Why does the KJV capitilise 'Devil' in Revelation but not in Luke? Throughout Luke 4, 'devil' is lowercase. For example:

  And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being forty days tempted of the devil.

But in Revelation 12:9 it's a capital D:

  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

How did they decide whether or not to capitilise it?

This is more of an English question than a Christianity question, but the basic principles are:

Capitalize Satan, Lucifer, Devil, Evil One, Father of Lies, etc., when used as a name or title of a specific being.
Do not capitalize when used in a general sense, or when using it as an expletive.

It may be helpful to consider the example of the word "mother" in English: we'd say, "his mother is going to the store," but, on the other hand, "I'd like to go to the store, Mother."  In the first case, it's not a name, but it is in the second. However, if the sentences were changed to "The girl Mary is going to the store" and "I'd like to go to the store, Mary," we capitalize both times, because "Mary" is always a name.

Now, to the examples.  The KJV always capitalizes the word "Satan".  Same thing for Lucifer.  These the KJV considers to be clearly names.  But, "devil" is different: most of the time, it is not capitalized.  It's generally used like the word "mother," or "demon"—not a name, but a simple noun.

That's how it's used in Luke 4:2.  If you click the link, you'll see that some translations take a different approach: it can be a judgment call.

In other cases, it's more clear: in Revelation 12:9 many translations capitalize "Devil" (note the phrase, "called the," indicating that it's a name):

  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world (KJV)

Similarly, in John 6:70, all translations use lower-case "devil" because it's very clear that the text is not referring to Satan himself:

  Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? (KJV)


What doctrine does Family Radio have of the End of the World? I originally asked this question on October 21, 2011. I had received a link to an article on the eBibleFellowship page explaining how we'd been living the Day of Judgment since May 21, and today (ie. Oct 21, 2011) was the End of the World!

  We are living in a most unusual time. On May 21, of 2011, mankind entered into the Day of Judgment. This “day” will last for 5 months (153 days) until October 21, 2011. The Bible is teaching us that this period of time is Judgment Day!

The article links to similar teachings of Family Radio (which eBibleFellowship is not affiliated with).

What is the origin of this teaching? Do other Christian groups besides Family Radio and eBibleFellowship teach this? How do they explain the predictions after the date has passed?

Note that in March 2012 Harold Camping of Family Radio admitted they were wrong and the statements they made were sinful.

The claim
Well, the underlying doctrine behind this is the idea of the rapture.  That idea comes out of dispensation premillennialism.  This doctrine states that Jesus will have all the Christians pulled out of the world before the tribulation occurs.
This particular prediction was made by Harold Camping.  He claims that the Bible was his source for this.  However, he also claims to have used a set of cycles to determine this including the Jewish feast days, the lunar calendar, and a close approximation to the Gregorian calendar.
There is no support for this claim outside of his own predictions.  The claim has been spread widely due to him being the president for the radio company that is spreading these claims.  Furthermore, it should be noted that his background is in radio ministry and not as a pastor, priest, or other doctrinal/biblical expert.
Validity
Regarding the validity of this claim,
2 Peter 3:10 says that Jesus will return like a thief in the night.  This indicates that there won't be people predicting his return and attempting to prepare others for it.  Furthermore, Jesus said in Matthew 24:36 that no one knows the day or the hour that these events will occur.
Given the strong biblical argument against someone predicting his return, I strongly discourage anyone from believing his methods and following this prediction.
More information here


How is the matter of why the Son of God needed to be sacrificed explained in the Roman Catholic Church? Why did God the Father need to sacrifice His own Son for the sake of granting salvation to the fallen humanity? Couldn't He just forgive humans without making any sacrifice? Why is it so that "without shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrew 9:22, KJV)?

How is this matter officially explained in the Roman Catholic Church?

I just need an answer in a way of a general overview, not a "full-description" answer.

I have a problem with Christ Sacrifice being "needed"

To suggest such a thing suggests that God the father sent his son to die.  This was not his will, nor from the begining of creation was this his will.  Because of the Nature of God being outside of Time, the whole of History from start to finish is laid out for him in it's immediacy.

  To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination,” he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. CCC 600

  Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 155). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

This understanding of God being outside of time does not change his intention for his creation, that being to share in his divinity by pouring himself out in an act of total self gift.

Unable to understand this gift, which was freely given in the Garden, Man at the Fall, rejected the gift of devine sonship, falling and losing the divine Nature, the likeness of God.

Thomas Aquanis addresses this topic in a few articles.  Here is one explaining, not easily, how this sacrifice in a way necessary.

  FIRST ARTICLE

  WHETHER IT WAS NECESSARY FOR CHRIST TO SUFFER FOR THE DELIVERANCE OF THE HUMAN RACE?

  Objection 1. It seems that it was not necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race. For the human race could not be delivered except by God, according to Isaias. 45:21: Have not I, the Lord, and there is no God else besides Me? A just God and a Saviour, there is none besides Me. But no necessity can compel God, for this would be repugnant to His omnipotence. Therefore it was not necessary for Christ to suffer.

  Obj. 2. Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. But Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written (Isa. 53:7): He was offered because it was His own will. Therefore it was not necessary for Him to suffer.

  Obj. 3. Further, as is written (Ps. 24:10): All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth. But it does not seem necessary that He should suffer on the part of the Divine mercy, which, as it bestows gifts freely, so it appears to condone debts without satisfaction: nor, again, on the part of Divine justice, according to which man had deserved everlasting condemnation. Therefore it does not seem necessary that Christ should have suffered for men’s deliverance.

  Obj. 4. Further, the angelic nature is more excellent than the human, as appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv.). But Christ did not suffer to repair the angelic nature which had sinned. Therefore, apparently, neither was it necessary for Him to suffer for the salvation of the human race.
  On the contrary, It is written (John 3:14): As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

  I answer that, As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v.), there are several acceptations of the word necessary. In one way it means anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on the part of man for Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause quite apart from itself; and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause, then it brings about the necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if the external factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such end—namely, when some particular end cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either on God’s part, Who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ’s own part, Who suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed; and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been delivered, according to John (loc. cit.): The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. Secondly, on Christ’s part, Who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to this must be referred Luke 24:26: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory? Thirdly, on God’s part, Whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined; and (24:44, 46): These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is thus written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead.

  Reply Obj. 1. This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion on God’s part.

  Reply Obj. 2. This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on the part of the man Christ.

  Reply Obj. 3. That man should be delivered by Christ’s Passion was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man was set free by Christ’s justice: and with His mercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature, as was said above (Q. I., A. 2), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him, according to Rom. 3:24, 25: Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood. And this came of more copious mercy than if He had forgiven sins without satisfaction. Hence St. Paul says (Ephes. 2:4): God, Who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ.
  Reply Obj. 4. The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin of the first man

  Thomas Aquinas. (n.d.). Summa theologica. (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). London: Burns Oates & Washbourne.

In addition to this discription Thomas speaks of the efficiency of Christs sacrifice here.

  Article 6. Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation efficiently?

  Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about our salvation efficiently. For the efficient cause of our salvation is the greatness of the Divine power, according to Isaiah 59:1: "Behold the hand of the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save." But "Christ was crucified through weakness," as it is written (2 Corinthians 13:4). Therefore, Christ's Passion did not bring about our salvation efficiently.

  Objection 2. Further, no corporeal agency acts efficiently except by contact: hence even Christ cleansed the leper by touching him "in order to show that His flesh had saving power," as Chrysostom [Theophylact, Enarr. in Luc.] says. But Christ's Passion could not touch all mankind. Therefore it could not efficiently bring about the salvation of all men.

  Objection 3. Further, it does not seem to be consistent for the same agent to operate by way of merit and by way of efficiency, since he who merits awaits the result from someone else. But it was by way of merit that Christ's Passion accomplished our salvation. Therefore it was not by way of efficiency.

  On the contrary, It is written (1 Corinthians 1:18) that "the word of the cross to them that are saved . . . is the power of God." But God's power brings about our salvation efficiently. Therefore Christ's Passion on the cross accomplished our salvation efficiently.

  I answer that, There is a twofold efficient agency--namely, the principal and the instrumental. Now the principal efficient cause of man's salvation is God. But since Christ's humanity is the "instrument of the Godhead," as stated above (Question 43, Article 2), therefore all Christ's actions and sufferings operate instrumentally in virtue of His Godhead for the salvation of men. Consequently, then, Christ's Passion accomplishes man's salvation efficiently.

  Reply to Objection 1. Christ's Passion in relation to His flesh is consistent with the infirmity which He took upon Himself, but in relation to the Godhead it draws infinite might from It, according to 1 Corinthians 1:25: "The weakness of God is stronger than men"; because Christ's weakness, inasmuch as He is God, has a might exceeding all human power.

  Reply to Objection 2. Christ's Passion, although corporeal, has yet a spiritual effect from the Godhead united: and therefore it secures its efficacy by spiritual contact--namely, by faith and the sacraments of faith, as the Apostle says (Romans 3:25): "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.

  "Reply to Objection 3. Christ's Passion, according as it is compared with His Godhead, operates in an efficient manner: but in so far as it is compared with the will of Christ's soul it acts in a meritorious manner: considered as being within Christ's very flesh, it acts by way of satisfaction, inasmuch as we are liberated by it from the debt of punishment; while inasmuch as we are freed from the servitude of guilt, it acts by way of redemption: but in so far as we are reconciled with God it acts by way of sacrifice, as shall be shown farther on (49).

Summery of Points

Keeping in mind the attributes of the Persons and Natures of the God head, contemplating that from which humanity fell and that to which Christians shall rise to, the Church understands through its vigilance, That Christ was sent to us, given to us John 3:16 because he loved us. There are many ways in which he could have saved us, including, simply pronouncing our salvation through himself without the Cross at all.  Christ however was a teacher, his will and divine purpose united with that of the father, Revealed to us the most efficient way for him, not the only way, or the Necessary way, but the most efficient way, to complete the redemtion of the world. God would become man, and in his goodness free of any sin while living out the Law to perfection, would be killed by his creation.  This act, the most humbling example of self gift that could be given to man, the most perfect example of Love for us that ever was is the manor that God choose as the means of our redemption.

Uniting ourselves to this self Gift, making self gifts of ourselves in and through Christ, not on our own is how through the Sacrements of the Church many are drawn towards him in the Eucharist as he is lifted up.

Christ, by his sacrifice on the Cross showed us the love that we rejected and the means by which we can repair our fallen condition, by the same means, joining our lives to his through sacrifice by giving all back to the Father through the Son.


What is Lordship Salvation? I have heard the term "Lordship Salvation" several times now, including in an answer I read recently.

Can anyone explain to me what this is?

Is this the official position of any major churches?

Is this a term only used by critics of the view?  (Like "easy believism" or "cafeteria Christianity" - terms nobody would actually associate themselves with!)

Lordship salvation is basically when you submit yourself to Christ, obeying him, turning from sin, and receiving him as your Lord. The premise: that Jesus cannot be one's Savior without also being his Lord.
This is a theological dispute, sometimes called the "Lordship salvation controversy", or "Lordship Controversy". One site that takes this from two views with John F. MacArthur Jr. on one side, and Charles C. Ryrie on the other, says:

The issue as seen by those who believe in lordship salvation (e.g., MacArthur) is that someone who is truly saved will produce fruit that will attest to the genuineness of his faith, because he will have acknowledged Jesus not only as his Savior, but as his Lord as well.
Those who reject lordship salvation (e.g., Ryrie), believe that someone may have genuine faith in Christ, but the fact that he continues in his sin demonstrates that he has not made Jesus his Lord, only his Savior. According to Ryrie, just because someone sins or acts in disobedience (even habitually) doesn't mean he doesn't have saving faith.

I am not really sure if this is the position of any Major Churches; I would guess that it is more of an individual belief, not at all seen as "derogatory".


Must Catholics believe in Christ's historicity? Is there some philosophical doctrine in Catholicism which does not require to believe in the historicity of Christ, like in Buddhism (you can "believe"/practice Buddhism, but don't believe in Buddha and his historicity)? I ask it because I can believe in symbol or philosophical concepts but not in those Bible stories, they sound absolutely immodern, naive and untrue. I know about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, but I don't know what is the current status of his doctrine in Holy See.

Also, it's super difficult to me to believe in a soul and anthropomorphic God... And believe in soul makes close death very difficult, you know, hope is a pain, sleep is a rest. Maybe there are some more symbolic or philosophical or mystic concepts in Catholicism for peoples like me? Like there are such ones in Islam and Buddhism?

Yes, Catholics must believe in the historicity of Christ.

  Is there some philosophical doctrine in Catholicism which does not require to believe in the historicity of Christ

No. This is the heresy of Modernism, whose philosophical foundation is agnosticism.

Pope St. Pius X condemned the following proposition as heretical in Lamentabili Sane (1907):

  It is permissible to grant that the Christ of history is far inferior to the Christ Who is the object of faith.

In Pope St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis (1907), he writes (§6):

  …it is inferred [by the Modernists] that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject.

See also Pascendi §§ 9-10, 16-17, and esp. 29-33, and passim.

De Chardin was a heretic censored by the Holy See. cf.:

Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1988) by Wolfgang Smith


Why do Anglicans have the "give away" optional in Common Worship but obligatory in Anglican Book of Common Prayer? Why do Anglicans have the "give away" optional in Common Worship but obligatory in Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and since when did people make the "give away" optional?

It says so right here:

Common Worship:

  There is no mention of “giving away” in the text of the modern service
  but it is included in the notes which may be why your Vicar has missed
  it.

Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

  Then shall the Minister say, Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?
  Then shall they give their troth to each other in this manner. The Minister, receiving the Woman at her father's or friend's hands, shall
  cause the Man with his right hand to take the Woman by her right hand,
  and to say after him as followeth.

According to its wikipedia article, the Anglican publication 'Common Worship: Services and Prayers for the Church of England' was launched in the year 2000 and was a successor to the Alternative Service Book (ASB) of 1980, which was an authorized alternative to the Book of Common Prayer of 1662.

The form of the wedding service in the first trial use volume of 1965 (of the ASB) retained the question by the Priest, "who giveth this woman &c." as did the 1977 publication of the marriage service. However, in 1977, The word "may" was added to the rubric (the instructions to the Priest printed in the book), so that while formerly it was obligatory to ask, in both options in A and B in the 1977 volume (and presumably the ASB in 1980, the asking "who giveth..." was at the discretion of the Priest.

It should be noted that although each of the independent Churches in the Anglican Communion are autonomous, and many (if not all) prepare their own version of the Book of Common Prayer. Tthe development of the various Books of Common Prayer of the various constituent bodies of the Anglican Communion does not take place in a vacuum, however. In the 1960's and 1970's, the development of the Book of Common Prayer of the US Episcopal Church led to the revision of 1979, in the marriage service of which there is a note after the declaration of consent (on p. 425) which provides that "If there is to be a presentation of a giving in marriage it takes place at this time. See p. 437. The additional directions there provide two options: that the woman may be given(presented) in marriage to the man, or that the woman and man may be presented to be married to each other.

While I have no direct knowledge that those who prepared the ASB were familiar with the US BCP, I would be astonished if they did not.

The reason for these changes, and others like them, was to adapt the forms of service to be an appropriate alternative (to the BCP) within a 20th (and later, 21st) century context (the BCP had not been revised for over 300 years, efforts to do so had been defeated 40 years earlier - source). In particular regard to the wedding service, the revision process accommodated a more modern understanding of life and marriage that would separate the cultural norms of patriarchal societies from eternal scriptural principles, particularly cognizant that: a daughter is not the property of her father until she is given over to become the property of her husband.  A judgment was made, that while the reverse of the latter statement is not necessarily anti-thetical to biblical principle, it is not necessitated by it either.

Another way of summarising this is to say that the Anglican Communion (in general and the Church of England in particular),  has been subject to the influence of Feminism.  Saying this is not to imply that all aspects of Feminism have been incorporated into Anglican polity - where this influence has been generally recognised and adopted, it is usually termed 'egalitarianism'.


Why is the Bishop of Jerusalem still Greek? I understand that after the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 135 AD, that Jews (not even Christian Jews) were not allowed in Jerusalem, and that Christian bishops were forced to be gentiles. The last known bishop of Jewish descent was Judas of Jerusalem (135 AD). However, seemingly the Church has ample time to rectify this situation, especially since Constantine. But to this day, the Orthodox Church has not done so. The Patriarch of Jerusalem is still Greek.

I am considering converting to the Orthodox Church, but this bothers me tremendously. The evidence suggests to me that the earliest Jewish Christians were of Jewish descent as well as devout Christians. There is even evidence that there might have been another Gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews, or at least that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic.  How can the Orthodox Church be the Church of Holy Tradition when we could possibly be missing a huge chunk of the most earliest tradition?

I am looking for answers from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Thanks!

As you further explained your question in various comments, you seem to be asking why the Bishop (Patriarch) of Jerusalem is Greek, rather than "someone who is ethnically Jewish, and practices Judaism along with their Christianity."

I am not sure there is a clearer answer to why "someone who is ethnically Jewish" is not the Patriarch of Jerusalem, than  the vast majority of Orthodox Christians living within the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem are ethnically Arab (generally Palestinian) and not Jewish.  Perhaps there are Jewish converts from time to time, but they seem to be very, very few.  As you probably know, Judaism was virtually wiped out from the Roman Province of Judea by the Emperor Hadrian after the Bar Kokhba revolt in the early second century.  The Jewish population of Palestine waxed and waned for centuries, but by the time the Ottoman Empire was dismembered after World War I there were no more than 10,000 Jews in the area.1  In the mid-19th century there were about 60,000 Arab Christians in Palestine, and about half that number of Jews.2  Today the percentages have more than inverted, with only about 2% of Israel being Christian, 14% Muslim, and 81% Jewish. Today only a single majority Christian village (Taybeh) is left in the territory of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.

The above doesn't explain why the Patriarch is ethnically Greek instead of Arab (as is the case with the Patriarchate of Antioch), but it does help explain why he is not ethnically Jewish.

As far as why the Patriarch of Jerusalem is not someone who "practices Judaism along with their Christianity" the answer is much clearer:  because it has been expressly forbidden by the canons of the Church dating back at least 1,600 years.  For example:

Canon LXIV of the Apostolic Canons (dating to sometime prior to the 4th or 5th centuries) reads: "If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated."
Canon VII of the 3rd Ecumenical Council at Ephesus (431) reads "those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized."
Canon XI of the Quinisext Council at Trullo (692) reads: "Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off."
Canon VII of the 7th Ecumenical Council at Nicaea (787) reads: "Since certain, erring in the superstitions of the Hebrews, have thought to mock at Christ our God, and feigning to be converted to the religion of Christ do deny him, and in private and secretly keep the Sabbath and observe other Jewish customs, we decree that such persons be not received to communion, nor to prayers, nor into the Church."

1. see, e.g., F. Peters, The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition, Volume II: The Words and Will of God, p.287
2. C. Rubenberg, Israel and the American National Interest: A Critical Examination, p.26


Communion of Saints and Our Relationships in Heaven We as Catholics believe in communion of saints after the resurrection.
Such communion means that we will be in the complete union with God, and with all the other saints in heaven.

When we are saying that "we will be in complete union with all the other saints in heaven", does this mean that in heaven, I will have deep, intimate, and fulfilling relationship with each other member of heaven to its full extent? or does this only mean that we all will be united as a community of heaven in general, which does not necessarily mean a deep and intimate relationship with each of its members to its full extent?

Thank you,

How could a community be truly united without a "deep and intimate relationship with each of its members to its full extent"?

Pope Pius XII discusses the Communion of the Saints in his 1943 encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ, Mystici Corporis Christi:

  But, corresponding to this love of God and of Christ, there must be love of the neighbor. How can we claim to love the Divine Redeemer, if we hate those whom He has redeemed with His precious blood, so that He might make them members of His Mystical Body? For that reason the beloved disciple warns us: "If any man say: 'I love God' and hates his brother, he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother whom he seeth, how can he love God whom he seeth not? And this commandment we have from God, that he who loveth God loveth his brother also."[I John, IV, 20-21.] Rather it should be said that the more we become "members one of another"[Rom., XII, 5.] "mutually careful, one for another,"[I Cor., XII, 25.] the closer we shall be united with God and with Christ; as, on the other hand, the more ardent the love that binds us to God and to our divine Head, the closer we shall be united to each other in the bonds of charity.

Related:

  75. … Christ has all the members of the Church present before Him and united to Him in a much clearer and more loving manner than that of a mother who clasps her child to her breast, or than that with which a man knows and loves himself.

and

  89. … the divine Redeemer is most closely united not only with His Church, which is His Beloved Spouse, but also with each and every one of the faithful, and He ardently desires to speak with them heart to heart, especially after Holy Communion.


Was the Covenant made with the Church or does 'Everlasting' mean something other than 'eternal?' I am posting this question on behalf of another user, and it corresponds to a related textual question.

Galatians 3:16 (KJV) says,

  "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And
  to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is
  Christ."

This appears to be referring to the covenant made in Genesis 17:7. On this basis and others, some have concluded that this covenant was made to 'the Church', as St. Augustine would say, "The Israel of God"; they further cite the passage from Galatians 4:24 where Paul cites two covenants - the covenant at Mt. Sinai "which gendereth to bondage"; therefore, the Covenant w/Israel at Mt. Sinai is "bondage", and the New Covenant, which Paul quotes in Hebrews 8:9 from Jer. 31:33, has 'replaced' the Old Covenant in which they quote Hebrews 8:13 (KJV), "Decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." They conclude that this covenant indeed passed away in 70 CE, at the Destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.

The meaning of 'olam' which is clear from the Genesis 17:7 text means 'everlasting', and yet it doesn't describe Heb. 8:13. Are we then to 'assume' that Israel's Covenant with God is not the same 'olam' (everlasting) as Gen. 17:7? Or how else can this be understood?

My answer may not be extensive due to time restraints, but I think it's important to emphasize this main point.

The old covenant (Jer. 31:32), which the Israelites entered into at Sinai (Exo. 24:7), cannot be eternal because it never promised eternal life to the Israelites. Instead of eternal life, God (the other party of the covenant) promised that the Israelites would prolong their days on the earth (Deut. 4:40), that is, in the land of Canaan (Deut. 5:33), if they kept His commandments (i.e., His covenant). Because of their disobedience, the Israelites were exiled on several occasions, with the last exile culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. by the Roman army. That being said, if the days of the Israelites in Jerusalem were not prolonged...than how much less were they to receive eternal life? Again, the old covenant never promised eternal life.

That being said, there's no wonder why the author of the epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 8:6) says that Jesus Christ is the mediator of a "better covenant" (κρείττονός διαθήκης) established on "better promises" (κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις). Among these "better promises" is the promise of "the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before the world began, but He manifested His word in due times by the preaching" (Tit. 1:2-3) which was committed to the apostles.

The old covenant cannot be eternal because those who enter the covenant are neither immortal nor are they promised immortality. They all must inevitably die (granted, there are one or two exceptions, but let's consider the general rule instead). Also, one should understand that once one party of a conditional, bilateral covenant dies, the entire covenant is rendered void for both parties (see the apostle's example of the marriage covenant in Rom. 7:2-3). Thus, whenever an Israelite dies, he is no longer a party to the old covenant; the old covenant is nullified with respect to him.

On the other hand, while those entering into the new covenant are mortal, they are promised eternal life upon their entrance into the covenant. Thus, the covenant endures eternally because the parties of the covenant, whether Jesus Christ or those who believe in, are or shall be immortal (possessing eternal life). On the one hand, they are promised eternal life by resurrection from the dead. But, on the other hand, all those who believe in Christ live with him (Rom. 6:8).


Is there a standard text of the Litany of Loreto accepted for universal use by the Catholic Church? The Litany of Loreto recited in Southern India contains a prayer "Glory/pride of the  Order of Carmelites, pray for us" just before the last prayer "Queen of peace, pray for us". That prayer is not found in the English version. May be, the prayer was added to the Litany by the Carmelites who perhaps popularized the Rosary in Southern India. My question therefore is: Is there a standard text of the Litany of Loreto accepted for universal use  by the Catholic Church ?

Is there a standard text of the Litany of Loreto accepted for universal use by the Catholic Church?

The short answer is yes.

The universal standard text for the Universal Catholic Church is in Latin and can be found in the Rituale Romanum (Page 266). For standard texts of the above mentioned litany in other vernacular languages, one simply has to look in an approved Vatican translation of the Litany of Loreto in the appropriate Roman Ritual of any particular vernacular translation.


How to pray for a corrupt government involved in drug trafficking? Venezuelan government/regime is destroying the country through corruption, drugtraffiking to the USA and Europe, murder, kleptocracy, unjustified imprisonments. The government palace is full of symbols and objects of demon worship and "santero" altars.

They are starving the population of the country without water, electricity, gasoline, security, health care, justice, etc. Venezuela seems to be the pre-apocalyptic laboratory!

Should I consider them as the authorities imposed by God, in order to pray for them and not against them?
How should I pray?

The Bible tells Christians to pray for those in positions of authority.  Such authorities include government officials (international, national, and local) and pastors, church elders, school boards, school principals, employers, and the like.  There is an underlying principle behind this:

  Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13:1).

This applies even when the authorities are cruel, unjust and persecute God’s people.  Even when the Israelites were in exile, God told them to pray for their Babylonian captors:

  Seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper (Jeremiah 29:7).

Here is an important Bible verse about such prayers:

  I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

When those in authority are obeying the will of God, it is easier to “live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2). But when evil men are in authority, our prayers for them are just as needed, as illustrated by William Tyndale’s last words as he was being burned at the stake:

  “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.”

When Christians pray for God’s will to be done on earth as it is done in heaven, that prayer should include Governments, rulers and those in authority.  God will deal with those who go against His will and they will answer to Him for their deeds.  Our part is to lead peaceful and godly lives so that we are pleasing to God.


Were Jews in Jesus' day binitarian? Is it true that Jews during Jesus' lifetime were binitarian, that is believing that God was one being in two persons similar to how Christians have historically believed and taught that God is trinitarian having the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

From "Two Powers in Heaven" by Alan Segal".

  Though it was difficult to date the rabbinic traditions accurately in
  many cases, the results showed that the earliest heretics believed in two
  complementary powers in heaven while only later could heretics be
  shown to believe in two opposing powers in heaven. The extra-rabbinic
  evidence allowed the conclusion that the traditions were earlier than
  the first century. Furthermore, in comparing the literature, it was possible to define a number of dangerous scriptural interpretations central
  to the heresy and show how the rabbis countered them by bringing in
  other scriptures which unambiguously stated God’s unity. From this
  evidence it became clear that the basic heresy involved interpreting
  scripture to say that a principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in
  heaven was equivalent to God.

"Two Powers In Heaven Early Rab Segal"

Hopefully this will remove the downvotes.

Edit
This might also help.

  Then the Lord  rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, - Genesis 19:24

I'm told the clear reading is that there are two YHWH's but I only know a little Greek and no Hebrew.

Segal's Persepective and its Reception
That book by Segal was one of the first to advance that argument, and has been fairly influential since then (e.g. Heiser, 2004; Boyarin, 2001. McGrath and Truex (2004) cite six other works influenced by Segel's book). Certainly there is a case to be made that some Jews (not all) in the late second temple period were binitarian in some sense; for instance Boyarin in Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John, (2002).
An excerpt (p. 254):

"The Memra has a place above the angels as that agent of the Deity who
sustains the course of nature and personifies the Law." [Edwards 1995,
Justin's Logos and the Word of God, p. 263.] This position
has been well established among historians of Christianity since the
late nineteenth century. Alfred Edersheim saw the Memra as referring
to God's self-revelation. As Robert Hayward says of Edersheim: "He
also made a distinction between God and the Memra. Noting that
Rabbinic theology has not preserved for us the doctrine of distinct
persons in the Godhead, he remarks: 'And yet, if words have any
meaning, the Memra is a hypostasis.'" [Robert Hayward, 1981
Divine Name and Presence: The Memra p. 3] With this comment,
Edersheim is clearly implying the existence of non-rabbinic forms of
Judaism that were extant and vital within the rabbinic period
alongside the rabbinic religion itself. Although the official rabbinic
theology suppressed all talk of the Memra or Logos by naming it the
heresy of "Two Powers in Heaven," both before the Rabbis and
contemporaneously with them there was a multitude of Jews, in both
Palestine and the Diaspora, who held onto this version of monotheistic
theology. If we accept Edersheim's view, the Memra is related to the
Logos of Logos theology in its various Christian manifestations.

Emphasis mine. Also p. 249:

It becomes apparent, therefore, that for one branch of pre-Christian Judaism, at least,
there was nothing strange about a doctrine of a deuteros theos, and nothing in that
doctrine that precluded monotheism.

On p. 257 Boyarin quotes the Palestinian Targum for the Genesis 19:24 verse you cite (from Klein, 1980):

"And the Memra of H' rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah...

The idea is that in this theology, the Memra of God (Word of God) fulfils the physical, personified actions, while God himself remains invisible and totally transcendent from the creation. The way this theology could naturally develop (or be fulfilled, if you like) with a Christian incarnation should be clear.
Boyarin's article goes into quite extensive detail presenting the case, with relevant material from Philo, Justin Martyr, Targumic sources, as well as other Jewish prayers and texts.
But were Jews Binitarian?
Perhaps, but it's not really something that can be answered definitively, and is likely to remain controversial. Arguments can be made (like that of Segal, etc.) that some Jews were, but Jewish thought was not monolithic. As mentioned in the except from Boyarin, the rabbis opposed this line of thought officially.

References
Boyarin, D. 2001. Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John. Harvard Theological Review 94:3 July, p. 243-284.
Heiser, M. S., 2004. The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature. Doctoral Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Klein, M. L., 1980. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch: According to Their Extant Sources. Vol. 1, p. 45-46.
McGrath, J. F., Truex, J., 2004. 'Two Powers' and Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Journal of Biblical Studies 4/1 January. p. 43.


Refutation of Chizzuk Emunah, Part II, Ch. LXVI: "Inconsistencies in Christian text regarding food" In Chizzuk Emunah, Part II, Ch. LXVI, 16th century Jewish theologian Yitzchak ben Avraham of Trakai wrote,

  Acts 10:11-15, "And Peter saw heaven opened; and a certain vessel descending unto him, wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, saying, arise, Peter, kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." The same is stated ibid chapter 11:9. In Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 10:25, the following doctrine is taught: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake." Mark, (chapter 7:15) declares only such things unclean which come out of the mouth, but not those which go into the mouth. We have already animadverted on the inconsistency of such declarations when compared with the stringent injunction enforced in the very same book, to abstain most rigidly from blood and flesh of torn or strangled beasts. See what we have noticed before, when treating on Matthew 15 in the Second Part of this Work.

What is the refutation of his argument?

The supposed inconsistency here is clearly that some passages say it's OK to eat anything, but that in Acts 2:15, James judges that non-Jewish Christians should be "not troubled" with the Law except as follows:

  19 “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are
  turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them
  that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from
  fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 “For Moses
  from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since
  he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

So, in some passages, they say it's OK to eat these things, but in Acts, James says it's not.

The difference in context is, again, obvious.  All of the other passages are clear that eating a particular animal is not a sin.  Meat is meat.  So the question that must be answered is, why the restrictions in Acts 15?

There are several, but the most consistent with overall Scripture is that it's given so that the Gentiles won't be stumbling blocks for the Jewish Christians, as described in 1 Corinthians 8 (NASV):

  1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have
  knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. 2 If anyone
  supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to
  know; 3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

  4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we
  know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that
  there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether
  in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many
  lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all
  things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are
  all things, and we exist through Him.

  7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed
  to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol;
  and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend
  us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better
  if we do eat. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not
  somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees
  you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his
  conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to
  idols? 11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the
  brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the
  brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin
  against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I
  will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to
  stumble.

Another possible answer is that the logic and decision recorded in Acts 15 isn't inspired, but is simply an accurate recording of James' own thoughts on the issue.  This would not negate the doctrine of inspiration of the Scriptures, as explained next.

This surrounding text makes this a very plausible suggestion, and it's not the only place in Scripture where someone's words and advice are recorded, and in the context it's clear that the advice isn't the direct commandment of God, but the opinion of the author.  See this previous question for an example.

There are literally hundreds of places in Scripture where one person or another says something that is not the direct word of God.  It's just recording the historical events.  After all, some of Nebuchadnezzar's orders are recorded, but we don't take those as the Word of God.  We have to examine the context, and in this passage, the context could certainly be read that this is just James speaking his opinion and explaining why he holds the opinion.

As with the other question you posted in this vein, it seems odd that this would come from a Jewish perspective.  After all, the Old Testament has a similar "contradiction" on whether certain types of food are or are not allowed, a contradiction which is just as easily shown to be a non-issue.


What version of the Bible should a beginner read? I am interested in learning the true Bible story. Yet; there are so many different versions published. From general talk they all seem to have varied content and conflict with each other.  Many are said to have removed verses. Other are said to have removed entire books. Which one should I read to understand the true Bible story?

Short answer: Because people can't agree on what the "true" version of the Bible is due to issues of translation, authority, and the existing copies of original texts that we have access to today, your best bet is to use the one your church or other religious authority recommends.
Long answer: By "beginner", I assume that you mean a person who is new to the Christian faith, rather than a beginning reader (there are a number of Bibles that use simpler language suitable for those just learning to read English).
By "true Bible story", I assume you mean the original, without alteration. You're not alone in wanting this. This article from The Washington Post says that

The proliferation of Bibles underscores the anxieties people have about whether or not they are reading the right Bible. Concerns over accuracy and interpretation are especially true among religious traditions that distrust secular scholarship on the Bible.

Additionally, I'm sure that you want a version that is understandable. The article says that

The robust market does not alleviate anxieties about the Bible’s accessibility, though. There are persistent concerns that despite being so widely available, people struggle to understand the Bible.

Unfortunately, people can't agree on what the "true Bible story" is. The reasoning is a bit complicated and comes down to how we go about translating Bibles. To help answer that, I'd like to go through a few questions you alluded to in your post.
Why are some books removed?
I assume that you are talking about the Apocrypha, which are books of the Old Testament that some groups, like Catholics, accept but others, like Protestants, do not. In that case, some would ask "why are some books added"?
There are lots of different reasons for this, but two common reasons are:

These books should be included because they were accepted by some of the earliest Christians, such as St. Jerome in his Latin Bible in 405 AD (this argument is one of several used by Catholics)
These books should not be included because they are not accepted by the vast majority of Jewish people, past or present (this argument is one of several used by Protestants)

Which one is "true"? Did these books come from God or from people? We don't know, and lacking God directly telling us, we can't know (consequently, there's the question of if somebody says that God told them, should we trust them?)
Why are some verses different?
To talk about this, let's talk about what a book says. Virtually all Christians would say that the gospel of Matthew is "true", meaning that Matthew wrote it with some level of inspiration from God. Unfortunately, the original pages that Matthew hand-wrote (or dictated, or whatever) have been lost, so all we have are copies that people have made throughout the centuries. The trouble is that sometimes these copies have differences, either through mistakes or potentially from deliberate changes.
Two of the earliest copies of the book of Matthew that we have access to today say different things in Matthew 1:21:

τεξεται δε σοι υιον αυτος γαρ σωσει τον κοσμον (Then she will bring forth to you a son for he will save the world)
τεξεται δε υιον αυτος γαρ σωσει τον λαον αυτου (Then she will bring forth a son for he will save his people)

Unfortunately, we have no idea which is "correct". We could guess that the older one is more correct, but what if the older one was done by a subpar copyist? Or maybe we don't know which one is older.
Some Bible translations would use the first and some would use the second. Without further scholarship, we don't know which is "true".
Why are some verses removed?
Again, some people would instead ask "why were some verses added?"
As we said above, different copies of the Bible say different things. Some copies have certain verses, but others don't. One big example of this is the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). The trouble is, some of the earliest versions of the book of John don't include this passage, suggesting that it was added by someone later. Does that mean we should remove it from the Bible?
But if those verses should be removed, why do they have verse numbers at all? Bible chapter and verse numbers were not present in the early Greek and Hebrew versions and are a relatively new invention. The version we use today is from Robert Estienne, where he assigned verse numbers that were first printed for the New Testament in 1551 and 1571 for the Old Testament. Naturally, he did this for the version he had at the time, which included passages like what he called John 7:53-8:11.
Bibles that "remove" verses do so because they are looking at earlier copies of the Bible that lacked these verses. However, some people argue that the verses were what God intended to be there in the first place and should be kept.
So which version of the Bible should I read?
I know that it's difficult and not fun to have so many different Bibles to choose from. But in most cases, the differences between versions are minor. It is my opinion that beginners shouldn't worry too much about the differences, and that they should instead just read whichever one your church or other spiritual community uses or recommends.
For instance, most Catholic churches use the Revised Standard Edition, Catholic Edition.
Many Protestant Churches use the New International Version, the second-most read English translation of the Bible in the United States.
The most read translation is the King James Version, which was completed in 1611. There are some churches that use that, but many modern readers find the language too archaic to understand, or prefer translations that use earlier versions of the original text that the translators of the King James Version didn't have access to.
When you are more familiar, you may try to read other versions of the Bible, that way you can get a different perspective.


Why aren't some words like "Maranatha" or "Talitha Cumi" translated in English Bibles? Why aren't certain words like Maranatha, Talitha Cumi, Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani, etc., not translated in the Bible? Rather, the words are directly written and then their meaning or interpretation?

As the whole Bible is translated from some other languages, why leave certain words alone untranslated?

There are specific reasons that can be identified in each instance, but the three you mention share one important feature: they are Semitic (i.e. Aramaic or Hebrew) words amid the (otherwise) Greek New Testament. The most basic reason for an English translation to transliterate1  rather than translate these terms, then, is to reproduce what a Greek reader would have seen: a text in a familiar language with a foreign word transliterated into the alphabet of the surrounding text.

To address each of the OP's examples and their particularities:

Maranatha is from 1 Cor 16:22. While there is uncertainty about the precise meaning2, it is clearly an Aramaic phrase pertaining to the return of Christ.

  If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. (KJV)

The disadvantage of such a translation is that it requires a footnote for most English readers to follow. Many modern versions accordingly translate, as the ESV:

  If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!

This loses the "preservation of foreignness feel" mentioned above, but the translators have prioritized clarity of meaning in this case.

In both of OP's other examples, modern translations generally do transliterate, for overlapping reasons:
Mark 5:41

  Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Talitha cumi," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise." (ESV)

Talitha cumi (again an Aramaic phrase transliterated in the Greek text) is the only real option if one wants to preserve a formal translation of the verse, since the author already provides a translation. If it were instead translated, we would have the rather silly rendering:

  Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Little girl, I say to you, arise," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise."

Your final example is the most complicated.3  You have quoted from Matthew 27:46:

  And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (ESV)

As in the prior example, the author provides a Greek translation, so it would be redundant if the transliteration were not preserved. In this case we can additionally identify the author's likely motivation for doing so: in the following verse the bystanders conclude

  'This man is calling Elijah.'

Here the Hebrew "Eli" ("my God", phonetically similar to a diminutive form of the name Elijah) was needed in order for the Greek reader to follow the bystanders' confusion. This applies equally to a reader of an English translation.

Notes:

Transliteration is the process of representing the sounds of one language in the alphabet of another. Since Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek, and Latin/English have three different alphabets, transliteration occurs at every stage in these cases.
The question is around how to divide the Aramaic words, which may either be construed as indicative ("Our Lord has come") or imperative ("Our Lord, come!").
I have outlined some of the difficulties with this cross-linguistic puzzle in a question on Hermeneutics.SE.


Were the friends of Job, who came to him when he was in pain, of another religion? Friends came to Job during his pain and did stay with him for days and nights.
(Book of Job)

But who were they? Were they of the same religion and faith as Job?

God said that their advice was wrong and that Job should give an offering for their sins. That might tell us that they where of the same religion, but the Jews did also offer for the sins of the nations (70 nations), so not sure.

(In the Talmud it says they did travel from far away to meet Job.)

Scripture is not clear, giving us not only preciously few details on Job’s friends, but on Job himself.  Apart from telling us he was from the East (East of what?  How far to the East?), it does not tell us when he lived, nor even when the book itself was composed.

The only hints we have are sketchy circumstantial ones: their names and elements of cultural context, such as customs, material descripions &c.  But even that could easily have been adapted from an older original story, as for instance Adam and Eve names could be Hebrew translations (or evolutions) of their original names in humankind’s universal prediluvian language.

The Talmud is largely irrelevant to Christian opinion, specially on something presumably so much older than itself; it is not authoritative, it is known to contain much incorrect information, sometimes even as anti-Christian polemics.

In Ancient times there were hardly religions as organised, doctrinal systems as we understand them; polytheism was the norm, and it was hardly distinguishable from animism.

What is obvious is that they had at least a concept of Yahweh related to the one Job (and his chronicler) held.  So, yes, it seems that they had more or less the same ‘religion & faith’ as Job.


Have cardinals ever been deprived of revenue or rations for taking too long to elect a pope? Yesterday I asked a general question about the pope's ability to revoke decrees of an ecumenical council, in the context of the Second Council of Lyon (1274).  In order to ensure that new popes were elected quickly, that council passed several decrees, as Everett Ferguson explains:

  Among the decrees of the council was the requirement that a pope be elected by the cardinals locked in one room and put on dwindling rations after three days and deprived of their revenues until a decision was reached. (Church History, I, 24.IV.B)

As described in my other question, these decrees were soon suspended and revoked, but according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, at least some of them were reinstated at some point:

  This constitution which inflicted certain material privations on the cardinals if the election was too long delayed, was suspended in 1276 by Adrian V, and a few months later revoked by John XXI, but was re-established later in many of its articles, and is even yet the basis of legislation on the conclaves.

I read the article on conclaves as well, but didn't see anything about dwindling rations or deprivation of revenues when the cardinals take too long to elect a pope.  So that's my question – historically, have deprivation provisions like those of the Second Council of Lyon ever been imposed on cardinals because of delays in electing a pope?

Pope Clement IV died in November 1268. There were at the time 20 cardinals but one was away on crusade and never came back. The other 19 met in the Palace in Viterbo but could not agree who should be the next pope.

The magistrates at Viterbo locked the cardinals in the palace, reduced their diet to bread and water, and removed the roof.  It was joked that the removal of the roof might allow the Holy Ghost to get through to them.

Two cardinal died during the conclave. Eventually most were freed on the basis they agreed to delegate the choice of pope to a committee of six.

In September 1271, almost three years after the death of Clement, they finally settled on the future Gregory X. There was a further delay though, because after three years procrastination they ended up  choosing someone who was unable to take up the post immediately.  Gregory was away on crusade with Prince Edward of England, and was not even a priest when elected. It was not until March 1272 that he finally reached Rome and was crowned Pope.

This article describes the process in more detail.

It was the  methods employed at this conclave that gave the Council of Lyons their ideas.

The first papal conclave after the Council of Lyons was in January 1276. Whether because of the new rules, or otherwise, Pope Innocent V  was unanimously elected on the first ballot.  He died after only five moths. The next conclave lasted 10 days. The restrictions were rigorously enforced by Charles of Anjou, King of Sicily, in his capacity as Senator of Rome. He confined the cardinals so strictly, and cut their rations so drastically, that many cardinals were prostrated by the heat of the Roman Summer. After 11 days they elected Adrian (or Hadrian) V. Ref

Hadrian, noting the intolerable way they were treated,  immediately suspended  Gregory's rules. He survived the conclave by less than six weeks, dying without ever being ordained a priest. Some doubted the legitimacy of Hadrian's suspension of the rules, in the circumstances.  Nevertheless the cardinals refused to be conclaved  for the next election, but perhaps fearing what might happen, they  elected John XXI within a month.  He completely revoked Gregory's rules. The following May the roof of his new study, in Viterbo,  fell in on him, necessitating yet another election. Freed from the threat of confinement each cardinal had his own habitation in Viterbo. They met up regularly to vote  and then went back freely to their individual abodes. This went on for six moths before the local magistrates decided to lock them all in the town hall, bringing about the rapid election of Nicholas III.

Nicholas reigned nearly three years during which he made  his brother and two nephews cardinals. After the next election had produced no result after five months, the magistrates tried a new approach.  They arrested Nicholas's nephews accusing them of impeding the election.  This led, relatively quickly,  to the election of Martin IV. Outraged by what had happened the people of Rome would not allow Martin to set foot in their city at any point in his four year reign. The next pope, Honorius IV was elected within a week of Martin's death, before some cardinals had even been notified of the death.   Honorius reigned two years and one day, dying in April 1287.

The next election, 1287 to 1288 was the deadliest ever.  Six cardinals, out of sixteen died including four in four weeks   in late summer. The survivors fled Rome, except for one. When they returned in February they elected the one who had remained, who became Nicholas IV.   His death in 1292 led to a two year election process from which many cardinals, not being conclaved,   were frequently absent. After more than two years an octogenarian  hermit claimed he had a message from God that the cardinals would be punished for any further delay. They soon voted him in as Celestine V. He was regarded by many as totally incompetent, but he did reintroduce the rules on conclaves,  appoint twelve new cardinals, and resign, The conclave following his resignation, in which Celestine's appointees were a majority, elected Boniface VIII on the second day, which was Christmas Eve, 1294.

The next conclave, too, lasted only a day, but the one after, in 1304-1305 lasted 11 months. The cardinals however did not starve. As soon as they got together they voted that the conclave rules would not apply to them.

The last very long papal election  was 1314 to 1316. It began in Carpentras, but amid scenes of violent disorder the cardinals dispersed: some to Avignon, some to Valence, and some to Orange. There was no quorum anywhere. Eventually the Count of Poitiers, who became Philip V of  France, persuaded them to assemble in Lyons promising not to lock them up. After three more months  they were locked up, however,  and their diet restricted. After lasting   forty days of this they finally agreed  on  Pope John XXII.   Ref

The next few elections were conducted expeditiously and the rules were relaxed in 1351.

During the conclave of 1549 to 1550,  restrictions were imposed allowing only one course meals, but nothing was specified as to how much each course might consist of. An agent wrote:

  The cardinals are on the one-dish regimen. The dish consists of a couple of capons, a nice piece of veal, some salami,  a nice soup and anything you  want as long as it is boiled. That is in the morning. Then, in the evening, you can have anything you want as long as it is roasted. As well as some antipasti, a main course, some salad and a dessert. The more small-minded ones are complaining about the hardship. If things don't speed up we'll see how they react when it comes to bread and water.

It never did come to bread and water despite lasting over two months  This election was also known as the porous conclave with  numerous visitors coming and going including ambassadors  and what today we might call paparazzi, so  the cardinals might not have eaten it all themselves. Towards the end windows were blocked to reduce light and ventilation, and cardinals were ordered to bed at 10.30. which may have hastened the decision.Ref

One problem they didn't have was that faced by the cardinals in 1242. After a year of indecision the ten cardinals were confined in a room with a leaking  flat roof. It wasn't just rain they had to worry about. Also, there were guards urinating  on the roof.  A decision followed within a fortnight.

Even as recently as 1978, conditions in the conclave were hardly conducive to a prolonged   stay. Cubicles were erected in long corridors with ten cardinals assigned to each toilet. Cardinal Hume said the cots seemed to have come from a seminary for the very short.  Cardinals awoke to hear other elderly cardinals shuffling seventy yards along the corridor only to groan on  finding  their assigned convenience occupied.

Cardinal Siri complained of the August heat saying cardinals were dying of asphyxiation because all the widows were blacked shut, although the reason was security rather than discomfort. He rebelled and ordered them opened. Colour returned to the faces of the moribund. In past centuries his protestations would have been ignored.   Whether the conditions influenced the outcome or not,  the conclaves of August and October 1978 lasted only 2 and 3 days respectively. Ref

John Paul II ordered the conversion of a Vatican hospital into a guest house for visiting clergy,  and this was used for the conclaves of 2005 and 2013. Far from complaining of intolerable privations,  Pope Francis found the accommodation so suitable to him  that, after his election,  he declined  to move out. Eschewing the papal apartments,  he has lived there ever since.


Why are verses missing in the Psalms in my Bible? Today, to my surprise, I discovered that Bible in my native Georgian language is not complete. I have checked several sources and compared to English and Russian Bibles, and there are missing verses in Psalms.  For example, Ps 109 has 31 verses but in the Georgian one it has 7 verses only.  Other chapters have similar issues, but I haven't checked other books. Why is this so?  It can't be that they could not translate them.

The issue is most likely the numbering of the Psalms in your Bible.  Your Georgian translation appears to use the Greek (Septuagint) numbering that is common in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles, while the Bibles you are comparing against use the numbering of the Hebrew (Masoretic) text.

Let's look at Psalm 109 as an example.  According to the Hebrew numbering,  Psalm 109 has 31 verses and begins like this:

  Be not silent, O God of my praise! [ESV]

But according to the Greek numbering, Psalm 109 has 7 verses and begins like this:

  The Lord says to my Lord:
      “Sit at my right hand,
  until I make your enemies your footstool.”

In the Hebrew numbering system, this is actually Psalm 110, as you'll see if you click the link.

Why does this happen? The short version is that some psalms are combined (or split, depending on your perspective) in the Greek version that aren't combined (or split) in the Hebrew version.  Here's the numbering breakdown, from Wikipedia:

Hebrew (Masoretic)    Greek (Septuagint or Vulgate)
    1–8                           1–8
    9–10                          9
    11–113                        10–112
    114–115                       113
    116                           114–115
    117–146                       116–145
    147                           146–147
    148–150                       148–150


Do Calvinists believe that God is the author of evil? "Arminius taught that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil." -Wikipedia

I have heard Calvinism presented in a similar way, where God has designed everything - including evil - just the way it is, all for the maximization of His own glory.

My question is: Do Calvinists actually believe that God is the author of evil? Or is this a misunderstanding / strawman / caricature of Calvinism?  (If it is, please elaborate.)

Please restrict the answers to the standard view of strict / classical / 5-Point Calvinists.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (the doctrinal standard for many Presbyterians), Chapter III, makes it clear that at least one well recognized portion of Calvinists firmly rejects the claim that God is the author of evil (emphasis added):

  I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Point VII might also be worth mentioning (emphasis added):

  VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

This clearly shows that these Calvinists recognized such as a "high mystery" and vulnerable to careless interpretation and application.

On the "please elaborate" front, I think Calvinists are trying to embrace God's omnipotence, omniscience, and Goodness (and pancracy--all-ruling, "Almighty" in Revelation) while still recognizing the presence of evil in the world--all of which are strongly witnessed in Scripture.  Accepting God's absolute sovereignty and goodness (so could not be the author of evil) and the presence of evil results in a logical problem that is resolved by assuming that the understanding of the terms is inadequate (i.e., mystery).  This, of course, does not mean that one should reject one's partial understanding of the terms even when one does not yet know how they are reconciled.


Could there be a "Newer" Testament? If so, how would it become canonical? Could there possibly ever be a new set of books added to the Bible which have modern stories and rules for future generations?  Such as a book describing internet etiquette - which isn't so far out of scope considering dietary laws in the bible. But not specifically or limited to internet etiquette; it was just an example.  Maybe some new revaluations of God - there probably has been at least SOME in the last 2000 years.

If so, who would have the authority to do so?

This is the position of the Mormons and the Ba'hai, but not of Nicene Christianity.

The problem is that there is no authority to "open the canon."  The traditional marks of christianity (See What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed? and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11442/1039 ) are apostolic authorship and historical consensus.  As all the apostles are, in fact dead, there is no means for using this mark.

Beyond that, it is taken as an article of faith by most Christians that God never changes.  By opening up the canon, too many cans of worms get open.

This is not to say the prophetic word doesn't continue to be uttered, but they exist within the realm of revelation which is assumed to be complete at this time.

Finally, there is one more point to consider - the church is long since past the place where it can definitively speak with one voice on something as large as a whole new addition to Scripture.  I would point you to the last paragraph on this question about canonization in which I wrote this:

  Even today, there are certain Christian authors who are considered "more important" than others. If you asked me to pontificate about who is canonical, for example, I'd want to throw in C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesteron, Augustine, and a couple of others. David Barton, Joel Osteen, Tim Lahaye, not so much. And, I would clearly reject, say, (and I only speak for myself) anything by Joseph Smith or the Watchtower society. Why do I say that? Because my canon speaks to what is important to me. Many Evangelicals would probably agree with me, and do, as can be shown by what other Evangelicals tell others "should be read." The point is not what I've picked, but rather that the same process was in place 2000 - 1600 years ago.

As a Christian, if you read anything other than the Bible, you are picking your canon. Whether or not others agree with you is up to them.  I recommend The Great Divorce a lot.  As such, I'm making my own canon.  Indeed, many people would probably agree with me on it - but not the whole church.  And that is the problem you'd have to contend with if you wanted to reopen a "Newer" Testament.


What evidence is there to suggest that denominations have different epistemological preferences? I've read the following:

  You will find different "schools" of Christianity have different epistemological preferences. To put very very broad brushstrokes (and I don't mean to offend), Rationalsm -> liberalism. Empiricism -> charismatics, Biblical revelation -> evangelicals, Church authority/revelation -> catholicism. But I don't think any of them would deny other epistemologies but would place different emphases on them.

My question is: What evidence is there to suggest that denominations have different epistemological preferences?

This is a good question.  It is commonly understood that different denominations exist because of different beliefs, but in fact I think the asker alludes to something more accurate: each denomination doesn't merely have a different set of belief, but a different emphasis on which epistemological area is of greatest importance.  I think there is merit in this idea.

The evidence is disappearing with time as more denominations have embrace the idea that faith in Christ, as evidenced by a Christ-centered life, is the most important area of belief (enough that for many and ever more pastors differences in other areas of belief are relatively of little consequence).

So if you want to look at  different epistemological preferences (as opposed to different beliefs) I think you have to go back and look at the origin of each denomination.  When Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses to the door of his local church the main contention was that men didn't need other "God-ordained" men to be saved.  From that "saved by Grace lest any man boast" became their clarion call.  This belief was adopted by most Protestants but with each reformation into another faith you will find there was in general an emphasis on a certain doctrine above all others with which they contended most fervently.


How does one test the spirits and identify false preachers? The Word of God says,

  Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1)

Many televangelist claim miracles happen and profess the name of Jesus. Some have claimed they witnessed terminally ill people get healed and such. There have been some high profile preachers from around the world who have been accused of staging miracles and preaching the "gospel of prosperity" for their own gain. What is the way to test whether they are false prophets taking care not to touch the Lord's anointed? I went through a similar post, but am concerned with teachers who say they are doing it in the name of Jesus.

The Bible gives several ways.

One of the easiest is if their predictions don't come true:

  When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow
  not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not
  spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not
  be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:22).

Another is if they speak contrary to Scripture:

  And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar
  spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a
  people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the Law
  and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is
  because there is no Light in them" (Isaiah 8:19-20).

and

  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you
  than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
  (Galatians 1:8)

Along the same vein, if you know your Scripture, you'll know what Christ-Like behavior and attitudes are, and will be able to use your malarkey detector to sniff them out.

  You will know them by their fruit. Grapes aren't gathered from thorns,
  or figs from thistles, are they? (Matthew 7:16)


What is the Biblical basis for rejecting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God? Today I was tasked with answering the above question, but having spent a lot of time searching for information, I’m not even sure I fully understand what it is.  Here is a brief overview:

Feminist theology is an American-based movement whose particular hope to empower women and maintain a healthier planet by overturning patriarchal attitudes and social structures that oppress women and threaten the natural environment.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/3711520?seq=1

Feminist Philosophy of Religion: Feminist philosophy of religion is a recent development within Western philosophy that poses feminist questions about religious texts, traditions, and practices, often with the aim of critiquing, redefining, or reconstructing the entire field in light of gender studies...   And because it is feminist, it must promote the elimination of gender inequality and take into account the multiplicity of human bodies, desires, and differences that are mapped onto the site of religion.  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-religion/

Feminist theology is a movement found in several religions, including Sanatan Dharma (old form of Hinduism), Sikhism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, and New Thought, to reconsider the traditions, practices, scriptures, and theologies of those religions from a feminist perspective. Some of the goals of feminist theology include increasing the role of women among the clergy and religious authorities, reinterpreting male-dominated imagery and language about God, determining women's place in relation to career and motherhood, and studying images of women in the religion's sacred texts and matriarchal religion.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theology

Christian feminism is an aspect of feminist theology which seeks to advance and understand the equality of men and women morally, socially, spiritually, and in leadership from a Christian perspective...  These theologians believe that God does not discriminate on the basis of biologically determined characteristics, such as sex and race.  Their major issues include the ordination of women, male dominance in Christian marriage, recognition of equal spiritual and moral abilities, reproductive rights, and the search for a feminine or gender-transcendent divine...  The term Christian egalitarianism is sometimes preferred by those advocating gender equality and equity among Christians who do not wish to associate themselves with the feminist movement.  Women apologists have become more visible in Christian academia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theology#Christianity

Given my ignorance on the subject, I would like to focus on just one issue that is relevant to the Church today.
What is the Biblical basis for rejecting Feminist Theology with regard to the following topic:
Replacing male pronouns for God with gender-neutral terms: Feminist theology often criticizes the use of male pronouns for God; referring to God as “He,” “Him,” or “Father” degrades the status of women.  The alternative is to refer to God only using gender-neutral terms such as the Divine or to balance the offending terms with female equivalents such as She, Her, and Mother.

Feminism is an entirely novel concept. As such, it is an intrinsically anti-Christian concept (inasmuch as it positively rejects many fundamental Christian doctrines such as that God made two sexes, with complementary functions in the procreation and furthering of the human race).
Because Christianity was handed on to the church "once and for all" (Jude 1:3).
Every time God uses pronouns of Himself in Scripture, they are masculine (e.g. Isa. 54:5).
The exceptions, where God uses analogies featuring female animals (Mt. 23:37) and people (Isa. 49:15) for rhetorical purpose, do not create an exception or counter-case, since they are analogies ('one thing is comparable to  another, in that...').


What is the purpose of angels? Aside from them being generically created "...for God..." like everything is, does the bible give a set of duties or purposes that angels have?

Per John McArthur in "The Glory of Heaven":

  Whenever angels do appear to people in Scripture, it is in the role of a messenger. In fact, “messenger” is the primary meaning of the Greek word angelos. So the angels provide a sort of heavenly messenger service, and we get glimpses of this throughout Scripture. The angel who appeared to Mary at the Annunciation identified himself: “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee” (Luke 1:19). On this particular occasion, perhaps because of the sacred importance of the message, the highest-ranking archangel from the very presence of God was sent to Mary to deliver the word.

If you think about Angels - be it the visitors to Abraham, the visitors to Samson's parents, even to Mary and Zechariah, their job function is obvious. They have a message to deliver - "You're going to have a son' or 'God is going to destroy this city' or 'The Lord has heard your prayer,' etc. That these 'messengers' are being couriers is obvious from the name. Angelos means messenger in Greek.  To quote another post, Angelos is a job not a species.

The closest thing you have to anything other than simple message would be the incident in Daniel 10. There, Daniel recieves a message from an Angel, but the Angel was delayed for three weeks. He says:

  12 Then he said to me, “Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. 13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, 14 and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come.”

Here, Michael had to help "fight" the demonic presence of the PRince of Persia. But again, why? So that the Angel could deliver the message.


According to Eastern Orthodoxy, is googling the serial numbers of a software and using cracks a sin? I was raised in a little bit poor country where it's almost impossible for individuals to make online payments. No PayPal, Credit cards are for national use only and international use is very expensive.

When I first started using computers, I used to hack or crack all the software that I use starting from the serial number or the activation of windows to the serial numbers of the photoshop, office, and even the smallest software.

I've never done an online payment to buy any software because it's very expensive to buy them. I just checked the price of 3D max out of curiosity and it costs about $1,500 per year! That means I should work for a whole year without eating or spending any money to buy it. On top of that, I need to buy windows to be able to run it with an additional few months of working without eating.

I know that all the reasons above are not an excuse to steal. But is cracking software and googling their serial numbers considered a sin? Has the Orthodox Church made any known pronouncements on this subject?

I'm Orthodox so I prefer the answer to be from an orthodox point of view.

Again, I am of the mindset that you should seek the advice of a spiritual father in your specific situation, but here is an official statement.

"The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church", adopted at the Sacred Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, § VII(3), elaborates on intellectual property, specifically stating:

  The Church recognises the existence of various forms of ownership....

  The intellectual property, such as scientific works and inventions, information technologies, works of art and other achievements of the creative thought acquires a growing significance. The Church welcomes the creative work aimed at benefitting society, and deplores the violation of copyright.

There are even examples where monasteries in the Russian Orthodox Church (albeit ROCOR in the linked example, but this distinction is no longer relevant) have taken legal action to protect their copyright to religious works (this action was taken in the USA).


Can an indulgence be applied to a deceased non-Catholic Christian? The Manual of Indulgences published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops states that

The faithful can obtain a partial or plenary indulgences for themselves, or they can apply them to the dead by way of suffrage.

As far as I know, the Catholic Church acknowledges that deceased non-Catholic Christians can go to Purgatory (e.g. this post mentions that Anne Catherine Emmerich had visions of Protestants in Purgatory) so in theory such non-Catholic Christians would be eligible to have indulgences applied to them. Indeed, the Manual of Indulgences describes indulgences as a remission of temporal punishment for sins for a "properly disposed member of the Christian faithful" (as opposed to only the Catholic faithful):

An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment for sins, whose guilt is forgiven, which a properly disposed member of the Christian faithful obtains under certain and clearly defined conditions through the intervention of the Church, which, as the minister of Redemption, dispenses and applies authoritatively the treasury of the expiatory works of Christ and the saints.

However, the description of an indulgence indicates that it is the Church which dispenses and applies indulgences, so it seems possible that the Church might choose to withhold the dispensing and application of indulgences to certain souls in Purgatory (e.g. Protestants who might have been anti-Catholic in life). Moreover, it's not clear what is considered a "properly disposed member" of the Christian faithful -- perhaps non-Catholic Christians might not be considered "properly disposed" and thus not eligible to have indulgences applied to them.1
Has the Catholic Church explained whether or not indulgences can be obtained for non-Catholic Christians in Purgatory? If so, are there any limitations (e.g. perhaps only souls from certain denominations are eligible, similar to how only Christians of certain denominations are permitted to receive Communion)?

1I suspect the meaning of "properly disposed" refers to the norm that

§1. In order to be capable of gaining indulgences one must be baptized, not excommunicated, and in the state of grace at least at the completion of the prescribed works.
§2. To gain an indulgence, one must have at least the general intention of doing so and must carry out the enjoined works at the stated time and in due fashion, according to the sense of the grant.

However, since I don't see a definition of exactly what "properly disposed" means I can't rule out the possibility that one must be Catholic to be "properly disposed".

Can an indulgence be obtained for a deceased non-Catholic Christian?
The short answer is possibly and even probably.
There are several reason, why I believe that yes indulgences may be applied to souls that were non-Catholic Christians in this life, but are now in purgatory and are converted.
Not wanting to politicalize this question, I would simply like to bring up a certain point to start off with. Masses are offered for any number of reasons and this includes Masses being offered for the conversion of a particular Protestant of simply for their intentions. Can not tell you how many times I have read the Mass intention listed in our parish bulletin for the intentions of a certain Donald Trump. We all know the the former President of the United States is not Catholic, yet the intentions of the Sacrifice of  Mass have been offered for him.
Being in purgatory presumes that non-Catholic Christians that they have been converted and as a result can reside in purgatory, just like Catholics.
Anne Catherine Emmerich has the following to say on the subject:

I was present when God passed sentence on notorious sinners. Great is His justice, but still more inconceivable is His mercy. He damns only those who are determined not to be converted; they who have a spark of good will are saved... I have seen in Purgatory Protestants who were pious in their ignorance; they are very desolate, for no prayers are offered for them... I saw that by our prayer and suffering, many a soul who labours not during life, can be converted and saved at the hour of death. - Purgatory for those who are saved outside the Church?

Some of these messages given to Catherine Emmerich were, 'that every parish and diocese, each city and country has its own particular and powerful guardian angel.' This Catholic mystic was to see and be told many things including these messages from Heaven, She revealed that to gain an indulgence we must approach the Sacraments with true repentance and a firm purpose of amendment or we do not gain it. She deposes that it is more holy to pray for the Poor Souls in Purgatory than for sinners who are still alive, for Anne had a particular love and devotion for the poor souls in Purgatory. She was also told that 'more Protestant souls stayed in Purgatory the longest not because they were worse than anyone else, but because so few people prayed for the repose of their souls or offered up Masses for their soul.'
Being in purgatory, means that these poor souls are converted and thus I would lean towards the possibility that an indulgence can be applied to a deceased non-Catholic Christian?
Now an indulgence can only be gained by a practicing Catholic under certain conditions. However the Church does not stipulate as who may be the receive an indulgence when applied to the faithful departed when applied to the souls in purgatory.

The Gift of the Indulgence

To gain indulgences, whether plenary or partial, it is necessary that the faithful be in the state of grace at least at the time the indulgenced work is completed.

A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day. In order to obtain it, the faithful must, in addition to being in the state of grace:

— have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin;
— have sacramentally confessed their sins;
— receive the Holy Eucharist (it is certainly better to receive it while participating in Holy Mass, but for the indulgence only Holy Communion is required);
— pray for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff.

Visit to a Cemetery (Coemeterii visitatio)

An indulgence, applicable only to the Souls in Purgatory, is granted to the faithful, who devoutly visit a cemetery and pray, even if only mentally, for the departed. The indulgence is plenary each day from the 1st to the 8th of November; on other days of the year it is partial. - The Enchiridion Of Indulgences

A soul in purgatory is a soul in purgatory. No where does the Church define that an indulgence for particular soul in purgatory has to be named in order to receive an indulgence when we meet the requirements on their behalf. Thus the faithful may apply an indulgence to a particular member of their family, any soul in purgatory or even for the poorest soul in purgatory.
There are more ways to relieve the sufferings of the souls in purgatory than obtaining an indulgence in order to release them from their pains. Obtaining an indulgence for them is very common, especially during November. I was taught in the seminary that when we pray for a particular soul in purgatory and that that soul is no longer in need of our prayers that God will apply the merits to another soul in need. Prayer is never in vain.


What was the forgers intentions for doing their forgeries? I've been reading on some of the Apocrypha lately and a question arose. Why would people make forgeries of such important texts? I understand that the writers were trying to gain followers to their own theological views, but didn't they feel any remorse on creating false texts? If someone would spend so much time on forging a fake "Gospel according to X" or a fake "Acts", or the "Epistle of Pilate to Tiberius" (which is the one forgery that made this question to arise in my mind) then this person would take his faith seriously enough as to justify such an effort. But then again, how come this author doesn't worry about falsifying what Jesus really said, or what his contemporaries thought about Jesus?

I'm really puzzled about this.
Thanks to all of you for your replies and God bless you.

In the protestant reformation these books were regarded as unreliable hence the term "apocryphal" meaning unreliable, and were eventually left of bibles altogether, which is why even today the King James is usually printed without them. The main reason for forging these books is to alter history so the prophecies of Daniel no longer point to Jesus Christ as Messiah the Prince.

Which is why even today the scribes say that the temple in Jesus' time was Herod's temple and not the second temple whose building is described in Ezra.

This altering of times and laws (dates, history, scripture) is prophesied in Daniel.