Are these the same 2 trumpet blasts? In Matthew chapter 24 Jesus is describing his 2nd coming:

  For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west,
  so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass,
  there the vultures will gather.“Immediately after the distress of
  those days

  “‘the sun will be darkened,
      and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky,
      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’ “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the
  earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of
  heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with
  a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four
  winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." *Matt. 24:27-31*

He says that a loud trumpet blast will be sounded as his angels are sent to gather his elect.

Later in the New Testament, we read St. Paul describing what seems to be the same event:

  According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive,
  who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede
  those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down
  from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and
  with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
  1 Thess. 4:15-16

Are these 2 passages describing the same trumpet blast? It appears to me that they both include:

The appearance (or reappearance) of the Son of Man.
Active participation of God's angels.
A trumpet blast.

I'm particularly concerned with the trumpet, which would logically be the connecting hinge  of these two passages.

Also, please no dispensationalism...

Yes they are the same trumpet blast because during both Scriptures you have the second coming of Jesus and the resurrection.

In Matthew 24

  the angels "will gather his elect from the four winds"

In 1 Thess 4:16-17

  the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain
  shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord
  in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

May I also add it is the same as 1 Corinthians 15:51-52

  Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
  be changed—  in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
  trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised
  incorruptible, and we shall be changed.


Why did Christianity not follow Philo of Alexandria's definition of logos? Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God." Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."

So why did the Christian view not follow this definition and instead make the leap to describing logos as part of God?

From the works of Philo we can see how he saw the logos, or word/wisdom directly and try to compare a bit with Plato and with Christ.

  But the divine word which is above these does not come into any visible appearance, inasmuch as it is not like to any of the things that come under the external senses, but is itself an image of God, the most ancient of all the objects of intellect in the whole world, and that which is placed in the closest proximity to the only truly existing God, without any partition or distance being interposed between them: for it is said, “I will speak unto thee from above the mercyseat, in the midst, between the two cherubim.”25 So that the word is, as it were, the charioteer of the powers, and he who utters it is the rider, who directs the charioteer how to proceed with a view to the proper guidance of the universe. (The works of Philo, p330)

The logos is the 'divine word' and 'most ancient of all the objects of intellect' (see quote from Philo above). This does seem similar to some degree to the archetype idea of Plato which are the 'true objects' of life. Basically those philosophers back then tried to identify with words the intelligence of nature that one saw beyond the physical object. This essence, idea or thought, or whatever was 'something' and here we find Philo associating it with 'God's image' or shadow of his person.  But it does not seem exactly to be a person necessarily.

Here is another quote from Philo about the logos:

  And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel. (147) For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, “We are all one man’s sons.”43 For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word. (The works of Philo,

From Philo's words above it does start to seem that the logos is possibly a person, if we take his reference to 'the great archangel' literally. Then again its not really clear as he reverts back to the 'image' theme as the thing really meant.  Maybe that 'image' is just personalized a bit to be a sort of prime archangel symbolically. Philo does not make it clear that he sees the logos as an actual person.

So what is the big difference between this view and the Apostle's?  This is kind of obvious.  If we look at Philo's logos, it is a force or being available to all who live in accordance with it, and in that sense is a 'mediatory' between man and God. This, one could say, is in some sense a confused, shadowy admission that God has a mediator he sends to the world, who is very ancient. However Jesus was much more then this.  Jesus was an intermediator, and the word sent from God but also a 'sacrifice'.  The logos of Philo does not intend to sacrifice himself (or itself) in order to reconcile the world to God.

On the other hand, the divinity of Christ, is not a concept derived from Philo's logos, or a leap from it. Philo's logos is principally incomplete and rejected as as being a biblical truth by Christians due to its low perception of a mediator without a sacrifice.  The trinity, or with respect to the Christian 'logos', the divine eternal nature of the Son, co-equal with the Father and Spirit, is something stemming from other progressive revelation in scripture, not an offshoot of logos or philosophy directly. That this Jesus, who was a sacrificial-mediator in history, claimed 'to be God' and 'one with the Father' is probably a better foundation to query the origin of the logos-divinity concept, rather then Philo's, Socrates, or Plato's thoughts. The doctrine of the Divine Son is not really related to Philo or philosophy. The whole word may have had a weak concept of a God and his presence in the world, but only scripture reveals the trinity under any meaningful light.


According to the bible, where did egypt arise from? How was Egypt created according to the bible? Was it started by descendants of Cain? The descendants of Seth started the Israelites and Canaanites if I'm not mistaken.

According to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, the Egyptians are descended from Ham (the son of Noah):

  The sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan. - Genesis 10:6 NASB

Mizraim is the Hebrew word for the nation of Egypt, in fact a number of versions translate this verse as such, eg:

  The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan. - Genesis 10:6 NIV


In Mormon theology, why didn't John the Baptist baptize Joseph Smith? In May 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery went into the woods to pray because of some questions they had about baptism. As recorded by Joseph Smith, they were visited by John the Baptist, who gave them the Aaronic Priesthood. The Aaronic Priesthood included the authority to baptize.

John then directed them to baptize each other. First, Joseph baptized Oliver, then, Oliver baptized Joseph. This is an unusual arrangement because baptism generally precedes receiving the priesthood, and usually the baptizer has already been baptized.

As I understand it, in order to perform a priesthood ordinance it is necessary to have a physical body (this is why baptisms for the dead are performed by the living by proxy). As a resurrected being, John the Baptist had a physical body – evidenced by the fact that he laid his hands on their heads when he gave them the Aaronic Priesthood. So, he should have been able to baptize them as well.

My question is this: Why didn't John baptize Joseph and Oliver, or at least Joseph, and then give him/them the priesthood? It seems that this would better establish the order of baptism first, then receiving the priesthood. Is it something to do with the nature of resurrected beings? Or, is there something specific Joseph and Oliver needed to learn?

Joseph Smith's account is recorded in Joseph Smith—History.

+1 for a great question!
I have not found any solid answer or doctrine of the church that refers to this.  Perhaps in the Joseph Smith Papers you could find answers there www.josephsmithpapers.org, but I haven't searched there.
What you say is true is for today. One has to be baptized before they receive the priesthood, but if you look in the Book of Mormon, there is an instance where there was a 'joint' baptism:

Mosiah 18:13-14
13 And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world.
14 And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.

Hopefully this helps, I am not sure if it answers your question though.
I could give you some opinions I have as to why John the Baptist did not perform the baptism, but they are not suitable for this site because they are opinions.
Edit I did some searching in the JSP. I think the best answer you will find is that this is they way God needed it to work to re-establish his church.

Given this general lack of early records, it is not surprising that no contemporary document recorded visionary experiences that Joseph Smith later described as having taken place during this time. No surviving documents from 1829 describe the visitations from angelic messengers, hearing the voice of God, or other aspects of the restoration of divine authority. Information on these significant events, particularly the priesthood restoration, instead comes from later accounts. In his later history Joseph Smith explained that in May 1829, he and Oliver Cowdery inquired “of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins as we found mentioned in the translation” of the Book of Mormon. He then described an angelic visitation in response to their prayer for divine guidance on the subject. He indicated that their visitor conferred upon them “the priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministring of angels and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.” Joseph Smith further recorded: “The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this priesthood upon us said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the new Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James, and John, who held the keys of the priesthood of Melchisedeck, whi[c]h priesthood he said should in due time be conferred on us.”

Reference:
Joseph Smith Documents Dating through June 1831


Is 1 John 5:7-8 (the Comma Johanneum) a Latin corruption? Is the biblical passage at 1 John 5:7-8 (the Comma Johanneum) a Latin corruption that has entered the Greek manuscript tradition?

The authenticity of the Johannine comma, found in 1 John 5:7, has been a subject of debate from the early sixteenth century. Wikipedia says the general consensus today is that the passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in subsequent copies. By the way, the Johannine Comma is not to be confused with the modern punctuation mark (,); rather, the word comma in this sense came to Latin via the Greek word komma, which meant a clause, or a short grouping of words.

The text including the comma (here, in brackets) reads:

  For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
  And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one (KJV).

If the comma is removed, it would read:

  For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one

The editors of the 1808 New Testament in an improved version found the following reasons for rejecting the comma:

This text concerning the heavenly witnesses is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century.
Nor in any Latin manuscript earlier than the ninth century.
It is not found in any of the ancient versions.
It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, though to prove the doctrine of the Trinity they have cited the words both before and after this text
It is not cited by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority.
It is first cited by Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is suspected to have been forged.
It has been omitted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament since the Reformation:—in the two first of Erasmus, in those of Aldus, Colinaus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach.
It was omitted by Luther in his German version.

As this site notes, the Johannine comma has been ommitted from the United Bible Societies Version 4 (UBS4), widely accepted as representing current scholarly opinion.

Overall, I believe it would be safe to say that 1 John 5:7-8 is a later insertion, and that, as it first appears in the Latin milieu, the evidence strongly supports it being a Latin corruption that was copied back into later Greek manuscripts.


Can a Catholic priest adopt a child? A Catholic priest must take a vow of celibacy (i.e. unmarried) and thus expected to remain continent (i.e. abstain from sex) so as not to commit a fornication. Is a priest permitted to adopt a child, given that it does not break this vow? Would it matter if they were the only surviving relative of the child?

Yes, a Roman Catholic Priest can adopt children. In 1981, the Vatican granted permission to Fr. George Clements, of Holy Angels Catholic Church in Chicago the permission to adopt a child, and he later adopted three more. I expect another Catholic Priest seeking to do so would need permission, but not necessarily from the Vatican.


What is the earliest known instance of a petition directed to Mary? A recent answer on this site says that "People have always prayed to Mary as a chief intercessor on their behalf."  Such a statement will surely seem excessive to Protestants, who would normally characterize the idea of Mary interceding for the living as a (negative) development that took place centuries after Christ.

I doubt that debate will get resolved here, but it still makes me wonder – what is the earliest known instance of a petition directed to Mary?  I am looking for a clear statement where Mary is the actual target of a petition, not that she is tangentially referenced in association with a petition.  I'm not looking for statements of praise directed at Mary.

Checking quickly in Everett Ferguson's Church History, I found the following, which may prove useful as a starting point for answers:

  Mary was invoked in prayer among Greek speakers in the third or fourth century, but the first Latin hymn involving an address to Mary is from the fifth century. (16.2.C)

Notice however that this quote lacks two things that I'm looking for in answers – it doesn't specify that the prayers were petitions, and it doesn't state the documents in which these prayers were recorded.

We have a similar question, When is the first documented case of Christians praying to the dead saints?  However it does not specifically address the question of prayer to Mary, and though Mary is mentioned several times in one answer, she is only praised, never petitioned, in the prayers quoted there (such as from the Liturgy of St. James).

Sub Tuum Praesidium

The earliest known, extant petition prayer to Mary the Θεοτόκος (Theotokos), or Dei Genetrix (the Greek and Latin, respectively, for 'God-bearer' or 'Birthgiver-of-God') is found in an Egyptian papyrus from the 3rd century (commonly dated to around A.D. 250-280 but as late as 300—I could not find a dating later than the 4th century) and contains the prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title of Theotokos, 'Under Thy Patronage,' which can be seen below:

Rylands Papyrus 470

It is called in Latin Sub Tuum Presidium, and in Greek (in which it was originally written, or thought to have been written) it is called Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν (hypo ten sen eusplangnian)—both of which mean 'Under Thy Patronage'.

The Greek version:

  Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν καταφεύγομεν Θεοτόκε Τὰς ἡμῶν ἱκεσίας μὴ παρίδῃς ἐν περιστάσει, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ κινδύνων λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς μόνη Ἁγνή, μόνη εὐλογημένη

  Beneath your compassion, We take refuge, O Mother of God: despise not our petitions in time of trouble: but rescue us from dangers, only pure, only blessed one.

(You can listen to this version being sung here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SJUVjoyJUU)

The Latin version:

  Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix. Nostras
  deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus [nostris*], sed a periculis cunctis
  libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta. Amen.

  We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.

* Latin for 'our'—retained since some versions contain this.

(You can listen to this version being sung here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSmykQ9DLOg)

As you can see it asks the Blessed Virgin Mary to not despise our petitions, which means she is the object of their petitioning. The petition is a general one, i.e. to listen to any petition to her, whatever they are (compare this to the prayer Memorare, which bear resemblance to this ancient prayer).

Keep in mind the earliest manuscript evidence for the New Testament is a papyrus dating to A.D. 117-138 (named P52), and that this papryus predates the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), which made the reality of Mary's being the Theotokos a dogma of the faith, by almost two centuries.


Was Peter ever in Rome? Is there any Biblical or historical evidence that Peter ever went to Rome? If not, how can Peter be considered the first Pope?

Please note that unlike the following questions (What evidence is there that Peter was a bishop in Rome? and What exactly is Peter's connection to Rome according to Catholic dogma?), this one does not limit responses to biblical proofs and to 1st century evidence or asks how St. Peter is connected to Catholic dogma.

Biblical

The only Biblical information we have that Peter might have been in Rome is the cryptic reference in 1 Peter 5:13, "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark."  If "Babylon" is the cryptic name for Rome, as is commonly claimed, then this might be the sole source of information from the Bible.

Historical

The extra-biblical data about Peter being in Rome is highly debated and scant at best.  This author,  Otto Zwierlein, claims that there is no reliable evidence that Peter was ever in Rome - see the following document: Has St. Peter ever been in Rome?

Wikipedia has a short discussion about this but produces no solid evidence of Peter in Rome. It concludes:

  Clement of Rome' First Letter, a document that has been dated from the
  90s to the 120s, is one of the earliest sources adduced in support of
  Peter's stay in Rome, but Zwierlein questions the text's authenticity
  and whether it has any knowledge about Peter's life beyond what is
  contained in the New Testament Acts of the Apostles. The letter also
  does not mention any particular place, only saying: "Peter, through
  unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and
  when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of
  glory due to him." (ch. 5) A letter attributed to Ignatius of Antioch
  to the Romans might imply that Peter and Paul had special authority
  over the Roman church,[21] telling the Roman Christians: "I do not
  command you, as Peter and Paul did" (ch. 4), although Zwierlein says
  he could be simply referring to the Epistles of the Apostles, or their
  mission work in the city, not a special authority given or bestowed.
  Zwierlein has questioned the authenticity of this document and its
  traditional dating to c. 105–10, who says it may date from the final
  decades of the 2nd century instead of from the beginning.

In short, there are only hints that St. Peter might have been in Rome but almost no historical, unequivocal evidence.  At the same time, none of the historical data precludes St. Peter being in Rome near his end.


if homosexuality is a sin, why isn't abstinence? I've always wondered why homosexuality is a sin. The most common argument I hear though is that "They can't procreate and be fruitful, which is an integral part of God's design for us". But I notice a few things wrong with that claim:

Assuming that homosexuality being a sin is taking about the act, wouldn't doing anything other than having sexual intercourse be a sin? It seems that by that definition anything that doesn't result in procreation is a sin. The act of homosexuality does not prevent someone from being able to procreate, so what is the problem?
If the "lifestyle" of homosexuality is a sin for that reason, why isn't abstinence a sin as well? Like homosexuality, abstinence is a sure fire way to ensure that you're never fruitful and populate the earth as is God's plan. That being said, if someone said that abstinence was a sin, I'm sure most Christians would laugh.

The whole "fruitful" thing is the only plausible explanation that I can think of for why homosexuality is a sin. The above are things that I've never really understood, and as someone who was raised Christian all her life, I really don't want to believe that I was taught something that is completely ungrounded and unfair. Thanks for reading my question!

I think you've given a very good argument why it's implausible to theorize that homosexuality is a sin because it does not produce children. I agree: that line of reasoning doesn't hold up.

But that's not the only conceivable (no pun intended) reason why the Bible would say that homosexuality is a sin.

The easiest answer would be to say, "it just is, just like all others sins are sins because they just are". Why is murder a sin? It just is. People often answer, "because it hurts another person". Okay. So hurting another person is a sin? Why? What makes hurting another person a sin? All you've done is push the question back a step.

You could say that there's a general principle in the Bible that sex is good and beautiful within a marriage between a man and a woman, but wrong in any other case. Thus pre-marital sex is a sin, adultery is a sin, beastiality is a sin, and homosexuality is a sin.

Why is sex outside of marriage wrong? We could, I suppose, discuss the health problems and social problems and emotional problems it causes. Just like we could talk about the economic problems that would be created if murder was allowed. But again, that just pushes back the question. Are veneral disease and broken homes "bad"? Who says? Why? Again, all you've done is push back the question. At some point you have to say that some things are good and others are bad because they just are.

It appears that in general, things that God forbids as sins do in the long run hurt the people who do them or those around them. Murder obviously hurts the victim, and violent people have a tendency to meet violent ends themselves. Adultery destroys relationships and broken homes hurt children. Etc. But I'd be very cautious about saying that that's the entire reason why God forbids something.


Contemporary Catholic views on music in the Church: is music for God or for the people? I'm a non-believer church organist; I just moved to Spain and it's my first time playing regularly for a church service -- this one is Catholic.

I want to understand why Catholics have music in the church services: is it for God, or for the people? This question seems crucial to me, because as I get more creative with the music, with the organ stops / embellishments / polyphony, I want to understand what do Catholics believe about who is ultimately judging my music, them or God.

Being a non-believer, I don't really want to get into details of theology with the priest (he knows I'm a non-believer who is baptized Eastern Orthodox, and that was fine by him), so I'd just like to find out more about contemporary Catholic philosophy on this matter; I did some Googling but couldn't find anything relevant.

One random interesting thing: we have both German-language and Spanish-language services in our church; the words to the Spanish Gloria and Sanctus are always the same, but the words for the German Glorias and Sanctuses vary (if they're not the standardized ones, they are called Lied); but my priest considers this variation of the text practiced by German churches to be decadent / a corruption of the true text, and so we always do the same Gloria and Sanctus for the German-language services. So my interpretation is that, in this case, a change in the words is something that is being judged negatively by God, i.e. it is not good enough to worship Him. So I wonder if I can also do the same thing with musical notes, and so what should I avoid?...

Sacred music is "to arouse man's devotion towards God". God has no needs, being perfect in Himself.

Addressing "Whether God should be praised with song?," St. Thomas Aquinas answers:

  As stated above (a. 1),* the praise of the voice is necessary in order to arouse man's devotion towards God. Wherefore whatever is useful in conducing to this result is becomingly adopted in the divine praises. Now it is evident that the human soul is moved in various ways according to various melodies of sound, as the Philosopher states (Polit. viii, 5), and also Boethius (De Musica, prologue). Hence the use of music in the divine praises is a salutary institution, that the souls of the faint-hearted may be the more incited to devotion. Wherefore Augustine say (Confess. x, 33): "I am inclined to approve of the usage of singing in the church, that so by the delight of the ears the faint-hearted may rise to the feeling of devotion": and he says of himself (Confess. ix, 6): "I wept in Thy hymns and canticles, touched to the quick by the voices of Thy sweet-attuned Church."

*In that question, "Whether God should be praised with the lips?," he writes:Consequently we need to praise God with our lips, not indeed for His sake, but for our own sake; since by praising Him our devotion is aroused towards Him


What is the Biblical basis for the idea that God doesn't have form? In Genesis, God walks on the garden of Eden. Israelites saw a sapphire throne below God's feet. Ezekiel saw a throne and someone sitting on it. So is John in revelation. In Mamre, Abraham saw 3 guys, and Christians believe one of them is God. Does God have a form as seen by John the Apostle?

I saw some atheist sites, that interpret the Bible based on what it actually says, even think that Abraham must have seen 3 gods, El Shaddai, Yahweh, and maybe Elyon, coming to Abraham.

In any case, several times in the bible, God is described as having form. People just can't see it because they die if they do.

Yet many believe that God has no form. What verses in the Bible are used to say, "God has no form"?

This is a great question.  1 John 4:12, John 1:18, & 1 Timothy 6:16 all cross reference each other and all say that God (the Father in this case; I'll get to this later) has not been seen, and cannot be seen.  It doesn't directly say formless, but we interpret it that way as something that can't be seen would logically lack form.

Now, you raised some good points about God walking in Eden, the Israelites seeing someone seated on a throne, etc., but that diverges from your question of God being formless into a discussion on the Trinity.  The member/person of the Godhead (Father, Son, & Holy Spirit) that is referenced in the verses I referred to is God the Father, and He has never been, nor will ever be, seen.  Again, a discussion on the Trinity is a whole new question for another time, and really should be a separate question, but I hope this is simple enough to reference for your question.

Awesome question by the way, IMHO.


Is it more Participatio Actuosa if the congregation hears the words of the Consecration? I have a question on Participatio Actuosa. This is a term that makes a lot of people confused.
Anyway, in the EF of the Roman rite the Priest says the words of the Consecration in silence. He is the only one who can hear him saying the words. In the OF the Priest says the words so that we all (unless you are deaf) can hear him. There seems to be a new teaching here. If you hear the words than you are participating more. Nowadays you should hear almost everything the Priest says. I don't know why this is.
Is it more Participatio Actuosa if the congregation hears the words of the Consecration?

"Active participation" means participating in the prayer of the Mass.
"Active participation" originally meant the congregation participating in the priest's sacrifice, especially by singing the Gregorian chant (cf. Pope St. Pius X, Tra le sollecitudini).
The words of consecration must not be said in a loud voice.
The Council of Trent, Session 22, Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, 17 September 1562 anathematizes those who think

Canon IX.— […] that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone [submissa voce], is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only

It also says (Chapter V. On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.) that

holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit, that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low [summissa], and others in a louder [elatiore], tone [voce].

This teaching was also taught by Pope Pius VI in his bull Auctorem Fidei condemning the heretical Council of Pistoia [DZ 1533]:

The proposition of the [heretical] synod [of Pistoia:] […] "[…] by expressing it [the liturgy] in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice"; […]—rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.


What are the soteriological consequences of heresy? From the Catechism (paragraph 2089), quoting canon law 751:

  Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same

Neither the surrounding portions of the Catechism nor the surrounding portions of Canon Law describe the consequences of heresy nor delineate heresy which is not damning from heresy which is.

What are the soteriological consequences of heresy and what, if anything, delineates damning heresy from non-damning (venial?) heresy in Catholic teaching?

The Catholic Church intentionally does not explicitly define the soteriological consequences of any particular sin, including heresy.  It does distinguish sins on the part of the object (e.g. grave, mortal, venial), but these definitions lack the subjective side that can change in each particular case.  In general that subjective side centers around the will and consent of the individual in the act (See CCC on sin and my answer regarding involuntary tendencies).  So we can say that x is a sin, but we can't definitively say how culpable someone is for x until we have an understanding of their thoughts, knowledge, motives, and will.  Indeed, for this reason God is the final judge (1 Sam 16:7, 1 Cor 2:11).

The most prominent distinction made when talking about heresy is that of formal heresy vs material heresy (See Connotation and Definition).  Material heresy is something akin to accidental heresy: a heresy that one would forsake if they came to knowledge that the Church teaches against it.  Material heresy is therefore rather insignificant.  Formal heresy, on the other hand, is an obstinate and freely willed clinging to a heresy that one knows to be contrary to Church teaching--one knows it to be a heresy, unlike material heresy.  This heresy is much more grave, and may constitute grounds for excommunication.

Finally, New Advent's section on Degrees of Heresy is also important.  It cashes out like this: different Church teachings have different levels of authority and different requirements of assent.  Books like Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma detail a number of different teachings and the Magisterial "level" into which they fall.  For example, Ott points out that while the proposition that Christ is divine carries the highest weight (de fide), the proposition that extreme unction is not of itself necessary for salvation carries a lower weight (sent. certa.).  To deny the former would be graver heresy than to deny the latter.  Indeed, heresy in its strictest sense is limited to those teachings of the Church that hold the most weight.


Why is the "serpent" in the Fall believed to be literal by many? We know there is only suppositions that Satan was probably the "snake", but nothing solid proves this.  However many times, even today, we say "that bitch slapped me",  or that "dirty rat" hit me on the head... and so forth, neither of which assume we are speaking of a dog or a rat respectively.

There is no reason ignore this of the "snake" in Eden, as no scripture says otherwise. Keep in mind there are many things "cultural that are left out when books of the Bible were written. We may say "I drove to the grocery store", yet what is the word "drove?" How fast? etc.. But we leave that out in the paper, because it is obvious. This may be true of the Serpent.

Further more you can see there is a hint in Gen 3:14, that whoever/whatever Eve was conversing with, was already UPRIGHT - standing, or flying if we are dealing with Nephilim. God cursed "it" to the ground on "its" belly. To eat dirt for the rest of "its" life.

so it is quite possible that the dirty rat conned Eve. I have not found any scripture that says This is Satan, Are the churches teaching it literal? If so why?

The Bible employs animals as descriptions of character, as we do also.

In the verse that you allude to, it expressly says "the" Serpent and draws a distinction from the beasts of the field.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Elsewhere we are informed : 2Co 11:3  But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

(You notice, through his subtilty? more subtle than any beast of the field, the physical animals)

Rev 12:9  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.

(You notice, that old Serpent?)

Rev 20:2  And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

2Co 11:14  And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

So we can see that The Devil, Satan appeared to Eve as an angel of light.
Consider too, apart from the fact that animals do not talk, would Eve really listen to or take any notice of an animal subject to her, over which she had dominion?

When the Serpent is cursed, he is cursed below the creatures of the field, that is relegated to a lower position, and limited to the belly, the seat of carnal affections,(Php 3:19  Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) and restricted to the despicable and execrable state of perdition in feeding off man, created from dust. (Psa 14:4  Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD. )

And the Serpent was set to bruise Christ's heel, which he did through the crucifixion which also bruised his head. Christ's crucifixion accomplished salvation and victory over the Serpent, as it were, mortally wounding the Serpent.


Is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father? Is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father? It's a pretty simple question, so I don't really know if there is much I can add to the body.

I will answer from the Trinitarian perspective.
The two terms are synonymous...

But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. -Matthew 10:19-20
When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit. -Mark 13:11

...and yet, while the Father "is spirit"...

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. -John 4:24

...the Father is not "the Holy Spirit."

But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. -John 16:13

If the Holy Spirit was just the Father in His spirit form, then He would in fact be speaking on His own initiative. Since Jesus makes it clear that the Spirit will not speak on His own initiative, but will do what He is told (basically), that indicates there is One with more authority who is "over" Him.
Conclusion: From these passages we can conclude that "the Holy Spirit" is not the Father (though the Father "is spirit") and yet, the "Spirit of your Father" is synonymous with "the Holy Spirit." Perhaps the best explanation is that the Spirit is "of" the Father in the sense that He comes forth from the Father, without confusing the two as if they were one Person.


Did Crimen sollicitationis threaten excommunication for victims reporting crimes to the civil authorities? Crimen sollicitationis a 1962 document by the Catholic Church describing how various matters should be handled by Church law. I have heard differing claims from various people as to whether the penalty of excommunication applied to a victim reporting their case to the civil authorities. Can anyone confirm how this document was applied?

I've never heard of instruction before you brought up the question, but I figured I'd better actually read a bit of it before making a judgement.  Because I am a Catholic, I always know the Church is teaching the right thing even if it is misunderstood or poorly applied. Here it is, by the way, so you can read for yourself and find out what's not in there.

“A member of the faithful who, in violation of the (aforementioned) prescription of Canon 904, knowingly disregards the obligation to denounce within a month the person by whom he or she was solicited, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one, which is not to be lifted until he or she has satisfied the obligation, or has promised seriously to do so”

So, one is excommunicated if they don't report the crime to church authorities
However, a little farther down you might read:

Before the one making the denunciation is dismissed, he is to be administered the oath to maintain confidentiality, as above, if necessary under pain of excommunication reserved to the local Ordinary or to the Holy See

And think, that if someone reported the same crime to the police that they reported to the church that they would incur excommunication. But, why on earth would someone report the crime to both places?  Nothing in the document says that it is a crime for the laity to report a crime to the police.  However, in the time of this writing sexual harassment and a whole host of other perversions were not dealt with by the police the way they do now, so this may have been the only recourse some people had (and this is a global document and a translation of one at that) so it may have greater weight in more Catholic countries than the USA and Australia.
But, as for implementation, the National Catholic Register has a good interview with priest who says:

A: A poor English translation of that text has led people to think that the Holy See imposed secrecy in order to hide the facts. But this was not so. Secrecy during the investigative phase served to protect the good name of all the people involved; first and foremost, the victims themselves, then the accused priests who have the right - as everyone does - to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Church does not like showcase justice. Norms on sexual abuse have never been understood as a ban on denouncing the crimes to the civil authorities.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/promoting_justice_prosecuting_paedophiles#ixzz29YkcXKcv

So, there it is, it's never been understood as a ban on denouncing crimes.


What does the Catholic Church require for a parent's name to appear on the child's baptism certificate? Does the pastor of a parish, or his representative, have the right in canon law to prevent a parent's name from appearing on the baptismal certificate of their child to be baptized for any reason, such as lack of having received  all the sacraments?

Canon Law is explicit on this matter.

877 §1 The pastor of the place where the baptism is celebrated must carefully and without any delay record in the baptismal register the names of the baptized, with mention made of the minister, parents, sponsors, witnesses, if any, the place and date of the conferral of the baptism, and the date and place of birth.
877 §2 If it concerns a child born to an unmarried mother, the name of the mother must be inserted, if her maternity is established publicly or if she seeks it willingly in writing or before two witnesses. Moreover, the name of the father must be inscribed if a public document or his own declaration before the pastor and two witnesses proves his paternity; in other cases, the name of the baptized is inscribed with no mention of the name of the father or the parents.
[CIC]

The parents must be named; an unmarried mother or father must be named if the respective parent asserts that right in the manner required by the canon. If the infant's birth certificate names either parent (or both), that's a public record of parenthood and sufficient for the parent(s) who appear on it.


Did everyone tithe in Israel? When did the tithing come into the church? Did everyone tithe in Israel?  Merchants/fisherman/blacksmiths etc.?

When did the tithing come into the church?

The Tithe System in the Ancient World

Through much of history tithing has meant the right of a person, or institution, to a proportion of the crops grown, or livestock reared, on land owned or tenanted by someone else. This right implies a corresponding obligation  on the occupier of the land to remit  it. The economist Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations (Book 4 Chapter 9) says:

  The sovereigns of China, of ancient Egypt, and of the different kingdoms into which Indostan has, at different times, been divided, have always derived the whole, or by far the most considerable part, of their revenue, from some sort of land tax or land rent. This land tax, or land rent, like the tithe in Europe, consisted in a certain proportion, a fifth, it is said, of the produce of the land, which was either delivered in kind, or paid in money, according to a certain valuation, and which, therefore, varied from year to year, according to all the variations of the produce.

The tithe system is not the only form of payment which may be due from the occupier of land. Unlike a rental system, where the occupier pays a fixed amount (rent)  and retains whatever is left; or a management system where the occupier retains a fixed amount (wage) and remits whatever is left; the tithe system allows the occupier to retain a set proportion, 90%, of whatever is produced. Tithe specifically means a tenth.

Tithing in Egypt

In Genesis 47 we read that Joseph had acquired all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh, with the exception of some priestly land, and that Joseph had established a law in Egypt that a fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt belonged to Pharaoh. This law was still in existence at the time of Moses.

Tithing in Israel

In the case of the Mosaic Law, for Israel , Leviticus 27 v30 and v32 define tithes as applying to the grain of the soil, the fruit of the trees and the animals of the herd and flock. It says these tenths will belong to the Lord. In Numbers 18 God gives His share to the Levites, in recognition of the fact they have no land of their own, and because of the work they will do.

This tithe is known in Judaism as the ma'aser rishon or first tithe.

In Deuteronomy 14 mention is made of two further tithes: ma'aser sheni and ma'aser ani. Ma'aser sheni was to be taken to Jerusalem and consumed there by the landholder and his family, and ma'aser ani was to be given to the local poor. A common understanding was that ma'aser sheni applied to the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the sabbatical cycle; and ma'aser ani to the third and sixth. (See Tobit 1 6-8).

All the tithes applied to produce of the land, or animals, and to the finished goods (e.g.. wine rather than grapes, olive oil rather than olives).  We may  think of the farmer "giving" a portion of his "income" to God; but they saw it differently, the farmer  was separating God's share from his own share of their joint produce. God supplied the rains for the crops and the grass for the livestock (Deuteronomy 11 v14).

For this reason, the merchant, fisherman or blacksmith (if he did not also grow food) had no part to play in the tithing system of Israel. Such tradesmen did not present tithes.

Tithing as ten per cent of income generally in Israel

Abraham paid 10% to Melchizedek and Jacob promised 10% to God if He brought him safely back to his father's house. Many modern Jews (who cannot now pay the Mosaic tithes) give 10% of their income as Tzedakah, broadly speaking that is for charitable purposes, and this  voluntary tithe is known as ma'aser kesafim. In Luke 18 12, in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, the pharisee boasts of  giving a tenth of all he acquires.  This pharisee is boasting of doing more than the law requires (as tithing applies only to some products, not all income), and we can deduce from this that the practice of tithing one's income was known at the time of Christ, but also that it was not the common practice for the ordinary Jew, or else why would the pharisee boast?

Tithing in the Church

Tithing of various agricultural products, for the benefit of the Church , sometimes wider than in Israel, such as including timber, wool and fish, was introduced to most of Western Europe in the latter half of the first millennium. They were enjoined by sixth century Councils in France (Tours and Macon) and later by the Emperor Charlemagne in France and Kings Offa and Aethewulf in England.

During the Middle Ages tithes were frequently not payable to the actual parish priest, but to the Rector of the Parish who might only be an acolyte. It would then be his responsibility, which he might or might  not fulfil,  to employ a priest to serve the parish. The difference between the tithe income, and what he paid the priest, would be the acolytes own  and might be well used to fund his education enabling him to eventually take over, or might be spent in other ways. Strictness varied.  Tithes might also be appropriated to monasteries or bishops. A relatively rich parish (large with good soil) might have to pay different proportions of the tithe to different people, or else the tithe on grain might go elsewhere than the tithe on wool.  Tithing rights could also be sold, a rich layman might donate land to a monastery in return for his descendants having the right to the tithe income from certain parishes.  Reforms were from time to time attempted and implemented.

By the nineteenth century most tithes had been commuted to a fixed monetary payment, payable annually to the Church, no longer having any relation to the price of corn or anything else.  In urban areas the tithe charge originally payable in respect of the land, was often apportioned between the houses built on it. Some parishes, at Enclosure, were freed from tithes generally in return for the Church being granted some of the enclosed land. In England tithe charges were abolished in 1936, replaced with annuities expiring in 1976.

Church taxes are still collected in some European countries although people can opt out, sometimes only by declaring themselves non-members.   These include Germany and Sweden. The rate is not as high as 10%.

Tithing 10% of Income to the Church

The modern practice whereby some Churches expect, ask or require, with varying degrees of insistence, that members contribute 10% of their income to Church funds was popularised in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Alexander Hogshead and AW Miller both published books advocating tithing in 1873. Most  influential though was Thomas Kane, a Chicago businessman and a Presbyterian layman. He wrote a pamphlet in 1876 and circulated copies to most of the Protestant Churches in the United States, something he did habitually for many years. This led to the popularisation of stewardship and tithing campaigns. He argued that 10% of money, and one-seventh of time, were eternal minimums to give to God, and the tithe was for the spread and ministry of the Gospel.


Did Martin Luther write his own Bible? Did Martin Luther compose his own Bible?  I have seen claims to this effect.  By this I believe the claimants meant a Bible that differed from recognized, standard forms, rather than translation into German.

In 1516 the Catholic priest Desiderius Erasmus obtained the Codex Basilensis from the Basel University Library in Basel, Switzerland.  This Codex contained seven manuscripts of the New Testament (which did not include the book of Revelation) which dated from the 15th Century (x2) and 12th Century (x5).  With these he composed his "Novum Instrumentu" (New Testament). While Martin Luther was sequestered in Wartburg Castle in Eisenach, Germany(1521-1522), he took a copy of Erasmus's 3rd Edition Greek New Testament and translated it into the German language.  Of note, Erasmus's Greek New Testament was used as the basis of translation of the 1611 King James Bible (along with comparisons to the works of the English translations of Wycliffe, Tyndale and Coverdale).  (resource: How We Got the Bible by Neil Lightfoot)


What did Jesus mean by `being shrewd'? We see Jesus saying at  Luke 16:8 (NRSVCE)

".. And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light."

We also see Jesus instructing his disciples  at Matthew 10:16 (NIV)

" I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

I wish to know what exactly Jesus meant by `shrewdness '. Was it practical wisdom,  futuristic sight or some other desirable quality   ? What does the Catholic Church say about the said teachings of the Lord ?

The Rheims translation says (Vulgate translation and Greek in parentheses):

  Luke 16:8And the lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely (prudenter, φρονίμως): for the children of this world are wiser (prudentiores, φρονιμώτεροι) in their generation than the children of light.

and

  Matthew 10:16Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise (prudentes, φρόνιμοι) as serpents and simple as doves.

Prudens means "foreseeing, foreknowing", and φρόνιμος means "in one's right mind, in one's senses".

St. Thomas explains this prudence/wisdom in his commentary on Matthew 10:

  Be ye wise. The prudence of a serpent consists in that it always wishes to defend its head. The head is Christ, whom He commands them to serve. Hence: “I have fought a good fight: I have finished my course: I have kept the faith” (II Tim. 4, 7). Likewise, they ought to guard the Head, because it is the principle of the whole (I Cor. 11, 3);23 “With all watchfulness keep thy heart” (Prov. 4, 23). Likewise, there is another prudence of a serpent, that when it grows old, it passes through a narrow hole and sheds its vesture, or skin; so we ourselves ought to do in relation to our manner of living. And the Apostles says: “Stripping yourselves of the old man with his deeds,” etc., (Col. 3, 9). Moreover, we ought to have a serpent’s prudence in preaching, because, as it is stated in Gen. 3, on account of the serpent’s shrewdness, the human race was cast down, because he attacked the weaker sex. Likewise, he showed her a tree. So preachers ought to convert sinners through the most apt means. Similarly, they ought to exhort concerning the tree of the Cross, so that just as the devil derived benefit from a tree for an evil end, so these men ought to derive benefit from the tree of the Cross for a good end.


Why shouldn't we swear or curse- LDS So here are the reasons I've come up with why we are commanded not to curse or swear.

Some curse words have vulgar and awful meanings.
Culturally it is seen as unprofessional, unintelligent and impolite.

On the issue that some curse words have vulgar and awful meanings. I fully understand why these shouldn't be used. But most swear words do not have awful meanings.

As for it being a cultural issue, I agree, you do seem less professional and intelligent. But that all depends on who you are around and how serious of a word it is. For example, using the word Heck as an adult rather than Hell in some settings can be seen a childish, unprofessional and unintelligent. Also, most adults don't find it impolite to swear when something serious has just happened.

Also, why is it not ok to say a swear word, but is ok to say a replacement word that means the same exact thing and is used in the same exact situations. Just like the word crap and the the "s" word.

I've been researching what swear words actually are and why society even created them and I found that the reason society has swear words is a way to convey lots of emotion. For example, the seldom times I hear my dad swear, I know he means business and what he is swearing about is serious. Also, when I was younger and in school, whenever the class was rowdy and the teacher couldn't get our attention, they would swear and the whole class would immediately be quiet.

I understand that overuse of a swear word is wrong because then it defeats the purpose of being used to convey emotions. But when the alternative to swearing is raising your voice, I see swearing as useful.

I'm not referring to taking the Lords name in vain or to words that have dirty meanings. I'm talking about why is it bad to occasionally use a swear word that has a perfectly appropriate definition, and to use it at times when trying to convey emotion with a group of people where they don't perceive what you said as impolite.

Society created the idea of certain words being curse words. Nothing is inherently wrong with the words themselves. So when your either by yourself or your around a group of people where it is socially acceptable to use a certain curse word in a certain situation, why should you still not use it?

The teachings in James 3 on the relations between language and character are certainly in accord with the rest of LDS teaching and could profitably be more repeated and expounded more than they are.

However, in addition, Nephi mentions speaking with the tongue of angels (2 Ne 31:14 and 32:2) as one of the gifts of the Spirit, one that is not mentioned in the other lists. The injunction "I am God; give heed to my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow" is repeated several times in the early revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants (as well as Hebrews 4:12)

These teachings suggest that the popular notion that crude, vulgar, obscene, or profane speech is especially strong or expressive is entirely wrong.


Are there non-medical miracles that can get a person beatified/canonized? It seems like every miracle that is used in the case for beatification in the Catholic Church has to do with some sickness being prayed for and its miraculous cure.  But it seems to me that there are a lot of other things that could have miraculous explanations.  There have been miracles where a sack of money shows up unexpectedly or an inexplicable staircase is inexplicably built.  But these don't seem to be the kinds of miracles that can get someone canonized and making the sun dance is a miracle, but almost too big a thing for one person to be recognized as the intercessor.

Are there any other sorts of miracles that can get someone canonized, or do they have to be medical in nature nowadays?

Yes.

Miracles for beatification or canonisation do not have to be medical. The Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the Vatican investigative body, only retain, on a general basis, medical experts, but can consult other technical expertise, as well as medical specialists,  when needed. Another stage in the process of validating a miracle is considering whether it is something God might reasonably be expected to have done, which is pretty much a given in the case of healings.

In the last hundred years miracles have included visions, delivery from accidents (by means of a broken rope, and of a flash of light) and a miracle of multiplication (similar in principle to the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fishes.

The rest of this answer reports some instances.

Miracle of Multiplication - occurred in 1949

St. John Macias was born in Western Spain in 1585. He emigrated to South America, eventually settling in Lima, Peru. He became a lay brother at the Dominican Priory of St. Mary Magdalene in that city, where he worked as doorkeeper until his death in 1645. He was known to levitate. He provided food for many of the poor people in Lima. Donations were collected for him by a donkey who, following  certain regular  routes through the more prosperous districts, brayed loudly to inform residents he was there to receive donations in  his pack.  Many miracles were recorded during his life, and he (John, not the donkey) was beatified in 1837  by Pope Gregory XVI.

In January 1949, in Olivenza, Spain, near where John was born, the following miracle took place. This account is from the New Scientist, 8th April, 1982 (page 74):

  On the afternoon of 25 January, 1949, Leandra, the cook of a religious institute in Olivenza, went down to the kitchen to light her stoves. She had to prepare dinner for a group of students who lived in.

  It was the invariable habit of the institute to offer dinner to the poor families of the neighbourhood as well, but on this occasion Leandra opened the cupboard to find 3 cups of rice, about 750g [ just over a pound and a half] in all. She proposed to cook this up in water with another 750 grams of meat, some onions and a bay leaf to feed at least the paying students. Then, putting the pot on the fire,  Leandra  invoked the aid of the Blessed Juan Macias to care for the poor who would find nothing to eat that evening. Then she went on to other tasks, keeping one eye on the fire in the way that any cook does.

  After about a quarter of an hour, she stopped to check the rice and was amazed to find it about to spill over the brim of the 10-litre [18 Imperial pints, 21 US pints]  kettle. Other cooking pots were produced, one of around 8 litres and another of 10 litres. Leandra and the other women who had swarmed into the kitchen to see what was happening ladled the overflow from the first pot into the second two and, from there, distributed the rice to all comers.

  They kept this up for four hours. More than 150 people are reported to have eaten their fill.

It goes on:

  The Congregation [for the causes of saints]  was able to call 22 eye witnesses.....Most were women from the neighbourhood,  not trained observers, but wise in the cooking of rice.

  In 1975 when the Congregation concluded its 25-year investigation of these events, the Blessed Juan Macias became Saint John Macias, canonised and promoted mostly on the strength of this miracle.

Miraculous Mountain Rescue through the Snapping of a Rope

Marguerite Bays was born in Siviriez, in the mainly Roman Catholic  canton of  Fribourg, Switzerland, in 1815. She neither married nor joined a religious order and, as Pope John Paul II said at her Beatification, she was an unaffected woman who lived an ordinary life. She helped her brothers with farm work and also worked locally as a seamstress or dressmaker. She attended Mass almost every day and was active in parish work including catechising  children and  visiting the sick and old. She suffered from  cancer and, rather than pray to be freed of suffering, asked to suffer in a way that would allow her to share more directly in Christ's Passion. On her 39th birthday, 8th September, 1854, she was cured at the exact moment  Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. From then on, every Friday  she relived, physically and spiritually, the Passion from Gethsemane to Calvary. She suffered with stigmata and wore gloves even in the Summer. She died in 1879.

After her death she was the object of local devotion, but the miracle which led to her beatification, in 2005, took place on Easter Monday, March 25th, 1940.

It is called the Dent-de-Lys Miracle, after the mountain on which it occurred.

Fr. Claude Morel writes of it in pages 16 to 18 of  his book "A Closer Acquaintance with the Blessed Marguerite Bays".

The local chaplain took a lady church worker and two male students on an Easter Monday outing to the top of the six thousand foot high mountain, the Dent-de-Lys.  They reached the top and began the descent about 4pm. The party were roped together, the idea being that if one slips and falls the others will hold on and so rescue the one who slipped. One of the students,19-year-old  Marcel Menetrey, seems to have suffered from vertigo, and was praying to Margeurite to bring them safely down.   He went first and  reached a ledge, on which he stopped.  The others should then have followed one by one, but this seems not to have been followed. The lady slipped and fell and this led to the other two also being jerked into space. Marcel watched his three companions hurtling down past him, expecting when the rope tightened that he too would be pulled down with them. He again called on Marguerite . The rope snapped about ten feet away from him and, although his three companions hurtled to their deaths, he was able to descend the mountain alone and in safety. The breaking of the rope was a miracle, procured by the intervention of Marguerite Bays.

Marcel went on to become a priest, and died in 2000, living to see the Beatification of Marguerite Bays in 1995.

Before Marguerite can become a saint (or, more correctly, be recognised as one) another miracle is needed. One occurred in 1998 when a 22-month-old girl was run over by her grandfather's  tractor, but emerged unhurt, following his invocation of Marguerite.  This, however, is a medical miracle, as it concerns the health implications of being run over by a tractor. This miracle has been accepted so canonisation is a possibility in the relatively near future.  (ADDENDUM - Marguerite was canonised on 13th October 2019.)

This auto-translated article presents a more sceptical view, held by local resident Bernard Pochan who has investigated,  and who has said he was abused by a priest aged 15.  It also refers, briefly, to theological concerns regarding the limited nature of the miracle.

A Murderer is converted by a vision of his victim

Maria Goretti  was born in 1890 in Italy and was a very religious and devoted girl. After her father's death her family shared a house with another family whose mother was dead, , the Serenellis. When she was nearly twelve the Serenelli son,  Alessandro, aged 20, wanted to have sex with her but she told him it was against God's will. He threatened to kill her, but she still refused. He then stabbed her several times and  went  into his room thinking she was dead. When he heard her whimpering he came out and stabbed her some more, fourteen stabs in all.

When their parents (his father and her mother) came back, Maria was taken to hospital and Alessandro to prison. Maria died a day later, saying she forgave Alessandro and wanted him to be with her in heaven.

Maria was credited with many healing  miracles but one miracle, mentioned in the case for her beatification, concerned a vision. Alessandro was  an angry, unhappy and unrepentant young man. In 1908, about six years after he  murdered Maria he had a vision.

The website www.mariagoretti.org says:

  But no miracle was to be greater than the conversion of her murderer! It was an astonishing sequel to the drama of a would-be rapist who was sentenced to 30 years of prison. Unrepentent, showing no remorse for his awful crime, Alessandro would undergo a remarkable change. This was to occur after a remarkable dream he had during his 8th year of imprisonment.

  The dream was so vivid he could not distinguish it from reality. The prison bars and walls fell away and his cell was a sunlit garden blooming with flowers. Towards him came a beautiful girl dressed in pure white. He said to himself: 'How is this? Peasant girls wear darkish clothes.' But he saw it was Marietta. She was walking among flowers, smiling, and without the least fear. He wanted to flee from her but could not. Marietta picked white lilies and handed them to him saying, 'Alessandro, take them!' He accepted the lilies, one by one, fourteen of them. But a strange thing took place. As he received them from her fingers, the lilies did not remain lilies but changed into so many flaming lights. There was a lily turned to purifying flame for every one of the 14 mortal blows he struck her on the fatal day in Ferriere. Marietta said smilingly, 'Alessandro, as I have promised, your soul shall someday reach me in heaven.'

  Contentment entered his breast. And the scene of incredible beauty dissolved in silence. When he awoke, it seemed that the rabid, choking, consuming feelings of hate, destruction, and bitterness that ruled within him were loosening their invisible bonds from his mind and flesh." ("The Penitent" by Pietro DiDonato- Hawthorne Books, N.Y., 1962; pages 109-110)

When he was eventually released he attended mass with Maria's mother who welcomed him as a son, and he ended his days in a monastery.

A Railway Miracle in 1961

A miraculous flash of light, on October 25th, 1961, at Malaga Station in Spain, enabled a man to save his own life. A man called Antony Barres Nararro fell under a train at Malaga Station sand called upon a deceased relative. She was Maria Antonia Bandres Y Elosegui, a Spanish nun who died, aged 21, in 1919. She was well known for her piety and the effect she had on agnostics.

Father John Zuhlzorf describes what happened:

  A man behind schedule, rushing to board a moving train, slips off the rain-wet step he jumps at. In front of many witnesses, he falls sidewise between the car and platform onto the track under the wheels of the train. In that instant he has the presence of mind, nay rather the habit and discipline of mind, to call out to Sr. Antonia, a distant relative, to save him. Suddenly a light under the car illuminated a metal tube that the man, large in frame, grabbed hold of with his hands and then hooked with his feet. He was subsequently dragged amidst the train’s wheels in the narrow space between the wheels and the platform. He emerged with torn clothing and some bruises. There was no source of illumination under the car, either artificial or natural. He was dragged over 60 meters in the narrow gap with no serious injury. The experts consulted by the Congregation determined that the light and his escape remained entirely inexplicable by natural causes. The miracle was approved, and Sr. Maria Antonia, who had lived a life of heroic virtue, was beatified on May 12,1996. Her feast is April 27.


Are sinners in Satan's kingdom? OK, people seem to agree who is in Christ's kingdom. But if there is a Satan's kingdom. Are non-Christians or sinners part of his kingdom? what does that say about rich evil politicians? Does the bible say who is in his kingdom? Is it ethical to say?

Reading Matthew 12:26

If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

just want to know what the bible says so I warn myself.

Luke 11:23 (NASB)
  "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters."

  Mark 9:40 (NASB)
  "For he who is not against us is for us."

There appear to be only two camps.

Though Satan's "kingdom" is not given a thorough treatment in the text, any kingdom that is not God's kingdom cannot prevail against God and is unavoidably doomed.

Declaring another human to be in Satan's kingdom is probably overstepping our bounds. Short of being given a prophetic word, we are not granted the (knowledge or) authority to judge another human's eternal destiny. That is the prerogative of deity who knows the depths of the heart. (2 Ti 4:1, 8, He 12:28)


Is tithing something necessary under the new covenant? Possible Duplicate:
  What does the Bible say about tithing?

Before you answer please remember that tithing and giving are not the same thing.

(Skip to the last two paragraphs before the caveat for the final answer.  The rest is the basis of the answer I gave.)

Tithing is mentioned only three or four times in the New Testament.

The  Pharisees were very careful about tithing (Luke 18:12),
He said that they (the Pharisees) should not leave it undone (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).
Tithing is mentioned in Hebrews  7 in he context of stating that Abraham payed a tenth to Melchizedek.

We know that salvation is by grace, through faith, and not of good works (Eph. 2:8), so tithing (or not) can neither add to nor take away from your salvation.

Tithing is little different than circumcision, which was also something demanded in Mosaic law.  Acts 15 clearly puts to death the idea that we cannot be saved without following Mosaic law by using the issue of circumcision.

  Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which
  believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to
  command them to keep the law of Moses.

  6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this
  matter.

After considering the matter, they came to this conclusion:

  Acts 15: 19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among
  the Gentiles are turned to God:

  20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of
  idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from
  blood.

  21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,
  being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

  22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to
  send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and
  Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among
  the brethren:

  23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and
  elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the
  Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

  24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us
  have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must
  be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Further, Jesus frees Israel from the law, and a new law is written on our hearts.    (Hebrews 8:8-10)

  8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith
  the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and
  with the house of Judah:

  9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the
  day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of
  Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them
  not, saith the Lord.

  10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
  after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind,
  and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they
  shall be to me a people:

This coincides beautifully with Hosea 6:6, which tells us, even in the Old Testament that God is more concerned with us loving Him and the condition of our hearts than in what we give.

Hosea 6:6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings

And finally, pulling it all together, we have 2 Corinthians 9:7, where giving is addressed in the New testament:

  Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not
  grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Based on all of this, no we are not required to tithe under the New Testament, any more than we are required to be circumcised, sacrifice lambs, or the Mosaic law.

Don't forget what Jesus told us in Matthew 22:

  37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
  heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

  38 This is the first and great commandment.

  39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
  thyself.

  40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the
  prophets.

In the New Testament, we are under the law of Love, not the law of Moses.  The Law of love fulfills all of the requirements of the Mosaic law.  (If we love God, we will have no other gods before Him.  If we love our neighbor, we will not steal, bear false witness, covet, etc.  If we love our parents, we will honor them, and so on.)

Giving of a cheerful heart, freely and because you want to is the replacement of the original tithe, and fulfills the requirement of the tithe, just as the law of Love fulfills the original Mosaic law.  Not to mention that freely giving is a demonstration of love toward God, and a fulfillment of the New Testament law of Love.

Edit - added - Now for the caveat

We are required, in the new Testament to obey and submit to authority. (Hebrews 13:17, , Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and many others)

Your Church may require tithing, at which point, New Testament law WOULD require tithing as obedience to the authority.  If this is the case, you're in a position where you need  to make a decision.

Stay in the Church, and obey the authority of the Pastor/Leaders of the Church (fulfilling the requirement to  submit to authority, which God has placed over us.)
Stay in the Church and do not tithe, refusing to submit to the authority as commanded.
Find a Church that does not teach that tithing is required.

I cringe to even state the last once, because these days, people will leave a Church any  time they hear something they don't like preached.  (2 Timothy 4:3)  IMHO, you should only leave a Church if doctrine is unsound, and you know this Biblically.


What does John 12:25 mean? What does this verse mean? Is this the reason why many good people die and lots of bad person are living the greed and wealth in this world? This keeps on bugging me.

  John 12:25

  ”Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this
  world will keep it for eternal life.”

Generally this verse is understood as a poetic way of telling us what our priorities should be.  If we're focused on our temporary earthly life, we'll throw away our eternal life, but f we love the things of God and are willing to focus, instead, on things of eternal import, we will gain eternal life.

  Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  He that loveth his life shall lose it,.... The sense is, that whoever
  is so in love with this present temporal life, as to be anxiously
  careful of it, and takes all precautions to secure it; and rather than
  to expose it to any danger, chooses to deny the faith of Christ, and
  desert his cause and interest; as such an one shall not long enjoy
  this life, so he shall come short of an eternal one:

  and he that hateth his life in this world: on the other hand, whoever
  seems careless about it, and not to consult the safety of it, but is
  unconcerned about it; yea, as if he was throwing it away, as of no
  great moment and significancy, rather than do anything to preserve it,
  which would be scandalous to himself, and be dishonourable to his Lord
  and master; he

  shall keep it unto life eternal: he shall be preserved in his temporal
  life, in a remarkable manner, until he has done the will and work of
  God, notwithstanding all attempts upon it; and he shall appear to have
  that spiritual life, which is the beginning and pledge of, and which
  springs up unto, and issues in eternal life; and that he shall enjoy
  in the world to come. This Christ said to let his disciples and
  followers know, that they must suffer and die, as well as he, though
  not on the same account, and for the self-same reasons; and that their
  sufferings and death in his cause, and for his Gospel, would turn to
  their advantage.

Similarly, from Grace in Focus

  Love and Hate Are Figures of Speech Concerning Priorities

  The person who “loves his life [psyche]” is one who is living for the
  now. He is contradicting Jesus’ command, “Don’t lay up treasure on
  earth” (Matt 6:19). He is failing to serve Jesus (“If anyone serves
  Me, him My Father will honor,” (John 12:26).

  The person who “hates his life [psyche]” is one who is living for the
  life to come. He is obeying Jesus’ command, “Lay up treasure in
  heaven” (Matt 6:20). He is following Jesus and serving Him and will
  one day be honored by God (John 12:26).


What theological teachings of Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the Local Churches differ from Reformed Theology I recently moved and have been Church hunting (but this it not a question about Church advice) and attended a "Local Church."

In this particular Church, service goes as follows:

first part:

everyone opens hymn book
people shout out numbers (corresponding to hymn #)
everyone sings the hymn together

second part:

church splits up into small groups
everyone opens up a booklet of Nee/Lee
people stand up and talk about how this week's readings effected them / their insights on the week's reading

Now, this is different to me (since I used to attend churches where a single person would preach) -- but I don't see anything unbiblical about their approach.

So what I'm curious now are:

are there any theological differences between Nee/Lee/Local church and reformed theology?

Thanks!

Thanks for the great question. This is an answer from what I know.
Reformed theology would hold to the definition of a church showing 3 marks:

the Word rightly upheld, preached and read
the sacraments (Lord's supper, baptism) rightly administered
Discipline and care rightly handled

There are a few issues with the place you are attending as it would, by reformed theology, be not even considered a church as it does not hold the Word preached nor is it read but rather another book is replacing the authority of the Word itself. I would also be concerned with the authority of the pastor as it seems they do not hold much function, which is also unbiblical.

It is a biblical model, even from apostolic times (the book of Acts) that the Word preached by an "appointed" minister (meaning they have been ordained or basically given the thumbs up that they have the gift of preaching given them by God) would preach and teach the Word, the Word would be opened and read aloud (even Jesus did this at the beginning of his ministry), and also the people knowing that the minister is appointed by God, the Great Shepherd, would be under his preaching/teaching as he is an under shepherd of the people.

I believe this type of gathering would cause greater harm to not only yourself and the people there, and I would strongly recommend finding a church with an appointed minister, where there is prayer and the Word in the service, administers the sacraments, and has elders that hold the minister accountable in order to care for the people of God.

I pray that you will find a good "Bible-believing" church and grow in Christ with his people.

Most of my statements are from Michael Horton's books who is a great teacher, asset to the faith and also a great guy to boot!

Please feel free to ask more questions
Dan


What is the difference between Lust and Love in the heart? How does one know the difference between Lust and Love?

For example (Hypothetically speaking, of course):•if someone has sex before marriage but they have true love only God knows if it's sin or not. •if someone has sex after marriage but they never loved the person just lusted the person it is a sin, because LUST is a sin.
•if someone has sex after marriage and they loved the person it is NOT a sin, because, even if there was minor lust (which of course, with hormones there always will be), Love covers a multitude of wrongs.

How does that "someone" know whether they have love or lust (in their heart)?

*Side-note: My main focus with this question is about the differences between lust and love, not the topic of premarital sex— that was just an example I used to help further get my point across! Thankyou!

To answer this from a doctrinal perspective requires a doctrinal perspective on love.  So we ought to turn to 1 Corinthians, chapter 13, Paul's famous homily on Charity (Christian love):

  4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity
  vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

  5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily
  provoked, thinketh no evil;

  6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

  7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things,
  endureth all things.

By contrast, the word lust has a wider meaning than simply "unwholesome sexual desire."  For example, from Mark 19, where Jesus explains the Parable of the Sower:

  18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the
  word,

  19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and
  the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh
  unfruitful.

We see "lusts" (plural) used here in the company of "the cares of this world" and being deceived (led astray) by seeking after riches.  It speaks not of unwholesome sexual desire, but of unwholesome desires in general, not too different from gluttony or covetousness.  The essence of lust is greed.

Contrast this greed with the attributes of Charity as described by Paul.  Longsuffering, kindness, an absence of envy, ostentation and flashiness.  "Not easily provoked," bearing and enduring all things with faith and hope.  Distill all of these virtues down to their essence, and you get selflessness, the very antithesis of greed.

Greed is a hunger. It consumes in order to enlarge itself.  But charity, pure Christian love, is selfless.  It builds up those around it.

So how can this be applied to matters of the heart?  What is the difference between real love, and lust?

Lust is greed.  Lust says "this person is desirable, and I desire to have them, to further my own interests through interaction with them.  I want to take pleasure from them, because it will make me feel good."

Love, on the other hand, is constructive.  It says, "there is good in this person, and I want to work with them, to build something together with them that is greater and more beautiful than what either of us could accomplish alone, and I would wish to put forth the effort required to see it through, even if it requires some personal sacrifice on my part."  Lust would never dream of that last bit!


Are brief blasphemous deliberate thoughts a mortal sin according to Catholicism? Are brief blasphemous deliberate thoughts a mortal sin according to Catholicism?

Mortal sin (from mors = death) forfeits sanctifying grace and is the supernatural death of the soul. St. Augustine defines it as "something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law."

To be a mortal sin, these conditions must be satisfied:

Knowledge (either natural or supernatural) of the act's sinfulness (offense to God).
Freely performing the sin.
Grave matter

In your scenario, #2 is satisfied because you say "deliberate". #3 is satisfied because blasphemy is a grave offense against God.

It's unclear if #1 is satisfied, you should confess it to a priest, who can help judge if such a sin is mortal.


When did Judas Iscariot kill himself? Matthew 27 NIV

  Judas Hangs Himself

  1 Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed. 2 So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor.
  3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”
  “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”
  5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
  6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”[a]

  Jesus Before Pilate

  11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

One is naturally inclined to believe that Judas killed himself just prior to the Lord's crucifixion, going by this text.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul states the following:

  3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importancea : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

(Note: "the Twelve" is not capitalized in every translation)

Thus, we see that Paul is saying that Jesus appeared to the twelve after His resurrection. But that cannot be, as Matthew, as shown above, indicates or insinuates that Judas killed himself prior to the crucifixion; therefore, being a witness to the risen Christ would be an impossibility.

So, was Judas still part of the group when Jesus began to appear publicly following His resurrection or not? Did he die before or after the crucifixion/death/resurrection or some other time?

Matthew 27:3 says that the impetus for Judas' suicide was seeing him be condemned, rather than seeing him being executed or anything else. Jesus' interactions with Pilate, including the possibility of his being freed, are narrated afterwards. Although the gospels do jump forwards and back in time, I take the explicit description of Judas' remorse being because Jesus was condemned as a clear indication that he killed himself before Jesus was executed.

1 Corinthians 15:5 uses the phrase "The Twelve" which was a title for the twelve apostles, and the title was used somewhat regardless of how many of them were still alive. We can see this most clearly by reading the very previous phrase!

While Judas may have been replaced by Matthias, Peter never was, and so although he is distinguished from the other twelve apostles in 1 Corinthians 15:5, that doesn't stop Paul from using the natural title The Twelve for the others.


What do Christians against state recognition of same-sex marriage think of the fourteenth amendment in US law? From what I understand, the fourteenth amendment in American law is interpreted by the SCOTUS to be implying that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

To me, this means, from the perspective of Christians who are against states allowing same-sex marriage, one of two things is true:

the fourteenth amendment is an immoral law
the fourteenth amendment is a moral law interpreted incorrectly

Is this right?

If so, is there a general consensus among Christians against states allowing same-sex marriage between which of the two is right? If there is, which? If there is none, you can go ahead and close this question.

If not, why?

To be clear, I assume that one cannot believe in the following things simultaneously:

being against states allowing same-sex marriage
agreeing with the fourteenth amendment
agreeing with the SCOTUS' interpretation of the fourteenth amendment

What do Christians against state recognition of same-sex marriage think of the fourteenth amendment in US law?

There is a principle of law called "original intent".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent

Judges are supposed to rule based on what the intent was of those who wrote a law or amendment.

If you consider that no one in the 1800s considered homosexuality as anything other than an abomination not to be mentioned even if only in adult company, you would be hard pressed to see in the 14th amendment an intention to be applied to a group of what would then be considered debased criminals as most states had laws against sodomy.

There is now an overriding principle of law called, "living tree" or "throw out what you don't like".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

This allows judges to discover things like a right to abortion.


What is the Anglican and Episcopalian basis for viewing the Trinity as a family that should contain a feminine element? A recent question on Christianity Stack (about monotheism and the Trinity) suggested that since Christians present the Trinity as a “family” it must contain a feminine element.  This came as news to me, so I started to look into it.
Gender of God (Wikipedia)
I would like to find out what various Christian denominations have to say on this subject.  My first question is directed at the Anglican/Episcopal Church which is in the process of revising its 1979 prayer book to remove any reference to God by masculine pronouns.
Of greater significance to me is what the Bible has to say about this and so I would welcome any biblical support for removing the masculine element from the person of God and introducing a feminine element within the Godhead.
I have now edited this question to make it clear that I am looking for the views of the Anglican and Episcopalian communities.
This question is open to input from any member of the community who can provide additional information.

During the course of my research into this subject I found an article that presents some views of the Episcopalian Church with regard the feminine element within the Godhead:

The prayer book, first published in 1549 and now in its fourth edition, is the symbol of unity for the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion is the third largest Christian communion founded in 1867. While there is no clear timeline for the changes, religious leaders at the denomination’s recent triennial conference in Austin have agreed to a demand to replace the masculine terms for God such as “He” and “King” and “Father.”
In the oracles of the eighth century prophet Isaiah, God is described as a woman in labor and a mother comforting her children.  And the Book of Proverbs maintains that the feminine figure of Holy Wisdom, Sophia, assisted God during the creation of the world.  Indeed, The Church Fathers and Mothers understood Sophia to be the “Logos,” or Word of God. Additionally, Jewish rabbis equated the Torah, the law of God, with Sophia, which means that feminine wisdom was with God from the very beginning of time.

With regard to Exodus 3:14 where God reveals His name to Moses, they make this claim:

[Yahweh] is a remarkable combination of both female and male grammatical endings. The first part of God’s name in Hebrew, “Yah,” is feminine, and the last part, “weh,” is masculine. In light of Exodus 3, the feminist theologian Mary Daly asks, “Why must ‘God’ be a noun? Why not a verb, the most active and dynamic of all?”

They take Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:37 to infer that Jesus is presenting himself in feminine language when he says he has longed to gather the rebellious children of Jerusalem together “as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.”  The writer of this article goes on to claim that:

the author of Matthew equates Jesus with the feminine Sophia (wisdom), when he writes, “Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.” In Matthew’s mind, it seems that Jesus is the feminine Wisdom of Proverbs, who was with God from the beginning of creation. In my opinion, I think it is very likely that Matthew is suggesting that there is a spark of the feminine in Jesus’ nature.  Additionally, in his letter to the Galatians, written around 54 or 55 A.D., Paul says that he will continue “in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you.”  Clearly, feminine imagery was acceptable among the first followers of Jesus.

The article goes on to quote from Clement, Augustine and Gregory in support of the argument.  Source: What the early church thought about God’s gender
Anglicans and Episcopalians have always worked and worshipped together across national borders to support each others' lives and ministry.  Source: What is the Anglican Communion?
I will continue to look into this subject in an attempt to find a definitive statement from the Anglican Church.  Meanwhile, I would be grateful for any other information that can shed light on why the Anglican Community and the Episcopalian Church believes that there is a feminine element within the Godhead.
Disclaimer: I neither support nor endorse the view of "the feminine" within the Godhead. My question is merely to ascertain the basis for this view within the Episcopalian and Anglican Churches.  This is a fact-finding mission.


What is the Roman Catholic Church doctrinal justification of its perceived opposition or support of the independence of Catalonia? According to the New York Daily News,

  Vida Nueva (New Life) internet publication said the pope told Spain's new ambassador to the Vatican, Gerardo Bugallo, that the Holy See is against all self-determination moves that are outside decolonization processes.

(I have to say that although this is circulating in the news I don't know if there is an official statement from the Vatican).

In Spain though, some 400 priests openly support Catalonian independence.

I'm confused as to what business the Catholic Church would have in supporting or opposing an independence movement, unless it is related to its doctrine or the Bible.

the Holy See is against all self-determination moves that are outside decolonization processes.

The Catholic reason for this is fairly simple. The people don't have a right to overthrow or revolt against legitimate rulers. The reason that decolonization processes are good is that they take away a nation's unjust claim to another sovereign peoples. IE, the colonized land was gained via unjust military action. Those are illegitimate rulers.

The syllabus of errors, a papal encyclical listing statements to be condemned, contains this statement:

  It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.

That is, the above statement is condemned by the Catholic Church as false.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible? Do Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible? What is their reason for not accepting other versions such as the NIV or the KJV?

Yes, they do. It's called  New World Translation.

There are several verses with a completely different meaning than other translations, such as John 1:1

  1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the
  Word was a god

Quite different than the NIV translation

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
  Word was God.

The difference is easy to see when you consider how it affects the doctrine of the Trinity, Christ's identity, and the idea of a single God vs. the idea that the word was "a god" - separate from The God.

Other, commonly accepted translations agree with the NIV translation.

The argument I've heard time and time again is that the Bible has been corrupted over time, intentionally, or not, and that they, the one true Church, have the only accurately translated version. (This was from three personal friends, all JW, and from several missionaries that I spoke with. I don't have official statements from the Watchtower Society claiming this.)

There are more differences, along the same vein, but I don't wish to get into a discussion on the validity of their claims vs. those of other denominations. Such discussion would be off-topic and frowned upon.

I included the above, only to show that the NWT is more than a slightly differently translated version. Most of the passages are the same,but those few that are different significantly alter the meaning relating to some foundational doctrinal views held by more (traditional? mainstream?) denominations.