What is the significance of Donum Veritatis if applied to Dubia Cardinals and Dissenting Clergy? The Filial Correction petition on Amoris Laetetia filed by numerous priest, theologians and other lay person failed because they do not follow the evangelical guidelines of Donum Veritatis.

In below article Cardinal Muller made a remarks;

  "The defender of the right Catholic doctrine and of the people of God".  With these words one of the main critics of the pontificate of Francis, the journalist Antonio Socci, rightly celebrated, some time ago, the current prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Ratzingerian Gerhard Ludwig Müller.

Just last night, the cardinal Müller did his job and intervened (the video below) during the "Vatican Rooms" program of Tgcom24:

  "a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me very far, it
  is not possible at this time because it is not a danger for the faith,
  as St. Thomas said. Amoris Laetitia is very clear in his doctrine
  and we can interpret the whole doctrine of Jesus on marriage, the
  whole doctrine of the Church in 2000 years of history".

The German cardinal Brandmüller has, however, stated that Burke did not speak as a "spokesman" of the set of four cardinals, but expressed "full autonomy in its opinion, which certainly could be shared as well by other cardinals'. In any case, he reminded his colleague that any "correction" will have to "take place in the caritatis room". So not publicly. A suitable warning, Müller himself explained:

  "The cardinals have the right to write a letter to the Pope. I was
  amazed because it became public, forcing the Pope to say yes or no. I
  do not like this . It is damaging for the Church to discuss these
  things publicly." - Il card. Müller: «Amoris Laetitia è chiara nella dottrina, i dubia non servono»

What is the significance of Donum Veritatis if applied to Dubia Cardinals and Dissenting Clergy?

Background

The Donum Veritatis is a church document meant to guide the Ecclesial Vocation of Theologians and it also contains the evangelical guidelines in case a Theologian encounters difficulty in assenting to Church Teaching.  The Donum Veritatis does not address the lay faithful who also were expressing dissent.

The Donum Veritatis was approved by the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith  and signed by the Cardinal Ratzinger on May 24, 1990 (he was then the Prefect).

To answer the question

The significance of the Donum Veritatis is best seen in the outline of the document in addressing a Theological Dissent below;

  Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

  The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)

  When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.
  Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.
  In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.
  Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.
  The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.

  Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.
  In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.
  If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.

  In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

The full text of Donum Veritatis is available on the Vatican website.

Taking the words "the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", this had been the error if we cite the petitioner "Correctio Filialis" and also the "Dubia Cardinals" who use the media to express a contradictory view. Beyond that, some of the Dissenters even accused Pope Francis of teaching heresy which clearly violated the evangelical guidelines of Donum Veritatis.

It is worth mentioning Cardinal Caffara's words whom before his death met Pope Francis and reconciled. Cardinal Caffara's words is an important reminders to all Bishops who are openly opposing the Pope approved Magisterial Teaching.

  «I was born Papist, I lived as a Papist, and I mean to die a Papist! If a Bishop has a thought contrary to that of the Pope» – he concluded: «he must go away, but really he must go away from the diocese. Because he would lead the faithful into a path that is not the one of Jesus Christ anymore. Therefore, he would lose himself eternally and would risk the eternal loss of the faithful».

  Card. Caffarra: «Let who is against the Pope go away; he will lose himself»

In this article written by Dawn Eden Goldstein and Robert L. Fastiggi describes the failure of petitioner of Correctio Filialis and the Dubia Cardinals to adhere to evangelical guidelines written in Donum Veritatis.

  The supporters of the Correctio and other critics of Amoris laetitia often try to contrast what Pope Francis says in this exhortation to teachings of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It is interesting, therefore, to note that many of these same critics fail to follow the guidelines for theologians published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1990 when John Paul II was pope and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Benedict XVI, was prefect of the CDF. These guidelines are contained in the instruction, Donum veritatis (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian) (3) — a document that traditionalist opponents of Amoris laetitia, such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (4), ironically claim to hold in high esteem.

  Donum veritatis was issued to explain the need for Catholic theologians to maintain communion with the Magisterium of the Church. Building upon Vatican II’s Lumen gentium §37 and Canon 212§3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Donum veritatis does recognize that theologians might have problems with certain magisterial teachings (5). If these problems persist, “the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented (6).” The theologian, however, “should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties (7).”

  Critics of Amoris laetitia might argue that, in making their petitions to the Pope and signing the Correctio filialis, they are doing exactly what Donum veritatis charges them to do. In what follows, we hope to show that the critics of Amoris laetitia have not properly followed the guidelines set forth in that document.

  Donum veritatis §24 instructs theologians “to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the [magisterial] interventions (8). The Correctio filialis fails to do this. Instead, it catalogues comments made by Pope Francis in press conferences, private letters, etc., without taking into account the authoritativeness of these statements and their context (9). It also cites statements by papal associates and appointees.

  In loading down their petition with cherry-picked statements bearing little or no magisterial authority, the Correctio authors seem intent upon discrediting the Holy Father and his intentions. Can such an approach truly reflect “an evangelical spirit” and “a profound desire to resolve the difficulties” with Amoris laetitia (10)?

  Pope’s critics ignore Ratzinger’s rules for theological discourse

In closing, the theological dissenters of Amoris Laetetia is also applicable to those theologians who also expressed opposition to changes in the CCC 2267 Death Penalty Doctrinal changes approved by Pope Francis which the Congregation of Doctrine of Faith upheld does not contradicts any previous teachings.

It is also worth mentioning Pope Francis calling all the Dissenters to conversion as the key to enlighten their confusions.  Why conversion? It is biblical citing the Great Dubia of all the Apostles in the Bread of Life discourse on which all of them are tempted to leave Jesus Christ too.

Did Jesus clarified the Great Dubia that the apostles experienced? NO!

Jesus knew that the Holy Spirit role is to pour out Her Sevenfold Gifts and this is the key to clear out the confusions. But, the Apostles can only receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon conversion. And so, we can see in the Book of Acts that the Theotokos led all the Apostles in the spirit of prayer and conversion to prepare their hearts for the gifts. The Pentecost experience is the key and all the Apostles were enlighten as they become docile to the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, Pope Francis imploring conversion to all Dissenters pointed clearly to biblical experienced of the Apostles and must be heed. As the Church Tradition in Luke 10:16 teaches:

  "The voice of Peter is the Voice of Christ and whoever reject the voice of Pope Francis rejected the Voice of Christ Himself." (Luke 10:16)


Was Islam originally considered to be a Christian sect? There is some speculation that Islam was originally considered to be a sect of Christianity by those who claimed to be Christians, rather than a separate religion (e.g., Hinduism, Jainism). Do any early sources during the formative years of Islam make such an assertion?

Muslims certainly don't believe Islam to be a Christian sect, but the Christians can easily fit it into the "Christian sect" fold as they have done it with the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, since if Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons can be classified as Christians then Islam also qualifies better for the Christians to qualify it as a Christian sect. So why keep Islam out?

Islam isn't, nor has it been considered a Christian sect, either by Muslims, or by Christians.

An article here argues that Islam is a Christian Heresy:

  Belloc states "It began as a heresy, not as a new religion....It was a
  perversion of the Christian religion...an adaptation and a misuse of
  the Christian thing."

But there is a distinction to be made. Further reading:

  Unlike all the other heresiarchs "[T]he chief heresiarch, Mohammed
  himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth, and
  doctrine to begin with.  He sprang from pagans.  But that which he
  taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified.  It was the
  great Catholic world - on the frontiers of which he lived, whose
  influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by
  travel-which

A Christian sect would be a sect that sprang out of Christianity at some point.  Islam does not meet this definition.  Instead, Mohammad borrowed some teachings from Christianity.

Or, if you want to phrase it differently, you could say that there is a commonality between Christianity and Islam, but that commonality is not based on Islam evolving from Christianity (as a sect would do) but rather that there is simply commonality due to similar beliefs.

As for the article saying that Islam is a Christian Heresy, it might be more accurate to state that Islam is partially based on Mohammad borrowing or agreeing with teachings that Christianity considers heretical.


Does one have to admit to not being a virgin when preparing for a Catholic wedding? If - say as the result of a pre-cana course - the priest finds out one of the parties is not a virgin can the church then deny a marriage application? Does the priest have the liberty to ask? Does one have the liberty not to answer the question and still continue the pre-cana?

Go make a sacramental confession with a Priest other than the one conducting your Pre-Cana, and after the confession ask him. But I don't believe that the Priest is allowed to ask, but I don't believe the Church would withhold the Sacrament. Lack of virginity is not a reason for withholding the sacrament, for one can marry after the first spouse has died, and they would obviously not be a virgin.

And, just to clarify, intercourse with someone doesn't make you married to them. Unmarried, non-virgins can definitely marry in the Catholic Church.


How do Trinitarians interpret Jesus's statement that "I live because of the Father"? Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
the one who feeds on me will live because of me (John 6:57)

This statement by Jesus seems to insinuate that Jesus derives his life from the Father. How is this interpreted in the context of the Trinity that Jesus is co-equal with the Father?

Orthodox Trinitarians believe that the Son and the Spirit are eternally dependant on the Father, just as the heat and light of the fire are distinct from one another, contemporaneous with, yet dependant on, the fire. Just as the light can say "I live because of the fire" the Son can say "I live because of the Father." Yet there is no fire without the heat or light — no Father without the Son, nor vice versa.
If this weren't true, whence would the Son derive His life? If He derived it elsewhere, He would be another God from the Father, having life apart from the Father. Which cannot be and which contradicts His express teaching.


According to Reformed theology, when did the New Covenant start? When instituting the Lord's Supper, Jesus Christ said (Luke 22:20, NIV):

  In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup
  is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

And in Jeremiah 31 the new covenant is also mentioned, with the blessings of the covenant listed.  Hebrews 8 talks about the new covenant superceding the old in some way (the details of which perhaps I will put in another question).

At which stage did this new covenant supersede the older covenant, according to Reformed theology?

Reformed theology's view of the "covenants" of scripture is that they are administrations of a single covenant, a covenant of grace.  Thus the "new covenant" that Christ talks about is seen as something that in many ways had existed long prior.  As Louis Berkhof writes:

The covenant of grace, as it is revealed in the New Testament, is essentially the same as that which governed the relation of Old Testament believers to God.  [...] If it is sometimes spoken of as a new covenant, this is sufficiently explained by the fact that its administration differs in several particulars from that of the Old Testament. (Systematic Theology, 2.3.5.C)

The differences that Berkhof sees in the "new covenant" are its universal nature, its greater emphasis on grace, and its richer blessings.  But in essence it is the same covenant as that given to Abraham, Moses, and others.  So strictly speaking, while the "new covenant" begins in the New Testament with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, it is essentially the same covenant as the "old covenant" that preceded it.
Robert Reymond agrees, and quotes John Murray:

The blessings of the covenant of grace which believers enjoy today under the sanctions of the New Testament economy are founded upon the covenant which God made with Abraham.  Said another way, the "new covenant" itself is simply the administrative "extension and unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant." (ST, ch 14)

Reymond refers to Hebrews 8 to argue that the Mosaic tabernacle foreshadows the "true, heavenly Tabernacle into which Christ himself entered with his own blood as the redeemed man's High Priest."  Reymond specifically sees the incarnation and crucifixion as foundations of the "new covenant":

Christ's "entrance into the heavenly sanctuary" occurred when he assumed his high priestly role as Mediator of the new covenant at the incarnation, and the Most Holy Place was his cross! (ST, ch 14)

John Frame helpfully explains how this "new covenant" is "time transcending" – how it has beginning in Christ but its efficacy extends into the past:

The new covenant does have a temporal inauguration.  Covenants are typically inaugurated by the shedding of blood, and that is certainly the case with the new covenant, by the blood of Christ, the blood that fulfills all the blood of bulls and goats in the other covenants. [...]
Nevertheless, as we saw earlier, the efficacy of the new covenant, unlike that of previous covenants, extends to God's elect before Jesus' atonement.  When believers in the OT experienced "circumcision of the heart," or when they were Jews "inwardly," they were partaking of the power of the new covenant. (ST, 80)

So to summarize – Reformed theologians see the "new covenant" as an administration of the more general "covenant of grace," and in essence identical to the covenants laid out in the Old Testament.  But while it applies to all of redemptive history, the "new covenant" has its historical inauguration in the life and particularly the death of Christ on the cross.


According to Mormons, what is the benefit received from paying tithes and following the temple ceremonies? This is related to this other question regarding the Mormon view of the passage in Matthew 7:13-14. In this passage Jesus had said that majority of humankind would follow the road that "leadeth to destruction".

According to Mormons, "destruction" here means not attaining the blessings of the Celestial Kingdom (i.e. the highest level of the 3 heavens); instead, most of humankind will reach either the Telestial or Terrestial Kingdoms.

The question is, if most of humankind will reach some level of blessings (just not the highest level) by doing largely nothing for it, then what is the benefit of faithfully paying tithes and following the temple ceremonies?

Expanding on my comment of

who wants 2nd or 3rd place prize/reward when anyone can have the 1st place prize

The degrees of glory are described in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

Mormons belive the Celestial kingdom is like the sun, the Terrestrial is like the moon, and the Telestial is like the starts; as a comparison of glory. The Mormons believe that anyone can attain the Celestial Kingdom, which is the only kingdom where we (man) can continue to progress and where we can be in Heavenly Father's (God) and Jesus Christ's presence forever.
I want to answer this question by asking a question in return: Why wouldn't you want to receive all the blessings God has in store for you? God has given us everything and all he asks in return is 10% (tithing) in return and to keep His commandments which he will then bless us for keeping. Man has agency, so it is up to you what commandments to follow or not, and you will be rewarded for what commandments you keep.
See also
Kingdoms of Glory


What is the importance of reading the Bible personally in Catholicism? What is the importance of reading the Bible in Catholicism?

Can a Catholic anticipate going to heaven by only attending the masses and going to Confession, but never read the Bible at home?

Does reading the Bible have the same importance as attending the mass?

Let's not discuss about the past here. I am interested in the present-day official teaching of the Roman Catholic church. I believe that nowadays there is a Bible in the house of every Catholic family.

Edited to respond to the new version of the question.

Catholics, like other Christians, do not believe that going through certain rituals (such as mass and confession) get you to heaven. They believe that there is benefit from doing those things, but they are not the criteria for salvation. So to respond to your edited question

Catholics do not believe that attending mass and going to confession will get you to heaven, nor will doing those things with bible reading. No Christian denomination that I am aware of believes those things. Salvation comes through the saving power of Jesus Christ.

To respond more generally about Bible Study as necessary for salvation:

A moment's reflection will reveal that such a demand would be ridiculously burdensome. As lonesomeday says, for hundreds or thousands of years the average person was not able to read, and had no books - Bible or otherwise. Even today there are countries where the literacy rate is low enough that such a rule would condemn millions of people to Hell purely because of lack of education. That is to say nothing of people who have no Bible translation in their own language, or simply cannot afford books. Or are blind. It is also extremely hard to imagine a person locked in an oppressive prison without access to books, hearing and accepting the good news from a fellow prisoner, would be denied salvation simply because no written copy of the Bible was available.


What is the biblical basis for both tithing and offering in the New Covenant, instead of just offering? Based on the following passages, it's my understanding that The New Testament clearly supports offering:
2 Corinthians 9 (NIV):

6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9 As it is written:
“They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor;
their righteousness endures forever.”
10 Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. 11 You will be enriched in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.

Acts 2:44-47 (NIV):

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Acts 4:32-35 (NIV):

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Acts 24:17 (NIV):

17 “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings.

However, many denominations claim that Christians are expected to give both tithes and offerings, not just offerings (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4).

Question: What is the biblical basis for claims that Christians are expected to give both tithes and offerings in the New Covenant, instead of just offering?

You asked specifically about the New Covenant, where tithing is mentioned only once.
Matthew 23:23 NKJV
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin,
and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.
These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

In other words, they should have tithed and practiced the "weightier matters". It's up to you to decide whether that means it still applies today or not. There isn't a 100% consensus but most Christians tend to believe that tithing still applies.
As for the difference between tithes and offerings, I'll draw the comparison. Offerings require conscious generosity as you cited above - in contrast, tithing is a prescribed amount. Paying a tithe means literally to pay a tenth. Tithe Etymology
Obviously there's no room for being generous or making such decisions if you're simply paying a predetermined 1/10th amount. The distinction seems clear. The only real argument is the question of Matthew 23:23 itself.


Is Eastern Orthodox Christianity against doing yoga or meditation? I've heard opposite opinions on this (for example, in an interview with Christine Mangala Frost) and I was wondering about it.

So is Eastern Orthodox Christianity against doing yoga or meditation?

I don't think there is any council-wide declaration about this, but most of the clergy will advise against such practices. To see why, we need to look into the traditional orthodox spirituality (hesychasm).

The Holy Fathers put a complete and definitive set of spiritual practices which include fasting, remembrance of death, remembrance of own sins, Jesus' prayer, reciting psalms, prostrations, sitting during some prayers, standing during others etc.

Orthodox Christianity strongly states that there is a strong bound between orthodoxy (correct faith) and orthopraxy (correct practices). As shown during the hesychast controversy these practices are really important and their results are not merely physical.

With this looking for the school of meditation and psycho-physical practices outside the orthodox tradition; from religious and spiritual traditions that have different than Christianity views on human salvation is unjustified.


Is Xmas a secular name for Christmas? I heard that Xmas is a secular way of "taking Christ out of Christmas".  When and why did this practice originate?  Is there any truth to the claim that it has a secular or "un-Christian" origin?

Word origin
As stated in previous answers, the "X" in "Xmas" comes from the Greek word for Christ, Χριστός.  However, since precision is important, I want to clarify when the abbreviation was first used in English.  The 1511 date comes from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for ''Xmas'', which reads:
 1551   in E. Lodge Illustr. Brit. Hist. (1791) I. 145   From X'temmas next following.
c1755   in B. Ward Hist. St. Edmund's Coll. (1893) 303   In ye Xmas and Whitsuntide  Vacations.
 1799   S. T. Coleridge Let. to R. Southey 24 Dec. (1956) I. 552   My Xstmas Carol is a quaint performance.   1801   S. T. Coleridge Let. 31 Dec. (1956) II. 778   On Xmas Day I breakfasted with Davy.
 1875   S. G. Thomas in R. W. Burnie Mem. & Lett. (1891) 55   We are not going to have any Xmas festivities or visitors of any kind.

For those unfamiliar with OED the format is original publication date, work (year of printing consulted), page, quote.  As you can see, the form from 1551 is actually X'temmas.  The OED has made a judgement call that this form is closely enough related to Xmas to count.  The first usage of the exact letting Xmas is 1755.
This is an interesting judgement because it appears X'temmas is actually a unique formulation and not a shortening of the then-current word for Christmas, Cristmas (according to the OED entry for Christmas).
However, the twelfth century (so Old English) form of Christmas, Cristes mæsse ("Christ's mass", OED, from Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1134), actually does have an attested shorter form, Xp̃es. mæssan (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1123).  (Xp=Chi rho, the first two letters in Χριστός.)  The Dictionary of Misinformation (1975), however, suggests that the Xp̃es form is actually the originally form of the word which was then lengthened into Cristes.  I believe the OED agrees with that judgement by listing Xp̃es. mæssan under the Christmas entry instead of the Xmas entry.
The use of Χ as an abbreviation for Χριστός dates back to some of the earliest extant Greek manuscripts, in the third century, by the way.
So, the answer to the question is, it depends on how you consider the history of the word.  In one sense, something like X mass was the original English way of rendering the holiday, which was then lengthened in the twelfth century and shortened again in the sixteenth, with the exact modern lettering not appearing until the eighteenth century.  So, before 1123, around 1511, or around 1755 are all valid answers to the question as to when Xmas first appeared, depending on how one decides if something is the same word or not.
"Secular" claim origin
In contrast, the claim that Xmas is a secularization of Christmas is pretty recent.  It seems likely that C.S. Lewis was the first to (indirectly) popularize the idea.  In 1955, he wrote a satirical essay called "Xmas and Christmas: A Lost Chapter from Herodotus" which contrasted "Exmas," a holiday devoted to drinking and commercialism and "Crissmas," a religious holiday which just happened to occur on the same day.  Although his intent was not to attack the abbreviation of "Xmas," his association of "Exmas" with commercialism seems to have entered (or captured the existing) the public conscious, as attacks on the "unholy" abbreviation start appearing in Christian publications shortly thereafter.
Conclusion
The origin of Xmas has nothing to due with secularism.  The next time someone claims you are "taking the Christ out of Christmas" tell them you are actually "putting the chi back into chi-rho-mass."


Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church? What's the official name (if any) of the teaching that the soul of a man exists even before he is conceived and that at the moment of conception his soul gets simply "connected" to his newly conceived body as opposed to the idea of the soul of a man being created at that very moment?

Is it true that this teaching was deemed by the Church (Catholic or Orthodox or by the Church before 1054) as a heresy and, thus, was condemned?

EDIT:
In case it is important, I am talking about the teaching that the soul of each human was at one point created by God - perhaps, all of the humans' souls were created at once - prior to his or her physical birth on this earth.

Sounds like you are referring to the idea of the pre-existence of souls.  This idea is lumped with "Origenism". Check this thread out here:  What is " Origenism"
This is an excerpt from orthodoxwiki.org/Apocatastasis:

The anathemas of the local Council of Constantinople in 453, which is understood by most commentators to be confirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, posthumously excommunicated Origen and anyone following specific points of his teachings. These anathemas condemned his protology of pre-existent souls and his eschatology of universal restoration of all things "which follows from" his protology:

If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it:  let him be anathema. (First anathema against Origen)


What are the effects of a Church Tax in Germany on Catholics? How common is income tax diversion to Catholic Churches in the world? In the USA, we usually just contribute according to our means or desires, nothing is automatic and our contributions are certainly not tied to our ability to receive the sacraments.

If an individual is registered as a Catholic in Germany, 8-9% of their income tax goes to the Church. The only way they can stop paying the tax is to make an official declaration renouncing their membership. They are no longer allowed to receive the sacraments or a Catholic burial.
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/survey-one-in-three-catholics-in-germany-thinking-of-leaving-church

Seems like this information ought to be highlighted in the Taxation in Germany wiki but it is mentioned here.
Whose idea was this and how does it square with canon law?  Is there still a collection taken at Mass in Germany?  Does it drive people away from the Church by giving them a financial incentive to leave the faith or do they find it a convenient way to give?

The question as posed gives a distorted impression of what the "Kirchensteuer" actually can and cannot do. This is the information from one of the largest German Tax consultancy companies (WWKN) in English:

In Germany, on the basis of tax regulations passed by the communities and within the limits set by state laws, communities may either

require the taxation authorities of the state to collect the fees from the members on the basis of income tax assessment (then, the authorities withhold a collection fee), or
choose to collect the church tax themselves.

In the first case, membership in the community is entered onto a tax document (Lohnsteuerkarte) which employees must surrender to their employers for the purpose of withholding tax on paid income. If membership in a tax-collecting religious community is entered on the document, the employer must withhold church tax prepayments from the income of the employee in addition to other tax prepayments. In connection with the final annual income tax assessment, the state revenue authorities also finally assess the church tax owed. In the case of self-employed persons or of unemployed taxpayers, state revenue authorities collect prepayments on the church tax together with prepayments on the income tax.
If, however, religious communities choose to collect church tax themselves, they may demand that the tax authorities reveal taxation data of their members to calculate the contributions and prepayments owed. In particular, some smaller communities (e.g. the Jewish Community of Berlin) choose to collect taxes themselves to save collection fees the government would charge otherwise.
The church tax is only paid by members of the respective church. People who are not members of a church tax-collecting denomination do not have to pay it. Members of a religious community under public law may formally declare their wish to leave the community to state (not religious) authorities. With such a declaration, the obligation to pay church taxes ends. Some communities refuse to administer marriages and burials of (former) members who had declared to leave it.
Taxpayers, whether Roman Catholic, Protestant or members of other tax-collecting communities, pay between 8 percent (in Bavaria and Baden-Wuerrttemberg) and 9 percent (in the rest of the country) of their income tax to the church or other community to which they belong.

So the law explicitly says churches may tax their members, it is not an obligation from the state. Therefore, whether or not it has a negative effect on church membership and how to react on this is entirely in the hands of the clergy. This being said, the majority of churches in all regions of Germany tax their members. About 70% of church revenues come from church tax (Kirchensteuer) in Germany. This was about 9.2 billion euro in 2010.
These religious communities collect a church tax in Germany:

The Evangelical Church (Evangelische Kirche)
The Roman Catholic Church (Römisch-katholische Kirche)
The Jewish Community (Jüdische Gemeinde)
The Old Catholic Church (Altkatholische Kirche)
Various Free Religious communities (Freireligiöse Gemeinden)

As to the origins: giving a share of one’s income to the church has been a part of European tradition for centuries. Today, several countries continue to collect a “church tax” on behalf of officially recognized religious organizations, in some cases levying the tax on all registered members.1 These payments add up to billions of euros annually and represent the biggest source of revenue for many religious institutions.
Contrary to @Zippy2006's comment: in 2012, the Catholic church officially announced they will refuse sacraments and rituals for those that leave the church, which is the only way to stop paying the Kirchensteuer. Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, the president of the German bishops' conference, said that not paying taxes for the church is a grave offense, and that sacraments will be banned for those who distance themselves from the church. Many Germans have considered this decree a threat of excommunication.
According to Pew Research, growing numbers of people have been opting out of the tax by formally deregistering from their churches, perhaps another sign of secularization in the region. Some European advocates for greater distance between church and state argue that church tax systems violate freedom of religion and have called for their abolition. The Church tax law is under scrutiny from the EU for this reason, as it allows for the taxation of immigrants who were baptized in their country of origin but register as atheist in Germany.
Germany is not the only country in Europe that has a Church Tax law. It's also not the country with the highest rates of people stopping to pay the tax:

The church tax is however not the main driver behind the fall in European religiosity, as this graph from Pew research indicates, comparing religiosity and attendance in European countries with and without a state church tax:


What information do we have on the real vision of Pope Leo XIII? There are a lot of stories, like this one about the vision of Pope Leo XIII which prompted him to write the prayer to Archangel Michael. Stories of a conversation between Jesus and Satan, often being tied to Second Vatican Council etc.

However, what true historical information do we have on the vision? Are there any official documents as to the content of the vision?

It appears we have no true historical information on the alleged vision of Pope Leo XIII.  The Global Catholic Network says that in 1934 a German writer, Father Bers, investigated the origins of the story of Leo’s vision. “Wherever one looks,” he observed, “one may find this claim — but nowhere a trace of proof.” Father Bers quoted a priest who visited with Leo XIII when the prayer was instituted in 1886:

  When the prayers which the priest says after Mass were being instituted, I happened to have a short audience with the Holy Father. During the conversation Leo XIII mentioned what he was going to prescribe and recited all the prayers from memory. This he did with such deep-seated conviction of the power of the cosmic rulers of this darkness and of the beguilement which they cause, that I was quite struck by it.

Father Bers concluded:

  Therefore it can be safely assumed that the Holy Father would have spoken of the vision if he had had it — or that at least the reporter would have mentioned it — since it would have been most relevant to the general purport of the statement. Consequently, the argument “from silence” seems to indicate clearly that the “vision” had been invented in later times for some reason, and was now feeding upon itself “like a perpetual sickness.”

The article goes on to summarise the problems with associating the supposed vision with the institution of the St. Michael prayer:

Writings which promote the story give no references to sources.
The various accounts contradict each other as to where the vision
supposedly took place — after Mass at the foot of the altar, or in a
conference with cardinals.
The various accounts are inconsistent about the date of the vision.
The dates the accounts give for the alleged vision (1880, 1884 and
1888) do not correspond with the date when the St. Michael prayer was
actually instituted (1886).
There appears to be no corroboration for the story in a contemporary
account which one would expect to have mentioned the event, had it
indeed taken place.


What is (the source of) this quote about God's turning any evil into good? This is a quote-identification, except I don't actually know the quote. So bear with me, please. It's something like

  There is no sin so great that God could not turn it to good.

or

  The greatest trick God played on the devil was turning everything he did to good.

or something like that. (Though the second is obviously colored by The Usual Suspects.)

I suspect it's an aphorism from someone like Balthasar Gracian (not him, though) or Meister Eckhart, or it's a quote from Augustine or Francis (any--pick your favorite), or some famous teacher or commentator summarizing/paraphrasing one of the greats.

It could be related to or derived from either of Gn 50:20 or Romans 8:28, or not. It isn't either of those, though.

I tagged it Catholicism because I'm an American Catholic, and went to a Catholic college, and virtually all of my religious education has been from those sources. The ancient Greeks (not likely, though, for this one!), Church Fathers, monastics, Aquinas, &c. are likely suspects. C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Thomas Merton....

I probably heard it at least fifteen years ago, so no need to consider 21st-century sources.

Does this ring a bell? Is there a notable quote by a notable author/speaker/teacher in Christianity that fits this mold?

Perhaps you are referring to this quote:

  In God’s hands intended evil becomes eventual good.

It was written by Max Lucado in his book God Will Use This for Good: Surviving the Mess of Life.  I'd say that he's a relatively famous Christian author, so perhaps this is the quote you're looking for.

Here's where I found this information:

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/24515175-god-will-use-this-for-good-surviving-the-mess-of-life

http://www.faithgateway.com/what-was-meant-for-evil-god-uses-for-good/#.WYXZCIjyvIU


What makes a confession sacramental? In the Catholic tradition, confession to a priest is treated with special protection as a sacred rite. The priest is charged with maintaining the confidential nature of the confession, something they take very seriously. However, not everything ever said to a priest is said as part of an official confession.

When is a confession considered sacramental and when is it ordinary? Is there some kind of instantiation procedure to switch to a confession if chatting with a priest? Is it possible to use the language of confessing a sin in the hearing of a priest and not have it be sacramental? Does place matter?

You know you're in confession if:

you started your conversation saying bless me father for I have sinned.
the priest dons his purple stole
you can't see the priest you're talking to
you stood in line to talk to a priest
you were given absolution for your sins
you end your conversation by making an act of contrition.
you don't go in to details, but merely count the number of times you screwed up.
when you knelt down a light changed from green to red.

The most relaxed (and personally awful) confession I ever did was in the middle of a conversation. The priest merely whipped out his stole, told me that if I wanted more grace I should kneel and I told him all the awful things I was probably going to tell him anyway.

Let me know if you want a more canon law answer, rather than an anecdotal one.  I don't think there's any mistaking when you're in confession, the most telling part is the absolution, but if you don't get absolution for whatever reason, I doubt you didn't know you went to confession.

The normal for of confession, according to the handbook of prayers (which is not a liturgical text, but a guide for the laity) is that confession begins with "bless me father... And it's been x number of days since my last confession" then you rattle off your calumnities and the priest gives you a little advice and asks if you're really sorry (you say yes, I don't want to know what happens if you say no, always say yes). Then the priest (acting in persona Christi) absolves you of your sins  and you say an Act of Contrition (O my God I am heartily sorry, etc...) and the priest gives you some penance (usually a number of prayers to be prayed in earnest nowadays, although in the past, the punishement fit the crime) the most penance I've ever had was flowers and a date night. Then you leave feeling refreshed in body and soul.  (Unless you did something dumb or self righteous in the confessional, then you feel worse than you can possibly imagine.  But it's not so bad, you remind yourself, same absolution same succor of Heaven.


Is female homosexuality against the Law of Moses? While there are a few passages in the Old Testament that are taken to condemn male homosexuality (e.g. Lev 18:22, 20:13), I am not aware of any that condemn female homosexuality. It seems to me that all the Biblical arguments against female homosexuality must either rely on:

a single NT passage, Romans 1:26-27 (is an NT passage good evidence for what the law of Moses says? - assuming this passage even is about female homosexuality), or
more indirect arguments (e.g. Adam and Eve as an ideal that all human beings are required to conform) - the very indirectness of these arguments supports doubting them
Traditional Judaism considers female homosexuality to be prohibited, but there is disagreement about whether this is a biblical or post-biblical prohibition (and if the prohibition is post-biblical, then it has little value for those outside of rabbinical Judaism)

So is it fair to say that female homosexuality is not prohibited by the Law of Moses?

Quite simply, no, it's not fair to say that.  I do not know Hebrews, but I do know that in Greek, the word anthropos indicates a generic man or person, while aner means specifically a person who is male.  If we went through the entire Bible and applied an exclusive gender wherever it said "man", it would be nonsensical.

  Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for
  God made man in his own image.  Genesis 9:6 ESV

So, capital punishment if anyone kills a man, but no punishment for killing a woman?

  Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not
  the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his
  riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands
  and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love,
  justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I
  delight, declares the Lord.”  Jeremiah 9:23-24 ESV

So, men should not boast about wealth or wisdom or strength, but women can?

  I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself,
  that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.  Jeremiah 10:23 ESV

And a man's life is not his own, but woman's life is?

So, again, no, we cannot exclude female homosexuality as being lawful under Mosaic Law just because the word "man" is employed.  At best, it would be an argument from silence, but it really isn't from silence.


How does ordination confer priestly powers to Catholic priests? When a Catholic priest is ordained, from whom and how do they get the powers to do things that only a priest can do (for example, confect the Eucharist, hear Confessions, give the Anointing of the Sick, and, in some cases, give Confirmation)?

For things that are simply a matter of permission, the priest gets his authority from the church. The bishop who performs the ordination confers the authority in the name ofcthe church.

For more spiritual activities, like the ability to perform mass, the power comes from God, mediated through the church.


What is the Roman Catholic Church's views about Luke 14:32? Luke 14:25Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned
  and said to them, 26“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own
  father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes,
  and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27“Whoever does not
  carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28“For
  which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit
  down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?
  29“Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish,
  all who observe it begin to ridicule him, 30saying, ‘This man began to
  build and was not able to finish.’ 31“Or what king, when he sets out
  to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider
  whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one
  coming against him with twenty thousand? 32“Or else, while the other
  is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.
  33“So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all
  his own possessions.

In the above passage, loving God more than anything else is the same as carrying a cross, is the same as paying a huge cost, for the privilege of being a disciple of Christ.

The privilege of being a disciple of Christ is in turn the same as completing a tower, is the same as defeating a strong king. It could be salvation, receiving eternal life or entry to heaven.

The puzzling verse is v32.

Are terms of peace asking for extensions of deadline? Is it delaying the receiving of the benefits of Gospel? Why should the negotiations be with the enemy king?

Similarly, if a person doesn’t have enough money to complete the tower, which can be interpreted to mean enough faith to take on the required amount of good works, since Roman Catholics believe paying a cost means doing good works,  does it mean he loses the claim to be a disciple of Christ, which is required for salvation/eternal life/entry to heaven?

  Matthew 7:21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the
  kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in
  heaven will enter.

What is the Roman Catholic Church's views about Luke 14:32?

All Scripture from the NASB.

Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J.'s commentary on Luke 14:32 says:

Ver. 32.—Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, &c. This verse gives completeness to the parable, but is not to be taken as the teaching of Christ, for we may not bargain with either the evil spirits or our vices; against these we must wage ἄσπονδον πόλεμον, an irreconcileable war.
This verse may however be interpreted in this way—
“He that desires to follow me perfectly in poverty and in the preaching of the gospel, must make an entire surrender of self, and give up parents, friends, and possessions, thus making them enemies.
“But if he see that he has not strength enough for this, let him make conditions of peace with them, and bind himself by the gospel precepts only, leaving for others the counsels of poverty, obedience, and the preaching of salvation. For this is that which Christ would teach, as is clear from the following verse; hence he makes mention of two armies, two leaders, and two banners, one His own, and the other that of Lucifer. Wherefore the Apostles and their successors have need to bear in mind that they are engaged in actual warfare against the devil and his angels.” S. Cyril.


Why can't cardinals over 80 vote in the conclave? Why can't cardinals over 80 vote in the conclave? Is there a reason given anywhere?

The Church excuses them from voting out of concern for the Cardinals themselves. Selecting the Supreme Pontiff can be a great burden of responsibility, and especially so when one is advanced in age. These Cardinals instead take the role of supporting the electors by helping to lead the People of God in prayer during the election.

From Pope John Paul II's Universi Dominici Gregis, on the subject of papal elections:

  In the present historical circumstances, the universality of the Church is sufficiently expressed by the College of one hundred and twenty electors, made up of Cardinals coming from all parts of the world and from very different cultures. I therefore confirm that this is to be the maximum number of Cardinal electors, while at the same time indicating that it is in no way meant as a sign of less respect that the provision laid down by my predecessor Pope Paul VI has been retained, namely, that those Cardinals who celebrate their eightieth birthday before the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant do not take part in the election.10 The reason for this provision is the desire not to add to the weight of such venerable age the further burden of responsibility for choosing the one who will have to lead Christ's flock in ways adapted to the needs of the times. This does not however mean that the Cardinals over eighty years of age cannot take part in the preparatory meetings of the Conclave, in conformity with the norms set forth below. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, and especially during the election of the Supreme Pontiff, they in particular should lead the People of God assembled in the Patriarchal Basilicas of Rome and in other churches in the Dioceses throughout the world, supporting the work of the electors with fervent prayers and supplications to the Holy Spirit and imploring for them the light needed to make their choice before God alone and with concern only for the "salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law".


What in Deuteronomy implies that God gave those laws through Moses and not directly? According to the Catholic Church, what are the differences in the way the Mosaic/Deuteronomic Laws are given versus the Ten Commandments. I have been led to understand that there is a difference by some things I have heard, for instance the lack of a Theophany(?) in Deuteronomy - and that Jesus appears to upend many of the Deuteronomic standards in the New testament.

What are the differences between the Mosaic Law and the ten Commandments in terms of the circumstances of their being made binding?

If I'm understanding you, you are wondering about how some laws in the Old Testament differ, since Jesus seems to upend some, yet uphold others. And you also asked about how to know if they are binding. This answer hopefully will provide clarity to those points.

In the New Testament a distinction is made between commandments and the statutes (letter) of the Law (the Old Testament / Torah). Commandments are moral principles, personal and inter-personal. Statutes are practical ordinances dealing with possessions and actions.

The greek word for "commandments" was ἐντολῶν "entolon" (Concordance). And the word for "the Law" (the collection of laws in the Torah / Pentateuch) was τὸν νόμον "ton nomon" (Concordance). (In other places, νόμον alone could mean laws, rules, or principles in general, and not the entirety of the Pentateuch Law, depending on context). And finally, the greek words for individual laws are usually translated "statutes", "ordinances", or "decrees".

Here is an example that shows the conceptual difference between the commandments and the Law -- that not all statutes in the Law are commandments:

  "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping God's commandments is what matters." (1 Corinthians 7:19)

In this sentence, you see that, while circumcision was an ordinance of the Law, it was not considered a commandment. So not all laws in the Law are commandments.

Jesus also spoke of commandments, saying things like "whoever upholds these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19), and "you know the commandments -- you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery.." (Mark 10:19)

The general principle is that God's commandments should be obeyed, whereas the statutes and laws in the Torah are not applicable anymore.

Here is a principle for how to determine the applicability of the Old Testament laws, and whether they are binding today:

All of the Pentateuch was given by God through Moses. But to whom? God specifically addresses the recipients in the beginning of many chapters -- the People of Israel. So none of the Pentateuch was given to non-Israelites.

  Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ...
  (Leviticus 1:1-2)

So in essence, God said, "Israelites, do these things." In saying this, he does not instruct anyone else besides the Israelites to do what he says.

But, God speaks truth among those statutes. He sometimes says "Israelites, do this, because this principle is true". Since God cannot lie, this means that "this principle" is true for all people. Even when he does not state his reasoning, we can meditate and wonder why he gave the laws as he did.

So since those laws were not spoken to us non-Israelites, then by default none of them are binding to us. Jesus bound the commandments to us, telling us to do them, but the rest of the Law remains not binding. But there is still much value and truth to be gained from reading and pondering the Old Testament laws.


Do both officiant and recorder need holy orders to perform a Catholic baptism? Many Catholic baptismal records from Spanish California (circa 1800) list the same clergyman as officiant and recorder (example), while some records separate the roles (example).

I guess this distinction represents a team effort: some visiting priest performing the ceremony and the resident priest writing it down. To help nail down their identity, though, does canon law require that both officiant and recorder have holy orders?

(Source: the Early California Population Project is a large database that restructures the contents of the sacramental books of the Franciscan missions in California.)

I am going to extrapolate from the behavior of the California fathers under the assumption that they followed canon law. The answer depends on which sort of officiant is involved. It turns out there are lots of examples of an Officiant who is not a priest — they could even be women — for provisional (partial) baptisms. Then the sacrament could be completed later by a priest, the Supli Ceremonia Officiant. I quote from the guide to the database:

There are two types of baptism: standard or provisional.  If the baptism was a standard baptism — one in which the ego was healthy and able to participate — it was coded as normal ... the padres also baptized individuals who they feared were in danger of imminent death or were otherwise unable to travel to the mission due to ill health.
Usually the officiant is a missionary, but in the cases of provisional baptisms, the officiant could have been a layperson.
In many provisional baptisms no godparents were assigned at the time of baptism. At a later date, if the ego survived, the Franciscans would execute the complete rite of baptism, stating in the record that they had “supli las ceremonias,” or in a crude translation, supplied the full ceremonies.  It should be noted that this was not a second baptism, but the completion of the original baptism.  It was at this time that the godparents might be assigned.

The database also contains Nuptial Officiants and Dispensation Officiants for other specific cases with regard to marriage.


Does "Where ever there is more than one of you gathered in My name" apply to the Internet? I mean I'd like to think so...and people communicate on this site about Christianity, but I was wondering if a virtual gathering counted as well.

The verse I'm referring to is Matthew 18:20:

  20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Physicality is not specified at all. Although you could make a case that online, we are in some manner physically present to each other. :)

However, if you are together, praying, but gathered over great distances, I don't think there's any technicality in play, here. God doesn't work in technicalities, but in what's in our heart. So, I figure that yes, virtual gatherings also do count.

There are plenty of examples of people throughout the world using telecommunications to pray together. And I have never seen anyone question the idea that Jesus wasn't actually present. To the contrary, it always is understood that He is. So I would treat this as a common understanding.


When did the African-American population become Christian? As someone who's never been to the USA I might be making a completely wrong assumption, but from all the media, it seems that the majority of the African-American population were traditionally Christian. Knowing that most of their ancestors arrived as slaves from Africa, they could not have been Christians upon arrival(right?). Was there a revival or some other major event that brought them into Christianity?

Pretty much the classic study of the African-American Church in America is E. Franklin Frazier's 1964 The History of the Negro Church in America.  Indeed, its popularity can be evidenced by another book, The History of the Black Church since Frazier.

In a nutshell, the history of the black church in the United States is what you'd expect:

Slaves were brought over
They were taught Christianity

What was unexpected was what happened next:
During the Great Awakening, the church grew
Blacks made the church their own
Christians, seeing other Christians not being treated Christian, changed the culture at large.

The interesting part of the story is the motivation and whether the movement was "forced" upon Blacks or whether it was a blessing coopted by them.

Ever since 1619, when African slaves were imported to Jamestown, the slaves were the nucleus of Christian training and education.  The cynical will say it was a means of controlling the population, and the sociologist may argue that the church was written onto the cultural tabula rasa that arose in the absence of any other common tradition or language. (Per Frazier, the American slave population was drawn from the vastly different regions of the slave coast, and thus there was no single common identity from the Old World.)  And, to be sure, there were "purer" motives of "saving the heathens" - both paternalistic and out of genuine concern.

A modern missiologist, however, would most likely argue that the history of the black church is the history of Joseph - what [we] intended for evil, God used to work for good. Indeed, Frazier argues the church rose as much for economic motives (replacing the tribal cultural an massing the strength of the African American community) as religious ones.

But to merely ascribe the rise of the church to "population control" motives misses out on the fact that the black population truly made the church their own is to do African Americans a major disservice. The story of Richard Allen, Absalom Jones and the rise of the AME church, for example, shows that it was not something "forced" upon them.  In the 1780s's, Jones and Allen led a black congregation that met in St. George's Church in Philadelphia in the early morning. Jealous of the success of that church, the white vestry that owned the building made life progressively more difficult, culminating in an episode in which Allen, in the midst of leading prayer, was savagely beaten at the altar.  His congregation moved out and later helped nurse Philadelphia through an outbreak of yellow fever - in spite of the opposition of the establishment.

As to the amazing rise of the church, it should be remembered that much of the slave trade - muchly stopped by the British who made it illegal to transport slaves across the Atlantic in 1808 - coincided with the First and Second Great Awakenings of the 1700s.  The fact that most African Americans today are Methodist and Baptist is indicative of that fact.  (Remember, they were imported into a colony - my own Virginia - that was strictly Episcopalian, and the "E" in AME is Episcopalian, but that "M" is Methodist). The overall rise in religiousity in American culture simply spilled over across racial lines.

I have no argument that slavery was anything less than unmitigated evil. That it was even justified in theological terms (Cursed be Caanan / Gen 10) is reprehensible.  And indeed, if you look at how segregation in churches was the response to the loss of the Civil War, I think it difficult to justify. But, in the same way that God used the sins of Joseph's brothers to glorify Himself, so to the rise the church that was introduced at the lash of the whip came to change the consciousness of the slave owner.  From the Christian Abolitionist movement of the early 1800s to the Civil Rights era of the 1950s (note, there is a reason Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr called it the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the issue of the "black man" was radically redefined when understood in the light of Jesus. To call the church "forced" upon blacks may have been true for a very short period, but they truly made it their own.


How do we know the words accredited to Jesus were the words Jesus actually spoke? were people making notes of what Jesus said at the time or are the accounts in the N/T just people trying to remember what they were told he said?

We do not have the verbatim words of Jesus because Jesus mostly spoke Aramaic and the New Testament was written in Greek.

It is not important whether what we have is verbatim or not. What is more important is what the message tries to convey. A single idea can be conveyed in many languages without losing its original message.

We can also be rest assured that we have the right message passed down to us through the ages because the scripture was written with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and God is faithful in protecting his Message from coruption.

  For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets,
  though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy
  Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21, NIV)


Hand Picked Bible Applications I understand that my question pokes at a sensitive area, but being a nonreligious person in a largely Christian region, I find it extremely dissatisfying to leave such a core aspect of my neighbor's lifestyles to mystery.

My question is this: With the abundance of Biblical passages, in both the Old and New Testament, how do Christians rationalize the specific stress and emphasis on only certain sections of the Bible?

The Bible contains loads of information, some of it pleasant, some of it frightening, some of it seeming to be downright silly.  For instance, people often quote Leviticus on denouncing homosexuality, and yet Leviticus also writes against eating shellfish and wearing cotton/polyester blend clothing.  I'm also fairly certain the Judeo-Christian stance on women and slavery has changed over the past few millennia. Beyond that, the Bible has been translated by hand between multiple languages, and been reviewed, revised, cut, and supplemented by several religious authorities.  If the entire Bible is the infallible word of God, how can his followers assert their own judgement over his by themselves choosing which parts of the Bible are true or applicable?  The aforementioned followers being of course, the Pope, translators (Monks, probably), Priests, but mostly everyday, normal Christians.

Thanks.

I'd like to break down your questions into parts

  My question is this: With the abundance of Biblical passages, in both the Old and New Testament, how do Christians rationalize the specific stress and emphasis on only certain sections of the Bible?

It is understood that the laws laid out in the old testament were part of the 'old covenant' or the old promise and that God through Jesus has made a 'new covenant' with mankind.

Peter, in the book of Acts, see a vision of many of the foods that it is forbidden for a Jewish person to eat, and hears God telling him to eat it. Afterwards he is invited into the home of a Roman general, which pious Jewish person would never enter. Peter understand that this is God lifting many of the restrictions on Jewish law. This is later formalized in Acts.

  For instance, people often quote Leviticus on denouncing homosexuality, and yet Leviticus also writes against eating shellfish and wearing cotton/polyester blend clothing

This is one of the sins that Paul mentioned explicitly in the new testament in a couple of places (see The Preacher's answer). I am not sure why people quote the O.T. as much as the N.T.

  Judeo-Christian stance on women and slavery has changed over the past few millennial.

Galatians 3:28

  There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

This is a RADICAL shift in thinking about the nature of people's place in society, in particular the treatment of women and slaves. I believe that it has taken us this long to even get our heads around this concept and accept is as a larger concept (in the west). We still have a long way to go, if we really get this notion ingrained in us the world would be unimaginably better, closer to what God intended for us.

  Beyond that, the Bible has been translated by hand between multiple languages, and been reviewed, revised, cut, and supplemented by several religious authorities. If the entire Bible is the infallible word of God, how can his followers assert their own judgement over his by themselves choosing which parts of the Bible are true or applicable?

It should be noted that their are many Christians who do not believe that the Bible is infallible. The infallibility doctrine is a very prominent belief among evangelicals in the United States, but please do not think this is necessarily the same among ALL Christians, especially those that would consider themselves 'Liberal'.

I think it is dangerous to rest your entire faith on something like the infallibility doctrine. Because many, when they go to college or investigate themselves learn things like, for instance the story of the adulterous woman in John, is probably a later addition to the text, and this shakes their faith.

  how can his followers assert their own judgement over his by themselves choosing which parts of the Bible are true or applicable?

Jesus said in Matthew 7:7

  Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

If you read the text as it was intended you will find a consistent message of a loving God, who is asking us to seek after him in righteousness. I believe that if you earnestly seek after him, as Jesus said you will find what you are looking for.


What is the Catholic position on ethnic parishes today? I was thinking about this comment concerning cliquishness in the churches and how they can help build each other up (or avoid strife).

Smaller towns in rural America with large immigrant Hispanic populations often have Mass in Spanish usually with a visiting pastor. It once was the case that there would be a Polish church and a German church and an Italian church and maybe an Irish church in different neighborhoods.  But nowadays, we're lucky if there's one church for a 30 mile radius and we have to share resources.

I just wonder what the official status of these sub-parishes is.  If Mass is only offered in your native language once every month is that all you're obligated to attend?  Is Bishops goal of having Hispanic outreach to just get people in the door or to make them full fledged parishioners?

My church (Roman Catholic, on the south coast of the UK) hosts a monthly Mass in Polish, which is well attended. The building was packed for the Polish "Midnight" Mass at Christmas.

It also hosts a weekly (Sunday afternoon) Mass for the Ordinariate congregation, whose members are not members of the local diocese.

In all these efforts, including the Hispanic Masses you reference, I would like to think that the Church is not just seeking to get people in the door, but providing a ministry. It is to be hoped that immigrant churchgoers will seek to assimilate themselves into the local culture, and there is at least a weekly opportunity to attend Mass in English, which would fulfil an obligation. But such assimilation may take some considerable time. If the Church can provide the opportunity for confession and Mass in a native language, and allow full participation in the rites of Church, then why not?

[The answer to Why not is, of course, your point about making fully-fledged parishioners. However in our case, it's quite likely that members of the Polish community are not long-term residents. We do have a sizable Italian Catholic community, and they do attend Masses in English.]


What is the origin of the doctrine of perspicuity? Fundamentally, Catholics and Protestants read Scripture differently.

Catholics believe that any private interpretation of Scripture is subject to the teachings of the church, whereas Protestants, subscribing to the priesthood of all believers, afford more latitude for private interpretation. Within that "private interpretation," however, is the doctrine of perspicuity – a term that ironically means that Scripture is always clear.  (Ask any congregation to define it, and I'll bet 75% can't!)

The question, however, is how this doctrine developed.  Is it Scriptural, for example, to say that the Bible proclaims itself as having obvious application?  (The Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing)  Or is it more of a historical reaction? (The answer to Pope is not to install a new Pope)

In other words, where does this doctrine come from?

This concept originated with Martin Luther. In his 1525 treatise On the Bondage of the Will—a response to Desiderius Erasmus' On Free Will—Luther makes the case that God has made the message of Scripture plain for all to understand, and has given us the Holy Spirit to guide our understanding. According to Luther, if anyone does not understand, it is a failure on their part and not a lack of the Scripture's clarity.

  All the things, therefore, contained in the Scriptures; are made manifest, although some places, from the words not being understood, are yet obscure. But to know that all things in the Scriptures are set in the clearest light, and then, because a few words are obscure, to report that the things are obscure, is absurd and impious. And, if the words are obscure in one place, yet they are clear in another. But, however, the same thing, which has been most openly declared to the whole world, is both spoken of in the Scriptures in plain words, and also still lies hidden in obscure words. Now, therefore, it matters not if the thing be in the light, whether any certain representations of it be in obscurity or not, if, in the mean while, many other representations of the same thing be in the light. For who would say that the public fountain is not in the light, because those who are in some dark narrow lane do not see it, when all those who are in the Open market place can see it plainly?

Luther explains that God has provided everything we need in order to understand.

  WHAT you adduce, therefore, about the darkness of the Corycian cavern, amounts to nothing; matters are not so in the Scriptures. For those things which are of the greatest majesty, and the most abstruse mysteries, are no longer in the dark corner, but before the very doors, nay, brought forth and manifested openly. For Christ has opened our understanding to understand the Scriptures, Luke xxiv. 45. And the Gospel is preached to every creature. (Mark xvi. 15, Col. i. 23.) “Their sound is gone out into all the earth.” (Psalm xix. 4.) And “All things that are written, are written for our instruction.” (Rom. xv. 4.) And again, “All Scripture is inspired from above, and is profitable for instruction.” (2 Tim. iii. 16.)

This is a building block for Luther's claim about God's sovereignty. Luther states that our sinfulness utterly prevents us from seeking God on our own.

  The will of God, nevertheless, which rules over our mutable will, is immutable and infallible; as Boëtius sings, “Immovable Thyself, Thou movement giv’st to all.” And our own will, especially our corrupt will, cannot of itself do good;

And that God works things out according to his own will.

  THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will.

One of the ways God accomplishes this is by making the message of the Scriptures as clear as possible, and by providing us with everything we need in order to understand that message.


Are today's Catholics encouraged to study the Bible at home? How do Catholics view personal scripture study? Are members of the congregation encouraged to do any studying at home?

The short answer is yes:

  The Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian
  faithful... to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,’ by
  frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. ‘Ignorance of the
  Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.’”

-- Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 133

The Church offers some strategies and practices for getting more out of scripture as well. One of note is Lectio Divina, a pretty old approach in which you are encouraged to approach a passage like so:

Read it. A fairly obvious step. You read the selected passage.
Meditate. Ponder the Living Word, trusting the Holy Spirit to guide you.
Pray. Speak with God about the passage.
Contemplate. Sit in silent, loving attentiveness to the Word of God.


The Jehovah’s Witnesses state that Jesus was God's first creation? How do they reconcile that with Genesis 1:26, Genesis 2:15-18? They state in this Watchtower

Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Who was his first creation? The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things."

Since according to them, "there was a time when God was alone" why don't we see any evidence at Genesis 1 or 2 that Jesus was created before Adam and Eve? Why do they jump to Revelation 3:14, the last book of the Bible? Moreover, even if you jump to Proverbs 8:22 it's still well after Genesis 1,2 when man was created after the heavens and earth were created. (Genesis 1:1.)
Since they say "God was all alone" how do they justify the following that Jesus was with God here: :“The Word” was with Jehovah God “in the beginning,” when “the heavens and the earth” were created. He was the one to whom God said: “Let us make man in our image.” (John 1:1; Genesis 1:1, 26) Jehovah’s firstborn Son was there at his Father’s side, actively working with him. At Proverbs 8:22-31, he is represented as saying: “I came to be beside [the Creator] as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time.”
There is no mention of Jesus/Him being with God before the beginning as God's first creation before Genesis chapter one and two? Finally, and this is this is the real question I am asking. How could God who was all alone create anything "WITHOUT" Jesus Christ at John 1:3? "All things came into being by Him, and "WITHOUT" Him nothing came into being that has come into being." The JW quotes are from the Watchtower

The JW publication “Insight on the Scriptures” Vol. I has a section headed “Creation” from pp 526 with four and a half pages of text. Looking through it, I noted only one occurrence of Genesis 1:26 on p 527, but no mention or even a reference to Genesis 2:15-18. This is what is stated about Genesis 1:26 -

  “In view of the close association of Jehovah and his only-begotten Son
  in creative activity and because that Son is “the image of the
  invisible God” (Col 1:15; 2Co 4:4), it was evidently to his
  only-begotten Son and master worker that Jehovah spoke in saying, “Let
  us make man in our image.” -Ge 1:26. After creating his only-begotten
  Son, Jehovah used him in bringing the heavenly angels into existence.
  This preceded the founding of the earth, as Jehovah revealed when
  questioning Job … (Job 38:4-7)  It was after the creation of these
  heavenly spirit creatures that the material heavens and earth and all
  elements were made, or brought into existence. And, since Jehovah is
  the one primarily responsible for all this creative work, it is
  ascribed to him – Ne 9:6; Ps 136:1, 5-9. The Scriptures, in stating,
  “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”  (Ge 1:1)
  leave matters indefinite as to time.”

I note that the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not include the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1:26 but only believe that Jehovah was addressing the Son, and none other. I also note their sentence, “And, since Jehovah is the one primarily responsible for all this creative work, it is ascribed to him” as the likely explanation they might give for Genesis 2:15-18 where God (not the Son) is said to make Eve. Also, their claim that the phrase ‘in the beginning’  “leaves matters indefinite as to time” could be employed by them to deal with John 1:1, which you also ask about.

However, it remains for Jehovah’s Witnesses to offer any explanation as to why the Holy Spirit-inspired Genesis account makes no mention of the Son actually being the first created ‘thing’ Jehovah made and/or that this Son was utterly involved in all creation (apart from himself which, as you enquire about, does not appear to harmonize with John 1:3). The Holy Spirit, after all, IS credited with a crucial role in Genesis 1: 2. Hopefully, some Jehovah’s Witnesses will respond to outstanding issues, as what I have quoted from one of their books is by no means exhaustive. There will be other quotations that could be proffered, no doubt.  I hope this partial answer encourages them to respond further.


Did all Popes use the inverted cross? The above image shows Pope John Paul II sitting on a chair with an inverted cross on it. According to tradition, the inverted cross symbolizes Saint Peter.

Was Pope John Paul II the only pope who used the inverted cross publicly?

I don't know more context for the picture, but the title "Pope visits holy site of Sermon on the Mount" indicates, that the chair is not a part of Pope's usual attributes, but that it's part of the chapel on Mount of Beatitudes.

This inverted or Saint Peter's cross is not very common in catholic context, but very few Catholics would feel bad if they were on the same picture with such a cross. I have seen the same design as is in the picture in few other places, not connected with any pope. It is used mostly of aesthethic reasons, the artist usually don't care whether the cross is Greek or Peter's, but they like it to be connected with the edge of the item it's engraved to, and cross of St. Peter is ideal for this.

By the way, more than with Peter's cross, pope is associated with Papal Cross.


Who is entitled to partake in the Lord's Supper? 1 Cor 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

What does this mean, "unworthily"? (cp. 1 Cor. 11:29)

Religious denomination practices range from churches where only the leaders are entitled to take communion whereas other churches encourage communion even for those who didn't prepare for it.

So how can we make sure that we don't approach communion "unworthily"?

John Gills exposition of the Bible always explained it the best for me:

  The bread and cup are called the bread and cup of the Lord; these may
  be eaten and drank "unworthily", when they are eaten and drank by
  unworthy persons, in an unworthy manner, and to unworthy ends and
  purposes. The Lord's supper may be taken unworthily, when it is
  partook of by unworthy persons.

  This sense is confirmed by the Syriac version, which renders it ולא
  שוא לה, "and is not fit for it", or is unworthy of it, and so the
  Ethiopic version; now such are all unregenerate persons, for they have
  no spiritual life in them, and therefore cannot eat and drink in a
  spiritual sense; they have no spiritual light, and therefore cannot
  discern the Lord's body; they have no spiritual taste and relish, no
  spiritual hungerings and thirstings, nor any spiritual appetite, and
  can receive no spiritual nourishment, or have any spiritual communion
  with Christ: and so are all such persons, who, though they may profess
  to be penitent ones, and believers in Christ, and to have knowledge of
  him, and love to him; and yet they have not true repentance, neither
  do they bring forth fruits meet for it, and so as they are improper
  subjects of baptism, they are unworthy of the Lord's table; nor have
  they faith in Christ, at least only an historical one, and so cannot
  by faith eat the flesh, and drink "


Why are 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus referred to as the “Pastoral Epistles”? Why are 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus referred to as the “Pastoral Epistles”?

All three of those letters are written by Paul to people who he mentored in the faith and are now leaders of churches (pastors) in their own right. They also deal largely with instructions and advice  relevant to church leaders - i.e. with 'pastoral' matters. That is why they are called Pastoral Epistles.

The name is not doctrinal matter - it is simply a convenient name for a group of similar letters. As such no denomination either enforces or rejects the label. People use the name if they want, and if it's convenient.


How can we reconcile Judges 10:13 with Numbers 23:19? Numbers 23:19 is very clear that God cannot change his mind and when He says He will do something He will do it.
And yet in Judges 10:13 we see God saying :

  But you have forsaken me and served other gods, so I will no longer save you.

and then He saves them.

I do not want answers from a Open Theist perspective.

There seems to be a difference between a change of mind, and being interactive, and a change of mood.
Earlier God gave them the choice:

Deuterenomy 30:15-18 (NIV)

  15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

The situation in Judges refers to the fact that the nation did not continue to follow him, so they had to face the consequences as stated before. They were about to be destroyed, and God did not intend to help them, if they would not worship him and worship other gods (as in the agreement in Deuteronomy). And God informed them about it In Judges 10:13, as you quoted.

In response to his warning for the coming destruction, they responded (Judges 10:15):

  15 But the Israelites said to the Lord, “We have sinned. Do with us
  whatever you think best, but please rescue us now.” 16 Then they got
  rid of the foreign gods among them and served the Lord. And he could
  bear Israel’s misery no longer.

So because they repented and changed their behaviour, God reacted according to their reaction and saved them.

Since the messages and actions of God in these examples are all according the earlier stated principles, it would be harsh to say that God was self contradictory or changed his mind. He just reacted according to their behaviour, and how they used their free will.

To me the example closest to change of mind in the bible is in Genesis 6:5-8 (NIV)

  5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become
  on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human
  heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had
  made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So
  the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race
  I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures
  that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But
  Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

It seems that Gods state is adaptive to human behaviour and free will. Assuming divine inspiration, it is interesting that Gods promises to stand by his principles, but also wants to express the "feelings" (that it is difficult to do so), when people are abandoning his standards all the time.


What was meant by the charge: "the upsetting of the lamp"? In Justin Martyr's First Apology Chapter 26, we read:

And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh — we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions.

The context is:

...the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours.

But these three accusations seemed to have been laid against the Christians, charges which Justin supposed was rather invented by them that probably committed it themselves and then charged to the Christians: "upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh".
The "promiscuous intercourse" evidently referred to incestuous practices and "eating human flesh" to cannibalism which Eusebius confirms were charges laid against Christians,...

And some of our heathen servants also were seized, as the governor had commanded that all of us should be examined publicly. These, being ensnared by Satan, and fearing for themselves the tortures which they beheld the saints endure, and being also urged on by the soldiers, accused us falsely of Thyestean banquets and Œdipodean intercourse, and of deeds which are not only unlawful for us to speak of or to think, but which we cannot believe were ever done by men. Ecclesiastical History, V.1.14

Other non-Christian writers also refer to such accusations against the Christians that explains two of these charges in The First Apology , but I cannot find a meaningful explanation of what "upsetting of the lamp" means.

The phrase: “the upsetting of the lamp,” is a reference to the charge of incest, which is “facilitated by darkness.”

721 And anyone who makes use of them may in addition to [the guilt of] godless, impious, and intemperate intercourse, by chance be consorting with his own child or relative or brother. Some even prostitute their own children and wives, and others are admittedly mutilated for purposes of sodomy, and treat this as part of the mysteries of the mother of the gods—while beside each of those whom you think of as gods a serpent is depicted as a great symbol and mystery. You charge against us the actions that you commit openly and treat with honor, as if the divine light were overthrown and withdrawn—which of course does no harm to us, who refuse to do any of these things, but rather injures those who do them and then bring false witness [against us].

See footnote 721 here:

721 A reference to the charges of incest (facilitated by darkness) and cannibalism which other Apologists (Athenagoras, Tertullian, Minucius Felix) treat at length.


How should a Christian look at the Crusaders? I studied in Methodist school from kindergarten to high school, but I never heard of Crusaders until I went to college - and people at church don't talk about it either.

As far as I know, Crusaders have a very bad reputation (at least in the movies.)  But what does it really mean for the modern Christian?

Robert Spencer, who is one of the leading Christian authors on Islam has a fascinating insight into the crusades in this video - The Crusades, Fact & Truth.

The Crusades have a bad reputation, because, as Spencer explains, Westerners have a healthy attitude of self-criticism. Such self-criticism is completely absent in Islam. Spencer points out that it was the invasion of the Turks that began the Crusades.

While it is true that many of the Crusaders did evil acts, the Crusades in themselves were a defensive measure and not an offensive one. Should Christians be ashamed of those Crusaders who commited evil? Sure. Should Christians be ashamed of the Crusades themselves? Never.

When soldiers came to John the Baptist asking him what to do, he didn't tell them to put their swords away, but

  "Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with
  your wages." (Luke 3:14)

The Bible also says that there is

  "a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time
  to build up" (Ecclesiastes 3:3)

Often, Jesus statement of "turning the other cheek" is quoted to suggest that any act of self defense is against the teachings of Christ. But I answer that somebody slapping you on the cheek doesn't kill you, whereas if someone tries to kill your body, you are obliged to defend yourself, because your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19).

  "If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's
  temple is holy, and that temple you are." (1 Cor 3:17)

The implication of this statement is that if you allow your body to be destroyed, then you shall be held accountable for it. Jesus also said,

  "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let
  him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

Paul says that rulers are servants of God to execute God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

  "But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in
  vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer."
  (Rom 13:4)

The Bible on many occasions praises soldiers. One of the first gentile converts to Christianity was a Roman centurion, Cornelius (Acts 10) and we don't see any demand being made on him to leave his position as a centurion. On another occasion, Jesus marveled at the faith of another centurion (Matthew 8:10). I therefore do not see any reason why a Christian cannot serve in the army.

Had the Crusades not taken place, the entire western world might have been under subjection to Islam today. As a Christian, I shall never be ashamed of the Crusades. Many Christians gave their lives for saving their brethren.