Where can I find Calvin's commentary on the Hebrew Bible in the original Latin? Where can I find Calvin's commentary on the Hebrew Bible in the original Latin? I am looking to find his comments on Genesis 12.

The Post-Reformation Digital Library is the best place I've found for these sorts of documents.  And, sure enough, a search for "Calvin" and "Genesis" includes the following results:

In Primum Mosis Libru[m], qui Genesis vulgo dicitur, Commentarius Iohannis Calvini, 1554, page 84
Commentarii Ioannis Caluini in quinque libros Mosis, Genesis seorsum reliqui quatuor in formam harmoniae digesti, 2ed, 1573, page 96

The page numbers indicate where, according to the book's internal pagination, the commentary on Genesis 12 begins.


According to Catholicism, is Jesus' resurrected body in a certain location now that it has ascended? According to Catholicism, does Jesus still have his resurrected body, and if so is it in a certain location now that it has ascended?

He ascended body and soul into heaven.
Catechism of the Council of Trent (eBook) on Article 6 of the Creed, "He ascended into heaven…":

First Part of this Article: "He Ascended into Heaven"
With regard, then, to the exposition of this sixth Article, which has
reference principally to this divine mystery, we shall begin with its
first part, and point out its force and meaning.
"Into Heaven"
This, then, the faithful must believe without hesitation, that Jesus
Christ, having fully accomplished the work of Redemption, ascended as
man, body and soul, into heaven; for as God He never forsook heaven,
filling as He does all places with His Divinity.
"He Ascended"
The pastor is also to teach that He ascended by His own power, not
being taken up by the power of another, as was Elias, who was carried
to heaven in a fiery chariot; or, as the Prophet Habacuc, or Philip,
the deacon, who were borne through the air by the divine power, and
traversed great distances.
Neither did He ascend into heaven solely by the exercise of His
supreme power as God, but also by virtue of the power which He
possessed as man. Although human power alone was insufficient to
accomplish this, yet the virtue with which the blessed soul of Christ
was endowed was capable of moving the body as it pleased, and His
body, now glorified, readily obeyed the behest of the soul that moved
it. Hence, we believe that Christ ascended into heaven as God and man
by His own power.


What does biblical inerrancy imply? I was asking this question:

How do Christians that do not believe in inerrancy interpret the Bible?

when I realized that my definition of inerrancy is probably different from others'. One definition (in my own words) is "The Bible is inerrant so long as it is translated and interpreted correctly" but a more extreme definition is "The Bible is inerrant and must be interpreted literally".

It seems to me that there are several things that could make the Bible errant (keep in mind that I'm not necessarily suggesting that any of these are the case):

It is dis-proven by science or historical fact
Its original text was misrecorded
Its translation into our native language was incorrect
Its interpretation is not correct

Between the two examples I gave you will either hit up against the facts of science/history (sorry Young Earth creationists, just bear with me), and the infinite possibilities of non-literal interpretations (which, so long as they are not the same, cannot all be right). Therefore there must be some error between God's mouth thousands of years ago and our heads today. It is inescapable the way I see it.

Maybe it's just syntax that's holding me up, but where do people draw the line when they talk about inerrancy? Is it without error between God's mouth and the original transcription? That neglects to recognize the potential for error downstream to the reader. It seems to me that as soon as you allow for interpretation you taint the inerrancy.

In other words, doesn't the fact that we are constricted by the boundaries and limitations of language (whether spoken, written, or read) make inerrancy impossible?

I'm going to try to give you a good answer to the exact questions you asked; then I am going to suggest a perspective for your consideration based on the issues you have raised in the comments you made surrounding your questions.

1) If you don't believe in the inerrancy of scripture, on what basis can you interpret scripture?

If you believe that scripture may contain errors, then it could contain errors at any point. There is really no passage that would be off limits. You would be forced to decide which scripture you think matches what God originally said, and which scripture you think got messed up somewhere along the line. You could do this a variety of ways, for instance you could examine the oldest documents. But ultimately you would have to decide which parts were pure.

2) Where do people draw the line when they talk about inerrancy?

Some groups say that the original writings were inspired and inerrant. If you google half a dozen denominations you will probably hit on this a few times. Unfortunately, no one has the original writings as penned by the apostles and prophets. So we are back to trying to figure out which readings are probably the closest match to the original writings based on the age or quality of the manuscripts and our skill in interpreting the languages into English.

Examples:

  Christian Missionary Alliance
  cmalliance.org/about/beliefs/doctrine

  First Baptist Atlanta: fba.org/main/statement-of-faith "without
  error in its original manuscripts";

  Westminster Confession section 1.8 OT Hebrew and NT Greek are to be
  appealed to as a final resort
  epc.org/about-the-epc/beliefs/westminster-confession/#ch1

Other groups say that the concepts are inspired, but not the details. Since concepts are built up from details, again you must decide what is a concept and what is a detail, as well as which concept reflects accurately the ideas in the text.

Example:

  Inerrant in what it intends to teach, not the details:
  peterballard.org/errancy.html

3) Is it without error between God's mouth and the original transcriptions?

Again, that is where many groups draw the line. And you are right to point out that it leaves room for problems down the line. And if we accept that premise, those problems are not resolvable without the original writings, which no longer exist.

If there are possibilities of error in the Biblical text, then you are right to point out that those errors could be generated by transcriptional mistakes or translation into our language. Errors could by exposed by science or history. Errors of interpretation could also be incorrect, but that would not affect the text itself.

Another perspective

However, let me propose another perspective for your consideration. Instead of asking "Where do people draw the line on inerrancy?"; I want to suggest a perspective on "Where does the Bible itself draw the line on inerrancy?" that I hope you will find interesting to consider.

Psalm 12:6-7

  "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of
  earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them O Lord, thou shalt
  preserve them from this generation for ever."

2 Timothy 3:16

  "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
  doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
  righteousness."

This perspective would say that these passages point to God Himself preserving His words in written form on earth ("scripture") for the church to use forever. So by this point of view, at any time in history, the church has had access to His pure words in written form. Since we no longer have the originals, this view trusts that God has continued the preservation process including through the translation process so that people who believe Him and follow Him at least have the potential to access His pure words in written form.

This view depends on God to have a firm hand in the process. He has to guide translators that He chooses, and when they get it right, get that translation into the hands of believers and then bless their efforts so that those words get into the hands of everyone who needs them. All you have to worry about is whether or not you have the right version; but you don't have to really worry about that either because you can trust God, follow God, and seek after God and trust that He will put it into your hands and let you know you have it. "Seek and ye shall find" (Matthew 7:7), and "he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).

By this view then, you should treat the version you have as the pure words of God until God shows you it isn't and shows you to replace it with the one that is. If you have the pure words of God in front of you, and science or history disagrees with it, then either you are reading the text wrong or scientists and historians are interpreting their measurements and artifacts wrong. Not making wrong measurements, but interpreting what they measure the wrong way and using the puzzle pieces to construct the wrong picture.

God will make sure the recording and translating process results in an end product that has His pure words in the language or languages needed for that time in history so that believers are equipped. You can make errors of interpretation, but as you continue to read and study it you will realize those errors and the text will correct your understanding.

So rather than you finding and correcting errors in the text, the text will be finding and correcting errors in your mind.

This perspective is held by certain groups who would not draw the line as you have said but would put the whole process back on God to draw the line, preserve His words (Psalm 12), and put the right copies in the hands of believers as they need it.

Examples of groups who believe preservation by God through history:

  group that holds to the divine preservation of all words:
  preservedword.com/c/pres_doc

  group that holds to preservation in general but not to the detail
  level: gotquestions.org/preservation-Bible.html

Your last question:

4) Doesn't the fact that we are constricted by the boundaries and limitations of language (whether spoken, written, or read) make inerrancy impossible?

Only if the process is up to us with no guaranteed oversight or intervention by the God who is not limited.


When talking about the Trinity, what does "persons" mean? The triune God is defined as three persons equal in nature. What does "persons" mean in this statement? Can the word "persons" be replaced with "personalities" or "roles"?

The classic definition of "Person" is that given by Boethius in De persona et duabus naturis: an individual substance of a rational nature).

St. Thomas Aquinas explained the preceding definition in terms that practically constitute a new definition: a substance, complete, subsisting per se, existing apart from others (Summa Theologica, III, Q. xvi, a. 12, ad 2um).

Regarding the persons of the Blessed Trinity, for the constitution of a person it is required that a reality be subsistent and absolutely distinct. The three Divine realities are relations, each identified with the Divine Essence. A finite relation has reality only in so far as it is an accident; it has the reality of inherence. The Divine relations, however, are in the nature not by inherence but by identity. The reality they have, therefore, is not that of an accident, but that of a subsistence. They are one with ipsum esse subsistens (Subsistent Act of Existing Itself).

A much, much more detailed discussion of this topic -- with citations that could give you a few years more reading -- can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on "Person."


Does believing in Christ activate God's word or just make us think and act different? I am confused about what it really means to activate God's power in my life, which I heard my pastor say.

  “But as for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord,
  and with justice and might…” (Micah 3:8, NIV)

or

  Renew a right spirit within me. —Psalm 51:10

There are passages that make it sound like something actually comes into us (the Holy Ghost, I heard someone say) and actually changes real life situations...in other words things from from the meta-physical or spiritual world changing us and daily experiences.

Is that true, or is it us just acting and thinking differently?

or maybe means activating the part of God already in us?

Since I don't know the context it is hard to explain what your pastor meant exactly. I will try to give a general answer to the question about the Spirit as a strengthening and guiding Helper in our lives.

(This answer will ignore the teaching in the Bible about the Spirit as co-creator with Christ and the Father, the Spirit as the endowing power that enabled the earthly Jesus to perform miracles and indeed even submit to the Father's will in sacrificing himself, etc.)

Two points before I really get started.

First of all, the Bible never intends to solve the paradox between our responsibility as human beings and our dependence on God. It's like the bike having two pedals. You will need both to push it forward.

Second, the Spirit will guide us to maturity. Being mature means not having to be told every minute detail that you're supposed to do. Such knowledge will be internalized when you're grown up.

Occasionally, though, there may be moments when specific guidance is needed, especially for ministry. But let's start at the beginning.

The Spirit is not completely unknown to any living human being. "He himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else." Acts 17:25
God can, through the Spirit, speak to (or prompt) anyone or speak through anyone. Like Cyrus of Persia or through Balaams donkey. The person may or may not be aware that it is God speaking.
It was through the Spirit of God that saving faith is bestowed to us. While Christian traditions may interpret the how of this differently, the fact that the Spirit is a key part of this is unarguably true.
It is through the Spirit that you're born again. The phrase may have been overused or even abused, the Biblical truth never becomes reduced to nothing. Being born again means a fundamental inner transformation. It makes you partake of the nature of Christ himself. But our sinful nature is not erased. As of us being born again, the Spirit takes begins to dwell in us. The verb dwelling is never applied to unbelievers.
The Spirit will illuminate the Word of God, making it more than a an objective truth, but also a personal communication from God.
The Spirit will guide us and strengthen us by giving (or withdrawing) inner peace. That peace needs us dialing down and taking time to communicate with God through individual and communal prayer, worship and listening to Gods Word. It can be silenced by stress, fear and doubt.

The greatest working of the Spirit and the most awesome effect of the Spirit dwelling in our beings, is the release of the cry Abba! Father! The Spirit makes our being daughters and sons of God more than a judicial state, it enables intimacy in our communion with the Father. (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6)

So far I think every believing reader on this forum will agree. I will provide a few more points, where admittedly Christian traditions differ, but this is how I interpret the Bible:

The Spirit can "fill us", or "come upon us". This happened to Peter at least 3 times in Acts (2:4; 4:8; 4:31 - exact same verb in the Greek original). Through this we get power for ministry in that situation.
The Spirit will endow us with Spiritual gifts, through which we can build each others up; Through them we can exhort, inspire, comfort, teach, heal, etc.
We can be "filled" with Spirit. The NT has other verbs that speak of a more continual state. But there is no exact distinction between points 5-7.
We can be guided through the Spirit, not as in being taught doctrine apart from the Bible, but as in being helped in our individual service for God.
The Spirit will help us pray, through inner promptings, prophetic inspiration or the gift of tongues.

Finally (at least in this answer), building this primarily on Gal 5:13-26, but also many other sources.

The Spirit will empower the godly life, helping us resist evil and temptation and provide strength to avoid sin.
Through the Spirit "the fruit (singularis) of the Spirit", primarily love, faith and hope, but in essence encompassing every good and Christ lie personality trait. Thus, God is working so that I both in will and in deed do the will of God. My will is not reduced from the equation, but it is affected by God. He will make me want what is good.

The Christian life may contain many periods of great enthusiasm, personal revival. I personally think of these as the blossoming season in the spring. Fruit, however, is seen during the dull autumn. Fruit grow slowly. (While gifts are given instantaneously.)

So in essence - yes the Spirit of God is in a sense an external force. God is God and I am me. But the Spirit of God dwells within me, since I have been made a child of God thanks to Christ. Thus, the Spirit is working within me, but also through other people in my vicinity.


Why and how do Creationists agree with microevolution but disagree with the idea of macroevolution We had the question about the speed of light. But why do Creationists agree with microevolution and disagree with the idea of macroevolution at the same time?

Macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.

Macroevolution, as I understand, is nothing more than a lot of microevolutions chained together and is fundamentally the same. If you agree with one, how can you disagree with the other?
A good example, why both are the same is for example our own live. If we had pictures of each day in our life, look at one of it, both the picture of the day before and day after would seem to look the same. But if we skip a few years between the pictures, the difference would be remarkable. Altough we have only small changes each day, if we observe a longer timeframe the change is huge. And noone can say at what day we stopped being a baby and are a toddler now or went from adulescent to adult.
Its the same with species, there are a lot of different transitional states, but you can't say where it stopped to be one species and starts to be another. This seems obvious to me, but Creationists disagree with it. What are their arguments?

Micro-evolution is variation within a kind and macro-evolution is said to result from a lot of micro-evolution, but it is really a change of "kind".

Variations within a kind indicate that all the genetic information is already available within the species, but through isolation of features, certain characteristics become more prominent.  With the breeding of dogs, this is what takes place--not the creation of new genetic material, but the isolation and selection of the information that is already there.

In Genesis 1, the phrase "according to their own kind" comes up quite a bit.  The word kind, I've heard somewhere, could encompass all members of the dog family, including wolves, coyotes, etc.

Macro-evolution requires new information, a change in the chromosome count (at some point), and is by definition different from variations within a kind.  So, macro-evolution is definitely not a bunch of variations within a kind.  Macro-evolution demands that it break outside of its own kind.  No matter how many variations within a kind occur, with the same chromosome count and isolation or selection of information that exists, no new information is ever created and the chromosome counts never change.

Everything we have ever observed falls into variations within a kind, with no chromosome count change and no new information.  Fruit flies may have extra wings, but the information for wings was already there.  It was just replicated in the wrong spot.  The scientific method of observation and replication confirms that things do reproduce after their own kinds.

Macro-evolution has never been observed.  What we do observe is different kinds in the fossil record.  The assumption that one kind evolved into another is just that--an assumption.  The only evidence is similarity, which is circumstantial evidence at best.  Finding the bones of a species only tells us that the species existed.  It does not tell us it evolved from another.

Again, all observable, repeatable, scientific experimentation confirms that species reproduce after their own kinds.  To blindly accept that species reproduce after other kinds just because other kinds exist is certainly not science.

The creation model says that all kinds were created and reproduce after themselves.  If we ask whether or not the evidence fits this model, it seems pretty clear that it does.  We see "kinds" reproducing after their own kind all the time.  Some variations within a kind go extinct, like the dodo bird and others, but they all reproduce after their own kinds.

The evolution model rests on something that has never been observed despite much experimentation, so it rests on something that is presumed to occur despite science's inability to replicate it.  When all experimentation fails to support a theory, it usually results in the discarding of that theory.  In the case of evolution, however, the philosophical implications appear to be too significant for that to take place.


My question is for Biblical Unitarians and is based on their website as it relates to Philippians 2:6-8 The following is one of the things they stated. "Like the rest of us, Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphe), of a human. However, because he always did the Father’s will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience, he therefore had the outward “appearance” (morphe) of God also. https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/philippians-2-6-8
Since Jesus Christ was born as a human being like the rest of us, meaning He appeared as a man why was it necessary for Him to take the form of a bond-servant/man at Philippians 2:8 since He is a man already?
And at verse 6 the Apostle Paul states, "who, although He existed in the morphe or form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." The following is what Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson says about verse 6, "Being (υπαρχων — huparchōn). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of υπαρχω — huparchō In the form of God (εν μορπηι τεου — en morphēi theou). Μορπη — Morphē means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.
Then at verse 7 the very first word is "but." That word means that what follows is going to be the antithesis of what preceded it. So what preceded it is the fact that Jesus Christ went from one form of being God to another form of that of being a man.
So again, since Unitarians believe Jesus was a man and appeared as a man or from verse 8, Jesus took the "fashion" (schema) or "appearance of a man why did He have to change forms?
Or to put it simply, why go from already being a man to being a man again?

"Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ."
If Paul had wanted to make a clear statement equating Jesus with God, he sure did it in a funny way - a series of verses that are highly contentious, whether between trinitarians and unitarians or just between trinitarians themselves.
IMO something clear would have been something that included "Jesus is God." Easy! Because this is an earth-shattering claim for Paul, an observant Jew who believes God is Spirit, you would think he would not only state it once in one letter, but repeat it loudly and clearly. Instead, he uses a word here which can mean all sorts of things ('morphe'), in particular 'shape' or 'outward appearance'.

Strong's Greek 3444: Form, shape, outward appearance. Perhaps from the
base of meros; shape; figuratively, nature.

On the other hand, St. Paul distinguishes time and again between Jesus and God. So which is the proper hermeneutic - a cryptic, highly debated sentence which suggests to some that Jesus is God, or clear, repeated statements distinguishing them? My hermeneutic favours the latter.
Philippians 2 5-11:

"Have this mindset in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, though
he was in the form of God, considered being equal with God not
something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a
servant, being born in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion
as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death—even death on
a cross! And therefore God raised him to the highest place of honor
and gave him the name that is above every name, in order that at the
name of Jesus every knee will bow—in heaven and on earth and under the
earth — and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to
the glory of God the Father." (Revised English Translation)

(As a sidenote, the passage distinguishes between God and Jesus just after 2:6-8 at 2:9. "And therefore God raised him to the highest place of honor [...]")
The article you linked to explains fairly clearly in what sense Jesus was 'existing' as the 'morphe' (form) of God and instead took on the 'morphe' (form) of a servant:

"Scripture says Christ was the “image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4), and Jesus
himself testified that if one had seen him, he had seen the Father.
Saying that Christ was in the “form” (outward appearance) of God is
simply stating that truth in another way. Unlike Adam, who grasped at
being like God (Gen. 3:5), Christ, the Last Adam, “emptied himself” of
all his reputation and the things due him as the true child of the
King. He lived in the same fashion as other men. He humbled himself to
the Word and will of God. He lived by “It is written” and the commands
of his Father. He did not “toot his own horn,” but instead called
himself “the son of man,” which, in the Aramaic language he spoke,
meant “a man.” He trusted God and became obedient, even to a horrible
and shameful death on a cross."

On this view, Jesus isn't just a man like any other man. He is the Son of God, the Messiah. So what does 'being made in human likeness' mean? My best guess on this view is that it means he carried himself as a typical man, the 'son of man' - a carpenter from a small-town.
So, from the OP:
"Since Jesus Christ was born as a human being like the rest of us, meaning He appeared as a man why was it necessary for Him to take the form of a bond-servant/man at Philippians 2:8 since He is a man already?"
He is born not just any man, but the Son of God. He has to empty himself of "all his reputation and the things due him" as the Christ, and follow God's plan.
Q: You say St. Paul's language isn't clear here re Jesus' divinity, but isn't he being clear at Titus 2:13?
A: Titus 2:13 is another contentious passage. See here for a Biblical Unitarian discussion of it.
Q: But how could he be born a man if he starts out a man?
A: This question seems to take a trinitarian lens to the passage. So he's in the form of God, then empties himself just before or during the incarnation, and so is born a man. This is not the unitarian view - this is not a temporal sequence referring to conception. St. Paul does not make the logical connections between the various elements clear here, but 'being born in the likeness of men' is probably a paraphrase or goes along with taking the form of a servant - i.e., “emptying himself” of all his reputation and the things due him as the Messiah and Son of God and living in the same fashion as other men. This is probably meant to refer to an on-going state of affairs (hence a 'mindset'), not an event that just happened once as in the trinitarian view.


Who were the recepients of Christian monumental sculptures in the early middle ages (10th and 11th century)? I am in the process of writing a paper about the bronze column commissioned by Bernwardus Hildesheimiensis, the bishop founder of Benedictine Monastery of St. Michael in Hildesheim, completed approximately between 1015-1022.
The question I am trying to answer is who could actually see this monument. There are various theories about why such an expensive and technologically advanced bronze sculpture was created and erected in a "frontier" place like Hildesheim (barely a town, more a muddy farmer village) at the turn of the 10th to the 11th century. One of the theories is that it was supposed to impress the pagan Slavic populations that were being Christianized in this era. The intention was to show Christian superiority in both faith and as an advanced civilisation. But as it was positioned inside an abbey church, there was certainly no pagan who would have seen it.
My question is thus: Who could see this column apart from the clerics? How could it help spread the Gospel and help the conversion to Christianity of the Slavic people?

Who could see the Bernward Column in the Benedictine Monastery of St. Micheal in Hildesheim, Germany apart from the clerics? How could it help spread the Gospel and help the conversion to Christianity of the Slavic people?
First of all what is this Bernward Column?

The Bernward Column also known as the Christ Column is a Romanesque bronze column, made c. 1000 for St. Michael's Church in Hildesheim, Germany, and regarded as a masterpiece of Ottonian art. It was commissioned by Bernward, thirteenth bishop of Hildesheim. It depicts images from the life of Jesus, arranged in a helix similar to Trajan's Column: it was originally topped with a cross or crucifix. - Bernward Column

Where was it situatated within the Abbey Church?

Bishop Bernward ordered the column about the year 1000. Therefore its known as Bernward’s Column. It was built for the Benedictine monastery St. Michael’s founded by Bernward and was located behind the rood altar in the eastern part of the nave. - Christ’s Column (Bernward’s Column)

Here is the column in question:

Bernward’s Column is a masterpiece of the highest competence – masterful manufactured, that even with most modern technology a reproduction was difficult. The helical structure is upheld inside by a steel pole and screw connection and both ends are under stress – similar to the spinal column which supports the torso of the human body.
Outwards a story made of pictures is to be found. 28 scenes taken from the public life of Jesus helical lead upwards, to begin with the launching ceremony of Jesus, progressing with his miracle actions right up to his triumphal procession into the city of Jerusalem.
The todays capital is a free reproduction from the 19th century. The top of the column in the first place was a rood. It was aiming point of the pictures, to which the four incarnations of the paradise-rivers look up from their basis.
In the rough-and-tumple during the reformation the rood was melted down in the middle of the 16th century to cast cannons. Not alone this encroachment endangered the masterpiece: about 100 years later also the capital was melted down to pay the bell of the in the meanwhile being evangelic church of St. Michael’s. About 1730 it is considered to convert the whole column into cash. A campaign for donations prevents this step.

The column in itself is a form of a Poor Man’s Bible (Biblia Pauperum).

The term Poor Man's Bible has come into use in modern times to describe works of art within churches and cathedrals which either individually or collectively have been created to illustrate the teachings of the Bible for a largely illiterate population. These artworks may take the form of carvings, paintings, mosaics or stained-glass windows. In some churches a single artwork, such as a stained-glass window has the role of Poor Man's Bible while in others, the entire church is decorated with a complex biblical narrative that unites in a single scheme.

The column being situated in the east transept behind the rood altar would mean that generally speaking the only ones to see the column would be the religious who lived within the Monastery.
The rood altar is such named because the monks processed in and out of a side door when entering and leaving the church and thus did not have to mingle with visitors or guests of the abbey. In other words, the Bernward Column was situated within the monastic cloister.
One has to keep in mind that at this time in history, monastic communities were very large and the vast majority were not clerics but lay brothers or working monks who were often illiterate. For these monks the column was truly a Poor Man’s Bible.
Occasionally, male visitors and guests would be permitted to tour the abbey church with a monk as a guide. These guests could be either members of the faithful or even Pagans.
On rare occasions, such as at an ordinations or professions of one of the monks, the families of these monks and even their extended families and friends would be seated there to witness the ordination or profession. This would include women, mother, sister and so on of the ordinands and/or those who are making monastic profession.


Is the New Covenant a unilateral or a bilateral covenant? The Old Covenant was a bilateral covenant of which Yahveh and the nation of Israel were parties. The Israelites had to agree to the terms of the covenant, which they did (Exo. 24:7).

Is the New Covenant a bilateral covenant?

Yes, it is a bilateral covenant! This is the new covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-34 (NIV) :

  “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

This new covenant started when Jesus poured out his blood (symbolized by the wine in the last supper), Luke 22:20 (NIV):

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

All we have to do to accept this new covenant is stated in Romans 10:9-12 (NIV):

  If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Jesus basically stated the "terms" in John 15:5-7 (NIV), though not speaking specifically about a covenant:

  “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.


According to Catholics, when is Luke 22:8? Luke 22

  (7)Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb
  had to be sacrificed.  (8)Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go
  and make preparations for us to eat the Passover."

From the info of verse 7, so when Jesus say "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover" I guess it happen in the time where the Jewish people either are preparing a lamb to be sacrificed (sacrificed in the same day) or even maybe some of the Jews are already sacrificing the lamb when Jesus say that.

Assuming my guessing is correct, the question is :
What date that event happen ?
13 Nissan ? 14 Nissan ? or 15 Nissan ?

The Reformed opinion is sought here

The Lutheran opinion is sought here.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia, discussing the timing of the Last Supper, refers to Luke 22:7, along with parallels Matthew 26: 17 and Mark 14 12 and says:

  From these passages it seems to follow that Jesus and his disciples conformed to the ordinary custom, that the Last Supper took place on the 14th of Nisan, and that the Crucifixion was on the 15th, the great festival of the Jews.

According to this, then, Luke 22: 7 happened on the morning of the 14th Nissan. The Last Supper took place that evening and was the Passover meal.

Because the Jews reckoned a day as beginning at sunset, then the evening of the 14th counted as the 15th,  so the Last Supper on Thursday evening and the Crucifixion on Friday daytime were both on the 15th.

However, the article adds,  it seems in John's Gospel that Crucifixion took place on the 14th, and even in the other Gospels there are tings happening on the day of the Crucifixion which seem unlikely to have happened on Passover.

There is therefore some uncertainty as to whether the day on which the disciples prepared the Last Supper was the 14th (synoptic) or 13th (John).

Pope Benedict XVI discussed the issue in his book Jesus of Nazareth,  an excerpt from which can be seen here.    He starts with the Synoptic Gospels and says that according to them the Last Supper was the Passover meal. This of course means that Luke 22:7 was on 14th Nissan.

However he goes on:

  This chronology suffers from the problem that Jesus' trial and crucifixion would have taken place on the day of the Passover feast, which that year fell on a Friday. ...  But despite all academic arguments, it seems questionable whether the trial before Pilate and the crucifixion would have been permissible and possible on such an important Jewish feast day.

He then goes on to consider John's chronology:

  Let us now turn to John's chronology. John goes to great lengths to indicate that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal. On the contrary: the Jewish authorities who led Jesus before Pilate's court avoided entering the praetorium, "so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover" (18:28). The Passover, therefore, began only in the evening, and at the time of the trial the Passover meal had not yet taken place; the trial and crucifixion took place on the day before the Passover, on the "day of preparation", not on the feast day itself. The Passover feast in the year in question accordingly ran from Friday evening until Saturday evening, not from Thursday evening until Friday evening.

In that case the incident in Luke 22 7 would have been on Nissan 13.

The Pope Emeritus (as he now is)  then points out John's chronology has Jesus's death at the time the Paschal lambs were being slaughtered, and the theological significance of this has led some to argue John altered the chronology  to fit the theology.

He discusses in some detail various theories that have ben suggested to reconcile the Synoptic accounts with that of John. He does not find them entirely satisfactory.

  One thing emerges clearly from the entire tradition: essentially, this farewell meal was not the old Passover, but the new one, which Jesus accomplished in this context. Even though the meal that Jesus shared with the Twelve was not a Passover meal according to the ritual prescriptions of Judaism, nevertheless, in retrospect, the inner connection of the whole event with Jesus' death and Resurrection stood out clearly. It was Jesus' Passover. And in this sense he both did and did not celebrate the Passover: the old rituals could not be carried out – when their time came, Jesus had already died. But he had given himself, and thus he had truly celebrated the Passover with them. The old was not abolished; it was simply brought to its full meaning.

  On this basis one can understand how it was that very early on, Jesus' Last Supper – which includes not only a prophecy, but a real anticipation of the Cross and Resurrection in the Eucharistic gifts – was regarded as a Passover: as his Passover. And so it was.

It is impossible to say that there is a definite Catholic point of view on the matter. However  the idea that the chronology associated with John is the correct one is supported by  Pope Benedict, and his focus on the Eucharistic Theology, is also Catholic.

On this basis Luke 22: 7 took place on Nissan 13.


What Biblical support for praying to the saints is usually cited by those Christians who practice that? Possible Duplicates:
  Praying to people outside the Trinity
  What is the Basis for the solicitation of prayers from dead saints

I understand that those who practice praying to the saints rely heavily on either their own experience in this regard or on the experience of others who likewise practiced praying to the saints in their lives. However, they may also have some support from the Bible for this practice. What places from the Bible do such Christians view as indicating the validity of this practice?

So, this is what DRV suggest. (all Bible quotes in RSV)

Moses and Samuel can intercede:

  Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go! (Jer. 15:1)

Jeremiah does intercede:

  This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God. (2 Macc. 15:14)

Further Raphael hears and intercedes:

  And so, when you and your daughter-in-law Sarah prayed, I brought a reminder of your prayer before the Holy One; and when you buried the dead, I was likewise present with you.  (Tobit 12:12)

(There are misc. references in Revelation of John to saints praying in heaven, the DRV references this:

  And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; (Rev. 5:8)

The efficacy of these prayers can be seen:

  And the LORD appeared to him the same night and said, "I am the God of Abraham your father; fear not, for I am with you and will bless you and multiply your descendants for my servant Abraham's sake."

I don't really see that much which needs to be expounded on after that.


What does spikenard have to do with St Joseph? The coat of arms of Pope Francis includes references to Jesus (the sun with cross, nails, and IHS), Mary (the star) and Joseph (the cluster of flowers).

The association of the flowers with St Joseph is described in the press release, linked above:

  Nella tradizione iconografica ispanica, infatti, San Giuseppe è raffigurato con un ramo di nardo in mano.

  In the Hispanic iconographic tradition, in fact, St Joseph is depicted with a branch of spikenard in his hand.

I know about the use of (spike)nard in the anointing of Jesus in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and John 12, where it is done by Mary of Bethany, who might be the same as Mary Magdalane (and who is therefore usually depicted with an alabaster jar of nard). I was not aware that Joseph had anything to do with the plant. (At other times, he is shown with a flowering staff, which does not seem to be quite the same thing as just holding the flowers themselves. If the flowering staff story from the Golden Legend turns out to be relevant, that's fine, but I would like to hear about spikenard in particular, not just flowers in general.)

How did spikenard become linked with St Joseph?

Spikenard has nothing in particular to do with Joseph. What is going on, is the following.

There is an apocryphal tradition to do with how Joseph and Mary were married. Variants of the story can be found in the Protoevangelium of James, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Armenian Infancy Gospel, Book of the Nativity of Mary, and History of Joseph the Carpenter; and were repeated in later tradition, most notably the Legenda Aurea of Jacobus de Voragine. Basically, Joseph was chosen out of several candidates by a miraculous sign - a dove flew out of his staff, or possibly landed on his staff, or possibly there was no dove and the staff blossomed.

Lanzi and Lanzi claim a further tradition, where at the beginning of Mary's pregnancy, the devil mocked Joseph, saying that her virginal conception was no more likely than his staff blooming - which it then miraculously did.

The story is very like that of Aaron in Numbers 17, whose rod blossomed with almond flowers as a sign of the divine favour resting upon him. Indeed, some say that Joseph's rod was the very same one. Moreover, because of Aaron, the almond flower (Hebrew shakad) is associated with being a watchful guardian (Hebrew sheked, to be wakeful), which is also reasonable for Joseph. And so he is sometimes shown with almond flowers, specifically. The staff, of course, is a sign of power or authority, in both cases: it is also connected to the royal Davidic lineage.

Alternatively, and perhaps more commonly, the flowers are lilies. These are more naturally Mary's flowers, but it is fine to give them to Joseph as well: they represent purity, virginity, matrimony. Recall that Joseph did not consummate his marriage, nor is he believed to have committed adultery (see Molanus for the belief that Joseph's flowers can be said to signify his continence).

Now, in the cited Hispanic tradition, the flowers have become spikenard and the staff has vanished. If we look at a painting like The Heavenly and Earthly Trinities (c.1675-82, Bartolomé Esteban Murillo) we can appreciate why.

As to the flower, painters will tend to paint the flowers they know. A flower commonly called nard in Spain might not be the same nard as in Italy, or Israel. The general idea of something vaguely lily-ish or almond-like persists, but the "model" may end up being something botanically different. That said, the associations of spikenard - self-sacrifice, humility, faith - are also reasonable to attribute to Joseph, so the link can be justified, leading to its persistence.
For the staff, there has been a concern for a very long time about denial of the virginal conception of Christ. For example, the fourth-century Panarion of Epiphanius includes a lengthy defense of why Joseph had nothing at all to contribute in this regard (see Heresy 78). The artistic problem is that Joseph's staff - already suggesting a certain virility - with a spray of white flowers at one end, might bring to mind improper and heretical thoughts. In art, then, the size of the staff may be reduced, perhaps even to a simple frond or bough, as in the Murillo painting.

References:

Saints and their symbols. Fernando and Gioia Lanzi. Liturgical Press, 2004. (Trans. Matthew O'Connell from Come riconoscere i santi e i patroni nell'arte e nelle immagini popolari, Editoriale Jaca Book SpA, 2003).
Bibliotheca Sanctorum. Pontifical Lateran University, 1965. Volume 6, pages 1251-1291, "Joseph".
De picturis et imaginibus sacris. Jan Vermeulen ("Molanus"). 1570. Book 3, chapter 12, De picturis Ioseph.


Did the "spirit of Samuel" come from God? Was the "spirit of Samuel" that the witch of Endor summoned (1st Samuel 28:11-19) from God or from Satan?

Commentators do not all agree on what happened here, but from the context the most plausible is that God overtook the wicked witch with a vision of Samuel to rebuke Saul. The rebuke is even in part for wickedly seeking a medium in the first place.

God on occasion put additional sting and irony into his rebukes by taking a strange person to act as his temporary messenger, which he would usually never do. For example, he rebuked Balaam with a Donkey in Numbers 22:28 and Balaam himself was used to temporarily transmit messages from God to King Balak, though neither were godly men. Balaam thought we was a sort of mediator between gods and Balak was trying to use him to manipulate the god of the Jews, so God made a mockery of them both by using Balaam as his temporary mouthpiece in some ways.

The reason why this seems the most plausible is found within the text itself. Once the witch sees the vision, she is in ‘shocked’ and ‘cried out at the top of her voice’. This shock either meant that she had never before experienced a vision (which God was giving her to her amazement) or she usually had some kind of wicked deceiving vision from devils which was very different from this.

That she is not just ‘faking things’ is proven by the fact that her shock immediately brings her to the realization that the ‘disguised person’ asking her to summon Samuel is Saul! She is afraid because Saul only drove out witches from the land and she knew they deserved to be put to death. (Lev 20:27) It might be asked how did seeing Samuel make her recognize Saul? It seem the vision gave her knowledge of the actors involved and it included recognizing who stood before her in disguise as Samuel had a word of rebuke to Samuel standing there. The vision thus encompasses Saul.

It is therefore implausible to either think the vision came from the Devil as it communicated God’s message, or that it was just a juggling magic act, as the witch herself is inexplicably shocked. It must have been from God through a wicked vessel.

All along I have been assuming it to be a vision and not really Samuel. I do not think Samuel would literally ascend from Sheol, a place beneath the earth where it was thought the dead resided. Rather as parts of visions may be more like parables with certain elements not intended to be literal, this ascending from Sheol would simply indicate in imagery that the witch could understand that Samuel was coming back from the dead, as Saul had asked her to perform as a medium.


2 John 1:9 — What does it mean to "continue in doctrine?" (Protestantism) 2 John 1:9 (KJV2000) Whoever goes beyond, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ, has not God. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ, he has both the Father and the Son.

Cf. 1 Tim. 4:16.

Question

According to Protestantism, what do "continue in doctrine" and "go beyond" mean, respectively?

First, it might be necessary to establish what doctrine is to be continued in. That very epistle states clearly what doctrine is NOT meant – the Gnostic teaching that Jesus Christ had not come in the flesh. Verse 7 expressly warns all Christians that such a doctrine comes from a deceiver and an antichrist.

There are only 13 verses in this little epistle, and it appears to be simply warning Christians of the first century A.D. not to depart from, or to leave behind, the doctrine that Christ had come in the flesh, by accepting the opposite doctrine. Verse 10 states, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him ‘God speed’.”

The ‘this doctrine’ is the one Christians are to abide in, that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Sticking to that truth will protect them from wandering off into another doctrine, a false teaching about Christ. The seriousness of this false doctrine is so clearly stated that any Christian accepting it would be viewed as having so gone beyond it as to have revolted against the truth of God and Christ, and would no longer be received into Christian homes, or given a blessing by them.

The Protestant study notes for the NIV translation of 2nd John make the point that,

  “During the first two centuries the gospel was taken from place to
  place by travelling evangelists and teachers. Believers customarily
  took these missionaries into their homes and gave them provisions for
  their journey when they left. Since Gnostic teachers also relied on
  this practice (see 3 John 5), 2 John was written to urge discernment
  in supporting travelling teachers; otherwise, someone might
  unintentionally contribute to the propagation of heresy rather than
  truth.”

I am a Protestant myself and entirely agree with that explanation.  It is also worth pointing out (from a Protestant point of view) that Jude’s little epistle, in verse 3, tells Christians of the first century to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints”. Past tense, note. And Hebrews 1:1-3 shows that, by then, God’s final word had been spoken, through Jesus Christ who had now returned to Heaven. These verses have long served as a warning to Protestants not to heed new doctrine (teachings) beyond what had already been received by the Christian Church by the end of the first century A.D.

Another word for doctrine of the apostles is ‘tradition’, by the way. It was only from the middle of the second century A.D. that the word 'tradition' came to mean something different from its use in the Christian Greek Scriptures (the New Testament). Whereas those scriptures recorded the tradition (teaching) of the apostles, later it began to mean the teachings of the early Church Fathers. At that period tradition gradually changed to mean the interpreting and unravelling of Scripture to stand over against Scripture, as expounded by the writings of the early Church Fathers. Obviously, the apostle John did not have that in mind when he wrote his 2nd epistle.

Summary: To ‘continue in doctrine’ means to believe such teachings, to keep them intact, without adding to or taking from them – preserving them as is.
To ‘go beyond’ such doctrine is to either inflate it with additional points, or to leave behind the Christian teaching due to having taken up new, un-Christian teaching.


What is "the moon runs down in a purple stream" referring to? Regarding this verse of the traditional folk song “Didn’t My Lord Deliver Daniel”:

The moon runs down in a purple stream
And the sun refused to shine
And every star did disappear
Yes, freedom shall be mine

I realize that the second and third line allude to the Biblical passage about the sun disappearing at the moment of Christ's death. But what about the first line? What is this an allusion to?

In Joel 2:31 NIV, which says that

  The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

as well as in Mark 13:24-25 NIV

  However, after the tribulation of those days, ‘The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.’

These verses contain the most probable meaning of the verses, especially considering the different fourth line on this website. Seeing that the last line in that version is "King Jesus will be mine", the lines most directly refer to the coming of the Son of Man and the events preceding it. So the second and third lines do not allude to the death of Christ, but rather, the second coming of Christ.

As for the 1st line, "The moon runs down in a purple stream", it refers to two things. First would be the "purple" color referencing the royalty of "Jesus" in the version above. Second would be the "runs down" refers to the moon turning to blood in Joel 2:31, afterward not giving its light as in Mark:13:24-25.


What was earlier the Earth or the Solar System? My question is concerning the Creation (with literal interpretation, but accepting that the Earth could be millions of years old with the gap theory).

The Bible starts with a statement: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." At this point there is no reference to the Sun or the other planets.
The next verse show us Tohu and Bohu. Some say that between these two verses there is a gap, so the second verse is actually the picture of the Earth after a doom.

The next verses about the Creation concerning the Earth: light, darkness, vault, water, land, seas, plant, trees (interesting that according to this, plants were created earlier than the Sun). After these, we read that "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars". And what about the other planets? These are not mentioned here.

So, according to the scripture it seems to be clear that the Earth was earlier than the Sun. However more interesting question is about, what was earlier the Earth or the other planets (e.g.: Mars, Saturn)?

Later in the book of Job (26,12) [you can find it as well in Isaiah 51,9] there is a mysterious verse: "By his power he churned up the sea; by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces." [in Hebrew means shake or smash] Of course, this Rahab is not about the hero of faith. There is an interpretation that here Rahab is about a rebel being or a planet (some say it's the Earth before Adam), which was penetrated (if it's a planet some say, then it could collide with an other smaller planet). Here we can mention that there are theories concerning that the Earth collided with a smaller planet (it could be a doom). Some say that there are angels whose tasks is to protect planets. Anyway the angels are told to be connected to stars as well. What is more, in many culture planets are connected to gods or spiritual beings (Venus-Aphrodite, Mars, Hades-Pluto, Hermes-Mercurius, Kronos-Saturn, Poseidon-Neptune, Zeus-Jupiter). So one of the angels could be the protector of Rahab. The above mentioned things would be references to pre adamic planets.

What do you know about this topic?

Thank you for your answers in advance!

Creationists rarely think about the planets of the solar system. As we see at a site that calls itself YEC Headquarters, science is likely to "redefine the truth", and planets tend to make science the focus of discussion. This YEC site does not tell us what Young Earth Creationists think did happen, but only that scientists are wrong about the origin of the planets. Answersingenesis, probably the most widely read YEC site mentions planets only in so far as to claim scientific evidence that the world is only thousands of years old; once again avoiding the issue of just when the planets were created. The implication is that the answer is in the Bible and we need not consider any other explanations.

The Bible's first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) can be read as covering every aspect of God's creation, with nothing omitted, so there must be a reference to the creation of the planets. It  begins with the earth alone, so just a cold and lonely rock floating aimlessly through space. The planets are lights in the sky above, so the biblical creation of the planets of the solar system (or for that matter the planets of other stars) is to be found in Genesis 1:14-15:

  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Since creationists regard the second creation story (Genesis 2:4b-25) as a retelling of part of the first creation story, we know from the biblical genealogies that the creation of man can only have taken place around 4000 BCE. The planets were created on the fourth day. For Young Earth Creationists and some Old Earth Creationists, these were literal days, so the planets are only around 6000 years old. In this hypothesis, the solar system is at least somewhat younger than the earth.

The gap theory is an attempt to harmonise biblical creation with the science of geology, on the basis that God created the earth (Genesis 1:1) millions, or even billions, of years ago. The gap exists between this initial creation and the events of Genesis 1:2 onwards. However, this does not move the creation of the sun, moon and stars - including the planets- as they are still created on the fourth day. That is resolved by some Old Earth Creationists by assuming that the Hebrew word used here for 'day' actually refers to an indefinite period of time, possibly millions of years. This is an untidy solution, open to many objections, but it provides a semblance of consistency with science. In this hypothesis, the solar system is younger than the earth.


Second Coming of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday? During the Easter Vigil, the Catholic Church will chant (sing) the traditional Easter Proclamation hymn of the Exsultet.
The Exsultet expresses the Church's belief that this is the same night in which the ancient Jews were liberated from their bondage under the Egyptians.

Hæc nox est,
   in qua primum patres nostros, fílios Israel
   edúctos de Ægypto,
   Mare Rubrum sicco vestígio transíre fecísti.
Hæc ígitur nox est,
   quæ peccatórum ténebras colúmnæ illuminatióne purgávit.
Hæc nox est,
   quæ hódie per univérsum mundum in Christo credéntes,
   a vítiis sæculi et calígine peccatórum segregátos,
   reddit grátiæ, sóciat sanctitáti.

The reading of the Exsultet has brought a question in our Church, that I hope someone can answer.
Has any Church Father(s) ever expressed their belief that the Second Coming of Christ would be on the day of the Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Easter Sunday)?

Interesting Question:

The actual introduction of Easter-Sunday appears to have occurred somewhere around AD 132-135 in Palestine after Emperor Hadrian ruthlessly crushed the Barkokeba revolt.

Virtually all Christian sects today celebrate Easter-Sunday, BUT this was not always the case. In fact, virtually all Christians celebrated the Passover. Although most who profess Christianity now celebrate it, Easter-Sunday was not observed by the second century Christians in Asia Minor. They observed Passover.

In fact Easter Sunday itself was not an annual tradition until made so at the Council of Nicea (325).  It was then ruled that Easter Sunday would be celebrated on the Sunday immediately following that full moon which came after the vernal equinox. At the same time the Council decided that the vernal equinox would be March 21 in the Julian calendar (Eusebius, Vit. Const. 3.18).

No where in scripture however does the Bible mention that the Resurrection is to be celebrated as some type of Holiday. Jesus specifically mentioned that Christians were to observe the Passover as He did (Luke 22:14-20).

In fact many argue today that Easter Sunday itself is simply a remembrance of the Passover.

I do not know of any of the Church Fathers believing they could determine the date Christ would return specifically as to coinciding with Easter Sunday itself.

Interesting Question - putting me to a bit of research


Why is the Exsultet so keen on bees? The Exsultet or Exultet is a beautiful Latin hymn for the Easter vigil. There are a few different versions. Part of the ceremony involves lighting the Paschal candle, and the text thanks the bees who produced the wax:

Alitur enim liquantibus ceris, quas in substantiam pretiosiae huius lampadis apis mater eduxit.
For [the candle] is fed by melting wax, drawn out by mother bees to build a torch so precious.1

The candle is also called "the work of bees and of your servants' hands" in another part of the text.
Of course it is nice to recognize the contribution of the bees. But this feels like a bit of a digression in a hymn which is otherwise all about God. Is there some reason why bees are specifically mentioned?
1. English rendering from the International Commission for English in the Liturgy, 2010.

The bee represents Mary, the mother of Jesus. (In fact, it's a fairly safe bet that just about anything represents Jesus or Mary or both.) Other versions of the Exultet text make this explicit; the "Franco-Roman version" has a long we-love-bees section, as recorded by Thomas Forrest Kelley in his The Exultet in Southern Italy (OUP, 1996), p38, concluding with:

O vere mirabilis apis cuius nec sexum masculi violant, fetus non quassat nec filii destruunt castitatem. Sicut sancta concepit virgo Maria, virgo peperit et virgo permansit.
O truly marvelous bee, whose sex is not violated by the male, nor shattered by childbearing, neither do children destroy her chastity. Just as holy Mary conceived as a virgin, gave birth as a virgin, and remained a virgin.

This alludes to the old belief that bees reproduced asexually. Isidore reports in Etymologiae 12.8 that bees, like other small flying animals, are spontaneously generated from the carcasses of animals. So also, Augustine says in City of God 15.27 that bees have no distinction of male and female (alia vero in quibus nihil sit maris et feminae, sicut apes). This comes from ancient sources: Pliny in Natural History 11.16 suggests that they might weave their young out of parts of flowers; and Aristotle (On the generation of animals 2.10) says they are hermaphrodites, and do not copulate with one another.
We now know that they really couldn't have been more wrong, but the sentiment is there.
We have several copies of "Exultet rolls" which have bee illustrations to accompany the vigil text, indicating the great interest and respect that people had for them. Here is an eleventh century one, from Bari (Archivio del Capitolo Metropolitano, Exultet 1).

Bees were an example of industry, and esteemed because they provided so many useful things - in particular, honey and light (via the candle). Both honey and light have obvious Biblical resonances. Additionally, gifted orators and writers were said to have a "honeyed tongue", and so some saints may be depicted with accompanying bees (e.g. Ambrose, Anthony of Padua, Bernard of Clairvaux, Isidore of Seville).


According to Catholicism, how many times did Jesus "rise again"? According to Catholicism, God went to "Purgatory" after his death on the cross. As the Apostles Creed says:

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead/hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

Catholic.com says:

It is no wonder, then, that those who deny the existence of purgatory tend to touch upon only briefly the history of the belief. They prefer to claim that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong. It speaks plainly of a third condition, commonly called the limbo of the Fathers, where the just who had died before the redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them. After his death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19). These people thus were not in heaven, but neither were they experiencing the torments of hell.
Some have speculated that the limbo of the Fathers is the same as purgatory. This may or may not be the case. However, even if the limbo of the Fathers is not purgatory, its existence shows that a temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture. Look at it this way. If the limbo of the Fathers was purgatory, then this one verse directly teaches the existence of purgatory. If the limbo of the Fathers was a different temporary state, then the Bible at least says such a state can exist. It proves there can be more than just heaven and hell.
Some Fundamentalists also charge, as though it actually proved something, "The word purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture." This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that purgatory exists, even if it doesn’t use that word and even if 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a place other than purgatory.

The article says the idea of Purgatory is based on 1 Peter 3:19:

For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the
flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons,
eight in all, were saved through water.  (1 Peter 3:18-20 NASB translation)

Does this mean God eternally existed as a spirit, then God became a man for a few years, then God "rose again" as a spirit for a few days when he descended to Purgatory, then God "rose again" to eternally be a man?

The short answer is the Resurrection of Jesus occurred only once, and it will not occur again in the future. (We only say “rose again” to emphasize that Jesus really died as a result of the Crucifixion.)
However, some important clarifications are in order:

The Church does not teach that Jesus went to Purgatory. Purgatory exists in order for those who die in friendship with God to be purified of the effects of their sins, should that still be necessary, after death. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1030-1032.) Jesus did not have any sins to purify.
The Church does teach, however, that the righteous who died before the Resurrection of Christ awaited the Resurrection before they entered Heaven. Jesus visited them after his death on the Cross in order to release them and bring them to Heaven. (See CCC 631-637.)

God by nature is pure spirit. He is utterly unchanging, and so He is not affected even by the Incarnation. We are not to think, therefore, that by becoming incarnate, the Son “left Heaven” behind. Rather, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, assumed a human nature at the Incarnation. As the Catechism puts it:

At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature. (No. 479.)

By the Incarnation, the Son assumed a complete human nature: therefore, He has (in His human nature), a human body, a human soul, a human intellect, and a human will. It is important not to confuse Jesus’ human soul with his Divine Nature. Both are spiritual, but one is human and the other is Divine. (CCC 471-475.)

Only a human being can die, go to the abode of the dead, and rise. Therefore, when Jesus did these things, he did so in his human nature only. Nevertheless, actions are always ascribed to the person who performs them. Therefore, since Jesus is a a Divine Person, we can legitimately say that God died, went to the abode of the dead, and rose. However, I reiterate, he accomplished these things in his human nature, not his Divine Nature. (CCC 470.)

The Incarnation, by divine decree, is permanent. In the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, “his kingdom will have no end.” The Son has promised that will never annihilate His human nature (although He is, of course, capable of doing so.) So no, the Son did not become man “only for a few years.”


What is the basis for the belief by some groups that a Christian can live a sinless life? I understand that there are some Christian groups that believe that it is possible for a Christian to live a life entirely free from sin.

What is the nature of this belief and what is the basis for it?

I think you are referring to a doctrine called Entire Sanctification (also Sinless Perfection), which is taught by some Wesleyan and holiness churches.  A Google search on that term will give you more information, but basically, the idea is that it is possible with the Holy Spirit's help to avoid sin completely.  Some Scriptural basis for this belief can be found in Romans 6, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, and 1 John 2:1-2, which talk about Christians being free from sin and blameless.


Are there any Catholic medieval directives (rubrics) about what to do/pray/think during Eucharist Adoration? Are there any medieval (from the 5th to the 15th century) directives (some kind of manual or rubrics) about what to do/pray/think during Eucharist Adoration?

Eucharistic Adoration as it is known today didn't exist between the 5th and 15th centuries.  Even Quantore (or forty hours devotions) did not begin until the 16th century.  Apart from religious houses, perpetual Eucharistic adoration did not begin in earnest with the laity until the 18th and 19th centuries in Italy and France. (Wikipedia)


Are Catholics allowed to believe that the EF or OF is objectively more reverent than the other? I have been to both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. Many people at the Extraordinary form told me something that could be understood as "the EF is more reverent than the OF".
They said that the OF is valid but very problematic. The discussed the "EF vs OF" a lot and I couldn't stand it. Many of them had actully studied Liturgy and knew a lot about it so they could argue for their beliefs. Even the Priest (Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest) seemed to say that the EF is more reverent but he obviously did not say that one should not attend the OF.
It's like they wished the OF never existed.
They discussed the question "who should be allowed as altar servers?" but that is another question. That has to do with how the OF should be celebrated but even that seemed a little like "EF vs OF". The Bishop allows for female altar servers so bassically it seems like the wanted critize the Bishop. They said very nice thing about him as a kind person but they did critisize him and the pope a lot. Everyone seem to have personal opinions about Liturgy. Many people, especially older people, have said how much problems they had with the EF back in the days. They say that it easier to focus on the Mass nowadays.
Are Catholics allowed to believe that the EF or OF is objectively more reverent than the other?
Allowed: That does not go against Church teaching or discipline.

Intrinsic value of the Mass infinite
Fr. Chad Ripperger, in his Summer 2003 Latin Mass Magazine article "Merit of a Mass", argues that Masses using 1962 Missals and earlier have greater extrinsic merit, while their intrinsic merit (Christ's infinitely meritorious sacrifice) is the same. He quotes Pohle, J. (1911). Sacrifice of the Mass. In The Catholic Encyclopedia:

we must also sharply distinguish between the intrinsic and the extrinsic value of the Mass (valor intrinsecus, extrinsecus). As for its intrinsic value, it seems beyond doubt that, in view of the infinite worth of Christ as the Victim and High Priest in one Person, the sacrifice must be regarded as of infinite value, just as the sacrifice of the Last Supper and that of the Cross. […] But when we turn to the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration and expiation, the case is different. While we must always regard its intrinsic value as infinite, since it is the sacrifice of the God-Man Himself, its extrinsic value must necessarily be finite in consequence of the limitations of man. The scope of the so-called "fruits of the Mass" is limited.

Extrinsic value of the Mass
Pohle expands upon this in The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise (vol. 2): The Holy Eucharist, part 3, ch. 3, §2.1 "Value of the Mass":

As regards the extrinsic value of the Mass, we must first of all distinguish between sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving on the one hand, and sacrifices of impetration and propitiation on the other. The first two are directed to God alone and cannot be applied to man, and hence a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered by the Son of God Himself (in the name of humanity) must be infinite, since God cannot but take infinite pleasure in the praise and thanksgiving of His only-begotten Son.b) The case is different with sacrifices of impetration and propitiation.α) Theologians generally4 agree that in itself (in actu primo) the Mass, as a sacrifice of impetration and propitiation, has infinite power, because impetration and propitiation performed by the God-man must have the same infinite value as praise and thanksgiving, though they may not attain their full effect on account of the limitations of human nature. It follows that intensively (intensive) the external value of the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration and propitiation can be but finite. This is confirmed by experience, and also by the fact that the Church allows many Masses to be offered for the same purpose. We may fairly ask, however, whether in its application (in actu secundo) and extensively (extensive) the value of the Mass is also merely finite. Or, to put it somewhat differently,—Can the value of the Mass, which is intensively finite, be applied to an unlimited number of persons in such a manner that its efficacy is in no wise diminished? Or do the individual beneficiaries share in the fruits pro rata? Rather than answer this question in the negative, many theologians prefer to hold that the Mass is of infinite value also extensive, and that the amount of the fruits each beneficiary receives, varies in proportion to his piety, worthiness, and devotion, in short, depends on “the work of the agent” (ex opere operantis). Surely, indeed, he would be a poor Christian who would expect wonders from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in spite of his own indifference.5β) Nevertheless, the question must be answered with a distinction.6 In addition to the active there are also passive participators in the Sacrifice of the Mass. These are the persons in whose favor,—it may be without their knowledge and against their wishes,—the Holy Sacrifice is offered. As regards the active participants, i. e. the celebrating priest and the attending faithful, the distributive value of the Mass does not depend on the number of those who take part in it. If this were the case, it could be truly said that the fewer the people who attend, the greater the fruits derived by those actually present. But this is contrary to the mind of the Church and the belief of the faithful. Each active participant receives as much of the fruits of the Mass as his personal worthiness and devotion entitle him to. It is not possible to assign a definite limit.4. With but few exceptions, among them Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, VI, 4.5. See No. 2, infra.6. Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 2.


How long can a conclave last? In a short time a new conclave for the election of the new Catholic pope is taking place.

I was wondering if we will have a new pope in a short time. I don't konw much about the previous popes in history and I don't know if there have been some long long conclave (months? weeks?).

So my question is: is there a time limit for the conclave?

Can we expect that before Easter we will have a new pope?

There is no time limit laid down. So far, every conclave in the last hundred years has lasted less than a week, but a pope can only be elected with a two-thirds majority of the College of Cardinals.
The procedure for a conclave was set out in Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, promulgated on 22 February 1996, amended by the Motu Proprio Normas nonnullas of Benedict XVI, issued 22 February 2013.

No. 62 [amended by Normas nonnullas]. "Since the forms of election known as per acclamationem seu inspirationem and per compromissum are abolished, the form of electing the Roman Pontiff shall henceforth be per scrutinium alone.
I therefore decree that for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff at least two thirds of the votes are required, calculated on the basis of the total number of electors present and voting."

However, there are norms in Universi Dominici Gregis to help with an impasse.

No. 74. In the event that the Cardinal electors find it difficult to agree on the person to be elected, after balloting has been carried out for three days in the form described above (in Nos. 62ff) without result, voting is to be suspended for a maximum of one day in order to allow a pause for prayer, informal discussion among the voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation given by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Deacons. Voting is then resumed in the usual manner, and after seven ballots, if the election has not taken place, there is another pause for prayer, discussion and an exhortation given by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Priests. Another series of seven ballots is then held and, if there has still been no election, this is followed by a further pause for prayer, discussion and an exhortation given by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Bishops. Voting is then resumed in the usual manner and, unless the election occurs, it is to continue for seven ballots.
No. 75 [as amended by Normas nonnullas] If the balloting mentioned in Nos. 72, 73 and 74 ... does not result in an election, one day shall be dedicated to prayer, reflection and dialogue; in the successive balloting, observing the order established in No. 74, only the two names which received the greatest number of votes in the previous scrutiny, will have passive voice. There can be no waiving of the requirement that, in these ballots too, for a valid election to take place there must be a clear majority of at least two thirds of the votes of the Cardinals present and voting. In these ballots the two names having passive voice do not have active voice.

There are two ballots per day, so the provisions of Norm 75 come into play after fifteen days. The cardinals are given the opportunity to bring deliberations to a swift conclusion by choosing between only the two highest-polling candidates in the last ballot, after which time the process starts again.


How do we know that death has no mastery over Christ? Romans 6:9 says:

  For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.

The logic here says that since Christ died and was risen, now he cannot die again.

With that same logic, we might say that Lazarus (who died and was risen) or anyone else who was raised from the dead - that death has no mastery over them either.

Obviously Christ is the son of God, so that makes him different, but Paul is making a specific argument here. Why is Paul's argument true for Christ but not for Lazarus?

Lazarus and others died of the "first death" and were raised back to the same earthly body as before they died. Their ultimate fate was still to be determined, be it everlasting life or the "second death" on judgement day.

Jesus died of the "second death" to pay the penalty of death for believers. He was raised up in full glory as a conquerer, and it is through Him that we have hope in the same eternal resurrection.

On a deeper note, death never had mastery over Jesus per se, except that He allowed it willingly to pay our debt. Jesus says,

  "I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it again" (John 10:18)


What is the evidence for the claim that Young Earth Creationism was the mainstream viewpoint in ancient times? In my previous question, I asked about the origins of the modern Young Earth Creationism movement, especially in America. Originally, the question asked when the YEC belief (mainly with regards to a literal reading of the Genesis account of creation) became widespread, and was subsequently informed that the account of creation in Genesis had been read literally by Christians ever since ancient times.

What is the evidence for this claim? I'm specifically looking for evidence that the early church interpreted Genesis 1 literally in a manner consistent with modern Young Earth Creationism beliefs. The six-day creation and 6000-year-old age aspects may be treated separately, if and when appropriate.

Note that none of this is to say that there weren't also evolutionary views in ancient times.  There were.  And that this isn't about whether the YEC view is true, it's about whether it was a belief that existed, as the primary belief among Christians (and in Judaism), long before the modern scientific views of origins.

I'd also like to point out that my comment on the other answer didn't say it was the primary view held by everyone.  Just that the view pre-dated modern scientific views.  It would be foolish to argue that a Biblical YEC view, based on the Genesis account was widely held by anyone outside Judaism or Christianity

The modern YEC view has several variants, but there are two main points on which YEC'ers agree, which can easily be shown to have been a common belief:  A young earth, and flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology)

Of course, the people that held this view didn't call it "young earth creationism".  They simply called it history.  People simply believed the Bible, and it wasn't until people came along to introduce modern ideas like uniformitarianism and an old earth, that the idea that the Bible might be wrong even occurred to Christians.

Case in point:  Charles Lyell's book "Principles of Geology" (available for online reading here in pdf form) is the book that introduced the idea of Uniformitariansim, and was one of the first scholarly book addressing geology from a "scientific" view.  In chapter three, he states:

  It had been the consistent belief of the Christian world, down to the
  period now under consideration, that the origin of the planet was not
  more than a few thousand years; and that since the creation deluge was
  the only great catastrophe by which considerable change had been
  wrought on the earth's surface.

It was simply common knowledge at the time that Christians believed in a young earth, and flood geology.

Of course, the Biblical creation account wasn't the only creation theory held in ancient days.  Many other cultures had their own creation stories.  While it's not my avorite source, Wikipeda has a fine article tracing the history of creationism as far back as the 5th century BC.  Some excerpts:

  Early history

  David Sedley, in his book Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity,
  traces creationist thought to the presocratic thinkers Anaxagoras and
  Empedocles, in the 5th century BC.2 Sedley states that Anaxagoras
  was recognized by Plato as "the first overt champion of a creative
  cosmic intelligence. Anaxagoras theory was that the original state of
  the world was a roughly even mixture of all opposites, and that it was
  the effect of the action of nous (intelligence or mind) that led to
  the partial separation of such opposites, hot from cold, land from
  water, rarefied from dense.

and later...

  170 – Theophilus of Antioch wrote in defense of creation beliefs and a
  relatively young Earth:

  "There are not myriads of myriads of years, even though Plato said
  such a period had elapsed between the deluge and his own time, . . .
  The world is not uncreated nor is there spontaneous production of
  everything, as Pythagoras and the others have babbled; instead the
  world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made
  everything. And the whole period of time and the years can be
  demonstrated to those who wish to learn the truth. . . . The total
  number of years from the creation of the world is 5,695.29 ... If some
  period has escaped our notice, says 50 or 100 or even 200 years, at
  any rate it is not myriads, or thousands of years as it was for Plato
  . . . and the rest of those who wrote falsehoods. It may be that we do
  not know the exact total of all the years simply because the
  additional months and days are not recorded in the sacred books."[this
  quote needs a citation]

And as long as I've sunk to using Wikipeda, I may as well include their article to show the history of flood geology.

  The great flood in the history of geology

  Many early Christians, including Tertullian, Chrysostom and Augustine,
  believed that fossils were the remains of animals that were killed and
  buried during the brief duration of the Flood.[13] The geological
  peculiarity in northern Europe where much is covered by layers of loam
  and gravel as well as erratic boulders deposited hundreds of miles
  from their original sources furthered acceptance of the idea. Early
  geologists interpreted these features as the result of massive
  flooding (in the mid 19th century geologists accepted that they had
  been formed by ice age glaciations).[14] The global flood was
  associated with massive geographical upheavals, with old continents
  sinking and new ones rising, thus transforming ancient seabeds into
  mountain tops.[15][16]

  During the Age of Enlightenment, naturalists began proposing natural
  causes for the miracles recounted in the Bible. Naturalistic
  explanations for a global flood were posed by John Woodward, (1695),
  and Woodward’s student William Whiston, (1696).[17]

Finally, since Christianity sprang from Judaism, it seems appropriate to address what early Jewish belief was.

  Classical rabbinic teachings

  The vast majority of classical Rabbis believed that God created the
  world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay.
  This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder
  Olam[disambiguation needed], which was based on a literal reading of
  the Book of Genesis. It is attributed to the Tanna Yose ben Halafta,
  and covers history from the creation of the universe to the
  construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Although a literal
  approach is not always used when interpreting the Torah, there is a
  split over which parts are literal.


What does the Church have to say about the Pope's latest statement? It is alleged that Pope Francis recently said that There Is No Hell Fire and Adam & Eve were Not Real. What does the Catholic Church have to say about it?

The statements ascribed to Pope Francis by that article are not true. It is a hoax.

See:

Don’t fall for this Pope Francis hoax: 5 things to know and share
Pope Francis Declares All Religions are True : Facts (Hoax or Fact)


What is the Catholic definition of meat for Lenten Fridays? On English Language Learners, the definition of meat came up, and the question of what animals comprise meat. Tangentially, this led to a question about Catholics abstaining from meat on Lenten Fridays.

What is considered meat in this sense, and historically, how has this definition changed over the centuries?

"Meat" in this sense means, and has historically meant, what used to be called "flesh meat", which St. Thomas Aquinas described as "the flesh of animals that take their rest on the earth" [including birds, who rest in trees on the earth] (Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 147, Article 8).

Exceptions to the rule of "no meat on Fridays" (and some other days) have historically been made for fish, and occasionally for other types of flesh—not that they were not considered meat (in the broad sense of "animal flesh" generally speaking), but that Catholics (either generally, or in particular places and circumstances) were allowed to eat them despite the fact that they were meat.

One famous example of such an exception is beaver. In the late 17th century, Francois de Laval, the first bishop of Quebec, was confronted by the fact that the First Nations peoples of Quebec, some of whom were Catholic, used beaver meat as a staple food. If beaver meat were considered "not flesh meat", some might argue that these Catholics were not keeping their fast days as required; but if it were considered "flesh meat" and thus prohibited, these people might starve, or fall gravely ill, for lack of other protein.

De Laval therefore submitted to his former theological colleagues at the Sorbonne the question of whether, in this case only, it would be in accord with Church teaching to make an exception for beaver meat. Based on the discussion from the Summa Theologica quoted above, the faculty responded that it would.
Note: The theologians did not answer (as some have told the story) that beaver was, or could be considered, not "flesh meat" (as if they had said that beaver was a kind of fish), but rather that it could be eaten by those in Bishop de Laval's diocese who relied on it without violating the rules of fasting and abstinence.

Similarly, in 2010, the archbishop of New Orleans, Louisiana, ruled that those in his diocese (and only those) could eat alligator meat without violating those rules.

Traditionally, the requirement to abstain from meat has sometimes also extended to animal products: dairy, eggs, and even soups and gravies made from meat. Aquinas seems to indicate that in his day this prohibition did not universally extend to all fasting days:

  The eating of flesh meat is forbidden in every fast, while the Lenten fast lays a general prohibition even on eggs and milk foods. As to the use of the latter things in other fasts the custom varies among different people, and each person is bound to conform to that custom which is in vogue with those among whom he is dwelling.

(Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 147, Article 8, ad 3)

Since the Second Vatican Council, even this requirement for Lent fasting and abstinence has been relaxed (as indicated in another answer). These products, of course, are not themselves considered meat themselves, but are forbidden because of their connection to animals.


What actions does the LDS church (Mormon) take when a member does not pay tithing? According to official policy, what happens to members of the LDS church who do not pay their tithing? Specifically, what happens to those who:

Forget to pay tithing for an extended period of time, or
Openly refuse to pay tithing.

Background: I am a Mormon, and I frequently see people online saying that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are forced to pay tithing by various enforcement methods. I would like there to be a canonical answer on this site to point people towards. I will offer my anecdotal experiences in the comments.

All quotes in this post are taken from "A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings" by Elder M. Russell Ballard (an LDS apostle) in the September 1990 Ensign, an official LDS publication.
There are two levels of discipline in the Church: informal discipline (at a Bishop's discretion) and formal discipline (which is recorded). Formal discipline requires a disciplinary council.
Informal discipline:

When a bishop learns of a transgression, usually through the confession of the member involved, he first counsels with the member. When the sin is not grievous, the bishop may decide, through inspiration, that no disciplinary action is needed. He may continue to give counsel and caution, helping the member resist temptation and avoid further transgression.
Another option the bishop has is to place the member on informal probation, temporarily restricting his privileges as a Church member—such as the right to partake of the sacrament, hold a Church position, or enter the temple. The bishop may ask the member to surrender his temple recommend temporarily. In addition, he may require the member to make specific positive changes in attitude or behavior. No official record is made or kept of informal probation. The bishop maintains close contact with the member and may terminate the probation period when he is prompted to do so.

Formal discipline:

Decisions of [a disciplinary council] are to be made with inspiration. A council can reach one of four decisions: (1) no action, (2) formal probation, (3) disfellowshipment, or (4) excommunication.

Non-payment of tithing only merits informal discipline:

Disciplinary councils are not held for such things as failure to pay tithing, to obey the Word of Wisdom, to attend church, or to receive home teachers.

When are such councils held?

The First Presidency has instructed that disciplinary councils must be held in cases of murder, incest, or apostasy. A disciplinary council must also be held when a prominent Church leader commits a serious transgression, when the transgressor is a predator who may be a threat to other persons, when the person shows a pattern of repeated serious transgressions, when a serious transgression is widely known, and when the transgressor is guilty of serious deceptive practices and false representations or other terms of fraud or dishonesty in business transactions.
Disciplinary councils may also be convened to consider a member’s standing in the Church following serious transgression such as abortion, transsexual operation, attempted murder, rape, forcible sexual abuse, intentionally inflicting serious physical injuries on others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, child abuse (sexual or physical), spouse abuse, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, theft, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, or false swearing.

Thus, according to official LDS policy, members can only receive informal discipline (such as loss of a recommend) for not paying tithing.