How common is intinction in the Catholic Church? Intinction at communion is "the practice of dipping the bread in the cup and partaking the elements simultaneously".

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) at their 2012 General Assembly narrowly voted in favor of an amended version of Overture 30, which would prohibit celebrating communion by intinction. (But this will not actually happen unless 2/3 of the presbyteries, and the next GA, also approve it.) Many lengthy arguments were deployed on both sides.

One of the minor arguments on the pro-intinction side is that the practice is common among Catholics and the Orthodox, and it would be a welcoming gesture if this mode of celebration was explicitly authorized. There are also other Protestant denominations, including Presbyterians, that allow it among other options. I believe that this is indeed the standard way of administering communion in the Eastern Orthodox churches, but I'm not so sure about the Catholics (specifically, Catholics in the USA). The General Instruction of the Roman Missal allows it, but the language seems like it's being authorized only as an alternative method.

How common is intinction in Catholic churches in the USA? Is it seen as a relatively normal thing to do, or is it controversial?

All Catholic churches I have attended have you line up to the front, you are given a communion (either placed in your hand or in your mouth), and on the way back to your seat is a wine bearer, who will offer you a sip from the cup. Unless you place the host in your mouth and then partake from the wine cup, it would not be possible to do this.

In other churches, as you have said, this can be common, but at a standard Catholic church it's not frowned upon as much as not possible following the standard setup.


Is it impossible to think that after judgment day being thrown into hell and then not existing after that is way worse than being in hell? I have always believed that if you go to hell your soul will be there for ever.  After looking at all the versus talking about heaven and hell, is there any verse that clearly states your soul will LIVE forever in hell. What does the words parish and destroy mean in Hebrew and Greek?

Does hell really burn forever?

Ask yourself this, are Sodom and Gomorrah still burning? No they are not.

  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner,
  giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,
  are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

  Jude 1:7

Because they are set as an example of what eternal fire will be like, you can see that they are not burning eternally. The everlasting fire means the fire cannot be quenched. There is no escape. The fire comes from Him who is an All-consuming fire, God Himself.

There are different schools of thought on this, but to me it is evident that hell is not happening right now, and that it is not forever. For many reasons.

1) God is a JUST God.

If a man were to enter a store and steal something, would it be fair for him to receive life in prison? Definitely not. The punishment does not fit the crime. In the same manner, God will not punish those who living a sinful life of 70 or 80 years with millions, billions, or trillions of years of burning. The punishment does not fit the crime.

2) The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable.

The rich man and Lazarus is surrounded by parables. In Luke 15 Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son, a story that is accepted as a parable. In the beginning of Luke 16 He tells the parable of the rich man and his dishonest manager (which as you can see starts the same way as the rich man and Lazarus). Then the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

It would be too lengthy to get into the specifics of why Jesus said that parable and its meaning, but I'll out a resource at the bottom. Just a couple of things. If you take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as reality, then you must accept that people who go to heaven go to Abraham's physical bosom and people who go to hell can be seen by those in heaven and can even speak to them.

3) Pain in the new heavens and the new earth

After the Earth is recreated (new heavens and new earth), there will be no more sorrow, pain or suffering. If you believe in an eternal hell, there will still be sorrow, pain, and suffering.

4) Destroy both body and soul

The eternal suffering in hell is made under the presumption that we 'have an immortal soul'. How can the soul be immortal if it can be killed? These are contradictory and I choose to believe the Bible and the direct words of Jesus when He says,

  And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
  soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body
  in hell.

  Matthew 10:28

These are just a few reasons but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that hell is not burning right now, that it will not be eternal, and that the soul is NOT immortal. It you wish to know more about what the Bible says about this visit this website.

Also, if you'd like to watch a short video on this, it can be found on this website, or here.

EDIT: A sermon explaining this topic from the SCRIPTURE ONLY can be found here.


Is it Proper to State that Chalcedonianism is a Moderate Position In-between Nestorianism and Monophysitism? I am reading the book The First Seven Ecumenical Councils by Leo Donald Davis. This is my first introduction to Trinitarian and Christological disputes within the Early Church.

It appears to me:

that Nestorians believed that Christ had two natures, two wills, and two hypostasis;
that Chalcedonians believed that Christ had two natures and two wills, but in one hypostasis;
that Monophysites believed that Christ had one (or two, dependent on sub-sect) nature, one will, and one hypostatsis.

A) Is my assessment accurate? (This isn't the crux of my question: B is.)

B) Regardless of my assessment’s veracity, is it fair to state that the Chalcedonian position is a moderate position in between the Nestorian position and the Monophysite position? Why or why not?

A better summarization of your statement would be "Monophysitism and Nestorianism are heresy; the Chalcedonian position is orthodox. The heresies over-emphasize one of the natures, but the orthodox position stresses that both are fully present and effective."

Obviously, "heresy" is a word that carries a strong connotation, but it does have an actual definition - heresy is heresy because the orthodox position is to reject.

Nestorianism was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD by Theodosius.  As you said, it emphasizes the human nature of Jesus to such an extent that his divine nature often gets overlooked.  A good modern example would be "Jesus Christ Superstar" by Andrew Lloyd Weber.
Monophysitism was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. This position emphasizes the divine nature to the exclusion of his human one.  Many old school Baptists in particular want to think of Jesus as this magical God whom they neglect to see as also human, sharing in our sufferings and knowing our pains.  This too, is heresy.

The Council of Chalcedon was, by definition, church dogma - indeed, it being one of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, it is accepted by Orthodox and Catholic alike as reflecting the will of the church.

The line "fully human, fully divine," emphasizes that both natures are fully Christ, and is the orthodox position of the "Church", even to this day.  While there are denominations that reject this position, to do so is to put oneself at odds with the historical consensus of the church assembled, as defined by the best measure of "Christian."

Your overall assessment then could be taken as fully accurate, although admittedly, I don't like the idea of it being a "compromise." A compromise suggests that both positions are valid, but that are optimized by rawing from each. Rather, here, I consider it to be the middle way that represents the truth, and either of the other positions is an error that emphasizes one nature in hypostasis over against the other.  Most (All?) heresies - Christological and Trinitarian - tend to result from the over emphasis of one part to the exclusion of the whole.


Is this true that before the Quinisext Council it was not allowed to draw Jesus on icons in the form of a man? Is this true that only at the Quinisext Council it was allowed to draw Jesus on icons as a man, and that before that time Jesus was only depicted on icons as a fish or a lamb? I've looked up the article on the Quinisext Council at the Wikipedia, but it doesn't say anything about that.

Quite early in Christian history the cross (without a human form on it) became a symbol of Christianity and appears to have become a superstitious symbol as well. Heathens recognized this seeming superstitious behavior, so that by the time of Tertullian heathen called Christians cross-worshippers.

You are correct though, from what I can tell. It was not until the fifth century the crucifix began to appear:

  The transition to the crucifix we find in the fifth century in the figure of a lamb, or even a bust of Christ, attached to the cross, sometimes at the top, sometimes at the bottom. Afterwards the whole figure of Christ was fastened to the cross, and the earlier forms gave place to this. The Trullan council of Constantinople (the Quinisextum), A.D. 692, directed in the 82d canon: “Hereafter, instead of the lamb, the human figure of Christ shall be set up on the images.” (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PHILIP SCHAFF, Vol 3, Chapt 8, 109)

To answer the question if before this time the human figure was ‘not allowed’ is difficult to answer. Possibly since nobody ever thought of doing it, it was simply not done? We can’t really say it was not allowed unless people were trying to do it and some authority forbade it.


Where is God according to Christianity? Sometimes to make the idea controversial, atheists depict God as a humanly being residing in the space and then compare him to other fairy tale creatures. To counter this, some sort of logical or may be philosophical answer is needed to the question, "Where is God?"
What is an overview of the positions within Christianity about this subject?

While this isn't true for all branches of Christianity, the vast majority of Christianity believes God to be Omnipresent - that is, everywhere at once.

From http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog11.htm

  God is Omnipresent

  The attribute of God by which He fills the universe in all its parts
  and is present everywhere at once. Not a part, but the whole of God is
  present in every place. This is true of all three members of the
  Trinity. They are so closely related that where one is the others can
  be said to be, also.

That page lists several verses from Scripture that support this attribute of God.

See also

http://www.theopedia.com/Omnipresence_of_God
http://www.unionchurch.com/archive/050700.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2690
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/the-omnipresence-of-god/

This generally goes along with the idea that God is Spirit (John 4:24), and not a physical being of flesh and bone.  Although some denominations, like the LDS, teach that God is a being of flesh and bone, and that omnipresence has a slightly different meaning.

For many Christians, God is also not limited to our universe. As the self-existing Creator of the universe, He us greater than it, and not limited to the universe.

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/finger.html


To the Calvinist, is Romans 9:21 potter story based on Jeremiah 18:4? My Calvinist friend gave me Romans 9:21 and Jeremiah 18:4 to support his view that each individual since was born already either the object of His wrath or the object of His mercy.

After I read Jeremiah 18:4, to me it seems Jeremiah is talking about nation, not individual. And also to me, the analogy in Jeremiah can not lead me to conclude that the potter deliberately make an ugly vessel because the potter has the intention to throw it into the garbage. Also in Jeremiah that in the future passing time (when the ugly and beautiful vessel already exist) an event of repeating process to both kind is possible.

I propose my imagination about Jeremiah potter story to my friend. But my friend explanation, to me is not clear. That's why I ask here, because I found a difference between Jeremiah and Romans about the potter.

Jeremiah talk about a nation - Romans talk about an individual
Jeremiah potter doesn't deliberately make an ugly vessel - Romans
potter deliberately make an ugly vessel.
Jeremiah 18:7-8 show a possibility that something change to the ugly
vessel in the future - Romans show the ugly vessel is fixed from the
start until the end.

So the first thing I need to know is whether Romans potter story is based on Jeremiah potter story or not in the point of view Calvinist. If not, then I don't need to propose my imagination of Jeremiah potter story. If yes, how do I correct my imagination of Jeremiah potter story in order to "agree" with Romans potter story ?

Thank you.

Paul writes of the potter making a vessel to dishonor and another to honor. This is more akin to making an ashtray (dishonor), and a wine flask (honor), than to "ugly" and "not ugly".

It is true that, according to Paul (and, therefore, Calvinism), some are made to be children of wrath, and others children of mercy. In fact according to Romans 5, alll are naturally born into wrath - it is only those who, by no merit of their own, God has deigned to show grace & mercy who are now considered "vessels of honor".

But that is a different view than, "hey, I screwed up - let's try again" (a la Jeremiah 18).

Paul writes of the potter making a vessel to dishonor and another to honor. This is more akin to making an ashtray (dishonor), and a wine flask (honor), than to "ugly" and "not ugly".


Does Pope Francis write the books ascribed to him, or are they ghostwritten? A number of books have been published with Pope Francis as the author, such as The Joy of the Gospel: Evangelii Gaudium in 2013 and Praise Be To You – Laudato Si'; On Care for Our Common Home in 2015. Are these books actually written by the man himself, or are they ghostwritten by others?

Pope Francis' first encyclical Lumen Fidei was co-written by Pope Benedict XVI

That’s one of the reasons why it is particularly striking that, in the Year of Faith, we have an encyclical on faith written, as Pope Francis said, by “four hands” — his and Benedict XVI’s — and fittingly signed on the feast of St. Peter. The didactic duet and distinguished date suggest that Lumen Fidei (The Light of Faith) is less the act of a particular pope and more the faithful exercise of the Petrine office in apostolic succession.
NCRegister - The World Needs Lumen Fidei

His second encyclical Laudatio Si is indubitably his brain-child

I do not want to write this Encyclical without turning to that attractive and compelling figure, whose name I took as my guide and inspiration when I was elected Bishop of Rome. I believe that Saint Francis is the example par excellence of care for the vulnerable and of an integral ecology lived out joyfully and authentically

Its frame is the Canticle of the Sun and full of personal references
Evangelii Gaudium might be an exception, it is very long and very well researched and probably similar to a bill passed through Congress where the bills author gets all the credit, but it takes a team to come up with it.

Most of the other works with Pope Francis' name on them are compilations of interviews or addresses though, like St. John Paul II with Crossing the Threshold of Hope
For example On the Family is one of Pope Francis books and the synopsis says:

Throughout his addresses, the Holy Father especially emphasizes the primary role of God and faith in family life, and the crucial importance of regular family prayer to draw on God's grace for strength, love, joy and unity within the home.

and The Strength of Vocation

Pope Francis' new book "The strength of vocation. Consecrated life today.", coming out on December 3rd, is fruit of a four-hour long conversation between the Holy Father and Spanish Missionary Fernando Prado, tackling themes such as vocation, consecrated life and the struggles the Church is facing today.
"The strength of vocation": A book-length interview with Pope Francis

So he's got considerably less work to do in producing a book that is just off-the-cuff remarks.


Why was Descartes' interpretation of the Catholic transubstantiation not approved by Church and how can it be improved? Transubstantiation is the change of substance by which the bread and the wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus the Christ.

Now Descartes changed the philosophy of Aristotle who said that the accidental properties of the bread were kept the same but that only the substance of it changed in His Body. Descartes told that, following his philosophy, that there aren't any accidentals any more but the flavor and shape of the bread were also transformed into the body of Christ. And that is why you tasted bread but it was Christ.

Descartes thought that his point of view should have an equal result compared with that of Aristotle. But the church put his book on the 'black' list as a wrong philosophy. The church 'invited' people to change this till it is good.

So why is the theory of Descartes a problem understanding the transubstantiation and how could his theory be improved to get it off the 'black list'?

As you describe the issue, it seems to be the case that Descartes was completely rejecting the distinction between substance and accident which is the basis for Catholic (and other) belief in transubstantiation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on "Substance" bears this out:

Descartes, like the atomists, believed that matter operates in an entirely mechanical way. There is, therefore, no causal role for substantial form to play and, hence, no need for such forms. His two substances are each defined in terms of one property (extension for matter and thought for mind), hence there is no problem about the relation between substance and the properties in terms of which it is defined. As he does not have substances as individuals made of kinds of stuff, there is no conflict between individuals and stuffs.

That is, Descartes did believe that there was a substance that was "what something was made of", but he didn't believe (as for instance Aristotle and Aquinas had) that there were different kinds of this substance that made different things what they were. Loosely speaking, Aquinas believed that an apple was not a chair because an apple had "apple-ness" (the substance that made it an apple) and a chair had "chair-ness", whereas Descartes believed that an apple was not a chair because an apple was "apple-y" (it had properties, or accidents, peculiar to apples) and a chair was "chair-y".
But believing this, the Church thought, left you unable to believe that the consecrated Host was really Jesus. Surely all the properties that made Jesus "Jesus-y" had vanished with his body; how could the "Host-y" properties become them? Or if the Host's properties (size, weight, taste, smell, etc.) vanished and were replaced with Jesus', how could this happen outside of some sort of illusion or hallucinatory experience?

Some theologians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who inclined to Cartesianism, as E, Maignan, Drouin, and Vitasse, displayed but little theological penetration when they asserted that the Eucharistic appearances were optical illusions, phantasmagoria, and make-believe accidents, ascribing to Divine omnipotence an immediate influence upon the five senses, whereby a mere subjective impression of what seemed to be the accidents of bread and wine was created. Since Descartes ... places the essence of corporeal substance in its actual extension and recognizes only modal accidents metaphysically united to their substance, it is clear, according to his theory, that together with the conversion of the substance of bread and wine, the accidents must also be converted and thereby made to disappear. If the eye nevertheless seems to behold bread and wine, this is to be attributed to an optical illusion alone. ... Both philosophical and theological arguments were also advanced against the Cartesians, as, for instance, the infallible testimony of the senses, ... the striking expression "breaking of bread" (fractio panis), which supposes the divisible reality of the accidents, etc. For all these reasons, theologians consider the physical reality of the accidents as an incontrovertible truth, which cannot without temerity be called in question.
(New Catholic Encyclopedia, "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist")

Because it appears impossible, then, for Descartes' philosophy to simultaneously say that the "accidents" (the properties) of the bread all remain, while the entity itself becomes truly the Lord Jesus, it is similarly impossible for the Catholic Church to accept it as a description of what goes on at the Consecration.
I can't see any way of adapting this Cartesian explanation of transubstantiation without completely changing the Cartesian understanding of "substance" and "property"/"accident"; so I have to conclude there's no way of improving his theory to make it acceptable to the Church.


What did Luther have against Zwingli? According to 131 Christians Everyone Should Know:*

  [Martin Luther] mocked fellow reformers, especially Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli, and used vulgar language in doing so.

What was Luther's rationale for disparaging Zwingli?

* Galli, M., & Olsen, T. (2000). In 131 Christians everyone should know (p. 36): Luther, Martin. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

He was offended by Zwingli's conception of the Lord's Supper and he did not approve of Zwingli's followers' propensity for violence in defense of the faith.

Zwingli believed that when the Lord said "This is my body," he meant "This represents my body." This incensed Luther, who regarded it impious. The two only met once, in 1529 at the Marburg Colloquy. They drew up 15 points of doctrine summing up the Reformation and were agreed on 14 of those -- only disagreeing on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. At the end, Luther said to Zwingli's ally Bucer, "We are not of the same spirit."

In Table Talk, a compilation of Luther's remarks by his companions, he says, "I've bitten into many a nut, believing it to be good, only to find it wormy. Zwingli and Erasmus are nothing but wormy nuts that taste like crap in one’s mouth!" At another point he said, "I wish from my heart Zwingli could be saved, but I fear the contrary; for Christ has said that those who deny him shall be damned." Shortly after Zwingli's death in battle he said, "Zwingli drew his sword. Therefore he has received the reward that Christ spoke of, 'All who take the sword will perish by the sword'. If God has saved him, he has done so above and beyond the rule."


What is the weight of authority behind a teaching of the Papal Magisterium? In World Over - 2013-12-12 | EWTN - video start at 20:15/55:51 -  Cardinal Raymond Burke, the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, says, referencing the Pope Francis himself, that the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [Joy of the Gospel], paraphrasing, "is a number of reflections that the Pope does not intend to be part of the Papal Magesterium."

Please see Pope St. John Paul II [the Great]. Noting that it seems that the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium is not to be considered as part of Papal Magesterium, the question is what is the weight of authority behind a teaching of the Papal Magisterium? From the list, is there a way to rank say interviews, books, through to Apostolic Constitutions? What would be the ranking criteria? Which of these are not binding on the next Pontiff in that he can reform them?

Ecumenical Councils are the top of the list, simply because the whole of the Church gets together to promulgate doctrine. These doctrines are signed by the Pope at the end of the Council, and are binding. Some of the doctrines are administrative in nature, and can be modified, changed, added to, or removed. Others, which deal with faith or morals, are eternally binding. An example of this would be in the Council of Trent, where the Catholic Church defined the books of the Bible explicitly (they had done so in the past, but they chose to reiterate it because Luther was removing books), faith vs works, etc., in response to the Protestant Reformation. Those decisions are binding and infallible.

Encyclicals are next on the list, because they deal with specific matters of faith. An example of this would be Humanae Vitae, the encyclical which banned birth control from use in the Catholic Church. Again, that teaching is binding. When the correct wording is used, they also become infallible, such as Ineffabilis Deus, which defined infallibly the Immaculate Conception:

  Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private
  prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father
  through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind
  by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the
  help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete.
  Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of
  the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the
  Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and
  for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of
  Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by
  our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which
  holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her
  conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God,
  in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race,
  was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine
  revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by
  all the faithful."[29]

  Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise
  than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is
  condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the
  faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that,
  furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by
  law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other
  outward means the errors he think in his heart.

The bold would be what makes it infallible. Another Pope could not undo this doctrine, as it is an infallible statement on a matter of faith. Note too that it is binding on ALL the Church as well, as stated in the last paragraph of the quote.

An Apostolic Exhortation is more of a letter of encouragement. It too teaches, but they tend not to impose a whole lot on the faithful. Rather, they are written to encourage holiness and growth as a Christian.


Is it in anyway lawfully possible for the Catholic Church to one day recognize the Anglican Church as having valid orders? Is it in anyway lawfully possible for the Catholic Church to one day recognize the Anglican Church as having valid orders?

If not why?

If yes?...does the present day scope and political spectrum suggest it's in the near future?

What would it take to undo the Reformation in that sense: for the Anglican order so to speak under Catholicism perhaps?

To summarise following a well put comment below:

(a) Is it possible for the Catholic Church to accept the Anglican Church back? or

(b) Is it possible for the Catholic Church and Anglican Church to merge? or

(c) Is it possible for the Catholic Church to recognize the authority of the Anglican Church?

Is it in anyway lawfully possible for the Catholic Church to one day recognize the Anglican Church as having valid orders?

The short answer is yes.

But will that ever happen is another matter.

In 1896, Pope Leo XIII published the now famous bull, Apostolicae curae in which he declared Anglican ordinations to be "absolutely null and utterly void".

  The principal objection to validity of Anglican ordinations, according to Leo XIII, was the alleged deficiency of intention and of form of the Anglican ordination rites. Leo XIII declared that the rites expressed an intention to create a priesthood different from the sacrificing priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church and to reduce ordination to a mere ecclesiastical institution, an appointment or blessing, instead of a sacramental conferral of actual grace by the action itself. - Apostolicae curae (Wikipedia)

Here is what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops say about Apostolicae curae:

  Apostolicæ Curæ presents a theological defense of this tradition of Vatican rejection of the validity of Anglican orders. It is based on the argument that the Church of England ordinal was defective in 'intention' and 'form'. By 'defect of intention' Leo XIII meant that by the omission of any reference to the eucharist as a sacrifice and to a sacrificing priesthood in the ordination ritual of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, the Church of England intended to introduce a radically new rite into England, one markedly different from those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. By 'defect of form' Leo XIII meant that the words of the Anglican ordination prayer, 'Receive the Holy Ghost', did not signify definitely the order of the Catholic priesthood with its power to consecrate and offer the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice.

  Leo XIII thus decided that historical proof of a continuation of sacramental validity with the Church of England was not the central question between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. History is not the question. Theology is the question. For there to be sacramental validity within the Church of England from the perspective of Rome, Anglicans and Roman Catholics must be in one institutional community of faith, which implies agreements about the theology of sacraments and ministry, and some Anglican recognition of the papacy. - Anglican Orders: A Report on the Evolving Context for their Evaluation in the Roman Catholic Church

But that alone is not the whole picture.

  Now then, there are Anglo-Catholic priests that have received valid ordinations by dissenting Catholic bishops and who openly profess belief in transubstantiation. Is their Mass valid? Perhaps. Yet many of these priests openly concelebrate with “women priests” or allow “women deacons” to serve their liturgies. This alone reveals that they do not believe in the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood and Eucharist. The orthodox doctrine of Holy Order prohibits the ordination of women to any degree of Holy Orders (even to the ministerial diaconate).

  The Catholic priesthood and the Eucharist were never meant to be severed apart from the Pope and the local Catholic bishop. As Saint Ignatius of Antioch said, where the Catholic bishop is, there is the Catholic Church. - Taylor Marshall on validity of Anglican orders

Pope John Paul II made the ordination of women to the priesthood impossible in his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994).

  Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

For the Catholic Church to recognize all Anglican Orders as valid, a number of things must be done. This does not mean that Anglican are Catholic, since the pope is head of the Catholic Church and the reigning king or queen of England is the head of the Anglican Church.

1.) All bishops must be able to prove to Rome that they have been validly ordained priests and then consecrated a bishop by someone who is a valid bishop.
This may mean that many bishops may have to be ordained (perhaps conditionally) a priest once again and then consecrated a bishop once again by a bishop who has proof of apostolic succession.

2.) All priests must be able to prove that their priestly ordination was valid and be ordained again by a true bishop in the cause where doubt is present.

3.) The ritual used to ordain priests and consecrate bishops must conform in wording to the theology of the Catholic Church.

4.) The ordination of women as bishops, priests and deacons must be suppressed and declared invalid by the Anglican Communion.


Why are people traditionally buried facing east? During a burial today, I noticed the coffin was buried facing east.

Where does this Christian tradition come from?

It's not a purely Christian tradition.  Other religions practice this as well.  There's an article here on ehow.com that gives an overview of the origins of the practice.  Some highlights:

According to "Ethnicity and the American Cemetery," the feet of the deceased face east as well. This tradition is based on the belief that when Jesus returns, the departed will rise from the grave already facing his direction.
According to Northumberland County Council, the tradition began when Pagans buried the dead so they would face the rising sun.

Also note that it's not universal.  We have a cemetery tied to a Church a few miles from here where the graves all point to the North, and several others I've visited have some facing one way, and others at right angles - those graves are laid out to maximize use of the land.


Do we have or know of additional writings from the four Gospel Evangelists? The New Testament of the Christian Bible is commenced with four Gospels: Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's, and John's. Early church tradition has taught us that Matthew and John's Gospels were written by two of the twelve apostles bearing the name of their writings- Matthew "the tax collector"(Matt. 9:9), and John "one of the sons of Zebedee" or "the one whom Jesus loved" (Mark. 3:17).

The authors of the Gospels of Mark and Luke do not claim to be apostles, but were indispensable with the veracity they brought towards recording the life and Christ and his followers. Early church tradition holds the author of The Gospel of Mark to be John Mark, a fellow missionary with Paul and Barnabas(Acts 12:12,25) and the one who essentially wrote Peter's account of the life of Jesus and his followers, and the Gospel of Luke to be written by Luke "the physician" (Col. 4:14) and follower of Paul.

Do we have any other writings from these men or writings purported to be from these men outside of the New Testament? (Acts, Revelation, 1,2,3 John etc., do not count as they are included in the NT)

The writings provided do not need to be an exhaustive list

There is Secret Mark. Its authenticity is debatable, but it purports to be the  advanced version of the Gospel of Mark.


Was Modalism (or "modalistic language") ever considered to not contradict orthodox trinitarian beliefs? I'm reading Pelikan's first volume of The Christian Tradition, a History of the Development of Doctrine.

In this section called "The New Prophecy" in chapter 2 (page 104 in my edition), Pelikan discusses Montanism. Apparently, in the early stages of Montanism, it was focused on moral rigidity and did not try to alter the doctrine of the Church; Montanus probably did not view himself as the Holy Spirit incarnate. Regardless, in later Montanism, his adherents probably viewed him as the Paraclete (aka Spirit) and therefore attempted to alter the doctrine of the church.

I'm a bit confused about this passage, however:

  In other words, they would seem to have embraced the doctrine that
  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were only successive modes of
  manifestation of the one God. In that case, the manifestation of God
  as Son in Jesus would have been followed by the manifestation of the
  one God as Paraclete in Montanus, each in turn. Such language about
  the Trinity was in itself quite acceptable in the second century, and
  even later; but when the church went beyond it to formulate the dogma
  of the Trinity, those Montanists who continued to use this language as
  a way of including Montanus in the manifestations of God found
  themselves heretical on this score as well.

To me this sounds like Pelikan is asserting that using the language of modalism to describe the Father, Son and Spirit was, in the second century and perhaps beyond, not inappropriate and not contrary to the orthodoxy of the Church.

Is this indeed factual?

Edit -

In the fourth chapter discussing the formulation of the Trinity, Pelikan mentions this:

  Although adoptionism is today more commonly called "adoptionist
  Monarchanism" or "dynamic Monarchianism," the label "Monarchian" seems
  to have been invented by Tertullian to designate those who, declaring
  that "we maintain the monarchy," protected the "monarchy" of the
  Godhead by stressing the identity of the Son with the Father without
  specifying the distinction between them with equal precision. In the
  same treatise, however, Tertullian admitted that "the simply people
  ... who are always the majority of the faithful ... shy at the
  economy," that is, at the distinction between Father and Son. He
  conceded that even orthodox believers could speak of the relations
  within the Trinity in such a way as to emphasize the monarchy at the
  expense of the economy. This judgement is substantiated by the sources
  ...

I would say that this claim is totally bogus. Its more likely that in the second century the Spirit wasn't seen as a person of the godhead at all.  After all, Justin Martyr (circa 140-150 AD) was the great champion of orthodoxy, and in his dialogue with Trypho he spends a great deal of time trying to explain how Jesus could be God (e.g. the analogies of light from light and fire from fire are employed) but he never touches the concept of the divinity of the Spirit.

Another possible issue to grapple with on this is divergent copies of the canonical gospels.  We know from anti-heretical writers like Ireneaus (circa 180 AD) that different sects had different versions of the canonical gospels.  For example, in the text in Mark (3:31-32) where we read the narrator comment "Jesus' mother and brothers were outside seeking to speak with him" followed by "Someone told him, 'Your mother and brothers are outside seeking to speak with you'" some sects had copies that lacked the narrator comment, and they put the interpretation on this that Jesus didn't really have a mother, and/or whoever said this was trying to trick him to test if he was really a prophet.  Its conceivable that some copies of John possessed by some sects lacked the part that identifies the paraclete with the Spirit of Truth, thus enabling them to identify the paraclete as a man, whether that be the Apostle Paul, Marcion, Montanus, or whoever they wanted it to be.

Edit:

Concerning the Tertullian reference which Pelikan doesn't specify, he is referring to Against Praxeas chapter 3. Here is the relevant section from Holmes' 1870 translation:

  The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned, ) who
  always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the
  dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very
  rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the
  one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only
  God, He must yet be believed in with His own oikonomia. The
  numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a
  division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out
  of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually
  supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we
  are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to
  themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One
  God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not
  produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the
  truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of
  God). And so, as far as the sound goes, do even Latins (and ignorant
  ones too) pronounce the word in such a way that you would suppose
  their understanding of the monarxia (or Monarchy) was as complete as
  their pronunciation of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce
  the monarxia (or Monarchy), while Greeks actually refuse to understand the
  oi0konomia, or Dispensation (of the Three in One). As for myself, however,
  if I have gleaned any knowledge of either language, I am sure that monarxia
  (or Monarchy) has no other meaning than single and individual rule;
  ...

If that's all it means, there are obviously various positions that could be taken, and modalism is only one of them.  If the "simple" were really so simple after all, then modalism is probably the least likely.  A strict view that the Father is God alone and the Son and Holy Spirit are not could just as well be called Monarchianism in that sense, as also could more complicated notions like modalism and "dynamic monarchianism" (i.e. the idea that Jesus was a man who was adopted and then subsumed into God as it were).

In any case, as to Pelikan's claim that modalistic language was considered orthodox in the second century, we have a few issues:

1.) Tertullian is technically 3rd century. (first decade of the 200s)

2.) Its not typical to use lay opinion as the litmus test of orthodoxy.  The fact is that the dominant lay view in every century probably remained about the same (non-Trinitiarian), and completely different from the establishment's views. Orthodoxy is always defined by the establishment in scholarly literature.

3.) "the church" in scholarly literature is always the clergy, not the laity.

One obvious reason for this is the clergy write theological treatises and the laity either do not, or if they did, the clergy destroyed them all.  Its easier to count the written books by the "orthodox fathers" and tally them up and claim such and such is the consensus position of the church, than to count the unwritten opinions of the mass of laity who undoubtedly thought their clerics were crazy.

In other words, the Catholic standard of "what was believed by all Christians at all times" never counted the laity, but only the big writers. And even then, if there was a big writer who disagreed, he was labelled a heretic by the establishment, his books were burned, and then it was as if he had never existed, so all is well for orthodoxy with the  "what was believed by all Christians at all times" criterion once again.


Was the Last Supper not the Passover meal? The accepted answer on How long was Jesus in the tomb? would only have been possible if the Last Supper was not the Passover meal, which I had always thought it was.  Was the Last Supper in fact not the Passover meal?

My new understanding of the Last Supper is mostly based on the information at http://www.therefinersfire.org/celebrating_passover.htm.
The key verses which indicate that Christ was actually crucified on the day before the Passover feast are John 18:28 and John 19:14.

John 18:28 NIV
Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.
John 19:14 NIV
It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.

The day of preparation would be when they slaughter the Passover lamb, which would then be eaten that night.


"AD & BC" vs "CE & BCE" Is there an official Christian statement for or against the use of AD & BC vs CE & BCE when it comes to the identification of the time before and after the birth of Christ? What is the preferred Christian method of indicating dates?

Simply - you participate in a bigger population, many of whom do not accept Christ (or do so as a historical figure only). Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see it as sacrilege, but personally I also don't have an opinion on the change. I'm not a believer, but AD vs CE is of little significance to me. In reality, it is exceptionally rare that I refer to things outside the last few centuries, so I rarely use any suffix.


Why were animals killed in the OT? For many reasons Jews had to offer an animal for healing their relations with God. But why needed those animals to be killed?

@j.atkinson could not answer due to account limitations. I am a minister of a church he attends and he asked me to answer for him using some of our material.
It seems as if those who answered the questions on the other threads have different answers than the one I am giving.

During a year, any Israelite was able to bring a sacrifice as a sin offering. This could be for himself alone or for his family. There was the Day of Atonement where two goats were chosen for the entire nation. The KJV is filled with mistranslations and is not a good rendering of this. We read through correct translation using the Hebrew that 'One goat as a sacrifice on behalf of the people and one goat for Azazel."

Now you may be thinking, I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF Azazel before… what is that?

I open up Leviticus chapter 16 to find verse 8 at the footnotes of the page mentions Azazel.
To understand this we need to refer to some books some people do not commonly associate with Scripture. The Book of Enoch talk of 1/3 of the angels who rebelled and who were cast down to earth for their rebellion. The first 6 chapters of Enoch tell of this conspiracy of the angels. It gives names of about 20 main culprits. One of the rebellious angels is named Azazel. Remember how Scripture records of angels who left their first estate?

Moving on, we learn that Azazel taught the people on earth many wicked things. Azazel is said to have taught the people the art of warfare to fight wars for the purpose of conquest in pursuit of looting and such.

The earth was left in a wicked condition because of these angels teachings. Enoch tells of the people dying in great numbers and their bitter cries of complaint going up to heaven. God sent a committee of four archangels to investigate the matter and to report to him how bad the situation was.

Enoch records the angels investigators looked the situation over to make a report to Yahweh. These angels reported, "Thou seest what Azazel hath done, teaching all wickedness in the earth". Yahweh said, "Therefore unto Azazel ascribe all sin".

Individuals do sin but this is said to be in large part because of Azazel teaching people to sin. Yahweh tells one of the archangels "You take a chain and tie up Azazel and cast him into a pit out in the desert. Let him stay there and think it over for awhile, until I get around to his final judgment." Now we know who Azazel is.

Two goats are selected, one as a sacrifice on behalf of the people of Israel and one for Azazel.

The message sent to Azazel by a goat is, "Look Azazel, all these sins are yours, and for you there is no sacrifice. You must pay for all of these sins". This is indeed fair enough; otherwise there wouldn't be any justice. This is all done on the tenth day of the autumn month of Tishri.

This is the source from a church affiliate though we hold publishing rights of all Comparet's Works:
https://israelect.com/ChildrenOfYahweh/Comparet/great_jubilee.htm


According to Catholicism, is going to work on Holy Days of Obligation sinful? The Precepts of the Catholic Church says

  You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor

This seems quite clear, that working on Holy Days of Obligation is a violation of the precepts of the church.
The reason I want to get clarification is that the actions of myself and the Catholics I know seem to ignore this requirement, meaning we are either in violation, or I have missed something.

For example Thursday, Dec. 8th, 2016 - The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Blessed Virgin Mary

PS: I am aware that Holy Days falling on Saturdays or Mondays may be abrogated

The short answer is “not necessarily.” There can be good reasons to go to work on Sunday or another holy day of obligation. (Note that these reasons do not generally excuse someone from attending Mass on those days, or at least at the vigil Mass the evening before.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses the issue of how to live out Sunday rest (applicable as well to other holy days of obligation), as follows:

  On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. The faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health (no. 2185, emphasis added).

Therefore, if the family greatly needs it (e.g., poor families that need money just to make ends meet), or if one’s profession is to provide an important service (e.g., doctors, nurses, police officers, clergy), then it is permissible to work even on Sunday or Holy Days.

(I will observe that, in the United States in particular, some of the holy days of obligation do not coincide with national holidays. In many, if not most cases, taking those days off from work will be too disruptive. In such a case, it is not a problem to work. That is one reason why in the dioceses of of the United States many solemnities that are traditionally celebrated in mid-week have been transferred to Sunday.)

The Catechism even goes on to specify that those whose profession is to help others live out their Sunday rest may also work on Sunday, for it is an important service:

  Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day. Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure (no. 2187).

Of course, such persons should be careful to set aside time for leisure (for themselves and their employees) at some other moment.

One final observation: for holy days of obligation that fall on Saturday or Monday, what is abrogated (in dioceses of the United States) is not the holy day, but the obligation to attend Mass. (Incidentally, this norm does not apply to the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.)


How do non-trinitarians respond to the argument that God is love necessitates the eternity of the Son? A common argument for the Trinity (or at least the eternity of The Son) is that God is love, and thus there must have been an object that could be loved by him throughout all eternity. The Trinity's idea of fellowship within unity seems an attempt to deal with this issue.

If Jesus the Son of God had a beginning, then it follows that before the existence of the Son, God being solitary, would have no object towards which to express his love. Without having anything to love, it seems God could not rightly be called “love” or possess love from all eternity.

How do non-trinitarian Christian's respond to such an argument?

Perhaps they would argue that whether the Father loves himself, or the Father loves the Son, God is still loving himself since both the Father and the Son are God, but I am interested in seeing what others say.

The problem with this argument is that it's not based on Scripture. It's based on the unsupported assertion that "there must have been an object that could be loved by him throughout all eternity."

Jehovah's Witnesses are non-trinitarian, but they don't reason on things that the Bible doesn't comment on, such as the details of what God did before the beginning of creation. They do agree, however, that God is love (1 John 4:8) and that his identity and personality does not change. (James 1:17; Malachi 3:6;  Isaiah 43:10; 46:4)


LDS Church and Genealogy Research (What is the connection?) Forgive my ignorance in asking this question, or if I am making a sweeping generalization.  But I feel like my observation is a very common one, and I am surprised that nobody else has asked the question yet.

Why does the LDS church invest in genealogical research?  Not only does it seem like they own quite a few internet databases for family heritage, but the church also owns the largest library for genealogical research.

Being a protestant, this seems really weird to me.  Most denominations I know of are very "spread out" in terms of their investments - they will put a little into food drives, a little into missions, a little into seminary grants, etc etc.

But certainly (and this is where I hope I am not making a sweeping generalization..) the LDS church seems to have comparatively narrower investments, which are more focused and therefore more profitable.  These investments really confuse me though - why would a religious organization be interested in genealogy research?

It's not an ignorant question. You've touched on something that has great value to Latter-day Saints. Not only has the LDS Church partnered with Ancestry.com and others to make their genealogical records available to church members and developed FamilySearch to organize and collaborate family history research, the LDS Church also has the world's largest collection of genealogical records archived in a huge vault in granite mountains.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' three-fold mission is:

First, to proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people;
Secondly, to perfect the Saints by preparing them to receive the ordinances of the gospel and by instruction and discipline to gain exaltation;
Thirdly, to redeem the dead by performing vicarious ordinances of the gospel for those who have lived on the earth. (See Ensign, May 1981, p. 5.)

Or more succinctly:

proclaim the gospel, to perfect the Saints, and to redeem the dead.

Although "the three-fold mission" is not as frequently recited these days, these three primary values remain paramount in LDS living. As such, great efforts are made and sacred tithing funds are expended to share the gospel and to help both the living and the dead follow the example of Christ and receive essential ordinances.
In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, it states:

The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

Pretty much everything Mormons do revolves around strengthening families in Christ, and since in LDS theology the family unit can extend beyond the grave, knowing who your ancestors are and which ordinances they have received is really important.
The Old Testament promises us the spirit of Elijah (in Malachi 4):

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

It is probably because of this promise that it is not uncommon for people to report spiritual experiences as they research their family history and cultivate a stronger connection with their past.
The importance of genealogy is reinforced several times in the scriptures. Jesus' literal and royal lineages are both recorded in the New Testament. Several lineages are reported in the Old Testament, and The Book of Mormon has many others.
Knowing lineages allows Latter-day Saints to perform ordinances for their deceased ancestors in temples if they had not received them while living. Even though everyone is saved from death by Christ's resurrection, without the necessary ordinances we cannot live in God's presence with our family and become like He is. Thus, genealogy becomes vital in helping our families receive the ordinances of the gospel (like baptism).
Because Mormons believe that all of us are children of God, knowing who has gone before us helps us better understand our eternal identity and purpose. As we connect generations in the gospel, we better understand our relationship to God and come closer to Him.


How do I find Jesus in everything? Life is so busy and there are so many things to do, so many problems to deal with. But I don't want to walk with God just 'sometimes', I want to see Him in everything, not just in church or when I am reading the Bible. Is there any way to that?

Mary,

One of the biggest helps I have had in this area comes from a book by John Piper called God is the Gospel.  In one of the chapters, I believe its Chapter 5 Delighting in God Delighting in Us, he discusses the idea that our pleasures don't compete with God but should draw us to God.  If a spouse gives you a wonderful & thoughtful gift, the gift is nice, but the purpose of the gift is really to draw your heart to your spouse and vice versa.  In the same way, God wants us to enjoy all his gifts, and as we enjoy them, we should be appreciating the God who gave us such wonderful things to enjoy.

The reason this helps me is because I used to sit down to a bowl of chocolate ice cream and feel guilty about how much I like the ice cream.  Now, I realize that when I sit down to the bowl of chocolate ice cream, God wants me to enjoy it.  So I enjoy it and I try to marvel at God and the grace involved both in my ability to taste and in someone's ability to craft such a wonderful dessert.

So we don't have to be either/or.  You can be mindful of God even in the midst of busyness.  So if you are having a hard (or very good) day at the office or with the kids, talk to God about your day.  Remind yourself of the promises he gave you which apply right in those situations.  Look for things to thank him for.  Recognize all the blessings he has given you and wants you to enjoy.  Another very good book which addresses this idea of communing with God in all we do is a A Praying Life by Paul Miller.


Christian denominations that believe in salvation for non-Christians Are there any denominations in Christianity that believe that one can get to heaven without actually being a Christian?

Catholics believe this, in fact recently the Pope said atheists can get into Heaven

Source:
http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned#Catholic

Seventh Day Adventists believe that non Christians can get into Heaven

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology#The_Heavenly_Sanctuary

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (LDS Church) or Mormonism, teaches that those who die without knowledge of LDS theology will have the opportunity to receive a knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit world.

Source: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/EoM/id/4159

Early Christians were divided on this.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165) said, "Those who lived according to reason [the logos] are Christians," even though they did not know about Jesus.

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220) claimed that it had been a common belief since the days of the apostles that Jesus descended to hell and preached the gospel. There was debate, though, as to who benefited from the preaching.

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200) and Tertullian held that Jesus delivered only the believers of the Old Testament from hell. On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria (mid-100s), Origen (c. 185-c. 254), and Athanasius (c. 296-373) taught that Jesus delivered from hell both Jews and Gentiles who accepted the gospel and that postmortem evangelism continues even today.

Augustine (354-430) rejected such ideas, arguing that before we die we must know about Jesus in order to be saved. Consequently, he believed that all the unevangelized are condemned to hell. Much later, Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74) agreed with Augustine on the necessity of knowing about Jesus, but went further to claim that for those few "brought up in the forest or among wolves," God would send the gospel message through miraculous means.

Source:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/aprilweb-only/12.0a.html

I also found these books in my research on the answer to this question:

No Other Name: An Investigation Into the Destiny of the Unevangelized by John Sanders

A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality Of Jesus Christ In A World Of Religions by Clark Pinnock

ADDENDUM: In response to Caleb's comments I am adding the following quotation from the Cathechism of the Catholic church in support of its official teachings.

  VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

  1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for
  salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to
  all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation
  for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the
  possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know
  of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal
  beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she
  has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are
  "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the
  sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

  1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who
  suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism
  are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of
  blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism
  without being a sacrament.

  1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit
  desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and
  charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive
  through the sacrament.

  1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called
  to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the
  Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in
  a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is
  ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the
  truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of
  it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have
  desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

  1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can
  only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral
  rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all
  men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which
  caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder
  them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for
  children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the
  Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through
  the gift of holy Baptism.


According to the Bible narrative, who was the second descendant of Adam to die? I was reading a sister site question, "How long (if at all), will it take for the amount of living to exceed the dead population?" and as I read through the answers I realized that until the death of Abel, no human had ever died.

According to the Bible narrative, who was the second person (after Abel) to die, and when did that person die?

The second death recorded in the Bible story, in the lineage of Cain, first son of Adam

The second death recorded in the Bible story is an unnamed man killed by Lamech son of Methushael (not to be confused with Lamech son of Methuselah and father of Noah - Genesis 5:25–30), seven generations from Adam in Cain's line:

Lamech said to his wives:

"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
    you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
I have killed a man for wounding me,
    a young man for striking me.
If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
    truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold."
                             (Genesis 4:23–24)

The doubling of the account of the killing probably does not mean that Lamech killed two men, but rather is most likely an example of a common Hebrew poetic form in which the same person, object, or event is referred to using two parallel words or phrases in a row.

The person killed is not named, nor are any other details given elsewhere in the Bible narrative. So about the "who," we simply don't know.

And since no ages are given in the genealogy tracing the line from Cain to Lamech's four children in Genesis 4:17–22, we cannot say what Lamech's lifespan was in relation to Adam's descendants through Seth down to Noah (recounted in Genesis 5). All we can say with certainty about the "when," then, is that the second death recorded in the Bible happened some time before the Great Flood. And we can conjecture that since it happened fairly late in Cain's line, this death likely happened somewhat late in the pre-Flood period.

Having said that, the births in the line of Seth are weighted toward the earlier part of pre-Flood times, as shown in this chart:

(Note: The use of this chart does not imply agreement with all of its commentary.)

If the line of Cain followed a similar pattern, this second recorded death in the Bible story could have been earlier in the pre-Flood era than we might ordinarily think.

For further commentary on this incident, see BibleHub, Genesis 4:23 and Genesis 4:24.

The deaths in the lineage of Seth, third son of Adam

Although the man killed by Lamech is the second death recorded in the Bible, it is not necessarily the second death chronologically. In the next chapter, Genesis 5, the genealogy of Adam through his third son, Seth, is given, complete with the ages of each man at the time of the birth of his firstborn son and at the time of his own death.

In the Genesis 5 sequence, Adam is the first to die (long after Abel's death, of course). The second death in this lineage depends on how you interpret "death" in the case of Enoch, the sixth generation after Adam in Seth's line, of which the narrative says:

  Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him. (Genesis 5:23–24)

If "God took him" is understood to mean that Enoch died, then Enoch is the first person to die in Adam's lineage through Seth.

If "God took him" is not understood to mean that Enoch died, then Seth himself is the first person to die in Adam's lineage through Seth.

Since, as pointed out earlier, there are no ages and therefore no relative dates attached to the genealogy of Cain's line given in Genesis 4:17–22, it is impossible to say for sure whether the man whom Lamech killed as narrated in Genesis 4:23–24 died before or after Enoch (or Seth) died, or indeed whether he died before Adam himself died. We therefore cannot say with certainty that he was the second person to die chronologically in the Bible story.

Conclusion

Based on the above discussion, there are two possible candidates for the first death after Abel, and three possible candidates for the second descendant of Adam to die:

The first death after Abel:

The unnamed man killed by Lamech, Cain's descendant of the seventh generation
Adam

The second descendant of Adam to die:

The unnamed man killed by Lamech, Cain's descendant of the seventh generation
Enoch
Seth


What is the scientific effectiveness of "street preaching" as a method of evangelization? I've been looking around for hard facts on the efficacy of street preaching but can't find any. Are there any hard numbers on the number of people who come to faith through this kind of evangelism? Has its efficacy changed over time? In Acts 2 Peter seems to use the same kind of technique with quite some effect. In my experience street preachers seem to be mostly met with either indifference or derision however that is entirely anecdotal.

So, scientifically, how effective is street preaching as a method evangelism?

Since I know of no studies I cannot define exactly what "efficacy" and other terms are in this instance, but I leave that to any studies if they exist.

In addition to Ken Graham’s excellent answer to this question, let me expand on the itinerant Protestant preachers who boldly declared the word of God in the open air, in fields and in public places, even when to do so would result in persecution.   From 1660 and the restoration of the English Monarchy, non-conformists were forbidden to preach anywhere unless they were ordained by an Anglican bishop.  John Bunyan, who wrote The Pilgrim’s Progress, was twice imprisoned for his failure to comply.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bunyan#Imprisonment
Other Protestant preachers who engaged in open air preaching include:

John Wesley, founder of Methodism declared, "I am well assured that I did far more good to my Lincolnshire parishioners by preaching three days on my father's tomb than I did by preaching three years in his pulpit ... To this day field preaching is a cross to me, but I know my commission and see no other way of preaching the gospel to every creature."

Wesley's contemporary, Anglican preacher George Whitefield stated: "I believe I never was more acceptable to my Master than when I was standing to teach those hearers in the open fields ... I now preach to ten times more people than I should, if had been confined to the churches."

It was said that one of the regular practices of America evangelist Dwight L. Moody in the late 1860s "was to exhort the passers-by in the evenings from the steps of the court house. Often these impromptu gathering drew as many hecklers as supporters."

Charles Spurgeon, the famous open-air Baptist preacher of England, believed that open-air preaching was instrumental in getting people to hear the gospel who might otherwise never hear it and many open-air preachers today believe that it reaches many more people at once than other approaches to evangelism do.

Groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are famous in particular for spreading their beliefs by door to door evangelism at people's homes, often in pairs or small groups.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approaches_to_evangelism

Back in the 1960’s Jehovah’s Witnesses expected their ‘Special Pioneers’ to spend 150 hours every month (1,800 hours a year) going from door to door, and ‘Regular Pioneers’ did 100 hours every month (1,200 hours a year).  A Jehovah’s Witness relative remembers engaging in street preaching back in the 1950’s, using placards and engaging in conversation with people in the High Street.
These days outdoor preaching, such as addressing crowds of people in parks or in other public places, seems to have ground to a halt because of the Covid pandemic.  However, the U.K. Baptist church I attend held “drive-in” services in the town centre public car park.  Anybody could turn up, sit in their vehicles with the windows down and hear the sermon and sing along to the hymns courtesy of a P.A. system.  Several visitors to the town and people who did not belong to our church stayed to listen.  There is no way to know whether anybody was converted to Christianity as a direct result, but historically many people have turned to Christ in faith after hearing the Gospel preached in some open-air or public venue.
What is the scientific effectiveness of street preaching as a method of evangelism?  Pew Research is my "go-to" source of information for statistics on Christianity, but I drew a blank on this one.  Back in the days of Bunyan, Wesley and Spurgeon, I doubt anybody stood with a note-book and pen to take names and addresses of people listening to an open-air preacher and then followed up six months later to enquire if said person was now a Christian.  Fast-forward to the 21st century and our age of digital data overload, legislation now exists to prevent proselytisers from recording personal details of people they contact.  Data protection legislation prohibits keeping such information on personal computers.
Some denominations keep detailed statistics on how much time they spend on speaking to members of the public outdoors, or speaking to them on their doorsteps, or how many pieces of literature they hand out.  They also keep statistics on how many people are baptised by them each year - although I have never seen any breakdown on how many baptisms were genuinely new converts as opposed to how many were brought up in that faith and were then baptised later in life.
I suppose an organisation such as Pew Research could poll Christians to ask if their conversion was a direct response to hearing a street preacher.  Whether that would be "scientific" or not I couldn't say.


Papal resignations and participation in subsequent conclaves If a pope abdicates, after his successor's death, would he able to participate in the conclave, and if chosen is there any ruling to prevent him from being able to be pope again?

The only examples I can find of popes having more than one spell are Benedict IX (whose abdications and returns to power were more than a little unconventional) and antipopes who are elected as pope after their challenger has died, but there's no examples of this for a legitimate pope.

There is very little in the way of restriction on who can be pope. Canon law simply says that he must be consecrated a bishop before taking power; but it allows a non-bishop to be elected, providing that he is ordained a bishop before he takes his place ("If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately", Canon 331 section 1). But neither canon law nor Universi Dominici Gregis, the current Church document governing the election of a pope, fixes any further limits on who may or may not be elected.

In fact Universi Dominici Gregis goes further. Its paragraph 35 reads in part,

  No Cardinal elector can be excluded from active or passive voice in the election of the Supreme Pontiff, for any reason or pretext.

In this context, "active voice" refers to the right to vote for pope, and "passive voice" to the right to be voted for. No one who is an elector can be made ineligible to be elected.

Note that paragraph 35 does not strictly apply to Pope Emeritus Benedict, who is over 80 and therefore ineligible to vote for pope. UDG (as it is sometimes abbreviated) states in its prologue:

  those Cardinals who celebrate their eightieth birthday before the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant do not take part in the election.

It follows that this particular pope emeritus could not be a cardinal elector and thus does not have this specific inclusion. Nevertheless, especially in view of the oath each Cardinal must take to vote for the one that believe to be the best man for the job, he's still not hindered or prohibited from being elected pope.


Does God require us to have faith because Adam and Eve sinned? I remember when I first sought God, I felt like I was going out into the dark. I simply followed people at the church without really believing, but willing myself to believe. In other words, I didn't have faith, but I was obedient. Now I can see God a little more clearly than before, and I have more faith.

I was wondering if anybody has tried to connect God's demands of faith from Abraham (and us)  to the fall. Given that faith requires an obedient, seeking heart, it almost seems like this is a way to remedy the fall of humankind, and to restore our obedience to God.

Original sin began with Lucifer, the “I will” sin. Isaiah 14:13,14 “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

Eve was deceived and placed her faith in the words of the serpent rather than in the Word of God (transgressed faith ).  Mary, in contrast, placed her faith in the Word of God and said: “Let it be as you say”.

Adam sided with Eve, “her will” rather than God’s will.  In contrast, the second Adam, Jesus Christ said “thy will be done” and bore the sins of mankind, resulting in grace being eternally extended to mankind, grace which is apprehended by faith.

The original sin is born from a “self-sovereign" perspective, "My will be done. Do not impose your will upon my life."  Contrast: “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven."

God’s grace is tangible evidence that we should want God’s will to be done in our life.  So where does “me-centeredness" come from?  Originally, Lucifer transmitted to Eve by deception, who then transmitted to Adam by fear, or faithlessness.

Transgressed faith was the window in which man fell out of a relationship with God.  It stands to reason that man must enter into a relationship through that same window of faith.  After all, we are saved by God’s grace through faith.


John Wesley's influence by ancient fathers I have been told that John Wesley read the pre-Schism fathers a lot, and was influenced by them.

Is this so, and if so, to what extent and how was his doctrine influenced by them?

Interesting question. Wesley, as an Anglican, would have learned to understand Scripture through the lenses of Tradition and Reason. Tradition for him would have included everything from his contemporary Pietists back to the early church fathers.

I did a quick search and discovered that Wesley believed those closest to the beginning of the church had an advantage over modern Christians:

  Can any who spend several years in those seats of learning, be excused if they do not add to that reading of the Fathers the most authentic commentators on Scripture, as being both nearest the fountain, eminently endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given. It will be easily perceived, I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the council of Nicea. But who could not likewise desire to have some acquaintance with those that followed them with St. Chrysostom, Basil, Augustine, and above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraim Syrus. [source]

Wesley's teaching on Christian Perfection was partly influenced by his reading of the fathers, and his doctrine of Prevenient Grace appears to have been derived from Chrysostom; beyond that, I'm not sure how much he drew from the ancient fathers. The primary influences on his theology would have been his contemporary Pietists as well as the writings of Jacobus Arminius.


What religious significance is there in marriage for Catholics and Protestants? To be clear: This is not a question about why Catholics and Protestants get married. This is not a question about the biblical support for or against marriage. (I am very much for marriage).

I specifically want to know:

Is there a significance to being married from a religious standpoint for these religions?
If there is, what is it?

To give this some context: I was once talking to someone who said she wanted to get married in the church. (She was Catholic, she also couldn't be married in the church as she was a lesbian, but that's not the issue here). What reasons would she — or anyone else for that matter — have for getting married in the church?

In the Bible, the scriptural reason for getting married is to portray the image of Christ and the Church through the marriage.  Ephesians 5:22-33 gives not only the reason, but the order of marriage within the church.

  Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is
  the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his
  body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ,
  so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself
  up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the
  washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to
  himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that
  she might be holy and without blemish.  In the same way husbands
  should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife
  loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and
  cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members
  of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and
  hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This
  mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the
  church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let
  the wife see that she respects her husband.

So here's the scripture on husbands and wives, and it clearly lays out why marriage exists:  Marriage itself is intended to portray the relationship of Christ to the church.

Opening that up a little more, we say that a husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church.  So in that sense, the husband is a type of Christ, that is, he represents the picture of Christ within the marriage in the way that he selflessly loves his wife.  This doesn't mean he himself is a messiah or savior, it simply means that his role is congruous to the role that Christ plays in respect to the church, mainly by virtue of self-sacrificial love.

Countering that point, the wife is to submit to and respect her husband.  Recognizing him as leader within the marriage (and mind you, he ought to be a good leader... see the exhortation to the husband), she is to submit to him and respect him for the love that he selflessly offers her.  Her role is to represent the church in this image, and to portray, in the marriage, the Church's response to Christ.

So marriage is to be an image of Christ and the church, with the husband representing Christ's love for the church, and the wife representing the church's response to Christ.

A Brief Aside on Homosexuality's Compatibility with Biblical Marriage

In her case, I'm not exactly sure that you can separate out the fact that she's a lesbian from the Biblical backing for why she would want to get married in the church.

It's not that two people of the same sex cannot be fond of one another, and that they can't even have sacrificial love towards one another.  They most certainly can.  The problem lies with the roles in the relationship.  They cannot clearly portray the image of Christ and the church, because there is no clarity regarding whose role is whose.  In other words, who, in this picture, is Christ, and who is the church?

The Biblical purpose intended for marriage cannot be supported in a homosexual relationship, because the Biblical purpose of marriage is to represent Christ and the church.  The specific roles assigned to the male and female within the institution are what make this possible.


Why is archangel Michael portrayed with a sword in art? There is no mention of Michael wielding a sword in the bible, so I wonder if there are references in other texts?

Michael the Archangel is depicted in the Bible as a warrior and leader of angel armies:

Daniel 12:1 (ESV)
At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.
Jude 9 (ESV)
But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses...
Revelation 12:7 (ESV)
Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back...

Not surprisingly, the early church understood Michael in this way, that he was a leader of heavenly armies (see Ancient Christian Commentary). Later writers developed more detailed understandings of angel hierarchies, and continued treating Michael as a military leader (see Pseudo-Dionysius and the Apocalypse of the Virgin).
The primary weapon of war mentioned in the Bible is the sword, and it is commonly associated with spiritual warfare (e.g., Ro 13:4, Rev 1:16, and Eph 6:17), including God's final defeat of Satan (Isa 27:1).  The Bible also specifically mentions angels with swords in several places (Gen 3:24, Num 22:31, and 1 Ch 21:16).
Furthermore, in the time of early Christianity, the sword was the weapon associated with the upper classes and military leaders.  The scene from Revelation is depicted in the statue below, where Michael is defeating the serpent, and we can see that he is portrayed much like a Roman soldier, complete with a sword:

Given the biblical mentions of angels carrying swords and the use of swords in spiritual warfare, plus the historical predominance of the sword as a leader's military weapon, it's not surprising that Christians would depict the leader of heavenly armies carrying a weapon suitable for his position: a sword.


How do Catholic apologists explain the cross to a Muslim? I'm an American Catholic currently living in India and teaching Communicative English to students of an Islamic school (ages 5 - 14). I am trying to live on the fence and keeping my faith promoted and subdued as necessary for my profession. I am already "leading by example" of a righteous, caring, loving Christian, but now some students are starting to ask me questions about Christianity. I'm thrilled and nervous at the same time.

When a seventh grade student asks me "What does the symbol of a cross mean?", I want to present it in a way that answers the question correctly, but also is stated in a way that bridges the two religions and doesn't cause a rift in administration.

What is an overview of methods recommended by published Roman Catholic missionaries and missiologists for explaining the cross to curious Muslims?

What the saints have said about Islam [cf. What Did the Saints Say about Islam? | 1P5] may assist you in this regard. For example St. John of Damascus’s Critique of Islam (sans references) has a paragraph on how to answer the accusation of idolatry when Christians venerate the cross:

  They furthermore accuse us of being idolaters, because we venerate the
  cross, which they abominate. And we answer them: ‘How is it, then,
  that you rub yourselves against a stone in your Ka’ba and kiss
  and embrace it?’ Then some of them say that Abraham had relations with
  Agar upon it, but others say that he tied the camel to it, when he was
  going to sacrifice Isaac. And we answer them: ‘Since Scripture says
  that the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood
  for the holocaust and laid it upon Isaac, and then he left the
  asses behind with the two young men, why talk nonsense? For in that
  place neither is it thick with trees nor is there passage for asses.’
  And they are embarrassed, but they still assert that the stone is
  Abraham’s. Then we say: ‘Let it be Abraham’s, as you so foolishly say.
  Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on it or tied a
  camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for
  venerating the cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and
  the deceit of the Devil was destroyed.’ This stone that they talk
  about is a head of that Aphrodite whom they used to worship and whom
  they called Khabár. Even to the present day, traces of the carving are
  visible on it to careful observers.

As regards 'I want to present it in a way that answers the question correctly, but also is stated in a way that bridges the two religions and doesn't cause a rift in administration' the Church and Scipture teaches that we have to speak the truth, but with Charity. With the help of God and knowing your audience, you have to figure the how.

Cf. Encyclical: Caritas in veritate (June 29, 2009) | BENEDICT XVI.
Cf. 1 Pt 3:14-16 (RSVCE) & Eph 4:15 (RSVCE).

Perhaps a modern resource: Franciscan University Presents: Catholics and Islam | Franciscan University of Steubenville.


Is there any biblical basis to support demonic paranormal activity? Demonic possession of course is biblical, but what about demonic paranormal activity? With some effort it's not hard to come across testimonies from Christians, and even non-Christians, telling stories of paranormal experiences, such as hearing footsteps, scratches on walls, drawers moving in and out, closets opening and closing, things flying off the shelves or walls, beds shaking, chairs moving, objects falling down, light bulbs exploding, stuff levitating, the temperature in the room suddenly dropping, horrible demonic "smell", hearing audible evil growls, etc. I'm pretty sure many of you have heard of similar experiences. Is there any biblical basis to this? Does the Bible record examples of demonic paranormal activity? Do the Scriptures support the ability of demons to manipulate objects and intervene in the physical world?

Is there any biblical basis to support demonic paranormal activity?
Does the Bible record examples of demonic paranormal activity? Do the Scriptures support the ability of demons to manipulate objects and intervene in the physical world?
The short answer is maybe at best. And then only perhaps indirectly!
There is no direct biblical support to suggest that demons are capable of making footstep noises, scratching on walls, moving drawers in and out, opening closets and then closing them,  making things things fly off the shelves or walls, beds shaking, chairs moving, objects falling down, light bulbs exploding, stuff levitating, the temperature in the room suddenly dropping, making horrible demonic "smell", creating audible evil growls or other paranormal activity.
The Devil and his minions are in a way comparable to a virus (Covid-19, if you wish) or electricity. All three are seemingly invisible, yet could be potentially dangerous to mankind, if circumstances are right.
There is an invisible realm in our world. Let us always recall the words of St. Paul:

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. - Ephesians 6:12

St. Paul admits that the forces of evil rule the air in which we live live, thus the possibility of evil manipulating the physical sphere in which we live does not at all seem an outright impossibility.
Again St. Paul teaches thus (Admittedly, both interpretation and translation of the Sacred Texts plays a big part here):

2 And you, when you were dead in your offences, and sins,
2 Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief. - Ephesians 2:1-2

We can see the work of Satan and his hatred for the holiness of true saints in the person of Job. Satan created a storm that killed Job’s family, yet Job did not sin by blaming God.

9 Satan replied, “Would Job worship you if he got nothing out of it? 10 You have always protected him and his family and everything he owns. You bless everything he does, and you have given him enough cattle to fill the whole country. 11 But now suppose you take away everything he has—he will curse you to your face!”
12 “All right,” the Lord said to Satan, “everything he has is in your power, but you must not hurt Job himself.” So Satan left.
13 One day when Job's children were having a feast at the home of their oldest brother, 14 a messenger came running to Job. “We were plowing the fields with the oxen,” he said, “and the donkeys were in a nearby pasture. 15 Suddenly the Sabeans attacked and stole them all. They killed every one of your servants except me. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
16 Before he had finished speaking, another servant came and said, “Lightning struck the sheep and the shepherds and killed them all. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
17 Before he had finished speaking, another servant came and said, “Three bands of Chaldean raiders attacked us, took away the camels, and killed all your servants except me. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
18 Before he had finished speaking, another servant came and said, “Your children were having a feast at the home of your oldest son, 19 when a storm swept in from the desert. It blew the house down and killed them all. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
20 Then Job got up and tore his clothes in grief. He shaved his head and threw himself face downward on the ground. 21 He said, “I was born with nothing, and I will die with nothing. The Lord gave, and now he has taken away. May his name be praised!”
22 In spite of everything that had happened, Job did not sin by blaming God. - Job 1: 9-22

It is obvious, that the demons can to some degree manipulate the physical world we live in and they do not need the intermediary of a human person to communicate to us. There are countless references of the good Angels speaking to people in both the New and Old Testament.  The Annunciation is just one example:

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favour with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob's descendants forever; his kingdom will never end." - Luke 1:26–38

We thus see that the Angel Gabriel is trying to keep the Virgin Mary calm during the angelic visitation.
Now for Satan or anyone of the demons, they do not care about mankind one iota. They simply want us all to go to hell and join them forever.
The soul that is truly arduous in holiness and genuinely seeks the conversion of sinners is not going to get such a warm welcome from the Devil and his Legions. If you steal his prey, it makes logical sense he would try to scare the hell out of you. There is no real difficultly for me to imagine to Devil making all sorts of noises to make someone think they are going crazy and being drawn into despair.

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. - 1 Corinthians 13:1

Satan will do all it takes and make as much noise to interfere in his plans to ruin mankind. The Devil loves not, thus he is the clanging cymbal par excellence.
What exactly were the manifestations of paranormal activities of the demons is not listed in Sacred Scriptures, but we must deduce that some truly existed. The story of the seven sons of one Sceva in Acts 19: 13-17 fits in well here:

13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
17 And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. - Acts19:13-17

What all transpired during this exorcism, we just do not know. St. Luke only recounts a rough outline, in order to keep our imagination healthy. There is no need to dwell on the morbid. Obvious light bulbs did not explode as they were not invented yet. Were there other manifestation of paranormal activity? Certainly, but Scripture remains silent on this issue.
Another time Jesus Restores a Demon-Possessed Man who lived amongst the tombs and “night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.”

5 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.[a] 2 When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him. 3 This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. 4 For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.
6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!” 8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!” - Mark 5:1-20

Once again, allow me to use Scripture to relate the possibility of the good Angels helping us to hold that the opposite may also be true in our lives.
Let us recall the story in St. John’s Gospel how the Angel of God stirred the water in the Pool of Bethesda! Now if the Angel of God could do good this way, what stops Evil from intervening in our lives to create havoc and fear.

For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had. - John 5:4

If the Angel of God can stir the waters to heal, can not the Devil shake beds, etc. to scare the wits out of us...

Nightly Monsieur Vianney’s rectory was the site of a terrifying cacophony: scurrying and gnawing rats, the sound of pounding nails, and howling wind.  When the noises failed to trouble the holy Curé, the Devil turned over furniture, smeared excrement on the doorway, and set the priest’s bed on fire. To this last effort, Vianney responded, “The wretched fiend.  He has not been able to catch the bird, so he has burnt the cage.”  - The Devil’s Most Effective Foe

Saint John Vianney's Bed, burnt by the devil.