Can theology still be defined "the science of faith"? According to Wikipedia, Richard Hooker (March 1554 – 3 November 1600) was an English Anglican priest and an influential theologian. He was one of the most important English theologians of the sixteenth century and defined "theology" in English as "the science of things divine"—i.e., "the science of faith."

Thus, if we suppose Hooker's definition is still acceptable nowadays, as it is among theologians, I would like to know:

Is this truly possible?
Is it not in itself a contradiction?
Is not science perhaps the opposite of faith?
Does not faith cease to be faith when it becomes science?

Yes, the term is applicable to theology. Let's break it down to see why.

The first word is science. At its root, the word simply means knowledge. Many people forget that and the word has been somewhat hijacked to mean exclusively study about the natural world derived from facts and experiments, or more properly, the scientific method. The scientific method is a science in its own, but it is not science in whole.

The second word is faith. First, the word simply means having complete trust in something. You can have faith in just about anything, and hopefully you would have a reason to do so. I can have faith in a person to do the right thing, which might be based on our shared experiences. I can have faith in the scientific method to provide the best current understanding about something, which might be based on the history of its use. And, of course, I can have faith in God, that he is there and cares about us, that he will keep his word, that Christ will return, and that eternal life awaits for those who love Him. This can be based on any number of things including, apologetics, being convinced the Gospels and New Testament are true, and personal revelation. Again, many people forget that the word has been hijacked to mean believe without reason, or what is colloquially called blind faith. The word simply does not mean that and that phrase and the actually definition of faith are contradictory. In short, faith means believing in what you have reason to believe.

So the phrase the science of faith means exactly knowledge of what there is reason to believe. Specifically, in this context, the author means exclusively items concerning Christianity and the Christian God. So alternatively, the author may mean knowledge of the Christian religion with assumptions that it is true at its core. Slightly different than what I have come up with, but acceptable and understandable considering the time and place that he said that.


Were humans worshipped as gods in Biblical times? Word "god"  in Bible is not always interpreted as idols but sometimes they are depicted as humans like in these following verses.

Ex. 12:12 I will pass through the land of Egypt in the same night, and I will attack all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both of humans and of animals, and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. I am the LORD
Num. 33:4 Now the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn, whom the LORD had killed among them; the LORD also executed judgments on their gods.

Who are these humans gods that people were worshipping. Anywhere any names of these gods  are mentioned in the Bible?

Perhaps the word 'gods' here can also mean the kings and lords. That would be a question for Hermeneutics.

However, it is widely believed among Egyptologists that the Pharaoh was considered a god-king of sorts and a descendant of Ra, an Egyptian deity. Source 1 Source 2.

I do not know of any other place where these gods are mentioned again in the Bible. The closest, similar event I can think of is Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 3 creating an image of gold and decreeing that all worship it. Some have argued that it was a statue in Nebuchadnezzar's likeness, although, the Bible says no such thing.

However, after reading a few books on the topic of pagan worship at the time of Christ, emperor worship was somewhat common. Everything from Augustus building up the Imperial Cult, where he was prayed to and "worshiped", however casually, to the Candace of Kush (modern Ethopia) ruling by divine right as the incarnate god. This timeline, though, is about 1500 years after Ramases. Still, the Egyptians had many gods they worshiped, including the Pharaoh, and these verses likely are referring to them.


Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke called 'synoptic' gospels? The first three gospels are sometimes known as the "synoptic" gospels. What does this term mean, and how does it differentiate them from the gospel of John?

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are very similar: they record many of the same miracle stories, parables, and sermons. John by contrast has fewer miracles (and most are unique), no parables at all, and is the only Gospel to record Jesus's teaching on the nature of God at the Last Supper (ch. 13-17). Synoptic comes from the Greek for "see together" because they tell Jesus's story in the same way.


Eastern Orthodoxy, The Trinity & Theology of the Body I have read most of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body and studied some of the ideas behind it and have felt it was something that was doctrinally accessible to non-Catholic branches of Christianity. The only conflict I possibly see is the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity and the idea that human sex images the Trinity, where (from the Eastern view) the Holy Spirit proceeds from just the Father, not the Father & Son together.

Do Orthodox Christians take issue with the idea that the human sexual act images the Trinity due to it implying the relationship of the Trinity being that one Person proceeds from the Other Two?

Does the Orthodox Church give much credence to Theology of the Body?

In all books about dogmatics, ascetisism and/or mysticism of the Orthodox Church that I've read, or even web articles, there's no such thing as drawing parallels between the human sexual act and the Holy Trinity.

In fact, the only comparisson of the Holy Trinity to something worldly*, that I know of, is made by Saint Athanasius of Alexandria:

Adam is unborn (like God The Father), Seth, his son, is born out of his seed, while Eve is also of Adam, but in another way, not by seed (proceeding).

* - I know I used the word worldly, but it's not quite worldly, as you can see.

He goes on by saying that the comparison is weak, and is only meant for beginners to at least try to grasp the concept of The Holy Trinity and the relations between the Hypostases.

I'm no theologian, and I can't speak for all orthodox christians, but I strongly feel that a comparisson of the Holy Trinity with human sexuality would be seen as blasphemous by the clergy and would raise more than a few eyebrows in the laity. It's certainly something unheard of in the orthodox world.

As another user has commented, given that the Theology of the Body is a Catholic work, it's generally unnoticed among the orthodox faithful, but it could be known and discussed by theologians, as I can see a lot of quotations from catholic and protestant works in orthodox theology books. Still, in my country (Romania) where there is a significant catholic minority, there may be some orthodox priests that have studied the work as part of the inter-faith dialogue.


Is an adult convert to Catholicism required to accept everything in the Catechism before he/she is baptized? Prior to being baptized, a prospective adult convert to Catholicism attends the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) wherein they are taught the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

According to Roman Catholicism, is there a requirement of agreement with the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church (i.e., 100% agreement) before a convert is permitted to be baptized?

Caveat to this answer: Both priests gave you better pastoral guidance than you'll receive on an internet Q&A site.

No, that 100% target isn't a critical milestone for a neophyte, which is the state you'll be in at the Easter Vigil.  (One year won't do that volume justice in any case).

If you are "on board" with 97% of the 2865 articles you are strides are ahead of the average Catholic, and certainly most catechumens I've encountered.  Two points to consider:

Not all doctrines have the same value, but some may be deal
breakers. A person is not ready to enter the Church if he does not
believe in the Incarnation, or if he is militantly against a
fundamental moral teaching.
Having difficulty accepting or not understanding a given doctrine
is very different from rejecting it.  Actively rejecting a doctrine
(something that the Church proposes for belief) may constitute an obstacle
to entry.  It is not a problem to have difficulties -- many already
in the church experience difficulties with some teachings. These challenges represent an area for growth.

Your point on how impressively few in number are the cradle Catholics who know their own religion in detail reflects my experience as well (I am on my 6th year of serving in the RCIA ministry).  What your priests advised you matches our deacon's core message, and our pastor's guidance, which is emphasis on relationships (specifically the relationship with Christ, but it goes deeper than that) and being sincerely open to grow in your Faith.  The Catechism is but one resource in nurturing that growth over time.

An overly developed passion for legalism is a criticism that Jesus directed toward the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes in the scriptural narratives of his interactions with them.  To adopt a similar "letter of the law" approach to the Catechism, which is meant to teach the church -- all of the church, not just the folks newly entering -- would contradict His points made on that score.

This answer draws on experience in the very journey that you are currently undertaking: both as one who received the sacraments, and as one who now assists others in that same part of their faith journey. (Grateful for the assistance from @AthanasiusofAlex in paragraph 3, both bullet points)


Why does the Old Testament never mention unclean spirits and demon-posessed people? Why does the Old Testament never mention unclean spirits and demon-possessed people? Or I am missing something?

You're missing something.  :)

1 Samual 16:14:

  Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit
  from the LORD tormented him.

Then he started playing a game of darts with David as the bulls-eye.


From a Calvinist perspective, if Adam refused the fruit what would happen to their descendants? And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. Genesis 3:6

What would be the case for humanity if Adam refused the fruit after Eve decided to eat it?

The question of the descendants of Adam if there had been no fall has actually be discussed a great deal among Calvinists in the disciplines of Biblical and Covenant theology. This question is a lot less speculative than is immediately apparent.

The answer, in summary, is that Adam would have gained eternal life through his obedience and become glorified, and since the commission to have children was given prior to the fall, it would still have been in effect if there were no fall. Therefore he would have fathered children in a similar nature to his own. Since the commands concerning the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil were negative in nature, reformed theologians refer to an implicit doctrine of a "probationary period," in which Adam could prove his obedience and merit eschatological advancement: glorification. The need for this glorification is demonstrated in their nakedness (which in the salvation context is addressed by glorified clothing), and the fact that the Tree of Life is presented as being efficacious for this advancement.

Geerhardus Vos, the reformed biblical theologian, is known for coining the phrase, "Eschatology precedes soteriology." In short, with or without the fall, there needed to be a greater end-game for mankind, at a minimum to prevent the constant threat of a fall, but also to enjoy better communion with Jesus Christ. Soteriology became necessary due to the fact of the fall, but eschatology would have been present regardless. He addresses this topic directly in chapter 3 of Biblical Theology. There is an excellent podcast that discusses this question.

This is especially significant to understand the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ. If there were not a merit-based eschatological advancement available to one under the Covenant of Works, it becomes difficult to understand how exactly Jesus earned that advancement for Christians. He could be a perfect sacrifice and forgive our sins, but it doesn't make sense why that would bring us even beyond life in the Garden of Eden. Why be saved unto glorification instead of saved back into nakedness unless you factor in that Christ personally merited this through his obedience? This also explains some of the parallelism between Adam (the first man), the nation of Israel (God's firstborn), and Jesus (the only begotten), who was tempted by the devil in Matthew 4. The devil as his temper (like Adam was tempted) and in the wilderness (like the children of Israel). It also explains the "Tree of Life" references in the Bible in post-lapsarian contexts, Revelation 2 and 22.

We also find references to a probationary period before Geerhardus Vos.

Hermann Witsius (1677)

  ... That man was not arrived at the pitch of utmost happiness, but to
  expect a still greater good, after his course of obedience was
  over. This was hinted by the prohibition of the most delightful
  tree, whose fruit was, of any other, greatly to be desired; and this
  guard some degree of imperfection in that, in which man was forbid the
  enjoyment of some good. (via Puritan Board)

It is also in John Owen. (See same link above).

This is seen as the outworking of being faithful to the biblical text, not a speculation!


Have the Jehovah's Witnesses predicted the end of the world? I have heard somewhere that at various times in the past, the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society) have predicted when the end of the world would be and perhaps when Jesus would return to earth.

What are the specifics about these prophecies, and when exactly is the end of the world or Christ's return supposed to occur?

I believe they have for 1914 & 1925, but I may be missing some years.

Adding some info from the below source per request;

  1899 "...the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation
  16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of
  earth's present rulership, is already commenced," (The Time Is at
  Hand, 1908 edition, p. 101).

  1918 "Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the
  return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old,
  particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the
  condition of human perfection," (Millions Now Living Will Never Die,
  p. 89).

  1922 "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the
  Scriptures than 1914," (Watchtower, Sept. 1, 1922, p. 262).

  1923 "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the
  Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to
  base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming
  deluge," (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1923, p. 106).

Below indicate the claim to be prophets;

  "So does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers
  and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the
  affirmative. Who is this prophet?...This "prophet" was not one man,
  but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep
  followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible
  Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses...Of
  course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a 'prophet' of God.
  It is another thing to prove it," (Watchtower,  Apr. 1, 1972, p. 197).
  (See Deut. 18:21.)

All taken from this Source


What is the biblical basis for the claim that the Father is a bodiless spirit? I was reading another page on this site and someone used this quote "Father is invisible eternal spirit only" as a reason why God could not have a body as well as a spirit. I can't find it in any version of the bible. Meanwhile, LDS believe that God has a body.

What I want to know is, is there any evidence in any Christian scriptures that God can only be a spirit?

I want to know if there is any evidence that he can't have a body. That he could only be a spirit of some sort. If having a spirit is exclusive to having a physical form.

John 4:24 - God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. The idea of a spirit by definition implies that there is not a corporeal body; one of the reasons why, when the Israelites created an idol to represent God, they were committing a form of blasphemy. When presented in corporeal form, our worship tends to go to that of an idol, rather than that of God.

In scripture, most of the language used to refer to "the right hand of God", etc. is metaphorical, which leads to the conclusion, that no, God does not have a physical body.


Are there any secular historical references to the natural phenomena that occurred at the crucifixion and resurrection? The Scriptures record that there was three hours of darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus.  This is a pretty significant meteorological event.  Furthermore, the morning of Jesus' resurrection, the Scriptures indicate that there was an earthquake.  Additionally, when Jesus died, the curtain of the Temple was apparently torn in two.

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.  Matthew 27:45 ESV
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split.  Matthew 27:51 ESV

I don't know if there are historical records of any earthquakes, eclipses, or such things in any of antiquity.  Yet, I am indeed curious to know if there are, and, if so, if there are any secular historical records that could match up to these events that surrounded the death of resurrection of Christ.

Julius Africanus was an early third century Christian historian.  He says that a pagan historian named Thallus mentions the darkness that occurred during Jesus' crucifixion, and that Thallus explained it as an eclipse.  However, Africanus correctly notes that an eclipse is not possible during the Jewish Passover when Jesus was crucified (see: On the Circumstances Connected with Our Saviour’s Passion and His Life-Giving Resurrection).

Africanus also mentions another historian named Phlegon who wrote about the darkness and earthquake.  James Ussher, in his Annals of the World (first published in 1658), writes: "“Phlegon stated that in the 19th year of Tiberius (as Eustathius Antiochus noted in Hexaemeron) and the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (that is 33 AD), the following events took place... 'There was the largest and most famous eclipse that had ever occurred. The day was so turned into night at the sixth hour (noon), that the stars were seen.  Also, an earthquake in Bithynia destroyed many houses in the city of Nicaea’” (Annals of the World 6503).

In addition, Pliny the Elder, a first century Roman historian and naturalist, wrote that "“[t]he largest earthquake happened in the principate of Tiberius Caesar when twelve cities in Asia Minor were razed to the ground in one night” (Pliny's Natural History 38).

So, while there are secular accounts of the darkness and earthquake, they are quoted and preserved by Christian writers (with the exception of Pliny's writings, which were preserved independently; yet, Pliny doesn't date the earthquake except to say it was during Tiberius' reign).


Dispensation vs Dispensationalism? I'm trying to understand the difference between these two terms.  Are they the same, or are they different? (see definitions below) The Easton Bible dictionary appears to define "dispensation" as an "age" of sorts, whereas the IVP pocket dictionary appears to conflate "dispensationalism"  with some eschatological beliefs. Are they two separate things, would it be true that you could use the word "dispensation" and not have people assume your talking about "dispensationalism"

So are they different words, is my summarised understanding above correct?

Dispensation (Easton)

  (Gr. oikonomia, “management,” “economy”).
  The method or scheme according to which God carries out his purposes towards men is called a dispensation. There are usually reckoned three dispensations, the Patriarchal, the Mosaic or Jewish, and the Christian. (See COVENANT, Administration of.) These were so many stages in God’s unfolding of his purpose of grace toward men. The word is not found with this meaning in Scripture.

dispensationalism (IVP pocket dictionary)

  A system of theology popularized mainly in twentieth-century North America, especially through the influence of the Scofield Reference Bible. The dispensationalism delineated by Scofield suggested that God works with humans in distinct ways (dispensations) through history; that God has a [Theological Terms, p. 40] distinct plan for Israel over against the church; that the Bible, especially predictive prophecy, needs to be interpreted literally; that the church will be secretly raptured from earth seven years prior to Christ’s second coming; and that Christ will rule with Israel during a literal thousand-year earthly reign. Contemporary, or progressive, dispensationalism remains thoroughly premillennial but rejects the ontological distinction between Israel and the church as two peoples of God, seeing them instead as two salvation-historical embodiments of a single people. (Pocket dictionary)

Dispensationalism is a framework based on dispensations, just as Covenant Theology is a framework based on covenants. But both dispensations and covenants can be considered in their own right, and both can be discussed by people who don't accept the frameworks based on them.


Did any Church Fathers believe that angels could still choose to become demons? The Scriptural teaching regarding the nature and origin of the devil and demons has been summarized by the Orthodox theologian Michael Pomazanski:

  According to the testimony of the word of God, the origin of sin comes from the devil: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning (I John 3: 8). The word “devil” means “slanderer.” Bringing together the evidence of Sacred Scripture, we see that the devil is one of the rational spirits or angels who deviated into the path of evil. Possessing, like all rational creatures, the freedom which was given him for becoming perfect in the good, he “abode not in the truth” and fell away from God. The Saviour said of him: He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it (John 8: 44). He drew the other angels after himself into the fall. In the epistles of the Apostle Jude and the Apostle Peter, we read of the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation (Jude, v. 6; compare with II Peter 2: 4).1

The Chalcedonian doctrine of the devil and demons was summarized by John of Damascus (676-749):

  He who from among these angelic powers was set over the earthly realm, and into whose hands God committed the guardianship of the earth, was not made wicked in nature but was good, and made for good ends, and received from his Creator no trace whatever of evil in himself. But he did not sustain the brightness and the honour which the Creator had bestowed on him, and of his free choice was changed from what was in harmony to what was at variance with his nature, and became roused against God Who created him, and determined to rise in rebellion against Him: and he was the first to depart from good and become evil. For evil is nothing else than absence of goodness, just as darkness also is absence of light. For goodness is the light of the mind, and, similarly, evil is the darkness of the mind. Light, therefore, being the work of the Creator and being made good (for God saw all that He made, and behold they were exceeding good) produced darkness at His free-will. But along with him an innumerable host of angels subject to him were torn away and followed him and shared in his fall. Wherefore, being of the same nature as the angels, they became wicked, turning away at their own free choice from good to evil.1

Given the premise that angels became demons by their own choice at one time, did any Church Father prior to the 4th Ecumenical Council (451) or any subsequent Chalcedonian Church Father  in the first millennium ever expound a belief that additional angels could also choose to become demons in the future?

1. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.; St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2005), p.153
2. The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith in Book II, ch.4

Origen of Alexandria (184/185 – 253/254)

He was a passionate believer in free will.

  Origen broaches the subject of the hierarchical arrangement of the
  world early in De Principiis in relation to the question of the
  celestial hierarchy of angels and demons. Are these rational beings
  essentially good or bad, or do they become so through free will?
  Origen argues, consistent with his doctrine of creation, that they
  were created equal and became angels or demons as a result of their
  exercise of free will. 1

Does that free will extend eternally for eternal beings? Bartlett says yes.

  Origen had posited that wherever angles fall, which they could do at
  any time, depending on their own free will, they walk the earth as
  men. If they persist in their evil ways, they ultimately become
  demons, which have, according to Origen, 'cold and obscure bodies… in
  whom the divine love had grown cold’. 2 (emphasis mine)

1. Journey Back to God: Origen on the Problem of Evil (Mark S.M. Scott, 2012), p. 67
2. A Brief History of Angels and Demons (Sarah Bartlett, 2011), p. 90


According to the Puritans, at what time did the Sabbath start and end? In college, many of my Presbyterian brothers wouldn't study on Sunday, seeing that as a violation of the Christian Sabbath.  But I heard that at least one of them, if he had a test on Monday morning, would wait until midnight Sunday night, and only then study for the test for a few hours before going to sleep.

The strict use of midnight in my brother's Sabbath observance has led me to wonder about the timing of the Sabbath in Puritan sabbatarianism more broadly.  So, I'd like to know – at what time did the Sabbath start and end for the Puritans?  I'm open to responses from both English and American Puritans, up to the 18th century.  If there isn't agreement, then I'd like an overview of common positions.

Puritans hold several different views regarding the exact timing of the Sabbath.  Perhaps the most widespread view is that the Christian Sabbath begins on Saturday at sunset and continues until sunset on Sunday.

New England Puritan Thomas Shepard argues from Old Testament precedent for the evening-to-evening Sabbath:

  If, therefore, the Sabbath began at evening from Adam's time in innocency till Nehemiah's time, and from Nehemiah's time till Christ's time, why should any think but that where the Jewish Sabbath, the last day of the week, doth end, there the Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week, begins?1

He clearly understands this to be a 24-hour period, saying that those at high latitudes, when the sun does not go down for weeks in the summer, are to measure the Sabbath day "by the circling sun round about them."1

Sunday night

Some Puritans maintained restrictions into Sunday night.  The Church of England in the early 17th century saw the Sabbath as ending Sunday evening, but Puritans like Nicholas Bownde opposed them on this point:

  Almost all bishops allowed for the use of lawful recreations after evening prayer [on the Lord's day]; a liberty that Bownde and other precisionists found abhorrent and contrary to scripture.

In the 17th century, Murray Rothbard writes, "the New England Sabbath began rigorously at sunset Saturday evening and continued through Sunday night,"2 and, similarly, Jonathan Edwards "preached often and sadly against 'Sabbath evening dissipations and mirth-making.'"3  In response, some derisively said that "New England Christians had improved [God's] law by setting apart a day and a half,"3 rather than just a single day.  But to be fair, at least some of these Puritans argued for a Sunday morning to Monday morning Sabbath, as described by Joseph Clark:

  The Puritans did not all commence their Sabbath on Saturday evening.  Mr. W. Perkins, in his "Cases of Conscience," [...] argues strongly in favor of beginning the Christian Sabbath "in the morning and so to continue till the next morning."4

Thomas Vincent takes this approach and specifies midnight as the beginning of the day, but requires preparation during the prior evening:

  In the evening before [...] we ought to begin to prepare for the Sabbath; but the Sabbath itself doth not begin until the evening is spent, and midnight thereof over, and the morning after twelve of the clock beginneth.5

Daytime Sabbath

Finally, 17th century Puritan John Owen takes a different approach.  He recognizes that this question is "a matter of controversy" but does not consider it of "great importance."  He rejects the 24-hour (evening to evening) view, instead understanding that the Christian Sabbath lasts as long as the daylight:

  The day of labor is from the removal of darkness and the night, by the light of the sun, until the return of them again; which [...] seems to be the just measure of our day of rest.6

Summary

We've seen that the Puritans take several approaches to the question of the time of the Sabbath, as follows:

Saturday evening to Sunday evening
Saturday evening to Sunday night
Sunday morning to Monday morning

including, specifically, midnight Sunday to midnight Monday

Sunday morning to Sunday evening

It's thus not a matter of settled opinion.

References:

Shepard, Works, v3, 252
Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty, Volume 1, Chapter 20, 168
Earle, The Sabbath in Puritan New England, 256–57
Clark, in The Congregational Quarterly, v1, 275
Vincent, Explicatory Catechism, Question 58.6
Owen, A Treatise on the Sabbath, 214–16


What is the purpose of asceticism? Christians have been practicing asceticism for thousands of years. Why? I would prefer sources from before the Great Schism. If not are available I will accept Orthodox teaching from after that time.

For an example of the type of answer I am looking for, I will say that my current understanding regarding the purpose of ascetic practices is that engaging in them intentionally helps to turn the heart away from things like pride, gluttony, comfort, etc and toward God by willingly being humiliated, deprived, and discomforted in a repeated and systematic manner. Does that sound wrong?

It's sort of like you said:  Asceticism is the way to turn away from things of this world and turn toward God and become more like Him.  A good book to read that will likely help answer your question would be Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers.


Who could have watched the veil of the temple tear when Jesus died? A professor today made the claim that the following claim is spurious:

  And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. Mark 15:38 (NRSV)

His rationale is that no-one but the high priest would be allowed to see the veil in the holy of holies in the temple, so the author of Mark could not have knowledge of such an event occurring. Is this claim accurate? Who would have seen or had knowledge of the tearing of the veil that could have communicated that event, directly or indirectly, to Mark? How could this event have made it to Mark?

The Holy of Holies, or the Most Holy Place, was separated from the outter room (the Holy Place) by the veil. Only the High Priest could go beyond the veil into the Most Holy Place, but other priests could enter the Holy Place. Thus any priest at the Temple would have been able to see it.

The non-priest Levites may have also been able to enter the Holy Place (they were originally charged with tearing down and setting up the Tabernacle in the wilderness)

So any number of people could have seen it. Even if they weren't immediately present, it would have been known within a day (if crucified Friday as many believe) or within a few days (if crucified on wed. as others argue). It would have been found within the week at the latest.

Obviously the two events couldn't be watched simultaneously, so there is no doubt some interpretation/correlation being done by Mark and others between these two events. Mind, the veil ripping in half would be no small event.

Holy of Holies (Wikipedia)


Which church father first taught the perpetual virginity of Mary? Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck, in his Reformed Dogmatics, III, §366, briefly deals with Mary's perpetual virginity, and touches on the doctrine's history:

  We do not yet find this idea of Mary's continuing virginity during and after the the birth of Jesus in the church fathers before Nicea.  Tertullian, Origen, and Irenaeus do not yet attest a virginity in childbirth, and Tertullian also rejects the virginity after the birth.

Bavinck seems to discount the Protevangelium of James as not being the work of a church father, and for not mentioning Mary's continued virginity after Jesus' birth.  He then goes on to identify a wide variety of post-Nicene authors who teach Mary's virginity both during and after the birth.

This understanding seems to contradict Wikipedia, which cites a Karl Rahner's 2004 Encyclopedia of theology when it says:

  Irenaeus (c.130 – c.202) taught perpetual virginity, along with other Marian themes.

In light of this disagreement, I'd like to know which church father was first to teach the complete doctrine, that is, the virginity of Mary both during and after the birth of Jesus.  I don't think it will matter, but we can include Tertullian and Origen as church fathers here.  And as always, primary sources will be much appreciated.

As with many doctrines in the first few hundred years of the church, they tended not to be explicitly defined until heretics arose forcing the church to define doctrine.

This is why history is scarce on people speaking of this doctrine until the Antidicomarites show up in the mid to late 300s.

With that said, here's the records we have:

~100 AD: Ignatius of Antioch
~150 AD: Polycarp (disciple of John the Apostle)
~160 AD: Justin Martyr
~200 AD: Irenaeus

  In the year AD 383, Jerome writes that Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all “held these same views” of Mary’s perpetual virginity and “wrote volumes replete with wisdom” (in his The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius, section 19).
  No writings from these 4 men survived that unambiguously identifies their belief in this doctrine, but we assume Jerome had access to some of their many works that did not survive until the modern day.

248 AD: Origen

  "Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus" [Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book I), Section 6]

Then as the Antidicomarites show up, we see an explosion in references to the doctrine (after the council of Nicea in 325 AD, as your source noted):

354 AD: Hilary of Poitiers

  "If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, 'Woman, behold your son,' and to John, 'Behold your mother' [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" [Hilary's Commentary on Matthew 1:4]

360 AD: Athanasius

  Identifies Mary as "Mary Ever-Virgin" in his Discourse 2 Against the Arians, Section 70

373 AD: Ephrem

  "Because there are those who dare to say that Mary cohabited with Joseph after she bore the Redeemer, we reply, 'How would it have been possible for her who was the home of the indwelling of the Spirit, whom the divine power overshadowed, that she be joined by a mortal being, and gave birth filled with birthpangs, in the image of the primeval curse?'" [Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron]

~375 AD: Basil of Caesarea

  "...the lovers of Christ do not allow themselves to hear that the Mother of God ceased at a given moment to be a virgin..." [Basil’s Homily: On the holy generation of Christ 5; PG 31, 1468 B]

375 AD: Epiphanius

  "For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that [Mary] had marital relations after the Savior’s birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turn them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head.” [The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: De fide. Books II and III, page 620, 7.1]

383 AD: Jerome

  In his The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius he gives a long, full biblical defense of Mary's perpetual virginity, noted in earlier sections in this answer.

386 AD: Didymus the Blind

  "Mary... remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" [Didymus's The Trinity 3:4]

388 AD: Ambrose of Milan

  Identified prophecy of Ezekiel 44:2 as proof of Mary's perpetual virginity in his De Institutione Virginum 8.52

401 AD: Augustine

  "A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" [Augustine, Sermons 186:1]

And so on, this wiki continues the belief through to the modern era including the reformers.


Relationship between God's power and God's will In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it states that "In God, His will, power, essense, and wisdom are all identical".

Does this statement mean that for everything that God can't do, God doesn't will them also? (Ex not only that God cannot sin, but God is also not willing to commit sin; not only that he cannot create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, but he is also not willing to create such rock, etc)

I guess the starting point is to divide the stuffs that God can't do into two categories - one category being anything that goes against God's own nature, and the other category being any illogical statements...

would it be true to say that for anything that goes against God's own nature, God does not will them also, but in the case of illogical statements that God is unable to perform, God neither wills them nor doesn't will them because illogical statements are nonsensical?

Thanks,

Usually when these sort of statements are made it is due to the infinity of God. The concept works like this.  As God has no boundaries he has no parts or pieces of personality. He is only one boundless being, no more loving then just, no more holy then wise but infinite in all his qualities. In this sense you could say all his properties are identical in that all his properties are acting in a perfect unbounded and undivided unity.  It's a basic conclusion of assuming the infinitude of God and is at the same time inserting that God is incomprehensible by the finite due to this quality.

Note: Oh about the illogical things, it's a side issue. Maybe we can just say finite logic and it's associated failures are outside God's wisdom and knowledge as they are a result of death, whereas God is infinitely alive.


Why do Catholics put so much faith in the Virgin Mary? I'm not sure how to express the relationship that Catholics have with the Virgin Mary, so please excuse the word "faith" in the question title.

Giving Mary praise

I understand that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But, isn't Jesus God in human form? He is the Alpha and the Omega. He chose Mary to give birth to his human body, right?

So if Mary was chosen by God, and we know that Mary is incapable of doing anything on her own, why give her so much praise? Is she not just another servant like the rest of us?

Intercession

When one asks the virgin Mary to intercede for us, I'm confused. Isn't that the role of Jesus, that the curtain to the Holy room was torn because Jesus is now our intercessor between us and God? We may now go directly to Jesus, so why have Mary do this for you?

I am seeking the Catholic viewpoint on this.

I'm a Catholic.

Our reverence for the Virgin Mary is greatly due to her response to God and her faith. When the angel appeared to her and stated that God was to have her give birth to the Christ, she didn't protest, but responded sincerely to God: "do unto me according to Your word". This is a model of how we should respond to God's requests of us.

Also, she is a saint and very close to God. When we pray to her, we praise her for her faith, acknowledging that and the child that she carried (as her cousin, Elizabeth, did). Much of the Hail Mary is taken from her praise in greeting to Mary when she visited during her pregnancy. The Magnificat, Mary's response, is related and acknowledges her praise. But then, we pray that she will intercede and pray for us. This is no different than us asking the other saints to pray for us, or our friends and family to pray for us.

She is special in some ways though because of her role in Christ's birth and life, and her response to God. The Immaculate Conception is an acknowledgement of that--in order for her to be pure so that she may give birth to the Christ child, she was born without Original Sin, and was as perfect as a human could be, except for Jesus. You can read about it in a bit more depth in this article.


What does it mean that Satan is "god of this world"? In 2 Corinthians 4, Paul refers to Satan as "god of this world".  What does it mean that Satan is god of this world?

  2 Corinthians 4:4 ESV
  4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
  unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
  glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

You know, this is a good question.  Even though I understand the concept instinctively, I wasn't able to put it into words myself.

The closest I can come in my own words is to give a bullet list of concepts that tie together to answer the question.

The Bible speaks of several "gods", none of whom are the true God
A god (idol) is anything (a being, a concept) who is worshiped and obeyed instead of the one true God.

In this sense, your god could be your money, the television, the Internet - anything you count to be more important than God.

"This world" is largely anti-God. We are more concerned with earthly pleasures than we are in God and what He wants from us.
When we disobey God, we are obeying and following Satan, wittingly or unwittingly.  We are, in effect, worshiping him.

However, that looks completely unsatisfying when I look at it on the screen, so I cheated. I found a better answer elsewhere.

How is Satan god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4)? | GotQuestions.org

This article says everything I was trying to articulate but couldn't.

Here are two excerpts that say it MUCH better than I did:

  The phrase “god of this world” (or “god of this age” [NKJV]) indicates
  that Satan is the major influence on the mind-set expressed by the
  ideals, opinions, goals, hopes and views of the majority of people.
  His areas of influence also encompass the world’s philosophies,
  education, and commerce. The thoughts, ideas, speculations and false
  religions of the world are under his control and have sprung from his
  lies and deceptions.

...

  So, when the Bible says that Satan is the "god of this world," it is
  not saying that he has ultimate authority. It is conveying the idea
  that Satan rules over the unbelieving world in a specific way. In the
  case of 2 Corinthians 4:4, the unbeliever follows Satan's agenda.
  According to 2 Corinthians 4:4, the "god of this world has blinded the
  minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel
  of the glory of Christ." Satan's agenda includes pushing a false
  philosophy onto the unbelieving world—a false philosophy that blinds
  the unbeliever from the truth of the Gospel. Satan’s philosophies are
  the fortresses in which people are imprisoned, needing to be set free
  and brought captive to Christ in obedience to the truth.


Does God love unconditionally? Like the title, does God love forever, unconditionally? I can't think of a being who is supposed to be more loving than God, so this is kind of a big question for me.

No, God does not love unconditionally.  In fact, God hates the wicked.

  Hosea 9:15 NIV
  15 “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal,
     I hated them there.
  Because of their sinful deeds,
     I will drive them out of my house.
  I will no longer love them;
     all their leaders are rebellious.

However, those who have faith in Christ and accept him as their savior are loved unconditionally for eternity.

  John 3:36 NIV
  36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects
  the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

Remeber that 1 John 4:8 tells us that God is love.  I'll just give you all of 1 Corinthians 13 (NIV) with some highlights.

  1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have
  love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have
  the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,
  and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I
  am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my
  body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain
  nothing.

  4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,
  it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not
  self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
  6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It
  always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

  8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease;
  where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is
  knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in
  part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11
  When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
  reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of
  childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a
  mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I
  shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

  13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest
  of these is love.


How do cessationists interpret James 5:13-18? Is the practice of confession, prayer, and anointing oil for healing with the elders of the church meant to be an ongoing practice of the church, or was that something left to the apostolic age where the charismatic gifts were in effect for the church? The practice is described in James 5:13-18 (ESV):

  The Prayer of Faith

  Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let
  him sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders
  of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in
  the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is
  sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he
  will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray
  for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous
  person has great power as it is working. Elijah was a man with a
  nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and
  for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he
  prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit.

Richard Gaffin, who provided the cessationist perspective in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, says in his book Perspectives on Pentecost (pg. 114) that individual endowments of healing were "foundational gifts" which have "passed out of the life of the church." But he says more:

At the same time, however, the sovereign will and power of God today to heal the sick, particularly in response to prayer (see, e.g., James 5:14, 15), ought to be acknowledged and insisted on. ... Healing ... ought to be an expectation of God's people today.

This seems to be agreed by most cessationists. But beyond this, it seems that the interpretation of James 5 is quite disparate between individual cessationists. There's not a whole lot of agreement other than the point that, "God still heals people today."
In Saved by Grace (pg. 38), Anthony Hoekema (an influential CRC pastor and reformed systematic theologian) says:

The main theme of the passage is not the efficacy of anointing with oil but the power of prayer--see the concluding sentence and note the example of Elijah in verses 17-18. The situation James here describes is that of a person who is obviously "too sick to go to church"; hence he is invited to ask the elders to come to his house. ... The grammatical structure of the sentence suggests the possibility that the elders first rubbed the sick person with oil (presumably olive oil) and then prayed over him (or her). The application of the oil, however, was for medicinal purposes. James is saying, in other words, that the church’s ministry to the sick should include the best medical help that can be found.

B. B. Warfield would seem to agree with Hoekema. In The Theology of B. B. Warfield, Fred Zaspel summarizes pages 169-173 of Warfield's Counterfeit Miracles:

"The emphasis falls wholly on the sick man's getting himself prayed for officially by the elders of the church, and the promise is suspended wholly on their prayer, on the supposition that it is offered in faith." And the anointing with oil Warfield takes in a medicinal sense. Oil was a universal medicine in the day, and the word for anointing is not the ceremonial term but the term meaning "to rub." The exhortation is to offer medical help while looking to the Lord for healing. But even if the oil is symbolic of the Holy Spirit and the anointing a ceremonial rite, there is no exclusion here of the ordinary medical attention. More to the point, there is nothing of miraculous gifts. God heals in answer to prayer, and that is the promise this passage makes.

Herman Hanko, a PRC pastor and editor of the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, wrote in the May 1975 edition of that publication:

Although it is true that the word which the apostle uses here is oftentimes used in Scripture for physical sickness, this is by no means always the case. ... This word and its cognates is therefore often used in Scripture to refer to spiritual weakness. See such passages as I Cor. 2:3; Heb. 5:2; 7:28; 4:15; II Cor. 7:5-9. ... The context refers very emphatically to sin: "and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." ...
The text speaks emphatically and without qualification of this prayer being answered with healing. But it must be remembered that we have in all the Scriptures no promise of God that He will always make us better when we are physically sick. Not even faith healers dare to claim this absolutely. We conclude therefore, that the reference of the text is to spiritual weakness. ... Inability to pray is the spiritual sickness or weakness to which the apostle refers. Such spiritual weakness may come for various reasons. ... In a very real sense, when the saints call the elders they call Christ Himself. ...
The apostle adds, "anointing him with oil." This phrase must not be taken in the literal sense of the word. James uses many such Old Testament figures which he does not intend to be taken literally, but which must be taken in the spiritual sense. For example, in chapter 4:8 the apostle refers to Old Dispensational forms of cleansing when he says: "Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded." Rather, oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. And anointing with oil in the Name of the Lord means that the prayer which is offered as an intercessory prayer by the elders is a prayer for the Holy Spirit. It is a prayer that the Spirit may come upon the sick and restore those sick to spiritual health.

His fellow PRC minister Rodney Kleyn agrees.
John MacArthur takes a very similar approach:

The weak are those who have been defeated in the spiritual battle, who have lost the ability to endure their suffering. ... Metaphorically, the elders’ anointing of weak, defeated believers with oil conveys the responsibility for elders to stimulate, encourage, strengthen, and refresh (cf. Luke 7:46) these people.


Why is the word "Ark" used for Noah's boat and the Ark of the Covenant? What exactly is the meaning of an "ark" that applies to a boat and that thing that melts off the Nazi's faces in the first Indiana Jones movie?

We need to be careful thinking that our English (or other language) translations always reflect God's Words perfectly.  The word 'Ark' when referring to Noah's ark or the ark of bullrushes that Moses was placed into is the hebrew word 'teebah'.  The word used for the Ark of the Covenant is 'arown'.  I believe that there are similarities between the two as noted in other answers, but the words given are distinct in the Hebrew.


What's the basic premise behind "restorationist" movements? To the untrained ear, the labels used in Christian circles for some groups of churches as either "reformational" or "restorationist" don't seem that different. If the label "reformed" is a direct connection to the Protestant Reformation of 16th century, what exactly makes something "restorationist"? Does this refer to one specific historical movement (e.g. 'Protestantism') or more generally to a genre of religious movements?

To reform is to change what already is there, and to restore is to return to its original state.

It probably depends which congregation within Christianity you're asking. Some protestants may consider themselves restorationists, and others reformational. Other Christians use the term and eschew the "Protestant" label.

For example, Latter-day Saints wouldn't consider themselves Protestant since the LDS Church is considered a restoration of what already was on Earth anciently... regardless of religious protests and breakages through time. This group is particularly interested in differentiating reformation from restoration.

But generally, I do understand most uses of the word "reform" to refer to the 16th century movements -- and other uses of the word "restore" I'm not familiar with than what I've mentioned. I've also seen local congregations use the word "Reformed such-and-such Church" in direct reference to another local congregation from which they are a derivative.

I guess it depends who you ask.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that God loves individuals? I need to find a Bible verse that states that God loves me as a person, as an individual. Many verses refer to God's love for the world, for the church, for the nation. No verse specifically says that God loves me. Not as part of a group, not as part of a church, not as part of the world, but as me! The Bible tells me that God loves the 'building', but not each individual brick.

Many, many commentators infer God's love for individuals. But as far as I can see, the Bible does not say it!

What is the biblical basis for the common Christian belief that God loves individuals?

First, does God love any individuals particularly?

Job believed that he would stand face to face with God, who would hear his complaint and grant him justice. God appeared and spoke to him, and vindicated him before his friends, and blessed him with an abundant life.

God promised Abram a son, a nation, and influence throughout the whole world. He gave him a new name, Abraham. God guided him from his old home to a new one, and showed him respect by letting him know about his plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

God had mercy on Leah and opened her womb, because Jacob loved Rachel more than her.

God appeared to Moses, granted him kingly authority, displayed his glory to him and spoke to him like a man speaks to his friend.

God granted Hannah a son, Samuel, in response to her urgent prayers.

God provided food miraculously to Elijah, sent angels to assist him, and spoke to him from a mountain top.

Jesus wept when he saw how grieved Mary and Martha were over the death of their brother, Lazarus.

God's history with man shows that he grants particular mercies much prized by those who received them. He granted the desires of their hearts. He often deals with them as individuals, not as a collective. Patient, kind, gentle, humble - just as He has defined true love in 1 Corinthians 13, so He has expressed this love to individuals.

"Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." God is very particular.

Revelation 3:19-22 says:

  Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.
  Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and
  opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with
  me.

  To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on
  my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his
  throne. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the
  churches.”

This is the end of the letter to the church at Laodicea. You can interpret it as only being directed to a group, but some believe that it is both directed to the church and to individuals. While some preterists might say that this was completely fulfilled among the believers of that church many years ago, historicists and others believe that the church of Laodicea stands for the end-times church, in apostasy. A disordered and disfunctional church can no longer be relied upon to faithfully deliver God's message to his people, so he must speak to individual Christians directly. This is God's message to all the faithful who persevere, directed to each personally, not just the church corporately.

Yes, if you overcome in faith, God loves you. God spoke his love directly to people of faith long ago. He will speak to you as well.


Are people who "think a lot about" God, Jesus, right and wrong more likely to go to heaven? King David (probably) went to heaven. That was in spite of the fact the he committed a number of sins, the most egregious of which was stealing Bathesheba from Uriah.

The some is probably true of his son King Solomon.

David wrote the book of Psalms, and Solomon the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. That shows that they thought a lot about God, Jesus, and right and wrong.

Then there was the story of the prophet (I believe it was Daniel) who "mediated on the law day and night."

All other things being equal, are people that "think a lot about" God more likely to go to heaven than people who don't? Put another way, would another king who committed "Bathesheba" and other similar sins but don't "think a lot about" God be more likely to go to Hell than King David?

"Thinking a lot about God" does not get one into heaven.  Evidence:  John 3:16 says to believe in God's son is the condition for eternal life. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that faith, not works (which would include "thinking"), is the means through which one is saved.  Heaven: no.

Two bible passages can answer the question of whether "a lot" of devotion to the Lord earns one a special place, any merits with God. In  Matthew 20:1-16, the vineyard workers who showed up at the last hour get same wages as those who worked all day.  In Luke 15:11-32, the older son (who was a good boy all his life) is rebuked for his anger at the Father's love for the prodigal son.


Where does the Catholic church procure most of its Bibles? I was recently doing some research on Bible publishing and distribution in order to compose this answer over on the Skeptics Stack Exchange site. In spite of the result being well received, I have a nagging doubt that I might have missed something. The one I'm wondering if I under-estimated is related to the Catholic church.

I realize the United Bible Societies specifically prints Bibles in many languages that include the Deuterocanon and works with both Catholic and Orthodox groups for distribution. What I was unable to determine is if this was the primary source for Bibles in Catholic circles around the world. If not, the sheer size of the Catholic church must place a pretty high demand on some other publisher.

I found some references to a Catholic Biblical Federation but didn't find any evidence that they were a major player in print or distribution of Bibles. A related article in Newadvent talks a lot about Protestant Bible societies and historical movements but doesn't specifically mention the role Catholic church. Are primarily Protestant societies listed because that was the point of the article or because that's primary what is out there?

Does the Catholic church have any in house publishing operations or an independent publishing/distribution source that handles high volume in any worldwide region or do they typically piggy back on the regional Bible societies that are summed up under the UBS umbrella?

Catholic Bibles do not come from just one publisher. They contract with hundreds of publishers to produce Catholic Bibles and other works. Although the Vatican does have a printing office it seems to only be used for Anthologies and other more recent publications.

Here are a few examples

http://www.catholicbookpublishing.com/about.php

http://www.firesidecatholic.com/Churches/

http://www.baroniuspress.com/

http://www.catholic.org/bible/

To sum up the church uses large and small publishers to fill their needs throughout the world. It appears that the publishers are selected by region so they can meet the needs of the local Churches quickly and reduce cost on shipping and storage. Which of these publishers is the largest would be almost impossible to determine as I doubt the Catholic church publishes that information. But I hope this helps in some way.


What is the "Way of the Cross"? Our local Roman Catholic church has started advertising the "Way of the Cross" for Easter. I think I have seen this mentioned at other places I have visited and isn't a just a local event. Is the "Way of the Cross" a Catholic event, and if so what is it?

The Way of the Cross, also known as The Stations of the Cross, as advertised by a Church is a formal mini-pilgrimage or "pilgrimage lite" through the "stations" (important moments) of Jesus' passion and death. In modern Catholic Churches there are 14 stations:

Christ condemned to death;
the cross is laid upon him;
His first fall;
He meets His Blessed Mother;
Simon of Cyrene is made to bear the cross;
Christ's face is wiped by Veronica;
His second fall;
He meets the women of Jerusalem;
His third fall;
He is stripped of His garments;
His crucifixion;
His death on the cross;
His body is taken down from the cross; and
laid in the tomb.

Each station is generally represented in the Church by a metal or wooden engraving, a painting, or a stained glass image. The group moves from station to station in order and is lead in prayer and meditation.

Unlike some other Catholic "events", this isn't a sacrament. So, for a mini-mini-pilgrimage, this can be done privately as well, using your own words, reflections, and prayers if you like. Praying "the stations" is recommended by lots of holy folk in particular during lent, but also regularly throughout the year.

See http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/stations/menu.html
And http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15569a.htm


According to the RCC, is supporting abortion the same sin as having an abortion? According to the RCC is supporting abortion the same sin as having an abortion?

(Not talking about the doctor. But supporters of the act of abortion.)

To be an accomplice to murder (e.g., selling a gun, abortion instruments, etc.) is not necessarily the same as actually murdering. There's a distinction between material and formal cooperation in sin (cf. this article for more info). Material cooperation supplies the means for committing the sin, and formal cooperation assists in the act directly (e.g., two hit-men shooting one person at the same time would be both formally cooperating in the murder). And there are distinctions within material cooperation: proximate and remote cooperation. For example, a nurse handing an abortionist an instrument during his murdering of a child would be proximate material cooperation (some may argue it's formal cooperation) in murder for the nurse (and certainly formal cooperation for the abortionist). A surgical company making instruments that could be used for other purposes than abortion would be a remote material cooperation in the sin of abortion.

Voting for pro-abortion politicians certainly makes one an accomplice in the murders that politician permits.

Also, in the case of abortion, being an accomplice to it and directly performing it are both excommunicable offenses.


What, historically, was the age of accountability for Latter-Day-Saints before D&C 68:27? In Doctrine and Covenants 68:27, the age of accountability is clearly defined as being eight years.

D&C 68:27

  27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their
  sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

Section 68 was given November 1831, and is the earliest source for the age of eight as age of accountability that I am aware of. However it is clear from Doctrine and Covenants 18 and 20 (and the Book of Mormon), that the concept of "age of accountability" was known from the foundation of the church in 1830.

What was the "age of accountability" between April 1830 and November 1831, and what was it based upon (some scripture? (unrecorded) revelation?)?

It is clearly taught in the Book of Mormon that baptism is only required for those who are accountable and capable of committing sin. Moroni Chapter 8 contains a letter of Mormon to his son expounding on the theology of the subject. (Especially verses 5-26).
Mosiah 3:16-21 also contains teaching that "little children" are sinless and are redeemed by Christ. The passages mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants (18:42 and 20:71) also mention "the years of accountability" but are not more specific.

At this point in the history of the Church, (November 1831) there were no more than a few thousand members and whether someone was sufficiently accountable was most likely left to the judgement of the missionaries, parents, and the individuals involved. There were some young children among the newly baptized convert families, but only a few would have aged and matured enough for the question of when they should be be baptized to arise.

Joseph Smith taught (Genesis 17:11-12; Joseph Smith Translation) that the 8 year old age for accountability was connected to the 8 days of age for circumcision according to the law given to Abraham.


What is the Biblical basis for "Do Least Harm" or "Do Greatest Good"? At one point in The Reason For God, Timothy Keller talks about how to pick which action to choose in a tough dilemma. He gave the example of a man having borrowed tools from another guy...and said guy wants them back so he can beat his wife with them. Keeping the tools is practically stealing, but giving them back would be worse. Keller gives two options:

Do Least Harm: Out of the actions you have available to you, do the one that does the least overall damage and hurt.
Do Greatest Good: Out of the actions you have available to you, do the one that has the greatest overall benefit.

Of course, these two decision paths will select the same choice in a great majority of cases, so I'm not asking for which one the Bible says is better. Rather, I'm asking for any Biblical justification for either of these decision paths.

What you're asking about is called "Situational Ethics"

Many people arguing for situational ethics use Matthew 12:1-8 as an example.  Key verses from that.

Matt 12:3-6 (NIV)

  3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?

  4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.

  5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

  6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here.

In this case, it shows that in some situations, we need to apply the laws with consideration.

The idea of situational ethics is that we should do whatever results in the greatest amount of love.  That idea comes from Matthew 22:35-40 where Jesus says that the second greatest command is to love your neighbor as yourself.

For more reading, Here is a long article.


Why do Latino Christians treat their patron saint's day more importantly than their birthday? Why do Latino Christians treat their patron saint's day more importantly than their birthday? Would a fifteen-year-old girl's Quinceañera be as important as a birthday or more important than a birthday, with similar value to a patron saint's day or the day on which they would be confirmed in the church?

Not just Mexican, mostly a Catholic tradition.
(http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php)

This is one way to carry-out this tradition:
Catholics ask saints to give a word or two to God for them.
So, if my name is Peter, I should IDENTIFY myself with Peter's Day,
present gifts, ask people to help me with extra treatment/presents, so
together with Saint Peter, in God's favor, I can ask what I want/need.
Can't get that on a b-day.

So, it is a TOOL to help a Catholic identify with God.
Never the less, a tradition, not that is right or wrong. But far from the truth.

Quinceañera, is a right-of-passage, personal birthday. Not answered here.


What "God's law" is Matthew Henry referring to? Part of Matthew Henry's commentary on Exodus 22 says:

  A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril.

What is he referring to as "God's law" in reference to setting a guard upon it?

Considering that this is a commentary on Exodus 22, which is dealing with issues relating to theft, this is likely on the specific "thou shalt not steal" commandment.

The idea of property rights is found throughout Scripture, and taking someone's property is, in it's most basic form, theft.


What is the significance of Jesus' baptism for a theology of baptism? It seems that any robust theology of Christian baptism must incorporate and draw from the fact that Jesus himself was baptized, but I rarely hear it mentioned in discussions about baptism. What place does it have in a theology of baptism?

There is an excellent discussion of just this topic among the first parts of St. Nicholas Cabasilas' Our Life in Christ. Any discussion of Epiphany/Theophany also should address specifically this question.

Some thoughts along this line include the following:

In becoming baptized, as the other answers mention, Christ shows us a critical step on the way to salvation, viz. baptism by water and the Holy Spirit. In becoming baptized, Christ's holy body sanctified the water that now baptizes us into his death and resurrection.

Also, in baptism, Christ's divinity was made publicly manifest, by the full Godhead no less, and as a show against the prince of this world that the kingdom of God was now coming in subtle force. To further indicate how fully the kingdom was coming, Christ went out into the wilderness to meet Satan head-on. Now when we become baptized, we too spit on the works of Satan, and now on God's side we too meet Satan to drive him out, not to tolerate his works anymore in these last days.

This by no means exhausts the relationship between our baptism and Christ's. The above references should discuss this at length.


How does the LDS Church decide what is included in their scriptural canon? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has four "Standard Works" that are considered canonical:

The Bible (Old and New Testaments)
The Book of Mormon
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price

The Bible and the Book of Mormon are pretty much set in stone as to what they contain, but the other two standard works have changed over time as new revelations have been added over the past couple hundred years.

Two widely-cited official declarations from the past 20 years are "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" and "The Living Christ," but neither has been added to the standard works, despite a new edition of the standard works being published by the Church in 2013. Also, leaders address the Church every six months at General Conference – and while their addresses are universally regarded within the LDS Church as authoritative, they haven't been canonized.

Given that the LDS Church believes in living prophets, continuing revelation, and an open canon, how do they decide what becomes part of the canon?

It seems useful to consider the example of D&C Section 138. Section 138 was a revelation from 1918 but not added until 1981. A section from Sperry Symposium Classics: The Doctrine and Covenants from chapter 22 with the heading From Scripture to Canon describes a process which no doubt illustrates the general manner in which the leaders of the Church would undertake to update the 'LDS canon' as others may call it. The pertinent quote is:

  At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of
  the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval
  was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price...

The answer is apparently that all 15 apostles approve such a change, and we can easily assume acting on prior consideration and after seeking inspiration from God.


In Romans 16:7, are Andronicus and Junia apostles? AND... is Junia a woman? How did the Church Fathers interpret this? In Romans 16:7, are Andronicus and Junia apostles? AND... is Junia a woman?

  Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with
  me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ
  before I was. (Romans 16:7).

Does "they are prominent among the apostles" mean that they are
respected by the apostles or that they are numbered among the
apostles?
From several commentaries and footnotes, I am reading that "Junia" is possibly a feminine noun and may also be an alternative name for Julia?
How did the Church Fathers interpret this passage? Did they consider these two in prison with Paul to be apostles as well? And did they consider Junia to be a woman or a man? What does this imply for the leadership of early Christianity?

I'll deal with Junia's gender first. Although the Greek manuscripts are ambiguous as to her gender, Wikipedia says "the consensus among some modern New Testament scholars is that Junia was a woman" and points out that the first known reference to Junia as a male comes from Origen no earlier than the late second century, although from a late medieval copy of Origen's writing. So it seems the Church Fathers accepted Junia to have been a woman and, given the potential for scribal bias, it is even possible that Origen had also believed this. Papyrus 46, a Greek manuscript from about 200 CE, alters the name used in Romans 16:7 from Junia to Julia, which provides some support for her to be a woman, even if this spelling is not original.

Wikipedia (ibid) cites Rena Pederson, who argues "medieval translators such as the 13th-century Archbishop Giles changed her name to Junias, as a reflection of an institutional prejudice against women that stretched back to ancient Greek scholars." Stephen Finlan also writes that "Junia is clearly a female name that was changed to the male "Junias" in the Latin translations of the New Testament."

Rena Pederson (The Lost Apostle, page 164) says multiple database searches found the female name in use in Ephesus, Didyma, Lydia, Troas, Bithynia and Rome during the first century, but not one reference to the masculine form, Junias. She says "the male name was simply not a bona fide name".

According to a Christian blog, cbmw.org, the Church Fathers not only regarded Junia to be a female, but actually identified her as the wife of Andronicus. It says "many patristic exegetes understood the second person mentioned in Rom 16:7 to be the wife of Andronicus, such as: Ambrosiaster (c. 339-97); Jerome (c. 342-420); John Chrysostom (c. 347- 407); Jerome; Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c.393-458)."  The site goes on to list other exegetes holding this view, but they were too late to be regarded as Church Fathers.

The Greek is also somewhat ambiguous as to whether Junia was a prominent apostle or "well-known to the apostles". There is a tendency to limit the use of 'apostle' to the twelve disciples and Paul himself, but Paul did use the term more broadly in the context of being a 'messenger' of Christ.

If Paul did regard Junia as a church leader, she would not be alone. Paul also regarded Priscilla to be a church leader, as we see in:

  Romans 16:3: Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus
  1 Corinthians 16:19: Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 3:5-6, although possibly not part of a work written by Paul, implies that more apostles were appointed after the time of Christ:

  Ephesians 3:5-6: Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
  6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.

Thus there is ambiguity in the text, both as to whether Junia was a woman and whether she was an apostle, but the weight of scholarly opinion is that Junia was a female apostle. The implication is that females such as Priscilla and Junia were leaders of the early church.


What is the difference between being blessed and being happy? I really am torn sometimes when having the kids in my Religious Ed. class read scripture, on the one hand we've got the Catholic Good News Translation from St. Mary's Press (Breakthrough Bible) which they don't stumble over and has nice pictures and everything.

And on the other hand we've got the old crusty falling apart St. Joseph's New American Bible which is not particularly archaic in language, but definitely less readable and absorbable for the short time I've got the kids.

The problem I have with the GNT is that it doesn't sound like Mass, so when I say "Blessed are the meek" and the bible says, "Happy are the meek" I've got to do some explaining.  Namely I need to explain how happy and blessed coalesce.

The only problem is, I don't believe that happy and blessed do coalesce, at least not on earth. As Our Lady said to St. Bernadette at Lourdes, "I can't make you happy in this life, but I can in the next".  At that moment, she was blessed, she still died a painful and tragic death at a young age, but she was blessed - and maybe happy, but not happy as the world knows it.

So, why even use the word "Happy" to describe being "Blessed" isn't this a complete misnomer or do the transliterators expect everyone reading to understand this?

and furthermore, how does happy = blessed and how does blessed = happy?

The root senses of the words

As you have noticed, English has changed a lot since the first translations were made.  Now, the original meaning of 'blessed', according to the etymology, is 'consecrated', but it started to pick up a second meaning—over time it started to sound like more like the word 'bliss', and so, following on the idea of being consecrated, the idea of blissfulness or happiness was added to it. (This is explained at dictionary.com.  For another example of how unrelated words can influence each other's senses, compare how the word 'niggardly' came to be politically incorrect.)

It may also be instructive to look at the meaning of 'happy' in the past.  The word 'happy' comes from the word 'hap', meaning what happens by chance. The words 'mishap' and 'happen' itself are related; the former is a bad chance occurrence, and the latter is what just happens to occur.  The root meaning of 'happy' thus is what we might describe as 'lucky' or 'fortunate'—as the familiar saying goes, "happiness is based on happenstance".

While we do not strongly associate the idea of good luck with 'happy' today, the association was stronger in the past, so the translators of the time may have preferred not to use it here, though people who wrote dictionaries would use it to specify when they said 'blessed' that they mean this sense.

Which sense is actually meant?

We can find out by looking at the original language.  While English uses 'bless' for both the idea of consecration and the idea of happiness, Greek has two different words: εὐλογέω (eulogeō) is to bless as in to consecrate, and μακάριος (macarios) is happy.

In the original Greek of the beatitudes, 'μακάριος' is used. So indeed the sense of happiness is intended here; Jesus is talking about the future happiness of people who are not traditionally considered to be happy, not the future consecration of people who are not traditionally considered to be consecrated.

(In Latin likewise there are two different words -- benedico is to bless as in to consecrate, and beatus is happy.  It is from the latter that we get the name 'beatitudes'.)

But 'happy' is different from 'blessed' somehow

Now, as you say, you "don't believe that happy and blessed do coalesce, at least not on earth".  You have reason to say this, but this is less about the meaning of the words and more about their associations.  The idea of 'blessed' happiness is strongly tied to the religious idea whose name it shares and so we tend to use the word only in religious contexts or with religious feeling -- and because we make it a religious idea, we tend to think about it more and realize that real happiness is not of or in this world.

Because 'happy' has no such religious association, we tend to use it more lightly and don't think of it in such a way.  But the idea is still in the word; one may see it when we are talking about happiness in a philosophical but non-religious way, as when we speak of the saying of Solon, "call no man happy till he is dead"—the original Greek for the 'happy' here is also of the same root as μακάριος.

So why change 'blessed' to 'happy' in the translation?

It's true that 'blessed' already has more of the connotations that one would want in this text.  But, especially for those not raised to religious terminology, the word is kind of obscure — and without use in a variety of contexts, it's hard for people to learn what a word means; the meaning tends to get muddled.  By updating 'blessed' to 'happy'—which we can do now that 'happy' no longer means 'lucky'—we at once make the original idea more accessible, and hopefully stimulate in the word 'happy' the kind of thinking about happiness we have already done when using the word 'blessed'.


What's the significance of hyssop in John 19:29? There is just one verse in the New Testament that refers to hyssop and is not referring to the Old Testament:

  John 19:29 (NLT)
  A jar of sour wine was sitting there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put it on a hyssop branch, and held it up to [Jesus'] lips.

Why is the fact that a hyssop branch was used significant enough to mention it by name?

Hyssop represents common faith. Hyssop was a weed that grew practically anywhere. The blood is applied by common faith in God's word.

  EXODUS 12:22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the
  blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side
  posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go
  out at the door of his house until the morning.

In many of the Old Testament sacrifices (the two turtle doves for the cleansing of the leper, and especially the sacrifice of the red heifer), hyssop was burned in the fire, with the sacrifice, along with scarlet and cedar.

  Numbers 19:6 And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and
  scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.

Hyssop represents the first step of salvation, believing on the Lord through common faith (justification).

Scarlet represents the blood sacrifice which atones for our sins, and being set aside for service (sanctification).

Cedar represents a Holy God coming to dwell in our hearts (baptism of the Holy Ghost).

The reference to hyssop in John 19:29 ties together the Old Testament prefigure of the red heifer (who died for the sins of the people) with the death of Christ (who died "once for all"). There on Golgotha was Hyssop, the Blood Sacrifice (Scarlet), and Emmanuel (God with Us, Cedar).


Will we be circumcised in heaven? I'm just wondering because I grew up in an Islamic family in Iran and I became a Christian when age 23. Will people who were circumcised in this life (like myself) be circumcised in the next life? Or will we be whole in heaven? Because I really don't want to spend all of eternity missing a body part. Sorry if this sounds like a troll question but I actually genuinely am curious about it.

In the words of St. Paul:

  Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the
  commandments of God is what matters.

  1 Corinthians 7:19

The original circumcision what supposed to be symbolizing what was happening in the heart. It was supposed to be a mark of being part of the People of God. Nevertheless, it became a ritual that meant nothing in practice. This is why God Himself said:

  “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve
  the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to
  keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I am commanding
  you today for your good? 14 Behold, to the Lord your God belong
  heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.
  Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their
  offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day.
  Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords,
  the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and
  takes no bribe.

  Deuteronomy 10:12-17

Read also, Leviticus 26:41; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 6:10; Jeremiah 9:26; Ezekiel 44:7–9

All of these verses have to do with circumcision of the heart. It is to obey God's commandments, all of them.

In heaven this circumcision of the flesh will no longer be necessary because every one there will be a child of God and have perfect obedience, out of love to their Creator, or else they wouldn't be there.


Why would God create a world in which there are so many ways to sin and thus be condemned? There's no doubt humans are responsible for their sins, but what they do is still dependent on the basic rules of the universe. So why would God let i.e. drugs to be possible in the first place? I mean he could just order the world in the way that no drugs could be made and thus saving many many souls. I don't say that God should eliminate every temptation, but there's so much of it?? Just wanted to make sure I'm underestood properly. The question is not why God wouldn't do anything about wars and diseases, but why God created the universe in which so MANY MANY MANY bad things can happen to us, sinners?

I agree with you that humans are responsible for their sins, but your question is based on a seriously flawed premise.  What humans do is NOT dependent on the basic rules of the universe.  You mean like jumping off a tall building and ending your life because gravity is a rule of the universe created by God?  It would be helpful if you explained what you mean by that opening sentence.
The point is that everything God created (time, space, matter, light and all life) was perfect.  Sin did not exist when God created Adam and Eve.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good (Genesis 2:31).

The next part of your reasoning is also based on a false premise, that God allows bad things (like death-dealing drugs), to exist as if to tempt humans to sin.  What humans do with all the wonderful bounty created by God is down to the sin nature inherent in every human.  Drugs (morphine based, for example) are used to stop suffering.   Drugs are not the problem – it’s how drugs are used and abused that is the problem.
Take, as an example, the atom (created by God).  Is it God’s fault that humans devised the means whereby the atom could be split and, as a direct consequence, unleashed horrific suffering and death on men, women and children in Japan?
Why did God create a universe in which so many bad things can happen to us?  He didn’t.  A holy and righteous creator God, who made us in His image, does not control our every action.  He gave us life and lets us get on with it.  We live in a fallen world, and we experience the effects of the fall.   On the other hand:

We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28).

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).

Despite the sinful nature of the people of this world, God still loves us. Jesus loved us enough to die to take the penalty for our sins (Romans 6:23).
People get to choose whether they will turn to God and live according to His holy and righteous purposes, or whether they will reject God and go their own, sinful way.


Ruth 'the wife of Mahlon' or Elimelech? Why is Ruth called 'the wife of Mahlon' (Ruth 4:10) whereas in the beginning of the story she is the wife of Elimelech?

You are mistaken:

  The man’s name was Elimelek, his wife’s name was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion...They married Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth. - Ruth 1:2,4 NIV [Emphasis added]

So it is Naomi, not Ruth who was the wife of Elimelech; the verse you cited gives the more specific information that Ruth married Mahlon whereas chapter 1 leaves it open as to whether it was Mahlon or Kilion that she'd married.


According to Catholicism, what is meant by the Church being indefectible? One of the properties of the Church according to Catholicism is indefectibility. What does this mean and where does this doctrine originate?

"Indefectibility" is, according to Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John Hardon, S.J., the

Imperishable duration of the Church and her immutability until the end of time. The First Vatican Council declared that the Church possesses

an invincible stabilityinvictamque stabilitatem

and that,

being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world.fundata super petram ad finem sæculorum usque firma stabit.

([Latin:] Denzinger 3013, 3056)
The Church's indefectibility, therefore, means that she now is and will always remain the institution of salvation, founded by Christ. This affirms that the Church is essentially unchangeable in her teaching, her constitution, and her liturgy. It does not exclude modifications that do not affect her substance, nor does it exclude the decay of individual local churches or even whole dioceses.


If an Eastern Rite Catholic marries in the Western rite, does he/she need to formally change rites? All the Eastern rites of the church are in communion with the Pope, else they would be a variant of Orthodox Christianity.  However, say there was an Eastern Rite man marrying a Western Rite woman.  If they were to have a ceremony in the Eastern Rite, then a Western Rite priest could not preside, and the woman would have to change Rites.  This is a fact I know from my Priest who asked a Canon lawyer familiar with the Melkite and Western Canon's.

Is the reverse true?  That is, if the couple wants to marry in the Western Rite, will the Eastern Rite man have to formally change rites to the Western rite?

TL;DR: No one has to translate to another Church sui iuris, but in some cases one spouse can do so (without complex procedure).

(Everything under the reservation, that the Rome decreed nothing special for special circumstances your case belongs to. But I do not think there is such a decree/law/rescript/...)

The ascription to a Church sui iuris (Eastern Catholic Churches and Latin Church) is ruled in cann. 29ff. CCEO and cann. 111f. CIC. The relevant norms for us are:

CCEO:

  Can. 33 - A wife is at liberty to transfer to the Church of the husband at the celebration of or during the marriage; when the marriage has ended, she can freely return to the original Church sui iuris.

  Can. 36 - The transfer to another Church sui iuris takes effect at the moment a declaration is made before the local hierarch or the proper pastor of the same Church or a priest delegated by either of them and two witnesses, unless the rescript of the Apostolic See provides otherwise.

  Can. 37 - Every enrollment in a certain Church sui iuris or transfer to another Church sui iuris should be recorded in the baptismal register of the parish where the baptism was celebrated, even, as the case may be, in a Latin parish; if this cannot be done, it is to be kept by the proper pastor in another document in the archive of the parish of the Church sui iuris of enrollment.

CIC:

  Can. 112 - § 1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another Church sui iuris:

  1° a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;

  2° a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;

  3° before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another Church sui iuris; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.

  § 2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church

  § 3. All those transfers to another Church sui iuris have force from the moment of the declaration of the fact before the local Ordinary of the Church or the proper pastor or priest by delegation and two witnesses, unless a rescript of the Apostolic See provides otherwise; and [this is to be] noted in the baptismal register.

So we see: No one is forced to transfer to another Church sui iuris at marriage. We have to differntiate three cases [Pree/Berkmann, n. 5]:
1. A man of Eastern Church sui iuris A marries a women of Eastern Church sui iuris B: The woman can decide to transfer to Chruch A, can. 33 CCEO. The man cannot transfer.
2. A man of Eastern Church sui iuris A marries a women of the Latin Church: The women can decide to transfer to Church A, can. 33 CCEO. The man cannot transfer.
3. A man of the Latin Church marries a women of Eastern Church sui iuris B: The women can decide to transfer to the Latin Church, can. 33 CCEO. The man can decide to transfer to the Church B, can. 112 § 1 n. 1 CIC.

In all cases it is irrelevant, in which rite the wedding is celebrated. (It has to be the correct priest for the rite and the priest has to be responsible for the wedding, i.e. normally: one of the spouses is in his Church sui iuris and the wedding is in his area.)

So the information you got is not fully correct: The Latin women can, but not has to, translate to the Church sui iuris of her husband. He cannot translate to the Latin Church, even if they marry in Latin Rite. (BTW: There is no one and only "Eastern Rite".)

If one of the spouses wants to translate to another Church sui iuris, they have to make a formal declaration of this before his/her new bishop (patriarch etc.) or pastor (can. 36 CCEO, can. 112 § 3 CIC). The transfer has to be recorded in the baptismal register (can. 37 CCEO, can. 112 § 3 CIC). This can be done at the earliest during the wedding, but later it is possible too.

To show that it is very important for the Church, that a transfer to another Church sui iuris is voluntary and an extraordinary act, some more norms:

  Can. 31 CCEO - No one can presume in any way to induce the Christian faithful to transfer to another Church sui iuris.

  Can. 1465 - One who, belonging to any Church sui iuris, including the Latin Church, and exercising an office, a ministry or another function in the Church, has presumed to induce any member of the Christian faithful whatever to transfer to another Church sui iuris, contrary to can. 31 is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

  Can. 32 - § 1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the consent of the Apostolic See.

  § 2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.

The consent of the Apostolic see or the bishops (can. 32 CCEO) is not needed in case of marriage (can. 33 CCEO).

  Can. 38 - Christian faithful of Eastern Churches even if committed to the care of a hierarch or pastor of another Church sui iuris, nevertheless remain enrolled in their own Church.

[Pree/Berkmann]: Helmuth Pree/Burkhard J. Berkmann: Commentary on can. 112 CIC. in: Klaus Lüdicke (Ed.): Münsterischer Kommentar zum Codex Iuris Canonici. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtslage in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Ludgerus Verlag. Essen, Germany (state: April 2017)