribed that all citizens be members of that church.  Nowadays, it doesn't even occur to us to set up a federal church.  And yet, the United States interprets that clause to mean that schools cannot lead prayers, and the City of New York wants to interpret that to mean that churches cannot even pay rent to the school system to use vacant buildings on Sunday mornings. George Mason himself would have been bowled over at such a suggestion. The principle of antiestablishmentarianism itself is  thus absolute, even if its application bears no resemeblance to its former practice.
Finally, the Gospel is not a set of laws any way. It is a message that a gracious God loves us in spite of our sin.  That we are better at following certain laws at certain times and worse in others should be obvious.  Did Christians in the United States sin by holding slaves in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries? Amen, yes, we did.  Did we ignore the principle that before God we are equaly? Amen, God have have mercy.  But I wonder what our great-great-granchildren we think of us.  Did we sin by driving cars like Hummers that were built in total disregard of the command that God gave us to be good stewards of the earth? Its a valid question.  I suspect in the years to come people will be asking how one can be a Christian given our long track record of being such rapacious stewards of the planet we were given to tend.
And yet, I don't think the absolute morality has changed.
2. From God's perspective, we're all sinners anyway. From our perspective, there are only degrees
From God's perspective, we're all sinners anyway. As Isaiah says,

Even our righteousness is as filthy rags.

In God's eyes, we're all sinners anyway. Much of the "law" we have been given is merely to mitigate against the fact, and minimize the harm we do to one another.
The Pharisees asked Jesus if it was ok to divorce a woman.  They knew full well that God "hates divorce" (Malachi) and wanted to trap Jesus.  But Jesus explained the whole purpose of divorce - divorce is totally legal, but not at all desirable.  As Jesus said, divorce was given "because of the hardness of your heart!"  I think we can unequivocally say that God hates slavery, for the reasons in my previous answer.  But he also is willing to meet us where we are.
Our laws, however, recognize that because man is so fallen, there are degrees of punishment that are appropriate. No more than a tooth should be taken for a tooth. No more than an eye may be taken for an eye.  The punishment for a double-homicide is necessarily different from the one for double-parking.  Just because one is not punished for doing a bad thing doesn't make it right. As Jesus said in Matthew 5:45,

"the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike."

Mere silence on the morality of slavery is not equivelant to support.
The incarnation is such a supreme act of love, because it is a holy God, in whose presence sin can not stand, doing everything He can to reach out to sinners.
Absolutely, He does not change. But relatively speaking, He will do everything He can to be with us, to take us where we are and fit us for where He would have us be.


What is the most accurate calculation of Jesus' birth date? I am trying to develop an accurate historical timeline (expressed on the Gregorian calendar) that includes the events surrounding the annunciation, birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I have come across a number of speculations in the 4-6 BC range for his birth, in the 25-30 AD range for the onset of his ministry, and in the 29-33 AD range for his crucifixion. I believe a persistent error in our Western tradition of designating Good Friday as the day of his crucifixion and Easter Sunday as the day he rose from the grave has developed as the result of a misunderstanding about when during the week the special Passover Sabbath occurred that year. Friday evening to Sunday morning does not reconcile with what Jesus said about being in the earth for 3 nights and 3 days before rising again (see proposed alternate scenario here). This error could contribute to a number of other miscalculations about the dates I am looking for.

Can any of you help me clarify the date problem and narrow this down further? Thanks!

The reason you are not finding accurate dates for the events of Jesus' birth, ministry and death is that nobody knows.

As you have seen, there are estimates, but the figures you quote are as accurate as it gets. The gospel writers did not see fit to tell us exact dates, presumably because they did not consider it important.

You can of course find people who claim to have worked out the exact dates, but they are not widely accepted.


Who wrote the Sub Tuum Praesidium? The Sub Tuum Praesidium is the oldest known hymn to the Virgin Mary, dating back to somewhere between 250-280. Has any Saint or Church Father ever been ascribed as being the author of this prayer?

As far as research on this goes, I couldn't find a single source which ascribes this prayer to any particular church father, and I doubt any church father is the author.

I found an interesting article on this prayer and its origins. You can find it here.

It says,

  "Besides the Greek text, ancient versions can be found in Coptic, Syriac, Armenian & Latin.
  In Latin, the version used by the Roman rite has surely been done directly on the Coptic version of the text
  (like in Coptic, it uses the term
  præsidium
   instead of
  misericordia
  ) without going through the Greek. The
  Ambrosian form of the text closer depends on the Byzantine tradition"

It would appear from this that the Greek version is the original, but there are others versions used close to that time.

As to its use in the liturgy at the time of its writing:

  _"The antiphon was used at vespers during Christmas time in the Coptic liturgy. It is also known in Byzantine,
  Roman and Ambrosian rites. In each of these rites, though venerable & ancient, the
  Sub tuum præsidium
   has
  a discreet place, very marginal one might say

  ...

  Historically, the oldest evidence of the use of
  Sub tuum
   in the Roman rite is found in the antiphonal of
  Compiègne (from the IX-Xth century), which provides it among the Benedictus antiphons for the Feast of the
  Assumption (Migne, PL 78, 799)..."_

As to the dating of the papyri itself and thus most likely the prayer itself, it says

  "[it has been dated] from the fourth
  century, thinking it was impossible to find an invocation to the
  Theotokos
   before this century (we’ll see below,
  however, that the expression
  Theotokos
   was in use in Alexandria before 250). But his colleague E. Lobel, with
  whom he collaborated in editing the Oxyrhynchus papyri, based on pure paleographic analysis, said the text
  can not possibly be later than the third century, probably dating between 250 & 280".

Of course you gave the dating in your question but there really are no resources on who actually is the author, especially none showing that a church father was the author.


Eschatology, views and best commentaries. Best scriptures for each view I am a Historical premillenial who sometimes believes amillenial as well. I have studied the main four views and I am settled here. But I do waiver constantly between a literal millennium where resurrected people live among normal people. So my question is what verses in the bible speak of a literal millennial kingdom?

Does anyone have a really convincing logical or biblical argument about this ?
'This' being, I sincerely hope, the Lord's return.

'This' is exactly the problem, I find personally : that so much consideration of what is termed 'eschatology' is about complex formulations regarding the future : the future of the world, of what presently professes to be 'Jewish', of what presently professes to be 'Christian' and what presently consists, largely, of nations in conflict.
What is forgotten in many of these schemes - is the Lord himself and his return.
What is forgotten, often, is the first five words of the Apocalypse written by the Apostle John :

The Revelation of Jesus Christ. [Revelation 1:1, KJV.]

It is he who is revealed in the 'unveiling' and it shall be he who is revealed at the end of time. He, himself, personally.
And what is so often forgotten are the words of Jesus himself about the future :

Take heed that no man deceive you ... [Matthew 24:4, KJV.]
... be ye also ready ... [Matthew 24:44, KJV.]

So many schemes are, in fact, deceptive, because they take the mind off of Christ and into a labyrinth of complications about the future. And they dissuade one from being 'ready'.
The most convincing logical and biblical argument I know of (which is the crux of the above question) is to be ready for the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ : whatever is happening in the world, or in Israel, or in the spectrum of Christian profession, or in the heavens, or on the earth.
(After all is said and done, I may not live another hour to contemplate these happenings, in any case.)
To be ready, personally, in my own walk, my own conduct, my own prayers, my own deeds and my own words (which includes these ones) knowing that all of it will be judged and scrutinized, as it must be according to many scriptures.
And to be ready, corporately, in all my relationships, my associations, my affiliations and all my interactions, knowing that all of these, also, will be judged and scrutinized, as it must be, according to many scriptures.