Popes Benedict XVI or Pope St. John Paul II on the subject of the Antichrist and the end times? Has Pope Benedict XVI or Pope St. John Paul II written anything extensively (or even informally supported any author) on the subject of the Antichrist and the end times?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the faithful about the Church's final combat:

  675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

  676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.

  677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

St. John Paul II once stated that we are now nearing the final confrontation.

  “We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.

  “We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer possible to avert it. . . .How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time.” - The Final Confrontation

Prophecy is usually recognized as true while the thing prophesized have run their course. The anti-church and anti-gospel of Pope John Paul II should be seen as something the against the Church and against the Gospels and not as a counterfeit church or a counterfeit gospel, although the Antichrist will no  doubt teach a false gospel of sorts.

  There are so many mistakes made today regarding the coming of Christ and the coming of the Antichrist by people like Father Gobbi, Michael H. Brown and the like that I simply offer the truth as offered by the early Church fathers.  So many false prophets have made the mistake of thinking that the seat of the Antichrist will be Rome or that the Church will become the seat of the Antichrist or that some future Holy Father will be the Antichrist and all of this is false.  The Jews must return and live in the Holy Land so that they can prepare the way for the Antichrist, for he and he alone will re-build the old Temple of David and this will be his seat and not Rome. - Prophesies of the Antichrist

What have Popes said about Vladimir Soloviev?

  Soloviev is a “Russian figure of extraordinary depth,” said St. John Paul II during his Angelus of July 30, 2000.

  He is “one of the greatest Russian Christian philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries,” John Paul II said again in 2003 in a long message about Soloviev that the Holy Father sent to participants gathered to discuss this major figure on the 150th anniversary of his birth.

  In his Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II refers to Soloviev, and in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) he lists Soloviev as standing in a line of distinguished Christian philosophers.

  During a talk on Soloviev Cardinal Giacomo Biffi noted that the theologian-mystic was “cited approvingly by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.”

  Obviously, Soloviev has exceptional credentials...

  Although Soloviev died in 1900 as the door opened on the 20th century, Cardinal Biffi, a noted scholar of his works, pointed out his predictions of things that would happen in the 20th century are "astonishing" in their accuracy. - Vladimir Soloviev, the Mystic Admired by Popes

Both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI held in high esteem the Russian Philosopher Vladimir Solovyov and his book on the Tale of the Anti-Christ.

  In his Tale of the Antichrist, Vladimir Soloviev details a vision of how events might take place in the 20th century and into the 21st that usher in the Antichrist, and then how that monstrous person would act.

  Although Soloviev died in 1900 just as the 20th century began, he clearly showed himself a mystic, that’s along with him also being one of the greatest of philosopher-theologians named in league with the likes of Cardinal Newman — who a little earlier had given lectures on the times of the Antichrist — and even very close to Aquinas. St. John Paul II mentioned or specifically wrote about Soloviev several times. Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, referred to him.

  Soloviev was Russian Orthodox but, as John Paul II described him, a figure who “noted with great clarity the tragic division among Christians and the urgent need for their unity…” Soloviev worked for Eastern-Western unity under one religious head, the pope, and in person got Leo XIII’s blessing for his work. Four years before he died, Soloviev became a member of the Eastern Rite Catholic Church. - Soloviev and His Tale of the Antichrist

More on Vladimir Soloviev and the Antichrist and the end times follows here:

  This Antichrist showed himself as a kindhearted humanitarian who appeared to love all forms of life. He was a vegetarian, was concerned about ecology, and was an ecumenist.

  “The twentieth century was the epoch of the last great wars and revolutions. The greatest of these wars had its distant cause in the movement of Pan Mongolism which originated in Japan as far back as the end of the nineteenth century.” China became heavily involved. Europe was invaded.

  Not long after the defeat of the invaders, the European states started to reorganize. The old institutions become extinct. Soloviev says: “Europe in the twenty-first century represented an alliance of more or less democratic nations — the United States of Europe.”

  Sounds a lot like the European Union.

  The Freemasons in the European Council have a hand in getting this man elected as president of the United States of Europe then giving him the next title of Roman Emperor — emperor of the world — as the Antichrist promised peace to the world, and food and prosperity under his rule. Governments around the world joined the United States of Europe.

  The Holy See was banished from Rome and made its way to St. Petersburg. But, Soloviev says, “In all the other countries, particularly in North America, the Catholic priesthood still had a good many representatives possessed of strong will, inexhaustible energy, and independent character, who welded together the Catholic Church into a closer unity than it had ever seen before…”

  As those true to the Faith look to the Gospel and Church Fathers on the Antichrist and see the nations led astray, the exposure of this wicked leader begins. Of course, he confronts them, but in a way not expected.

  He invites the true Christians to send representatives to meet with him where he has transferred his imperial residence to Jerusalem where he built luxurious palaces and a huge temple to unite all cults.

  Soloviev envisions the reaction of the Jews when they also learn this unmasked wicked imposter has led them astray from the real Messiah, and then the final say with Heaven’s answer. - Soloviev and His Tale of the Antichrist

Vladimir Solovyov (January 28, 1853 - August 13, 1900)


How do apologists defend against Bart Ehrman's arguments that Church scribes corrected and changed the Bible to fit their theology? Bart Ehrman seems to be the atomic bomb of the Christian community, having released books like Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted, which call into question the reliability and inerrancy of the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament. Are his arguments new? How does one respond to or refute his arguments?

For example, Ehrman argues that some scribes "corrected" or reworded certain verses to fit their particular theological views or to align with what made sense to them (e.g., Jesus being angry as He healed the leper).

I mean no offense, but as the comments following the question above attest, the OP’s real purpose is to find a refutation to a scholarly argument he hasn’t yet read and doesn’t fully understand or appreciate.  Attempts to make the question suitable to this site forced the OP to focus on a single thin example of Dr. Ehrman’s work, undocumented and barely sketched out here for others to critique.  Explicit throughout is the mistaken idea that Christianity and the Bible need ‘defending’ from Ehrman and that ‘advocates’ and ‘believers’ necessarily oppose his critical scholarship.  Referring to Ehrman himself as “the atomic bomb of Christianity” violates the respectful tone expected of participants on this site.
Dr. Bart Ehrman, Critical Scholar of New Testament Texts
Some clarification, then, might be helpful.  At issue is the evidence Bart Ehrman has offered on the question of whether changes made to the biblical texts by early Christian scribes were theologically motivated.  This was the topic of two Ehrman books: perhaps his most popular title, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperOne, 2007), and a more academic handling of the same issue, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 1993).
These are not works of theology but of history.  Ehrman explores the historical evidence surrounding variants in the biblical texts, he posits explanations for the differences based, again, on the historical evidence, and he suggests how these changes had implications on the development of early Christian theology. For example, he writes:

“Christianity is a religion of the book. From the outset, it has
stressed specific texts as authoritative scripture. Yet not one of
these original, authoritative texts exists today. We have only late
copies, dating from the second century to the sixteenth. And these
copies vary considerably. Indeed, the 5,700 manuscripts of the Greek
New Testament that have been catalogued contain more variations than
there are words in the New Testament. Some scholars say there are
200,000 variant readings, others say 300,000, 400,000 or even more!
“Some variant readings are simply scribal mistakes. Others are
editorial ‘improvements’ intended to make the text easier to
understand. Still others are deliberate attempts by the scribes to
make the texts more amenable to the doctrines being espoused by
Christians of their own persuasion and to eliminate the possible
‘misuse’ of the texts by Christians affirming heretical beliefs."

These facts, as with most of Ehrman's scholarship, are generally not disputed.  There is no doubt, even among conservative scholars, for example, that Mark 16:9-20 is a late addition to the original gospel, or that the original text of Mark 1:41 is uncertain – variant texts show Jesus responding to a leper either in compassion or in anger.  Of course scholars debate the finer points and may draw differing conclusions from the same facts, but Ehrman is generally regarded as a good and fair historian and a clear writer, and the bulk of his academic work reflects the consensus view of contemporary critical scholarship.
What is the Textual Evidence? General Agreement
Whether there are 200,000 or 400,000 variant renderings of the Greek texts – and whether ‘many’ or only ‘some’ of these were motivated by a scribe’s carelessness or purposeful theological intent – scholars will debate and differ in good conscience.  Evangelical scholars Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger summarize their review of Ehrman’s position:

“Did the battles over heresy and orthodoxy in earliest Christianity
affect the transmission of the New Testament text? Yes. No doubt a
variety of scribal changes are due to these early theological
disputes. .... Since the New Testament is a historical book that has
been passed down to us through normal historical means (copying
manuscripts by hand), then it inevitably contains the normal kinds of
scribal variations that we would expect from any document of
antiquity. No doubt some of these scribal variations were intentional
and motivated by the theological debates of the day.”

These conservatives see no need to ‘defend’ the Bible or Christianity against historical or textual evidence of the kind Ehrman describes.
What are the Implications for Theology?  Opinions Differ
Where they think his opinion wanting, however, is in the implications Ehrman draws from the evidence.  In his popular books and public debates Ehrman often describes how the historical facts impacted his personal beliefs and led him away from fundamentalist Christian religion. For Ehrman, studying the Greek texts and their hundreds of thousands of variants undermined [both] his confidence that the ‘original text’ of the Bible was ever recoverable, and his conservative view of biblical inerrancy, authority, and textual reliability.  Kostenberger and Kruger weigh the evidence differently: they conclude that “the vast number of textual variants is ‘insignificant,’ and ... we can have confidence that the text we possess is, in essence, the text that was written in the first century."
Determining whether variant readings are insignificant or whether the evidence is sufficient to instill confidence that the biblical-text-as-received is in essence the same biblical text of the first century, is largely a matter of personal opinion or a matter of faith.  Only those religious beliefs that are incapable of accommodating contrary historical evidence need an apologetic defense.
In other words, if you are going to do battle with Dr. Ehrman, whom you describe as "the atomic bomb of the Christian community," then Isuggest you be prepared to fight fire with fire: your historical evidence against his historical evidence. If you are not willing to do that, perhaps you need to defend your defense of the faith!


How do various Christian traditions view the expression "crossing over Jordan"? John Bunyan's 'The Pilgrim’s Progress' (published 1678) makes reference to "crossing the River" in order to get to the Celestial City.  Chapter 20 mentions that only Enoch and Elijah did not have to cross the River.  FAITH is needed to make the crossing from this life to the next.

In Chapter 34 Christiana crosses the River, along with many other pilgrims.  All have been summoned to make the crossing.

My question is about the origins of the expression "crossing over Jordan" and whether this is commonly understood as an allegory of the believer passing over from this life to the next, or if it could mean something else.

I'm looking for source material/references to help me trace this expression and understand how various Christian traditions understand it.  Is “crossing over Jordan” a metaphor or a figure of speech for the believer passing from physical death to heaven?

The gospel song "I Am a Poor Wayfaring Stranger" (written in the 1800's) makes reference to crossing over Jordan to the beautiful fields beyond "where God's redeemed their vigils keep."

That's the earliest reference I've found, although there may be others.

This hymnal, dating to 1766, uses the metaphor, but not the actual phrase "crossing over Jordan" (see top of page 147):  https://hymnary.org/hymn/PDIL1766/II.LXVI

In the Bible the Israelites had to "cross over Jordan" to reach the Promised Land.  For Christians, the "Promised Land" is eternal paradise in Heaven, and the barrier one must cross to reach it - the metaphorical "Jordan" - is death.


According to Catholicism, in the Eucharist, does the bread become Christ’s “spiritual body” or “natural body”? According to Catholicism, in the act of transubstantiation which occurs during the Eucharist, when the bread becomes Christ’s body, and the wine becomes Christ’s blood, does the bread become the “spiritual body” (σῶμα πνευματικόν) or “natural body” (σῶμα ψυχικόν) of our Lord Jesus Christ?1

Footnotes

1 The terms “spiritual body” and “natural body” are translated verbatim from 1 Cor. 15:44 in the New American Bible, Revised Edition.

There's no difference between the two in respect of Eucharistic transubstantiation; hence answering "the spiritual", "the natural", or "both" are equally meaningless.

My answer to a question on the Catholic understanding of the nature of transubstantiation is supposed to make it clear that what is changed in transubstantiation is the substance of the bread; that is (more or less), what makes the bread bread. The material takes on the substance of the body of Christ; and it is in this sense that we say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

But the substance of the natural body and the substance of the glorified or spiritual body are the same. St. Thomas Aquinas, in discussing the nature of the resurrected body, raises the question, "Whether in the resurrection the soul will be reunited to the same identical body?" (Supplement to the Third Part, Question 79, Article 1). He concludes that

  The soul rising again and the soul living in this world differ, not in essence but in respect of glory and misery, which is an accidental difference. Hence it follows that the body in rising again differs, not in identity, but in condition, so that a difference of bodies corresponds proportionally to the difference of souls.

(Reply to Objection 2)

In other words, he's saying, the resurrected body (the "spiritual body") is different in appearance to the "natural body": it has different characteristics and qualities (for example, it can no longer suffer injuries). However, he argues, these different characteristics are accidents: things that just happen to be true of a person's body. They don't alter the fact that this is the person's body. That is, they don't make it a different body in substance.

Therefore Christ's body, whether the natural body he had before his resurrection or the glorified/spiritual body he had afterwards, was one body in substance; and thus there is no meaning to the question: the substance of his body is not different, and there's no distinction between the two in the change of substance that takes place at the consecration of the Eucharist.


Why is there not a single date in the Bible? The question popped into my head while I was thinking about the Jews, their exodus, and the founding of Jerusalem. I wondered why they didn't even write down the year they formed their city?

Why is there not a single date in the bible? We have no idea when anyone was born, people died, or when specific things happened.

I thought this would have been due to discrepancies in calendars or not having calendars, but when I did a little bit of research, I found they have had the Roman calendar since about 700 BC (at least).  It is completely understandable that there wouldn't be dates for things, but I would have expected some.

We know the day, month, and year that people like Alexander the Great lived and died, so humans did keep record of these things. I just read something (on how the Jews kept genealogy) that said the Jews were meticulous record keepers, so why not write down dates? Even if it were just the year in which something happened.

The only references to time are relative in days, or years (ex. Matt 1:17, Acts 28:12)

The "AD/BC" way of counting dates that you want dates to 525 AD by Dionysius Exiguus.  Prior to that, people kept time in "regnal" time, meaning that they would count the Xth year of the reign of Y. Since the Old Testament was pretty much complete by 400BC (nearly a milennia earlier) and the New Testament by 95 AD, it would be every bit as odd to see an "AD/BC" date as would to see a reference to Miley Cyrus in the text.

The Bible has many, many "regnal" dates, perhaps most famously in Luke:

  And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

1 & 2 Kings does a lot of this as well:

  16:23 In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah.

Even the prophet Haggai gave us specific dates:

  In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the Lord by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying

These are the dates you should be looking for.

Finally, as a simple thought exercise - remember this. BC dates are before Christ. If you knew that you were living in, say, 587 BC, you'd know that the Messiah would be arriving in, oh, 587 years. Kind of removes the need for a prophetic word of God, don't you think?

Update: What about months?

The Hebrew Calendar has 13 months with different non-Roman names. (Or, more precisely, years in which there are two months of Adar) Even today, many countries use different calendars with different month names. Here in Esther, we read:

  In the first month (that is, the month of Nisan), in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus’ reign, pur (that is, the lot) was cast before Haman in order to determine a day and a month. It turned out to be the twelfth month (that is, the month of Adar).

Remember, the Romans didn't even bother to name two of their months, and most of them were ordinal (Sept=7, Oct=8, Nov=9, Dec=10). Months just aren't that important to an agrarian society. They care about seasons - planting, harvesting, starving. Dates are of concern to bureaucrats and historians - and history to a Greek person would be totally different than to a modern (read Herodutus!) Asking "Why no dates" really is like asking a farmer why he doesn't wear a watch, or asking a fish why he doesn't ride a bike.


What is the baptist view on "gambling" in scenarios like "Jeopardy!"? I realize there are many variations even among Baptists, but I personally have never heard this area discussed.

How do baptists view the "gambling" associated with games like Jeopardy!? For those unfamiliar with the game show, a variety of trivia clues are hidden on a board with varying dollar amounts in front of them, arranged more-or-less by category. When a contestant has control of the board, they ask for a clue (eg "Potent Potables for $400, Alex"), at which point the host reads the clue and the contestant must answer in the form of a question.

If they get it wrong, they lose the $400. If they respond correctly, they gain the $400. During the game, some squares will allow the player to wager on their response to the as-yet-unshown clue.

Given the popularity of the program, and other similar games like it, what is the Baptist view on this type of "wagering"? Technically it's not gambling, because it's not your money until you end the show (and then only if you're the highest-placing after Final Jeopardy!).

Do other denominations / traditions take different views of this type of "gambling"? If so, how do they differ?

The question could be extended to other forms of "wager" games (eg spades, pinochle, etc), too.

I know that personal opinion matters don't typically count, but as a Baptist that's had a conversation with other Baptists on this exact subject...

I have yet to run into one that has a problem with Jeopardy or other game shows for the following reasons...

It's not gambling because it doesn't rely on luck but rather knowledge and skill. It' more like winning a spelling bee or geography bee. The prize is a reward for your God-Given intelligence, and your hard work in studying.
It's also not gambling because you don't have people losing their own money so that the winner can prosper at others' expense.  The game show is making money for the network.  It's mutually beneficial, not one person greedily profiting at another person's expense

This addresses the "If they get it wrong, they lose the $400. If they respond correctly, they gain the $400. During the game, some squares will allow the player to wager on their response to the as-yet-unshown clue." in the questionn.

Also, it's not gambling because there's no wager or bet.  There's just rewards for right answers.  In a "wager" you can lose money that was already yours. In this show, none of your own money is at risk, you can only increase or decrease your winnings.  You have no risk of leaving with less than you came in with.

In general, gambling is considered sinful by Baptists because it involves a direct relationship between gain for some party at the harmful expense of another. It's an expression of greed and covetousness.

This article addresses what gambling is and isn't from a Baptist perspective, and the ills associated with it.  Game shows at worst can fall into the "money for nothing" category, making it roughly an equivalent sin to playing guitar on the MTV.

Excerpt from the article:

  Definitions – What Is Gambling

  It would be helpful to develop a working definition of what we mean by
  "gambling". We should also point out that there are varying kinds of
  gambling, e.g. the local bingo hall and the hard-core, back room poker
  game. Some are referred to as “innocent” and others as “criminal”.
  Here are some definitions:

  Gambling can be defined as “risking money in an attempt to multiply the money on something that is against the odds.”
  Webster's Dictionary: "to play games of chance for money or other stake."
  A Popular definition: “Getting something for nothing”. This can be expanded to, "Getting something for nothing without rendering service
  or exchange of goods, and is essentially stealing and a form of
  robbery".
  It is to “assume irresponsible risk in hope of unearned gain at the expense of less fortunate players.”

  I have found this definition particularly helpful:

  “Gambling is an agreement between two or more people, with the conscious risk of loss and hope of gain, whereby the transfer of
  something of value is made dependent on an uncertain event  in such a
  way that one party will gain and another lose.”

Using that last, game shows don't fit the bill.


Do Latter-day Saints believe Muhammad is a prophet? I read that the Latter-day Saints believe in Muhammad as prophet. How true is this and what does it mean for them?

While Latter-day Saints respect the beliefs of others, they don't revere or recognize Muhammad as a prophet.

In LDS history, the first prophet in our dispensation (a consecutive period of time where the gospel is on the earth and revealed, or "dispensed," through prophets) was Joseph Smith. Before that, the last prophet we have record of is Moroni, son of Mormon, who compiled The Book of Mormon. That was about 421 A.D, well before Muhammad's time.


What is the Book of Mormon story of Christmas? The Bible proclaims the birth and life of Jesus Christ. We all know the classic rendering of Luke 2 which is tradition to read every year, as well as all the prophesies concerning the Lord's birth throughout all the Bible.

The introduction to the Book of Mormon says:

  The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

Being that the Book of Mormon is comparable to the Bible as a volume of scripture, what is the Book of Mormon's story of Christmas? Is it the same (consistent with the Bible)?

The Book of Mormon does not have a "story of Christmas" in the same sense as the Bible does, because it was not set in the land of Israel (except for the very beginning of the book.)  Therefore, there is no coverage of the birth of the baby Jesus and the events surrounding it.

It does, however, repeatedly prophesy of the coming of the Savior, that he would be born at Jerusalem and that he would be born of a virgin.  Also, in Helaman chapter 14, we have a prophecy of the birth of Christ, and also of his death, and of the signs that would be given.  Interestingly, these signs are consistent with the Biblical events mentioned, but also much greater than them.  At Jesus's birth, a new star appeared in the sky, and also the sky remained as light as day throughout the night, even though everyone saw the sun go down.  And when Christ died, there were not only earthquakes, but immense devastation throughout the land, consistent with a major volcanic eruption.

The bit about Christ being born at Jerusalem is very interesting, since the Bible clearly states that he was born in Bethlehem, a small town a ways away from the great city.  While at first glance this appears to be an obvious error in the Book of Mormon, modern scholarship has shown the exact opposite: the non-Biblical phrase "the land of Jerusalem" used in the Book of Mormon was an authentic term used to describe the entire region, as shown by writings found in both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Tell el Amarna letters.


What is the logic behind the present arrangement of Seven Sacraments? As per Catholic Catechism, the Seven Sacraments are sequenced in the following order :

Baptism, Confirmation , Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony

But, that is not the sequence in which one receives the Sacraments as one grows up. My question is: What is the logic behind the present random arrangement of the Seven Sacraments in Catholic Catechism ?

The Catholic Catechism is a teaching tool about the Catholic faith. The Teaching Magisterium of the Church could have chosen another sequence for the seven sacraments, but it stayed with the most common and traditional way of listing the sacramennts.

Why this sequencing of the sacraments?

The first three sacraments mentioned are those involved in Christian initiation.

  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the sacraments of Christian initiation — baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist — lay the foundations of every Christian life. ... The faithful are born anew by baptism, strengthened by the Sacrament of Confirmation, and receive in the Eucharist the food of eternal life” (No. 1212). The Catechism goes on to say that, “The holy Eucharist completes our Christian initiation” (No. 1322). - Restored order for sacraments a growing trend

Baptism, penance and the anointing of the sick are sometimes referred to as the
sacraments of the dead and as such are at the faithful's disposition when in need. Since we should be in the state of grace before getting married or upon being ordained as a priest these sacraments are placed next in the list.

  Those sacraments which can be validly and fruitfully received when a person is not in the state of grace. They are baptism, penance, and, if needed, anointing of the sick. These sacraments confer or restore sanctifying grace and confer actual graces when received by one who is already in God's friendship. - Sacraments of the Dead

Most of the faithful will eventually choose marriage over Holy Orders and thus marriage is normally listed as the sixth sacrament and Holy Orders as the seventh.

Many Catholics do have a different sequence for the seven sacraments of the Church, such as the following:

  The Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church

  I. Baptism

  II. Reconciliation (Confession)

  III. Eucharist (Communion)

  IV. Confirmation

  V. Marriage

  VI. Holy Orders

  VII. Anointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction)


Animals eating animals - Noah I have a question, its bothering me.
Noah saved all the animals from the flood, when the flood was over Noah released the animals as well including lions tigers and other now known to be meat eaters.

If lions or tigers started eating other animals that means not many will be left.
My question is, were all the lions and tigers where grass eating? in the Holy Bible it does says in future they will be eating grass

It was not until after the flood, and most likely; after the animals had begun to procreate, that there were any carnivores on the Earth.

  Genesis 9:2 and 3 NKJV  And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3  Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

Before that time all creatures including man were Herbivorous.

  Genesis 1:29  And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30  Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.


What is the history of offertories? Many churches take up tithes and offerings in the middle of a service, and many have an offeratory or music during that time of the service. I'm curious as to the history of this practice. It seems it is without Old Testament precedence, since in the Old Testament the offering box was located at the entrance to the Temple and thus presumably (though I do not actually know this) there was no special tithe/offering time, but a place. I'm also guessing that it did not originate during the first few centuries of church history, during which time the church was quite hunted and not much institutionalized (at least compared to later)—though I do not actually know that either; it's just a guess. So if I had to guess I would say it must have emerged several hundred years after the coming of Christ—but that's would purely be a guess.

What is the history of offertories? When was this practice introduced? How has it developed or changed since then, if at all? Has there been any debate about its validity or importance? Who has promoted it and who, if anyone, has opposed it?

This question has already been answered before. You just have to read the Catholic Encyclopedia. Below, I have extracted out and rearranged parts from the encyclopedic entry in order to provide a concise answer for this question. I've also dug into some material that explains the reason for singing the Psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles (Col 3:16): the reason is that Apostle Paul says so.

Colossians 3:16 (New International Version)

  Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and
  admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs
  from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

The History of the Offertory

The use of bread and wine is supported by St. Justin Martyr, an early Church Father, who said: "Then bread and a cup of water and wine are brought to the president of the brethren" (I Apol., lxv, cf, lxvii). The bread and wine alone were offerings to God by the laypeople, but soon they were accompanied by a silent prayer (presumed with certain to be the Offertory prayer, because originally the only Roman Offertory prayers were the Secrets and said silently) that God should accept these gifts, sanctify them, change them into the Body and Blood of his Son, and give Christians the grace of Communion in return. The Offertory was carried out during the Mass of the Faithful by the clergymen, while the laypeople in the congregation sang a psalm (the Offertory chant, or Offertorium), which was part of the Proper of the Mass. The Offertorium was once a whole psalm with an antiphon. By the time of the Gregorian Antiphonary, the psalm had been reduced to a few verses only, which caused much controversy and lamentation. Now, only the antiphon was sung, except at requiems. It's taken from the psalter, or other book of the Bible, or oftentimes, not a Biblical text. It refers in some way to the feast or occasion of the Mass, never to the offering of bread and wine. Only the requiem has preserved a longer offertory with one verse and the repetition of the last part of the antiphon (the text is not Biblical). In the Middle Ages, the public presentation of the gifts (bread and wine) by the people had disappeared. The medieval Offertory prayers varied considerably, and were established at Rome by the fourteenth century (Ordo Rom. XIV., 53, P.L. LXXVIII, 1165). The present Roman prayers were compiled from various sources, Gallican or Mozarabic. Since then, the prayers that modern-day Catholics may know form part of the Roman Mass.

Why sing?

According to this source, singing is the sign of the heart’s joy (Acts 2:46-47). Thus, St. Augustine says rightly, “Singing is for one who loves,” and there is also an ancient proverb: “Whoever sings well prays twice over.” Since the Offertory used to be a whole psalm and antiphon, it would make sense to sing or chant the Offertory, because singing is a way to express love for God and communication with God.

Acts 2:46-47 (New International Version)

  Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They
  broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere
  hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the
  Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.


Acts 8:35-36 and Baptism being Part of the Gospel Acts 8:34-36 (DRB) And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?

Imagine the scene: some bigwig (v. 27) sitting calmly reading Isaiah in the cool of the day (v. 28), has Jesus preached to him (v. 35), and almost jumps out of his chariot at the first sign of water. This sounds like someone who believes that "baptism saves you," (1 Peter 3:21) not someone who believes baptism is a nice ceremony to have once you 'have been saved' (in the presence of family or friends, not alone with a stranger, for example).

Question: According to Protestants, why did the eunuch think his baptism was an urgent matter, after having the gospel preached to him, if baptism is not how one appropriates for himself ("puts on", Galatians 3:26-27) the Christ preached—not an intrinsic part of the gospel?

Cf. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:37-38; 8:12; 10:48; 22:16.

Thanks in advance.

There is nothing in Luke's account of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch to suggest any 'urgency'. The very wording - "here is water, what doth hinder ?" - suggests practicality, not urgency.
But as to the real inquiry - Is baptism itself an act of regeneration or is baptism an outward confession that regeneration has occurred ? - William Huntington (1745-1813) answers it very concisely :

We are washed in regeneration; clean water is sprinkled upon us and we are clean. We are baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire. All 'baptism' short of this is washing the outside of the cup and platter and amounts to no more than carnal washing.
It is not the washing away the filth of the flesh, but purgation from guilt and a testimony by the Spirit to our justification and adoption, that is the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I Peter 3:21, through whom and by whom the Spirit comes.

The Works of William Huntington


Question regarding different translations of the Bible into Japanese I also posted this on the Japanese language site but I don’t feel like it fits very well in either category. If you can think of a better stack exchange site please let me know.
Some background:
My grandmother was born in Japan just before WWII but married an American sailor in her youth and moved to the US, where she has lived for the past 60 years or so. She is a devout Protestant Christian, but as far as I know she converted when she moved to the US or shortly before then (I have never asked) and has therefore never seen the Bible in her native language. I want to get her one for Christmas, as I think that would be very special for her but I don’t know anything about Japanese translations of the Bible.
The problem:
I’ve read that there are two main translations, the 新共同訳聖書 (NIT) and the 新改訳聖書 (NJB). The NJB is supposed to be more widely used among Protestants, but it’s also apparently a more literal translation and I don’t want to give her a Bible that’s clunky or obscures the meaning. I also don’t want to give her a Bible that is Protestant because of a bias in translation.  On the other hand, I like the idea of a the NIT because it is more ecumenical, but not if it was made that way by deliberately translating it more ambiguously. I also know that translating to Japanese always requires some interpretation, so I like the idea of a less literal translation, but I don’t want to give her one like the Message which is very heavily interpreted to the point where it is more of a commentary.
What translation do you recommend for my specific situation?
Thanks for your help.

The most recent and most used translation in Japan is the 新共同訳聖書 Shin Kyōdō Yaku Seisho, both in Catholic and Protestant denominations in Japan.
Both the most recent version from 1987 and the older colloquial version (called 口語訳 – Kogoyaku) are also available and searchable online:
http://www.bible.or.jp/read/vers_search.html
The most recent version doesn't have the (confusing) transliterations of persons mentioned in the bible.
For example, in the Kogoyaku, the word "Jesus" would be rendered into kana as ジーザズ (d͡ʑi-i-d͡za̠-su) to correspond with "Djeezas", as we would pronounce it, which kinda goes against how syllables can group in Japanese.
In the recent version, this is rendered closer to Japanese syllable & transcription rules, as ジーズー (d͡ʑi-i-su-u)
I would therefore recommend the 1987 edition.


Sabbath vs Sunday - Why and who Possible Duplicate:
  Why does Judaism celebrate Sabbath on Saturday and most Christians celebrate Sabbath on Sunday?

First-of-all i would like to say That i am A Seventh-Day Adventist.

I would Like to know (your opinions) why do some Christians not choose Saturday as "their" Sabbath?

Is it not the 4th Commandment that thou should "Remember the Sabbath" and keeping in mind that God said Remember knowing that we would forget.

I'll answer in case this post doesn't get closed...

This is one of the passages used in explaining our perspective:

  Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.  - Colossians 2:16-17

Here is another:

  Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another?... One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind... for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord... But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God... Therefore let us not judge one another anymore... I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.  - Romans 14:1-14

Jesus was criticized several times for His and His disciples' actions on the Sabbath:

  The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”... Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath...” - Mark 2:24-27

In Hebrews we receive some more teaching on the subject:

  Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it... So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience. - Hebrews 4:1-11

I was once convinced that Saturday should be "the Sabbath Day" for all Christians.  One day the Spirit pressed me to read Galatians. I considered the book in light of passages such as those above, and I now have a different perspective.  I now believe that while taking a day of rest is part of God's design for healthy living, it is ultimately a foreshadowing of something yet to come.  So, in my view "remember it and keep it holy" relates more to our view of what is to come than our rituals in this life.  I believe that it is good to worship, minister, fellowship and serve on Saturday... and Sunday... and every day.  I believe it is good to remember the coming Sabbath rest for the people of God.  I also believe there is value in taking a day off (without becoming a slave to it.)

However, I am only sharing my views.  I will not attempt to convince you to believe what I believe, because as Romans 14 teaches, each one should be fully convinced in what they do and should not judge the other.


Can God reverse the fall of man specifically on earth? Life for humans (Adam and Eve) before eating from the tree of knowledge was extremely different - as there was no sin in the physical earth.

  Before that time, the two were separate, and evil had only a nebulous
  existence in potentia.

Then, eating from the tree of knowledge cursed the rest of humanity.

Now, it is also "known" that God has the power to do ANY thing.

Can God allow humanity ever get back to that previous state (i.e. - we all obey Him perfectly)** here on Earth** or is it never an option and why won't He?

The Catholic answer, as best I can.

Firstly, if your question means to ask, can the current lineage of humanity transition into a state of complete grace, free from the burden of original sin or the fallen nature of the world, the answer is a simple no. The doctrine of original sin precludes it: it's a fallen world. And God has already revealed a different solution.

However, I think that "different solution" is worth digging into a little. Because your question could mean, could God's Kingdom arrive in the universe as we know it, transforming everything and everyone at once, or does it need to occur in a completely new universe?

So in brief, there are two relevant Catholic beliefs that I think provide an answer to the 2nd question, if that's the question you meant.

Firstly, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), we believe in the renewal of all things. This belief, if I'm not mistaken, is taken primarily from The Revelation of John, a few of Christ's own words, and from some OT apocryphal segments.

  At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness.
  After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with
  Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself will be
  renewed:

  The Church... will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven,
  when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time,
  together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely
  related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be
  perfectly re-established in Christ.
  - CCC 1042

The renewal is later said in the Catechism to be a sort of transformation.

  The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so
  that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no
  further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing
  their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.
  - CCC 1047

Secondly, we believe all people are born into a state of original sin, with the exceptions of Jesus and His Mother, Mary. The basic concept of orignal is summed up nicely in the CCC:

  Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not
  have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.
  It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature
  has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers
  proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of
  death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called
  “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace,
  erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the
  consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man
  and summon him to spiritual battle.
  - CCC 205

It goes on to imply that Adam's sin has an impact on all mankind, and therefore the world of which he is the steward, because he handed his freedom, to some extent, to the devil, who only then is given real power in the world.

Put these doctrines together and a picture begins to form. Mankind relinquished his power in an appeal to Satan. Satan is thereby given reign in the world, since it's under Adam's (man's) stewardship. And because this affects the universe on a fundamental level, it becomes the nature of the universe. Thus, the only possible solutions are a completely new universe or fundamental transformation of the universe.

Now, since the Catholic teaching seems to lean towards a transformation or a renewal, we can draw some conclusions in light of what we also know about the fallen nature of the world.

Everyone must die. Necessary because no one is born free of original sin, and our bodies and minds are corrupt. So, we need to give them up.
Everyone must then be raised. (Or at least the elect.) If they aren't, we haven't got an eschatology at all! Just a bunch of dead people and a lingering fallen world.
Our new bodies must be made perfect. Refraining from the more speculative ideas as to what that really means, our bodies and souls are in perfect harmony with each other and with God.
The universe must be transformed into perfection. I don't know what this means! The Church, I think, suggests that it frees the universe from the "decay."
Satan must be confined to hell. He no longer gets to operate in the world of the elect.

So, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the fundamental nature of the world changes without changing its immediate appearance. But, it is necessary that we all die. And it is necessary that world-processes be freed from Satan's reign, which likely means that things work somewhat differently.

All things considered, I think the answer to your question is still no.

For, even if the universe is renewed in-place, on-the-fly, we're still dealing with a fundamentally different universe. And we've all had to die, be resurrected with perfected (different) bodies, etc.. We're dealing with something that, in our limited understanding is already very different, even if in God's eyes it's the same material.

Also, it's at least provocative that looking at this creation from a physical perspective everything about it seems temporal.  That is, this universe seems created to die; everything about it seems to speak to a beginning and its ultimate demise, inferring that God never created this universe to be our eternal abode. Coupled with scriptural revelation that it will be "renewed" or "created anew", it would seem to support a totally "new creation" eschtology as opposed to a simple "restoration" of this creation.


How many wives did Joseph Smith Jr. have in his lifetime? I understand that polygamy was commonly taught and practiced in the early days of the LDS church by Joseph Smith and others.  I'm wondering just how many wives he had and who they were.  Also, were any of these women polyandrous (having more than one husband) or was only polygamy (more than one wife) allowed?

Polygamy is one of the more difficult subjects to study of early LDS history,  because the environment in which it was practiced necessitated secrecy as a result of the hostility toward the Church and it's usefulness as a polemical tool for the enemies of the Church.  However, credible research is continually trickling out, and we now have some great theories to explain it.  Unfortunately there is enough contradictory evidence that we may never know with 100% certainty what actually happened.

Rather than attempting a full explanation, I'll provide some brief thoughts and references to external sources.

I believe the number of wives is around 27 to 29, with 3-5 being wives he spent any amount of time with.  There are a lot of different opinions out there, so you'll likely get a different answer depending on who you talk to.  FAIRMormon has some excellent documentation on the subject.

Dr. Greg Smith of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research published a fantastic paper in 2005 called, "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication".  While not specifically commenting on the number of wives Joseph had, he discusses a lot of the historical and contemporary issues surrounding polygamy and why there are so many questions surrounding this.

In 2012, Brian Hales gave a great speech where he also addresses how many wives he thinks Joseph had, including how many were polyandrous marriages.  He also discusses some of the background and theology surrounding the polyandrous marriages, providing some good primary research that he has written about in his multi-volume books.

Richard Lyman Bushman spends a lot of time discussing Joseph's wives and investigating the issues surrounding them in his excellent biography of Joseph called Rough Stone Rolling.


When Did Catholics Cease to Fast as the Orthodox Do? From what I understand, the Western and Eastern churches fasted identically for a long time: Wednesday and Friday, and the entirety of Lent. Is this untrue?

If not, when and why did the Catholics stop fasting on Wednesday and Friday and throughout Lent as the Orthodox fast?

When Did Catholics Cease to Fast as the Orthodox Do?

There are three general phases on how, when and why the Catholic Church changed her way of fasting. it seems all three stages must be seen in the same light in order to understand how this phenomena came about.

The Catholic Church over some extended time in the 20th century slowly relaxed the laws on Eucharistic fasting.
Pope Paul VI overhauled the Church's  disciple on fasting in his Apostolic Letter Paenitemini.
The introduction of the Pope Paul's Mass and it's new liturgical calendar.

Before going  on, I would like to mention that the fasting in the Catholic Church was never identical to that of the Orthodox fasting. The Orthodox and many Eastern Rite Catholics have historical fasts that simply did not exist in the West. Also there some variations in fasting between the diverse Orthodox Churches.

First Item: The Eucharistic Fast.

On December 20, 1905 Pope St. Pius X, in his Sacra Tridentina of December 20, 1905 changed old traditional age of being allowed to receive Holy Communion and encouraged frequent Communion and not just only once a year as was the norm in his day.

Pope St. Pius X did not change the Eucharistic Fast at the time of his decree on the reception of Holy Communion: Sacra Tridentina. That came with Pope Pius XII.

In the 1950s some parishes started having evening Masses. These evening Masses gradually led to the changes that all parishes currently have with vigil (Sunday) Masses being permitted on Saturday evenings. This was intended to help Catholics with legitimate commitments such as hospital workers to fulfill their “Sunday obligation.” This is one reason I do not attend Saturday evening Masses unless I have an obligation of some sort which takes place at the same time of my Sunday mass.

Now taking into consideration that Pope Pius X allowed the reception of Holy Communion more frequently and lowered the age of receiving the Eucharist and that Pope Pius XII permitted evening Masses, the next step would be to shorten the Eucharistic Fast.

In 1953 Pope Pius XII changed the Eucharistic fast from midnight to 3 hours and in 1957 from 3 hours to 1 hour.

  He was the first to permit Masses to be celebrated during the evening hours and also made significant changes in the Eucharistic fast (which for centuries prior to 1953 meant that Catholics were to refrain from food and drink – except water – from midnight until receiving Holy Communion at morning Mass). In 1953 the fast was changed to 3 hours from solid foods and 1 hour from liquids. In 1957 the conditions of the fast were more relaxed in an effort to support changing working conditions of the people and to accommodate the faithful desiring to attend afternoon or evening Masses.

  As evening Masses became the rule rather than the exception, the 1 hour fast prior to receiving Holy Communion was officially promulgated by Pope Paul VI as a universal accommodation. This took place at the end of the third council session in 1964. Almost 10 years later a Vatican Instruction published on January 29, 1973 by the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments called Immensae caritatis affirmed the 1 hour fast and gave additional accommodation to the sick. This eventually took the form of church law (canon 919) in the new 1983 Code of Canon Law. - Liturgical reforms began before Second Vatican Council convened

Second Item: Pope Paul's Apostolic Letter Paenitemini

Pope Paul' s apostolic Letter Paenitemini modernized the Catholic perception on the rules for fasting.

Pope Paul VI changed the tradition Lenten obligation of fasting the entire 40 days of Lent to two days (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday). Abstinence was reduced to Ash Wednesday and all Fridays only. some diocese permit that the Friday abstinence outside of Lent may be substituted for some Act of Charity or Pious Work.

  II. 1. The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rites. Their substantial observance binds gravely.

  Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast is to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to the various practices of the rites, on the first day of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent) and on Good Friday.

  III. 1. The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat.

  The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, observing—as far as quantity and quality are concerned—approved local custom.

  IV. To the law of abstinence those are bound who have completed their 14th year of age. To the law of fast those of the faithful are bound who have completed their 21st year and up until the beginning of their 60th year.

Third Item: The New Mass and the Liturgical Calendar of 1970

It was and is still tradition in some Catholic communities to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, especially in Advent. But this fast, although traditional was never prescribed as an obligation by Rome.

Catholics and I presume Orthodox chose these two days out of the week to fast because according to tradition Our Lord Jesus Christ was betrayed on a Wednesday (Spy Wednesday) and Our Lord was crucified on a Friday (Good Friday).

When Pope Paul's New Mass was promulgated (Missale Romanum) on April 3, 1969 it was drastically different in form than the Mass of Pope Pius V and the new Liturgical Calendar of 1970 found some tradition feasts and/or fasts either suppressed or seriously reduced in liturgical rank. The new calendar all but did away with the whole idea of Ember Days. Although not completely suppressed, I do not know of a single diocese that practices the ancient Catholic tradition of Ember Days safe a few religious communities here and there.

As I already mentioned that Catholics never truly fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays in the sense as being obliged by Rome. Many Catholic nevertheless did so. However, The Church, prior to 1970 did fast on Ember Days. A Catholic tradition that was not practiced in the Orthodox Churches. Thus our fasts were never identical, yet were somewhat similar.

  Ember days (corruption from Lat. Quatuor Tempora, four times) are the days at the beginning of the seasons ordered by the Church as days of fast and abstinence. They were definitely arranged and prescribed for the entire Church by Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) for the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after 13 December (S. Lucia), after Ash Wednesday, after Whitsunday, and after 14 September (Exaltation of the Cross). The purpose of their introduction, besides the general one intended by all prayer and fasting, was to thank God for the gifts of nature, to teach men to make use of them in moderation, and to assist the needy. The immediate occasion was the practice of the heathens of Rome. The Romans were originally given to agriculture, and their native gods belonged to the same class. At the beginning of the time for seeding and harvesting religious ceremonies were performed to implore the help of their deities: in June for a bountiful harvest, in September for a rich vintage, and in December for the seeding; hence their feriae sementivae, feriae messis, and feri vindimiales. The Church, when converting heathen nations, has always tried to sanctify any practices which could be utilized for a good purpose. At first the Church in Rome had fasts in June, September, and December; the exact days were not fixed but were announced by the priests. The "Liber Pontificalis" ascribes to Pope Callistus (217-222) a law ordering the fast, but probably it is older. Leo the Great (440-461) considers it an Apostolic institution. When the fourth season was added cannot be ascertained, but Gelasius (492-496) speaks of all four. This pope also permitted the conferring of priesthood and deaconship on the Saturdays of ember week--these were formerly given only at Easter. Before Gelasius the ember days were known only in Rome, but after his time their observance spread. They were brought into England by St. Augustine; into Gaul and Germany by the Carlovingians. Spain adopted them with the Roman Liturgy in the eleventh century. They were introduced by St. Charles Borromeo into Milan. The Eastern Church does not know them. The present Roman Missal [of Pope St. Pius V], in the formulary for the Ember days, retains in part the old practice of lessons from Scripture in addition to the ordinary two: for the Wednesdays three, for the Saturdays six, and seven for the Saturday in December. Some of these lessons contain promises of a bountiful harvest for those that serve God. Ember Days (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Unfortunately, in keeping up to the modern world (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 7,1965), the Catholic Church has lost so much our Her former treasures. More could be said, but I believe that this response should be of some use to someone, somewhere.

As a side note: For those Catholics and others who wish to try fasting on the Ember Days, here is a medieval recipe on how to make an Ember Day Tart in order to enhance your experience. Whether we fast on these Ember Days or not, the Ember Day Tart can still be enjoyable as a way to remind ourselves of the traditions that are have almost gone the way of the Dodo bird. Here is a tempora recipe for embertides.

Ember Day Tart


According to the Greek Orthodox Church can one marry a Maronite Catholic? Is a wedding between a Greek Orthodox to a Maronite Rite Catholic permitted and can the ceremony be performed in the Greek Orthodox Church?

According to the Greek Orthodox Church can one marry a Maronite Catholic?

The short answer is yes.

  When getting married in the Greek Orthodox Church, especially interfaith marriages, there are a lot of questions about what may be allowed in the Church, and what may be prohibited. Luckily, as with many practices of the Church, the Church has explicitly stated guidelines for marriage in the Greek Orthodox Church.

  These guidelines outline the official position of the Orthodox Church and simply dictate what is allowed and what is not allowed to take place. They concern the basic rules that must be met, acting as the official canons of the Orthodox Church. They represent the fundamental core of the sacrament of marriage where there is little to no room for negotiation or exception.

  According to the Greek Orthodox Church, first and foremost, the marriage must be conducted in an Orthodox Church. This unfortunately pretty much rules out the romantic beach weddings in the Caribbean that are all over TV. This is not because the Church does not like the beach; rather since Marriage is one of the seven sacraments, it is seen as a sacred ceremony, one that should be conducted in a sacred space—an Orthodox Church.

  This in turn means that an Orthodox priest must celebrate the sacrament with a traditional Orthodox ceremony in an Orthodox Church. The respective Diocese must also grant authorization of the service.

  The engaged couple must meet with the parish priest of the church in which they are to be married. The priest must belong to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese; however marriages that are performed in another Orthodox jurisdiction (Serbian, Russian, Bulgarian etc.) in communion with the Greek Orthodox Church are recognized as valid. Before asking for authorization from the Bishop, it is the priest’s job to verify that several fundamental conditions are either avoided or met adequately. - Getting Married in the Greek Orthodox Church

For the Catholic party, the future spouse must obtain a dispensation from their local ordinary (bishop), in order to make it a valid canonical marriage.

  Can.  1127 §2 If grave difficulties hinder the observance of canonical form, the local ordinary of the Catholic party has the right of dispensing from the form in individual cases, after having consulted the ordinary of the place in which the marriage is celebrated and with some public form of celebration for validity. It is for the conference of bishops to establish norms by which the aforementioned dispensation is to be granted in a uniform manner.
   The Code of canons of Oriental Churches (CCEO) has this to say on Marriage:

  Canon 813 Marriage between two baptized persons, one of whom is Catholic and the other of whom is non-Catholic, is prohibited without the prior permission of the competent authority.

  Canon 814 For a just reason the local hierarch can grant permission; however he is not to grant it unless the following conditions are fulfilled: the Catholic party declares that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of falling away from the faith and makes a sincere promise to do all in his or her power to have all the offspring baptized and educated in the Catholic Church; the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time of these promises which the Catholic party has to make, so that it is clear that the other party is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party; both parties are to be instructed on the essential ends and properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either spouse.

  Canon 816 Local hierarchs and other pastors of souls are to see to it that the Catholic spouse and the children born of a mixed marriage do not lack spiritual assistance in fulfilling their spiritual obligations, and are to assist the spouses in fostering the unity of conjugal and family life.

  Canon 835 Dispensation from the form for the celebration of marriage required by law is reserved to the Apostolic See or the patriarch, who will not grant it except for a most grave reason.


What is the meaning of the strange fire in Leviticus 10:1? Nadab and Abihu were killed for this "small" thing in God's eyes.  Wow!  I have a hard time understanding this.  Any thoughts?

In Jewish times, the source of the fire in the sanctuary was from God. Initially, when they first laid the sacrifice as an offering at the alter, fire was literally sent from God and consumed it (Leviticus 9:24). Since then it was to be kept continually burning. (Leviticus 6:12-13).

Thus Nadab and Abihu displayed wanton presumptuousness by lighting fire themselves in the censer (instead using fire from the alter) and offering it to the Lord. As if such a disingenuous act would go unnoticed and accepted by God Himself. They rejected God's mercy for the last time, and were stricken down.

Finally, the smoke of the censer represent the cleansing of the prayers of the believers before it reaches God (Revelation 8:4). For them to use human means at a time when divine fire was available and required was incredibly profane.


Transcendence and Revelation Since

God transcends all humans and all their artefacts; and
almost all revelation occurs within human languages, which are in a definite sense human artefacts;
isn't it the case that Divine Revelation must necessarily be “incomplete” to some extent in order to be carried by a limited medium such as the human language?

edited as per suggestions

If God, were only transcendant, perhaps there would be something to what you're saying, But Orthodox (in the wider sense of the word) Christian teaching is that God is both transcendant (we can't know Him fully) and Immanent - he is 'close' and fully able to communicate to his creatures clearly (at least to their level of comprehension).

Orthodox Christianity would further qualify your second premise as God initially gave language to man when he created him in his image (cf. Genesis 1:26-29).  Subsequently, human languages were confused and multiplied by God's direct agency as well (cf. Genesis 11:1-9), so there is a sense that language's are not 'purely' human artifacts at all.  It is true, that since Babel, languages have multiplied further with cross-pollinations and evolutions - this process may have lead to further confusion between humans, but it is not a limiting factor in God communicating what He chooses to communicate to mankind - as he is both omniscient and omnipotent.

With regard to revelation, we can not know everything there is to know about God with our mortal limitations, but what God chooses to reveal to mankind, He also has the capacity to make clear - as He is the Master of all language. (cf. Acts 2)


What is the Biblical basis for withholding communion from believers who are unbaptized? My home church has a policy of asking non-believers not to participate in communion, but never asks if a believer has yet been baptized.

I have visited or attended several other churches where communion is withheld from anyone who has not been baptized, regardless of whether or not they profess a faith in Christ. What is the Biblical basis for setting the bar at baptism as opposed to a profession of faith?

It seems that regulations and opinions on this are varied.  It depends (very strongly) on the denomination and what they believe.
Key Verse:
I'll put this here for later reference:
1 Corinthians 11:27-28 (NIV)

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood
of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat
of the bread and drink from the cup.

Protestantism
One belief is that the communion should be something solely for people who are saved, committed Christians.
As The Rev. Gerald Schrankler said in this thread:

If we invite non-baptized, non-Christians, to communion we degrade it from a celebration of our redemption by Christ's death and resurrection to a fellowship snack.

The background idea behind this is that Christians who are not baptized are not saved.  Since they're not saved, they should not be able to partake of the communion and are in violation of 1 Corinthians 11:27.
Another Protestant View
John Wesley, however, believed that communion was a "means of grace" (source).  Therefore, it shouldn't be withheld from anyone--believers or non-believers.
The idea here is that if someone wants to come to communion, we should not prevent them.  It may very well be the means that leads to their salvation!  Clearly that's not something we would want to withhold.
In Catholicism
Catholics actually allow others to take part in the Holy Communion, with tight restrictions.

Guidelines for the Reception of Communion
For Catholics
...A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession....
For Other Christians
...Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches.
For Non-Christians
...While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.

Link to article
Summary
Ultimately, it seems that there are very widely dispersed opinions on this matter.  The biblical basis as you asked, is 1 Corinthians 11:27-28.  However, the interpretation of that verse has lead to varied regulations.


What is the Biblical basis for saying Christians are "friends of God"? I've heard Christians say that an appropriate title for a Christian is, "friend of God." I've also heard preachers (e.g. Beth Moore) say that this is inappropriate: only certain people (Abraham and the Disciples) can be called friends of God.

What is the Biblical basis for saying modern Christians are generally "friends of God"?

I believe we can be friends of God.  (And not just because I'm a fan of the song)

Jesus tells us if we do what he commands we are his friends.

  John 15:13-15 NIV
  13 Greater love has no
  one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my
  friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants,
  because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have
  called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I
  have made known to you.


What was the normal way to cross the Jordan River during first century in Israel? Question: What was the normal way to cross the Jordan River during first century in Israel?

Reading John 1:28 it says that John was baptizing on the East side of the Jordan River and I've wondered how the people would get to him.  And not just him but any travel that may require crossing the river.  I'm sure that it could probably be crossed by swimming but it seems that hauling goods and possessions, families, or even the upper class like the priests this wouldn't have been the case.  No where in scripture do I find mention of a bridge. Through different google searches the earliest bridge I could find was circa 700CE.

Information on the river itself:

The baptismal site of Bethany Beyond the Jordan (John 1:28) is near the southern end of the Jordan River, across from Jericho and 8 kilometres south of the King Hussein (or Allenby) Bridge. It is 40 minutes by car from the Jordanian capital of Amman.

El-Ghor:
"Twenty miles below Lake Galilee the river is joined by the important Wady el-Jalud, which descends through the valley of Jezreel between Mt. Gilboa and the range of the Little Hermon (the hill Moreh of Jdg 7:1). This valley leads up from the Jordan to the valley of Esdrelon and thence to Nazareth, and furnished the usual route for Jews going from Jerusalem to Nazareth when they wished to avoid the Samaritans."

Deep and turbulent during the rainy season, the Jordan is reduced to a sluggish, shallow stream during the summer.

The Jordan River only reaches 20 yards across in some places, and its deepest point is around 17 feet.

From the Sea of Galilee, at the level of 682 feet below the Mediterranean, the river flows through a long, low plain called “the region of Jordan” (Matt. 3:5), and by the modern Arabs the Ghor, or “sunken plain.” This section is properly the Jordan of Scripture. Down through the midst of the “plain of Jordan” there winds a ravine varying in breadth from 200 yards to half a mile, and in depth from 40 to 150 feet. Through it the Jordan flows in a rapid, rugged, tortuous course down to the Dead Sea.

The first thing I want to do is define this word ford. It is a shallow place with good footing where a river or stream may be crossed by wading. A ford is mostly a natural phenomenon, in contrast to a low water crossing, which is an artificial bridge that allows the crossing of a river or stream when water is low. So with lack of a better term it would be a ford Crossing.

Although there were no bridges until the time of the Romans, there were some 54 fords which were used as a place to cross the Jordan river in ancient times. I will give a couple of examples from scripture of where a ford is used to describe a place of a river crossing, Genesis 32:22 Jacob crossed the ford of Jabbok and Deuteronomy 3:20 where David crossed the fords of the wilderness.

Additionally there is at lest one example from scripture that a ferry boat was used. This should not surprise us because they date back as far as ancient  Egypt as a mode of transportation. All through-out history and scripture we see the use of boats and or ferries. Israel in the first century would not be any different.

  2 Samuel 19 17-23

  There were a thousand men of Benjamin with him, (David) and Ziba the servant of Saul, and his fifteen sons and his twenty servants with him;and they went over the Jordan before the King. 18 Then a ferry boat went across to ferry over the kings household, and do what he thought was right.(NKJV)

In some instances it was just a miracle.

  joshua 3:15-16

  It was the harvest season and the banks of the Jordan were over flowing its banks.But as soon as feet of the priest who were carrying the Ark touched the water at the river's edge (16) the water above that point begin backing up at a town called Adam (NLT)


What is "Manuscript Evidence" and how is it useful? In several Apologetics articles (including one answer of mine on a different question), I see the statement that "there is overwhelming manuscript evidence to support the fact that the Bible has been transmitted accurately through time".  Often, these sites contain a chart like the following, with no explanation of why the number of copies, or the gap between the original written version and the earliest known manuscript matters.

So how does all of this prove anything?  Does it prove the Bible is the Word of God?  If not, what's the point?

"Manuscript Evidence", as the question implies, serves to provide evidence that the Bible has been transmitted accurately throughout time.  It does not prove that the Bible is God's word.

The usefulness of knowing what manuscript evidence means, and what it tells us about the accurate transmission of Scripture through time is to address the statement that "The Bible has been changed many times over the years" - a common charge leveled by atheists and non-Christians.

The manuscript evidence argument stems from a branch of literary criticism, which seeks to identify and eliminate copying errors that occur over time.  Regardless of how careful people may be when copying texts, it is all but inevitable that errors will be made along the way.  The more often a piece of work is copied, the more likely an error will occur.

In layman's terms, the process of identifying and removing errors is done by comparing various copies of ancient works, and using a rigorous approach to determining what the original document actually contained.  All discrepancies are examined, and the original intent is deduced.

How well this works depends heavily on two factors, which are included in the chart in the question:

The number of copies is useful because it gives a wider amount of copies to examine.  The more copies there are, the more likely there will be discrepancies.

This is good, because it helps to weed out the obvious errors - there will be fewer instances of errors because it's not as likely that various transcribers will make the same mistake.
Similarly, additions to the text, intentional alterations can be detected if they are present only in a limited number of texts.

The date between the original writing of the text and the earliest known manuscript is also critical.  Put simply, there is no way to compare copies of the text for manuscripts that do not exist, so if early mistakes occurred, resulting in discrepancies in later copies, it's impossible to ascertain which is more likely to be correct.

If the earliest known manuscript of a recorded event is within the lifetime of those who experienced the event, the argument is stronger, as there would be people alive at the time of the writing to correct or dispute inaccuracies.

A good example of how comparing discrepancies to ascertain original meaning can be found at Reasoning from the Scripture Ministries:

  Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document
  that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different.
  Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the
  original must have said. Here are the five copies:

  Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.
  Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
  Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.
  Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.
  Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.

  Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the
  original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are
  correct? Of course you could.

When it comes to applying textual criticism to Scripture, the New Testament in particular has overwhelming manuscript evidence.  For the Old Testament, the evidence is not nearly as overwhelming, and the argument for trusting that they have been transmitted accurately through time rests more on the extraordinary care that was taken by the scribes.

Of course, the Bible (or more accurately, translations of the Bible) has been changed over the years, due to mistakes (such as the one that resulted in "The Wicked Bible").  Such mistakes resulted in revisions to Scripture, and it is possible that more revisions will come.  However, overwhelmingly, we can place a high level of confidence that the Bible that we have today is very close to the original manuscripts, and that it has been transferred accurately through time.

So when it comes to answering the atheist's charge that the Bible has been changed over the years, the argument that we can't trust the Bible is based on a distorted definition of "has changed".  What they are trying to imply is that we can't trust the Bible because it's changed so much, but the fact is that we have such overwhelming manuscript evidence that we can be very confident in the fact that the meaning of the original manuscript wasn't lost. Spelling and copyist errors, there are truly very few verses that appear to have been "added" or that the common-sense reading is disputed.

The above is meant to be a Layman's answer. and is in no way a complete, or in-depth explanation of the concept, or all of the principles applied to textual criticism.  If you're interested, there are plenty of resources on the web discussing this topic.  For further reading, and a deeper understanding of Textual Criticism, the Wikipeda article is as good a place as any to start.


Should we have realistic unbelief? Jesus makes it pretty clear that because of our unbelief we will not see miracles in our life (see below).

However, psychological experts warn against the dangers of unrealistic expectations.

See Psychology Today:  The Danger Of Having Unrealistic Expectations

In summary, unrealistic expectations can lead to very negative consequences, if the outcome is not met.

However, the New Testament instructs us to believe - in the super natural, in the impossible or in psychology terms: the unrealistic.

i.e. -

  Jesus Gives Life to a Dead Girl:
  Matthew:   35 While Jesus was still there speaking, some men came from
  the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. They said, “Your daughter
  is dead. There is no need to bother the Teacher.”

  36 But Jesus did not care what the men said. He said to the synagogue
  leader, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.”

and

  Matthew 13:58
     And so he did only a few miracles there because of
  their unbelief.

Should our life be filled by consistently believing in the impossible - will that end up damaging our faith or just create a denial fantasy world apart from reality?

Should we be thinking about unrealistic vs. realistic belief?

Since Jesus is no longer here in human form, is OK to have unbelief?

Are there any good studies or articles on this concept?

Thank You.

I think we need to be careful with our terms here.

It is good to believe the truth, including a belief in God, and a belief in His ability to miraculously impact the physical realm.
It is not good to believe lies.  You were not made for the purpose of believing lies, and it can actually be destructive to you physically (mentally).  I think what Psychologists are observing is the destructive effects of believing what is not true, whether that be "I am a gorilla", or "I am going to be a gorilla tomorrow" (an "unrealistic expectation").

So in that sense, it is not good to believe in the "unrealistic."  But it is not fair to equate the "supernatural" with the "unrealistic" or "impossible", as if all that which were possible must exist in the natural (physical) realm.

To the extent that the supernatural realm is "real", it would be best to believe in it.  To reject the God who really exists would be extremely unhealthy!

Bottom line: Christianity is about truth, not blind faith in unrealistic fantasies.

  “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” -Jesus (John 8:31-32)


Is the choice of a new Pope inspired by the Holy Spirit? Are Roman Catholics required to believe that the Cardinals choice of a new Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit?

If so, how do we explain "bad" popes?

The Holy Spirit should be invoked and should guide the election of the Pope.
From Bl. John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution:

[Cardinals over the age of eighty] in particular should lead the People of God assembled in the Patriarchal Basilicas of Rome and in other churches in the Dioceses throughout the world, supporting the work of the electors with fervent prayers and supplications to the Holy Spirit and imploring for them the light needed to make their choice before God alone and with concern only for the "salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law"
In view of the sacredness of the act of election and thus the need for it to be carried out in an appropriate setting where, on the one hand, liturgical actions can be readily combined with juridical formalities, and where, on the other, the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit, I decree that the election will continue to take place in the Sistine Chapel.
From the Pauline Chapel of the Apostolic Palace, where they will assemble at a suitable hour in the afternoon, the Cardinal electors, in choir dress, and invoking the assistance of the Holy Spirit with the chant of the Veni Creator, will solemnly process to the Sistine Chapel of the Apostolic Palace, where the election will be held.

That said, there remains the possibility that the cardinals will fail to discern the will of the Spirit. However, that can no more be determined by the faithful than it can be by the cardinals themselves. So yes, we must believe that the right person has been chosen.
DJClayworth is correct that, even if the wrong person is elected, his ministry is not invalidated. God will find a way of making everything good.


Is it official Catholic dogma that Mary is the wife of the Holy Spirit? I've seen many posts here from Catholics describing Mary as the spouse or wife of the Holy Spirit. Catholic Answers calls it a "pious custom".

Is this official Catholic dogma? If so, when was it formally defined? If it isn't, then how widely supported is it? Where along the path to dogma described by this question is this belief?

It is not dogma

Were it a dogma you'd find a record of it at the Pope's official web site.

Ludwig Ott states in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that,

  "The Church honours her on account of her position as Mother of God, and on account of her high endowment with grace deriving from her position as daughter of the Heavenly Father and Spouse of the Holy Ghost." (Part 3 {The Mother of the Redeemer}, Chapter 1, Section 2 (p. 196))

Ott does not list it as a dogma of the church. (thank you, @zippy2006) (Nor does Denzinger clearly identify this pious belief as a dogma).

The two dogmas most recently published, and in these two cases pronounced ex cathedra, concerning Mary are the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.  We have Q&A on both of those topics.  That they are both alluded to during Adoration seems to bear on your question.  Remember that the Church won't endorse polygamy.  During the holy hour of Adoration (which has seen a revival ever since John Paul II became pope), during the  Reposition the faithful pray The Divine Praises

  Blessed be God. Blessed be his holy name.
  Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Blessed be the name of Jesus. Blessed be his most Sacred Heart. Blessed be his most Precious Blood. Blessed be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar. Blessed be the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete.
  Blessed be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy. Blessed be her holy and Immaculate Conception. Blessed be her glorious Assumption. Blessed be the name of Mary, virgin and Mother.
  Blessed be St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
  Blessed be God in his angels and in his saints. Amen.

No pope has formally declared the Holy Spirit's "spouse" being Mary to be dogma (by speaking ex cathedra) nor condemned it.   (To answer your comment: why would they condemn such a belief?  See Ott's observation above).  Only the Pope can define or reject something binding on Catholic belief one way or another (dogma).

The Catholic church embraces a variety of expressions of belief and faith (for example scapulars, and other sacramentals) without them becoming dogma.  Your look into this "pious custom" has already given you your answer at the Catholic Answers ... but do they have the Nihil Obstat?  (no).  If you check the Catholic Encyclopedia, its treatment of Mary does not include a discussion of her being the spouse of the Holy Spirit.  Nor do you find it as a dogma on the Pope's official site at vatican.va.

The church does not go out of its way to keep a nearly infinite list of "Oh, and this isn't dogma, nor this, nor this ..." - it's rather pointless.

No: the position or belief that Mary is the spouse of the Holy spirit is not dogma.  You are invited to read up on an official written discussion of dogma and its formation here.

An excerpt of the much longer treatment ...

  The study of the history of dogma shows clearly that in these dogmas the Church has not simply taken up already existing conceptual schemes. She has rather subjected existing concepts, imprinted by the upper levels of the language of the milieu, to a process of purification and transformation, or reworking. In that way, she has created the language that fits her message. Take for example the distinction between "substance" (or nature) and "hypostasis", and the working out of the concept of person which was unknown, as such, to Greek philosophy. In fact, it came about as a result of reflection on the reality of the mystery of Salvation and on biblical language.

  The language of the Church's dogma was then forged partly in debate with certain philosophical systems, but is not bound in any way to any definitive philosophical system. In the process of seeking language for the faith, the Church has created a language of her own in which she has given expression to realities hitherto unperceived and unknown, but which belong now, precisely by means of such linguistic expression, to the Paradosis of the Church and through it to the historical heritage of humanity.


Does the Catholic Church verify whether candidates to the priesthood are really men? In Catholic Church, only a baptized man can be ordained a priest.

  cf. CCC 1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives
  sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the
  college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when
  they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The
  college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the
  priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and
  ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes
  herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this
  reason the ordination of women is not possible.

In the Catholic Church, when candidates to the priesthood present themselves, what verification processes are there, if any, to determine whether they are really men?

Related: Were the medieval popes examined on a toilet-lid-like chair to establish their masculinity?

The 1983 Code says:

  Can.  1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

The 1917 Code elaborates:

  Canon 968 §1. Only a baptized male validly received sacred ordination; for liceity, however, he should be outstanding in the qualities according to the norm of the sacred canons, in the judgment of the proper Ordinary, and not detained by any irregularity or other impediment.

Thus, it is up to the Ordinary (e.g., bishop) to make the judgment of whether the ordinand is male, etc.


Trying to find information on a crucifix found whilst metal detecting I am trying to find the age of a silver cross that I have found on a site that had a benedictine priory on it from 1149 to 1540.

I believe that clues to its age are the use of a two bar Patriarchal Cross with "IHC" on the top bar.

Jesus' head is bowed

No wound mark in the abdomen, although wound marks on the hands and feet.

I would appreciate any advice as to age that you could provide.

Thanks
Kev Johnstone

just an update on the cross I found.
The British Museum have reviewed it and come back with their findings. It is taking an age to further process due to Covid. The artefact has been declared as treasure. They however appear a little lost in defining it's exact age, given the age mix of the design attributes/styles.
They are not aware of anything else which is similar. Some attributes are "romanesque", some are akin to 13th Century design, some potentially 16th Century design. They do believe that it was once gilded with trace elements of mercury and gold having been found on it. The silver content is 93-95%. The loop has a lower lead level than the rest which suggests that although it was added later, it was not much later. They have declared the age to be anywhere from 1200-1700, even though their are Romanesque attributes.
As it is more than 10% precious metal and at least 300 years old, they have classed it as an item of treasure, under the Treasure Act of 1996. The cross is with the coroner waiting to have its day in court when they will decide if it will be compulsory purchased by the Museum or returned to the finder and Land Owner. I will update the page with the findings of the proceedings when they finally take place.
Kev J.


What's the new rite in Tantum Ergo? St. Thomas Aquinas' hymn Tantum Ergo, which is usually sung at Benediction, always seems better in Latin:

  Et antiquum documentum
  Novo cedat ritui:

Mainly because in both the transliterated and the literal translation it doesn't make a ton of sense:

  And let the old practice
  Give way to the new rite;

Given this is written over 1000 years after the rite was established, what is this line in the hymn about?

"New" in this sense, is as in, "New covenant (or new testament, if you're going by a literal translation of the word covenant)." It is "new" as in it only 1200 (Aquinas wrote it), as opposed to the 4000(?) year old covenant of Abraham and the 2500 year old covenant of Moses.

It means that the believer is able to relate directly to the Godhead through the sacrifice of Christ, as opposed to the defective worship of the Old Testament (where the priest was mortal and sinful and had to offer sacrifice for his own sins in addition to the sins of the people and all of that other quasi-Pauline goodness from the book of Hebrews).