How does the Catholic church prioritize different sources of information in coming to doctrinal/theological conclusions, and how do they justify that? How does the Catholic church prioritize different sources of information in coming to doctrinal/theological conclusions, and how do they justify that?

If you use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral as a framework for considering different sources of information in coming to conclusions, how does the Catholic church use and prioritize each source (reason, experience, scripture, tradition)?

What is their justification for the way they use and prioritize sources?

The Church's Theological Notes or Qualifications

Listed below are the so-called theological notes and their associated censures from the table in Sixtus Cartechini, S.J.'s 1951 work De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (On the Value of the Theological Notes), which confessors have used when dealing with erudite penitents; it's also available in Italian translation. The theological notes are a way of classifying the proximity of a theological proposition to Divine Revelation. For a good history of the development of these notes, see The development of the theological censures after the Council of Trent: (1563-1709) by John Cahill, O.P.

Theological note: Dogma.
Equivalent terms: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et Catholica.
Explanation: A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.
Examples: The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy
Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.
Remarks: A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn definition of pope or council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed, to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its long-standing liturgical and practical use and commendation.
Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith
Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita
Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.
Remarks: It is a dogma that the Church's infallibility extends to truths in this sphere, so one who denies them denies implicitly a dogma or Divine faith.
Theological Note: Truth of Divine faith.
Equivalent term: De fide divina.
Explanation: A truth revealed by God but not certainly proposed as such by the Church.
Example: Christ claimed from the beginning of His public life to be the Messias.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in faith).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, but no loss of Church membership. May incur a canonical penalty.
Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
Theological Note: Theologically certain.
Equivalent term: Dogmatic fact; theological conclusion.
Explanation: A truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain.
Example: Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in theology).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin against faith.
Theological Note: Catholic doctrine.
Equivalent term: Catholic teaching.
Explanation: A truth authentically taught by the Ordinary Magisterium but not as revealed or intimately connected with revelation.
Example: Invalidity of Anglican Orders; validity of Baptism conferred by heretic or Jews.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
Remarks: The expression Catholic doctrine is sometimes applied to truths of a higher order also, but never of a lower one. In some cases the appropriate censure may be graver than "temerarious".
Theological Note: Certain.
Equivalent term: Common; theologically certain.
Explanation: A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.
Example: The true and strict causality of the sacraments.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Usually, mortal sin of temerity.
Remarks: Proportionately grave reason can sometimes justify an individual who has carefully studied the evidence in dissenting from such a proposition; since it is not completely impossible for all the theological schools to err on such a matter, although it would be highly unusual and contrary to an extremely weighty presumption.
Theological Note: Safe.
Explanation: Affirmed in doctrinal decrees of Roman Congregations.
Example: That Christ will not reign visibly on earth for a thousand years after Antichrist.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Unsafe/temerarious.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin of disobedience and perhaps imprudence.
Remarks: Exterior assent is absolutely required and interior assent is normally required, since, though not infallible, the Congregations possess true doctrinal authority and the protective guidance of the Holy Ghost.
Theological Note: Very common/commoner.
Explanation: The most solidly founded or best attested theological opinion on a disputed subject.
Example: Antichrist will be of the tribe of Dan.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: None.
Effects of denial: None.
Remarks: Very common or commoner opinions can be mistaken and there is no obligation to follow them though prudence inclines us to favour them as a general policy. It should be noted that an opinion which is "very common" is less well established than one which is "common" which implies moral unanimity of theological schools.
Theological Note: Probable.
Explanation: A theological opinion which is well founded either on the grounds of its intrinsic coherence or the extrinsic weight of authority favouring it.
Example: Judas received Holy Communion at the Last Supper. Judas did not receive Holy Communion at the Last Supper.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: None.
Effects of denial: None.
Remarks: The better founded of two conflicting opinions is referred to as more probable; but Catholics are free to prefer some other opinion for any good reason.

Compared with the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral"

Thus, to answer the question:

It seems it could (very loosely) be ordered this way, in terms of weight:

Tradition,
Scripture,Scripture would come after Tradition because a truth of divine faith (de fide divina) is ranked #3—after a Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith (de fide ecclesiastica), #2, or a defined dogma (dogma de fide), #1; all truths in Holy Scripture that have not been explicitly been defined as dogmas are truths of divine faith (de fide divina).However, it's not quite correct to place Scripture as less weight than Tradition because Scripture is a part of Tradition.
human reason.This ranks after Tradition and Scripture because reason is subject to faith, pace the rationalists. See: the First Vatican Council's section in Dei Filius on Faith & Reason.The rest of the theological notes could loosely be considered in the category of "reason," but this is not quite correct because theological conclusions (note #5) can include one premise from natural reason and another from Revelation. Here's an example, where the major premise comes from Revelation and the minor premise from human reason:Also, human reason would come after Tradition or Scripture because sacred doctrine (sacra doctrina) is the supreme science, being the noblest and most certain.Ranking human reason #3 is also problematic because certain truths (the præambula fidei or "preambles of faith") are required first before Tradition, Holy Scripture, and dogma can even be understood in the first place; so, in this sense, certain perennial truths of human reason (which the philosophers have discovered, e.g., that truth exists, humans can attain truth, humans have immortal souls, etc.) would rank first. These truths are listed in De Valore Notarum Theologicarum ch. 6 on theologically certain propositions.

If "experience" means "private revelation," it would not appear here. Private revelations do not of themselves have Magisterial authority, although the Magisterium can declare them as free of error. If "experience" does not mean "private revelation" but something along the lines of "that which helps us reason," it would be ranked #3 alongside human reason.

From what has been said above, it appears that the Catholic understanding cannot neatly fit into a "Wesleyan Quadrilateral."

The loci theologici

The loci theologici are what you seem to mean by "different sources of information" which theologians use "in coming to doctrinal/theological conclusions." Melchior Cano (1509-1560) treated them his De Locis Theologicis. They are:

the authority of

Holy Scripture,
Catholic tradition,
general councils,
the Roman Church,
the Fathers,
the Schoolmen;
natural reason,
philosophers and doctors in civil law,
history.

Cano said the last three are useful but not necessary, and he thought there could be more.


Why does Jesus not want people to repent and be forgiven in Mark 4? This is in response to the disciples asking why Jesus teaches in parables:

  He said to them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside, everything is in parables, so that although they look they may look but not see, and although they hear they may hear but not understand, so they may not repent and be forgiven." -Mark 4:11-12 New English Translation

Why does he say this? Why is he teaching at all if his intent is actually that the people not see, not understand, and not repent. It seems troubling.

Your Bible is missing the double quotes.  Jesus is quoting Isaiah:

  Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?” “Here I am,” I said; “send me!” And he replied: Go and say to this people:
  Listen carefully, but do not understand!
  Look intently, but do not perceive!
  Make the heart of this people sluggish,
  dull their ears and close their eyes;
  Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears,
  and their heart understand,
  and they turn and be healed.

Isaiah 6:8-10 (NABRE)

I think He's describing the process shown in the OT and exemplified throughout human history, not issuing a command.

According to the intratext in the NABRE, this is also quoted in

John 12:40; Acts 28:26; and Romans 11:8.

I can't say that I particularly understand the meaning of Jesus' words, but hopefully it'll point you in the right direction.


Are there any statistics that show how many scientists are Christians or otherwise believe in a personal God? I was reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and he mentions a study regarding the percentages of believers in the National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society. I was wondering if these figures mirrored the numbers for all other scientists, not merely those elected to prestigious societies. Unfortunately, googling "number of christian scientists" doesn't get me the kind of christian scientists I'm looking for...

Does anyone have any statistics on the number of scientists (Ph.D.-level researchers) who are Christian?

In 1998, Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham published an article in the leading scientific journal, Nature, their findings on the percent of believers among scientists in the National Academy of Sciences:

  We found the highest percentage of belief [in God] among NAS mathematicians
  (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the
  lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with
  physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in
  immortality).

In regards to the question being asked, however, a Pew Survey in mid-2009 found that 33% of all scientists in America (not just those elected to NAS) believe in God, compared to 83% the American public. 18% believed in some sort of "higher power" (unaffiliated with any religion) and 41% are atheist. This suggests that the "average" scientist is more likely to believe in God than the most esteemed scientists.

This interesting article summarizes some of the findings from the Pew data.


Joel 2: From Eden to Ruination? To what is this referring? Joel Chapter 2:1-2.

  1     Blow the trumpet in Zion;
      sound the alarm on my holy hill.

  Let all who live in the land tremble,
      for the day of the Lord is coming. It is close at hand— 2     a day of darkness and gloom,
      a day of clouds and blackness. Like dawn spreading across the mountains
      a large and mighty army comes, such as never was in ancient times
      nor ever will be in ages to come.

  3 Before them fire devours,
      behind them a flame blazes. Before them the land is like the garden of Eden,
      behind them, a desert waste—
      nothing escapes them.

I find this scripture utterly amazing. It seems to be a last-days related scripture, and yet we have nothing on this earth resembling "the garden of Eden".

No doubt this had an initial fulfilment. To what nation did this apply, and did they have Eden-like conditions?

How do you know how fabulous the Garden of Eden was? There's no description of it where it appears, and we have many places on earth that are just "heavenly" to stroll through.

I believe the phrase is being used the same way we use it today to describe beautiful scenery.

If the location of this destruction is in Israel (scholars are not unified in a position on its location), you can see its lush greenery in these photos:
https://www.google.com/search?q=greenery+in+israel&safe=active&client=firefox-a&hs=X3q&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=7ojnU7atOZTioATttYKoBg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoATgK&biw=1280&bih=566

So all that is beautiful in the land will be destroyed by a foreign invading army, which is left unspecified.


What does Jesus mean regarding "Raca," and "you fool?" - is he contrasting them? Matthew 5:22, KJV says

  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

The final two clauses are separated by ": but" which indicates that they are in contrast with each other. Hell seems worse than "the council" - does this mean that saying "you fool" is worse than calling someone a forbidden term of contempt ("Raca?")

I looked at other translations than the KJV, and I found where the clauses are separated by "and" instead of "but." This indicates that Jesus is somewhat repeating himself for emphasis, and perhaps even saying that they are nearly as bad as each other.

The NIV says:

  But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Young's Literal Translation says:

  but I -- I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire.

In conclusion, Jesus is saying being angry at people without good reason, calling people forbidden epithets, and simply saying "you fool" are all things that should not be done.


What is closest thing Baptists have to a catechism? I teach Sunday School at an evangelical congregation that is essentially nondenominational, but has various, historical ties to the Church of the Brethren and or one of the smaller Baptist denominations.  The pastor has generally given me free reign to come up with my own material: I send him my slides after the fact as a courtesy and to allow him to offer any correction or guidance.

I have learned in this forum that not all Christian groups have a catechism in the same way that Lutherans do.  My question is, do the Southern Baptists, American Baptist Association, or any other Baptist association have a common book that is relied on for instruction of youth in a similar way that Lutherans would have Luther's Small Catechism?  If no, is there any standard of doctrine-- even a book of systematic theology, or works of a theological hero like Charles Spurgeon-- that is trusted for doctrinal clarification beyond the bible?  If such a thing exists for "nondenominational evangelicals" and not Baptists, that's even better.

In fact, Baptists do have a catchecism.  As John Piper writes here:

  Written in 1677, "The Baptist Catechism" was patterned after the Heidelberg and Westminster catechisms to teach Reformed doctrine from a Baptist perspective.

The problem isn't the existence, but rather how many Baptists are willing to "cede my author-ITAY" (imagine your best Cartman voice) and use it...

That said, if a Baptist is going to trust anybody, John Piper is a pretty good modern bet, and the 1677 Heidleberg & Westminster Confessions, from which Piper draws all his source material, is about as good as one can get.  As far as being "trusted" then, it definitely suits the bill.  Again, your primary problem in declaring "a" Baptist anything, however, is that there is a native distrust of anything that exists outside of the local congregation, hence the waffling.

Finally, John Piper has very solid evangelical credentials, so its applicability to "nondenominational" churches should be a good bet.  As just two data points (and with evangelicals that's about as good as your going to get), I was turned on to Piper by Mike Minter, the pastor of Reston Bible Church (approximately 4000 in regular attendance) and have heard similar endorsements from Lon Solomon, pastor of McLean Bible Church, the 17th largest church in the United States.  Both of these should qualify.


How can a Christian seek out the best Homilists/Preachers? There's wide consensus: The quality and applicability of homilies/sermons vary widely from parish to parish.

This is something that all Christian churches need to take seriously because people will invariably drift from a faith and drift from a formal religious assemblage if they can't connect the message at Mass with their own lives.

So here's my question:
- How can a Christian seek out the best Homilists/Preachers?

I was a little surprised in finding the answer to this question, from a Catholic perspective at least, kind of reversed the tradition of parishes representing a contiguous geographical area.

One of the precepts of the Catholic Church is to provide for the needs of the church, the church being the universal church, the diocese and the local parish where one is a member.  I don't have the old canon reference for it, but anyone over 50 will tell you that one is "not really supposed to a parish across town".

But, if this were true, it would still say this in canon law, and it doesn't.

This, is what canon law says about the laity's obligation concerning Mass

  Can.  1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Now, you're talking about homilies and sermons, other preaching and teaching is certainly up to you to find, but homilies and sermons would only be in the context of a greater form of worship and are definitely special creatures.

But, they're not the most important part.  I don't know what the most important part of a protestant service is, but the most important part of the Catholic Mass is in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, not the Liturgy of the Word (which the homily is a part of) and that part, unless some profoundly illicit thing is happening, should have equal awesomeness wherever you go.

That being said a common complaint of apostates and other sorry folks is that, "they're not being fed" when they go to Mass.  Well, in truth, unless they're avoiding communion, which I doubt, they are being fed.  The problem is that they feel the preaching isn't reaching them.  But, that's what G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis are for and those guys aren't even priests the priest has to talk about the scripture or some part of the Mass, he can't go off on a tangent every week about the horrors of pornography.

So, before I go off on a tangent and write more than you want to read :), the best advice I can give is to go to Mass early and pray and occasionally go to a church where you know the preaching is on fire, but make sure you provide for the needs of your local church because they probably provide a lot of important services, besides preaching, which is vitally important to the needs of your, more immediate, community.


Are all of the red letter text the words of Jesus? To what extent can we be sure that the red letters in a KJV Bible are the actual words of Jesus?

The 'red letters' are not themselves part of the KJV translation. The red letters appear in many different translation of the Bible.

To answer the question: no, there is not universal agreement about exactly what words in the Bible were spoken by Jesus. The New Testament languages did not include punctuation like quote marks. Most of the time it is pretty clear from the text where Jesus words begin and end. Occasionally however it is hard to tell where a quote of Jesus ends and where an explanation from the Gospel author begins. For example in John 3 there is some uncertainty about whether Jesus quote which begins in verse 10 continues to verse 21 or stops after verse 15, with the remainder being explanation by the author.

If you are asking about actual words, then Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, and so even the original Greek is not an untranslated quote. English and other modern language renditions are further translations.


What was the timeline of the reigns of David and Ishbaal? I'm confused about the start of David's reign. Here's what I know...

Once Saul died, two things happened (2 Samuel 2:8-11):

Ishbaal started ruling the 10 northern tribes of Israel.
David was made king over Judah.

Also from 2 Samuel 2:8-11 & 4:7 we know that Ishbaal ruled for 2 years in Israel before he was assassinated, at which time David became king over a united Israel.

So it seems like the kingdom's split for around two years, with Ishbaal in the north and David ruling in the south before they joined back together again. However...

  “At Hebron [David] reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and at
  Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years.” -
  2 Samuel 5:5

So was the split 2 years with the kingdom having divided sometime during Saul's reign? (Weird because David seems to have always respected Saul's authority) Or was it that the kingdom was divided for over 7 years, but the kingdom in the north either had no king or some unnamed king for 5 of those years? Something else entirely?

Second Samuel takes up the narrative of accurate Bible history following the death of Saul, Israel’s first king, and carries it along to near the end of David’s 40-year reign. Thus, the period covered is from 1077 B.C.E. to about 1040 B.C.E. The fact that the book does not record David’s death is strong evidence that it was written about 1040 B.C.E., or just prior to his death.

At God’s direction, David and his men move their households to Hebron in the territory of Judah. Here the elders of the tribe come to anoint David as their king in 1077 B.C.E. following the death of Saul.

After the death of Saul and his other sons on the battlefield at Gilboa, Abner, a relative of Saul and the chief of his forces, took Ishbosheth, as a rival for the kingship over the nation, across the Jordan to Mahanaim, where he was installed as king over all the tribes except Judah, which recognized David as king. At the time Ishbosheth was 40 years old, and he is said to have reigned for two years. (2 Samuel 1:10 Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, was 40 years old when he became king over Israel, and he reigned for two years. The house of Judah, however, supported David.)

Since the Bible does not say exactly where this two-year reign fits in with the seven-and-a-half-year period when David ruled as king at Hebron, there is no way of resolving differences of opinion held by scholars on the point. However, it does seem more reasonable to think that Ishbosheth was made king shortly after the death of his father (rather than five years later), in which case there would have been a lapse of about five years between his assassination and David’s being installed as king over all Israel.—2Sa 2:8-11; 4:7; 5:4, 5.

There are periodic clashes between the two opposing forces, and Abner kills a brother of Joab. Finally, Abner defects to David’s camp. To David he takes Saul’s daughter Michal, for whom David long ago paid the marriage price. However, in revenge for the slaying of his brother, Joab finds an occasion for killing Abner. Soon thereafter Ishbosheth himself is murdered as he is “taking his noonday siesta.”—4:5.

Though he has already ruled as king in Judah for seven years and six months, David now becomes undisputed ruler, and representatives of the tribes anoint him as king over all Israel. This is his third anointing (1070 B.C.E.). One of David’s first acts as ruler of the entire kingdom is to capture the stronghold of Zion in Jerusalem.


Are monks allowed by Church law to set up a religious order for clergymen with a particular profession (ex. developers)? Imagine that there is a Catholic monk, who is also a full-stack developer, who, after much thinking wants to set up a religious order for clergymen who code. We have heard of clergymen (monks, priests) who are professors of various academic subjects, such as history and quantum physics. But I haven't heard of a particular religious order of clergymen who are collectively historians, scholars, etc.

Is he qualified by Church law to set up a religious order? If yes, is he allowed to define in that religious order that the people signing up in there have to be/train to become developers? If yes, what are the requirements for setting up such religious order?

Thanks!

Monica, generally speaking, there is are typical pathways under which a person who wanted to set up a community of like minded individuals could do so and get some sort of ecclesiastical recognition for the community. The way it would be most likely to happen would be that the person recruits others to join his community, then seeks ecclesiastical recognition for that community. There is no reason that a "monk" could not do this, but it would be more likely to be someone who is not already a monk, as a monk is a man who is already part of an established community. The title "monk" is typically used for a person who is not ordained, and while he might be able to recruit to his proposed community people who already are, it is more likely than not that there would be unlikely to be "clergymen" among them, as clergymen are already ordained, and it is not common for ordained people to come under the authority of a lay person in ecclesiastical affairs.

The exact process and procedure by which such a group would be set up would depend upon a number of factors. A small group operating in one place might be able to set up such a community with the permission and oversight of the local bishop. A national group with several communities in different places within the same country might need the permission and oversight of the appropriate National council of bishops; an international community, with communities widely distributed around the globe might need the permission and oversight of the appropriate office of the curia. The exact procedures to be followed might depend upon the size of the group.

I suspect that someone who is highly motivated, and dedicated to setting up such a group as you propose could do so, by recruiting members, and working with the appropriate offices of the church. In fact, if I remember correctly, some years ago, I happened across the website of a monastery (operating under the Fransiscan rule, in Arizona, US, if I recall correctly) whose members supported themselves and the mission of the monastery by doing internet work. At the time their website was recruiting members with skills in several areas related to internet page design and creation. Regrettably, I no longer remember the exact name of the monastery, but one particular characteristic I remember of the monastic website was that the name of the title of the brother who was responsible for running the website was "webservant", rather than the then more common "webmaster".


According to Reformed Covenant theology, how were the people of Israel "purchased" per Exodus 15:16? In the triumphal song of Moses, it is mentioned in 15:15 that the people were purchased.

  Exodus 15:16 Terror and dread fall upon them;         because of the
  greatness of your arm, they are still as a stone,     till your people, O
  LORD, pass by,        till the people pass by whom you have purchased.
  (ESV)

"Purchase" usually implies an exchange of one valuable thing for another valuable thing. Purchasing language becomes important in the New Testament for understanding the sense that the Lord Jesus purchased his people with his own blood. In the Exodus, there is no clear exchange taking place. The Exodus appears mainly to be a triumph of the Lord against his enemies. Yet Moses sings of a purchase.

How does Reformed covenant theology understand the purchase here described? Is this a foreshadowing of the ultimate purchase of God's people with the blood of Christ, or is there a more immediate sense that a purchase has taken place?

Covenant Theology is the framework of understanding Scripture through the lens of covenants.  The Redemption Covenant being the primary oldest one and fulfilled in Christ Jesus.  The other two are works and grace.

So, with that in mind, we know the reality that Christ purchased His people with His blood.

  In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
  Eph 1:7

  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
  Acts 20:28

In turn, we find one shadow of this in the Abraham and Isaac and ram substitute sacrifice.

But to the OP, we find the primary purchase to which Moses mentions in the form of the Passover lamb.  The blood of the lamb purchased the redemption of the people who believed.

In this sense, the nine other plagues of Egypt would also serve as lessons to some to believe God when He spoke about the 10th plague (the death of the firstborn, except for the blood of the Passover lamb).  That is the purchase price.

  And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
  Exo 12:13

In the Song of Moses, Moses is speaking about the crossing through the sea, but as a confirmation of the aforementioned purchase to actually arrive there.  First there's the purchase and then the deliverance.

  Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm they shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O LORD, till the people pass over, which thou hast purchased.
  Exo 15:16

Those purchased via the lamb's blood passed through the sea, while the chasers, the unredeemed, the unpurchased were swallowed by the earth.

Powerful imagery as a foreshadowing of Christ our Passover Lamb.

  Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
  1 Pet 1:18-19


What exactly did Pope Gregory the Great mean by "Universal Bishop?" In the 6th Century, Pope St. Gregory the Great wrote this:

  "I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the
  universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the
  precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself
  above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride
  equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be
  regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever
  would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know
  it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred
  the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic
  See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of
  us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed
  this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity
  of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren." (Orthodoxwiki)

In the 19th Century, the Bishop(s) of Rome decreed this:

  Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman
  Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other
  Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is
  both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever
  rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to
  this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true
  obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
  but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the
  Church throughout the world...

  ...In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in
  profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock
  under one Supreme Shepherd. (Pastor Aeternus)

How does a Catholic layman reconcile these two contexts?

In your question it would be very helpful to have a citation as to where in the writings of Gregory the quote is from. I followed the link provided and there is no citation there for the quote either. As a matter of fact, you can google the first sentence of the quote and find a few websites that also have the quote but leave it uncited. Knowing its context is crucial to understanding what it is saying. As a note of caution, taking Papal quotations out of context seems to be a cottage industry on the web.

The quote and its full context can be found here: Gregory to Mauricius Augustus | Book VII, Letter 33 | New Advent.

And an explanation of what Gregory was addressing can be found here:
Quick Questions (1992) | New Advent.

What follows below is taken from the New Advent article.

  "What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal
  Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who
  proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in
  588. Gregory condemned the patriarch's act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope. . . Predictably,
  anti-Catholics neglect to inform their audiences that the context of
  these statements makes it clear that Gregory was not making these
  statements in regard to himself or to any other pope. He believed the
  Bishop of Rome has primacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops."

The two contexts are not in contradiction when they are properly understood.

Secondly, the second quote comes from a Church Council. Church Councils can produce dogmatic teaching. What is written by Popes can sometimes be considered Church teaching, but not dogmatic teaching. What is written in letters by Popes is not something that could not change. As to the status of what is quoted by Gregory, it seems to me that Gregory it not really trying to make a Church teaching, but is telling a particular person what he thinks.


According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by saying "Neither this man nor his parents sinned"? John 9:3 (NIV)

  "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Here you have the clear understanding That sin brings on sickness ,but Jesus seems to have another explanation here (or in this situation).

What is Jesus saying here according to the RCC?

The Catholic Haydock Commentary on this verse says:

  Ver. 3. When Christ says that neither he nor his parents had sinned, we must not understand that he was born without original sin, nor even that he had not committed other sins. For both he and his parents had sinned; but the meaning is, that this blindness was not a penal blindness inflicted in punishment of any sin either himself or his parents had committed; but, as is afterwards subjoined, it was sent him for the manifestation of the glory of God. S. Austin, tract. xliv. in Joan.


How did Luther's view of Mary change after his new birth experience? The question is as simple as the title. Did Luther have a minor alteration in his view of Mary, or a major one after being born again?

Note: By the way Luther did use the term 'born again' for some reason people think it is a new term.

Originally Luther loved to pray to Mary:

  “I chose twenty-one saints and prayed to three every day when I celebrated mass; thus I completed the number every week. I prayed especially to the Blessed Virgin, who with her womanly heart would compassionately appease her Son.  (Luther's Works V54.340)

After being what he called born again, which is often referred to as his Tower Experience, he began to see Mary as someone the church used to commit many blasphemies in holding idolatrous esteem of her:

  I was as deep in it as all the rest, that we were plainly taught to hold Mary in Christ’s place and office. We held Christ to be our angry judge and Mary to be our throne of grace, where all our comfort and refuge lay, if we did not wish to despair. Was that not a horrible innovation? Where were the bishops who rebuked such new blasphemers and betrayers of Christ who took away Christ’s office and gave it to Mary, who taught us to flee from Christ and fear him as a whipmaster, and directed elsewhere our confidence which we owe to him as the true divine service? We have learned nothing but idolatry from these traitors! (Luther's Works V34.27


What is the biblical basis for Christians quitting their jobs? Recently upon travelling from university I came across a fairly new Christian sect called Jesus Christians.

They were handing out DVD's which had a QR code linking to a Youtube channel called A Voice In The Desert.

According to this video, they claim that the three steps to revival in Christianity are as follows:

Quit your job
Sell everything
Preach the Gospel

I know in the Gospels Jesus asks His disciples to give up certain things, and there is at least one of each occurrence of each of the above in the Gospels but has Jesus actually commanded us to do the same or was it directed to the Disciples at the time?

Moreover; what does the rest of the Bible teach about giving up jobs for Jesus? From my understanding Paul worked very hard as a tent maker as a means to support himself in his ministry, I also understand that a lawyer was mentioned in the passage below.

  Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them. Titus 3:13 (NIV)

What is the biblical basis for Christians quitting their jobs for their salvation?

Diligence and not worshiping money

There is much Scriptural basis both for being diligent in work:

  1 Cor. 4:12 And we labour, working with our own hands.

and not worshiping mammon (money):

  Matttew 6:24 No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Voluntary poverty

Voluntary poverty is one of the three evangelical counsels ("Good actions that are not prescribed by any law"); the two other evangelical counsels being chastity and obedience. The evangelical counsels are what brothers and nuns solemnly vow to practice their entire lives.

  St. Matthew 19:21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Work as an excuse not to follow Jesus

The parable of the great supper (St. Luke 14:15-24) illustrates those using work as an excuse not the follow Jesus; when the supper was ready, the invited guests

  began all at once to make excuse. The first said to him: I have bought a farm and I must needs go out and see it. I pray thee, hold me excused. And another said: I have bought five yoke of oxen and I go to try them. I pray thee, hold me excused. [vv. 18-19]

Also, that video insinuates, @4:33 ff., that Catholic priests should quit their divine duty of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; thus, these "Jesus Christians" appear to be an anti-Catholic sect.


Why were Catholic fasting obligations steadily relaxed? It seems that since the Middle Ages, the fasts prescribed by the Catholic Church were gradually but steadily reduced.  Much can be read about the history of these relaxations, but little is said about the motivation behind these relaxations.

For example, in Pope Paul VI's Paenitemini, which abolished strictly regulated fasts, he refers to responding to "the signs of the times".  Does he mean that modern life has become more stressful?  Or that our waking hours are longer than in the Middle Ages?  Or that the black fasts of the Middle Ages cause health problems?

Certainly Paul VI wanted to emphasize personal freedom and the interior/spiritual reality of penance, but there must have been other reasons.  I'm curious not only about Paul VI's motivation, but about the overarching trend through Catholicism's history.  I'd also be interested in any articles or books written on the subject.

The document that relaxed fasting obligations is Paenitemini, published in 1966. This document comes right after the Second Vatican Council, which saw a great deal of change in practices across the Catholic Church. The document, in the introduction, states:

  During the council, in fact, the Church, in an effort to arrive at a more profound meditation on the mystery of itself, examined its own nature in all its dimensions and scrutinized its human and divine, visible and invisible, temporal and eternal elements.

Later, it continues with:

  Lastly, the Church has considered more attentively its role in the earthly city,(6) a that is to say, its mission of showing man the right way to use earthly goods and to collaborate in the "consecration of the world." But at the same time it has considered more attentively its task of prompting its sons to that salutary abstinence which will forearm them against the danger of allowing themselves to be delayed by the things of this world in their pilgrimage toward their home in heaven.

Then, dealing with the issue of penitence explicitly:

  To recall and urge all the faithful to the observance of the divine precept of penitence, the Apostolic See intends to reorganize penitential discipline with practices more suited to our times. It is up to the bishops—gathered in their episcopal conferences—to establish the norms which, in their pastoral solicitude and prudence, and with the direct knowledge they have of local conditions, they consider the most opportune and efficacious.

Then:

  These means [prayer—fasting—charity] were the same throughout the centuries, but in our time there are special reasons whereby, according to the demands of various localities, it is necessary to  inculcate some special form of penitence in preference to others. Therefore, where economic well-being is greater, so much more will the witness of asceticism have to be given in order that the sons of the Church may not be involved in the spirit of the "world," and at the same time the witness of charity will have to be given to the brethren who suffer poverty and hunger beyond any barrier of nation or continent. On the other hand, in countries where the standard of living is lower, it will be more pleasing to God the Father and more useful to the members of the Body of Christ if Christians—while they seek in every way to promote better social justice—offer their suffering in prayer to the Lord in close union with the Cross of Christ.

Looking at the footnotes and references of the quote above, you find in the Sacrosantum concilium:

  During Lent penance should not be only internal and individual, but also external and social. The practice of penance should be fostered in ways that are possible in our own times and in different regions, and according to the circumstances of the faithful; it should be encouraged by the authorities mentioned in Art. 22.

Similarly, from Gaudium Et Spes:

  Those Christians are to be praised and supported, therefore, who volunteer their services to help other men and nations. Indeed, it is the duty of the whole People of God, following the word and example of the bishops, to alleviate as far as they are able the sufferings of the modern age.

Importantly, the Pope does establish a minimum universal set of fasting rules (in Chapter III). But then gives more room to (i) local conditions and (ii) works of charity as another form of penitence.

In summary, Paenitemini states:

  Therefore, the Church, while preserving—where it can be more readily observed—the custom (observed for many centuries with canonical norms) of practicing penitence also through abstinence from meat and fasting, intends to ratify with its prescriptions other forms of penitence as well, provided that it seems opportune to episcopal conferences to replace the observance of fast and abstinence with exercises of prayer and works of charity.

Can you go deeper than this? Well, that would involve some exegesis or speculation, perhaps with the help of news articles and interviews, for example in historical editions of L'Osservatore Romano (which seem not to be available online).

In conclusion, amid the spirit of change of the Second Vatican Council, fasting rules were relaxed (whilst keeping a common universal minimum) in order to give more freedom to local bishops to ordain particular rules, and also to make clear that works of charity are important in penitence. As the document states, penitence is a triad composed of "prayer - fasting - charity".


According to Reformed Theology how can God judge us if we are born sinful? This question was asked by my Atheist friend who was raised Jewish. His point was basically that if we are all inherently sinners (Rom.3:23) than how can God hold us accountable for something we cannot control? To him it seems like "the cards are stacked against us" and "God cannot be good if he concerns someone to hell for something they can't help"
I was hoping someone here has some good verses from the Bible or quotes from some well respected theologians that might help clarify this because I couldn't think of a good answer for him other that 'God can do whatever He wants because He's God'. I told him I'd research and try to find a good answer for him. Thanks in advance for the help!

Galatians 4:7

  So you are no longer a slave, but God's child; and since you are his
  child, God has made you also an heir.

so now we need to bring the good fruit

John 15:8

  This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing
  yourselves to be my disciples.

We are held accountable to what we have inherited.

1 John 3:3

  All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.

Simply said, If Christ could live holy life we can do it too. He was not spared from temptations. No excuses, that we are born sinful. Through the baptism we were born again in HS.


Any research done on the Narrative of Zosimus & Lehi's "Tree of Life" Dream in 1 Nephi (LDS scripture)? Similarities? More info on N. of Zosimus? The other day I overheard a professor briefly mention an ancient Hebraic document known as the "Narrative of Zosimus" that wasn't known to Western scholars until the late 1870's.

As his reference was tangential, I didn't gather much information beyond the fact that the story line/narrative concerned a "righteous" family that was instructed by God to leave Jerusalem before the Babylonian destruction, and that they were led to a land preserved for them. Additionally, their journey to the "blessed" land involved: a dark mist, an ocean, a great tree that bears sweet fruit, etc. (I can't remember all of it exactly, I apologize). Also, the account detailed that the family supposedly recorded their history on metal plates.

Is there more information about this ancient text?
Where can I find an English translation of the text so I can read for it myself?

While I realize that this is an ancient text that predates Christianity (supposedly, I don't have information on it), what struck me as particularly interesting was that it seemed to contain many, many parallels to Lehi's "Tree of Life" dream in 1 Nephi in the Book of Mormon.

Is there a correlation between these two texts? Are the parallels remarkable or just coincidental?

What have non-LDS scholars researched and stated about the Narrative of Zosimus?
Have any LDS scholars noted the extreme similar nature of these texts and conducted research on them? Have they proposed any theories to explain why they are so similar?

To answer all five of your questions.

Yes, there is more information.
There are English translations.  You can find a rendering of the text in English at newadvent.org. that appears to date to 18961.  There is another English rendering here with a helpful introduction.
If not a correlation, there is some similarity.

A twenty-two page analysis of text, as compared to text in Nephi, is available on line through Brigham Young University.   The author is John W. Welch, who wrote "The Narrative of Zosimus (History of the Rechabites) and the Book of Mormon" in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited (1997).  The conclusion is cited from that paper/chapter.

  Despite the many similarities set forth in this article between the
  Book of Mormon and the Narrative of Zosimus, it is difficult to draw
  any specific conclusions regarding possible direct relationships, or on
  the other hand, the independence of these documents with respect to
  each other.  We simply know too little about the authorship and
  transmission of the Narrative of Zosimus to venture any judgment about
  the kind of spiritual experiences its author had as compared with the
  visions and revelations of Lehi.  Similarly, we cannot know precisely
  what influence general literary or cultural backgrounds may have had
  upon those responsible for composing and transmitting the Narrative of
  Zosimus, or for that matter, upon Nephi as he recounted his own and his
  father's inspirations.  Perhaps someday we will have greater knowledge
  to assess what connections if any stand between these two intriguing
  ancient accounts.  In the meantime, however, it seems both reasonable
  and productive that one continue to study these two texts together.  Both deserve greater attention and neither should be erroneously
  judged amiss against valid ancient Judeo-Christianity.  Before the
  recognition of similarities, such as those between the book of Mormon
  and the Narrative of Zosimus, it was possible to reserve interest in
  the Book of Mormon by wondering why no other ancient near eastern
  books existed which closely resembled it on that score. One need
  wonder no longer.

Other scholars have shown an interest in and done work to give greater accessibility to this narrative.  From the BYU paper:

  Dr James H Charlesworth, Professor of Christian Origins at Duke
  University, Durham NC, has compiled the most complete, published
  bibliography and has made a thorough study of this long neglected
  narrative.  He concludes that its most ancient portion was
  written somewhere in Judea, that it was originally written in Hebrew,
  and that it would be unwise to ignore the possibility that this oldest
  section is a Jewish work that predates the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
  How long before AD 70 this early material was actually written down is
  difficult to tell.  The traditions underlying many sections in the
  narrative of Zosimus undoubtedly go back even further.

Dr Charlesworth produced a recent translation into English. (p. 312, same source)

  Professor Charlesworth reports having examined in Paris, Oxford, London
  and Manchester manuscripts of this document written in Greek, Syriac,
  Ethiopic, and Karshuni.  His English translation of Zosimus will appear in Doubleday's forthcoming publication of the Pseudepigraphia, and soon a new edition of the Greek Syriac and Ethiopic texts will be available in the SBL Pseudepigrapha series

Jack Welch is an LDS scholar.  You can evaluate his theories in that 22 page excerpt, which conclusion I cited.  He found it difficult to draw conclusions.  He noted that more scholarship is needed.

1 Translated by W.A. Craigie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1009.htm.


Is there an Arabic translation of the Book of Mormon? I know that the Book of Mormon is not officially printed in Hebrew, but is it officially printed in Arabic?

I know that the LDS church does not proselyte in any shape or form in the Middle East (except for parts of Turkey, I think?), but do they have the Book of Mormon translated in Arabic for the many Muslims that live outside the Middle East? I also know that proselyting to Muslims, regardless of their location, is a sensitive issue, but in special circumstances is still done. Anyway, the main question is in regards to an Arabic translation of the Book of Mormon.

Do you know where one can obtain a copy?

Yes, the Book of Mormon is translated into Arabic (كتاب مورمون), as well as the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. A scanned PDF of the Arabic Book of Mormon can be found here, and a physical copy can be purchased from Store.LDS.org. A list of other LDS materials in Arabic can be found on LDS.org.

The full Book of Mormon is currently available in 88 languages, including other Middle-Eastern languages like Persian (Farsi) and Turkish. A full list, with links, is available here:
http://scripturetools.net/availability


Why do Mathew and Luke present a different order of Satan's temptation of Jesus? Matthew 4:1–11 and Luke 4:1–13 presented a different order of the temptations Satan offered after Christ completed his forty days fasting in the wilderness

Matthew

If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread
If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down . . .
All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.

Luke

If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.
... If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.
If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here . . .

So why did they differ? Is it because either one of them forgot the order of the temptations presented? Who is right? Or, is there a theological point that is being highlighted for different purposes between the two Gospel writers?

This is sort of a combination and customization of several commentaries I perused on the subject, being curious myself.  As I am not directly copying any one of them I am not adding individual quotes.  The two that most influenced my opinion here is Edersheim and someone called Arthur Sloman.

If you read the verses carefully you will notice Luke does not imply chronology as much as Matthew.  Matthew uses the word 'then' a couple times. Luke just uses the word 'and' (i.e. this also happened among these things).  At once we should see that the gospel narratives did not have an obsession with chronology as we might have in a modern account.  Those who spend years trying to chart the 'true' chronology of the gospel events have various perplexing decisions to make and leave many things under guesswork.

To wonder why Luke may have reversed the potential chronological order of Matthew's account we can only make an educated guess.  The 'education' part in a good guess is that we do know that Luke was thinking more of a Gentile audience whereas Matthew was minding a Jewish audience.  This is often the only handle we have to try and see why one goes in a certain direction and the other not.

Using this handle of the intended audience I can see one plausible explanation. For a Jewish audience they might instinctively understand that the temptation to 'throw himself down' or to become like a powerful Lord of the earth, are both increasing degrees of the same temptation to obtain a Messianic dream the easy way. That is to prove or force his kingdom without suffering or being rejected by his people.  To a Gentile, this order of increasing temptation might go right over their heads.  Without digressing and explanation the whole context, possibly Luke was satisfied in getting a less 'deep' understanding of the temptation that might be more applicable to a Gentile audience and their temptations.  The First the temptation is just to satisfy hunger, without any direct religious significance in the desire. The Second is then to a Gentile application, to satisfy a desire for raw power (neglecting the Messianic motive to have that power and fulfill the Jewish expectation of the Messiah's rule according the the flesh).  Finally to satisfy a desire for renown recognition and fame, which seems the ultimate dream of stardom like the gods of Greece and Rome we find the grand temptation (again avoiding the complexity of the Messianic nuances of the chronological order).  Maybe Luke switched the order of these temptations so as to better connect and apply more aptly the gist of the narrative to a heathen audience entirely ignorant of the Messianic nuances that the chronological order introduces. If he used a chronological order he may have had to embark on some digression and side notes of explanation cluttering his evangelical intentions.


You might be a "fundamentalist" if ___ What sources could one appeal to if trying to argue if a doctrine was or was not consistent with fundamentalism?

The question What is fundamentalism? identifies the historical source and some of the main characteristics of fundamentalism. I am more interested in the current usage of the word an identifying when to label something as fundamentalist and when to use a different label.

There seems to be a lot of overlap beftween the scope of fundamentalist and that of other labels. The media these days bandies the word around* in a way that is generally derogitory, but it isn't exactly clear why. Sometimes it seem to refer to a very specific group as if it were a denomination. Other times it seems to mean just a general theological bent. One minute it is used to pigeon hole far out groups like Westboro Baptist Church, other times it seems to encompass most of mainstream Christianity.

Hoes does this wide ranging usage affect how Christians use the word for themselves? Particularly among those who take this label on themselves, do they refer to any authority or standard in order to do so? Is there an official authority on when one is a fundamentalist and not just somebody who holds most of the same beliefs?

For example, in the Reformed tradition there are specific creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, and identifying yourself as Reformed is commonly understood to that place you somewhere close to to these creeds. What sources would a fundamentalist turn to to show that their beliefs were or were not consistent with the way they label themselves?

*  "Evangelical" and "conservative" are viable contenders in the race for meaningless labels.

This is going to be a difficult, if not impossible question to answer to everyone's satisfaction for precisely the reason you say it should be defined. It's bandied about so much, not only by the press, but by just about everyone,that I doubt there is a universally accepted definition.

There are, however, certain characteristics that could be listed that Fundamentalists share in general.  Even there, there is not universal agreement.  Not all "fundamentalists" agree with all tenets, and plenty of those tenets are shared by those who would not identify themselves as Fundamentalists.

I don't think we can throw a list of absolutely unique individual fundamentalist beliefs, as most of the beliefs are shared with non fundamentalists.

Rather, Fundamentalism appears to being defined as a recognizable combination of beliefs and traits.

I wouldn't normally just throw a list out there without backup, but this is a unique question, and the format of the question does lend itself to just presenting a list of traits that can fill in that blank.  So here goes:

Belief that the Bible is the divinely inspired, and therefore inerrant and infallible Word of God.
Belief in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura
A strong tendency toward Biblical Literalism
Reject the notion that fallible man has any authority over infallibe Scripture
Belief in salvation by grace through faith, and not of works. (Sola Fide)
Belief in a literal Hell
Evangelical in nature

The above three are held to to such a degree that we also, in general:
(In other words, the following are not definitive Fundamentalist qualities, but rather commonly held, but not universal beliefs based on the above three qualities.)

Have a general disdain for any extra-Biblical teachings.  We see them as man "adding to" the Scripture.

We don't discount all extra-Biblical teaching, however.  If the teaching can be backed up by applying Biblical principles, as in it's implied by the Scriptures, or in line with the teachings, we will generally accept it, or at least not denounce it.

The following may or may not be as commonly held, but in my observation:

We have a tendency to be Creationists, and in particular young-earth Creationists.  (Literal reading and rejection of fallible man's scientific understanding can override God's clear word.  Yeah, that's been debated ad-nausem on the site, but I'm not defending it here, just listing it.)

We have a tendency to prefer traditional Hymns like "Amazing Grace", "How Great Thou Art" to more contemporary Christian music.
And in general we see "Christian Rock" as an oxymoron.

At least in the U.S.A., we tend to be conservative in our politics.
As a result of our belief in the strict interpretation of Scripture, the belief that Christ is the only way to avoid an eternity of suffering in Hell, we tend to come off as "pushy".  We refuse to shut up and stop witnessing, and annoy our loved ones, relatives, friends, and total strangers in our attempt to get them to see their need for salvation.

This earns us the labels as being pushy, rigid, legalistic, zealots, judgmental, and a whole host of synonyms. (Even though that's now how we see it.)


Should Catholic christians be obligated to use in vitro fertilisation? If not, why not? I've been talking with friends about different methods of contraception and the relationship of the Catholic church towards them. If I understand correctly, most widespread means of contraception (birth control pills, condoms etc.) are not acceptable as they contradict God's will (e.g. see Genesis 9:7).
However does this mean that one should try to have children by all means? If not, why not? Would Catholics be obligated to use Viagra, if it aided them to conceive a child? Wouldn't it be a moral obligation to use more invasive methods as in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection?

I think it boils down to the question, if God wants man to reproduce (as much as they can?) or if that should only happen with the available means without medical help. However then any medical help that prevents one from dying during childhood is artifically helping you to reproduce.

We merely had an amusing conversation about the topic and thought this was a funny provocative question to ask a Catholic. However I am seriously interested in an answer as I had not come across this question before and I'd be interested how it would be approached by someone with more insight.

This question was split in two and the striked-out part has been moved to: What is the Catholic Church's attitude to the use of Viagra in marriage?

tl;dr> The Church opposes in vitro fertilisation, but not because it is humanity playing at being God.

The first port of call in determining what the Catholic Church teaches is always the Catechism. If question can be answered by fundamental principles, the answer is likely to be found there. So: first it's necessary to examine the fundamental principles.
The Catechism states

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39
1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

Even though the creation of life is good, it cannot justify a sinful method.
Is in vitro fertilisation a sin?

1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. the Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

Is in vitro fertilisation contrary to the eternal law?
Eternal law is “the source — in God — of all law”. It finds its expression in what is called moral law.

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

In vitro fertilisation is obviously an intervention designed to overcome what is seen to be a defect — the inability to conceive naturally. But this condition is part of God's plan.

1936 On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth.41 The "talents" are not distributed equally.42
1937 These differences belong to God's plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular "talents" share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures:

I distribute the virtues quite diversely; I do not give all of them to each person, but some to one, some to others.... I shall give principally charity to one; justice to another; humility to this one, a living faith to that one.... and so I have given many gifts and graces, both spiritual and temporal, with such diversity that I have not given everything to one single person, so that you may be constrained to practice charity towards one another.... I have willed that one should need another and that all should be my ministers in distributing the graces and gifts they have received from me.43

The ability to create life in vitro may also be seen as a talent not given to everyone, to be shared with those who need it.
So: both infertility and the ability to counter it appear to be God-given. The one is the result of Original Sin whereby imperfection entered the world, and which it is part of the human condition to bear. The other may be given for temporal alleviation prior to eternal bliss where there shall be neither tears nor cryingA; or it too is sinful because it counters God's plan.
Well done for reading this far; unfortunately in vitro fertilisation appears to fall between two fundamental principles.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has recognised this dichotomy in an Instruction:

These interventions are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life.
From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence ... modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time ... to find its place and to be in a position to act.25

The artificial creation of life is not inherently wrong. But

Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of a specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ETB, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with God for giving life to a new person".50

The way in which artificial fertilisation and the methods associated with in vitro creation of life can be and are inherently wrong. The expression of sperm is generally outside the conjugal act and “is another sign of this dissociation [between the unitive act of love and the act of procreation]: even when it is done for the purpose of procreation, the act remains deprived of its unitive meaning: ‘It lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love”’.54”
A procedure included in most implementations of IVF is the disposal of surplus embryos. That is, once life is created in the zygote with the fertilisation, any which are “not required” are destroyed.

... every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.

To destroy life is repugnant to the Church.
All the while it is impossible to unite the methods of IVF with conjugal union,

... in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remain opposed from the moral point of view to homologous in vitro fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.

25 CDF Declaration on Procured Abortion, 12-13: AAS 66 (1974) 738.
39 Cf Matt 6:24
41 Cf Gaudium et Spes 29 # 2.
42 Cf Matt 25:14–30; Luke 19:27
43 S Catherine of Siena, Dial. I, 7.
50 Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. 14: AAS 74 (1982) 96.
54 CDF Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual ethics, 9: AAS 68 (1976) 86: Gaudium et Spes, 51. Cf. Decree of the Holy Office, 2 August 1929: AAS 21 (1929) 490; Pope Pius XII, Discourse to those taking part in the 26th Congress of the Italian Society of Urology, 8 October 1953: AAS 45 (1953) 678.
121 S Augustine, Contra Faustum 22: PL 42, 418; S Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II, 71, 6
127 Gal 5:19-21 CE; Rom 1:28-32; 1 Cor 9-10; Eph 5:3-5; Col 3:5-8; 1 Tim 9-10; 2 Tim 2-5.
A Cf Rev 21:4
B Homologous (between husband and wife) in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer


Why (how) does Jesus' coat have no seam? When Jesus is arrested and His captors take His clothes, they split them in four parts. However, His coat they did not split, as John records, "the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout." See John 19:23,24.

Is this seamless robe only significant because it led to the fulfillment of the scripture in Psalm 22? Is there a theological or doctrinal symbolic significance of having no seam?

I don't even know the process of weaving - how would you make a coat without seams? (I assume it has sleeves)

There is definitely theological significance to the seamless tunic of Jesus, "woven from the top throughout."  Here is a linguistic argument for that significance.

The Greek for John 19:23 (Nestlé-Aland) says εκ την ανωθεν υψαντος δι ολου.  ek ten anothen hupsatos di holou   "From the top woven by entirety", literally.

That same word ανωθεν (anothen, from the top) happens to show up in John 3:7, which says in the KJV, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, "Ye must be born again." The Greek phrase is δει υμας γεννηθηναι ανωθεν.  It-is-necessary you will-be-born again? top?.

Jesus's garment is woven from the top in just one piece. Yet we must be born (again?) (from above?)  Is it possible that the seamless wholeness of the garment is a symbol of the wholeness conferred by baptism?


How did the Gift of the Holy Ghost operate before Christ came? How did the Gift of the Holy Ghost operate before Christ came? In particular, I'm wondering how it operated among the ancient Jewish people, who only had the Aaronic priesthood, and therefore would not be able to give the gift of the holy ghost.

The Holy Ghost has many duties.  Some are available to people before the ordinances of baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost (in other words: they are alwyas available), others are only available after both those ordinances are performed.  Others still are unique (such as His involvement with the conception of Jesus).

His duties before the ordinances

The Gifts of the Spirit (healing, tongues, etc.).  1 Cor. 12:7
The Holy Ghost testifies...

of Jesus Christ. John 15:26-27
that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Moroni 10:3-4
and all other truth. Moroni 10:5

He brings things to rememberance and teaches. John 14:26
See God before death. D&C 76:118
To comfort us. Alma 17:10, Acts 9:31, Moroni 8:26

His duties after the ordinances

The ministering of angels by the power of the Holy Ghost.1 2 Nephi 32:3
Gives us authority to speak of Christ. D&C 63:61-64 (example: Acts 18:5-6)
The Holy Spirit of Promise (Eph 4:30; D&C 124:124).  It is by this duty that the Sealing power is made active and people are able to have their calling and election made sure.  Before the covenant of Baptism there are no covenants to seal, it being the first personal covenant and therefore required to eventually have your calling and election made sure.  Becoming "born again" (Moses 6:58-60; John 3:1-7) or receiving the "mighty change of heart" described by Alma is being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  See JST 1 John 3:9; 1 John 5:1,4,18; Mosiah 27:25-28; Alma 5:11-16.

What is the gift (not the Gift) of the Holy Ghost?

Consider these words from the prophet Alma.  He was talking to the people of Ammonihah about the nature of the Nephite people (before their descent into wickedness).

  Having been visited by the Spirit of God; having conversed with angels, and having been spoken unto by the voice of the Lord; and having the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and also many gifts, the gift of speaking with tongues, and the gift of preaching, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the gift of translation;  (Alma 9:21, emphasis mine)

Here the "gift of the Holy Ghost" is lumped in with the other gifts of the Spirit.  That almost seems counter-intuitive until you realize that the power and manifestation of the Holy Ghost is something anyone can receive (remember that list of pre-ordinance duties).  The Holy Ghost's influence on our lives is truly a gift, a gift that can be lost through iniquity, withdrawn to teach humility, or is sometimes simply withdrawn, perhaps to see how we will act of our own free will.  An example of this last condition is the withdrawl of the Holy Ghost from Jesus Christ as He hung on the cross, because the choice to die a sacrifice for us all had to be His, and His alone.

This function, those duties, this gift, has existed from the days of Adam until now.  And it was bestowed upon Adam before his baptism, and the official "Gift of the Holy Ghost".  (Which means that the Gift of the Holy Ghost was available from Adam to his decendants until the general loss of the Melchizedek Priesthood during Moses' time.  I'll get to that in a moment.)

And the Gift of the Holy Ghost is...

The "Gift of the Holy Ghost" is an ordinance, not a condition or state of being.  The words of the ordinance, "receive the Holy Ghost" do not convey universal access to the Holy Ghost.  Indeed, because the influence (or gift, as Alma put it) of the Holy Ghost can and will be withdrawn for many reasons (mostly iniquity), the ordinance cannot and does not create a special relationship with the Holy Ghost.

But it does mean two things can now happen that couldn't happen before: the ability to authoritatively testify of Christ and the sealing blessing of the Holy Spirit of Promise.  It is these we are invited to receive by ordinance, this ultimate Gift through the power of the Holy Ghost.

TL;DR - So what does this mean for Mosaic Israel?

As a people, ancient Israel lost access to the blessings of the Melchizedek Priesthood.  They had the authority to baptize, but generally did not have the authority to perform the ordinance of giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  Moses had that authority (as all the OT prophets did, having the Melchizedek Priesthood) but general access to that privilege was withdrawn.

Which means Mosaic Israel had (and has) access to all the functions of the Holy Ghost save two: they may not yet testify with authority about Jesus Christ or be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  Access to this gift through the ordinance of giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost must now be done vicariously as must the act of sealing their marriages, etc.

Please note that I felt this answer was plenty long, so I didn't go into detail as to when the blessings of the Melchizedek Priesthood were accessible but unavailable due to apostasy (such as just before the Flood), etc.

1  Moroni 7:25-32 teaches us about the duties and affiliations of ministering angels.  I'm studying this now.  One of the duties is to fulfil and to do the work of the covenants of the Father, which I currently believe would be outside the authority or duties of the Holy Ghost.  Another is to prepare the way among the children of men, by declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels of the Lord.  That is within the authority or duties of the Holy Ghost.  Verse 7 teaches they are subject unto Christ, but 2 Nephi 32:3 teaches they speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.  My heart tells me there isn't a discrepency here despite not having yet tracked down all the details.  I do know from scriptural examples that ministering angels often serve in roles that are traditionally given to the Holy Ghost.  Thus, my current conclusion that before the ordinance only angels serving in the first duty mentioned (doing the work ... of the Father) may be seen by people (example: Cornelius, Acts 10) but after the ordinance the righteous may call on angels to minister to them through the power of the Holy Ghost (which is further supported by the Aaronic Priesthood Key to the Ministering of Angels, consider especially the Key to the Gospel of Repentance).  It's a work in progress...*


Does the Roman Catholic church consider HIPAA to be an unjust law? HIPAA, the United States Health Care Privacy Law has been in effect for nearly two decades.  It's the law that makes people all nervous about talking about other people's well being with their doctors and I've got a feeling it cuts in to Catholic Social teaching, but I can't say exactly why.
According to the Catholic social teaching, the principle of subsidiarity laws are best crafted at the an appropriate level

Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."
CCC 1883

I got off on a bit of a tangent today at my Religious Ed. class telling the 13 and 14 year olds that HIPAA was in direct violation of Catholic Social teaching because of the part that potentially removes their parents from the loop of their healthcare decisions.
So, my question is, should a family ever be trumped by a higher order when it comes to medicine?

There's no clear-cut, doctrinal, or official Roman Catholic stance on HIPAA. In general, Catholic organizations willingly comply with HIPAA. To that point, a quick search shows a lot of Catholic organizations describing their members' rights under HIPAA.

More notably, if there were a doctrinal issue with a national policy like HIPAA on any grounds, that of subsidiarity or otherwise, I would expect to see a statement and/or resistance from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. For instance, there are numerous statements and commentaries opposing portions of the Affordable Care Act. Not so with HIPAA. The only mention on their site is a wellness document, in which the rationale for requiring "new sisters" to provide HIPAA and DPOA forms is summarized like so:

  We bind ourselves to the members of the community, trusting in their
  faithfulness to support us.

So, it seems to me that the USCCB, or whatever subsidiary this is, feels no need to object to these policies. And to the contrary is highly respectful of them, pointing out that the HIPAA release papers demand is justified by the intended level trust and support in their community, which implicitly makes the request a bit extraordinary. Whether that level of respect for HIPAA and medical privacy extends to every "application" may be a different matter.

So, there are two things to keep in mind:

Subsidiary is a single, vague social guideline among many; not an overarching, specific moral precept. Subsidiarity demands that we handle things as close to the issue as possible. But, the motivation to escalate to higher levels of community and government stem from the Catholic principle of solidarity. And both of these principles are meaningless without the context of another moral need or needs: In this case, the right to individual privacy, the responsibilities of a parent, and the obligations of medical practitioners.
The Church explicitly avoids speaking on most matters. You're expected to reason things out and use your conscience. There's a lot to think about. The specific issues you're familiar with may or may not be representative of the broader application. Without overanalyzing, acknowledge the complexity. And vocalize that our judgement if it seems imperative.

There may be moral issues with certain applications of HIPAA. Presently, the moral issues are either isolated or negligible enough in the eyes of the Catholic Church to warrant widespread Catholic compliance.

As to whether HIPAA erodes parental rights, maybe. Maybe not. With respect to parental rights and responsibilities, I would personally be inclined to argue in favor of HIPAA or HIPAA-like legislation for two reasons:

HIPAA allows kids to receive medical care without fear of disproportionate punishment and judgement. It's not all that dissimilar, in my opinion, from the seal of confession. Like every parent, I'm far from perfect. And we tend overreact and punish for more than an offense is worth. I don't want the fear parental overreaction to stand in the way of medical treatment. (Or spiritual treatment!)
My kids will know the Catholic stuff either way. They will make mistakes. Some of them may be downright egregious. But, they'll know my beliefs regardless of whether I'm informed enough to distribute a consequence for every mistake. And because I'm far from a perfect parent, far from an effective disciplinarian in emotional situations, it's probably better in some cases that I don't know what they've done, and rather allow the kids to reflect on their own actions based on what they know I/we believe.

And to the extent that any parent succeeds in charitably correcting their kids' behavior with due mercy, I presume the kids will be open about their lives. To the extent that any parent reacts selfishly, degrading, devaluing, or disproportionately punishing, I suspect that kids will be private about their sins.

HIPAA lets doctors do their work without forcing them to double as spies for parents. And it lets kids seek needed treatment without worrying that their doctor is a spy! And this agreement, I suspect, does not stand in the way of a healthy parent-child relationship.


"How do I get more faith?" - how to understand Jesus' answer? The question, "How do I get more faith?" has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:

Luke 17:5-6
The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.

It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus "How do I get more faith?" (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, "Yes, it would be great if you had more faith." But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.
So, how should I interpret His answer?

Jesus was saying to the apostles that they didn't need more faith.

Faith is not an act, although it can be demonstrated by the way you act.  Rather, faith is an attitude, an understanding that things will work out as they should, under God's plan.

There are many places in the Bible that basically say not to try and do things all by yourself.  "Rely not on your own understanding," but on God's.  Faith doesn't require effort; it requires surrender.  Surrender is hard, not because it is something we must "do," but because it is something we do not always allow.

Faith is not something you can "measure."  In a very real sense, there is no such thing as "more faith."  You can not surrender "more," you can only surrender completely.


What does one do when morality and honor conflicts with solidarity? Ideally, one would both be able to be honorable (i.e. to do the right thing especially with regard to others) and be in solidarity with relatives and friends (i.e. to support them, especially when they come into conflict with others).

What Biblical advice—according to Protestant interpretations and accepted texts, and a modern translation like NIV or ESV, if there is not a common view on this matter—is there for situations when these two virtues are at odds: when someone with whom you would normally be in solidarity does something dishonorable?  Does it make a difference how serious the offense is (e.g. allegations of abuse vs. going back on the spirit of but not the exact letter of an agreement about some mundane matter)?

Honor is not a particularly Christian virtue. It is mentioned biblically, but not nearly as often as other virtues we are expected to follow, particularly the most important one, Love. You haven't defined honor particularly clearly, but where your definition conflicts with Love,  a Christian should be loving rather than honorable.

As for solidarity with friends and relatives, the Bible (the New Testament) explicitly says  it is forbidden to favour your friends and relatives over other people. While there are certainly commands to honor those close to you ("Honor your father and mother") that does not imply that you should take their side just because they are related to you. "Honor" is not the same as the unthinking solidarity you seem to be talking about. If your father or mother do something terrible you are not expected to shield them from justice. Matthew 5:43-47:

  You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


How does Christianity explain the health benefits of sexual intercourse I have a lot of friends (both Christians and non-Christians) that are currently taking human sexuality courses in school. These friends will come to me and tell me about the health benefits of sexual intercourse. I've done some research myself on the topic and I find many physical health benefits of the human body having regular orgasms. These scientific studies claim that even masturbation causes the body to experience these health benefits. These benefits include things like stress relief, strengthened immune system, lower blood pressure and heart attack risk, brain stimulation, and the list goes on.

As a new Christian, this is all very confusing information to me. I suppose my question comes down to: *Why would God create us to physically benefit from sexual immorality and masturbation if these things are evil/immoral?
*

It is a misconception that the Bible is anti-sex.

Indeed, the Song of Solomon is an erotic love story.
Even the Catholic Church admits that sex is supposed to be pleasurable. Likewise, the only story about masturbation really doesn't say that masturbation is the reason for punishment.  And, even Southern Baptists are saying that the church needs to be more sex-positive - in the right context

That the church would teach that sex should be reserved for marriage is consistent with it - most sexologists will tell you that sex is better with the same partner.

In Hookups, Inequality Still Reigns - NYTimes.com

  “As far as my ability to climax consistently, that’s something I was able to have in my monogamous relationships that I never had” in less committed circumstances, she said. ... Yet mediocre sex was a small price to pay “for the freedom to be able to enjoy it all.” The physical aspect of a tryst with a relative stranger was gratifying, she said, even if her chances of reaching orgasm were limited. When her partner’s performance was lackluster, she still took pride in her own sexual prowess.

This article was interesting to me in how it keeps justifying the sexual revolution. It flat out admits that casual sex isn't nearly as good as committed - but they continue to say, “Go for it anyways!” By contrast, a committed, monogamous, marriage-based relationship is one that is far more fulfilling to emotional and mental health.


How old was Flavian of Constantinople, roughly, when he died? I have a timeline of church history that I've been building that includes things like councils, important dates, and lifespans. I would like to add Flavian of Constantinople, but have been unable to find even an estimated birth date for him. I recognize that the farther you go back in church history, the harder it is to find precise dates, and I'm okay with that. If I could even guess the decade of his life in which he died, that would give me at least something to go off. However, everywhere I find information about him simply lists his birth date as unknown.

Do we have any information at all with which to at least form an estimate? Given that he was archbishop, does that suggest that he was older?

I assume you are referring to Flavian the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople from 446 to 449.

There are a couple of online hagiographies available (e.g. this one from the Orthodox Church in America).  There is a much more detailed description of his life (6 pages) in Sergius of Radonezh' Lives of the Saints, available in English translation from Chrysostom Press (he is commemorated on February 18 in the Slavic churches, February 16th in the Greek).

Unfortunately, the only dates are probably ones you have already found - that he was Patriarch from 446 until 449, when he was martyred.  We do know that at the time he was made Patriarch he was a presbyter at the Great Church of Constantinople (in fact, a skevophylax - responsible for the sacred property of the Church).  I believe that a Church canon arising prior to that time required that one be at least 30 years old before being ordained presbyter, though I haven't been able to find it.

If, in fact, such a canon existed prior to his time, and if he met the canonical age requirement (exceptions seem to be frequent), then the best we can do would be to set an upper bound on his birth year at 416.

I read through St. Sergius account along with accounts in a shorter Greek Synaxiarion and in the even shorter Prologue of Ohrid and neither make any mention of his being old or feeble at the time he was martyred.  Admittedly, this is pretty thin, but perhaps we could assume that he would be no more than 50 years old at his death in 449.  This would place a lower bound of perhaps 399 AD on his birth.

So with virtually no solid information, we surmise that he was born between 399 and 416 AD.


What color was Augustine's skin? Ok, let me start by saying I don't think more or less of a person because of the color of their skin. I consider racism to be both misguided and a sin.  But, when I visualize a person, I like to think of them in ways that at least approximate their actual appearance.

I am skimming some works of that greatest of the Patristics - Augustine of Hippo, later the Bishop of Milan (in Italy), but hailing from what is today, Tunisia.  He wrote the City of God and the Confessions - two classics still studied more than 1500 years after their creation.

And, as I consider the young Augustine of Hippo - a region of northern Africa, nowadays near the Algerian / Tunisian border - I have this image of a white guy in my head.

That said, he was from Africa.  And indeed, this seems wholly legitimate as well.

And, then I remember, the Arab Invasions that went alongside the rise of Islam also changed the area as well.

So, it's a simple question - Was Augustine white or black?  Many of the Church Fathers from Alexandria to Carthage would have probably shared this legacy, and I'm just sort of curious - What did they look like?

He's the product of Patricius and St. Monica.
Monica

Augustine's mother's name, Monica, is Berber ... the names Monnica and Nonnica are found on tombstones in the Libyan language - as such Monnica is the only Berber name commonly used in English
From Wikipedia citation of Michael Brett and Elizabeth Fentress, The Berbers, Wiley-Blackwell, 1997, p.71, 293

Patricius
Patricius probably was a Curiale and he was definitely a pagan of the Roman sort, not the tribal African sort.
Conclusion
So, my money is that he looked like his mom, who according to scant evidence was a Berber, like these people:

(source: wikimedia.org)