Was Mary ceremoniously married to Joseph when she left to serve Elizabeth? We see at Mtt 1: 18-24, how Joseph was asked to accept Mary as his wife.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.......... Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife.

Luke, from his side,  gives an account of the Annunciation and the Visit of Mary to Elizabeth “in those days" at Chapter 1: 26-45.
In case Mary visited Elizabeth just after the Annunciation, she may not have been ceremoniously married to Joseph. But if she stayed put at her home after the Annunciation till the marriage would be over, she would have become visibly pregnant as referred to at Mtt 1:18. But then, Joseph, her husband would have accompanied her to the place of Elizabeth. And in case he did not go, Mary would have been asked by Elizabeth : "Why did you come alone?" The sequence of events therefore points to the possibility that Mary left to meet Elizabeth just after the Annunciation, came back after three months to tell Joseph that she was pregnant with Jesus, and then they got ceremoniously married . My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, was Mary ceremoniously married to Joseph when she left to serve Elizabeth?

Was Mary ceremoniously married to Joseph before she left to serve Elizabeth?
The short answer is yes.

When the Archangel Gabriel visited Mary and declared unto her that she was called to be the Mother of God, as we see recorded in Luke 1, her response would become the cause of the spilling of a whole lot of ink over the centuries: “How shall this happen, since I know not man?” (v. 34, Douay Rheims, Confraternity Edition).
For Catholics this is an indication of Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity. It’s really quite simple. If Mary and Joseph were just an ordinary couple embarking on a normal married life together, there would be no reason to ask the question. Mary would have known very well how it could be that the angel was saying she would have a baby. As St. Augustine said it:

Had she intended to know man, she would not have been amazed. Her amazement is a sign of the vow (Sermon 225, 2).

There was no such thing as engagement (as it is understood in modern Western culture) in ancient Israel. The text says Mary was “betrothed” or “espoused” (Gr.—emnesteumene), not engaged. Betrothal, in ancient Israel, would be akin to the ratification of a marriage (when a couple exchanges vows in the presence of an official witness of the Church) in Catholic theology. That ratified marriage is then consummated—in the normal course—on the couple’s wedding night. So when Luke 1:27 says Mary was betrothed, it means they were already married at the time of the annunciation. If this were an ordinary marriage, St. Joseph would then have had a husband’s right to the marriage bed—the consummation.
For those who are not convinced “betrothed” equals “married” for Mary and Joseph; fortunately, the Bible makes this quite clear. If we move forward in time from the “annunciation” of Luke 1 to Matthew 1 and St. Joseph’s discovery of Mary’s pregnancy, we find Matthew 1:18 clearly stating Mary and Joseph were still “betrothed.” Yet, when Joseph found out Mary was “with child,” he determined he would “send her away privately” (vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the RSVCE to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged?
Further, the angel then tells Joseph:

Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife (vss. 20-24).

Notice, Joseph took Mary “his wife,” indicating both St. Matthew and an archangel considered this couple married even though they were said to be “betrothed.” “Betrothed” is obviously much more than “engaged.”
Moreover, months later we find Joseph and Mary travelling together to Bethlehem to be enrolled as a family according to the decree of Caesar Augustus, just before Jesus would be born. They were obviously married; yet, even then, they were still said to be “betrothed” (see Luke 2:5).
So let’s recap what have we have uncovered. First, Joseph had already taken his espoused “wife” into his home and was caring for her. Second, Scripture reveals him to be her legal husband and to have travelled with Mary to be enrolled with her as a lawfully wedded couple and family. Third, she was called St. Joseph’s “wife” by the angel of the Lord… and yet, they were still referred to as betrothed. - When Were Joseph and Mary Married?

It has also been the constant tradition of the Church that St. Joseph and Our Lady were married in a religious ceremony. This idea has been expressed in Sacred Art and the liturgy as well as in tradition itself.

The Golden Legend, which derives its account from the much older Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, recounts how, when Mary was 14 and living in the Temple, the High Priest gathered all male descendants of David of marriageable age including Saint Joseph (though he was much older than the rest). The High Priest ordered them to each bring a rod; he that owned the rod which would bear flowers was divinely ordained to become Mary's husband. After the Holy Spirit descended as a dove and caused Joseph's rod to blossom, he and Mary were wed according to Jewish custom. The account, quoted in its entirety, runs thus:

When [Mary] had come to her fourteenth year, the high priest announced to all that the virgins who were reared in the Temple, and who had reached the age of their womanhood, should return to their own, and be given in lawful marriage. The rest obeyed the command, and Mary alone answered that this she could not do, both because her parents had dedicated her to the service of the Lord, and because she herself had vowed her virginity to God.... When the high priest went in to take counsel with God, a voice came forth from the oratory for all to hear, and it said that of all the marriageable men of the house of David who had not yet taken a wife, each should bring a branch and lay it upon the altar, that one of the branches would burst into flower and upon it the Holy Ghost would come to rest in the form of a dove, according to the prophecy of Isaias, and that he to whom this branch belonged would be the one to whom the virgin should be espoused. Joseph was among the men who came.... [and he] placed a branch upon the altar, and straightaway it burst into bloom, and a dove came from Heaven and perched at its summit; whereby it was manifest to all that the Virgin was to become the spouse of Joseph.

In fact, neither the Golden Legend nor any of the early apocryphal accounts describe the actual ceremony, and they differ as to its timing, other than that it preceded the "Journey to Bethlehem". It is unclear whether this story was set before or after the Annunciation which, in the New Testament account, occurred after their betrothal but before their marriage. In the Gospel of James it comes after the Annunciation, but in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, the primary source in the West, it comes before it. - Marriage of the Virgin

A feast in honour of The Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary or Marriage of the Virgin Mary was celebrated in certain parts of the Roman Catholic Church among certain congregations such as the Oblates of St. Joseph. It was removed from many local calendars by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. It was formerly generally observed on January 23.

The first definite knowledge of a feast in honour of the espousals of Mary dates from 29 Aug., 1517, when with nine other Masses in honour of Mary, it was granted by Leo X to the Nuns of the Annunciation, founded by Sainte Jeanne de Valois. This feast was celebrated on 22 October as a double of the second class. Its Mass, however, honoured the Blessed Virgin exclusively; it hardly mentioned St. Joseph and therefore did not correspond to the idea of Gerson. Also purely as a feast of Mary it appears in the Missal of the Franciscans, to whom it was granted 21 Aug., 1537, for 7 March (double major). About the same time the Servites obtained the feast for 8 March. The Office of the Nativity of Mary was recited, changing the word Nativilas to Desponsatio. After the religious orders, among the dioceses which adopted the feast of the Espousals of Mary, Arras takes the lead. It has been kept there since 23 Jan., 1556. - Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary

In Matthew 1:16, Joseph is described as the husband of Mary. It is probable that Joseph and Mary were betrothed at Nazareth. The term "betrothal" indicates more than an engagement. It was customary to celebrate marriage in two stages, the first that of the contractual arrangements culminating in consent or "betrothal". After a period of perhaps one year in which preparations were made to establish a new home together, the second stage of actually conveying the wife to that home would be accompanied by a great feast such as that recounted in the Gospel of John as the Marriage Feast at Cana (Jn 2:1-11).

The Marriage of the Virgin (Raphael in 1504)


What happens if a host is dropped during communion? (Catholic) At around 1:15:05 of the movie Therese (based on the life of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, late XIX century), we can see the host being dropped and then put in a piece of cloth and taken away. This seems consistent with the (modern) guidelines given in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM):

  If a host or any particle should fall, it is to be picked up reverently.

What is unclear however is what is done to the host. This contrasts with the case of the wine, where the instruction is clear. These words immediately follow those above:

  If any of the Precious Blood is spilled, the area where the spill occurred should be washed with water, and this water should then be poured into the sacrarium in the sacristy.

The GIRM does not seem to provide any direct guidance regarding the fallen host. Is it purified somewhere and eaten?

A consecrated host that cannot be consumed will be disposed of by placing it in water. This water, in turn, is to be poured through the sanctuarium (within the sacristy) into the ground.

Source: How should one dispose of a consecrated host which was placed in the mouth of an ill person who, in the end, was unable to swallow it?

I am suprised that it is not stated in the GIRM, but maybe it was obvious for the authors of this document.


Protestant explanation of an immortal spirit Some Christian denominations think that the spirit is not immortal and that death is like sleeping.

When Christ comes back he would resurrect the dead bodies from within the ground (like God made Adam from the earth).

  Revelation 20:5-6 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the
  thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed
  and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such
  the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of
  Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

My questions are -

If the spirit is immortal what is the meaning of second death? The first death is death of body. Can the spirit also die?
If we go to heaven when we die how does the resurrection work? Would our spirits be taken from heaven and reinserted into a body?

To understand this perspective, it is better to think of "death" as "a separation", rather than "a ceasing to exist".  So, when you "die", your spirit is separated from your flesh, and from this world.

1) The second death is the ultimate separation of (the spirits of) sinners from the presence of God.

2) Indeed, (the spirits of) those who are "resurrected" will receive new bodies (see below), although we don't yet know what that will look like, exactly.  But we do know we won't be raised into the same body we had here on earth.

  But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?”...  All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts... There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies... So also is the resurrection of the dead...  it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body... Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly -1 Corinthians 15:35-49

Q&A

Why would a person believe that the spirit lives on when the body is dead?  Answer: There are many passages (such as this one) that indicate that prior to the "first resurrection" and "second death", the spirits of those who have died are still "alive".
Aren't the spirits of sinners already separated from God?  Answer: No; not in the ultimate sense.  There is a lot more grace in the lives of sinners right now than people realize.  The separation that comes at the final judgment is too terrible to describe in words.  Clearly sinners are not experiencing the torment of that ultimate separation here on earth.


Creed, Encyclical, Decretal, Canon, Bull, etc - What's the difference? In Catholicism, what is the difference between a Creed, an Encyclical, a Decretal, a Canon and a Papal Bull? Are there any other decrees or formal or informal outlines of official church doctrine used by the Catholic church and  are any excluded from or exclusively used for inerrant revelation from God by the Pope?

CreedThis word comes from the Latin verb credo, which means "I believe." A creed is a collection of articles of the faith* which are necessary to believe for salvation; "creed" can also refer to an individual article of faith. A Sovereign Pontiff can draw up a symbol of faith, and he must do so if the faith is endangered by errors; e.g., the Arian heresy prompted Pope St. Sylvester I, under the guidance of the Council of Nicea, to draw up the Nicene Creed; or Pope Damasus to approve the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of the First Council of Constantinople. Other creeds include the Apostle's Creed and the Athanasian Creed.*The collection of articles of the faith is also called a "symbol," from "συμβάλλειν," which means "to throw together," i.e., a collection.
EncyclicalThese "circular letters" are circulated globally, to all the faithful, and they are meant to express the mind of the Pope. They are not per se infallible, but they are infallible wherever they reiterate previous infallible teaching. Pope Leo XIII was the first pope to write encyclical letters.Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), wrote, concerning the assent the faithful must give to encyclicals:20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[Luke, X, 16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
DecretalThis is a somewhat more archaic term that refers to a papal decree, e.g., an official response to a question of discipline.
CanonThis word has several meanings (see them all here), depending on the context, but etymologically it comes from the Latin and Greek meaning "rule." In the present context of "official church doctrine," "canon" means "a short definition of some dogmatic truth, with attached anathema, made as a rule by general councils" (source), which are approved by a Pope. For example, this is one of the canons of the First Vatican Council (1870):1. If any one shall say that human reason is so independent that faith can not be enjoined upon it by God: let him be anathema.and one from the 24th Session of the Council of Trent (1563):Canon II.—If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law: let him be anathema.
Papal BullThis word comes from the Latin bulla, which refers to the stamped seal on the letter that shows it's authentically from the Pope. Thus, a papal bull is simply an authoritative papal document. Here's the leaden bulla of Pope Urban V:and the bulla of Pope Urban VIII attached to his letter:

Popes can use the medium of bulls, encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, or briefs to speak ex cathedra (i.e., infallibly).**cf. 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. What I mention here is discussed on PDF p. 17 of the section "Chiarezza e volontà di definire" (Italian edition) or p. 19 of the Latin edition.

See also my answer regarding when a Pope is infallible.


Why can't Catholicism just drop its Marian devotion? Catholicism puts great emphasis on the importance on the Mary, the Mother of God. It honors her and insists upon her perpetual sinlessness and perpetual virginity. And in my observation, it seems as though this high opinion of and devotion to Mary is integral to Catholicism.

This is very much in contrast to Protestant traditions which insist that Christ is of sole importance. In the loosely-quoted words of many-a-Protestants:

  Why wouldn't a Christian's devotion be to Christ alone? Why set up
  intermediaries where none are needed? And why contort Mary's role as
  having any more significance than Christ's physical, human mother?
  Doesn't that smell like idolatry to you!?

So, why is she so important in and seemingly integral to Catholicism? Is there theological, symbolic, or spiritual significance?

Do they just assume if they can convince Mary to pray for them, Jesus has to listen because she's His mom? (Lest he be put on a heavenly time-out?)

For the sake of Christian unity or otherwise, why can't the Catholic Church just drop the Marian devotion?

Addendum/Clarification: Is the theology and practice surrounding Mary roughly as integral to Catholicism as the doctrine and meditation of the Holy Trinity? Eliminating the doctrine of the Trinity would fundamentally change the Catholic understanding of God. Would eliminating Mary also change the Catholic understanding of God?

There are many reasons why Catholics practice Marian devotion. One reason, given by Catholic Pam Brink, is that “If I ignore Mary, I am being disrespectful to Jesus”. Catholic apologist David MacDonald makes the same argument in Why do Catholics pray to Mary?: Is it not disrespectful to someone not to honour his mother?

Another reason David gives is that, like fellow believers on earth, the saints in heaven (especially Jesus' mother) pray for us. Protestants often ask saints on earth to pray for them, even though it is not ‘necessary’. Similarly, Catholics don't hesitate to ask the saints in heaven for intercession.

More to your point, it is true that Catholics sometimes modify their Marian devotion in the presence of Protestants in order not to cause offence (see Romans 14). However, like many Christians, Catholics don't feel that they need to avoid something they consider spiritually beneficial to avoid offending others—particularly since Catholics consider their church to be the true Church, and their faith to be the true faith. From their point of view, the question is similar to: should Trinitarian Christians avoid worshipping Jesus to promote unity with Jehovah Witnesses?

Catholics are maximalists, not minimalists. For them, a life of faith that does not include devotion to Mary and to the saints would be missing something beneficial for the Christian. True, such acts may not be strictly necessary for salvation, but like many Christians, Catholics don't believe people should do ‘just enough to get by’; they tend to believe that the more beneficial things done, the better. Fasting? taking monastic vows? These things are not required for salvation, but still spiritually beneficial, and while there may be very particular points of time when not practicing Marian devotion may be expedient, it is not good enough reason for Catholics as a whole to abandon the practice.

Edit: All this assumes, of course that paying Mary respect does not detract from the respect given to God. Protestants tend to see honour as a zero-sum game: the more honour paid to Mary, the less paid to God. The Catholic does not see honour in these terms: honour paid to Mary is not detracting from honour given to God, but rather amplifies it; Jesus is glorified when his mother is honoured. Analogously, glory given to God the Father is not lessened when glory is given to Jesus. Of course, honour due to Mary is of a qualitatively different type than that due Jesus, even in Catholic theology, and there is a line that must not be crossed. Nevertheless, while some Protestants feel uncomfortable about paying any respect to Mary, Catholics only place the line at giving Mary divine adoration.

Disclaimer: In linking to any site, I do not necessarily subscribe to any or all of the author’s opinions.


Was it and is it a common Christian belief to say that the 5 books of the Torah were written by Moses? Was it and is it a common Christian belief to say that the 5 books of the Torah were written by Moses?
Is there anything in the New Testament or by church fathers (that might be of relevance to Catholics), on the subject. Any difference between Protestants and Catholics on the question?
Was it mainstream belief before the documentary hypothesis, and is it still mainstream belief now?

Was it and is it a common Christian belief to say that the 5 books of the Torah were written by Moses?
The short answer is yes.
It is and has been traditionally believed that Moses wrote the 5 Books of the Torah!
The first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah (a Hebrew word meaning “Law” and “to instruct.”) and also known as the Pentateuch (from Greek meaning five scrolls), are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  Moses is acknowledged by most conservative Bible scholars as being the principal author of these five books.  Many passages in the Bible attribute those books to Moses or as being his words:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven” (Exodus 17:14).

And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord (Exodus 24:4).

These are the stages of the people of Israel, when they went out of the land of Egypt by their companies under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. 2 Moses wrote down their starting places, stage by stage, by command of the Lord (Numbers 33:1-2).

Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel (Deuteronomy 31:9).

In Joshua 1:7 those first five book of the Bible are said to be the “law (Torah) which Moses My servant commanded you” and “the law of Moses” in 1 Kings 2:3.  Perhaps the clearest evidences for Moses being the author of the Pentateuch is that Jesus Himself refers this section of the Old Testament as the “Law of Moses” (Luke 24:44).
Some verses in the Pentateuch appear to have been added by someone later than Moses, for example, Deuteronomy 34:5–8, which describes the death and burial of Moses. But most scholars attribute the majority of these books to Moses. Even if Joshua or someone else actually wrote the original manuscripts, the teaching and revelation can be traced from God through Moses.
Was it mainstream belief before the documentary hypothesis, and is it still mainstream belief now?
Yes, of course it was!
The Jewish Scribes and Pharisees and their religious leaders have always attributed authorship of the Torah to be Moses.  Jesus himself referred to those first five books as “the Law of Moses”.
As a matter of interest, the 1917 English version of the Jewish Bible divides the Old Testament into its traditional Hebrew sections. The four sections include the Chumash (The Five Books of Moses), the Neviim (The Prophets), the Treisar (The Minor Prophets) and the Ketuvim (The Writings). The order of the five books of Moses, including their Hebrew names, is as follows:
Chumash / Torah / The Five Books of Moses
Bereshit / Genesis
Shemot / Exodus
VaYikra / Leviticus
BaMidbar / Numbers
Devarim / Deuteronomy
I would be utterly amazed if there was any difference of opinion between Protestants or Catholics on this question.
P.S. It is also interesting to note that Psalm 90 is attributed as being “a prayer of Moses the man of God”.
Addendum: I found this question (Did Moses write Deuteronomy 33:4?) which I found quite relevant.


Which denomination allows homosexuality and why? Which denomination allows homosexuality and what Biblical support do they have to accept homosexuals in the church?

As mentioned by @ChrisSunami above, the Episcopal Church is the largest. There is also the Evangelical Lutherans, the United Churches of Christ, and the Metropolitan Community Churches. Then there are individual congregations that affirm LGBTs within the United Methodist Church, the Brethren, the Quakers, the American Baptists, and the Presbyterians. Then there are plenty of non-denominational and independent churches that are LGBT affirming (gaychurch.org has a list).

The Biblical defense of their position is usually that we either misinterpret the 6 passages that seem to condemn homosexuality (there is only 6 that seem to condemn it, whereas every other sin seems to be condemned hundreds of times), or the verses or mistranslations.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) is about gang rape, not about monogamous same sex relationships. The 2 verses in Leviticus (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) seem to be in the context of Molech worship, which would indicate that what is being condemned is ritual same-sex sex, again not monogamous same sex relationships. The Romans passage (Romans 1:26-27) is describing idolatry leading to same-sex sexual rituals, not homosexuality in general (read the entire chapter, not just verses 26-27). Then we have the problem of translating the terms arsenkoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. No one really knows what arsenkoitai means because Paul coined the term. Many LGBT-affirming Christians believe this is harking back to the Leviticus passages and thus refers to those participating in the same-sex sexual rituals.

If you accept these interpretations, monogamous same-sex relationships are never condemned in Scripture.


What is World Youth Day? A recent question mentions World Youth Day. Wikipedia says that it's an event for young people organized by the Catholic Church. That isn't very helpful, since there are a lot of different types of Christian youth events. How is World Youth Day different from other events? Why do people go? What can people expect if they go? Who counts as a young person? What's the goal?

I asked the same question to the Priest who lead our (it was my wife and my honeymoon) pilgrimage for the 2005 World Youth Day in Cologne, Germany.

His answer was, It's like a renaissance festival for young(ish) Catholics.

And, since I've never been to a renaissance festival, but I have been to a World Yotuth Day, I think I agree.

Of the few that I've been keen on following up on, in Germany, Australia and Spain, it seems like a major world youth day event takes place every 3rd summer.  It's a two and a half week shindig with parishes from all over the host country taking in pilgrims.

The first half is the Days in the Diocese where pilgrims stay with host families from all over the country and get to know what things are like on a parish level  (this was awesome in Germany, I love you Osnabrück and your life-sized foosball game and endless deserts)

The second half is when everyone moves in closer to the epicenter and the major things start happening.  There is daily Catechesis (with Bishops and Cardinals), Holy Mass, Eucharistic Adoration, Confession as well as rock and folk Concerts, gymnastics and lots of juggling.

Mostly it's about the anticipation of the one big event where everyone comes together for vespers and mass with the Pope and that is awesome.  There's really nothing like camping out with a million other Catholics from all over the world.  Maybe it was just because it was my honeymoon, but it was the best experience of my life!


Can an atheist go to heaven? The question of who goes to heaven and who to hell seems to result in very different answers depending on which tradition the Christian answering belongs to. Some traditions, especially evangelical Christians, seem to hold belief in God/Jesus to be the only important factor, while other christians seem to also put value on the actions one has done in life.

The most common answer I heard (from liberal Christians) is that we can't know for sure who goes to heaven and who to hell, and that hell hopefully is even empty.

What are the official positions of the major traditions on whether only faith can prevent one from going to hell, or if the deeds you perform in life might also get you into heaven, even if you don't believe in the Christian God?

This question is actually pretty cut and dry. At the core the main thing you ask is "Can I go to heaven even rejecting Christian belief by substituting some set of actions?"

No. No amount of works of any kind will get you into heaven. There is no substitute for faith.

  Hebrews 11:6 (ESV)
  And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

In fact it is not even necessary to split this up by different traditions inside Christianity. All of us pretty much agree on this point. The disagreements about works only come in when you discuss whether you need some works IN ADDITION TO faith or whether it is possible to have faith but no works at all. Mainstream Christianity doesn't believe you can get into heaven if you reject faith.

In fact, still speaking for the majority of Christianity and not just my tradition, I can say that this faith also has to be in Jesus.

  John 14:6 (ESV)
  Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

The question about works should be asked in another question. Whether some kind of works are a requirement in addition to faith is the source of much debate in Christian circles. Yes some traditions "put value on them" that others do not, but those views have no bearing on your question because at the core none of those different views allow you to substitute faith with anything, only perhaps supplement (or legitimize) it. Since they are not relevant to the main question I will refrain from inserting them here. Also, questions about exactly what faith in Jesus needs to look like will turn up many variations. Save those for other questions. Also not in scope here is what happens to people who haven't heard or have heard and believed miss-information.


How do "once saved, always saved" advocates explain the Parable of the Sower? How do advocates of a strict perseverance of the saints doctrine explain the Parable of the Sower?  That is, how does someone explain it who believes that once someone is saved they cannot lose that salvation?  Jesus' own explanation of the parable says:

  Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.  And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience. (Luke 8:11–15, ESV, emphasis added)

It certainly seems like Jesus is saying some people believe for a while and then stop believing, implying it is possible to give up/lose one's salvation.  How does one resolve this with a "once saved, always saved" theology?  I'm sure the answer will be something along the lines of "they weren't real believers to begin with," but I want more in depth exegesis.  Why are there four groups in the parable if there are only two or three type of people (real believers, "pretend"/apparent believers, unbelievers)?  What do the different groups represent if no group represents people who left the faith (after legitimately having it)?  Why should we take the words of Jesus that some believe, but only for a little while, to mean they didn't really believe at all?

A good answer should reference commentary by a published theologian who adheres to a strict perseverance of the saints doctrine.

As expected, "once saved, always saved" advocates (I'll use "reformed" as shorthand for this) generally agree that both the second and third types of soil represent people who were never saved.  Broadly speaking, they make these points:

The four soils represent four types of people or hearts: the unresponsive, the impulsive, the preoccupied, and the well-prepared
The main difference between the impulsive and the preoccupied is found in the specific reasons that growth does not occur
There are biblical examples of both the impulsive and the preoccupied that we can learn from
Ultimately, the parable should lead us to self-reflection: it should inspire the unbeliever to repent, and the believer to greater faithfulness

The four soils
The breakdown of the four soils given by William Hendriksen is characteristic of reformed commentators:

One might speak of the unresponsive heart (verse 19), the impulsive heart (verses 20, 21), the preoccupied heart (verse 22), and the good, responsive, or well-prepared heart (verse 23). [referring to verses of Matthew 13]1

The statuses of the first and fourth groups are quite obvious, while the second and third are worth further investigation in light of the question: If both of these soils refer to "people who were never saved to begin with," as reformed commentators believe, what is the point of the distinction? It is to show and warn against two ways that people fail to properly respond to the Gospel.
The impulsive
The profession of faith of the impulsive person, John Gill says, "is taken up in haste, immediately, upon a flash of affection, and a little head knowledge, it does not last long, nor prove honourable."2 As Hendriksen writes:

The trouble with the people symbolized by seed that fell on rock is that their emotions are superficial, not based on deep-seated convictions.3

The disappearance of this "faith" occurs when trials and persecution come.  But what about the language of Luke 8, where Jesus says that these people "believe for a while"?  Is that not an indication that they have faith, and then lose it?  John Calvin admits that the "honor which they render to the Gospel resembles faith," and that that they are "widely different from unbelievers, who give no credit to God when he speaks."  But ultimately, they do not have the "true faith":

None are partakers of true faith, except those who are sealed with the Spirit of adoption, and who sincerely call on God as their Father; and as that Spirit is never extinguished, so it is impossible that the faith, which he has once engraven on the hearts of the godly, shall pass away or be destroyed.4

John Gill understands them to be the sort of hearers who

whilst they are hearing, assent to what they hear, but when they are gone, either forget it, or, falling into bad company, are prevailed upon to doubt of it, and disbelieve it.5

Biblical examples suggested for this type of person include Simon the magician (Acts 8), the crowds who turn away from Jesus when his teaching is difficult (John 6), those who shouted "Hosanna" and later, presumably, "crucify him" (Mark 11), and those who abandoned the faith in 1 John 2:19.
The preoccupied
The seed in the heart of the preoccupied person, on the other hand, fails to grow not because of trials and persecution, but because of distractions and pleasures.  John MacArthur calls it the "worldly heart, swept up in the deceitfulness of riches."6 In such a person, Calvin writes, "sinful affections of the flesh prevail,"4 and Hendriksen emphasizes the inability to focus on Christ:

[The preoccupied heart] has no room for calm and earnest meditation on the word of the Lord.  Should any such serious study and reflection nevertheless attempt to gain entrance, it would immediately be choked off.7

Many biblical examples of this type are suggested, including the rich young ruler (Matthew 19), Demas (2 Timothy 4), and the merchants of Amos 8.
Application and summary
Hendriksen writes that the lesson of the parable is:

Examine yourself to discover to which group you belong.  If you belong to any one of the first three groups, be converted!  Not, of course, by power residing in yourself but by God's sovereign grace! Even if you should belong to the fourth group, ask yourself the question, 'Am I sufficiently fruitful?'8

Calvin similarly notes that believers should take heed not to let thorns hinder their fruitfulness:

We ought to labor, no doubt, to pull out the thorns; but as our utmost exertion will never succeed so well, but that there will always be some remaining behind, let each of us endeavor, at least, to deaden them, that they may not hinder the fruit of the word.4

To put it simply: Reformed commentators see the parable as a description of and warning against three distinct types of unbelief, and a call to greater fruitfulness in the Christian walk.

References:

Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 558.
Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible, Matthew 13.
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, 427.
Calvin, *Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Volume 2.
Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible, Luke 8.
MacArthur, "Receptivity to the Gospel, Part 3" (sermon).
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 561.
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, 429.


Hebrews 5:1 and the pope When reading Hebrews 5 I couldn't help but think of the Catholic Church and the position of pope.

Would Catholicism regard the role of pope as appointed/anointed to "act on behalf of men in relation to God" in comparison to Hebrews 5:1? Does the Catholic Church see the pope as fulfilling an earthly role of what the high priest did, outside of sacrifices.

  Hebrews 5:1
  For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. (ESV<

The short answer is “not really,” or at least, it wouldn’t apply only to the Pope.

The passage clearly refers directly to the Old Testament priesthood (see, e.g., Leviticus 16) and indirectly to Christ, who is the fulfillment of Old-Testament High Priest (Hebrews 4:14).

Today’s priests and bishops do participate in the priesthood of Christ, and the Old-Testament priesthood was a prefiguring of the New-Testament priesthood. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) puts it,

  The liturgy of the Church, however, sees in the priesthood of Aaron and the service of the Levites, as in the institution of the seventy elders, a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant (No. 1541).

Also,

  The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ” (CCC 1547, quoting Lumen gentium 10 § 2; the common priesthood applies to all Christians by virtue of their baptism, and the ministerial priesthood pertains to those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders).

Hence, all priests and bishops participate in a special way in the priesthood of Christ, a participation that is essentially different from that of the common priesthood. (See the remainder of CCC 1547.)

This participation applies to all priests and bishops, and bishops to the greatest extent possible, since they possess the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. (See CCC 1557.) It would be a mistake, however, to think of the Pope as a “super-bishop.” He is not: he is just the bishop of Rome, and by virtue of being bishop of Rome, he is the head of all his other brother bishops, and as such has authority over the whole Church. (See CCC 882.) But his participation in Christ’s priesthood derives from his Holy Orders, just as with all the other bishops in the world.

Hence, it would rather uncommon for Catholics to interpret Hebrews 5:1 as applying to the Pope.


What are the main differences between the Catholic Popes and the Mormon Prophets? I ask this question, as a Catholic, because Mormonism is hierarchical in structure and has a lot of similarities with Catholicism, although seemingly they are superficial as in being surface impretions but I digress.

This question, and the answers, will help shed light on a lot of misunderstandings, I think. Taking something most of us are familiar with, like the Pope (and these days he is quite popular) and contrast him with a leader not so well known which is the Prophet.

  The Specific Elements I Expect in the Answers :

  On Church Management in General

  (1) If both claim the Petrine Seat(by succession or?).

  (2) If both have a College of Bishops/"Highest Teachers"  in union with the Pope or Prophet.

  (3) If both have universal jurisdiction as universal pastors of their respective churches. Meaning that they can operate in all
  churches as if they were the head of those individual churches, no
  need to appeal to the locals.

  (4) If both are completely immune from stepping down from the office unless it is their own decision to step down.

  (5) If believers are encouraged to listen to the leader above any other in the hierarchy in case of disagreement between the leader and others
  on none dogmatic issues, as well as disagreements outside of the Church on politics for example.

  On Infallibility

  (6) If both claim to be infallible under certain conditions(if so what are they?) by virtue of their office in the eyes of God.

Of course if the two views differ, the one answering must explain where they differ. It does not need to be overly detailed, one  authoritative official reference for both sides per point will suffice.

Note: My knowledge on Catholic beliefs is spotty. If anyone Catholic wants to go ahead and fill in the gaps, go ahead. I do not intend to offend any Catholics with it.

When you prophets, I will assume you are talking about the President of the Church, not the other non-president prophets (i.e. members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles).

Before I go on to your six questions, I would like to note the main theological difference: The Pope claims to be able to receive no revelation, but rather is making decisions based on what he thinks is best, and according to scripture. The prophet claims to use both scripture and revelation from God (hence the name) instead of his own decision making.

Anyways, to your six questions.

  (1) If both claim the Petrine Seat(by succession or?).

They both claim to succeed Peter in being the head of the true church of christ, in a documented line of succession from Peter to themselves.

  (2) If both have a College of Bishops/"Highest Teachers" in union with the Pope or Prophet.

I do not know about the Pope, but in the LDS Church there are (usually) 14 other prophets in addition to the prophet. These prophets are also Apostles, seers, and revelators.

  (3) If both have universal jurisdiction as universal pastors of their
  respective churches. Meaning that they can operate in all churches as
  if they were the head of those individual churches, no need to appeal
  to the locals.

I assume the Pope may do so. The Prophet has all the keys of this dispensation, including the leading of local congregations. He usually does not "usurp" local congregations though, since his main duty is being a prophet.

  (4) If both are completely immune from stepping down from the office unless it is their own decision to step down.

I do not know about the Pope. The prophet is subject to God, who can remove him from office if he attempts to lead the church astray (see Official Declaration 1). Additionally, he is subject to disciplinary council of the church if he commits a serious sin.

  (5) If believers are encouraged to listen to the leader above any other in the hierarchy in case of disagreement between the leader and others on none dogmatic issues, as well as disagreements outside of the Church on politics for example.

I assume this is true of the Pope. It is generally recognized in the LDS Church that the Prophet is more accurate than local leaders, though both try to stay in harmony with God (and therefore with each other, indirectly).

  (6) If both claim to be infallible under certain conditions(if so what are they?) by virtue of their office in the eyes of God.

I'm not sure about the Pope. For the LDS Church, see What does the LDS Church teach about infallibility?.


Are there designated circumstances for making prayer to Jesus and making prayer to God? The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is God, however, they are also mysteriously separate beings, yet the same as well (the Trinity). It is acceptable to those same Christians to pray to Jesus, praising Him as God and also asking Him to fulfill their needs.

Is there a designated time when prayers should be said to Jesus and other prayers should be said to God?

It seems obvious that the Lord's Prayer (Our Father who is in heaven ...) is meant to be said to God. He is the Father. Are there prayers specifically for Jesus in the Bible? I am even willing to see a Tradition citing this practice. Are there any theological arguments that say when it is appropriate to pray to Jesus and when it is appropriate to pray to God? Perhaps this is another question, but why is the Holy Spirit left out?

Some personal back story:

I fully believe Jesus is God and I fully believe in the Trinity. I fully believe the Jesus is worthy of all our praise and worship. However, I always feel awkward praying to Jesus. Worshiping with song I am usually fine with, but it is prayer that I reserve for God the Father. There is a duality within me saying that prayer is for God, but Jesus is worthy, too. Therefore, you are missing something in your spiritual life.

We pray to our heavenly Father, in Jesus' name, for several reasons (most reasoning sourced here):

We are told to address all prayer to God the Father. (see also 1 Peter 1:17 and Ephesians 3:14)

  This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,' (Matthew 6:9)

We can only approach the Father in the name of Jesus, the Son

  And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. (John 14:13-14)

A follow-up question might be: Does God get mad if you pray to Jesus? I can't imagine God getting mad with one of His children trying to communicate with Him, no matter how we did it. Romans 8:26-27 says:

  In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

When we pray, we don't always know how to pray, or what to pray for, but this says that the Holy Spirit takes our prayers and makes them presentable to God.


What is the history and explanation as to why the "diaconate" was MIA in the Western Church over a certain period of time? The Catechism of the Catholic Church implies that over a certain time in the period in the Western Church, there weren't any deacons.

  CCC 1571 Since the Second Vatican Council the Latin Church
  has restored the diaconate "as a proper and permanent rank of the
  hierarchy," while the Churches of the East had always maintained it.

What is the history and explanation behind this?

The good answer will also correct any wrong assumptions.

It was not deacons, but "permanent deacons," who disappeared for a while. In this answer I will summarize and quote from an article titled Called to Serve: The Mission of the Permanent Diaconate by Deacon Michael Chesley.

  Although the permanent deacon is a relatively new occurrence
  experienced on the altars of many U.S. dioceses around the country,
  deacons in general are nothing new to the Church.

Chesley summarizes the early development and documentation of the role of deacons. As the catechism says (1570), "Among other tasks, it is the task of deacons to assist the bishop and priests in the celebration of the divine mysteries, above all the Eucharist, in the distribution of Holy Communion, in assisting at and blessing marriages, in the proclamation of the Gospel and preaching, in presiding over funerals, and in dedicating themselves to the various ministries of charity."

  However, by the time of Pope Gregory the Great in 595 A.D, many of
  these duties already began to be heavily curtailed or delegated to the
  minor orders.  Although it is beyond the range of this article to
  cover a detailed account of the reasons for the decline of the order,
  suffice to say that their [sic] was a gradual occurrence of men who
  preferred not to remain a deacon all their lives, and wanted to
  advance to the higher orders.  By the middle ages, the order of deacon
  as a permanent rank in the hierarchy of the Church all but disappeared
  in the West, and became nothing more than a stepping stone for
  preparation to the priesthood.  Although not widely known, the Council
  of Trent (1545 – 1563) called for the restoration of the permanent
  deacon. Unfortunately the idea was never followed through, and it was
  not until the Second Vatican Council that the Church in the West took
  up the wishes of Trent some 400 years later.

  ...

  Although the Latin Rite Church had "transitional" deacons, the Council
  goes on to say that the Church envisions what it hoped would be a
  permanent rank reestablished within the Latin Church.  One could ask
  why did the Church desire to restore the order of deacon as a
  permanent rank at this point in church history? The Directory for the
  Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons addresses this question as
  follows: "One of the fruits of the Second Vatican Council was the
  desire to restore the diaconate as a proper and stable rank of the
  hierarchy". On the basis of the "historical circumstances and pastoral
  purposes noted by the Council Fathers, the Holy Spirit, protagonist of
  the Church's life, worked mysteriously to bring about a new and more
  complete actualization of the hierarchy which traditionally consists
  of bishops, priests and deacons. In this manner the Christian
  community was revitalized, configured more closely to that of the
  Apostles which, under the influence of the Paraclete, flourished as
  the Acts of the Apostles testifies."*

  ...

  Although for many centuries the deacon ascended to higher orders after
  ordination to the diaconate, there still exist "transitional" deacons
  and "permanent" deacons. However, there is no sacramental difference
  or function between the two.  Under normal circumstances, when the
  permanent deacon path is chosen, the deacon remains in his chosen
  vocation.

Also at Vatican II, married men were permitted to become deacons. Unmarried men becoming deacons are still required to take a vow of celibacy, however.

* Chesley's source for this quote is given as: Congregation for Catholic Education; Congregation of the Clergy; Directory for the Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons. ( Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1998), Chapter III.


What are some of the reasons for which Catholics are against gender-neutral secular marriage? I get that Catholicism won't acknowledge religious gender-neutral or same-sex marriage (GNM) and why it won't support GNM,

but why exactly does that extend to being outright against (as opposed to having no stand) secular GNM?

Besides possibly the arguments here, what are there?

In case the article is too long for you, here is a response that takes the article apart.

Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on marriage, Arcanum §23, gives a succinct answer to your question:23. Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon—the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded.His argument is, in a nutshell, that the Church has jurisdiction over marriage, not the State, because marriage is sacred and that is the realm of the Church. In other words: there is no such thing (at least for the baptized) as secular marriage divorced from sacramental marriage. Just because the State benefits from marriage, this does not mean it has lawful authority over it.

Also, to call marriage what is not marriage is contrary to objective truth and the Catholic understanding of human law as flowing from and being in-line with natural law and divine law. "The Canonical Nullity of the Marriage Process as the Search for the Truth" by Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke (the last article of the anti-Kasper Remaining in the Truth of Christ) says:Regarding law, in general, there has developed the notion that the law has no relation to objective truth but is constituted by whatever man, usually the judge, decides. Such a theory was proposed in my homeland, the United States of America, already in 1897 by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. [The Path of Law and the Common Law pp. 1-29]


Who were the 40 men who wrote the Bible? Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible is made up of "66 smaller books". God used about "40 faithful men" to write them. According to them, the first five books were written by Moses about 3,500 years ago; the last book was written by the apostle John over 1,900 years ago. God communicated with the Bible writers by means of the holy spirit. They wrote down the thoughts of God, not their own thoughts. So "Jehovah" is the author of the Bible, according to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Who were the 40 faithful men?

The 40-author count is not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses, so I'll provide the names of the forty commonly-accepted authors. Note that the authorship of some books (Hebrews, for example) is debated, so the number and names vary slightly depending on which scholars you ask.

Moses
Joshua
Samuel
Ezra
Jeremiah
Nehemiah
Mordecai
Job
Sons of Korah
Asaph
Heman
Ethan
Hezekiah
David
Solomon
Agur
Lemuel
Isaiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
John
Mark
Luke
Paul
James
Peter
Jude

See When was the Bible written and who wrote it? for a matchup of names to books, along with approximate dates of authorship.


Biblical or Historical Devil Worshipper? I am writing a novel happening in 1346.

In it, a satanist sect worships some relics of a person that embodies evil (a biblical or historical devil worshipper).
In the novel, the chuch will unroot and dismantle this sect.
The triumph of Faith over Evil.

I have the perfect embodiment of Faith (the Knights Hospitaller) now I need the embodiment of Evil.

If the novel was taking place few centuries later, I would have chosen the relics of "Gilles de Rais". An accurate enough embodiment of evil and a historical devil worshipper. But in 1346 he isn't born yet.

I had several ideas, but couldn't find anyone historical or biblical that would be fitting.

Judas may have repented before his death
Cain is a too obvious choice
Nebuchadnezzar II did embody evil but his expansion was allowed by god
Frederick II was considered the antichrist by pope Gregory IX, but he wasn't that evil and didn't worship the devil
Pope Honorius I was considered a heretic, but wasn't really evil either.
King Solomon did worship idols at the end of his life, but he was blessed by god for his whole life and was never evil.

So far, the best candidate that I have would be "Bishop Nicétas" the antipope of Catharism. But it's not clear how evil the Cathars were and their dogma was not an open worship of the devil.

I have browsed several parts of the bible and the history of Christianity, but couldn't find anyone evil enough. So I would love to have the input of someone more knowledgeable than me :

Who could be a biblical or historical devil worshipper who died before 1346 ?

Biblical or Historical Devil Worshipper?

Since we are dealing with the 14th century and a fictional novel, it would be best to use a fictional
character. At least this way it remains fictional.

Why not take a medieval legend to your advantage.

It seems to me the legendary personage of Cartaphilus. Although legend says he is of Jewish origin, you could make him a Roman soldier guarding the door of Pilate, which makes more sense in an historical setting.

  The Wandering Jew is a mythical immortal man whose legend began to spread in Europe in the 13th century. The original legend concerns a Jew who taunted Jesus on the way to the Crucifixion and was then cursed to walk the earth until the Second Coming. The exact nature of the wanderer's indiscretion varies in different versions of the tale, as do aspects of his character; sometimes he is said to be a shoemaker or other tradesman, while sometimes he is the doorman at the estate of Pontius Pilate.

  Name

  The earliest extant manuscript with the legend is the Flores Historiarum by Roger of Wendover, where it appears in the part for the year 1228, under the title Of the Jew Joseph who is still alive awaiting the last coming of Christ.

  At least from the 17th century the name Ahasver has been given to the Wandering Jew, apparently adapted from Ahasuerus 'Xerxes,' the Persian king in the Book of Esther, who was not a Jew, and whose very name among medieval Jews was an exemplum of a fool. This name may have been chosen because the Book of Esther describes the Jews as a persecuted people, scattered across every province of Ahasuerus' vast empire, similar to the later Jewish diaspora in countries whose state and/or majority religions were forms of Christianity.

  A variety of names have since been given to the Wandering Jew, including Matathias, Buttadeus, Paul Marrane, and Isaac Laquedem which is a name for him in France and the Low Countries, in popular legend as well as in a novel by Dumas.

  Where German or Russian are spoken, the emphasis has been on the perpetual character of his punishment, and thus he is known there as Ewiger Jude and vechny zhid (вечный жид), the "Eternal Jew". In French and other Latin languages, the usage has been to refer to the wanderings, as in French "le Juif errant", in Spanish "el judío errante" [circular reference] or in Italian "l'ebreo errante" [circular reference] and this has been followed in English from the Middle Ages, as the Wandering Jew. In Finnish he is known as Jerusalemin suutari (Shoemaker of Jerusalem), implying he was a cobbler by his trade.

  Medieval legend

  Some scholars have identified components of the legend of the Eternal Jew in Teutonic legends of the Eternal Hunter, some features of which are derived from Odin mythology.

  "In some areas the farmers arranged the rows in their fields in such a way that on Sundays the Eternal Jew might find a resting place. Elsewhere they assumed that he could rest only upon a plough or that he had to be on the go all year and was allowed a respite only on Christmas."

  A variant of the Wandering Jew legend is recorded in the Flores Historiarum by Roger of Wendover around the year 1228. An Armenian archbishop, then visiting England, was asked by the monks of St Albans Abbey about the celebrated Joseph of Arimathea, who had spoken to Jesus, and was reported to be still alive. The archbishop answered that he had himself seen such a man in Armenia, and that his name was Cartaphilus’ a Jewish shoemaker, who, when Jesus stopped for a second to rest while carrying his cross, hit him, and told him "Go on quicker, Jesus! Go on quicker! Why dost Thou loiter?", to which Jesus, "with a stern countenance", is said to have replied: "I shall stand and rest, but thou shalt go on till the last day." The Armenian bishop also reported that Cartaphilus had since converted to Christianity and spent his wandering days proselytizing and leading a hermit's life.

  Matthew Paris included this passage from Roger of Wendover in his own history; and other Armenians appeared in 1252 at the Abbey of St Albans, repeating the same story, which was regarded there as a great proof of the truth of the Christian religion. The same Armenian told the story at Tournai in 1243, according to the Chronicles of Phillip Mouskes, (chapter ii. 491, Brussels, 1839). After that, Guido Bonatti writes people saw the Wandering Jew in Forlì (Italy), in the 13th century; other people saw him in Vienna and elsewhere.

  There were claims of sightings of the Wandering Jew throughout Europe, since at least 1542 in Hamburg up to 1868 in Harts Corners, New Jersey. Joseph Jacobs, writing in the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1911), commented "It is difficult to tell in any one of these cases how far the story is an entire fiction and how far some ingenious impostor took advantage of the existence of the myth". It has been alleged by an 1881 writer, who however cites no instances, that the supposed presence of the Wandering Jew has occasionally been used as a pretext for incursions by Gentiles into Jewish quarters during the late Middle Ages, when the legend was accepted as fact.

  Another legend about Jews, the so-called "Red Jews", was similarly common in Central Europe in the Middle Ages. - Wandering Jew (Wikipedia)

Seeing the the Russian legend calls him Judas, who may wish to go with Judas Iscariot whom the Lord said it would have been better that he had never been born! After all it is fiction. Be like Dan Brown and make up your own legendary person.

You might consider Herod the Great and his son, Herod Antipas. The Great was the one who ordered the killing of Jewish infants around year 0, and his son Antipas is the one who ordered the beheading of John the Baptist.

Then again you might wish to choose one of the Luciferians of this time period also. Simply make up a character and give him a believable sounding name.

  In the 13th century, a group of people called Luciferians attracted papal attention for Devil worship, and this time there can be little doubt that this is exactly what was going on. The Pope sent Conrad of Marburg, a gentleman described as a "sadistic fanatic who had been spiritual director of St. Elizabeth of Thuringia and had delighted in beating and humiliating her," to Germany in order to squash the heresy taking place there. These Luciferians believed that Lucifer and his host of demons had been unfairly expelled from heaven. Some day, they claimed, he would return and overthrow the Christian God at which time he would reign forever. They did everything they could to offend God, since their reward would be everlasting paradise with Lucifer. At least half a dozen contemporary sources give details of the Luciferians, and confessions by those accused were not made under torture.

  Elements in the story of the Luciferians show further progress toward the conception of Devil worship that has been handed down to us through history. Initiates were made to kiss a toad, or sometimes a duck or goose, in either of two distasteful areas. New members also kissed a pale man who was icy cold, and in this instant they were supposed to have lost their Christian faith. There was a large feast with a huge black cat present, and those worthy of the honor kissed the cat's rear end. The candles were then extinguished, and a massive orgy ensued. After they were through with that portion of the ceremony, a man appeared from a dark comer whose bottom half was like a cat. He was given a piece of the initiate's clothing, and before he disappeared, he commended the leader of the group for his service.

  There are two opinions stemming from this story concerning the Luciferians. The first is this: "This account of an initiation carries a certain conviction and it could have been stage-managed without too much difficulty." The second is: "Where a source contains untrustworthy or demonstrably false statements it should be treated with skepticism throughout; and that is the case with all the sources that tell of a Luciferian doctrine." That seems to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. The entire thesis behind the book that includes the latter statement is that witchcraft probably never existed in medieval times except for inside of the imaginations of hysterical Christians. That, according to a modem Pagan and expert in the field of witchcraft is because the author has a limited conception of what is possible in reality." She gives as as example that author's opinion that all accounts of ceremonial orgies are false, and counters with the assertion that "Orgiastic practices were a part of religious rites in many cultures of the ancient world, and are fairly widespread today." The deductive reasoning behind this being that if there were orgies in early rites, as well as in present day rites, there were most probably also orgies in medieval ceremonies, especially in light of the profuse reports of their occurrence.

  Now that the Luciferians have been established with some credibility as genuine devil worshippers, we can see that there is some reason for the steadily increasing alarm with which the Church met cases of heresy.

  These examples of Devil worship provide a background for what would occur in Europe over the next several hundred years. Two reasons for this second outbreak are the circulation of accounts of previous heresies involving Devil worship, and the assault on Europe by the Black Death. Since the plague was seen by many as God's punishment for their sins, it follows that people would be very interested in discovering any kind of behavior that would anger Him. With the widespread availability of theologically based discourses on how to root out possession, such as the Malleus Maleficarum (c. 1494), it was now possible for these people to be discovered and dealt with. Although the Malleus was written somewhat late to serve as an example for plague-inspired heretic elimination discourses, it is the best example of the way in which Christian authorities viewed their duties in relation to this manner of heresy.

  The examples of the Paulicians, Catharists, Waldensians, and the others show how the concept of Devil worship in the Christian world grew and spread. With each new heresy, elements such as the osculum infame Devil in the form of an animal, and the ritual orgy became part of the legend, and possibly practice, of Devil worship. It is almost impossible to ascertain at this late date exactly what did happen in the Devil worship rites of the Middle ages. These people did not keep records, possibly in the interest of preserving their sacred rituals, but more probably for fear of persecution. - Devil Worship in the Middle Ages

More information can be gleaned here.


Is it against the Bible not to have a funeral for a family member who dies? So is a funeral something the Bible requires, either directly or indirectly, if an unbelieving family member dies?
Would it make a difference if the dead person was a Christian, whether to have a funeral or not?

The Bible neither requires nor prohibits the funerals of anyone. In general this is a wisdom issue - would not having a funeral offend the family? Would it damage relationships?
Jesus does however say something that might be taken to say that Christians shouldn't be involved in the funerals/burials of nonchristians:

Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”
And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.” (Matthew 8:21-22, ESV)

This shouldn't however be taken as a blanket prohibition of Christians attending funerals for their fathers. These verses, and the ones immediately before them, tell us that there is a high cost to following Jesus, that following Jesus will require us to make sacrifices and that our ties with our families will be strained. And indeed, there are many Christians who have been unable to attend funerals because they are serving God in circumstances that don't permit them to return, such as missionaries in foreign countries.


Why don't Catholics divide the blood of Christ into individual cups? This question deals with pouring the wine into one chalice instead of many individual small cups for the congregants to consume. In my experience, I've observed that the wine is always poured into a single chalice, never into individual cups. Is it to conserve resources, or is there a theological reason behind this practice?

The practice is entirely biblical. At the Last Supper, Christ took a single cup at the end of the meal and handed it round the apostles:

  Mt 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal has this:

  Through the fraction and through Communion, the faithful, though they are many, receive from the one bread the Lord’s Body and from the one chalice the Lord’s Blood in the same way the Apostles received them from Christ’s own hands.

A related question is why there tend to be individual wafers rather than a single large bread roll or loaf which is divided amongst the congregation. This is because of its change of substance: “This is my body,” which means that any crumbs must be dealt with. Tearing or cutting a loaf, while a valid symbol of the distribution, would create so many crumbs that it would be impossible to deal with. A wafer with sealed edges produces far fewer problems. Generally the wafers are consecrated in and distributed from a single vessel [ciborium].

It’s a related question because of the risk of spillage in distributing the sacrament in — and between — small individual cups. A large chalice has to be carefully handled, and the risk of spilling the sacrament is likely to be reduced. However this is incidental to the primary reason: Jesus used a single cup.


According to Catholicism, why did Jesus not name the rich man in the story of Lazarus and the rich man? In the story of the rich man and the poor man (Luke 16:19–31), Jesus did not name the rich man. The name Lazarus that Jesus gave to the poor man is said to have originated from a Greek word meaning 'God will help' or 'assistance of God'.

My question is: According to Catholicism, why did Jesus not name the rich man?  Was it in order to convey a message that His affinity was more towards the humble underdogs than towards the proud rich?

During his Thursday [Oct 8, 2015] morning homily at Casa Santa Marta, Pope Francis may have answered your question:

  "It is curious: that [rich] man’s name is never spoken. He is just an
  adjective: he is a rich man (It. ricco, Gr. πλοσιος). Of the wicked,
  in God’s record book, there is no name: he is an evil one, a con man,
  a pimp ... They have no name. They only have adjectives. All those,
  who try to go on the way of the Lord, will rather be with His Son, who
  has the name: Jesus Saviour. It is a name that is difficult to
  understand, inexplicable for the trial of the Cross and for all that
  He suffered for us.” - Pope Francis at Santa Marta explains why good
  things can happen to bad people | ROME REPORTS TV News Agency.


What is the Biblical basis for testing the truthfulness of every statement made by Prophets or Apostles who have been confirmed as 'real'? In the case of 'real' Apostles and Prophets (who have passed the tests), what is the Biblical basis for continuing to test the truthfulness of every statement made by them as they continue in their office?

For background, I have encountered a famous individual who claimed to be a prophet and warned 'critics' who tested the validity of his healings and words as 'endangering themselves' as they were thereby 'resisting the Spirit' and would suffer the same diseases he was healing others of.  This attitude seems contrary to the scriptures. He basically implied that nobody should 'test' him as he was 'genuine' as proved by his many supposed miracles including raising the dead -- although he did seem to also suggest that one should test everybody else(?!)

Note: There are a couple closely related questions that might be answered within the answer to this question. Did 'every word' of the Prophets and Apostles carry the same 'infallible authority' as scripture, or does scriptural infallibility rise higher than each word that left their mouth? By what method were their words to be tested and therefore accepted or rejected, as they continued in their Apostolic or Prophetic office? Also, how did people know which to follow when two or more prophets disagreed on a matter?

Another interesting but not directly related question for good background reference: To what extent should the Apostles' speech be considered infallible?

The Bible says a great deal about testing prophets and spirits.

A spirit will confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

  Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
  1 John 4

Although this verse says 'spirit' I think it is just as easily applied to prophets. Both are charged with speaking God's words.

This verse also not only says it is okay to test the spirits but implies that you should every time.

A person speaking by the spirit will claim Jesus is Lord

  3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:3

A prophet will not contradict God's word

  20 Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Isaiah 8:20

A prophet will not prove himself with wonders then ask you to worship other Gods

  If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. Deut 13:1-3

The predictions of a prophet must come to pass

  20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”
  21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed. Deut 18:20-22

These verses imply that an already proven prophet can later be unproven. This backs up 1 John's claim to test them every time and not just the first time. Apparently saying God said something that He did not is a capital offense, so you could argue that a prophet of ancient times was very slow to speak.

A true prophet will live a righteous life

  15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Matt 7:15-20

False prophets will predict Jesus' Second Coming

  23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. Matt 24:23-25

I suppose verse 25 makes Jesus a prophet because it has come to pass.

So the Bible does not only support the idea that prophets and the like should be tested but even tells you how. Furthermore, death was the common punishment for giving false prophecies. It was a very serious crime, therefore, we could argue the reverse that claiming prophecy was a very serious claim that required serious scrutiny. Logically, if a prophet were from God he would almost demand this testing because having God's word heard is his charge from God and the only reason he is speaking. So here I want to define a prophet, at least in the way I am using the word: A prophet does not necessarily predict the future. In fact, more generally, he has a message from God.

As far as following which prophet when two of them disagree, meaning their 'messages from God' are mutually exclusive, you first need to ask if they are speaking from the Lord. If they both say yes then at least one of them is wrong and the tests above should be applied and if either of them is wrong he should never be heard again. If one or both says no then it is clear that his words have only his own authority and you can ignore them if you choose.

Saying a prophet's words are infallible does not seem supported by these verses. However, once proven to be from God, it is logical to say that those words are equal with scripture; the same God made both the scripture and the prophet's message. The distinction should be made that a prophet's words should only be tested as from God if the prophet claims that they are from God; it does not make sense to test as holy that which makes no such claim. This is supported well when Paul made the distinction of his advice and the Lord's commands in 1 Cor. 7. These verses demand that we consider Paul a prophet, by the definition I provided, because he claims to be speaking from God. He is not making a prophecy, per se, but he does claim that the following commands are God's words. Our recourse would be to compare these verses to what is already proven as scripture. Fortunately, for Paul they do match. On all his other writings, however, he rarely made such direct claims so we are left with a small discussion contained in the comments below.

Your questions under note 1 are easily addressed with the verses above, especially the methods for testing. In the Old Testament it is clear that a prophet did not always speak from the Lord; not only would that be a terrible burden for him, but the very idea seems somewhat unscriptural because the people would hang on every word of the prophet rather than worship God and pray for His intersession. This is dangerously close to idolatry, in my opinion, which is strictly forbidden in numerous Old Testament texts.

However, your anecdote illuminates an issue. Your story does not mention that this particular person claims to be speaking from God. Furthermore, there is a difference between healing and prophecy; they are not the same, but you are correct in assuming that they can both be from God or not, as supported in Deut. 13. I submit that a healing is always good even if the motives are wicked. Logically then, if a person only heals and never claims to speak from God then there is no worry that he might be followed as a false prophet. But your story does say that he claims that testing if his healings are real (which there is no biblical way to do so) would lead you to suffer the same illness that was healed. This is a spectacular claim and if he does say it is from God then someone brave or skeptical enough should test the validity of the healing (I suppose with medical tests or something). If that person does not soon suffer that very illness as the 'prophet' claims then he fails at least one of these tests: What he said did not come to pass. (In my opinion things already seem fishy so I would gladly volunteer to perform the medical tests). I cannot find a verse that demands we test validity of healings but we should consider 2 Thes. 2:9 which warns that there will be many false signs and wonders in the last days and Matt. 12:22 where Jesus does not curse the pharisees that say His healings are by Beelzebub instead He merely corrects them, therefore, showing that it is at least odd to say you will suffer the same illness if you test the healing.


How do Protestants explain the incorruptibility of Catholic and Orthodox saints? As far as I know, there is a vast body of evidence of incorruptibility of some saints in Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Here is a picture of the incorruptible relic of St. Aleksandr Svirskij from Wikipedia :

Such cases have often been presented as a proof of the correctness of the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths - as opposed to the numerous Protestant faiths (as far as I know, there are no cases of incorruptibility in Protestantism).

I wonder if any attempts have even been made in the main-stream Protestantism to explain this body of evidence or was it simply ignored?

If there were such attempts made, then what main points have been presented?

Though it's difficult to speak for Protestants as a whole, my experience with them is that they place no significance on incorruptibility, and as a rule, they are suspect of relics possessing special properties. Nobody will deny evidence that an undecomposed dead body is in an unusual state, but I doubt that many of them will claim that such a state is definitely an act of divine intervention because of the person whose body it is. It might be safe to say that Protestants are much less mystical than Roman Catholic and Orthodox groups.


What is the origin and basis for the Catholic teaching regarding Mary's vow of celibacy prior to her betrothal? In the answers to this question it is asserted that Mary had taken a vow of celibacy prior to her betrothal to Joseph.  Thus, Joseph already knew that he and Mary would never have marital relations prior to the Annunciation.

I have never heard this before, so I am wondering when this teaching originated and how close that was to the birth of Christ.  Also, were vows of celibacy inside marriage recorded as being practiced at any time in Jewish history?

Nobody will mind if I quote a 1850 year old document at length here right? If you don't read it with any context it might seem kind of strange.  The Protoevangelium of St. James is definitely apocryphal, but that doesn't make it bad and it certainly shows evidence of an age old tradition (and a good one).

  And her months were added to the child. And the child was two years old, and Joachim said: Let us take her up to the temple of the Lord, that we may pay the vow that we have vowed, lest perchance the Lord send to us, and our offering be not received. And Anna said: Let us wait for the third year, in order that the child may not seek for father or mother. And Joachim said: So let us wait. And the child was three years old, and Joachim said: Invite the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled, and let them take each a lamp, and let them stand with the lamps burning, that the child may not turn back, and her heart be captivated from the temple of the Lord. And they did so until they went up into the temple of the Lord. And the priest received her, and kissed her, and blessed her, saying: The Lord has magnified your name in all generations. In you, on the last of the days, the Lord will manifest His redemption to the sons of Israel. And he set her down upon the third step of the altar, and the Lord God sent grace upon her; and she danced with her feet, and all the house of Israel loved her.

So far it's Our Lady just being a cute little kid and it's her parent who vow to give her to the temple (ala Hannah who she herself definitely prefigures).

And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?

and here it's the priests who don't want Mary to be defiled, so they try to marry her off to an old guy.

  And they said to the high priest: You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto you, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judæa, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.

So, in the end, all the pieces fit snugly with unchanging Sacred Tradition concerning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.  Even if the Holy Spirit didn't choose to assert Himself through the truths contained in this ancient text.  The evidence of a tradition is certainly evidence of a tradition.

That she, of her own accord, decided to be a temple virgin or not isn't particularly important.  Whatever God did for her, He preserved her from following her passions and going off and doing something sinful so he could use her, whom he most loved of all His creatures, for something amazing.


Is there a Christian equivalent of Mandala (word or symbol)? During a recent visit to Canterbury Cathedral particular circular patterns on the floors (pictured) reminded me of the circular patterns of Mandalas.

I was wondering if these are simply 'for decoration' in the cases pictured or whether there is a Christian equivalent of Mandala or that same style of artwork?

Is there a Christian equivalent for the use of a mandala (word or symbol) in Church architecture?
Some Christians simply call them mandalas. Different denominations have adopted different terms for them, according to their usage.
Simply put, Christians added beauty to their churches in various ways and mandalas are simply one of those options.
For example in many Catholic Churches, they are called rose windows if made out of stained glass. This type of architecture is quite common in larger churches and cathedrals.

Mandala is the Sanskrit word for circle, and the great psychologist Carl Jung called it an “archetype of wholeness.” Archetypes are those basic patterns and symbols that repeat across cultures and traditions, emerging from a collective unconscious or shared well of images.  Jung saw mandalas as expressions of the deep self’s longing for integration and a visual map toward our own spiritual centers.  He would spend time each morning creating mandalas in response to his dreams and advised his patients to do the same.
The circle is a universal symbol appearing in nature -- think of the shape of the planets, moon, and sun.  It is also found across religions -- think of the ancient stone circles found across Ireland or the intricate sand mandalas that Tibetan Buddhist monks create.   We find it in the Catholic tradition as well.  Consider the communion wafers we partake of each week or the wedding bands that symbolize the eternal nature of that sacramental commitment as elemental expressions of the mandala form.
In churches we often find the more stunning displays of mandalas: the rose window.  The first rose window was created about the year 1200 originating in France and then spreading throughout European churches.  Considered part of French Gothic architecture, they are fairly characteristic of medieval churches.
The rose window functions on several different levels at once. Think about a time when you were inside a church and sunlight spilled through a stained glass window casting colored beams across the sacred space.  This interaction between light, glass, and color sparks something transcendent within us. Our hearts feel lifted in their longings for the holy.
In rose windows, typically Christ or the Virgin Mary appears in the central rosette as the center point -- an expression of our desire for and movement toward holiness.  In the petals surrounding the center may be images from the liturgical cycles and seasons of the year, the Saints and Apostles, the virtues, or sometimes the Zodiac.  These petals act as paths guiding our eyes always back to the center. It is meant to be a symbol of our own spiritual journey and how to return back to that which is most important to us.
Domed ceilings in churches are another architectural expression of this sacred form, usually having a window up to the sky in the center, allowing the light to radiate into the building.  Monasteries were often built around central cloisters.  These were usually square in shape because of the building wall structure, but in the center there was often a lush garden or sometimes a fountain as an expression of God’s abundance and dwelling place at the center of monastic life.
Labyrinths are sacred circle forms being rediscovered today, with the most famous one at Chartres Cathedral in France. They contain a circuitous path that eventually leads to the center and are symbolic of the soul’s journey to the divine center within.  In the middle ages, labyrinths were used as metaphorical pilgrimages for those who could not journey to the holy city of Jerusalem.  Walking a labyrinth is a profoundly meditative experience, in part because the circular journey helps to integrate both sides of the brain in prayer and so frees the mind from a strictly linear way of approaching God.
Rosaries are also examples of the sacred circle as a form to support prayer. The word “rosary” comes from the Latin for “garland of roses.”  In Catholicism the rose symbolizes the Virgin Mary and the layers of petals draw our awareness toward the center.  Praying the rosary is a kinesthetic experience of holding each of the round beads between our fingers and repeating our prayers as our hands also move around the circle, offering us an experience of wholeness through both word and body.
Mandalas or sacred circles offer us a template for the interior journey to the heart of ourselves where we encounter the heart of God present as well.

Mandalas in the form of a labyrinth within church architecture may symbolize either Hell or the Pilgrim's Way depending on its usage.

Though originally seen as metaphors for the dark powers of Hell and our need to rely on Our Lady to show us her Son, over time labyrinths came to be seen quite differently. During the Crusades when Christians couldn't make visits to the Holy Land, and in the same manner that the Way of the Cross devotion developed as a sort of substitute "pilgrimage" to the Holy City, labyrinths came to be used as substitute "Chemins de Jerusalem." Christians, barred from earthly Zion, would walk the labyrinths, often on their knees in penance, meditating on the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Sound easy? The paths of the Chartres labyrinth, for example, make for a journey of 858 feet. Imagine walking on your knees on cold, hard marble for almost the length of three football fields!

Plan of the labyrinth of Chartres Cathedral

Walking the labyrinth at Chartres Cathedral

Forms which are evocative of mandalas are prevalent in Christianity: the Celtic cross; the rosary; the halo; the aureole; oculi; the Crown of Thorns; rose windows; the Rosy Cross; and the dromenon on the floor of Chartres Cathedral. The dromenon represents a journey from the outer world to the inner sacred centre where the Divine is found.
The Cosmati pavements, including that at Westminster Abbey, are geometric mandala-like mosaic designs from thirteenth century Italy. The Great Pavement at Westminster Abbey is believed to embody divine and cosmic geometries as the seat of enthronement of the monarchs of England. - Wikipedia

Cosmati pulpit in Santa Maria Assunta in Lugnano in Teverina


Was Jesus a political revolutionary? A violent one? From a non-Christian and purely historical perspective, is there clear evidence on whether the historical Jesus was a political revolutionary? A violent political revolutionary?
For example, this review of a book by Reza Aslan complains:

[...] why credit and emphasize violent passages in the Gospels while discrediting and deemphasizing peaceful ones? Why believe that Jesus really told his disciples, “If you do not have a sword, go sell your cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36)? Why the skepticism when it comes to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44)?
And what about the obvious problems with the argument that Jesus was not just a political revolutionary — as biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan and others have argued — but a violent one?

If one simply takes the gospels at face value, then:

There is overwhelming emphasis on his teaching of nonviolence and forgiveness.

He's clearly talking about the end of the world, not a secular revolution.

His crucifixion was not the failure of a revolution but the success of a preordained plan that he predicted in advance to his followers.

But what if, as Aslan does, one dismisses nearly all of the content of the gospels as a description of historical fact, and relies only on criteria that would be considered more reliable by non-Christians, such as non-Christian records, the criterion of embarrassment, etc.?

Prefacing with quotes from the article [which is critical of Mr. Aslan] referenced in the question:

Like every other scholar with the chutzpah to try to divide the
historical Jesus accurately from the Christ of Christian faith, Aslan
does a lot of cherry-picking. [...]
And what about the obvious problems with the argument that Jesus was
not just a political revolutionary — as biblical scholar John Dominic
Crossan and others have argued — but a violent one? What are we to
make of Jesus’s apparent lack of interest in doing anything practical
whatsoever to prepare for holy war? If he has come to fight for “a
real kingdom, with an actual king,” where are his soldiers and their
weapons? And why no battle plan?
In the end, “Zealot” offers readers not the historical Jesus but a
Jesus for our place and time — an American Jesus for the 21st century,
and more specifically for a post-Sept. 11 society struggling to make
sense of Christianity’s ongoing rivalry with Islam.

Answering Mr. Aslan [through the question posed]: "This is our position/accusation, now support/prove it for us" is not how it is done.
In programs that appear on secular TV around the Christmas and Easter seasons, e.g. After Jesus | CNN, the narrative given for  Jesus' crucifixion is that he was a rabble-rouser [exact wording - I had to look it up] and the local Roman officials had to deal with him, and in a way that issued a warning to others, or else the matter, unresolved, would landed them in hot water with Rome.
Similarly, St. John's account of Jesus' crucifixion is explained away as a 'Johnny-come-lately' [no pun intended] narrative that progressively pins Jesus' crucifixion on 'the Jews' [one wonders why a Jew would want to do that to fellow Jews].
My take was that this is one of the fallouts from Antisemitism.
These were the politico-religious sects/factions at the time of Jesus: the Pharisees, the Zealots, and the Herodians. There is no historical or scriptual basis that Jesus belonged to any of these.
A cursory look at Jesus' Apostles and Disciples might indicate an apparent indirect link to the Zealots via St. Simon the Apostle, surnamed Zelotes [cf. Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13], except the New Advent link from his name explains his name does not signify that he belonged to the party of Zealots, but that he had zeal for the Jewish law, which he practised before his call.
It is likely that Mr. Reza Aslan is jumping on the bandwagon of the current popular narrative [what people want to hear, aligned with the current political opinion, and what sells], and if not, he has the burden of proof to his assertions in the absence of historical and scriptural [the Gospels are also historical] evidence.
Was Jesus a political revolutionary? A violent one?
Another approach is to look at Jesus' 'Movement' after his Death and Resurrection. If he were, as the question asks, it is surprising that of his followers [14 out of 16 Apostles] all but one were martyred for him like lambs led to the slaughter. Their legacy a 2000-year [now the] oldest institution in the world; absent in it a violent political revolutionary idealogy.