Any dangers for the usage of sacramentals that are not-yet-blessed-by-a-priest? I just bought a new Rosary, and I haven't asked our priest in the locality to bless it.

Is there any danger when I pray the Rosary (or use of any "not-yet-blessed" sacramental for this matter) using this one?

Thanks for answering! =)

I think a priest would tell you that the danger is in not praying it, they're usually pragmatic like that.

Like some sacraments (Confession, Baptism) the intent is perhaps as important the action

  For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

CCC 1259

Always remember that God exists outside of time and your prayers, in communion with the Saints are holy. Also, consider the fact that you could pray the Rosary nearly as easily without the aid of a rosary by counting your fingers and toes.


What is the biblical basis for Jesus being God incarnate? In John 17:3 it says that Jesus called the Father the "only true God" and called himself sent by the Father.

Also, in Matthew 4:10, Jesus himself says to:

  ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’`

What is the biblical basis for accepting Jesus as not only divine, but "god in the flesh"?

For the quick answer to your question, see John 1:1, 14.

But really, this is a simple matter of the transitive property.

Jesus forgives sin (Mark 2:1-12): It's a non-debated point of doctrine that only God can forgive sins. It's easy for the modern reader to marvel at the miracle without realizing the greater significance of Jesus' statement. Jesus here uses the miracle to refute the accusations of blasphemy (See Psalm 130:4; Isa. 43:25; Dan. 9:9).

Jesus is eternal (John 8:53-59): The Jews weren't about to stone Him because they didn't like what He said, but because He was saying that He is God. I AM is His name. At the very least, Jesus is claiming to be no ordinary man, for how else could He claim to exist before Abraham? Also, see John 1:2; 17:5; Rev. 1:8

Jesus is creator: See John 1:3, Col. 1:16,17, Hebrews 1:2.

Jesus is rightly worshiped: Jesus is worshiped throughout the Gospels (recorded seven times in Matthew alone: 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 28:9; 28:17) and it is not recorded that he stopped them. See also Philippians 2:10; Heb 1:6, Rev. 5:12-14, when all of creation and the heavenly angels worship Him.


How does the Catholic Church respond to the claim that its authority to interpret scripture is based on circular reasoning? I've heard the claim that scriptural references to the establishment of the Catholic Church and its authority to interpret scripture is circular reasoning.
From a conversation I was having with a friend:

There's no scriptural evidence for it. Well, the claimed scriptural evidences depend on circular reasoning (i.e., the only way know what's referenced is the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church authoritatively interprets it for you).
What evidence is there (besides the word of the Catholic Church) that Jesus established the Catholic Church? It's a completely presuppositional claim that he did.

How does the Catholic Church respond to such a claim?

The teaching of both Roman and Eastern traditions is that the Bible can only be understood in the context of culture and traditions which birthed it.

  The reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression. (CCC 110)

Understanding Paul but ignoring those who knew him (like Ignatius, Polycarp, or the contents of the Didache) would be like studying Luther but claiming anyone who knew him was a quack. All of those documents testify to a church with a defined set of bishops, given the authority to rule over and teach the Church (strikingly similar to the Episcopai Paul talks about in the New Testament).

The Church claims itself to be "the pillar and foundation of truth" (CCC 171 citing 1 Tim. 3:15). The Roman Catholic Church cites 1 Timothy as an example for people who view the Bible as authoritative (note: the Bible does NOT claim that title), but the Church would be the pillar and foundation even if Paul had never said that. In fact, there is a very, very long list authors, going back to the very beginning of Christianity who testify to the Church.

All of that said, you can still find testimony of the authority of the Church and the validity of her practices in scripture, but that is a different from saying "we interpret the Bible to endorse us therefore it endorses us".

As a counter argument, you might reply: The Bible speaks of deacons, presbyters, and episcopai. These were men selected and ordained by the Apostles for the purposes of administration and evangelization. These early authors claim to be or to know deacons, presbyters, and episcopai. They claim to have served under the Apostles. (we'll ignore the fact that presbyter came into English as "priest", and episcopai came into English as "bishop"). Their instruction and testimony is a valid source of instruction in matters of faith.


What is an overview of the interpretations of Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."? "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. ... and you and your family will be saved.(Acts 16:31)

What is an overview of the major interpretations of this verse. I would like a simple understanding of both the Catholic and Protestant philosophies.

The Protestant overview of salvation as described in Acts 16:29-34 is that this particular incident does not promote belief in universal “household salvation” simply because the head of the house has come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.

  In Acts 16 the Philippian jailer asks Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul and Silas answer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

This promise is given to a specific individual in a specific context, namely that he and his household will be saved.  The promise is universal in the sense that when a person believes in the Lord Jesus they “will be saved.”  In this instance, salvation came to the jailer’s household as the result of their hearing the Word of God and individually responding in faith.

  Paul and Silas “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house... he had come to believe in God – he and his whole family” (Acts 16:32).

The whole family heard the gospel. They were all saved, just as God had promised, but their salvation was not due to their being a part of the jailer’s household; they were saved because they believed the gospel for themselves.  The principle of salvation is summed up concisely in the words of the Apostle Peter who said:

  All the prophets testify about him [Jesus] that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name (Acts 10:43).

To be saved, a person has to believe in Christ Jesus.  Salvation is individual, not collective.  Adults are responsible for either accepting or rejecting Christ Jesus.  That is why belonging to a particular religious denomination does not save a person either.  The Protestant view is that “household salvation” is not a universal promise to any and all families where the head of the house is a saved Christian.  Salvation comes only to people who acknowledge they are sinners, who repent and place their faith in what God, in Jesus, has done to save us from the consequences of our sin.

  Charles Spurgeon made this observation: “Though grace does not run in the blood, and regeneration is not of blood nor of birth, yet doth it very frequently . . . happen that God, by means of one of a household, draws the rest to himself. He calls an individual, and then uses him to be a sort of spiritual decoy to bring the rest of the family into the gospel net.”

In the instance of the jailer, he and his family believed in Jesus after hearing the gospel message, and were immediately baptised.  In other situations, the head of a family may be used by God to help bring unbelievers within his household to saving faith.  But there is no “blanket cover” for household salvation – salvation is personal, it is individual and it is the gift of God.


Did the modern LDS idea of fast offerings have extra-Mormon roots? [LDS] members are encouraged to fast once a month on Fast Sunday and to give the money they save by not eating two meals to the church; those who can afford to be more generous are encouraged to give more than simply the money saved as a fast offering.

So given that the biblical root of the concept of a fast offering is the exhortation of Isaiah:

Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?  (Isaiah 58:6--7)

And that Joseph Smith introduced the current LDS practice of using the cost of the meal foregone by fasting to support the poor in Kirtland (as later reiterated by the interregnal Council of the Twelve in these words):

Let this be an example to all saints, and there will never be any lack for bread: When the poor are starving, let those who have, fast one day and give what they otherwise would have eaten to the bishops for the poor, and everyone will abound for a long time; and this is one great and important principle of fasts approved of the Lord.  (History of the Church 7:413)

Is there a separate modern root or inspiration of this practice?  It doesn't seem to be derived from patristic or medieval Catholicism or Reformation practices as far as I know (which, admittedly, isn't a lot in the area of devotional practices).  Specifically, was this something the Shakers, the Campbellites, or another Restorationist group influential on early Mormonism practiced?

As far as I am aware of, no there are no other modern roots to this practice.

The practice of fasting and then giving offerings to the Lord is very old.

  Judges 20:26 Then all the children of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came unto the house of God, and wept, and sat there before the Lord, and fasted that day until even, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord.

But it's vs 27 that is more interesting in the context of our current question.

  27) And the children of Israel enquired of the Lord .... 28) saying, Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And the Lord said, Go up; for tomorrow I will deliver them into thine hand. (emphasis mine)

While the offerings part is usually what gets the most attention. The true reason to fast is to show humility and self discipline before the Lord and then ask the Lord some pressing question.

And just as they did in Israel, LDS often go to the temple during or soon after a fast.

LDS don't tend to make a big deal of it, but they often fast far more then just the one day a month, depending on their needs, desires or trials.

On different occasions of great trial in an LDS community, the Bishop (head of one congregation) or even Stake President (head of many congregations over the bishops) may ask the members to fast for a special purpose.

On these occasions a fast offering is not paid. Though a member could pay it if they so desired.


Do non-Catholics get protection by confessional seal? A non-Christian is travelling with a priest and seeks his moral advice because he is available.  Since the non-Christian was never Catholic, do the rules of confessional seal apply anyway when he reveals is dilemma before the priest?

"Seeking moral advice" is not a confession, and so would not be subject to the strict seal of the confessional. However, if there is no need for the priest to divulge anything, then I would certainly expect something said in confidence to be kept confidential.

To give a concrete example:

If moral advice was sought as part of a sacramental confession, then everything said is under the seal. For example, a question "When does exchanging information change into being gossip?" might be useful if you have confessed to gossiping. The priest may not need that question, and could well give the advice anyway, but there's no harm in asking for guidance.

You could simply ask such a question outside the confessional, and receive the same advice. And I would expect that to remain confidential: if there is no need to recount your conversation, to do so would be gossiping.

See also Are non-Catholics allowed to go to confession? — although that presupposes that the penitent is at least a Christian.


In Catholic teaching, what specific actual sinful act did Adam and Eve commit, and what level of authority can be applied to this teaching? What I am asking

What does Roman Catholic theology hold to be the nature of the original sin?  If we consider the Tree of Knowledge, its fruit, and Adam and Eve partaking of it as all being metaphors, what is the meaning behind the metaphor?  What exactly did Adam and Eve do that ran counter to God's command not to "eat of the Tree"?

To clarify, I am not seeking to identify the Original Sin in terms of the Seven Deadly Sins; Catholic dogma tells us that the sin was Pride.  What I'm trying to do is identify the specific prideful thought or action that Adam and Eve committed which was sinful.

This question is being asked primarily to form the basis of another question I have posted.

What I am looking for

The ideal answer will contain citation of specific doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church regarding original sin, including:

The degree of binding authority conferred by the Magisterium upon the teachings (i.e. solemn or ordinary, universal or non-universal).
How the teachings were added to the deposit of faith (i.e. Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition).
Teachings derived from Sacred Scripture should also furnish quotation of the applicable verse(s) from a Catholic English Bible (i.e. an English-language translation of the Bible containing only the 73 canonical books and having the imprimatur of a Catholic bishop).
Teachings derived from Sacred Tradition should furnish quotations from the applicable conciliar canons or decrees, as well as links to the sources of their full texts.

What I am not looking for

Discussion, analysis, or answers from non-Catholic perspectives.

The doctrines of Original Sin are of the highest level, de fide or "of faith."(cf. this table of theological notes, the proximity of truths to Divine Revelation)

The following comes from Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Denzinger numbers (e.g., D 788) are references to his Sources of [Catholic] Dogma, a collection of Catholic dogma from Councils and Popes' ex cathedra dogmatic definitions. For example, D 788 is a reference to the Decree on Original Sin from the Council of Trent's Session V (June 17, 1546).

  III. Man’s Lapse from the Supernatural Order

  § 20. The Personal Sin of Our First Parents or Original Sin

  1. The Act of Sin

  Our First Parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression
  of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)

  The Council of Trent teaches that Adam lost sanctity and justice by
  transgressing the Divine commandment (D 788). Since the punishment is
  proportionate to the guilt, the sin of Adam was clearly a serious sin.

  The biblical account of the fall through the sin of the First Parents
  is contained in Gn. 2:17 and 3:1 et seq. Since Adam’s sin is the basis
  of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption the historical accuracy of
  the account as regards the essential facts may not be impugned.
  According to a decision of the Bible Commission in 1909, the literal
  historical sense is not to be doubted in regard to the following
  facts: a) That the first man received a command from God to test his
  obedience; b) That through the temptation of the devil who took the
  form of a serpent he transgressed the Divine commandment; c) That our
  First Parents were deprived of their original condition of innocence.
  D 2123.

  The later Books of Holy Writ confirm this literal, historical
  interpretation. Ecclus. 25:33: “From the woman came the beginning of
  sin, and by her we all die.” Wis. 2:24: “But by the envy of the devil
  death came into the world.” 2 Cor. 11:3: “But I fear lest, as the
  serpent seduced Eve by his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted
  and fall away from the simplicity which is Christ.” Cf. 1 Tim. 2:14;
  Rom. 5:12, et seq; John 8:44. The mythological explanation, and the
  purely allegorical explanation (of the Alexandrines) are therefore to
  be rejected.

  The sin of our First Parents was a sin of disobedience. Cf. Rom. 5:19:
  “By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners.” The root of
  the disobedience was pride. Tob. 4:14: “From it (pride) all perdition
  took its beginning.” Ecclus. 10:15: “Pride is the beginning of all
  sin.” The theory that Original Sin was a sexual sin (St. Clement of
  Alexandria, St. Ambrose) cannot be accepted. The gravity of the sin is
  clear when we regard its purpose and the circumstances of the Divine
  commandment. St. Augustine regards Adam’s sin as an “inexpressibly
  great sin” (ineffabiliter grande peccatum: Op. Imperf. c. Jul. I 105).

  2. The Consequences of Sin

  a) Through sin our First Parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked
  the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)

  In Holy Writ the loss of Sanctifying Grace is indicated in the
  exclusion of Our First Parents from intercourse with God. (Gn. 3:10,
  23). God appears as a judge and announces the sentence of punishment
  (Gn. 3:16 et seq.).

  God’s displeasure finally takes effect in the eternal rejection.
  Tatian believed that Adam lost eternal salvation but St. Irenaeus
  (Adv. haer. III 23, 8), Tertullian (De poenit. 12) and St. Hippolytus
  (Philos. 8, 16) rejected this view. In later times, the Fathers
  generally, supported by Wis. 10:2: (“She [Wisdom] brought him out of
  his sin”), teach that Our First Parents did atonement and “through the
  Blood of the Lord” were saved from eternal destruction (cf. St.
  Augustine, De peccat. mer. et rem. II 34, 55).

  b) Our First Parents became subject to death and to the dominion of
  the Devil. (De fide.) D 788.

  Death and the evils associated with it follow from the loss of the
  gifts of integrity. According to Gn. 3:16 et seq., God imposed
  suffering and death as a punishment for sin. The dominion of the devil
  is mentioned in Gn. 3:15 and is explicitly taught in John 12:31;
  14:30; 2 Cor. 4:4; Hebr. 2:14; 2 Peter 2:19.

  § 21. The Existence of Original Sin

  1. The Heretical Counter-propositions

  The doctrine of Original Sin was rejected by the Gnostics and
  Manichaeans, who believed that the moral corruption of humanity comes
  from an eternal principle of evil and also by the Origenists and
  Priscillianists, who explained humanity’s inclination to evil by a
  pre-corporeal fall through sin.

  Original sin was directly denied by the Pelagians, who taught: a) The
  sin of Adam is transmitted to posterity not by inheritance but through
  imitation of a bad example (imitatione, non propagatione). b) Death,
  suffering and concupiscence are not punishment for sin, but a natural
  condition of man who was created in a pure state of nature. c) The
  baptism of children is administered, not for the remission of sins,
  but as a sign of acceptance by the Church, and to enable men to reach
  the Kingdom of Heaven, which is distinct from vita aeterna (a higher
  stage of blessedness).

  The Pelagian error was combated chiefly by St. Augustine and was
  condemned by the Church at the Synods of Mileve 416, Carthage 418,
  Orange 529 and in later times by the Council of Trent (1546) D 102,
  174 et seq., 787 et seq.

  The Pelagian error lives on in modern rationalism (Socianism,
  Rationalism of the age of the Enlightenment, Liberal Protestant
  Theology, modern unbelief).

  In medieval times the Synod of Sens (1141) rejected the following
  thesis of Peter Abelard: Quod non contraximus culpam ex Adam, sed
  poenam tantum D 376.

  The Reformers, the Baians, and the Jansenists admitted the reality of
  original sin, but misunderstood its essence and its operation, since
  they regarded it as identical with concupiscence which corrupts
  completely human nature. Cf. St. Augustine Conf. Art. 2.

  2. Teaching of the Church

  Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by
  descent. (De fide.)

  The dogmatic teaching on original sin is laid down in the Tridentine
  Decree “Super peccato originali” (Sess. V; 1546), which in part
  follows word for word the decisions of the Synods of Carthage and of
  Orange. The Council of Trent rejects the doctrine that Adam’s loss of
  the sanctity and justice received from God was merely for himself
  alone, and not for us also, and that he transmitted to his posterity
  death and suffering only, but not the guilt of sin. It positively
  teaches that sin, which is the death of the soul, is inherited by all
  his posterity by descent, not by imitation, and that it dwells in
  every single human being. It is removed by the merits of the
  Redemption of Jesus Christ, which as a rule are bestowed through the
  Sacrament of Baptism on adults as well as on children. Therefore
  children also are baptised for the forgiveness of sins (in remissionem
  peccatorum). D 789–791.

  3. Proof from the Sources of Faith

  a) Scriptural proof

  The Old Testament contains references to original sin. Cf. especially
  Ps. 50:7: “For behold I was conceived in iniquities: and in sins did
  my mother conceive me.” Job 14:4 (according to Vulg.): “Who can make
  him clean that is conceived unclean?” Both passages speak of an inborn
  sinfulness whether this be understood in the sense of habitual sin or
  merely of the inclination to sin, but do not bring this into causal
  connection with the sin of Adam. The causal connection between the
  death of all mankind and the sin of our First Parents (original death)
  is, however, clearly stated in the Old Testament. Cf. Ecclus. 25:33;
  Wis. 2:24.

  The passage which contains the classical proof is Rom. 5:12–21, in
  which the Apostle draws a parallel between the first Adam, from whom
  sin and death are transmitted to all humanity, and Christ, the second
  Adam, from whom justice and life are transmitted to all men. V. 12:
  “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death,
  and so sin passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned (in quo omnes
  paccaverunt—ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον) … 19. For as by the disobedience of
  one man many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many
  shall be made just.”

  By sin (ἁμαρτία) is to be understood quite generally sin, which here
  appears personified. Original sin is therefore included. What is meant
  is the guilt of sin and not the consequences of sin. Death is
  expressly distinguished from sin and is represented as the consequence
  of sin. Concupiscence is not meant, because sin, according to V. 18 et
  seq., is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption, while evil
  desire remains as experience shows.

  β) The words in quo (ἐφʼ ᾧ; V. 12 d) were related relatively to unum
  hominem by St. Augustine and during the whole middle-ages: “By one man
  … in whom all have sinned.” Since the time of Erasmus the
  better-founded conjunctional meaning already proposed by the Fathers,
  especially by the Greeks, came to the fore: ἐφʼ ᾧ = ἐπί τούτῳ ὅτι =
  “on the ground that all have sinned” or “because all have sinned”; cf.
  the linguistic parallels in 2 Cor. 5:4; Phil. 3:12; 4:10; Rom. 8:3.
  Since those also die who have committed no personal sin (young
  children), the origin of bodily death is not a personal guilt, but a
  guilt inherited from Adam. Cf. V. 13 et seq. and V. 19, in which the
  sin of Adam is given as the reason for the sinfulness of the many. The
  conjunctional interpretation, which is adopted generally to-day,
  conforms to the explanation of St. Augustine: all have sinned in Adam,
  therefore all die.

  γ) The words: “Many (οἱ πολλοί) were made sinners” (V. 19a) do not
  limit the universality of original sin, since the expression “many”
  (in opposition to the one Adam, or Christ) is parallel to “all”
  (πάντες) in V. 12 d and 18 a.

  b) Proof from Tradition

  St. Augustine appeals to the Tradition of the Church against the
  Pelagian Bishop Julian of Eclanum: “It is not I who have invented
  original sin, which the Catholic Faith holds from of old, but thou,
  who deniest it, thou art without doubt a new heretic” (De nupt. et
  concup. II 12, 25). St. Augustine, in his Contra Julianum (L. I and
  II), adduces a formal proof from Tradition, in which he quotes St.
  Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Reticius of Autun, Olympius, St. Hilary, St.
  Ambrose, Innocent I, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom,
  St. Basil and St. Jerome as witnesses of the Catholic teaching. Many
  assertions of the Greek Fathers who insist on personal responsibility
  for sin and appear entirely to prescind from original sin, are to be
  understood as being in opposition to Gnostic-Manichaean dualism and to
  Origenistic pre-existentianism. St. Augustine defended the teaching of
  St. John Chrysostom against its misinterpretation by the Pelagians:
  vobis nondum litigantibus securius loquebatur (Contra Jul. 16, 22).

  Irrefutable proof of the conviction of the primitive Church as to the
  reality of original sin is the old Christian practice of the baptism
  of children “for the remission of sin” (in remissionem peccatorum).
  Cf. St. Cyprian, Ep. 64, 5.

  4. Dogma and Reason

  The doctrine of Original Sin cannot be proved by natural reason,
  nevertheless the fact of Original Sin is evidenced by many signs:
  peccati originalis in humano genere probabiliter quaedam signa
  apparent (S.c.G. IV 52). Such signs are the frightful moral
  aberrations of humanity, and the many lapses from belief in the True
  God (polytheism, atheism).

  § 22. The Nature of Original Sin

  1. False Views

  a) The view of Peter Abelard that Original Sin consists in eternal
  punishment (“reatus poenae aeternae) is false. According to the
  teaching of the Council of Trent, Original Sin is a true and proper
  sin, that is, a guilt of sin. Cf. D 376, 789, 792. St. Paul speaks of
  a real sin. Rom. 5:12: “All have sinned.” Cf. Rom. 5:19.

  b) Original Sin does not consist, as the Reformers, the Baians, and
  the Jansenists taught, in: “The habitual concupiscence, which remains,
  even in the baptised, a true and proper sin, but is no longer reckoned
  for punishment.” The Council of Trent teaches that through Baptism
  everything is taken away which is a true and proper sin, and that the
  concupiscence which remains behind after Baptism for the moral proving
  is called sin in an improper sense only. D 792. That sin remains in
  man, even if it is not reckoned for punishment, is irreconcilable with
  the Pauline teaching of Justification as an inner transformation and
  renewal. The justified man is saved from the danger of rejection
  because the ground for the rejection, the sin, is removed. Rom. 8:1:
  “There is now, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ
  Jesus.” As concupiscence, in consequence of the composition of human
  nature out of body and spirit would be present, as natural evil, even
  in the pure state of nature, it cannot be sinful in itself, for God
  has created everything well. D 428.

  c) Original Sin does not consist, as, among others, Albert Pighius (†
  1542) and Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P. († 1553), taught, in a mere
  external imputation of the sinful deed of Adam (imputation theory).
  According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Adam’s sin is
  transferred by inheritance to all the children of Adam, and exists as
  his own proper sin in every single one of them: propagatione, non
  imitatione transfusum omnibus, inest unicuique proprium. D 790. Cf. D
  795. Propriam iniustitiam contrahunt. According to the teaching of
  the Council of Trent, the efficacy of baptism consists in a real
  eradication of sin, not in a mere non-imputation of an alien guilt. D
  792. Cf. Rom. 5:12, 19.

  2. Positive Solution

  Original sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free
  act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)

  a) The Council of Trent defined Original Sin as the death of the soul
  (mors animae: D 789). The death of the soul is, however, the absence
  [not-being-present] of supernatural life, that is, of sanctifying
  grace. In Baptism Original Sin is eradicated through the infusion of
  sanctifying grace (D 792). It follows from this that Original Sin is a
  condition of being deprived of grace. This flows from the Pauline
  contrast between sin proceeding from Adam and justice proceeding from
  Christ (Rom. 5:19). As the justice bestowed by Christ consists
  formally in sanctifying grace (D 799) so the sin inherited from Adam
  consists formally in the lack of sanctifying grace. The lack of
  sanctifying grace, which, according to the will of God, should be
  present, establishes that the guilt of Original Sin signifies a
  turning away from God.

  As the ratio voluntarii, that is the free incurring of guilt, belongs
  to the concept of formal sin, and as a young child cannot perform a
  personal voluntary act, in original sin, the factor of spontaneity
  must be explained from its connection with Adam’s deed of sin. Adam
  was the representative of the whole human race. On his voluntary
  decision depended the preservation or the loss of the supernatural
  endowment, which was a gift, not to him personally but, to human
  nature as such. His transgression was, therefore, the transgression of
  the whole human race. Pope Pius V rejected the assertion of Baius,
  that Original Sin had the character of sin in itself without any
  reference to the will from which it sprung. D 1047. Cf. St.
  Augustine, Retract. I 12 (13), 5. S. th. I II 81, 1.

  b) According to the teaching of St. Thomas, Original Sin consists
  formaliter in the lack of original justice, materialiter in the
  unregulated concupiscence. In every sin St. Thomas distinguishes
  between a formal and a material element, the turning away from God
  (aversio a Deo) and the turning towards the creature (conversio ad
  creaturam). As the turning towards the creature manifests itself above
  all in evil desire, St. Thomas with St. Augustine, sees in
  concupiscence, which itself is a consequence of original sin, the
  material element of original sin: peccatum originale materialiter
  quidem est concupiscentia, formaliter vero est defectus originalis
  iustitiae (S. th. I II 82, 3). The doctrine of St. Thomas was
  influenced partially by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who sees in the
  nature of original sin only the lack of original justice and partially
  by St. Augustine, who defines original sin as: an evil concupiscence
  with its state of guilt (concupiscentia cum suo reatu) and explains
  that the state of guilt (reatus) is removed by Baptism, while the
  concupiscence persists for a moral test (ad agonem), but not as a sin.
  (Op. imperf. c. Jul. I 71). Most of the post-Tridentine theologians do
  not regard concupiscence as an essential constituent part of original
  sin, but as its consequence.

  § 23. The Transmission of Original Sin

  Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)

  The Council of Trent says: propagatione, non imitatione transfusum
  omnibus. D 790. In the baptism of children that is expurgated which
  they have incurred through generation. D 791.

  As original sin is a peccatum naturae, it is transmitted in the same
  way as human nature, through the natural act of generation. Although
  according to its origin, it is a single sin (D 790) that is the sin of
  the head of the race alone (the sin of Eve is not the cause of
  original sin) it is multiplied over and over again through natural
  generation whenever a child of Adam enters existence. In each act of
  generation human nature is communicated in a condition deprived of
  grace.

  The chief cause (causa efficiens principalis) of original sin is the
  sin of Adam alone. The instrumental cause (causa efficiens
  instrumentalis) is the natural act of generation, which gives rise to
  the connection of the individual human being with the head of the
  race. The actual concupiscence associated with the act of generation,
  the sexual pleasure (libido) is, contrary to the view of St. Augustine
  (De nuptiis et concup. I 23, 25; 24, 27), neither the cause nor the
  inescapable condition for the reproduction of original sin. It is only
  an accompanying phenomenon of the act of generation, which in itself
  alone is the instrumental cause of the transmission of original sin.
  Cf. S. th. 1 II 82, 4 ad 3.

  Objections

  From the Christian doctrine of the reproduction of original sin, it
  does not follow, as the Pelagians maintained, that God is the
  Originator of sin. The soul created by God is, according to its
  natural constitution, good. The condition of original sin signifies
  the want of a supernatural advantage to which the creature has no
  claim. God is not obliged to create the soul with the adornment of
  sanctifying grace. God is not to be blamed for the fact that the
  newly-created soul is denied the supernatural endowment, but man is
  who misused his freedom. Again, it does not follow from this teaching
  that marriage is bad. The marital act of generation is good because,
  objectively, that is, according to its adaptation to its end, and
  subjectively, that is, according to the intention of the generators,
  it is aimed at good, namely, the reproduction of the human nature
  desired by God.

  § 24. The Consequences of Original Sin

  The consequences of original sin are, following Luke 10:30, summarised
  by the scholastic theologians, in the axiom: By Adam’s sin man is
  deprived of the supernatural gifts and wounded in his nature
  (spoliatus gratuitis, vulneratus in naturalibus). The word gratuita
  usually means only the absolute supernatural gifts and naturalia the
  gifts of integrity, which were part of man’s abilities and powers
  before the fall. Cf. S. th. 1 II 85, 1; Sent. II d. 29 q. 1a.2.

  1. Loss of the Supernatural Endowment

  In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and
  all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of
  integrity. (De fide _in regar__d to Sanctifying Grace and the_
  Donum Immortalitatis. D 788 et seq.)

  The lack of the sanctifying grace has, as a turning away of man from
  God, the character of guilt and, as the turning of God away from man,
  the character of punishment. The lack of the gifts of integrity
  results in man’s being subject to concupiscence, suffering and death.
  These results remain even after the extirpation of Original Sin, not
  as punishment, but as the so-called poenalitates, that is, as the
  means given to man to achieve the practice of virtue and moral
  integrity. The person stained by Original Sin finds himself in the
  imprisonment and slavery of the devil whom Jesus calls “the prince,”
  and St. Paul “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). Cf. Hebr. 2:14;
  Peter 2:19.

  2. Wounding of Nature

  The wounding of nature must not be conceived, with the Reformers and
  the Jansenists, as the complete corruption of human nature. In the
  condition of Original Sin, man possesses the ability of knowing
  natural religious truths and of performing natural morally good
  actions. The Vatican Council teaches that man, with his natural power
  of cognition, can with certainty know the existence of God. D 1785,
  1806. The Council of Trent teaches that free will was not lost or
  extinguished by the fall of Adam. D 815.

  The wounding of nature extends to the body as well as to the soul. The
  2nd Council of Orange (529) explained: totum, i.e., secundum corpus et
  animam, in deterius hominem commutatum (esse) (the whole man both in
  body and in soul was changed for the worse). D 174. Cf. D 181, 199,
  793. Side by side with the two wounds of the body, sensibility to
  suffering (passibilitas) and mortality (mortalitas), theologians, with
  St. Thomas (S. th. 1 II 85, 3) enumerate four wounds of the soul,
  which are opposed to the four cardinal virtues: a) ignorance
  (ignorantia), that is, difficulty of knowing the truth (opposite to
  prudence), b) malice (malitia), that is the weakening of the power of
  the will (opposite to justice), c) weakness (infirmitas), that is, the
  recoiling before difficulties in the struggle for the good (opposite
  to fortitude), d) desire (concupiscentia) in the narrower sense, that
  is, the desire for satisfaction of the senses against the judgment of
  reason (opposite to temperance). The wounds of the body are caused by
  the loss of the preternatural gifts of impossibility and immortality,
  the wounds of the soul by the loss of the preternatural gift of
  freedom from concupiscence.

  There is a controversy as to whether the wounding of nature consists
  exclusively in the loss of the preternatural gifts, or whether human
  nature in addition is intrinsically weakened in an accidental manner.
  The former view, which is that adopted by St. Thomas and by most
  theologians, conceives the wounding of nature as relative only, i.e.,
  by comparison with its primitive condition, while the latter view
  conceives it as absolute and visualises it as a worsening in
  comparison with the pure state of nature. According to the former
  view, the person who is born in original sin is to the human being in
  the pure state of nature as one stripped of his clothes is to the
  unclothed (nudatus ad nudum); according to the latter view, as the
  sick person is to the healthy (aegrotus ad sanum). The former view is
  to be preferred, as the sinful act of Adam, which occurred once only,
  could, neither in his own nature nor in the nature of his posterity,
  effect an evil habit and with it, a weakening of the natural powers.
  Cf. S. th. 1 II 85, 1. However, it must be admitted that fallen human
  nature, in consequence of individual and social aberrations, has
  declined below the state of pure nature.

  § 25. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are
  excluded from the Beatific Vision of God (De fide.)

  The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence
  (1438–45) declared: illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel
  solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen
  disparibus puniendas (the souls of those who die in original sin as
  well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell,
  but their punishment is very different). D 464, 693.

  The dogma is supported by the words of Our Lord: “Unless a man be born
  again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of
  God” (John 3:5).

  The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an
  extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by
  blood of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism
  for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and
  desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of
  desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment
  of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God
  (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as
  quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed,
  possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. D
  712.

  In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the “poena
  damni,” which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of
  God, and the “poena sensus” which is caused by external means, and
  which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the
  body. While St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion
  that children dying in original sin must suffer “poena sensus” also,
  even if only a very mild one (mitissima omnium poena: Enchir. 93), the
  Greek Fathers (for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 40, 23), and
  the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that
  they suffer “poena damni” only. The declaration of Pope Innocent III,
  is in favour of this teaching: Poena originalis peccati est carentia
  visionis Dei (= poena damni) actualis vero poena peccati est gehennae
  perpetuae cruciatus (= poena sensus). D 410. A condition of natural
  bliss is compatible with “poena damni.” Cf. St. Thomas, De malo, 5, 3;
  Sent. II d. 33 q. 2 a. 2.

  Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for
  children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum
  (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod
  of Pistoia. D 1526.


What is the Reformed perspective on "All people are called by God to salvation in Christ"? The quote in the title is taken from paragraph 16 of the JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church. Is such a statement consistent or inconsistent with Reformed doctrine? If judged to be consistent, is it necessary to qualify the statement for it to fully harmonize with relevant doctrines?

A typical reformed response on this statement would be like that found in Matthew 22:14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

A typical reformed expositor writes:

  The gospel call goes forth far and wide. It reaches ever so many. Most of them are like the man in the parable: they hear but do not heed. In comparison with those many that are lost there are but few that are saved, that is, few that are chosen from eternity to inherit life everlasting. Salvation, then, in the final analysis, is not a human accomplishment but the gift of God’s sovereign grace. Cf. Luke 12:32; John 6:39, 44; Eph. 1:4. (NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY, WILLIAM HENDRIKSEN
  Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew)

Regarding the article on Justification that is linked in your question, historical reformed teachers would most likely find it intellectually dishonest. The Protestant view of Justification occurs in a 'single moment' prior to any kind of moral ability to be had.  A Catholic view of justification is that it is a life time process similar to what a Protestant calls sanctification. The article entirely glosses over this division, while grouping statements which both agree to under vary different senses. The Reformers would condemn this article and probably accuse the authors of deceit. The Reformers were not that interested in unity when it came to the central doctrine of the gospel which they believed the Catholic church to have utterly corrupted by denying the justification of a sinner 'in a moment' prior to sanctification.


Similarities and differences between the priesthood in the Catholic and the LDS Church As a follow up to Similarities and differences between the priesthood of all believers and the LDS priesthood, I ask what are similarities and differences between the priesthood in the Catholic and LDS Church?

Some obvious similarities are the hierarchical structure, and emphasis on education. Obvious differences include the ratio of priesthood holders to non-priesthood holders, and the formality of education required.

Note: I'm just looking for an overview/summary. Every similarity and difference would obviously be too big for this site.

I sincerely apologize that this will (and does) read like a long comment, but the comments section is too limiting to make the point.

The odds are that the only person who could answer this question well would be an active bearer of the priesthood in one church who apostatizes from it, converts to the other and thereby becomes an active bearer of the priesthood in the other.

...and that might be a pretty small group of people.  Active members of any church rarely convert to other churches.1

Let me cite a few examples of the problem.

(Pro-LDS) The Encyclopedia of Mormonism in the article "Catholicism and Mormonism," under the subheading "AUTHORITY," gives a bland one-paragraph statement that basically only introduces the idea of how the two organizations look at the authority held by the apostle Peter.  (And, IMHO, it doesn't even do that particularly well.)
(Neutral) In "Mormonism: An analysis of doctrine in comparison to Catholic and other Protestant faiths"2 author Anne Latham of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology tries to describe the LDS perspective in comparison to other beliefs.  The article compares very few things, and it's obvious that she either isn't LDS herself or is writing from a non-LDS perspective.  For example, she explains that men receive the Melchizedek Priesthood when they become High Priests.  Actually, men receive the Melchizedek Priesthood when they are first called to serve in any M.P. office, most commonly the office of Elder after they turn 18 and prepare to serve a mission.
(Pro-Catholic) A third example comes from Catholic.com.  The article is a decidedly anti-LDS article filled with shallow statements that misrepresent the LDS faith.  Which is curious, as this apparently not-affiliated-with-the-Catholic-Church ministry claims it began when "a Fundamentalist church in San Diego, California, decided to leaflet the cars at a local parish during Mass. The fliers attacked the Eucharist and were riddled with misinformation." (source).

My point is, neither organization really understands the other.3  I would hope there are scholars in each that could answer this question with the objectivity it needs, but if there are, they're not publishing on the Internet in a way that's easy to find.

Recommendation

Therefore, I recommend this question be deleted.  Instead, I recommend you ask something like: "From the perspective of [sect], how is its priesthood or ecclesiastical authority derived, organized and used?"  This will get you detailed answers about specific priesthood practices that can thereafter be compared.  And I suspect the group of people who can answer said question(s) increases thousands fold.

1 This is perhaps an egregious blanket statement.  Let's put it another way, "people who are so active in their church that they participate in leadership and/or ministerial roles rarely convert to other churches."  And whey they do, it's usually after a crisis of faith that led them to wonder why on earth they're attending the church they do.

2 Frankly, the title of this article and its hosting school should have foreshadowed its quality.  I'm hoping the author left the word "other" in as a typographic mistake and didn't really mean to imply that the Catholic Church was Protestant.  Or, perhaps, she mistakenly left the word "Protestant" in and meant Catholicism and other churches?  And why am I reading a religious article from an institute of technology?  Anyway...

3 Which isn't surprising.  In fact, speaking about each organization's membership generally, it's probably fostered and desirable.  But, perhaps on a more positive note, speaking from my own perspective as an active LDS member, my religion is my life.  There isn't a whole lot of time available to really study other religions.  That's why sites like this are so valuable.


What does it mean for a society to be moral? Inspired by Is a moral society more open to the gospel than an immoral one?

There have been many debates going around regarding what constitutes moral or immoral actions; moral or immoral society; etc.  This set of questions is in regards to society and how morality can be measured.

First and foremost, is it possible for a society to be moral or immoral?

If so, what does morality mean in regards to a society?  Meaning, what's the difference between a moral society and an immoral one?

As a Christian, I tend to define morality based on the Bible.  Can this same gauge be used for societies?  How can I apply this metric to societies that are undeniably non-Christian?

Ultimately: What does morality mean in the context of a society?

Many religions and societies have a shared core of moral precepts.  For example, the Dalai Lama writes on this topic:

  All religions teach moral precepts for perfecting the functions of mind, body, and speech. All teach us not to lie or steal or take others' lives, and so on. The common goal of all moral precepts laid down by the great teachers of humanity is unselfishness. The great teachers wanted to lead their followers away from the paths of negative deeds caused by ignorance and to introduce them to paths of goodness.

A common moral intuition has been posited (with some decent evidence) by some researchers; see Marc Hauser's Moral Minds for an example.  You may not agree with his interpretation of his data, but it is at least clear that a certain subset of morality is widespread (hereafter "common-morality") even among people who profess different beliefs.

Because of this commonality, there is a sense in which we can judge societies as moral or immoral without having to adopt any particular religion (which will unsurprisingly judge societies where different religions are prevalent as relatively less moral).  You can ask--at least vaguely--whether a society promotes as a matter of course and achieves in practice broad adherence to common-morality.  Furthermore, one can ask whether the society (including government institutions) treats its members as if it were an entity that followed common-morality.

For example, one can make a pretty strong case that the sub-societies of Somali pirates or Mexican drug gangs are not particularly moral (obviously: they induce people to kill and steal).  Fine distinctions are probably difficult (is Japanese society more or less moral than Finnish society?).


Why can't the laity preach a homily, and can a lay person ever preach? From this, Rochester diocese ends illicit practice of allowing lay people to preach homilies, perhaps because this was going on for such a long time, a person would ask what is the authoritative Catholic Church Teaching that prohibits a lay person (of either gender) from preaching the homily at Mass and are there cases where the laity may (men or women) can be allowed to preach in a church or oratory? Under what circumstances?

Code of Canon Law states:

  766.0 Lay persons can be permitted to preach in a church or oratory, if necessity requires it in certain circumstances or it seems advantageous in particular cases, according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops and without prejudice to 767.1

  767.1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; (....)

So, non-ordained faithful can preach, but NOT in the Mass. Because homily in the mass is a part of the liturgy which is reserved to the cleric (priest and deacon) alone. The reason for this is answered in Instruction On Certain Questions Regarding The Collaboration Of The Non-Ordained Faithful In The Sacred Ministry Of Priest Article 3.1

  The homily, therefore, during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, must be reserved to the sacred minister, Priest or Deacon(69) to the exclusion of the non-ordained faithful....  This exclusion of the lay people is not based on their preaching ability of sacred ministers nor their theological preparation, but on that function which is reserved to them in virtue of having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For the same reason the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying.

PS: 'The homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to the deacon, but never to a lay person. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a bishop or a priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate.' (GIRM 66)


Can a married woman enter heaven if she bears no children? Is there biblical basis for the idea that if a married woman bears no children she won't go to heaven? Is there a biblical basis against the idea?

Yes she can

You're probably getting tripped up by this passage:

  1 Timothy 2:13-15 ESV For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Which, by itself and read without any context, does seem to imply that a woman needs to bear children to be "saved". But we should know better than to read passages without their surrounding context. Context is king ☺.

This idea that women need to bear children to be saved is, of course, totally contradictory to the rest of the new testament and any of Paul's other writings. Paul made great effort to emphasize the fact that it takes faith in Jesus Christ to make peace (i.e., get saved) with God.

  Romans 2:28 ESV For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
  Galatians 3:11 ESV Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

So then what does the Timothy passage get at? Well, it's not totally clear, and when it's not clear you need to be open to reaching multiple valid conclusions (like this essay does). A popular viewpoint (and the one I take) is that Paul was speaking specifically about Eve--that Eve should save herself and everyone by eventually giving birth to the Christ.


Which faiths are accepted for membership in the Catholic Church? My husband and I were married in a Lutheran Church. He is Episcopal, I was Lutheran, then Confirmed Episcopal, but am now Confirmed Catholic for 26 years.

The Monsignor at our previous parish said the

  Lutheran Church was one of the Churches

that was accepted for marriage—we have been married 46 years!

A candidate for membership in the Catholic church will go through the RCIA (Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults) course as you did. This is the ordinary method for anyone to enter the church. Assuming your husband was not previously married and divorced, unless his earlier wife is still alive, there is not any impediment to your husband joining the Catholic church. Check with your Parish Priest for a more complete answer.


Why did Cardinal Ratzinger stop supporting a literal interpretation of creation in Genesis? I read that Cardinal Ratzinger stated the story in Genesis 1 and 2 should not be interpreted as a literal account of the beginning of things. In spite of recent events like this, they have always been in favour of a literal explanation of creation based on Genesis. This is what I read. Why does Ratzinger hold this view on such an important matter?

Ratzinger writes at such length as to obscure the point, in my opinion.  If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 283 (2nd ed.), the reasoning is spelled out in a brief and clear form:

  The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the
  object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our
  knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of
  life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to
  even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us
  to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and
  wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can
  say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know
  the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for
  wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

That is, they recognize and appreciate the value of scientific studies for the information they yield about matters including the history of the universe and life on earth.  This is entirely consistent with their stance that faith and reason can never truly be in conflict (CCC 159):

  Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be
  any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who
  reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason
  on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever
  contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all
  branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly
  scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict
  with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of
  faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering
  investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the
  hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all
  things, who made them what they are."

In this case, the scientific evidence against a literal reading of Genesis is so overwhelming that if truth cannot contradict truth, it suggests that the error is to read Genesis literally.  I do not know why it took so long for the Catholic Church to recognize this, but the current position is internally consistent and reasonable.

If they were to continue to insist on a highly literal interpretation, they would have had to drop their position on discrepancies and simply state that faith wins.  That would have been a much larger doctrinal change than maintaining (as they do, to my understanding) that Genesis 1 and 2 is spiritually accurate without being a literal account of all events.

More on this topic can be found in a large number of places, including here.


Did anyone try to convert Catholics on the Isle of Man to Protestantism? Was there any person who tried converting the Catholics there?

Since 1399 the Isle of Man has been a possession of the English (now British) crown.  In 1458 a bull of Pope Calixtus III transferred the Isle of Man (known as the diocese of Sodor and Man) from the ecclesiastical province of Trondheim in Norway to the ecclesiastical province of York in England.  By the time of Henry VIII, therefore, the Isle of Man was politically subject to the King of England and ecclesiastically subject to an English Archbishop. When England declared itself free from the Pope in 1534  this break applied, as a matter of course, to the Isle of Man also. When reforms of worship and doctrine were introduced in England, they were implemented throughout the provinces of  Canterbury and York, including the Isle of Man.

What this means it that the Reformation in the Isle of Man was not the result of any instigator, preacher or reformer on the Isle of Man itself,  but moved in tandem with the English Reformation.  As England became Protestant so did the Isle of Man.

As far as the ordinary Manx people were concerned the services of the church which had once been in Latin, a language they did not understand, were now conducted in English, a language they also did not understand. It has been conjectured that this led to a slow understanding and acceptance among the general population of Protestant beliefs and doctrines. The Clergy of the Church of England Database says:

  The impact of the Reformation was necessarily modified by the curious
  circumstances of the see. Writing in the 1890s, A. W. Moore was struck
  by what he regarded as the slow impact of Reformation principles,
  which he in part attributed to the fact that an English liturgy was
  not necessarily any more accessible than a Latin one to the
  Manx-speaking population.

John Phillips was appointed Archdeacon of Man in 1587, and became Bishop of Sodor and Man in 1605, a post he held until his death in 1633.  He devised a new alphabet to represent the sounds in the Manx language and translated the Book of Common Prayer (the English liturgy) into Manx in 1610. This was never printed but was  copied  by hand.  It was the first time the Manx language had been written down.

The first printed book in the Manx language was printed in 1707. This was "The Principles and Duties of Christianity",  written by Thomas Wilson who was Bishop of Sodor and Man for 58 years from 1697 to 1755. The translation of the Bible was begun by him and completed by the Manx clergy, led by his successor, Mark Hiddesley. It was printed in 1773. The slow progress in publishing a Manx Bible was in part due to the fact that the minority of the population who were educated enough to read  at all could do so in English. The majority, who spoke and understood only Manx, could not read.

Since before the Reformation the diocese of Sodor and Man has consisted solely of the Isle of Man and neighbouring small islands. Sodor originally referred to the Hebrides and is retained in the diocesan name for historical reasons only. The Isle of Man is not part of England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales or the United Kingdom. It is however part of the Church of England. The Bishop of Sodor and Man is appointed by the Queen, acing on the ultimate recommendation of the UK Prime Minister. He cannot sit in the UK House of Lords but is an ex officio member of the 11-strong upper house of Tynwald, the Manx parliament.


What is the significance of the three distinct aspects of the temptation of Eve in the garden? Genesis 3 indicates that there were three distinct aspects of the temptation of Eve:

  So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was
  a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one
  wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her
  husband who was with her, and he ate.  Genesis 3:6 ESV

Jesus was also tempted in three ways in Matthew 4:

  Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted
  by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was
  hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of
  God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." But he answered,
  "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
  that comes from the mouth of God.'"  Then the devil took him to the
  holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him,
  "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,
  "'He will command his angels concerning you,' and "'On their hands
  they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'"
  Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord
  your God to the test.'" Again, the devil took him to a very high
  mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
  And he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down
  and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is
  written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you
  serve.'" Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were
  ministering to him.  Matthew 4:1-11 ESV

Additionally, Jeremiah 9:23-24 speaks of three different things of which men must not boast:

  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, 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

1 John 2:15-17 also speaks of three things not to love in the world:

  Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves
  the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in
  the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and
  pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world.
  And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever
  does the will of God abides forever.  1 John 2:15-17 ESV

Finally, in the parable of the sower, there are three things that choke the word and make it unfruitful:

  but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the
  desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves
  unfruitful.  Mark 4:19 ESV

So, each of these identifies three things.  I've wondered if they are all speaking of the same three things, perhaps 1) What I have, 2) What I do, and 3) Who I am.

Is there any historical perspective from church history or any modern commentaries on these three specific aspects of temptation or sin?

1 Thessalonians 5:23 KJV
  And the very God of peace sanctify you
  wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be
  preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Shameless "copy and paste" from here:

  1: The BODY. This is your PHYSICAL component of being. It is flesh
  made from a collection of unremarkable mineral elements (but is mostly
  water) and is in harmony with the nature and spirit of this world. It
  grows, matures, begins to deteriorate, eventually dies, and then
  decomposes back into its constituent elements and remains a part of
  the dust of the world. The body is a part of you but is NOT ALL of
  what defines who YOU are.

    Proverbs 5:11 KJV
    And thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed,"

  2: The SOUL. This is who YOU are; it is a part of your SPIRITUAL
  component. This is your individuality, your "I AM" so to speak (made
  in God’s image), your "heart." Although your individual soul did not
  exist before your mother and father procreated you, it will exist
  forever. It cannot be killed by man:

    Matt. 10:28 KJV
    And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul
    and body in hell."

  When your body dies your soul (YOU) will leave the body of flesh:

    Genesis 35:18 KJV
    And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin."

  3: The SPIRIT. This is the source of power and control for both your
  body and soul; it is either evil or good, darkness or light, unholy or
  Holy, unclean or clean, of Satan or of God:

    Luke 9:55 KJV
    But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of."

Why all that explanation? Well, the Eve's temptation and Jesus temptation are similar:

         Eve                        Jesus
Body   - good for food            - stones to become loaves of bread
Soul   - delight to the eyes      - all these I will give you
Spirit - desired to make one wise - If you are the Son of God...

(Sorry the formatting, Markdown has not tables)

Satan tempted in all aspects possible both Jesus and Eve - Body, Soul and Spirit.

Finally, not all scholars accept that kind of theory, because consider "Soul" and "Spirit" to be equivalent, or different terms that refers to same subject.


Basis for priesthood restricted to men Is there a scriptural basis (preferably in Doctrine & Covenants) for the priesthood being restricted to men (at least on this earth)?

If not, what is the explanation for this practice?

Not explicitly, that being said, there are a variety of scriptures that indicate that men are to be ordained to the priesthood, rather than women.

There are no scriptures where it speaks of the priesthood in terms of daughters or mothers. The Priesthood has always been a Patriarchal order, even in the beginning with Adam.

Examples:

Numbers 3:3

  “These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests which were
  anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the priest’s office.”

Numbers 3:10

  “And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on
  their priest’s office…”

D&C 20:38

  “The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of
  the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to
  baptize;”

D&C 48 and 49

  “And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

  “And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder
  present;”

It also must be noted that all interactions related to the priesthood were males. Christ himself, Adam Melchizedek, Abraham, Noah, Elijah, Elisha, Moses, Aaron, Peter, James, and John, John the Baptist… All told, not a single reference to women when the priesthood was explicitly given or received.


Is the Sacrament of Confirmation really necessary to complete baptism? Can the sacrament of confirmation become obsolete in the Roman Catholic Church if the bishop is actually present and takes the time to do the 4th part of the baptismal rite during the baptism of the baby? Similarly, in the baptism of an adult convert to the RCC, will the baptismal rite have to be postponed if the bishop is not present at the ceremony to do the 4th part of the baptismal rite (the laying-on of hands and episcopal anointing)? Ultimately, the question boils down to this: is the Sacrament of Confirmation really necessary to complete baptism?

There are a number of approaches to answer this question. I chose to answer from St. Thomas Aquinas' SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The number of the sacraments (Tertia Pars, Q.65).

Article 1 tackled whether there should be seven sacraments and answered Confirmation was one of the sacraments instituted  by which the Holy Ghost is given to strengthen us.

In Article 4. Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?, St. Thomas answered that there is a twofold necessity of end:

First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life.
Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. (Adding: But this is not simple necessity of end.)

He then continues to answer that Baptism is necessary in the first way, simply and absolutely, while Confirmation which perfects Baptism is necessary in the second way.

cf. CCC 1285

  Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together
  constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must
  be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the
  reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the
  completion of baptismal grace.1 For "by the sacrament of
  Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church
  and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence
  they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread
  and defend the faith by word and deed."2

  1. Cf. Roman Ritual, Rite of Confirmation (OC), Introduction
  1.

  2. LG 11; Cf. OC, Introduction 2.

Borrowing loosely from St. Thomas' examples, heaven/one's salvation is the destination one needs to get to, being born would be the absolute and simple necessity toward that end, and confirmation would be the necessary horse  that one would require to get to heaven/be saved. To get onto a horse, one must first be born. Being born is the first necessary step, but one must get onto the required mount to get to their destination.

(PS and from CCC 1285, the Eucharist would be the food required for the journey).

The preceding answers: is the Sacrament of Confirmation really necessary to complete baptism?

CCC 1290-1292 should resolve the rest of your post.


Reading "Mere Christianity" and having a hard time with book III, chapter 12 I am reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and just finished Chapter 12 in the 3rd section. In this chapter he is discussing the idea that we need to realize we cannot fight sin ourselves, but we must "leave it up to God". We need to trust in following the path of Christ rather than simply putting our own effort forth to stop sinning. That's all great, but I'm having a hard time with the last two paragraphs. I was hoping someone could clarify what he is trying to say.

  I think all Christians would agree with me if I said that though Christianity seems at first to be all
  about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into
  something beyond. One has a glimpse of a country where they do not talk of those things, except
  perhaps as a joke. Every one there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled
  with light But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it.

  They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes. But this is near the stage where the road
  passes over the rim of our world. No one's eyes can see very far beyond that: lots of people's eyes can
  see further than mine.

This is a fairly straightforward reference to the teaching that once saved, God works on us to make us more Christ-like. (More here)  This is a very common belief, in mainstream Christianity, and in not-so-mainstream denominations, such as the LDS Church.  It is also known as Sanctification.

  Progressive sanctification

  "Indeed, the more sanctified the person is, the more conformed he is
  to the image of his Savior, the more he must recoil against every lack
  of conformity to the holiness of God. The deeper his apprehension of
  the majesty of God, the greater the intensity of his love to God, the
  more persistent his yearning for the attainment of the prize of the
  high calling of God in Christ Jesus, the more conscious will he be of
  the gravity of the sin that remains and the more poignant will be his
  detestation of it....Was this not the effect in all the people of God
  as they came into closer proximity to the revelation of God’s
  holiness." -John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied

The first paragraph you quoted alludes to the experience that in the beginning of our Christian walk, we all think about the rules a lot.  We think about avoiding this sin, trying to increase this positive trait.  As we become more conformed to the image of Christ, these things become more natural.  Our minds become more confirmed to the image of Christ through God's continuous work on us, and our own submission to His will that we no longer think about nit-picky rules, but instead, simply live in a way that is more Christ-like.  We don't think about it, we don't verbalize it, it becomes who we are.

In the end, we're not thinking about being good, we're too busy focusing on Christ Himself, the source of all goodness.

The last few sentences are indicating that Lewis didn't think he'd reached the same point in his walk as other, who were more closely confirmed to God's image than he was.

Taking this a step further, it is a quite lovely way of saying that Christianity isn't about rules, regulations, or morality, it's about Christ, and our relationship to and with Him.  We are "good" (or at least as good as we can be) because of the work He does in us, not because of our obedience to rules, but because of who we are through Him.  Our morality is based on our love for Him.  This is discussed here.


Ephesians 2:2, which one comes first in the Calvinist view? Ephesians 2:2 reads:

  in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and
  of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work
  in those who are disobedient.

A. Because the spirit is at work to some people, those people become
disobedient.
B. Because some people are disobedient, the spirit is at work in
those people.

According to Calvinist, is A or B the correct one ?
Thank you.

From Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 2:2 :

  We may now draw from it also this inference, that ungodly men have no excuse in being driven by Satan to commit all sorts of crimes. Whence comes it that they are subject to his tyranny, but because they are rebels against God? If none are the slaves of Satan, but those who have renounced the service, and refuse to yield to the authority, of God, let them blame themselves, for having so cruel a master.

Choice B. Those who refuse to yield to the authority of God become subject to the tyranny of Satan.


Translation / bibles / composition bible LXX - Masoretic? I have an issue that it seems at least as far as I can tell, that all bibles are incorrect in various ways, as far as I can tell in my opinion.

Is there a bible that exists that has compared all texts rather than one source?

Using the LXX, Masoretic and Others etc? Or are they individually created separate from each other?  If there an Masoretic text with the "flaws" changed to the LXX? etc.
I'm just getting really frustrated with people making bibles without really doing a "proper job".

edited due to comments....

Bibles do this today...

Not really. As the dates don't add up apparently in regards to timelines = Masoretic = does not work apparently, and septuagint does, apparently = 7500 years roughly? Unless others are wrong? Also Sinaiticus & Vaticanus, they are all from 1 text each, and in all modern bibles and they contradict each other, right...

Two dissagreeing points are here from the hebrew in one corner and the septuagint in the other, so where are they right and wrong? and which bible is right?

Septuagint Errors and Question of its Inspiration

The Septuagint (LXX) vs. corrupted Masoretic

these two pages/sites show obvious issues that no-one has sorted out that I have ever heard of, unless someone knows of a translation that includes Pauls Septuagint verses (explaining why because if they were removed, Paul would contradict himself and the hebrew) and the reason why Paul should be included if he is falsely claiming things not true in scripture if the hebrew is read and therefore in error doctrinally.

Apparently, without the Septuagint Paul is basically removed, one site says.  On the other side it says Origin mentions and the dates also, that the verses were removed by Jews from their texts to  remove support to Christianity.

I do not think the Septuagint/LXX is great or the hebrew in particular, I think we all just want the truth.

Every Bible translation has a target audience and a translation principle. No single translation can satisfy everyone. Modern English translations usually prioritize Masoretic over LXX but they will have footnotes indicating when the two differ.  Each Bible will have Introduction specifying in detail which critical edition of Greek & Hebrew text they use, how literal / dynamic the translation, and some conventions they use for the names of God, for example.  That is how they do their "proper job".

If you prefer LXX there are specialized LXX translations that recently came out such as NETS.

If you are into comparing variants of manuscript, you usually need to go with Greek edition and consult the accompanying Apparatus such as this one.

There maybe Greek / Hebrew edition Bible that have variants side by side.  But a much easier and flexible approach, the one that scholars are using, is to use powerful scholarly software such as Logos that allows you to turn on / off several layers to interspersed Greek/Hebrew with English (or other languages), or display parallel manuscript / translations side by side.


What does the parable of the "goodman of the house" mean? What are some possible explanations or correlations from scripture about the goodman who should not have let the thief break in?

  But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what
  watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have
  suffered his house to be broken up. - Matthew 24:43

This short parable is in between verses speaking about waiting and watching for Jesus return.

It's generally interpreted as a warning about the unexpected suddeness of the Lord's return.  Just as you cannot know when you might be robbed, you also cannot know when the Second Coming will occur.  Compare 1 Thessalonians 5 for a parallel warning by Paul. We can note that Paul compares "the Day of the Lord" (and not Jesus Himself) to the thief in the night.

Additional insight is also provided by Matthew 7:24-27, another parable about a house destroyed due to the owner's unreadiness.  If we take the house as the soul, the warning is that not having your "house in order" is to undergo a great risk.  We also have John 10:8-10, where Jesus contrasts Himself with a "thief", who, in context, can be understood as a false prophet or teacher --and perhaps even as the Adversary (the devil).

In summary, the theme seems to be that the "Day of the Lord" will not be without dangers for the unprepared soul.  I think we can take those dangers, spiritual and otherwise, as being the "thief" that one must prepare against.


Does anything different happen during General Conference when there's a new president? Next week will be the first general conference where President Nelson is the president of the Church. Does any special procedure or meeting occur because of this, or it is just a normal general conference?

Replacing the president of the Church is a special thing.  I addressed the process of calling a new prophet in this answer.  That process is different than what would be used to call, for example, a Ward Sunday School President.  It's no surprise that the process of sustaining a new president of the Church is also different.

D&C 26:2 teaches that all things in the Church must be done with the common consent of the congregation.  "Congregation" has a lot of different scopes in our church.  For example, a Ward (our most common congregational unit) will sustain (vote to approve or accept pursuant to the Lord's command to act with common consent) a new Bishop.  But no other Ward will vote to sustain that Ward's Bishop.  The scope being only that Ward.

The President of the Church requires the sustaining vote of the entire congregation of the Church.  When this is done the first time, it is done in a Solemn Assembly.

LDS Apostle David B. Haight taught:

  A solemn assembly, as the name implies, denotes a sacred, sober, and reverent occasion when the Saints assemble under the direction of the First Presidency. Solemn assemblies are used for three purposes: the dedication of temples, special instruction to priesthood leaders, and sustaining a new President of the Church. (General Conference, October 1994)

As he states, we use Solemn Assemblies for three purposes:

The dedication of temples.
Special instruction to priesthood leaders.
Sustaining a new President of the Church.

As a side note, #2 is interesting and intentionally a bit vague.  Assemblies for that purpose are most commonly to accept new scripture or direction for the Church.  I would need to do some research to see if D&C 136, received by Brigham Young, was accepted in a Solemn Assembly.  The early church was still creating the organization the Lord expected and some procedures weren't formally "locked in stone" for a number of years.  However, sections 137 and 138 were accepted as scripture in Solemn Assembly in the early 1980s along with Official Declaration 1 and Official Declaration 2.  It should be noted that there have been differences between the date a revelation or declaration was received or written and the date it was accepted as scripture by the congregation.  The process is intentionally slow.

The difference between a normal General Conference and a Solemn Assembly is procedurally small.  Rather than receive a single sustaining vote from the congregation as a whole (the normal process), each priesthood quorum votes in turn with the general membership voting last.  Again, we turn to brother Haight.

  There is a pattern to solemn assemblies that distinguishes them from other general Church meetings where we sustain officers of the Church. That pattern, which was established by the Prophet Joseph Smith, is that the priesthood quorums, commencing with the First Presidency, stand and manifest by the uplifted right hand their willingness to sustain the President of the Church as a prophet, seer, and revelator, and uphold him by their confidence, faith, and prayers. The priesthood quorums of the Church so manifest by their vote. Then the general body of all the Saints stand and signify their willingness to do the same.

TL/DR

So, yes, the meeting is different.  A new prophet is sustained (accepted by Common Consent) for the first time in a Solemn Assembly.  That sustaining is different in that each priesthood quorum votes, followed by a vote from the general assembly.  It is this specific and detailed process of exercising Common Consent that makes the meeting a Solemn Assembly.

Edit: Though I know of no official statement that it is this way, it appears historically (and was confirmed the morning of Saturday, March 31, 2018) that the Saturday morning session of General Conference is declared a Solemn Assembly (when they are required) and the sustaining vote takes place then.  At all other times, the sustaining vote takes place during the Saturday afternoon session of General Conference.  A curious detail, but only important from a procedural point of view.


What was the origin of repeated confession of fault during the Act of Contrition? What was context and time of origin of the repeated chant of ".. through my fault, through my fault,through my most grievous fault" in the Act of Contrition said during the Holy Mass of Catholic Church (Latin rite) ?

The number 3 has many meanings in the Christian/Catholic tradition, and some orthodox faiths repeat many parts of the liturgy three times. It is often honoring the three persons of the Trinity, but here it is more likely harkening back to scripture, as the liturgy does often. It also worth noting that the Confeitor prayer is also simply part of Tradition (since about the 11th century in its modern form).

This blog post sums it up nicely:

  In the revised 2011 English translation of the Mass, the threefold
  refrain reappeared, and we are once again encouraged to symbolically
  strike our breasts each time we acknowledge our fault.

  Why was this restored? And why do we, at the beginning of the prayer,
  not only admit that we have sinned, but that we have greatly sinned?

  The first reason is that the Catholic Mass is thoroughly biblical. So
  let’s start by noting what a threefold repetition means in the Jewish
  mentality. In Hebrew, you can’t add endings to words to express
  superlatives or emphasis. There is no “big, bigger, biggest” in the
  language of the Old Testament. So how do you get the idea across that
  something is the best, worst, or extremely important? By repeating it
  three times. When Isaiah had a vision of the Lord attended by angels,
  they cried out, “Holy, Holy, Holy!” which we repeat at every Mass.
  Peter’s denied Jesus three times. The Lord later asked Peter, “Do you
  love me?” (John 21:15–17) not once, but three times.

  Therefore, a threefold admission of our fault is a biblical way to
  emphasize what is said at the start of the prayer—that we have
  “greatly” sinned. Sin is not just a casual affair, an inconsequential
  blunder like failing to dot an i or cross a t. Sin is a most serious
  matter. God has given us everything, even sacrificing his only Son for
  us. He deserves all our love, as we say in the act of contrition.

  We are commanded to love him with all of our heart, soul, mind, and
  strength. When we fail to do so by neglecting our duty or by doing
  something that hurts others, ourselves, and God’s honor, it is
  grievous. As we become aware of what we’ve done or failed to do, the
  proper response is contrition, the kind of sorrow that leads not to
  despair but to change.

  But why the striking of our breasts as we recall our fault? Is being
  Catholic all about beating ourselves up? For the answer, we again need
  to turn to the Scriptures. In Luke 18:9-14, we meet a very pious
  Pharisee who congratulates God on being so fortunate as to have such a
  worthy servant as himself. There is also a publican, a tax collector,
  who strikes his breast as he comes before the Lord saying, “Lord, be
  merciful to me, a sinner.”

  By striking our breast, we distance ourselves from the Pharisee and
  stand, or rather bow, with the publican, acknowledging our
  unworthiness before the awesome majesty and perfect holiness of the
  living God. It is not about self-hatred but about humility. And
  humility means getting in touch with reality. As we begin the liturgy,
  we pause to recall that we don’t deserve to be there. We are all
  publicans and prodigals whom a loving Father embraces and welcomes not
  because of our virtues but in spite of our sins.


How do Old Earth Literalist handle the Biblical Earth age? I find it a confusing paradox, maybe someone can help clear this up.  If someone considers themselves to be a Biblical Literalist AND an Old Earth Creationist, how do you handle the dates within the bible?  Please see here for the complete article

And simply:

  Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we
  add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using
  the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or
  secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C.
  (4,000 years ago).

There are some grey areas in the calculation, however they're not thousands or millions of years.

Here's one answer (emphasis added):

  In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Professor William Henry
  Green and theologian Benjamin B. Warfield noted gaps and omissions in
  the Genesis genealogies. This suggested the creation was conceivably
  older than the 6,000-year timeframe proposed by Ussher and Lightfoot.
  Today many Bible scholars believe the Genesis genealogies were written
  primarily to provide only highlights and not necessarily a complete
  record of every actual generation.

And here's another from Reasons to Believe that argues in essence that there is telescoping and theological (rather than strictly historical -- but that's not to say unhistorical) content therein.

This theological telling of history is akin to what we see in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus, for instance. See "The Adoption of Jesus" where the (conservative) author notes:

  The generations are not counted in a precisely similar fashion —
  Jeconiah is counted twice. This is not inappropriate given that [the
  genealogy] is primarily a literary device intended to highlight the
  four markers [viz., Abraham, David, the exile, and Christ].
  Moreover, Jeconiah rightly belongs in both groups: in the first group,
  he is in a line of kings; in the second group, having been deposed, he
  is merely counted as a man.


Why were Saul's descendants killed? In 2 Samuel 21:1-14, we see that Saul committed an awful crime, and this caused famine in Israel. David then goes to Gibeonites and asked to make amends. They agree to the death of seven of Saul's descendants. Why were two of Saul's sons and five of Saul's grandsons killed for a crime they didn't commit? Is there something I'm missing?

These people were punished for their fathers' crimes. For many of us living in the 21st century in the West, this offends our sense of justice. But if you look back throughout history, generally the crimes of the son have always affected the father, and the crimes of the father have always affected the son.

Later in the Old Testament, in Ezekiel Chapter 18, the Lord decreed specifically that Children should not be punished for their parents sins, this is actually the context where we get a somewhat famous verse, Ezekiel 18:20: "The soul who sins shall die."

I'll quote some for context.

Ezekial 18:1-2:

  The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:
  ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
  And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

The idea is that fathers do an action, and the children are the ones who experience the consequence.

Gods response is in verse 3-4:

  “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.

  “Behold, all souls are Mine;
  The soul of the father
  As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
  The soul who sins shall die.

So here God affirms that children should not be punished for their parents' crimes if they are indeed innocent, which is more in line with our modern view of justice for sure.

So to answer your question, they were killed for their father/grandfathers' crimes. But I sort of got the impression you were also asking, "What does the Bible say about children being punished for their fathers crimes?"  So I added that aspect also.