Does Bible say anywhere that if a woman was raped, she needs to marry the one who raped her? Does Bible say anywhere that if a woman was raped, she needs to marry the one who raped her? One LGBT activist just told me that.

The only verse that come to my memory is

  If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps
  with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife (Exo 22:16, NIV)

but "seduces" here doesn't seem to be same as "rapes".

Is there any other verse saying that if a woman was raped, she needs to marry the one who raped her?

Here is an answer extracted and expanded from my article, Is Sex Before Marriage Forbidden in the Bible?

If a man raped a woman who was pledged to be married, he was subject to the death penalty, while the woman was not to be punished at all:

  But if the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the
  man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her
  shall die. You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman
  has not committed an offense punishable by death, because this case is
  like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor. Since he
  found her in the open country, the engaged woman may have cried for
  help, but there was no one to rescue her. (Deuteronomy 22:25–27).

What if the woman was neither married nor pledged to be married?

In that society, it was assumed that an unmarried woman (who wasn't a prostitute) would not allow a man to have sex with her, because the consequences for her would be catastrophic. So if an unmarried man did have sex with an unmarried woman, unless there was some proof otherwise, it was considered rape, and the man was to be punished for it—but not by the death penalty:

  If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies
  with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her
  shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and
  she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be
  permitted to divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28–29)

In other words, the man was subject to a large fine payable to the woman's father (which was basically a bride price) and to the ancient Hebrew equivalent of a shotgun wedding, from which he could not escape through divorce.

So it could be said that "the woman needs to marry the one who raped her," but that's not how it is framed in the Bible. Rather, the rapist was required to marry the woman.

This was based on a very different social order than exists in the West today. In ancient times, an unmarried woman who was not a virgin was subject to the death penalty if she married and it was discovered that she was not a virgin (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

The requirement that a rapist marry the woman he raped if she was not married or engaged to be married, as horrible as it seems by today's standards, was actually intended as a protection of the woman. It required the man who took her virginity to become her husband, and thus make her an honorable woman in the eyes of society, as well as requiring him to support her and her children for the rest of his life. It deprived him of the right he would otherwise have, under the law of Moses, to divorce her if he found her displeasing.


Can a Catholic cite a religion as a reason for not doing something even if that thing isn't officially prohibited by the Church? So my impetus for this question is covid-19 vaccines, but it could be about anything from face masks to filling out the census.  If the Catholic Church doesn't officially say something is wrong, is it licit for an individual adherent of the Catholic church to exempt himself or his family from that thing using religion as the basis for that exemption?
For instance, Quakers claim a religious exemption from wars on the grounds that their religion is pacifist.   Now, I know Catholics have also claimed this religious exception (e.g. Dorthy Day, Daniel Berrigan), but I also know that the Church has Just War doctrine and the magisterial teaching of the Church did not explicitly forbid Catholics from participating in any wars protested in the last century.  So, would these objectors been right (in the eyes of the Church) in calling their objections religious objections or were their objections merely a matter of personal conscience?

This is a legitimate question, but the answer cannot be generalized as the question wishes it, because each case is different (see points of consideration #1, #2 and #4 below).
Sample Case
For the sake of this question let's consider a specific case: a hypothetical regulation for compulsory Covid-19 vaccination:

On January 1st, 2021 a USA federal regulation goes into effect, mandating Covid-19 vaccination of every resident of USA, free of charge, by March 31st, 2021
using a vaccine of one's choice as long as it passes Stage 3 Clinical trial
even though 1) there are published potential minor side effects, 2) there may be long term adverse side effects which are currently unknown due to accelerated nature of this 1st generation vaccine research.
There is widespread announcement in all media channels a few months before.
The text of the regulation as well as the disclosure of the vaccine research and production are also made available in the federal government websites.
Exemptions: 1) certain groups of people whose health conditions made them susceptible to the known side effects, 2) you're pregnant, 3) you have a doctor's note
The reason for the regulation is for making the community as a whole safer (herd immunity) when return to normalcy is desired (for economic and other community related reasons)
There is at least one vaccine that is produced ethically according to Catholic moral principles (example: not derived from abhorrent origins such as cells from non-implanted or aborted foetuses)

A Catholic is understandably faced with a decision that calls for risking his/her health when obeying the regulation.
Is the regulation ITSELF legitimate?
Let's review Aquinas's Treatise on Law on the legitimacy of a human law.
It needs to fulfill 4 criteria:

Ordination of reason (i.e. follow natural law principles)
For the common good (i.e. not corrupt, or end up injuring the common good)
By one who has care for the community (i.e. by justly elected / appointed official having jurisdiction)
Promulgated (i.e. published through a channel that everyone has access to; no surprises, no secrets)

From the details above, the regulation appears legitimate.
Points of consideration
Now we consider the Catholic individual's act as he/she decides whether to be vaccinated or to refuse.  Let's consider 2 grounds for refusal:

Safety: Let's say there are credible articles by credible people that the insufficiently tested first generation vaccine may have unforeseen long term side effect that can damage someone's health permanently, since normal vaccine development usually takes 10-15 years.  So this Catholic is considering postponing vaccination until the 2nd or 3rd generation which would not have been developed by the deadline of March 31st, 2021.
Ethical: Let's say all of the available vaccines as of Mar 2021 have some assocation one way or another with non-implanted or aborted foetuses in the past, either in research only or also in production.  For a background, see the document Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses attached in a 2005 letter response from the Pontifical Academy of Life, especially the 3 distinctions: 1) formal vs. material cooperation, 2) immediate vs. remote, 3) active vs. passive cooperation.  Furthermore, due to the developing situation, there are yet-to-be-resolved differences in opinion between US Bishops and UK Bishops on whether to comply with a vaccination regulation.  So an individual Catholic has to make a judgment call to his/her situation.

Here are some points of consideration from the Catholic perspective:

Whether the act of refusal itself is licit under the Catholic natural law principle? An act is wrong if either of the means or the telos / ends of the act is wrong/evil.  In this instance the telos (the chosen aim of this act) is NOT to break the regulation, but for the preservation of one's health.  Therefore the aim is OK, especially because one is still open to vaccination in the future (when it becomes safer, or when an ethical vaccine choice becomes available).  The means of this act is the refusal itself, but the breaking of the regulation is merely "accidental" to the aim (like borrowing a friend's car to drive oneself to the hospital in an emergency without notifying your friend because there is no time, is not considered stealing).  So this act is licit in the eyes of the Catholic church.  For more guidance, see a lecture series from the Thomistic Institute Aquinas on Human Action and Virtue especially lectures 1, 2, 5, and 6.

Whether the regulation itself permits exemptions? Most regulations have exemptions that may not be religious in nature.  But the OP question specifically asks for religious exemption, presumably because this is the only avenue to be exempted from the regulation.  Therefore, for this hypothetical regulation, let's say the individual does NOT qualify under those exemptions, so the individual would like to say to the authorities that he/she doesn't want to be vaccinated for "religious reason", which can be worded as: "After taking all facts under consideration my moral conscience says that I should not take the 1st generation vaccine and my church allows me to break a regulation that is potentially injurious to my health.  I appeal to the Free Exercise Clause."  This is even though the Catholic Church does not prohibit you to be vaccinated, but let's say another church X does.

Whether the way US constitution phrases the Free Exercise Clause you have to belong to the institutionalized religion (church X), or whether the clause simply refers to your conscience?

If it is the former, you may have to fight harder, but can cite church X as a precedent and hopes the court can rule in your favor
If it is the latter, then the OP question is probably a moot point.  But we still need to consider points #4 and #5 below

Whether the religious exemption for this regulation has been decided by the Supreme Court? Glancing through this article covering Supreme Court decisions over many types of Free Exercise Clause lawsuits, it's very clear that this is a case by case basis.  With respect to Covid-19 related regulations, they are still untested in the courts.  Therefore it seems one can legitimately test the court by disobeying the regulation anyway over conscience without appearing to blatantly ignoring the law, until it is tested in the Supreme Court.  Once it's tested though, from the Catholic law-abiding principle it could be a more serious disobedience because the legitimate law criteria #3 (issued by legitimate authority) becomes much stronger.

Whether the Catholic church allows one to disobey a regulation that has been tested by the Supreme Court?  We assume that one has made a justifiable personal decision regarding a specific case based on the Catholic natural law principle AND the Catholic church is silent BUT it is against a secular regulation already tested by the highest court in the land.  Are there previous cases where the Catholic Church has allowed this implicitly or explicitly?  If it is a Yes, then we may have a stronger reason to disobey licitly, even though we should not take it as a blanket statement to disobey all Supreme Court rulings simply over moral conscience.

Conclusion
If there is already a Supreme Court decision about the particular case, then criteria #3 (legitimate authority) becomes a lot stronger.  But even so, if we can decrease the strengh of criteria #1 (ordination of reason) by appealing to either personal danger or the unavailability of ethical vaccine (described in 2 grounds of refusal above), it is probably licit, especially if the Catholic church is relatively silent (so far) on this specific regulation, leaving a faithful free to follow his/her conscience.
At any rate, when disobeying this regulation because one believes criteria #1 of the regulation is not sufficient (for example: it should not have been compulsory, or no ethical vaccine is available), one has to take the precautions so the purpose of the regulation itself is protected (criteria #2: community safety).  In lieu of declining vaccination in March 2021 one can make a stronger case when appealing to the Free Exercise Clause in the Federal Court by demonstrating that one wears mask, maintains safe distance, performs self-isolation when exhibiting symptoms, and remains open for vaccination, and thus proving that the refusal to obey the regulation is done in good conscience.
UPDATE: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a 21 Dec 2020 Note on the morality of using
some anti-Covid-19 vaccines that provides clarity on:

moral reasoning for benefiting from the ethically compromised cell lines while strongly asserting that it is NOT a moral endorsement
moral imperative for organizations (pharmaceutical, governmental, etc.) to sponsor fully ethical vaccine development
balancing the availability of fully / partially ethical vaccines with personal duty for health and common good
that vaccination "must be voluntary" while needing to preserve personal health and common good:

At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.


Who were the Celebrants of the Eucharist in the Early Church? Someone who was knowledge told me years ago, that during the Eucharist that all participants are the celebrants and that the priest presides over the liturgy. Additionally, I have participated in small group Eucharistic liturgies where all said the Eucharistic prayer together with an understanding that that was how it was done in the early church.

In my research on the Internet I’ve found little that might confirm that this was true in the early church except what Paul F. Bradshaw, on the subject Christianity, Rituals, Practices, and Symbolism in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia said:

  Although at first insisting that they were not a religion like others around them—indeed, they were regarded as atheists by their contemporaries—they ultimately came to adopt the language, images, and terminology of standard  religious discourse once their persecution had ceased and the Church had emerged as a cultus publicus in the 4th century.  This also coincided with a shift from an understanding of worship as an essentially corporate action presided over by its appointed ministers to one where those ministers were seen as carrying out its liturgy on behalf of the people.”

Early Christian Worship - Paul F. Bradshaw

Was early church worship “essentially corporate … presided over by its appointed ministers?”

One early description of the administration of the Eucharist [the Thanksgiving] is given by Justin the Martyr.  He confirms the OP's understanding.  He specifically states that the "presider" of the Eucharist is of the "laity".  This of course won't support the later tradition of a sacerdotal priest the OP mentions.

  There is then brought to the president of the brethren 1909 bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Administration of the sacraments.

  NOTE 1909    τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν. This expression may quite legitimately be translated, “to that one of the brethren who was presiding.”

Basically, the idea is, as Peter and John tell us, all believers are priests (1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6).  If believers come to my house, I preside, given I am an elder.  If we go to the house of another believer, he presides, given that he is an elder.

PS.  Some incorrectly believe that the meaning of "president" refers specifically to a "priest", rather than "elder".  The Greek word translated "president" is akin to "elder" being πρεσβύτερος.  Martyr, however, knows the difference between two words and offices.  Had Martyr wanted to tell his readers that priests only officiated at the Eucharist [Thanksgiving], he could have said so plainly.

  [Re scapegoat] the first, in which the elders of your people, and the priests, having laid hands on Him and put Him to death, sent Him away as the scape [goat].

He thus returns to the Mosaic laws, and uses it to show that the things which pertain to Christ are changed from the Old to the New.  The apostles taught that all believers are priests, but some are also elders.  The elder from the brethren presides.  It is not the "ordained in some way" priest who leads the Eucharist, but the elder of the priesthood of which all believers are part.  So again, when you come to my house, I preside.  When we go to your house, you preside.


If the old priesthood is abolished, what is the point of having Catholic priests? Before Christ, there would be two tabernacles in the temple: an outer and an inner tabernacle. Priests would minister at the outer tabernacle by caring for the lamps, by burning incense to God twice daily, and by giving weekly offerings of bread. Once a year, the high priest of those priests would sacrifice an animal, and then he would dare to enter through the second veil into the inner tabernacle. There, he would sprinkle the mercy seat, the place of God's presence, with the sacrificial blood, and would then invoke the name of the Saviour God in atonement for the sins of Israel. Then he would leave.

When Christ offered up His sacrifice, He did not go to the man-made outer or  inner tabernacle. He passed through into heaven itself to the seat of God the Father. There at the throne of God He sat down at the right hand of the Father as our most perfect intercessor. Our High Priest went up to that most sacred place to ask God to forgive us, and He remained there. That is how Jesus is even now serving as High Priest.

Since we no longer need high priests to intercede for us by way of repeated bloody sacrifice, why do Catholics have priests? They are obviously not re-sacrificing Christ when they say the Mass, so what do they do as priests, and why are they called priests if they are not (to put it bluntly) killing something?

(Answers from other denominations (Orthodox?) that have compatible reasons for having priests are welcome.)

They are obviously not re-sacrificing Christ when they say the Mass

It's true enough that they are not re-sacrificing Christ. But in a mystical way the Catholic priest acts in persona Christi to offer, in an unbloody way, the very same sacrifice that was offered in a bloody way on Calvary. Here is the modern Catholic Catechism (paragraph 1367), quoting the 16th-century Council of Trent (my emphases):

  The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same [Christ] now offers through the ministry of priests, Who then offered Himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different."

Thus a principal point of having priests, in the Catholic Church, is to continually make the unique, unrepeatable sacrifice of Calvary mystically present to us here and now. Our priests, like Christ himself, are of the order of Melchizedek, not the order of Aaron. Indeed there is in a sense only the priesthood of Christ -- as St. Thomas Aquinas says (and the modern Catechism quotes, paragraph 1545):

  Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers


Can Christianity be objectively defined? Orthodox Christianity is considered to be what comes from the Old and New Testament but many denominations/religions call themselves Christians without adhering strictly to the Bible as we know it today. I am specifically thinking of Mormons and by some perspectives, Jehovah's Witnesses. I am sure there are countless others as well.

Is there a definition of "Christianity" or for a "Christian" for which one can objectively compare and contrast against to determine if a belief or a person is "Christian"?

For example, (please don't argue for/against any of the points in this paragraph, it is mean purely as an illustration) one may say Roman Catholicism is Christian because they believe Jesus is God. Mormons believe Jesus was just a normal guy that became a god. Islam believes that Jesus was just a uniquely pious guy. Atheists believe that Jesus was just a guy.

I think most people would agree that Catholics are Christian and Atheists aren't. So then the question is this: Where is the line between "Christian" and "non-Christian"? Is it even possible to define one in an objective sense?

As already discussed on meta.C.SE here and here, the short answer is probably "no", except to say that one who identifies himself as a Christian is a Christian.

Of course the long answer depends on the perspective of the person answering the question.  It is for this reason we have essentially decided this question is off-topic on this site.

And as an aside, let me add what might be some consolation for anyone who does not like this answer:

  “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
  Matthew 18:15 NIV

In this context, brother or sister means other Believer. Christians have a responsibility to hold all other Christians accountable for their actions.

  Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.
  2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 NIV

As this "this letter" was written to Christians, we can also draw that the context here is other Christians.

Other verses say similar things, about holding other Christians accountable.

What this means is, we, as Christians, have a responsibility to hold all other professing Christians (whether they pass our litmus test or not) accountable for their actions.

Was David Koresh a Christian? I suspect he would not have passed the litmus test of many people on this site. However, the fact that he considered himself a Christian is enough that, if any of us had conversed with him, we could have done so in the context of two Christians.


How can the Pope's recent actions not be viewed as condoning homosexuality? How is the Pope biblically justified in co-celebrating mass with the homosexual priest who advocates for same-sex sexual touching and fondling between Catholic church adherents in same-sex relationships, which would not be within marriage.

Where in the Holy Scriptures can be found the justification for the Pope's actions of celebrating mass with this priest, and thereby showing his support of what this man stands for?

How is the Catholic Pope justified in his comments of 'hinting at' changes to be made soon regarding Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality? The hints suggest that the Catholic church rules will be changed to favor homosexual relationships.

Can someone show from scripture where the Pope is finding his support from passages that say that Christianity and same sex homosexual relationships are condoned by God? Holy Matrimony is Holy.

To add to this, Pope Francis has recently demoted an American cardinal who was a champion of Family Values and Right to Life issues.?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/petitions/thank-you-cardinal-burke-for-your-vatican-service

Pope kisses the hand of, co-celebrates mass with pro-homosexual activist priest

News on the Pope and homosexuality

Hint 1

  Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

  Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify
  civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed
  by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as
  ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various
  natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One
  needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety. -
  Read more: Full Transcript of Pope Francis’ March 5 Interview With
  ‘Corriere della Sera’ | NCR

Hint 2

  Providing for homosexual persons

  Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of providing for these people, guaranteeing
  [...] them [...] a place of fellowship in our communities? Oftentimes,
  they want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home.
  Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their
  sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the
  family and matrimony?
  The question of homosexuality requires serious reflection on how to devise realistic approaches to affective growth, human development
  and maturation in the Gospel,  while integrating the sexual aspect,
  all of which constitute an important educative challenge. Moreover,
  the Church affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot
  be considered on the same level as marriage between man and woman. Nor
  is it acceptable that the pastor’s outlook be pressured or that
  international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction
  of regulations based on gender ideology.
  Without denying the moral problems associated with homosexual unions, there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of
  sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons.
  Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to [...] children who
  live with same-sex couples and stresses that the needs and rights of
  the little ones must always be given priority.

  Source:   Synod14 - Eleventh General Assembly: "Relatio post disceptationem"

Hint 3+

As far as it is known, none of the people responsible for the Synod's scandalous mid-term report - a report whose rapid release in several languages even caught the Synod Fathers themselves by surprise - and for the controversial paragraphs which are not in keeping with the Church's Magisterium, have been held accountable.

Paragraphs rejected by the Synod Fathers have been kept alive by the Pope himself in the final document.

The article the original poster referenced itself has a link that explains reasons why Pope Francis may have decided to concelebrate Mass with Fr. De Paolis and kiss his hand. For the benefit of readers, here is a summary of the analysis offered by this article:

Possibility #1: Pope Francis did not know about De Paolis’ pro-gay activism
In the first place, it is possible that Pope Francis was himself unaware of De Paolis’ pro-gay activism. As LSN’s [LifeSiteNews'] original report stated, De Paolis officially met with Francis in his capacity as the founder of the Emmaus Community in the southern Italian city of Foggia, an organization that assists the poor and those suffering from AIDS – in other words, a commendable outreach.
[...]
Possibility #2: Pope Francis knew who the priest was, and was reaching out to him in mercy
On the other hand, it is possible that Francis and his handlers knew about De Paolis’ advocacy, but decided to arrange a meeting as an opportunity for the pontiff to reach out to the wayward priest as an act of mercy.
[...]

(The article mentions that St. Francis of Assisi, the pope's namesake, made a similar gesture toward a wayward priest, kissing his hand, and thus moving the priest to repentance.)

Possibility #3: Pope Francis intended the meeting as some kind of an endorsement of De Paolis’ work
The third possibility is that the pope knew of De Paolis’ pro-gay activism, but decided to meet with him anyway as a sign of respect either despite or even because of that activism. However, given the gravity of such an allegation, and how little is known about the meeting, there is clearly insufficient evidence to propose this as the best interpretation.

The third possibility is exceedingly unlikely, because Pope Francis has  reiterated that he believes in the Church's traditional teaching on matters such as homosexuality. (For an excellent analysis of the now famous "who am I to judge" quote and the Pope's answer, see the blog post entitled "Judge Not" by Tim Staples.) Pope Francis, in his interview with Civiltà Cattolica in September, 2013, said clearly:

We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

Despite affirming that, for pastoral reasons, he has "not spoken much" about matters such as abortion and homosexuality, as archbishop of Buenos Aires, he opposed homosexual marriage quite forcefully, albeit quietly and indirectly. In his letter to the Carmelites in Buenos Aires, he says,

Do not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle [i.e., the attempt to legalize same-sex marriage]; it is the destructive attempt toward God's plan. It is not a mere legislative project (this is only the instrument) but a ''movement'' of the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God. Jesus tells us that to defend ourselves against this lying accuser, he will send us the Spirit of Truth.

I think the other questions of the original poster are dealt with very well in the other answers: in short, neither the Bible nor the teaching of the Catholic Church condones homosexual acts or same-sex marriages. Naturally, the outlook of a Christian in the face of persons with same-sex attractions—even those who engage in homosexual behavior—must be one of mercy and understanding, never condemnation.
(Edit, in order to answer the O.P.'s expansion of his question.)
Regarding Hint 1
It is true that the Pope would like to open a discussion regarding the possibility of accepting a certain kind of civil union, providing benefits similar to that of civil marriage, that homosexual couples could take advantage of. Regarding this point, some very important clarifications need to be made:

As the Pope himself mentions in his interview with the Corriere della Sera, such a discussion would never put in doubt the Church's fundamental teaching about marriage: that it can only be between a man and a woman.

The Church would still, therefore, consider a sexual union between persons of the same sex as objectively gravely sinful under all circumstances.

There is, however, nothing intrinsically wrong in allowing two persons (whatever their condition) to enter into a contract that would govern their taxation, inheritance, and other civil effects. The reason that it might be acceptable is to avoid greater injustices. (For example, if someone's homosexual partner dies suddenly, the law in some countries would otherwise not permit the remaining partner to inherit the house; possibly, he may find that he has nowhere to live.)

Nevertheless, this discussion does not represent a retreat, in any way, regarding the Church's view of the immorality of homosexual practices.

Regarding Hint 2
The text reported here is only the temporary working document of the recent synod on the family. Most of what it says is reasonable, but there are a number of questionable passages. For example,

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of providing for these people, guaranteeing [...] them [...] a place of fellowship in our communities? Oftentimes, they want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home.

This is not a false statement, but it does not mention that it is important not to cross the line to endorsing behaviors (i.e., homosexual acts) that are in fact harmful to the very persons involved. The Church does not "endorse" homosexual acts for the same reason that parents do not "endorse" having their children run across the street in heavy traffic.

(50 cont'd.) Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

"Sexual orientation" is a problematic term, because it implies that the two fundamental "orientations" (homosexual and heterosexual) are equivalent. However, in fact, they are not. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, homosexual desires and actions are to be viewed as "objectively disordered" (No. 2358). Official Church documents (which do not include this relatio post disceptationem) avoid that term altogether.

Without denying the moral problems associated with homosexual unions, there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons.

This statement could be interpreted as meaning that homosexual unions have elements of value to those involved. It neglects to mention that, although there may be some superficial benefits, such unions, in fact, are always gravely harmful to those who take part.
Because of problems such as these, this relatio was essentially tabled by the synod fathers. Therefore, it has no authority whatsoever in the Church.
Much more nuanced and balanced is the Holy Father's final discourse at the end of the synod.
Regarding Hint 3
Those who released the relatio were not held responsible, but then again, neither were those (in the majority) who reacted against its problematic portions. It was not a clear-cut case of dissent against the Magisterium, either, since the language employed is ambiguous.
Number 55 of the final report, which is the only one that regards homosexuality directly, is actually quite balanced (even though it garnered only 118 out of 181 votes):

Some families have members who have a homosexual tendency. In this regard, the synod fathers asked themselves what pastoral attention might be appropriate for them in accordance with the Church’s teaching: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.”Nevertheless, men and women with a homosexual tendency ought to be received with respect and sensitivity. “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” [quoting "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," 4, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith].

No. 56, which did gain a "supermajority," condemns pressuring countries to adopt same-sex marriage by threatening to cut off financial aid:

Exerting pressure in this regard on the Pastors of the Church is totally unacceptable: this is equally so for international organizations who link their financial assistance to poorer countries with the introduction of laws which establish “marriage” between persons of the same sex.


Is there a complete list of Catholic Saints somewhere online? I'd like to find a list of Catholic Saints who names end in "bert".  IF we have a boy, I'd like my next child to be named "...bert" Keith Turner after his uncle Keith and potential saint GKC and I'm looking for the most wondrous Northumbrian names to annoy my wife with daily until she finally gives in (or has the baby and names him John).

If a complete list of Saint names, I could grep it for those ending in bert and get my desired list.

The following website is the most complete source of Catholic saints I know to exist: Catholic Saints Info. Not only is this site constantly being updated, but it also show the reader other sources of information, variations of saints' name, but it even shows particular (local) feasts of saints such as translations, if applicable.

The ultimate "List of Saints" from Rome can be found in this book which is published by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints: Index Causarum Sanctorum ac Beatorum. Unfortunately it exists only in book form and only very few Catholic libraries or Religious Institutions possess a copy. It gets updated every so often, but not yearly.


When and how did men and women start sitting together in church? As I understand it, the early church began in homes but then at some point (it's another question) started meeting together in larger meetings.

My question is: did men and women sit together from the start or were they initially influenced by (separate seating arrangements of) the Synagogue? If not, how did it come to be a regular practice?

According to this source, women were not even allowed to be taught the Torah publicly in the Jewish faith, so they were not able to even sit in the same area as the men who were taught from the scriptures.

  Restrictions applied to any public reading of Scripture in the
  Synagogue (Megillot 73a) and they were unable to pronounce the
  benediction after a meal in the home (Mishna Bereshit 7:2)....
  This was practiced in the Second Temple period of Jesus’ time and in
  synagogues afterwards; they were separated from men in the service.
  This practice is continued today among Orthodox Jews. Although today
  in most areas of Judaism (the reform side) much of this has changed
  considerably.

It is clear that Jesus challenged this trend in His public ministry. Even still, by the fourth century it appears that men and women were separated in churches, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem says,

  Let men be with men, and women with women. For now I need the example
  of Noah’s ark: in which were Noah and his sons, and his wife and his
  sons’ wives. For though the ark was one, and the door was shut, yet
  had things been suitably arranged. If the Church is shut, and you are
  all inside, yet let there be a separation, men with men, and women
  with women : lest the pretext of salvation become an occasion of
  destruction. Even if there be a fair pretext for sitting near each
  other, let passions be put away. Further, let the men when sitting
  have a useful book; and let one read, and another listen: and if there
  be no book, let one pray, and another speak something useful. And
  again let the party of young women sit together in like manner, either
  singing or reading quietly, so that their lips speak, but others’ ears
  catch not the sound: for I suffer not a woman to speak in the Church.
  And let the married woman also follow the same example, and pray; and
  let her lips move, but her voice be unheard, that a Samuel may come,
  and your barren soul give birth to the salvation of God who has heard
  your prayer; for this is the interpretation of the name Samuel (Protocatechesis, 14,
  NPNF, s. 2, v.7).

It is unclear if St. Cyril was instituting a new practice or affirming an existing one. It should be noted that many Coptic Orthodox continue the practice of sitting on separate sides of the church to this day. Many Anabaptists also have followed this practice. Various cultures practice this also. Some old churches still have matroneums from when this was practiced.

It should be kept in mind that the early Church suffered intense persecution until the Edict of Milan issued early in the 4th century under Constantine. It wasn't until this time that Christians were even able to construct buildings that were considered to be "churches." Prior to that, churches were assemblies (ecclesiae) of believers who gathered in homes to avoid being killed for their faith.


Can you give example about prophecies that have and haven't been fulfilled? Is it true that there are 735 prophecies in the bible of which 81 % have been fulfilled literally and 19% not yet? This fact is from David Pawson( Old testament revealed )  Can you give example about prophecies that have and haven't been fulfilled?
For example I think below is one that has not been fulfilled yet.

  Now learn a parable of the fig tree(Israel?); When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
  So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things(v.4-30), know that it is near, even at the doors. [it: or, he]
  Verily I say unto you, This generation(which sees "these things") shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. - math.24:32-35

The example that you gave, the lesson from a fig tree (Mathew 24:32-35) is actually already fulfilled in 1948, if we assert that the fig tree here represents the nation of  Israel, because the nation of Israel was reborn in 1948. After the destruction of Israel in AD 70 by the Roman Empire, after wandering around the world for almost 2000 years, the Jewish people could once again claim their land and the long lost nation of Israel was reborn.

If you want to know prophecies in the Bible which are yet to be fulfilled, the best place to find them is the Book of Revelation. Some of the pending prophecies yet to be fulfilled are -

The Rapture: The faithful will be caught up in the clouds. (1 Thess 4:16-17) If this prophecy had already happened, then we are the unlucky ones who are left behind to be tormented by the Antichrist. :-)
The rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem: Some Bible scholars say that the Third Temple in Jerusalem will be built in the last days. (Daniel 9:27, 2 Thess 2:4) This has not happened yet. The Western wall/Wailing wall still stands in Jerusalem and no progress of rebuilding it yet.
The fall of Babylon: Usually identified as the false religion who will initially control the Beast. Also called the whore, who sits on seven hills. (Rev 17-18)
The Antichrist: The Beast who will enforce the number 666 and controls all economies. (Rev 13)
The two witnesses: They will proclaim the truth about the Messiah, killed by the Beast in Jerusalem and resurrected by God after 3 days. (Rev 11)
The Tribulation: Followers of Christ will be killed by the Antichrist. (Rev 7)
Armageddon: The last world war to be fought, probably world war III. (Rev 16:16)
The wrath of God: The wicked people on earth punished by plagues, catastrophes etc. (Rev 16)
The second coming: Jesus will come back as the Rider on the White Horse to defeat the Beast and the kings of the earth. (Rev 19:11-21)
The 1000 years: Jesus will rule the earth while Satan is in the abyss. (Rev 20:1-6)
The Judgement Day: Satan and anyone whose name is not in the Book of life will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. (Rev 20:11-15)
New Heaven and Earth: The last thing that the Bible mentions about the destiny of the faithful believers. (Rev 21)

etc.  etc.


How is offering X Hail Marys not considered vain repetition? So if the Hail Mary is a prayer and saying the prayer multiple times is encouraged in Catholicism, what established reason does the Catholic church give to justify it not being a vain repetition.

  Matthew 6:7 KJV But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

I'm looking for an official Catholic response to this accusation. I'm sure they've said something about it.

According to this answer to a question I asked on the Biblical Hermeneutics SE, the original New Testament Greek does not have a phrase like "vain repetition"; instead, the word used, βαττολογησητε ("battologesete") simply means "to babble" or "to sound like one who is stammering". The word is onomatopoietic, and the sense seems to be "using words [not necessarily repeating words] without understanding what they mean", or "using lots of words, in the hope that more words will make the prayer more effective". The New American Bible (Revised Edition), which is the standard used in English-language Masses in Catholic churches in the United States, renders the passage

  In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words.

The official Catholic position is that repetition is not done in the hope of making the prayer more effective. Typically, there are two circumstances under which saying of the Hail Mary (specifically, as opposed to other prayers which might be repeated) is encouraged:

In saying the prayer, or sequence of prayers, known as "the Rosary"
As part of a common form of penance after Confession (for example, "For your penance, say ten Hail Marys and five Our Fathers.")

Certainly in the first case, and apparently in the second, the repetition involved is intended to allow meditation (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2705–2708) on particular events: the events of the life of Jesus, or particular events in our own life which are not always in accord with the love and will of God.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has a web page entitled "How to Pray the Rosary", which comments, "The repetition in the Rosary is meant to lead one into restful and contemplative prayer related to each Mystery. The gentle repetition of the words helps us to enter into the silence of our hearts, where Christ's spirit dwells."

There is no similar teaching that I can find on the repetition of prayers as typically assigned for a penance. There is no particular specification about what penance must be offered for which sins; that's largely up to the confessor, and insofar as it is taught, it may vary from seminary to seminary, and thus from diocese to diocese. I can't find a discussion of how this practice arose; particular priests who assign this sort of penance may have different reasons for so doing.

In any case, however, the repetition is not "vain", that is, empty and without purpose. A Catholic does not say these prayers (or at any rate should not be saying these prayers) in an impatient attempt to get the ear of God. Instead, as mentioned in the bishops' web page, the intended purpose is to focus one's physical activity on the sacred, allowing one's mind, supported by the Divine, to focus on a particular subject, so as to allow us to "make our own in faith the subject considered, by confronting it with the reality of our own life." (Catechism, paragraph 2723)


Definition of God in Christianity? I saw the question here, but that's not exactly what I want to know about christianity, I just want frank explicit answers, not on the nature of God (that I accept that The full nature of the infinite God cannot be fully understood by the finite human intellect, mentioned by Patrick Szalapski here) but on how to be able to distinguish between God and his creatures in practice (not theory, by counting the God's attributes and explaining the lack of such attributes in his creatures)?

Let clarify my question better for your answers to be able to be more explicit. Those who believe in divinity of Jesus:

If God can be incarnated in a human appearance, then why God has sent many prophets before the Christ, instead of himself coming to the earth guiding his creatures? So the first question is "What's the reason for sending prophets?"
If God can be incarnated in a human appearance, why can't he be incarnated in animals' appearances, the plants' appearances, the stones' appearances? Is there any constraint to answer why he has come to his created earth only once before and in the appearance of one person, Jesus? If not, i.e. there is no such constraint, can you assure he is not right now somewhere in the form of a human being, an animal, an insect, a fish, a plant, a piece of rock or a star or else in his created universe? If there is a constraint please note it explicitly and if not please mention how you can get sure who/what is creature and who/what is God? (Certainly you should have a criterion for that which turns to be an implicit definition of God, without requiring to touch the quality of his infinite existence!) Then conclude what's the difference between an idolator and a Christian, both may pray a God in the shape of stones and stars and etc.? And last, is it possible that Pharaohs of the times of Moses and Abraham, who also used to claim to be God, actually have been God? If not they're guilty merely because they introduce themselves as another guy, being simple liers?
How God --creator of the senses-- may himself experience the feeling of e.g. pain, being teased on a cross and eventually die due to pain excess or lack of blood in his body? Is he able to live a life in a world made by himself? Requiring oxygen to breath, food to eat, sleeping, taking bath to get cleaned, going to WC and etc isn't considered as any weakness for a God who is to be perfect? I guess you probably say that wouldn't be a weakness for God the father anyway, but then if two existences are such different that one is perfect and the other is full of need how would you then express them one thing? Maybe you consider them as two aspects of one thing, then the question changes to asserts that the whole concept in general will then no longer be perfect, don't you think so? (A concept being perfect in one aspect and needfull in another aspect is not perfect as a whole, a total perfect should be perfect in all respects, shouldn't it?) If no, why?
Was Jesus PBUH worshipping and fasting any? If yes who was he praying if he was God?

Through the few past days that I was studying Christian beliefs these are the most questionable parts to me. I asked a similar question alongside my answer to this question, however decided to ask this one to get a clear explicit answer to my misgivings, anyway the Christians can defend themselves better than others defending them not knowing their beliefs as good as themselves.

Thanks in advance

One classical definition widely accepted among Christians : God is a pure spirit, infinitely perfect, creator and ruler of all things and beeings.

1)There are a lot of explanations, please focus on one or some theologies. One would have to start from the original sin. One explanation is that the world had to be somehow prepared. And God doesn't send prophets the same way he sends the Messiah.

2) In the Book of Exodus, God appears in a cloud or in a fire, so why couldn't he take another form ? One could say that God is everywhere, but more particularly in some places of objects (example : a tabernacle). This is not a consensus among christians. If you believe that God is perfect and infinite, you assume taking an imperfect human form doesn't limit his perfection (see my answer to your third point).

In other words, God doesn't stop beeing God by "sending his incarnation on earth".

The Pharaohs didn't claim to be God, but rather one particular deity among other, which God wouldn't say (For a variety of reasons, it is assumed that God doesn't lie). Before calling them liers, we should focus on what they exactly meant by "gods", because it was very clear that they were dying just like other humans.

The question of idols is another complicated point. What is "worshipping" ? Christians worship God as a spirit (or at least spirit-like) beeing, so even if God was in a stone they wouldn't worship the stone, but God, the same way worshipping Jesus doesn't mean worshipping his little finger.

3) First I want to point out the difficulty of defining perfection. I can't because I'm imperfect. If you consider the bodily needs of Jesus, they are no needs for God. Jesus beeing hungry doesn't make God want to eat something. On the other hand, not beeing able to fully feel hunger or experience death can be considered an imperfection.

There is a variety of more or less complicated answers to your point focusing on Jesus: For example, the human and  God in Jesus are separated in essence in Jesus, or Jesus is 50% divine, 50% human. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian point of view is the hypostatic union: Jesus is fully God and fully Human, and (Ratzinger recently wrote about it, I'm trying to express it in English) Jesus is divinely perfect in his following of the will of God (if it wasn't the case there would be no point in a christian religion or worship), and the rest is bit more complicated to analyse.

4) There are occurences of Jesus praying, fasting, and beeing tempted by the devil in the Gospels. The rest of your question is rather sensitive and I can't objectively answer it here because it would be very long. I recommend you read the New Testament and be careful about the Transfiguration, and expressions like "Son of Man" and "Son of God" and their meanings or interpretations. Jesus taught his disciples to pray as himself did, addressing to God as Abba, "Father".


Has the Catholic Church outlined specific Biblical passages which should not be taken literally? I feel humiliated when I ask people to explain Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, and the temptations of Christ in the desert and people say something like "I'm bored by questions about Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. Of course those stories didn't 'really' happen. Why do you ponder such things? They shouldn't be taken literally." But then, with equal fervor, they say, "Of course Christ was tempted by the devil in the desert! Don't you believe the Gospels?"

So has the Catholic Church outlined specific Biblical passages which should not be taken literally?

And if not, then why not?

As I am not a Catholic I may not have the right to answer this question. My practicing Catholic brothers and sisters are more qualified than I am qualified to answer it. Anyway, I will take a stab at it.

As of your question 'has the Catholic Church outlined specific Biblical passages which should not be taken literally' the answer is there is no official Catholic Church statement as such. Many a Jewish and a Christian (including liberal Catholics) do not take many of Bible stories literally (you probably already know this). That said, the only such official Catholic statement I am aware of is late Pope John Paul 11 statement on evolution which implies a non-literal understanding of Adam and Eve creation passages (this is at least my understanding). In addition, this very important and well-written document has an important paragraph related to your question:

  For my part, when I received the participants in the plenary assembly of your Academy on October 31, 1992, I used the occasion—and the example of Gallileo—to draw attention to the necessity of using a rigorous hermeneutical approach in seeking a concrete interpretation of the inspired texts. It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean.


Have witches ever been executed by the Eastern Orthodox Church? If we don't count lynchings, have people ever been executed for witchcraft by the Eastern Orthodox Church?

In western Christianity, the execution of witches was condemned until 1484, four centuries after the schism of the eastern and western churches, so I'd guess no, but I'd be glad for some evidence for it.

Most early Eastern theologians didn't believe in witches (technically, neither did Western theologians, as is evidenced by Canon Episcopi), but most common folk did. Without getting into the confounded history of witch-burning, it is generally held that theologians prior to the 10th century did not believe in witches. The 9th century Canon Episcopi that I mentioned is interpreted by modern historians to be a renunciation of the existence of witches, not of witchcraft itself (the bible sufficiently denounces witchcraft). For various reasons, medieval Western society changed their tune and began burning witches.

According to Stephen Hayes (the link is now dead but clicking here will take you to an online archive),

  It is perhaps significant that the persecution of witches began in the
  West after the Great Schism of 1054. In parts of the Orthodox East, at
  least, witch hunts such as those experienced in other parts of Europe
  were unknown (Stewart 1991:38). The Orthodox Church is strongly
  critical of sorcerers (among whom it includes palmists, fortune
  tellers and astrologers), but has not generally seen the remedy in
  accusations, trials and secular penalties, but rather in confession
  and repentance, and exorcism if necessary (Stewart 1991:212f).

  I have tried to show that the process of accusation, trial, sentencing
  and execution of alleged witches is not a typical Christian reaction
  to witchcraft. It was practically unknown in Christendom for the first
  ten centuries. It then gradually appeared in certain parts of the
  Christian world, but not in others. It lasted for about 600 years,
  though the last 200 years of this period were the worst, after which
  it suddenly disappeared. Such behaviour was fairly common in
  pre-Christian societies, but was altered when those societies became
  Christianised.

The article goes on to elaborate on Orthodoxy and its response to witches (hint: it didn't burn them). The source continually referenced by Hayes in the above quote is:

Stewart, Charles. 1991. Demons and the devil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

I highly doubt that the Eastern Orthodox Church ever executed witches (and I have not found any sources indicating that they did). It is far more likely that they tried to lead witches to repentance.


How should a Christian feel inside? What does the Bible say about how a Christian should feel inside?

Should it be:

  Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you: not as the world
  giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let
  it be afraid. —John 14:27

  For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of
  love, and of a sound mind. —II Timothy 1: 7

or is it more like:

  Many are the afflictions of the righteous, But the LORD delivers him
  out of them all. -Psalm 34:19

For example, at Church I get the feeling it is more the later one, of an anxious awaiting for the Lord to deliver people out of persistent trouble or stress, more than peace and joy inside.

Is that wrong?

Your second quote isn't a "but" from the first. The whole point of Biblical staements about peace and joy is not that once you become a Christian, you will no longer have any problems in life and so you will have no reason to be anxious. Rather, it is that a Christian should be at peace regardless of what difficulties or trials he faces in life, because our hope is not in this life, but in eternity.

That's not to say that Christians DO consistantly maintain inner peace. But that's because our faith is weak. Just like we SHOULD never sin, but we DO sin all the time.


What is the yoke in Matthew 11? In Matthew 11:29–30 (NIV), Jesus said:

  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

What is the yoke exactly? Is it the teaching? Why does Jesus say that it is easy?

The yoke that Christ is talking about is in direct contradiction to the yoke and burden of the Pharisees.

In Matthew 23:4, Jesus speaks of the Pharisees like this:

  They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's
  shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their
  finger.

That is to say, they ask so many things of the people, and they demand so much of the people who follow them, and yet they're not themselves willing to help those who try to follow their demands.

Attempting to follow the demands is exactly what wears people out.  Any time we try to follow all the rules that are thrown at us, we begin to be weary of the rules that we're carrying.  We realize that the burden is more than we can bear, and we begin to resent those who give us the rules and the burdens.  Those who are weary in verse 28 are those who are drowning in the rules of the Pharisees.  They're those who are tired of trying so hard.

In contrast, Jesus yoke is easy because He Himself carried the yoke.  The demands that he places on us, he himself fulfills, and then goes on to pay the penalty for those of us who cannot fulfill the demands.  It's as if he's saying, "I tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and I lay them on my own shoulder."  Thus, for us his yoke is easy and his burden is light, because he himself carries it, and in this we can find rest for our souls.


Is it true that the Southern Baptist denomination marks no distinction between member and non-member? Is it true that the Southern Baptist denomination marks no distinction between member and non-member, Christian or non-Christian, in that everyone is encouraged to participate in the events (sitting in the sanctuary during worship service, engaging in Bible Study groups, participating in charities, going to Sunday school, donating money to charity programs, etc.)? Or does this behavior vary from congregation to congregation (since the entire denomination operates on a congregational level by direct democracy), where some congregations may be more open to outsiders and some congregations may only reserve activities for believers or for members only, but the only difference between a member and non-member is that the member is allowed to vote and assume leadership? So, a person can be a regular churchgoer, hearing the sermons every week and sending the children to Sunday school, and not really become a member or become baptized until the person chooses to assume leadership in the church community?

I suspect that it all boils down to the Baptist belief that baptism is the outward sign of inward conversion. Therefore, a person may choose to remain unbaptized or not officially become a member, unless the person wants to assume leadership roles, such as deacon.

No (though it does vary by church)

One very influential Southern Baptist church is Capitol Hill Baptist Church, where Mark Dever is the Senior Pastor. Dever is well known as the author of Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (and founder of the associated ministry). One of the nine marks is church membership, in a much more prominent way than I've heard of in any other church. Read more here: http://www.9marks.org/what-are-the-9marks/membership

Membership in churches that take the approach of 9Marks is about members committing themselves to the church and the authority of its leaders - they are saying that they desire and are willing to submit themselves to church discipline, if that unfortunately is needed in the future. Voting is probably also linked with membership, but the main purpose of membership is discipline, not voting.

Membership would never be required to attend those churches, nor to participate in most of its activities. Membership may be required for positions of leadership, but that's common in many churches, not just baptist ones. But if you regularly attended the church and participated in a bible study or something else but hadn't yet been a member you would probably feel a lot of pressure to to do, because refusing to become a member would be seen as defying the church leadership, which the Bible says we must not do, such as in Hebrews 13:17, among other places.


Is John Piper a five point Calvinist? John Piper is the well known and highly regarded (and recently retired) Pastor for Preaching and Teaching at Bethlehem Church in Minnesota, and the leader of Desiring God Ministries. Piper is widely recognized for his ability to teach, and he has contributed significantly to the revitalization of the Reformed faith that has taken place in the American church in recent decades.

I recently heard it said that he does not subscribe to all five of the "Main Points of Doctrine" in the Canons of Dordt, popularly known as the five points of Calvinism, or "T.U.L.I.P." -- specifically, that he does not agree with limited atonement.

Is this true? If so, where has he said so online?

John Piper is a Five Point Calvinist. From the limited atonement section of Bethlehem Baptist Church's doctrinal position "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism" (compiled by Piper and "the Council of Elders"):

  On the other hand we do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement. We simply say that in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.

I tried googling "Canons of Dort" "John Piper" so far I haven't found anything relevant.

Anyway, when did you heard it? recently?

Update 8/14/2013

Ok, I think I found the article by googling "John Piper" Amyraldian. The author thinks that John sounds like holding onto amyraldian view.

Below is the statement of John Piper that the author highlighted

  We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the
  cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of
  all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all
  men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the
  same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers -- from the rising sun
  (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) --
  is made possible because of the cross.

  "Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold
  judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell?
  The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just
  abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy
  without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the
  savior of all men."

  "But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die
  for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ
  for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising
  sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually
  saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially.""

  "Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every
  individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved.
  But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore
  it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the
  propitiation of every person in the world."

However, if one will go through the whole page the author referenced from, especially John's last statements

  We can conclude this section with the following summary argument.
  Which of these statements is true?

  Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
  Christ died for all the sins of some men.
  Christ died for all the sins of all men.

  No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because
  of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from
  sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

  The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for
  all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer,
  Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins
  for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by
  the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief
  is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can
  be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they
  must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all
  the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect
  so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is
  free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous
  light.

Apparently, these statements are typical of a Five-point Calvinist showing that statements 1 and 3 does not hold water.

The way I see it, John Piper made it clear that Christ died for the elect, differently from the non-elect, by purchasing actual salvation, unlike the non-elect, who receives common grace.

Lastly, it's easy to be confused by John's statement because Limited Atonement is usually defined in context of the Elect and the saving benefits of the cross. After all Mark Driscol used the term Limited/Unlimited Atonement and his brand of Calvinism was called 4.5 pointer. It pays well to understand what someone is really saying before we pass judgement.


Are there other explanations of ”right hand” than masturbation (Matthew 5:30)? The context in Matthew 5:30 strongly suggests that Jesus is talking about adultery. Verse 21 starts with "You have heard", starting a section about respecting your neighbor. Again, Verse 27 starts with "You have heard" and starts a section about adultery. The next section after that starts at verse 33 with similar words "Again, you have heard". All these sections concentrate on one issue. Also, the word "again" in verse 33 emphasizes the fact that these are separate sections.

Therefore it's quite clear that verses 27-30 are related to adultery, and 31-32 are a continuation of that theme. Also, verse 28 makes it clear that verse 29 is about lusting with the eye. Then verse 30 is very similar to verse 29, only different body part.

Given these observations above, it's clear for me that Jesus is banning masturbation. My question is that could "right hand" mean something else, also?

Remember that Jesus is talking about adultery, or to put in another way, not meeting the sexual needs of your spouse. The spouse is neglected against in both masturbation and adultery with another person (masturbation is kind of adultery, too).

So, is there any other possible meaning for the ”right hand” in verse 30, considering the context?

I’m a fundamentalist protestant, having not found a denomination with perfect theology yet. I just want to know if any Bible-believing Christian has found another explanation (based on Bible and this context) for the right hand, other than masturbation.

Matthew 5:27-30: 27. “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28.but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29.“If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30.“If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

Let's look at the narrow context:

  Adultery

  27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit
  adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman
  lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If
  your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.
  It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole
  body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to
  stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose
  one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 5:28 obviously states that an adulterous thought or look is a sin in itself.

Now, an act is of greater significance than thought. Masturbation is an act in line with adulterous thought, furthermore, it implies it most of the time.

I don't know if 'the right hand' had an implication in Hebrew as it does in Croatian (I don't even know if it has a sexual implication in English), so I won't take that as an implication forbidding masturbation.

The whole passage is also a very cautious one. It encourages you to take measures to prevent yourself from sinning. In light of that, we can also conclude you shouldn't masturbate, at least as a precaution since you are having doubts if it is sinful.

If you aren't just interested in Matthew 5, Genesis 38:8-10 clearly implies sexual acts against nature (not leading to procreation), such as masturbation and contraception are sinful.

However, that is just my opinion, so I'll leave you with something of actual worth.
The Catholic Church's binding teaching (not defined here, but condensed in the CCC):

  CCC 2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate
  stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.
  "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant
  tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt
  and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and
  gravely disordered action." "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty,
  for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to
  its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the
  sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which
  the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the
  context of true love is achieved."

Here is also the passage on contraception:

  2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation
  based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in
  conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods
  respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them,
  and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every
  action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its
  accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences,
  proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation
  impossible" is intrinsically evil:

  > Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by
  an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving
  oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive
  refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner
  truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in
  personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and
  moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle .
  . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the
  human person and of human sexuality.

I encourage you to read the context in the Catechism.


What are the benefits of a red letter edition Bible? Red letter edition Bibles seem to be popular in the US. The difference to a plain Bible is that words of Jesus are printed in red. The first red-letter Bible was published in 1900, and the practice still seems mostly limited to the most major languages. I've only ever seen red letter editions in English.

I understand the benefits of a new Bible feature for the publisher, but I fail to see the benefits for the reader. It's usually very easy to find what is spoken by Christ and what by someone else, just by reading. The red letters do make it still a bit easier, but I don't understand why we would be optimizing for finding Jesus' words. Not all passages of Jesus' speech are very central to our faith. The important ones still aren't more important than some other passages in the New Testament, I think.

What then are the benefits of a red letter edition Bible supposed to be?

For the Synoptic Gospels, it is more clear who is speaking immediately. It is just like why we have chapter and verse numbers -- they are easy references which were added later for clarity (I actually own a Bible which pre-dates the inclusion of verse numbers, it is very hard to find quotes in it).

In the Gospel of John, however, the words of Christ and the words of the narrator are so intermingled, that the red letters are somewhere between worthless and deceptive.


What is a year dedicated to a certain saint or something else? What is a year dedicated to a certain saint or something else? Is it important?
Does it require anything in particular of Catholics?

What is a special year of a certain saint?
The response to your inquiry is very closely related to celebrating jubilees!
Every once and awhile, the pope (for the Universal Catholic Church) or a bishop (for the faithful of his particular diocese) may declare a special year dedicated to to a particular saint or Divine Mystery for a number of reasons.
During such years, the pope will outline special devotional practices in order to gain indulgences (either plenary or partial) depending on the will of the Holy Father for the particular year of dedication! As a title of example, the rules for devotional practices which could be gained for the Great Jubilee of the year 2000 can be found in this article: The Gift of the Indulgence.
The most common reason is to draw attention to an historical milestone in since the birth or death of a particular saint, or the centennial or bicentennial of some historical event or to some Divine Mystery such as the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

By far the most well known Jubilee Year in honour of a saint is celebrated in Santiago de Compostela whenever July 25, the day of St. James the Greater, falls on a Sunday.

The Compostela Holy Year
What it consists of and its history:
A Jubilee Year is celebrated in Santiago de Compostela whenever July 25, the day of Santiago the Elder, falls on a Sunday.
A Jubilee Year is celebrated in Santiago de Compostela whenever July 25, the day of Santiago the Elder, falls on a Sunday. This happens with a time sequence of six, five, six and eleven years. The creation of the Holy Year in Santiago goes back to the XV century. It is believed that the first one in history could have been the Jubilee Year of 1428, or perhaps 1434, both convened by Archbishop Lope de Mendoza.
However, before the Holy Year of Compostela became official, during the Middle Ages, the pilgrims could obtain numerous indulgences in Santiago, granted by the Church of Compostela in representation of the Apostle, the advocate of his pilgrims before the Supreme Judge. The indulgences are spiritual benefits for the pilgrim himself or for an ill or a deceased person represented by the pilgrim.
As from the creation of the Holy Year, the same grace could be obtained by the pilgrims who, in a normal year, visited the Cathedral on July 25, the feast day of the Passion of Santiago, or on the feast day of the Dedication of the Cathedral, every April 21, or on the feast day of the Transfer of the Body of the Apostle to Galicia, every December 30. This reduced the pressure provoked by the concentration of pilgrims on one day in summer, July 25, by convening the pilgrims in spring and winter too.
The last four Holy Years were 1993, 1999, 2004 and 2010. The next July 25 which will fall on a Sunday will be in 2021.
During all the year, the pilgrims who wish can obtain the plenary indulgence (forgiveness for their sins) during any day of that year. Achieving the plenary indulgence is what is known as the Jubilee. To do so, the pilgrims must comply with a number of precepts laid down by the Church such as visiting the Cathedral of Santiago, praying and receiving the Sacraments of Penance (Confession) and Communion.

The Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, Spain houses the largest largest censer in the world, weighing 80 kilograms (180 lb) and measuring 1.60 metres (5.2 ft) in height.

In the Jubilee Years (whenever St James's Day falls on a Sunday) the Botafumeiro is also used in all the Pilgrims' Masses. Eight red-robed tiraboleiros pull the ropes and bring it into a swinging motion almost to the roof of the transept, reaching speeds of 80 kilometres per hour (50 mph) and dispensing thick clouds of incense.

The swinging Botafumeiro dispensing clouds of incense

Pope declares year of St. Joseph, offering special indulgences

Pope Francis on Tuesday issued a decree launching a special year dedicated to St. Joseph coinciding the anniversary of his declaration as Patron of the Catholic Church, hailing him as a model of fatherhood and a key intercessor in modern times.
Published Dec. 8, on the 150th anniversary of Quemadmodum Deus by Pope Pius IX which declared St. Joseph patron of the Catholic Church, the decree formally instituted a year for St. Joseph, which will run until Dec. 8, 2021.

These special year anniversaries usually carry with them certain indulgences accorded by the reigning pope or a bishop’s permission (with papal approval).
In the year of the Lord 1967, to commemorate the 19th centenary of the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul, a Year of Faith was proclaimed by the Pope St. Paul VI, “intended to show, by an authentic and sincere profession of the same faith, how much the essential content that for centuries has formed the heritage of all believers needs to be confirmed, understood and explored ever anew, so as to bear consistent witness in historical circumstances very different from those of the past”.
These sort of special years of commemoration are closely connected to Catholic understandings as to what constitutes a jubilee celebration.

Holy Year of Jubilee
The ultimate derivation of the word jubilee is disputed, but it is most probable that the Hebrew jobel, to which it is traced, meant "a ram's horn", and that from this instrument, used in proclaiming the celebration, a certain idea of rejoicing was derived. Further, passing through the Greek iobelaios, or iobelos, the word became confused with the Latin jubilo, which means "to shout", and has given us the forms jubilatio and jubilaeum, now adopted in most European languages.
Old Testament origins
For the Israelites (see HEBREW YEAR OF JUBILEE), the year of Jubilee was in any case preeminently a time of joy, the year of remission or universal pardon. "Thou shalt sanctify the fiftieth year," we read in Leviticus 25:10, "and shalt proclaim remission to all the inhabitants of thy land: for it is the year of jubilee." Every seventh year, like every seventh day, was always accounted holy and set aside for rest, but the year which followed seven complete cycles was to be kept as a sabbatical year of special solemnity. The Talmudists and others afterwards disputed whether the Jubilee Year was the forty-ninth or the fiftieth year, the difficulty being that in the latter case two sabbatical years must have been observed in succession. Further, there are historical data which seem to show that in the age of the Machabees the Jubilee of the fiftieth year could not have been kept, for 164-163 B.C. and 38-37 B.C. were both certainly sabbatical years, which they could not have been if two sabbatical years had been intercalated in the interval. However, the text of Leviticus (25:8-55) leaves no room for ambiguity that the fiftieth year was intended, and the institution evidently bore a close analogy with the feast of Pentecost, which was the closing day after seven weeks of harvest. In any case it is certain that the Jubilee period, as it was generally understood and adopted afterwards in the Christian Church, meant fifty and not forty-nine years; but at the same time the number fifty was not originally arrived at because it represented half a century, but because it was the number that followed seven cycles of seven.
It was, then, part of the legislation of the Old Law, whether practically adhered to or not, that each fiftieth year was to be celebrated as a jubilee year, and that at this season every household should recover its absent members, the land return to its former owners, the Hebrew slaves be set free, and debts be remitted.
The Christian jubilee
The same conception, spiritualized, forms the fundamental idea of the Christian Jubilee, though it is difficult to judge how far any sort of continuity can have existed between the two. It is commonly stated that Pope Boniface VIII instituted the first Christian Jubilee in the year 1300, and it is certain that this is the first celebration of which we have any precise record, but it is also certain that the idea of solemnizing a fiftieth anniversary was familiar to medieval writers, no doubt through their knowledge of the Bible, long before that date. The jubilee of a monk's religious profession was often kept, and probably some vague memory survived of those Roman ludi saeculares which are commemorated in the "Carmen Saeculare" of Horace, even though this last was commonly associated with a period of a hundred years rather than any lesser interval. But, what is most noteworthy, the number fifty was specially associated in the early thirteenth century with the idea of remission. The translation of St. Thomas of Canterbury took place in the year 1220, fifty years after his martyrdom. The sermon on that occasion was preached by Stephen Cardinal Lantron, who told his hearers that this accident was meant by Providence to recall "the mystical virtue of the number fifty, which, as every reader of the sacred page is aware, is the number of remission" (P.L., CXC, 421).
We might be tempted to regard this discourse as a fabrication of later date, were it not for the fact that a Latin hymn directed against the Albigenses, and certainly belonging to the early thirteenth century, speaks in exactly similar terms. The first stanza runs thus:

Anni favor jubilaei
Poenarum laxat debitum,
Post peccatorum vomitum
Et cessandi propositum.
Currant passim omnes rei.
Pro mercede regnum Dei
Levi patet expositum.

In the light of this explicit mention of a jubilee with great remissions of the penalties of sin to be obtained by full confession and purpose of amendment, it seems difficult to reject the statement of Cardinal Stefaneschi, the contemporary and counsellor of Boniface VIII, and author of a treatise on the first Jubilee ("De Anno Jubileo" in La Bigne, "Bibliotheca Patrum", VI, 536), that the proclamation of the Jubilee owed its origin to the statements of certain aged pilgrims who persuaded Boniface that great indulgences had been granted to all pilgrims in Rome about a hundred years before. It is also noteworthy that in the Chronicle of Alberic of Three Fountains, under the year 1208 (not, be it noted 1200), we find this brief entry: "It is said that this year was celebrated as the fiftieth year, or the year of jubilee and remission, in the Roman Court" (Pertz, "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script." XXIII, 889). It is beyond all dispute that on 22 February, 1300, Boniface published the Bull "Antiquorum fida relatio", in which, appealing vaguely the precedent of past ages, he declares that he grants afresh and renews certain "great remissions and indulgences for sins" which are to be obtained "by visiting the city of Rome and the venerable basilica of the Prince of the Apostles". Coming to more precise detail, he specifies that he concedes "not only full and copious, but the most full, pardon of all their sins", to those who fulfill certain conditions. These are, first, that being truly penitent they confess their sins, and secondly, that they visit the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome, at least once a day for a specified time--in the case of the inhabitants for thirty days, in the case of strangers for fifteen. No explicit mention is made of Communion, nor does the word jubilee occur in the Bull--indeed the pope speaks rather of a celebration which is to occur every hundred years--but writers both Roman and foreign described this year as annus jubileus, and the name jubilee (though others, such as the "holy year" or "the golden year" have been used as well) has been applied to such celebrations ever since. Dante, who is himself supposed by some to have visited Rome during this year to gain the Jubilee, refers to it under the name Giubbileo in the Inferno (xviii, 29) and indirectly bears witness to the enormous concourse of pilgrims by comparing the sinners passing along one of the bridges of Malebolge in opposite directions, to the throngs crossing the bridge of the Castle Sant' Angelo on their way to and from St. Peter's. Similarly, the chronicler Villani was so impressed on this occasion by the sight of the monuments of Rome and the people who flocked thither that he then and there formed the resolution of his great chronicle, in the course of which he gives a remarkable account of what he witnessed. He describes the indulgence as a full and entire remission of all sins di culpa e di pena, and he dwells upon the great contentment and good order of the people, despite the fact that during the greater part of that year there were two hundred thousand pilgrims on an average present in Rome over and above the ordinary population. With regard to the phrase just noticed, a culpa et a poena, which was often popularly used of the Jubilee and other similar indulgences, it should be observed that it means no more than what is now understood by a "plenary indulgence". It implied, however, that any approved Roman confessor had faculties to absolve from reserved cases, and that the liberty thus virtually accorded of selecting a confessor was regarded as a privilege. The phrase was an unscientific one, and was not commonly used by theologians. It certainly did not mean, as some have pretended, that the indulgence of itself released from guilt as well as penalty. The guilt was remitted only in virtue of sacramental confession and the sorrow of the penitent. The sovereign pontiff never claimed any power of absolving in grievous matters apart from these. "All theologians", remarks Maldonatus with truth, "unanimously without a single exception, reply that an indulgence is not a remission of guilt but of the penalty." (See Paulus in "Zeitschrift f. kath. Theologie", 1899, pp. 49 sqq., 423 sqq., 743 sqq., and "Dublin Review", Jan., 1900, pp. 1 sqq.)

Examples of Jubilees:

Great Jubilee of the Year 2000
In 1953, with the encyclical Fulgens corona, Pope Pius ordered a Marian year for 1954, the first in Church history. It was called to commemorate the centenary of the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
On New Year's Day 1987, Pope John Paul II initiated a Marian year, from June 7, 1987 (Pentecost) to August 15, 1988 (the Feast of the Assumption), in preparation of the forthcoming millennium.
The Carmelites declared a Marian year in 2001 in order to deepen the Order's appreciation of its Marian heritage. Activities differed from province to province. Some held lecture series, others retreats, still others published works on the theme. In particular, there was a focus on the Brown Scapular as a sign of both the protection of Mary, and the wearer's commitment to the Carmelite charism.
In October 2016, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin announced a Marian Year for the Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island, following the close of the international Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy in November. In recognition of the centennial anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, the diocesan Office for Divine Worship participated in a pilgrimage to Portugal. A missionary image of Our Lady of Guadalupe visited parishes in the Diocese, with various presentations and holy hours.
Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy of Pope Francis to commemorate the the closing of the Second Vatican Council.


What does "to pray" mean in Catholicism? The general usage of to pray in non-Catholic religious settings seems to indicate worship of God, raising one's heart to God, and forms of reaching out or responding to God. However, we often hear that Catholics pray to saints, though Catholicism firmly asserts that it does not condone worship of any being other than God.

Is "praying to Saint So-and-so" a mis-use of the verb to pray? Are worship and/or God not inherent to religious prayer? Or, is are they both correct uses: Are other modes or meanings to the verb intended in certain Catholic uses of it?

It's also notable that Catholics identify several forms of prayer: vocal prayer, meditation, and contemplation. Do those fit within the "general Christian" understanding of prayer?

The Roman Catholic definition of prayer just means to communicate to God or the saints. To "pray" to a deity is to ask the deity for something, which involves communication. This is different from worship, which means to honor or show respect. Because a prayer means communication and worship means respect, prayer may be an act of worship or reverence. When Roman Catholics "pray" to saints or God, they really mean they want to communicate with them, looking at how the saints lived their lives and how that would be an example to present Catholics, which, in my opinion, does not sound too far-fetched from veneration of the ancestors in Chinese folk religion. Whether it is veneration of ancestors or saints, the veneration or worship should not be confused with the adoration of the gods or God. Assuming that the definition of "prayer" means "to ask or to beg a god for assistance", the Catholic definition seems to work nicely.


Why does communion frequency vary in different denominations? Different churches celebrate the Eucharist (Communion, Lord's Supper, ...) with different frequency. At one extreme, Catholic and high Anglican churches tend to celebrate it at least daily. Many Protestant churches offer it only once a month, though they will have a Sunday service each week. Some churches have Communion even less often - quarterly or annually.

What factors have caused the divergence in practice (between Catholics and Protestants) and how does each modern model compare to the frequency of its celebration in the early Church?

As you note, there are lots of different traditions here. My ancestry is Scottish and some old Scottish churches only celebrate communion once a year. I've looked through the some liturgies for these services that basically run all day, and it's quite an affair. I have even heard it advocated that once in a life-time ought to do the job, sort of like baptism. I don't think this is at all the spirit of the thing we find in the NT.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who say that every meal we eat together as believers counts, so basically we do it a couple times a day. For several reasons I don't think this argument holds much water.

By personal background growing up was the "traditional" once a month celebrations. I wouldn't argue that this practice is inherently wrong or sinful, but I think it is arbitrary and not the best representation of what the Lord's Supper is supposed to be about.

I believe the best representation and celebration of the Lords Supper is to do it once a week during the normal Sunday gatherings. This is consistent with the description we have of the early church gathering together (we know they did this specifically in celebration of the resurrection on the first day of each week) and the description we have of them celebrating the sacrament whenever they were gathered together.


Why is Elijah missing from Tozer's "The Saint Must Walk Alone"? Tozer's "The Saint Must Walk Alone" starts with:

  MOST OF THE WORLD'S GREAT SOULS have been lonely. Loneliness seems to be one price the saint must pay for his saintliness.

He then goes on to discuss Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Lot, Moses, Christ.

In particular, he states:

  The pain of loneliness arises from the constitution of our nature. God made us for each other. The desire for human companionship is completely natural and right. The loneliness of the Christian results from his walk with God in an ungodly world, a walk that must often take him away from the fellowship of good Christians as well as from that of the unregenerate world. His Godgiven instincts cry out for companionship with others of his kind, others who can understand his longings, his aspirations, his absorption in the love of Christ; and because within his circle of friends there are so few who share his inner experiences he is forced to walk alone. The unsatisfied longings of the prophets for human understanding caused them to cry out in their complaint, and even our Lord Himself suffered in the same way.

Now, if we are to discuss loneliness, it's hard to miss Elijah in 1 Kings 17:

  1 Kings 17: 2 And the word of the Lord came unto him, saying,
  3 Get thee hence, and turn thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan.
  4 And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.
  5 So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan.
  6 And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook.
  7 And it came to pass after a while, that the brook dried up, because there had been no rain in the land.

The guy drank from a brook and was fed by ravens for who knows how long!

Question

Why is Elijah not mentioned in Tozer's essay? Was Elijah not considered a Saint a that time? Did Elijah not walk alone enough? Is there some other reason that sets Elijah's life out from the other examples Tozer cites?

Tozer does include Elijah he just does not list each name of the prophets.

  The prophets of pre-Christian times differed widely from each other, but one mark they bore in common was their enforced loneliness. They loved their people and gloried in the religion of the fathers, but their loyalty to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and their zeal for the welfare of the nation of Israel drove them away from the crowd and into long periods of heaviness. "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children," cried one and unwittingly spoke for all the rest. (A. W. Tozer, The Saint Must Walk Alone)

This is the typical insightful Tozer and an excellent sermon.