Does Catholicism teach a physical 'New Earth' or is it only a state of mind? In my Catholic catechism classes, I have always heard that a Christian's ultimate aim is to reach heaven with the Lord and that heaven is not a physical place but a state of mind.

But in Revelation chapter 21, and also in some places of Old Testament, it is said that God will make a New Earth (or reform this corrupted earth so that, essentially, it's a new earth).

Is that where humans are finally destined to be?

Is that going to be a physical place just as this earth?

What is the Catholic Perspective on these questions?

This section of the Catholic Catechism addresses this issue.

  VI. Hope of the New Heaven and the New Earth
  1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. the universe itself will be renewed:

  The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ. [LG 48; Cf. Acts 3:21; Eph 1:10; Col 1:20; 2 Pet 3:10-13]

  1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, “new heavens and a new earth.” [2 Pet 3:13; Cf. Rev 21:1] It will be the definitive realization of God's plan to bring under a single head “all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth.” [Eph 1:10]

  1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men. [Cf. Rev 21:5] “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.” [Rev 21:4]

  1045 For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation and of which the pilgrim Church has been “in the nature of sacrament.” [Cf. LG 1] Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, “the holy city” of God, “the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” [Rev 21:2, 9] She will not be wounded any longer by sin, stains, self-love, that destroy or wound the earthly community. [Cf. Rev 21:27] The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion.

  1046 For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:

  For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay.... We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. [Rom 8:19-23]

  1047 The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ. [St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 5, 32, 1 PG 7/2, 210]

  1048 “We know neither the moment of the consummation of the earth and of man, nor the way in which the universe will be transformed. the form of this world, distorted by sin, is passing away, and we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, in which happiness will fill and surpass all the desires of peace arising in the hearts of men.” [GS 39 # 1]

  1049 “Far from diminishing our concern to develop this earth, the expectancy of a new earth should spur us on, for it is here that the body of a new human family grows, foreshadowing in some way the age which is to come. That is why, although we must be careful to distinguish earthly progress clearly from the increase of the kingdom of Christ, such progress is of vital concern to the kingdom of God, insofar as it can contribute to the better ordering of human society.” [GS 39 # 2]

  1050 “When we have spread on earth the fruits of our nature and our enterprise . . . according to the command of the Lord and in his Spirit, we will find them once again, cleansed this time from the stain of sin, illuminated and transfigured, when Christ presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom.” [GS 39 # 3] God will then be “all in all” in eternal life: [1 Cor 5:28]

  True and subsistent life consists in this: the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, pouring out his heavenly gifts on all things without exception. Thanks to his mercy, we too, men that we are, have received the inalienable promise of eternal life. [St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. illum. 18, 29: PG 33, 1049]


What happened to the resurrected after death? In the Bible (primarily the New Testament), we see numerous people who were raised from the dead. Drawing from this link, we see the following were raised from death:

Widow of Zarephath's son (1 Kings 17:17-24)
Shunamite's son (2 Kings 4:20-37)
Man tossed into Elisha's tomb (2 Kings 13:21)
Widow of Nain's son (Luke 7:11-16)
Synagogue ruler Jairus' 12-year-old daughter (Mark 5:35-43)
Lazarus (John 11:1-44)
Tabitha, also known as Dorcas (Acts 9:36-41)
Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12)
Men raised upon Jesus' death (Matt 27:51-53)

Some of these were most likely saved already (e.g. Lazarus, Tabitha). Others we simply hardly know anything about. Is there any evidence or any significant commentary on what happened between their first death and resurrection? If they went to heaven/hell after that first death, what was it like coming back from that?

Note: I am not Catholic, so I am not interested in an explanation that claims they went to Purgatory

About this question there is such point of view (close to the Eastern Orthodox tradition).

It seems, that all people, described in your question, were neither in Heaven, neither in Purgatory. They were in Sheol. This is because before Christ's Resurrection, The Heaven was closed, and the hell, as place for unrepentant sinners wasn't. All people who died were placed into Sheol.

This point of view could be confirmed by the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31):
both of them are in the same place, because they can communicate with each other, but there is a great gulf between them (Luke 16:26):

  And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed:
  so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can
  they pass to us, that would come from thence.

In this Parable isn't talked about The Heaven, but about Abraham's bosom, i.e. some place somewhere in Sheol (which is synonymic called "Hell" in all Bible texts), where all righteous men are rested.


Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43 Is there a problem with the punctuation, as we see that Jesus did not go to paradise that day?

Could Jesus' words be punctuated as:

  I tell you the truth this day - with me thou shalt be in Paradise.

I have heard three resolutions to the series of problems posed by this verse, and found a fourth researching your question. First, I challenge the assumption "as we see that Jesus did not go to paradise that day".

Omnipresence. Jesus possesses two natures, divine and human, linked into a unit in a way that is inexpressible. The divine nature of Jesus has always been in the presence of God in Heaven, and always will. The human nature and physical person of Christ would not ascend to Heaven until the third day. So the thief on the cross would on that very day be with the spirit of Jesus in Heaven.
Change in destiny. The "today" refers to the time of the change in the thief's destiny. He had been headed for Hell, but "today" that changed. Now that he has confessed his sins and believed in Jesus as his king he is saved and his destiny is to go to Heaven and be there with Jesus, how ever long that journey may take, whether one day, three, or a thousand years in purgatory (which I do not believe in, but also a possibility if you accept this interpretation). So a rewording would be, "As of Today, you will be with me in paradise."
Paradise. This revolves around the word "paradise". If it is not Heaven, but instead the place of the righteous dead (like Abraham) who had not ascended into Heaven yet because Jesus had not yet paid for their sins, then that was where the thief would go - "today". The thief would accompany Jesus on his journey to Paradise to set the captives free, then escort them into Heaven.

For reference: Here is the Greek in question:

Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ , Ἀμήν σοι λέγω , σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ Παραδείσῳ .

It is the comma after λέγω (lego) that is being questioned.

Contradicting my favorite view.

Here is Wilson Paroschi's take on the question, in an article from Ministry Magazine: https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/06/the-significance-of-a-comma:-an-analysis-of-luke-23:43

There is minority support for the later placement of the comma after σήμερον (today) in Codex Vaticanus and the Curetonian Syriac, but also early additions of the word "that" into the Greek to cement our current, more common translation.

Quoting the above article in defense of the later placement of the comma:

  Among the church writers, this reading was also attested by Ephraem
  the Syrian, of the fourth century,7 as well as Cassian and Hesychius,
  of the fifth century.

In a section of the article on linguistic evidence:

  In Greek, there is no specific rule concerning the position of the
  adverb, whether before or after the verb.11 Thus, from the grammatical
  standpoint we find it impossible to determine if sēmeron in Luke 23:43
  modifies the preceding verb (“to tell”) or the following one (“to
  be”). Luke, however, has a definite tendency of using this adverb with
  the preceding verb. This happens in 14 of the 20 occurrences of
  sēmeron in Luke and Acts (Luke 2:11; 5:26; 12:28; 13:32, 33; 22:34,
  61; Acts 19:40; 20:26; 22:3; 24:21; 26:2, 29; 27:33).12 Of the five
  uses of the adverb with the following verb, one is a quotation from
  Psalm 2:7 (Acts 13:33), and, in three cases, sēmeron is preceded by a
  conjunction (Luke 4:21; 19:5, 9),13 which makes such a construction
  inevitable. That is, there is only one example in Luke’s writings in
  which sēmeron was freely placed before the verb (Acts 4:9). The
  attempt to read the adverb in Luke 23:43 in connection to the
  preceding verb, therefore, is not only fully acceptable in terms of
  grammar but is also in complete agreement with Luke’s literary style.

Convention upheld. Another view, affirming the conventional placement of the comma:
http://www.99for1ministries.com/Placement%20of%20the%20Comma%20in%20Luke%2023-43.pdf

This article refers to Mark 14:30, the only other place where Jesus makes a similar reference to today, and where it would make no sense to attach the "today" to the "say to you".

  “And Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you, that this very night,
  [amen lego soi lego semeron taute te nykti] before a rooster crows
  twice, you yourself will deny Me three times.”

This article lists all ALL 76 passages in the Gospels where Jesus says, "Truly I say to you", allowing you to see that either a comma or the word "that" is always placed after the word today.


Imposition of Ashes - where in Catholicism is it commonly practiced? Since I learned of this practice, I thought that placing ashes on Ash Wednesday is practiced worldwide, at least within the Roman Catholic Church. But now I have been to a Mass (on the first Lent Sunday, when ashes may be placed for those who didn't receive this sacramental on Ash Wednesday) attended by some Portuguese people. They seemed puzzled when they saw the priest placing ashes on other worshipers - they apparently didn't know the practice.

I checked the Czech (I'm Czech) and English Wikipedias, and they both highlight the practice of placing ashes. I don't speak Portuguese, but Portuguese Wikipedia has no ashes-themed picture and from the little I understand, it seems that this practice is not even mentioned there. Anyway, Portugal is unlikely to be the only country not observing imposition of ashes. English Wikipedia gives a list of churches observing Ash Wednesday, but not one of countries where the practice of placing ashes is (or is not) observed in the Roman Catholic Church. Is there any such list?

I believe that the imposition of ashes is universal within the Roman Catholic Church.  The practice was "made official" in a 1091 decree of the Council of Benevento, which states:

  "on Ash Wednesday everyone, clergy and laity, men and women, will receive ashes"1

Before that, the practice was done in private, dating back many centuries, and probably in some church services since at least the 8th century.

What is not universal is how the ashes are applied. A 1988 circular letter simply states:

  On the Wednesday before the first Sunday of Lent, the faithful receive the ashes, thus entering into the time established for the purification of their souls...  The blessing and imposition of ashes should take place either in the Mass or outside of the Mass. In the latter case, it is to be part of a liturgy of the word and conclude with the prayer of the faithful.2

Thus individual churches may administer the ashes in different ways.  Traditionally, men received ashes sprinkled on the crown of head, while women received them in the form of a sign of the cross on the forehead.  In English-speaking countries today, it is common to mix the ashes with water (to make them stick better) and make a sign of the cross, while in other places a cross is made without any water.  In Rome, the traditional sprinkling practice is still used.  Apparently some churches now use a "stamp" to impose the ashes. (See also this article which states: "There are no set rules regarding this, and it largely depends on local custom.")

Turning to the specific example cited, the Portugese Wikipedia may have failed to mention the practice when the question was originally asked, but it now says:

  Missas são realizadas tradicionalmente nesse dia nas quais os participantes são abençoados com cinzas pelo padre que preside à cerimónia. O padre marca a testa de cada celebrante com cinzas, deixando uma marca que o cristão normalmente deixa em sua testa até ao pôr do sol, antes de lavá-la. ("Masses are traditionally held on that day [Ash Wednesday] in which participants are blessed with ashes by the priest who presides over the ceremony. The priest marks the forehead of each celebrant with ashes, leaving a mark that the Christian usually leaves on his forehead to the sunset, before washing it.")

The Portuguese people in Czech service described in the question were presumably confused either by the method by which the ashes were applied or by the fact it was being done on a Sunday (as suggested by a commenter).  I was not able to find any evidence of Roman Catholic Churches that don't physically administer ashed in Portugal or anywhere else.


What is supralapsarianism? One of the main reasons Jacobus Arminius split with Calvinism was his opposition to the doctrine of supralapsarianism taught by his colleagues at Leiden University.

What is supralapsarianism? Is it a commonly held belief among Calvinists?

This word is clearly defined here.

Basically Supralapsarianism is a big word meaning 'before' 'fall' i.e before the fall. Calvin was what many call today extreme Calvinists or 'High Calvinism'. It refers to those people who believe God chose who will be saved and who damned, sealing their fate, before Adam sinned. Low Calvinists just hold predestination of those going to heaven as something God did after the fall.

Calvin and Arminian are not the only cards on the table:

Luther said,

  He [Martin Luther] spoke at length about the idle people who occupy themselves with disputation about predestination beyond the limits of Scripture. It is most ungodly and dangerous business to abandon the certain and revealed will of God in order to search into the hidden mysteries of God. (Luther's Works Vol 54, P249)

Possibly if Calvin paid more attention to Luther's maturity on the subject of predestination Arminius would have been a Calvinist? Many of us are 90% Calvinists and 10% Arminian, but neither extreme likes us very much.


Jewish Festival of Lights and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception? While I was doing some reading on how Catholics celebrate various feasts and festivals from around the world, I noticed that the city of Lyons, France celebrates the Festival of Lights on December 8th each year which is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

The Jewish community celebrate the Festival of Hanukkah on the 25th of  Kislev.

  Hanukkah is observed for eight nights and days, starting on the 25th day of Kislev according to the Hebrew calendar, which may occur at any time from late November to late December in the Gregorian calendar. It is also known as the Festival of Lights and the Feast of Dedication.

While reading this question, I became intrigued  as to know if the building of the Temple of Herod which is believed have to commenced in or around the year 20 BC and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary could have happened about the same time.

If Our Lord was born between the years 6 BC and 4 BC and Mary was possibly married to St Joseph between the ages of 14 - 16 years old, could not the Immaculate Conception and the commencement of the building of the Temple of Herod not have coincided in the same year?

My question is this: Has any Church Father or Church writer ever addressed the possibility of the Virgin Mary's Immaculate  Conception and the commencement of the building of the Temple of Herod as happening in the same year?

Not a Church Father, possibly not a Church writer, but good enough for Mel Gibson, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich had a vision that was recorded in "The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary". Wherein it is written:

All that has so far been recorded of the blessing given to Joachim and Anna is compiled from visions and reminiscences of Catherine Emmerich during the feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8th. She explained, however, on that day in the year 1821 that the meeting of Joachim and Anna under the Golden Gate did not occur in December but in the autumn, at the end of the Feast of Tabernacles (which lasted from the 15th to 23rd of the month Tisri, i.e. in September or October).   Thus she saw Joachim building tabernacles with his shepherds before going to the Temple, and Anna receiving the promise of fruitfulness while she was praying under a tree which formed a tabernacle. In the previous year, 1820, she had, however, stated that she remembered Joachim having gone up to Jerusalem with his offerings on the occasion of a dedication festival. This cannot be the usual Jewish dedication feast in the winter (the 25th day of the month, Kislev), but must doubtless be a memorial festival of Solomon’s dedication of the Temple
Life of Mary

So yes, there was some mention of Mary's Immaculate Conception being close to the the Haunakah
And she does address the rebuilding of the temple, which did take a long time:

I never remember seeing that Herod entirely rebuilt the Temple: I only saw various alterations being made in it during his reign. Now, when Mary came to the Temple, eleven years before Christ’s birth, nothing was being built in the Temple itself, but (as always) in the outer portions of it: here the work never stopped.
At the Incarnation of Christ the Blessed Virgin was a little over fourteen years old

She also had visions of Joachim and Anne meeting at the temple well before 20 B.C. which isn't by any means wrong since they were just beefing up the temple that the Maccabees rededicated.
I was reading Bl. Anne Catherine's visions trying to find something that didn't quite jibe with the historical accounts of the rebuilding of the temple specifically, but I'm not sure there's anything that doesn't match up.  She didn't however connect the Immaculate Conception to anything Herod was doing.
Except, for one thing, which might be a stretch, that the Ark of the Covenant, being missing from the temple when it was rebuilt was there all along in Mary!
Also, Jimmy Akin has some interesting research into the various years that Jesus may have been born in.  Placing His birth at 2 or 3 B.C. as a more likely guess.  Doing a dangerous thing and mixing the visions with the archaeology places The Immaculate Conception at 17 or 18 B.C. which is consistent.
I was thinking "Hard Hat Area", but apparently the temple wasn't entirely cut off from regular folks at the time:

The laity could not enter certain parts of the building, therefore 1000 Levites were specially trained as builders and masons, and carried out their work so efficiently and carefully that at no time was there any interruption in the sacrifices and other services.
https://www.bible-history.com/jewishtemple/JEWISH_TEMPLEHerods_Temple00000006.htm


What is "Christ Consciousness", and which branches teach it? I'm interested in the concept of Christ Consciousness, and have been to several churches, and have since fell away from institutional religion since I couldn't apply it to my life.

How can I learn about this concept, and are there different approaches to learning about it from a non denominational, born again, protestant, or babtist perspective?

Are any opposed to this concept?

The first thing to understand about “Christ Consciousness” is that it is not Christian and does not form any part of Protestant or Baptist theology that I am aware of.  Below are partial quotes from the official Christ Consciousness Organisation:

Christ Consciousness is the growing human recognition and blending of the human evolutionary (or ego) mind with the Divine Mind and the Divine Personality that is the source of human happiness and fulfillment. This awareness accrues over time within the consciousness of human thinking when intention, attention, and openness is focused on knowing who and what is that “Christed” state of being—the higher mindedness of enlightenment.
Is Christ Consciousness Christian?  This path is open to anyone regardless of their religious tradition if and when he or she is open to become a living vessel of LOVE, TRUTH, BEAUTY and GOODNESS on the planet and actively strives to attain it... This is not a term used exclusively in the Christian religion, nor does it mean that you must adhere to a Christian belief system to attain this state. All of the world’s religious traditions offer a path to achieving this “Christed” status, and people are free to find their way in the context of their religious choice.  Sources: https://www.institutechristconsciousness.org/
https://www.ctrforchristcon.org/living-christ-consciousness.html

In other words, it doesn't matter if you are a Christian or not, or if you follow another religion, or if you have no religious beliefs, because "Christ Consciousness" is not about believing in and following the teaching of Jesus or of obeying Him. It's about finding your own path - whatever makes you feel good.
This is what one non-denominational Protestant Christian website has this to say about “Christ Consciousness” and whether or not it is Christian:

So-called “Christ consciousness” has been known by various names in history, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and most Eastern mystical religions. More recently, Deepak Chopra has popularized the “christianized” version of this same pseudo-spirituality. The danger in this latest version of mysticism is the use of Bible verses and Christian terms, which can easily lead astray those who don’t check the Scriptures for themselves.
The basic premise of mysticism is that man can, within himself, transcend physical existence and experience his own goodness as being “one” with the universe, being a god, or existing on whatever higher plane he chooses to believe in. The name of Jesus is merely used as a prop in this latest version of the same idea. Jesus is seen as the “leader” in showing us how to exalt our own inner goodness and, in doing so, make ourselves right with whatever deity we choose to acknowledge. Christ consciousness groups claim that Jesus earned the title “Christ” by perfectly channeling the divine consciousness we can all attain, and they attempt to attribute this philosophy to the Lord Jesus. Those championing this ideology are merely using the name of Jesus as a means of worshiping themselves. They desire to find absolution without repentance, confession of sin, or acknowledging Jesus’ substitutionary death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3–4).
The only “Christ consciousness” the Bible teaches is found in Philippians 2:5–7, “Have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” First Corinthians 2:16 says that, as believers, we “have the mind of Christ.” But this is stated in the context of the spiritual man versus the natural man, who is unable to understand the things of the Spirit (verses 14–15). When we are born again (John 3:3), we receive the Holy Spirit as a gift (Luke 24:49; Acts 2:38). He enables us to comprehend spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14), serve Jesus from a heart of love (Mark 7:6; 1 Peter 4:11), and live righteously despite temptations (1 Corinthians 10:13; 1 John 3:8–10).  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Christ-consciousness.html

Protestant Christianity teaches that we are all sinners and incapable of saving ourselves from the consequences of sin, and that salvation is a free and undeserved gift from God to those who recognise their need, repent and come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.  The Bible declares that the ONLY way to God the Father is through Christ Jesus.  Any person who rejects the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ Jesus and thinks they can attain some sort of higher consciousness by virtue of their own efforts is not following Christianity.

...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God (John 3:16-18).
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12).
...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9).

Religion, whether it is “institutional” or not, saves nobody.  Christianity is all about believing in and following Christ Jesus, not some man-made philosophy that embraces some Christian terminology but rejects what God, in Jesus, did to rescue us from our sinful state.


What, exactly, is the "early Church"? We use the phrase "The Early Church" all the time around here, which leads me to ask...  What exactly is "the early Church"?

The New testament Church is easy to define – the fellowship of believers that existed during New testament times.  But I've never come across a definitive date range for the "Early Church" or even a specific event or marker.

For comparison, the "Middle Ages" sounds like it might be a relative term, but the term "Middle Ages" refers to a specific time period – the 5th to the 15th century A.D.

Does "The Early Church" refer to a specific, commonly accepted time period in the history of the Church, or do we just use it to refer to "Sometime early A.D." with the definition of "early" being up to open interpretation?

Early church is not a technical term, so it can be used fairly loosely, but generally follows the history and writings of church leaders which are divided by time period into the Ante-Nicene era (prior to the council of Nicaea in 325AD) and the Nicene/Post-Nicene era, up to the scholasticism of the Middle Ages.

There is no period of the church which is devoid of meaningful history, but the early church is often cited as a form of implicit evidence to the earliest interpretations of various traditions, especially when the scriptures do not go into detail about how various doctrines and traditions were practiced. Yet Protestant bodies generally seek to denounce traditions, even early ones, when they are perceived to violate the teachings of scripture.


How has God destroyed the wisdom of the wise? In 1 Corinthians 1:19, Paul writes:

1 Corinthians 1:19-20
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

How has God destroyed the wisdom of the wise and made foolish the wisdom of the world?
Ironically, much of the world seems to think that science has done the same to God.

Paul explains what he means when read in context.

  I Corinthians 1:18-27 For the preaching of the cross is to them that
  perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of
  God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and
  will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the
  wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath
  not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the
  wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the
  foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews
  require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach
  Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks
  foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks,
  Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. *Because the
  foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is
  stronger than men.* For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not
  many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are
  called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
  confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to
  confound the things which are mighty;

In other words, the world believes that 'Christ crucified' is foolishness, when it is in fact the wisdom of God. By their wisdom (their learning and reasoning) they reject the wisdom of God, which is so simple that it confounds supposedly learned men.

The scribes, being the few that could actually read the Old Testament scrolls, should have been the ones to recognize Jesus. But instead it was simple fishermen (not many noble, not many wise) that recognized who He was.

Paul's point is that the approach to God is not found through intellectual reasoning and man's wisdom, but God is revealed in such simplicity that the wise of the world stumble.


Is guessing a way to God? If I 'guess' that there is a God and live accordingly, could I be considered a true believer? Can faith only be revealed? Is believing not a form of guessing?

No, you are not a true believer.  If you are saying that "living accordingly", as in mouthing prayers, attending church services, and living a basically decent life, while not actually believing that Jesus died for your sins, then no, you are not saved.
Evidence: John 3:16 and Rom 10:9.

Yes, it is a way to God. If you are saying that going through the motions is a way to God, then yes.  Evidence:

1) "Faith comes by hearing" Rom 10:17.

2) Dietrich Bonhoeffer in
    Cost of Discipleship offers the advice of "He who obeys believes,
    and he who believes obeys." He then goes on to advise "obedience" as
    a remedy to weak faith

3) There's a folk tale of a Scottish pastor
    who started out as a charlatan. A nonbeliever, he wandered into a
    town and applied for a job as pastor.  The story goes that one day
    he broke down in tears while preaching, because he had converted
    himself.  One version of a similar story is here:
    http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2007/07/george-whitefield-portrait-of-revival.html


What does "to appeal from the Hell" mean? I'm new on this site of Stack Exhcange. As a non-native speaker, I've been asking questions on ELL and ELU. However, I thought this might be related with religion (in this case, of course, Christianity) rather than language.

The following passage is an excerpt from god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens:

  Pre-Christian hells were highly unpleasant too, and called upon the same sadistic ingenuity for their invention. However, some of the early ones we know of —most notably the Hindu— were limited in time. A sinner, for example, might be sentenced to a given number of years in hell, where every day counted as 6,400 human years. If he slew a priest, the sentence thus adjusted would be 149,504,000,000 years. At this point, he was allowed nirvana, which seems to mean annihilation. It was left to Christians to find a hell from which there was no possible appeal. (And the idea is easily plagiarized: I once heard Louis Farrakhan, leader of the heretical black-only “Nation of Islam,” as he drew a hideous roar from a mob in Madison Square Garden. Hurling spittle at the Jews, he yelled, “And don’t you forget — when it’s God who puts you in the ovens, it’s FOREVER!”).

I can't understand what he means by "appeal from hell" at all. I would be more than happy if anyone could explain me the meaning here.

Thank you very much.

As a matter of English usage, to "appeal from" something is to request that it be set aside or modified in your favor. As a non-Christian, Hitchens paints the picture of someone asking God to be released from Hell. As far as I know, any Christian who believes Hell might be for a limited period of time (a minority of Christians but still a lot of people) would see release as totally God's choice.

Christians differ about how literally to take the descriptions of Hell. Describing a place as both "fire" and "outer darkness" suggests these might be metaphors. The Greek words usually translated as "forever" could also mean a long time, literally "ages and ages".


Does Catholicism confound the role of "elder" and "priest"? I am somewhat interested in joining the Roman Catholic Church, but there are some things that I've had to further investigate, one of which is the role of "elder" and "priest" in the Roman Catholic Church.

Priest

Here is my understanding thus far regarding the word "priest."

In the Old Testament, כֹהֵן = ἱερεὺς = "priest" (Masoretic = LXX = KJV)
In the New Testament, ἱερεὺς = "priest."

For example: Gen. 14:18 in the OT, and Matt. 8:4 in the NT. In summary, ἱερεὺς is used in the LXX and the Greek NT, and in both, it is translated consistently into English as "priest."

Elder

Here is my understanding thus far regarding the word "elder."

In the Old Testament, זָקֵן = πρεσβύτερος = “elder.” (Masoretic = LXX = KJV)
In the New Testament, πρεσβύτερος = “elder.”

For example: Num. 11:25 in the OT, and Acts 11:30 in the NT. In summary, πρεσβύτερος is used in the LXX and the Greek NT, and in both, it is generally translated into English as "elder" and seldomly "presbyter," but never as "priest."

The Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the English word "priest" states,

  The Christian law also has necessarily its priesthood to carry out the Divine service, the principal act of which is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the figure and renewal of that of Calvary. This priesthood has two degrees: the first, total and complete, the second an incomplete participation of the first. The first belongs to the bishop. The bishop is truly a priest (sacerdos), and even a high-priest; he has chief control of the Divine worship (sacrorum antistes), is the president of liturgical meetings; he has the fullness of the priesthood, and administers all the sacraments. The second degree belongs to the priest (presbyter), who is also a sacerdos, but of the second rank ("secundi sacerdotes" Innocent I ad Eugub.); by his priestly ordination he receives the power to offer sacrifice (i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist), to forgive sins, to bless, to preach, to sanctify, and in a word to fulfil the non-reserved liturgical duties or priestly functions.

Notice how it equates "priest" and "presbyter." ("Presbyter" is simply a loan-word derived from the Greek word πρεσβύτερος. Loan words are essentially loose transliterations, but not translations. The translation of πρεσβύτερος would be "elder.")

I understand "priest" is etymologically derived from πρεσβύτερος, but πρεσβύτερος is consistently translated into English as "elder," not "priest." We consistently see the Greek word ἱερεὺς translated into English as "priest" instead.

So the question: where in the OT or NT did the "elder" - which is the actual meaning of πρεσβύτερος -  function also as a "priest" (ἱερεὺς), that is, one who was mainly tasked with offering sacrifices in a Temple? Why does the Roman Catholic Church equate the two terms?

The Catholic understanding is that the word πρεσβύτερος means priest subordinate to a hierarch, one ordained to offer sacrifice under the direction of a chief priest. It does not mean layman governor of the church, like a Protestant elder. This is consistent with NT usage, where "chief priests and elders=πρεσβύτερος" (Matt 21:23 KJV) refers to two levels of ordained hierarchy in the Jewish religion, both of whom are involved in the sacrificial temple worship. It is Protestantism, not Catholicism that has become confused by eliminating sacrifice from their religious practice, thus reducing their πρεσβύτερος to mere advisors and teachers.

NT and modern usage are correctly explained in the wikipedia article for Presbyter. I disagree with the quote from the ISV website at the bottom of the article saying that the zaqen were not priests. That appears to be an assumption on their part. Several usages in the synoptic gospels pairs presbyters with chief priests, which appears to put them in the priestly class. In one instance in each gospel (Matt 26:59, Mark 15:1, and Luke 22:66) it is clear that they are talking about members of the Sanhedrin that are not the chief priests.

The Catholic Church derived its terminology in the Greek language from the Septuagint and koine usage in NT times, not modern Protestant usage, and not pure etymology. We need to look not just at the etymology of the terms, but also how they were actually used in NT times. In this case, it's clear that the Jewish "presbyters" were members of the Sanhedrin and thus quite high in the Jewish hierarchy. It's also clear that the term was applied by the primitive Christian church to those men who were chosen by the bishops (overseers) to assist them by administering the sacraments to congregations where they could not be physically present each week. Thus, this is strong evidence that by NT times, presbyter had a sacerdotal connotation. The primary work of the primitive Christian church at this time was not judging the people (resolving disputes or administering law) but rather conducting sacramental rites.

There is also one relevant OT citation:

  Exodus 18:21-22 (KJV): 21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the
  people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness;
  and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of
  hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:

  22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that
  every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter
  they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall
  bear the burden with thee.

Note that this passage says "out of all the people able men", indicating that Levites were not excluded.

So why, I can hear you asking, doesn't the NT use ἱερεὺς instead of πρεσβύτερος? It does use it (in the plural form ἱεράτευμα), but it uses it for the priesthood of all believers in 1 Peter 2:5 and 1 Peter 2:9. Clearly the NT is making a distinction between the priesthood of all believers and the presiders at the sacraments.


What is the basis for the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy? Referencing one or more passage of scripture, and any seconday external sources, what is the supportable, Biblical basis for the doctrine of the innerrancy of the Bible?

Off the top of my head the two verses that come to mind is
2 Tim 3:16(NIV)

  "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

So it's clear that scripture is what God said and God cannot lie.

Hebrews 6:18 says

  "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, ..."


According to Reformed theology, what is an infant's first sin? From what I understand, every human that has ever lived is "born into sin", which means we all carry a "sin nature". Saul says:

  "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23

This means even little cute babies. If I'm not mistaken, most churches believe life begins at conception (which I have no problem with), so that means as soon as a baby is conceived, they are sinners before God.

Just to clarify, I'm not looking for answers from those that hold to the "age of accountability". If anyone believes in this, please leave a comment and I'll ask a separate question.

My question is...

What is the first sin an infant (or fetus) commits?

I've considered that this may be too broad of a question, but since infants can only do about 10 things (lay down, babble, drink milk, poop, etc), it shouldn't be hard to pinpoint that one thing that causes the infant to be a sinner deserving to have it's flesh burned forever and ever in agony.

Your hypothetical developing baby's first sin was disobeying God in eating the forbidden fruit.

On a more fundamental level, you are conflating two different concepts here. According to Reformed Theology (and indeed most branches of Protestantism) there are two different concepts in play here. Original sin, or the state in which we are born is different from specific acts of sin and the latter does not cause the former. Baby Jane doesn't have to do anything specific to be born sinful. She gets that from Adam—and by virtue of being a human.

The main doctrine you should read up on is called federal headship. This doctrine explains how all of mankind is considered fallen an account of Adam's sin. There are a number of good resources on the topic listed on Monergism and a summary on CARM.

Additionally the Reformed teaching of "salvation by grace alone" (sola gratia) is relevant here: salvation cannot be earned by by not sinning nor can it be lost by committing sinful acts. Believers can and do sin and don't automatically lose their salvation while non-believers may do "good" deeds that don't earn them favor from God because they are still inherently separated from him on account of Adam's sin and their fundamental nature. Baby Jane will do things that are selfish, defiant, and sinful starting even in the womb because that is the nature of a human. We do not wait around for our first acts of sin to be considered sinful. We deserve hell (separation from God) on account of our nature before we've done any specific acts of any moral importance.


How is the Shema of Deuteronomy reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity? The "Shema" (שְׁמַע), found in Deuteronomy 6:4, states that "YHVH (יהוה) is one."  This verse can be interpreted to contradict the doctrine of the Trinity, yet this doctrine is quite prominent in Christendom.  How, then, is the doctrine of the Trinity reconciled with this verse?  How can this verse be understood to be in harmony with the doctrine of the Trinity?

Hear, O' Israel! YHVH is our God, YHVH is one!
שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד

YHVH is not one person.
An Examination of Zechariah 2:8-11
In Zech. 2:8, it is written,

For thus said YHVH of hosts, "After glory He sent me to the nations who spoiled you, for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye.
כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אַחַר כָּבֹוד שְׁלָחַנִי אֶל־הַגּוֹיִם הַשֹּׁלְלִים אֶתְכֶם כִּי הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּכֶם נֹגֵעַ בְּבָבַת עֵינוֹ

Notice that YHVH of hosts is speaking, and YHVH of hosts states that "He sent me" (שְׁלָחַנִי). Who can send YHVH of hosts, the Almighty God? Surely no creature has the authority to send YHVH of hosts!
In Zech. 2:9, it is written,

For, behold, I shall shake my hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me.
כִּי הִנְנִי מֵנִיף אֶת־יָדִי עֲלֵיהֶם וְהָיוּ שָׁלָל לְעַבְדֵיהֶם וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי־יְהוָה צְבָאֹות שְׁלָחָנִי

YHVH of hosts is still speaking in Zech. 2:9. He states that "YHVH of hosts sent me."
To reiterate, YHVH of hosts is speaking in Zech. 2:8. He states, "He sent me." We ask, "Who sends YHVH of hosts?" In Zech. 2:9, this is answered when YHVH of hosts, who is still speaking, states, "YHVH of hosts sent me."
This is further confirmed in the following verse.
In Zech. 2:11, it is written,

And many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day, and they shall be my people, and I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you.
וְנִלְווּ גֹויִם רַבִּים אֶל־יְהוָה בַּיֹּום הַהוּא וְהָיוּ לִי לְעָם וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְתֹוכֵךְ וְיָדַעַתְּ כִּי־יְהוָה צְבָאֹות שְׁלָחַנִי אֵלָיִךְ

Again, YHVH is speaking. He states that "many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day," instead of saying that "many nations shall be joined to me in that day." By the speaker, who is YHVH, referring to YHVH in the third person, there appears to be a distinction between YHVH who is speaking and another YHVH to whom the nations shall be joined in that day. Now, it's not unheard of for YHVH to speak about Himself in the third person. However, the last clause confirms that there is more than one YHVH being mentioned in this verse. YHVH, who is speaking, states, "...and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you."
The Hebrew verb שְׁלָחַנִי ("he sent me") is reiterated in three verses:

Zechariah 2:8

For thus said YHVH of hosts, "After glory He sent me (שְׁלָחַנִי) to the nations who spoiled you, for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye.

Zechariah 2:9

For, behold, I shall shake my hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me (שְׁלָחַנִי).

Zechariah 2:11

And many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day, and they shall be my people, and I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me (שְׁלָחַנִי) to you.

In addition, in Zech. 2:10, it is written,

Sing and rejoice, O' daughter of Tzion, for, lo, I come, and I shall dwell in your midst," said YHVH.
רָנִּי וְשִׂמְחִי בַּת־צִיֹּון כִּי הִנְנִי־בָא וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְתֹוכֵךְ נְאֻם־יְהוָה

YHVH states that He will come and dwell in the midst of Israel.
Again, in Zech. 2:11, it is written,

And many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day, and they shall be my people, and I shall dwell in your midst, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you.
וְנִלְווּ גֹויִם רַבִּים אֶל־יְהוָה בַּיֹּום הַהוּא וְהָיוּ לִי לְעָם וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְתֹוכֵךְ וְיָדַעַתְּ כִּי־יְהוָה צְבָאֹות שְׁלָחַנִי אֵלָיִךְ

"And I shall dwell" (וְשָׁכַנְתִּי) is repeated in both verses. YHVH is the subject of the verb in both verses. Notice v. 11. YHVH states, "...and I shall dwell in your midst," and then the same YHVH states, "...and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you."
In conclusion, we have explicit confirmation in the Tanakh that Israel believed there was more than one person named "YHVH" (יהוה). This is later confirmed in the New Testament when the Son is revealed to Israel and dwells in their midst.

Exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:4 in Consideration of Zechariah 2:8-11
If there exist more than one person named YHVH, i.e. the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit), what does it mean when Deut. 6:4 states that "YHVH is one" (יְהוָה אֶחָד)? It is not enough to say "YHVH is one," but we must know, YHVH is one what? Certainly YHVH is not one "person," for that would contradict the doctrine of the Trinity, and of course, Zech. 2:8-11.
Upon much consideration of the Shema in its immediate context, I believe it should be translated as,

"Hear O' Israel! YHVH is our God, YHVH is the only one!"

Moshe is exhorting Israel to understand that:

YHVH is their God
YHVH is the only one (i.e., the only true God, and Israel's only God)

The Shema is thus an affirmation of the monotheistic faith of Israel. This is in contradistinction to the polytheism that Israel witnessed in Egypt by the Egyptians, as well as the nations surrounding Israel (cp. Deut. 6:14).
Can the Hebrew word אֶחָד (echad), which literally means the numeral one, be understood in this sense? I believe there is a basis for it. Wilhelm Gesenius indeed states that אֶחָד can mean "one only of its kind" (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 32). Gesenius cites a few examples, such as Job 23:13, Eze. 7:5, and Song of Songs 6:8.
In Song of Songs 6:8, in which it is written,

אַחַת הִיא, יוֹנָתִי תַמָּתִי--אַחַת הִיא לְאִמָּהּ, בָּרָה הִיא לְיוֹלַדְתָּהּ; רָאוּהָ בָנוֹת וַיְאַשְּׁרוּהָ, מְלָכוֹת וּפִילַגְשִׁים וַיְהַלְלוּהָ.

The Jewish Publication Society (JPS, 1917) translates this as,

My dove, my undefiled, is but one; she is the only one of her mother; she is the choice one of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and called her happy; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.

אַחַת is the simply the feminine declension of אֶחָד. Obviously, the dove is not "the one of her mother," but rather, "the only one of her mother." Here we see that אֶחָד can be translated as "only one" with the actual noun being implied from the preceding context. In Song of Songs 6:8, it is the mother's only dove. In Deuteronomy 6:4, YHVH is Israel's only God.

Summary
In conclusion, since the Father and the Son are one in essence, and both the Father and the Son are God (John 1:1), then the Shema is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity which states that there are three persons who are essentially God. Since the name of God is YHVH, then the name of each person of the Trinity is YHVH. The Son, YHVH, is Israel's God, just as the Father, YHVH, is Israel's God, and the Holy Spirit, YHVH, is Israel's God. Each person of the Trinity is co-equal and co-eternal in nature, so there is no distinction of essence, but rather, only of persons.


When did Paul receive Holy Orders? Presumably all the original apostles received holy orders directly from Christ at some point (as far as I'm aware this is not explicitly recorded in the new testament).

However Paul converted to Christianity after Jesus had ascended into heaven. He also claims to be an apostle. But to truly be an apostle he needs to have received holy orders so that he is placed in the apostolic succession. It doesn't seem possible that he received holy orders directly from Christ, because Christ was chilling up in heaven at the time and so was unavailable to lay hands on Paul.

Did Peter or one of the other twelve give Paul holy orders? When did it happen?

Scoping to everyone except for Protestants: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and any other church which recognises the sacrament of Holy Orders and the concept of apostolic succession are welcome to answer, Protestants please remain silent.

Paul says that he received his calling direct from God and not from man (flesh and blood), then went to Arabia, then Damascus and met Peter only after a further three years, in which he had already taken on the role of the apostle to the gentiles:

  Galatians 1:15-18: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Some prefer the somewhat different account in Acts of the Apostles, which says that Paul had a miraculous vision of Jesus and was taken to Damascus. According to this account, he was taught the gospel in Damascus by Ananias and other disciples, then preached, not to gentiles but to Jews. After escaping from Damascus he was taken to Jerusalem but it is unclear in this account just when he met Peter and the other apostles.


From a Catholic perspective, did Adam's body undergo any change after the fall? From a Catholic perspective, did Adam's body undergo any change after the fall?

Probably there is no hint in the Scripture, but I wonder if the problem has ever been raised by Catholic commentators.

Did Adam's body undergo any change after the fall?

  26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Geneses 1 26-31)

Physically Adam (and Eve) remained the same after the fall, but on a spiritual level many things changed. As we see, Adam and Eve were able to eat food in paradise as well as to copulate without sinning.

  In Gen. 2:25, it states "and the two of them were naked" (וַיִּֽהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים), but it does not say that Adam and Eve knew they were naked (cp. Gen. 3:11). The statement that they were naked is merely an objective fact. - What is the Biblical basis for man being created perfect, or for man not being created perfect?

  Because they did not know they were naked, "they were not ashamed" (וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ) (ibid). Yet, in Gen. 3:7, once "they knew that they were naked" (וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם), after partaking of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:6), which causes their eyes to be opened (Gen. 3:7a), then they were ashamed and afraid (Gen. 3:10). Consequently, they made themselves girdles or aprons from fig leaves to cover their nakedness (Gen. 3:7b).

Adam and his wife were created with all the physical attributes to be normal human beings in paradise, plus more. But, once they sinned pain and suffering entered the world. Man became susceptible to illness and disease.

  The chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God was sanctifying grace, which made them children of God and gave them the right to heaven.

  Together with sanctifying grace God gave Adam and Eve the super natural virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

  The other gifts bestowed on Adam and Eve by God were happiness in the Garden of Paradise, great knowledge, control of the passions by reason, and freedom from suffering and death. - Questions and Answers on the Creation and the Fall of Man

All these were lost when Adam and Eve first sinned.

Some say that prior to the fall they clothed in light. This too was lost as a result of sin.

  It seems this interpretative tradition goes back millennia to the ancient Jews. BioLogos has a short article on the development of the tradition that Adam and Eve "wore" garments of light, attributing it to the Jewish squeamishness regarding the naked body, then exacerbated by Greek culture, rampant with nudity, flooding the Jewish populations at the time of Alexander the Great.

  The article does not list any ancient Jewish sources as having discussed this topic, but it does mention and quote one Christian: Ephraem, the 4th century Syrian theologian. The most revealing quote is:

    It is because of the glory with which they were clothed that they were not ashamed. When it was taken away from them—after they had violated the commandment—they were indeed ashamed, because they were now naked (Commentary on Genesis, 2:14). [Other quotes are offered in the article]

  In a different vein of "study", nearly 1500 years later, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich had an extensive and very vivid personal revelation in which she described Adam and Eve as clothed in light.

    They were like two unspeakably noble and beautiful children, perfectly luminous. and clothed with beams of light as with a veil. From Adam's mouth I saw issuing a broad stream of glittering light, and upon his forehead was an expression of great majesty. Around his mouth played a sunbeam, but there was none around Eve's. I saw Adam's heart very much the same as in men of the present day, but his breast was surrounded by rays of light. In the middle of his heart, I saw a sparkling halo of glory. [More at Shield of Faith]. Fredsbend's answer to Adam and Eve Clothed in Light Before the Fall - Origin of Teaching?

As a result of the fall of our first parents the human nature was weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence"). See the Catechism of the Catholic Church for more details on original sin.


According to Catholicism, what does the Bible teach about sins of omission? According to Catholicism, what does the Bible teach about sins of omission?

According to Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 72, a. 6 by St. Thomas Aquinas:

  On the contrary, Omission and commission are found in the same species of sin. For the covetous man both takes what belongs to others, which is a sin of commission; and gives not of his own to whom he should give, which is a sin of omission. Therefore omission and commission do not differ specifically.

Read full 'Whether sins of commission and omission differ specifically?' article here: STh, II-II, q. 72 on newadvent.org

Accordint to Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1853:

  Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. the root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man." (Mt 15, 19-20) But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

CCC, The Different Kinds of Sins on vatican.va
(This is the only paragraph indexed under 'omission' in CCC)

Certainly, there is more on this topic in other documents of the Catholic Church and writings of Church Fathers and Doctors.


How is the idea of the ritual purity implemented in the Catholic Church? How is the idea of the ritual purity implemented in the Catholic Church? We know that in the Old Testament priests needed to be ritually pure in order to perform rituals. How is this idea implemented and performed in the Catholic Church through history up till today? What criteria does one need to satisfy to be ritually pure?

I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.

Although the Old Law's ceremonial precepts are no longer in force since Christ's passion, ritual purity is a prominent aspect of priestly celibacy.

Essence of priestly celibacy

Celibacy = unmarried, although in this context it can also mean perpetual continence, as priests can be married (and unmarried priests have never been permitted to marry).

Besides the practical reasons (which can apply to non-priests, too) of

being freed from the solicitudes of married life, not being so tied to worldly matters, or having a heart divided between wife/husband/family and pastoral duties (1 Cor. 7:33-34*);

*"But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband."

or

the spiritual reasons of being able to attain a higher degree of charity/holiness/perfection (Trent sess. 24 can. 10; Mt. 19:29*; Apoc. 14:4†) by following the evangelical counsels and not just the precepts;

*"And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting."
†"These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb"

ritual purity is probably the strongest argument for priestly celibacy because it pertains to the essence of the priesthood, which is to offer sacrifice (sacerdos = "giver of the sacred"; sacer = "sacred", dare = "to give").

Ritual purity

On ritual purity in the Old and New Testaments, see Priestly Celibacy: Theological Foundations by Fr. Gary Selin, pp. 139-144.

Ch. 3 goes over the threefold dimension of priestly celibacy: christological (conforming to Christ), ecclesiastical (under which he classes ritual purity), and eschatological (because celibacy points to the life to come, where "they shall neither marry nor be married", Mt. 22:30).

Separation/distinction honors the sacred.

Magisterial Teaching

Pope Pius XII, 1954 encyclical Sacra Virginitas §23:

  Consider again that sacred ministers do not renounce marriage solely on account of their apostolic ministry, but also by reason of their service at the altar. For, if even the priests of the Old Testament had to abstain from the use of marriage during the period of their service in the Temple, for fear of being declared impure by the Law just as other men,42 is it not much more fitting that the ministers of Jesus Christ, who offer every day the Eucharistic Sacrifice, possess perfect chastity? St. Peter Damian, exhorting priests to perfect continence, asks: "If Our Redeemer so loved the flower of unimpaired modesty that not only was He born from a virginal womb, but was also cared for by a virgin nurse even when He was still an infant crying in the cradle, by whom, I ask, does He wish His body to be handled now that He reigns, limitless, in heaven?"43

  42. Cf. Lev. XV, 16-17 XXII, 4; I Sam. XXI, 5-7; cf. S. Siric. Papa, Ep. ad Himer. 7; PL LVI, 558-559.43. S. Petrus Dam., De coelibatu sacerdotum, c. 3; PL CXLV, 384 [English transl.].

Old Testament

Ibid. ch. 3 §"Ritual Purity in the Judaic Law", pp. 139-141:

  tahor (clean, pure) or tame (unclean, impure). […] Separation  is the concrete, visible expression of the exalted holiness of God, and the ritual purity laws maintained this protective system of separation. […] To come into contact with blood was to come into contact with the divine and thus one contracted a ritual impurity, “a holy contamination,” rather than a moral impurity. […] In certain rabbinic texts, the liturgical objects themselves were understood to “pollute,” for example, the handling of a sacred scroll would soil the hands of the rabbi, and he was required to wash his hands after reading it. [fn. 103: "[…] Even today, the liturgical vessels used at Mass are said to be purified when elements of the sacred species are removed."]

New Testament

Ibid. ch. 3 §"Ritual Purity in the Patristic Tradition" p. 144 quotes Ambrosiaster's Questiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, 127, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 50, 415:

  Compared to the stars, the light of a lamp is but fog; while compared to the sun, the stars are obscure; and compared to the radiance of God, the sun is but night. Thus are the things which, in relationship to us, are licit and pure, and are as if illicit and impure with respect to the dignity of God; indeed, no matter how good they are, they are not appropriate to the person of God.

This is the same reason for why women and other are sacred vessels are veiled in church.

Abstaining from conjugal relations

before sacrificing

So as not to confuse two different sacreds, similar reasons are given for abstaining from conjugal relations before offering sacrifice.

1 Samuel 21:2-6:

  And David said to Achimelech, the priest: The king hath commanded me a business, and said: Let no man know the thing for which thou art sent by me, and what manner of commands I have given thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place. Now therefore if thou have any thing at hand, though it were but five loaves, give me, or whatsoever thou canst find. And the priest answered David, saying: I have no common bread at hand, but only holy bread [for sacrifice], if the young men be clean, especially from women? And David answered the priest, and said to him: Truly, as to what concerneth women, we have refrained ourselves from yesterday and the day before, when we came out, and the vessels of the young men were holy. Now this way is defiled, but it shall also be sanctified this day in the vessels. The priest therefore gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there, but only the loaves of proposition, which had been taken away from before the face of the Lord, that hot loaves might be set up.

Daniel G. Van Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of the Body of Christ: A Brief History,” Antiphon 20, no. 2 (2016): 151–72.:

  This passage indicates two situations in which men and presumably their wives abstained from sexual relations during David's time. First, David's soldiers abstained in order to be consecrated at arms or prepared for battle. Second, the priests abstained when serving before the Lord in the Tabernacle and partaking of the holy shew-bread. On this exceptional instance in which non-priests partook of the holy bread, those non-priests could do so only upon affirming that they had abstained from sexual relations.

before receiving Holy Communion

Innocent XI's Cum ad aures (February 12, 1679) on frequent communion (DZ 1147):

  In the case of married persons, however, let them seriously consider this, since the blessed Apostle does not wish them to "defraud one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer" [cf. 1 Cor. 7:5], let them advise these seriously that they should give themselves more to continence, because of reverence for the most holy Eucharist, and that they should come together for communion in the heavenly banquet with a purer mind.

  In coniugatis autem hoc amplius animadvertant, cum beatus Apostolus nolit eos ‘invicem fraudari, nisi forte ex consensu ad tempus, ut vacent orationi’ (cf. 1 cor 7, 5), eos serio admoneant, tanto magis ob sacratissimae Eucharistiae reverentiam continentiae vacandum purioreque mente ad caelestium epularum communionem esse conveniendum.

(Pope St. Pius X cited (but did not quote) this in his Sacra Tridentina on daily Communion.)

source: this answer to "Is celibacy essential to the Catholic priesthood?"


How do Mormons interpret the warning in Revelation about adding to the book? How do Mormons interpret the following passage and justify the addition of the Book of Mormon to the canon of scripture?

  Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV)
   18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this
  scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person
  the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words
  away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person
  any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are
  described in this scroll.

In my experience, this is interpreted as referring to the entire Bible and how we should not add to or remove from it. How is the LDS view on this different?

Your premise is invalid, as the warning in Revelation cannot be honestly interpreted as referring to anything beyond Revelation itself.  "The Bible" did not exist back then.  The very concept of "the Bible" did not even exist back then.  Each sacred writing was its own book; they weren't compiled into a collection until centuries later.  In addition, John wrote the Gospel of John after he wrote Revelation.  An overly-broad interpretation of the warning at the end of Revelation would invalidate the most beautiful and profoundly spiritual of the four Gospels!


Cleansing of unclean meat to clean meat interpretation of Acts 10:17-18 and 22-23 in relation to Isaiah 66:17 I have never read in the bible whether eating of unclean meat as described in the Old Testament where it is allowed to eat "unclean meat" or unclean meat is now clean meat.

Except for one vision from Peter where the vision orders him to "eat unclean meat" however, this is clearly not literal as the context is for Peter to preach unto the Gentiles:

  Acts 10:

  (17) While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men
  sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the
  gate.  (18) They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was
  staying there.

  (22) The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is
  a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish
  people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that
  he could hear what you have to say.” (23) Then Peter invited the men
  into the house to be his guests.

Other verses in the bible tells "all foods are clean" however we should take note that it says nothing about "all meats are clean", food is totally different word from meat.

Was the vision literal or not? If it's literal what is the biblical proof? Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally?

UPDATE:

And what could be it's relation to Isaiah 66:17 which states:

  Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the
  gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the
  abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD. (NKJV)

Which by deduction swine flesh as described in this verse refers to unclean meat, and the verse says, those who eat these Shall be consumed together which by deduction again means, AFAIK, refers to the end of the world. So in other words, those who consume unclean meat  shall perish together in the end of the world, which basically puts the interpretation of Acts 10:17-118, 22-23 in question:

"It's okay to eat unclean meat as interpreted in the vision but doing so will cause you perish in the end" -- a questionable argument.

So I have two concrete questions here:

Was the vision literal or not? If it's literal what is the biblical proof? Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally?
Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally and eating unclean meat is okay as it is already clean when there is verse in Isaiah 66:17 which conflicts with the interpretation?

Answers in the views of [protestantism] would be appreciated.

The vision was understood by Peter in a specified way as listed in Acts 10:27-29

  As Peter talked with him, he went inside and found many people
  gathered together. He said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for
  a Jew to associate with a foreigner or visit him. But God has shown me
  that I should not call any man impure or unclean. So when I was
  invited, I came without objection. I ask, then, why have you sent for
  me?”

And again in Acts 10:34, 35

  Then Peter began to speak: “I now truly understand that God does not
  show favoritism, but welcomes those from every nation who fear Him and
  do what is right.

Thus, the vision of the sheet was used by God to explain a very important lesson to Peter as observed by Ellicott in his comments on Acts 10:13

  in like manner, hungering and thirsting after a wider fellowship which
  should embrace "all manner" of the races that make up mankind, while,
  on the other hand, he was as yet waiting to be taught that the
  distinction between Jew and Gentile was done away in Christ.


What do we know about Arian liturgy? I've done a lot of googling but can't turn up any information about what Arian liturgy was like. Apparently the "Mozarabic rite" in Spain is connected somehow to traditional Arian liturgy.

I'm curious what their theology of liturgy was, and whether it resembled a mass/divine liturgy.  Was it focused on the eucharist?

I'm aware that Arianism covers a wide geographical area and a wide period of history. I'm interested in information from any time and any area.

The most complete collection of texts on Arianism I know of is listed on the FCC website, but they are Mostly letters from and to Arian Auxentius. Most of the texts have links in the translation column.

The online book "Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments: Papers from The Ninth Century" contains source texts and commentary on the liturgy AFAICS from the search function:

The letter of Arian Auxentius regarding the Arian missionary Ulfilas, gives the clearest picture of Arian beliefs. The creed of Arian Ulfilas (c. 311 – 383), which concludes a letter praising him written by Auxentius, distinguishes God the Father ("unbegotten"), who is the only true God from Son of God ("only-begotten"), who is Lord/Master; and the Holy Spirit (the illuminating and sanctifying power), who is neither God nor Lord/Master:

  I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in only one God the Father, the unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten son, our Lord/Master and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God; and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ said after his resurrection to his apostles: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49) and again "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you" (Acts 1:8); Neither God nor Lord/Master, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father

A letter from Arius (c. 250–336) to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) details the  core beliefs of the Arians:

  Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten.   These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.


Identifying General and Universal Magisterium So, this is a question I have been struggling with for a while now. I understand easily enough the concept of Extraordinary Magisterium, that exercised by the Church through the Council of Bishops together with the Pope, or the Pope just by himself, producing infallible statements. Identifying instances of this is of course easy.

There is also General, or Universal, Magisterium, which is the non-ceremonial, produced in a general context, infallible authority of the Church. The problem here is, I have not been able to research any credible means of identifying which statements are given under such authority, and which are simply the opinions of priests, Bishops, etc.

Both as an educated and practicing Catholic, this is a serious matter to attend to: it is too easy to abuse what the Church teaches utilizing this (currently to me) nebulous concept. The best resource I have found is this article, but besides its complexity, it still does not adequately answer the question of identifying general infallible Magisterium.

So what do you guys think? Do any of you have insight into this issue? All answers will be appreciated.

I believe that the OP means: Identifying Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Catholic Church. I can understand some confusion on this topic as the terms in use are in no way constant and even are somewhat changeable. The Church has yet to update its' canonical language on this subject.

  The term ‘ordinary magisterium’ was first used by Pius IX in the letter Tuas libenter addressed to the archbishop of Munich and Freising on 21 December 1863.

  Earlier that year, a meeting of Catholic theologians had taken place in Munich. The pope had been told that in the course of that meeting the opinion had been expressed that Catholic theologians were bound to hold only those truths of faith which had been solemnly declared.

  Pius IX replied that “it must not be limited to those things which have been defined by the express decrees of councils or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See, but must also be extended to those things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore are held by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith.”

  Pius IX to Vatican II

  The teaching of Pius IX on ordinary magisterium was later incorporated in the documents of Vatican I, in particular the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius: “Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”

  It was understood that the addition of ‘universal’ to ‘ordinary magisterium’ was meant to relate the phrase to the teaching of the whole episcopate with the pope, and not the teaching of the pope alone.

  Further clarifications

  When the Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983, the ordinary and universal magisterium was dealt with in canons 749 and 750, but without the inclusion of the broader understanding of the ordinary universal magisterium by Vatican II.

  In other words, the canonical language had not been updated yet. -
  “What is the ‘ordinary magisterium’? A brief history of a disputed idea

The article may be of some help: What Are Extraordinary Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium?


How do Biblical Unitarians interpret 1 Corinthians 2:10-14 with regard to God and the Spirit of God? 1 Corinthians 2:10-14 (ESV):

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

I've tried to look at this passage with a Biblical Unitarian lens but I'm having a hard time trying to make sense of it. I already asked a related question about how Biblical Unitarians deal in general with passages that give the impression that God and the Holy Spirit are different entities, but here I want to dig deeper into this particular passage that I find problematic.
If I understand correctly, Biblical Unitarians would apply the "God's nature" interpretation of the Holy Spirit to 1 Cor 2:10-14, which according to this source indicates a supernatural gift that God gives to His servants to empower them. However, I find issues with this view. First of all, I don't understand what they mean by "gift of God's nature". Do they mean like some sort of "unconscious spiritual substance" that empowers people somehow? Then how come that this unconscious substance searches everything, even the depths of God (verse 10) and comprehends the thoughts of God (verse 11)? Furthermore, verse 11 gives the impression that the Spirit of God is an intrinsic part of God, just like the spirit of a person is an intrinsic part of a person. In other words, the Spirit of God is a single Spirit that knows everything about God and is an intimate part of Him, not multiple unconscious fragmented parts of "God's nature" distributed among different individuals.
That said, I'm afraid that I'm probably misinterpreting the Biblical Unitarian view (or misinterpreting the passage, or both), so I would rather appreciate it if adherents of this doctrinal position would shed some light on how they make sense of this passage.

When we read of the Spirit doing this or that, we should include all references to this 'feature' of God - is it a person, a force, a power, an influence or what?
We should begin with the bible and then use that revelation to compare other ideas against - not the other way around. (having an idea or tradition and looking for biblical support for it)

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

There is no reference to a person in this passage.
The analogy provided speaks of the 'spirit of man' and the 'Spirit of God' - neither push us in the direction of a separate 'person'. Is our spirit separate from who we are? Then by analogy of the text, neither is God's spirit separate from Him. (God is defined as the Father by Jesus himself)
We have several verses that speak of the spirit of truth or wisdom, spirit of Zerubbabel, spirit of Pul king of Assyria, spirit of glory, spirit of grace and supplication, spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire, spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood,  spirit of despair - none of these are a separate 'person', but a means of expressing the quality God is imparting or inherent in the individual.

because I know that through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, my distress will turn out for my deliverance. Phil 1:19

We might ask what is the 'Spirit of Jesus Christ'? (Not who)
God is the great Provider. All good comes from Him. All truth, love, kindness, grace etc is His holy provision. Jesus, as the exalted son, has accomplished his mission by being subject to - a person? Or the power, influence, grace, love of God delivered via the spirit OF God into Jesus' heart and mind - into his emotions and intellect, his passion and logic.
It is this 'nature' that Jesus expressed consistently and perfectly (even against severe trial and temptation) that IS the 'Spirit of Jesus Christ'. Not a sperate person that told him what to do, but the presence and provision of God to enable his success.
The holy spirit is simply the expression of God that enables us to see with God's eyes and His mind the things of Godly life and relationship. Jesus also was given this spirit at baptism. Why? Was it just a token gesture for those watching? Was it just a confirmation for Jesus that his Father was with him? No, not such a trivial witness. Without this spirit OF the Father, he could not have succeeded in his mission of living without sin and heading to the cross in humble and gentle obedience to his Father's will, and suffer the humiliation of those (his own people) who hated and wanted him dead and those who killed him.
This same spirit of God that allowed him to submit his will to the Father's. Having his own will, which obviously differed from God's - brought about by trial and temptation, shows that another spirit was influencing him for pride and self-centred thinking leading to actions and/or potential sin. He resisted this by surrendering to the supplied influence for good. Jesus was not controlled by God, but willingly led by God.
This same 'Spirit of Jesus Christ' and Spirit of God that dwells in us as a gift in this life. (a deposit only - the full transformation will occur at our change to immortality)

who is a first instalment of our inheritance, in regard to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. Eph 1:14

who is from the Gr. ho meaning which, what or that - not who.

For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose. Phil 2:13

Notice the influence to will and act - the thoughts and the works. This is exactly the same as the experience of Christ - God working in him to will and act for His glory.
The insistent translation of referring to the spirit as he, him, who etc is a bias forced by a traditional approach to the nature of God's spirit and not from the text. This has entrenched such a view of personhood that was never understood, expressed or taught by the apostles. It wasn't until the so-called 'church fathers' arrived that this teaching became commonplace and replaced the apostolic teaching that Jesus provided to them to begin the church with.
As the question correctly pondered, 'verse 11 gives the impression that the Spirit of God is an intrinsic part of God, just like the spirit of a person is an intrinsic part of a person'. There is no separate person the Holy Spirit (which has no name) but the very essence of God - who is invisible, spirit and needs to influence matter by His Holy nature - the spirit IS that expression and extension of God's being that may connect with created humanity and ALL His creation in ways yet to be comprehended.
With regard to the query about, 'searching the depths of God' etc. This can be readily understood as the believer is granted, through God's spirit dwelling in /with them, access to the innermost expression of who God is. His love, His grace etc, are not some mysterious secret, but are revealed into the believer so that they too may be an expression of God in their lives - as a son or daughter should be. Not that we have to somehow 'work out' what we are supposed to live like - this is placed within us by the presence of God in His spirit working with our spirit.
(To imagine that an omniscient 'God the Holy Spirit' person is searching out the depths of His omniscient Himself is rather absurd)
Without this holy spirit in us, God would make no sense at all to our default carnal nature full of deception and all the spirit of the 'world' which we (used to) live by. So His spirit 'searches out' God's ways and allows us to 'comprehend' a better way to live that is sacrificial and giving, rather than selfish and getting.
These considerations of the scriptures and the Holy Spirit are condensed from here - What is the HS and BU recognition of biblical revealed wisdom.
God has to counteract the negative, hateful, selfish, prideful spirit of the devil - not a sperate 'person' to the devil, but the way of evil which is not of God - for He alone is holy and those that are His are also made holy.


Did the LDS believe that Christians are doomed to hell? While perusing the Vatican's official website, I stumbled upon this:

  THOUGHTS FROM THE DIALOGUE CENTRE IN ÅRHUS, DENMARK

  "... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) used to
  teach with some vehemence that Christians were doomed to hell."

Source: Spirituality in East and West, Easter 2000 (No. 13), from Dialog Center International, 46 Katrinebergvej, DK-8200 Aarhus, Denmark. info@dci.dk Retrieved from vatican.va

This notice was apparently delivered by the Pontifical Council for Culture and published in a semi-annual journal.

Does the Catholic Church support this statement? From what teaching/teachings do they suppose this statement is founded?

UPDATE - Oct 9, 2014
A lot of good research has been contributed by all of the answers below in response to this question, I wish to thank all those that took the time to investigate the statement above.

To summarize the ultimate conclusion: it has been concluded that the contributor to vatican.va in this instance was in error in three way profound ways:

He posted materials on the official vatican site that did not support or represent the official stance of the Catholic Church.
He improperly cited the source and author of the statement - who was not even a Catholic. (The message is similar, but the wording is actually taken from a different source)
He misrepresented the philosophy of the LDS Church, as they have a very different interpretation of "hell" compared to most Christian denominations, and use the word mostly to describe a feeling of eternal regret. Sometimes, they use the word to refer to either the spirit prison, or outer darkness, which are two very distinct places, the latter being inhabited only by Satan and the sons of perdition.

The LDS definition of Hell:

  Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it
  is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal
  world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who
  were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of
  Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition*, who are not
  redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. [outer darkness]

*Sons of Perdition: Those who actively serve Satan and utterly reject God.

Update 2 Wednesday, October 08, 2014: The error in an article by an author of an article on the Vatican website CANNOT be attributable to the Catholic Church.

Summary of the findings so far

Is there evidence that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) officially teaches or has taught in the past

  "... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) used to
  teach with some vehemence that Christians were doomed to hell."

No there isn't.

What appears to be the primary source of the above quote that has gone on to be quoted by vatican.va?

It appears to be this book The Protestant Revolution: From Martin Luther to Martin Luther King Jr. By William G. Naphy.

What did this article - Forside  Publikationer  Læs Spirituality  No. 13  I said, you are gods - actually say? It said

  Previously, Mormons were taught, and said in their witnessing, that
  Christians are going to hell.

Is this accurate?

There seems to be some truth to it as Bruce R. McConkie went on to write a book that stated

  "Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation
  to their souls (Morm. 8; Moro. 8)" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, Bruce R.
  McConkie, 177)

What appears to be the error of vatican.va?

They have attributed

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) used to
  teach with some vehemence that Christians were doomed to hell.

to: Spirituality in East and West, Easter 2000 (No. 13), from Dialog Center International, 46 Katrinebergvej, DK-8200 Aarhus, Denmark. info@dci.dk

And that's an error as that's not what Spirituality in East and West's article said as shown above.

What is the answer to OP's

  Does the Catholic Church support this statement? From what
  teaching/teachings do they suppose this statement is founded? Better: Can the Catholic Church ...

From what has been presented above, she can't. Please note that vatican.va is NOT the Catholic Church. The error belongs in the first place to the author of THOUGHTS FROM THE DIALOGUE CENTRE IN ÅRHUS, DENMARK.

What is the OP to do now?

Suggest OP contact vatican.va directly.

vatican.va as any human website can and even recently made a mistake and corrected it. cf. Scalfari interview taken down from the Vatican website.

What follows below is what helped in shaping the answer above.

For these kind of questions, my response is better contact the author of the document directly

  "I suppose you'd have to ask the author of the Spirituality in East
  and West article." –  @MattGutting

One may wish to start here: Vatican emails and the contact of relevance appears to be: Pontifical Council for Culture: cultura@cultr.va. That to me would be the best way to answer/clarify Does the Catholic Church support this statement? from what official LDS resource/resources do they suppose this statement is founded?

From ShemSeger's answer, it appears that opposing views were published in in Volume No. 13 of the periodical journal, "Spirituality in East and West".

Thus perhaps the question is asking why has the Vatican website posted only one of the views. That is a question only the Vatican website can answer.

This is what my research has uncovered

  Joseph heard so many competing versions of truth that he decided to turn to God for answers.

  After careful study, he still felt confused. He later wrote, "So
  great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations,
  that it was impossible for a person young as I was [ … ] to come to
  any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong [ … ] In the
  midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to
  myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or,
  are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it,
  and how shall I know it?" (Joseph Smith-History 1:8, 10).

  Joseph turned to the Bible for guidance. [...] He decided to pray
  about what he should do, with simple faith that God would hear and
  answer him.

  Source: Joseph Smith, History & Belief of the Mormon Prophet | Mormon.org

In response to a humble prayer, God called Joseph to re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ.

  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all
  wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds
  were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all
  corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their
  hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of
  men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” -
  (Joseph Smith-History 1:19).

It does appear that a certain Bruce R. McConkie went on to write a book that stated

  "Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls (Morm. 8; Moro. 8)" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966,
  Bruce R. McConkie, 177).

  Source: Mormon Stumpers | Catholic Answers.

From the comments to the answers to the OP, some have stated that this does not constitute official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).

Perhaps a book such as The Protestant Revolution: From Martin Luther to Martin Luther King Jr. | William G. Naphyan  - which in turn references A Closer Look at the Book of Mormon (2001) | Tal Davis - was the source of what the OP stumbled upon on Vatican's official website.

cf. Online Full Text of Mormon Doctrine . (Find: "damnation to their souls")

For further research please see this Google search.

Update Wednesday, October 08, 2014

I contacted a Mr. Tal Davis as follows (sans links):

  Mr. Davis. Please take a look at:

  The Protestant Revolution: From
  Martin Luther to Martin Luther King Jr. | William G. Naphyan (scroll up)

  That books (sic) references  a Tal Davis’  A Closer Look at the Book of Mormon (2001) as the source of the quote. Not sure whether you are associated with the 2001 item.

This was his response:

  In 1992 I wrote an article that was adapted for a pamphlet titled "A
  Closer look at the Book Of Mormon- Is It Another Testament of Jesus
  Christ?" You can see the text of that article, with more current
  statistics, on the MarketFaith website at The Book of Mormon: Is It
  “Another Testament of Jesus Christ?”  If you read it you will see that
  the quote is not there.  I do not know why it was attributed to me
  unless the original magazine article had the quote in an introduction
  written by the editor (I would not have spelled Latter-day Saints as
  Latter Day Saints). The magazine ("Church Training") went [out] of
  publication years ago and I don't have a copy of the issue so I cannot
  verify that theory.

  In any case, I know that the LDS does not
  teach that all Christians (nonMormons) are doomed to hell (just to
  Spirit Prison and the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdoms). However,
  Mormon leaders on numerous occasions have clearly stated that all
  Christian denominations are apostate. In fact, until 1990 the LDS
  temple dramas portrayed Protestant ministers as followers of Satan.


What is the source and context of this St. Bernard of Clairvaux quote? The quote

  What we love we shall grow to resemble.

seems remarkably popular. Although it is attributed to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, it doesn't look like anyone who uses it knows which one of his works it came from or what the exact context of it is.

Can someone who is familiar with his work specify where it comes from?

I have searched the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux, and was unable to find that exact quote. It's possible that your quote was a paraphrase of the original.

I do know that the closing sentence of "On the Love of God" is "Those who love God are one Spirit with Him." This seems to be close to the meaning, if not the actual words.

Often in history we don't know everything with absolute certainty, and the best we have is an incomplete picture based on what we know.