How does praying the rosary becomes a spiritual sword that can slay the dragon? Fr. Donald Calloway make the following statement:

  The rosary was forged in an age of chivalry.  It is a spiritual
  weapon, a heavenly sword, fashioned by the hands of a Divine
  Craftsman.  All swords take time and skill to make, but this heavenly
  sword required the greatest of efforts — centuries — to produce.  It
  is a weapon unlike any other.  It has the power to slay dragons
  (demons), converts sinners, and conquer hearts.  The blade of this
  sword was forged in the living Word of God, shaped by the hammer of
  divine inspiration, and entrusted to the Queen of Heaven and her
  chosen servants.
  How the Word of God Enables Us to Defeat the Devil

What I found fascinating is the phrase "It has the power to slay dragons (demons),"

Looking at all the powerful statements of the popes & saints below it somehow speaks of defeating the devil like:

Father Amorth adds:

  “During an exorcism, Satan told me, through the possessed person,
  ‘Every Hail Mary of the Rosary is a blow to the head for me; if
  Christians knew the power of the Rosary, it would be the end of me!’”

"He also said at this time,

  "Anyone who goes to Mary and prays the Rosary cannot be touched by
  Satan."(Fr. Amorth)

Words of popes and saints on the holy rosary;

  “The Rosary is a powerful weapon to put the demons to flight and to
  keep oneself from sin"–(Pope Pius XI)

  The rosary is the scourge of the devil~(Pope Adrian VI)

  “There is another related in the Chronicles of St. Dominic. Near
  Carcassonne, where St. Dominic was preaching the Rosary, there was an
  unfortunate heretic who was possessed by a multitude of devils. These
  evil spirits to their confusion were compelled at the command of our
  Lady to confess many great and consoling truths concerning devotion to
  her. They did this so clearly and forcibly that, however weak our
  devotion to our Lady may be, we cannot read this authentic story
  containing such an unwilling tribute paid by the devils to devotion to
  our Lady without shedding tears of joy.”(Saint Louis Marie de Montfort, The Secret of the Rosary)

As we can see the rosary is a weapon against the devil as attested by numerous popes & well-known saints.

As St. Padre Pio famously said,

  "The Rosary is the 'weapon' for these times."

What I'm looking for?

A solid Catholic biblical perspective, similar or related commentaries and teaching to prove the claim of Fr. Donald Calloway that praying the holy rosary is a weapon to slay the dragons(satan and his devils) making it a powerful spiritual sword.

To appreciate and grasp the wisdom behind the words of Fr. Calloway about the Holy Rosary as a “spiritual sword” we must bear in mind that were talking about spiritual warfare,as St.Paul said in Ephesians 6:12;

  For we are not fighting against flesh and blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.

And we can see further St. Paul was talking about a combatant warrior equipped for battle in the following verse:

  Therefore, put on every piece of God’s armor so you will be able to resist the enemy in the time of evil. Then after the battle you will still be standing firm. Stand your ground, putting on the belt of truth and the body armor of God’s righteousness. For shoes, put on the peace that comes from the Good News so that you will be fully prepared.In addition to all of these, hold up the shield of faith to stop the fiery arrows of the devil.Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
  (Ephesians 6:13-17)

But the most important thing about the passages is, every believer was given a sword. What is the “spiritual sword”, the WORD is the sword of the SPIRIT.(Ephesians 6:12-17).

Biblical verses describing the Word of God as a double-edge sword;

  "For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews4:12)

Now let us read the Bishop of Nigeria who had the vision of the Sword turning into the Rosary beads;

  Then Bishop Doeme recounted what happened one evening toward the end of October 2014.
  "I was in my chapel having private prayer, saying the Rosary before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. Then the Lord appeared to me, standing to the right of the altar. It was a vision, not physical. He appeared as Jesus the Good Shepherd, and he was holding a sword with both hands. At this, I became jittery. I said, ‘Lord, what is it?’ He didn’t say anything; he just began to approach me, then reached down and gave me the sword, which turned into a Rosary.”
  National Catholic Register

Now taking the statement of Fr. Calloway “The Rosary according to Fr. Calloway is the Spiritual Sword of Mary.”

The spiritual sword belongs to Mary. To understand this fully let’s examine Ephesians 6:17:

  Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

St. Paul said the sword belong to the Holy Spirit and the sword is the Word of God.

Now, Fr. Calloway said the sword belongs to Mary, but St.Paul said the sword belongs to the Holy Spirit.

To reconcile this, the Word of God/Incarnate Word is Jesus himself, as we can see from the vision of Bishop Doeme Jesus is the one handing over the sword that turns into rosary beads.

To grasp this mystery of the Word of God as the Sword of the Holy Spirit, the bible gives us the answer “At the Annunciation”

  ...Let be it done unto me according to thy WORD.
  (Luke 1:38)

Blessed Virgin Mary bore the Incarnate WORD in her womb, gave birth to the Logos/WORD, nourished and formed the humanity of the Incarnate WORD for 30 years and accompanied the Incarnate WORD for 3 years of His ministry. From "womb to tomb". "Mary kept all these WORDs, pondering them in Her Heart" (Luke 2:19).

How about the Holy Spirit?

  The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. (Luke 1:35)

The Will of God the Father decreed for man's salvation is, the Woman must bear the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit will overshadow her.The Most Holy Trinity was embraced by Mary’s FIAT (The WILL, the WORD & the Holy Spirit). The Most Holy Trinity is inseparable (St. Vincent Ferrer). As Book of Kings exclaims, "the highest heavens cannot contained God whom you carried in your womb"

But what is the purpose, why would the Blessed Virgin Mary need a spiritual sword? It’s because after the fall of man God made a holy decree, Mary’s role does not stop in just bearing the Incarnate Word but her role is to be the Leader of an Army that will battle the old serpent and She/Woman and her offspring will crush the proud head of the serpent.

  I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.(Genesis 3:15)

The important question is how can a believer turn the holy rosary into a “spiritual sword”?

Like the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Will of the FaTher must first be embraced, and the Word of Jesus Christ must be pondered in our heart and lastly the Holy Spirit must dwelt in our soul as we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit.
One must lived a Trinitarian Faith like the Blessed Virgin Mary embraced.

  ...and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)

The WORD must be incarnated in every believer own flesh, as St.Paul said,

  "it's no longer I who lives, but Jesus". (Galatians 2:20)

While Jesus showed  us the power of the Word of God to combat the lies of Satan in the temptation at the desert, it doesn’t defeat the devil. Satan just fled unharmed. It’s a defensive stance only;

  "resist the devil and he will flee from you" (James 4:7)

In attacking and defeating the works of the enemy (Devil/Satan), we must use the Word of God as Jesus said “

  "...for this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil". (1 John 3:8)

Jesus must manifest in our lives, in our thoughts,words and actions just Mary the Perfect Disciple of Jesus who imitate Him thru a life of humility & obedience.

In conclusion, the whole life of Jesus Christ is the Sword that defeated the enemy the devil/Satan. Praying the Holy Rosary contemplating the face of Christ in the eyes of Mary her Mother (words of St.John Paul II) using the Rosary beads with the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the soul in the state of grace will not only makes the devil flee but will experience a humiliating defeat and unspeakable torments as testified by numerous Saints, Popes & exorcist in the above quoted passages.

Also, since the Word of God is the "spiritual sword" the Christian too had a sword in their hand the Bible. But in spiritual battle we cannot defeat the enemy by mere reading the text, mediation is the key to penetrates the spiritual realms as Fr. McDanielle said for the Rosary to be effective we must reach the heights of Contemplation. Catholics, by holding the holy Rosary, had the OT & NT in their hands. While Christians hold the Bible as their sword.

Let’s us remember after the Fall of Man, all the redeemed had only two choices given by God in Genesis 3:15. Either you belong to the Woman as her offspring in which Jesus became the firstborn and the rest of the elect must be spiritually born in her, or we belong to the old serpent as his offspring/cohorts according to St. Montfort's book (True Devotion to Mary).

Truly the Holy Rosary is the “spiritual sword” of every spiritual child of Mary ready & equipped to defeat and slay the dragon. As the agonizing Jesus at the foot of the cross said to all the redeemed;

  "Woman behold your son,..Son, behold your Mother". (John19:26-27)

NOTE : Satan and his demons have a superior intellect & memory, while most of us who prayed the holy rosary have difficulties in entering the state of meditation to ponder its mysteries, it is not the same with the demons. Satan and his demons At the Foot of the Cross had known the power of the Life of Jesus Christ, they now know that Jesus is truly God and truly Man.That's why satan and his demons hated the holy rosary. This link will open your eyes to the realities according to an Exorcist testimony:
The Virgin Mary and the Devil in exorcisms, very important. Revelation chap.12 implications (YouTube).


Why are the Psalms numbered this way in some Catholic Bibles? I am looking at a Catholic Bible and I see the following:

PSALM 1
[...]
PSALM 9-10
[...]
PSALM 51 V50 Miserere
PSLAM 52 V 51
[...]
PSALM 150

Please see image below.

What accounts for this numbering?

It is not a straight 1 thru 150 numbering. For example there is Psalm 9-10 and Psalm 51 has V50 alongside it.

I am looking for a Catholic explanation sought but I assume a Bible scholar ought to be able to explain it.

Image produced from The Jerusalem Bible Popular Edition.

There is a difference in numbering between the Hebrew (Masoretic) text and the Greek and Latin (Septuagint and Vulgate). Psalms 9 and 10 in the Hebrew get combined into one as do Ps 114 & 115. Psalms 116 and 147 both get split in two.

Most Protestant Bibles follow the Hebrew numbering while most Catholic and Orthodox ones follow the Greek.

I suspect the reason for the difference is that the numbers were added to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts at a later date and there were different opinions as to where one finished and the next began.

Cf. Septuagint (LXX) numbering of the Psalms | The Orthodox Church in America.
Cf. Note on the different numbering of the 150 Psalms | psalmen.wursten.be.


What must we do if the vast majority of the members of the Catholic Church here on earth profess heresy and are thus excommunicate? What must faithful Christians do if the vast majority of the members of the Church here on earth, including those comprising the hierarchy or even the Pope, profess heresy (and are thus excommunicate)?

This question is seeking a Catholic answer, specifically, one from a sedevacantist perspective.

St. Vincent of Lerins, in his Commonitory lib. 1 cap. 2 n. 6-8, says to "follow universality, antiquity, consent."

  “Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold
  that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is
  truly and properly Catholic, as the very force and meaning of the word
  shows, which comprehends everything almost universally. And we shall
  observe this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We
  shall follow universality if we confess that one Faith to be true
  which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we
  in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is plain that
  our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent if in antiquity itself
  we eagerly follow the definitions and beliefs of all, or certainly
  nearly all, priests and doctors alike.”

  “What, then, will the Catholic Christian do if any part of the Church
  has cut itself off from the communion of the Universal Faith? What
  surely but prefer the soundness of the whole body to a pestilent and
  corrupt member?

  “What if some novel contagion seeks to infect the whole Church, and
  not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to
  antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.

  “What if in antiquity itself error be detected on the part of two or
  three men, or perhaps of a city, or even of a province? Then he will
  look to it that he prefer the decrees of an ancient General Council,
  if such there be, to the rashness and ignorance of a few.

  “But what if some error spring up concerning which nothing of this
  kind is to be found? Then he must take pains to find out and compare
  the opinions of the ancients, provided, of course, that such remained
  in the communion and faith of the One Catholic Church, although they
  lived in different times and places, conspicuous and approved
  teachers; and whatever he shall find to have been held, written and
  taught, not by one or two only, but by all equally and with one
  consent, openly, frequently and persistently, that he must understand
  is to be believed by himself also without the slightest hesitation.“


What musical liturgical melodies could Jesus have sung in the synagogues of his day? What musical liturgical melodies could Jesus have sung in the synagogues of his day?

Do any possible examples still exist, based on historical evidence?

Have any musically inclined historians mentioned any possibility of this and have given examples of what Jesus and his Disciples sang or chanted liturgically in their synagogues of the first century AD?

Bonus question: Are there any melodies that exactly or nearly are the same as found in early Gregorian Chant or Early Byzantine Chant?

I posted a similar question on the Jewish Mi Yodyea site asking what religious music would have been sung in Israel after the time of David and Solomon.   One commentator gave a Wiki link, part of which says this:

The Book of Psalms (/sɑːmz/ or /sɔː(l)mz/ SAW(L)MZ; Hebrew: תְּהִלִּים, Tehillim, "praises"), commonly referred to simply as Psalms , the Psalter or "the Psalms", is the first book of the Ketuvim ("Writings"), the third section of the Hebrew Bible, and thus a book of the Christian Old Testament. The title is derived from the Greek translation, ψαλμοί, psalmoi, meaning "instrumental music" and, by extension, "the words accompanying the music".  The book is an anthology of individual psalms, with 150 in the Jewish and Western Christian tradition and more in the Eastern Christian churches.
Psalms are used throughout traditional Jewish worship...  According to the Talmud, these daily Psalms were originally recited on that day of the week by the Levites in the Temple in Jerusalem.  From Rosh Chodesh Elul until Hoshanah Rabbah, Psalm 27 is recited twice daily following the morning and evening services. There is a Minhag (custom) to recite Psalm 30 each morning of Chanukkah after Shacharit: some recite this in place of the regular "Psalm for the Day", others recite this additionally.  Source: The Ancient music of the Psalms

Jesus was intimately acquainted with all of the Law, the Prophets and the Wisdom Literature, and since the Psalms were set to music, it is almost certain Jewish people living 2,000 years ago would sing Psalms as part of their worship.

Many scholars believe the individual Psalms were redacted into a single collection in Second-Temple times. - Editorial agenda (Palms)
Despite the frequently heard view that their ancient music is lost, the means to reconstruct it are still extant. Fragments of temple psalmody are preserved in ancient church and synagogue chant, particularly in the tonus peregrinus melody to Psalm 114. Cantillation signs, to record the melody sung, were in use since ancient times; evidence of them can be found in the manuscripts of the oldest extant copies of Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls and are even more extensive in the Masoretic text, which dates to the Early Middle Ages and whose Tiberian scribes claimed to be basing their work on temple-period signs. (See Moshe ben Asher's 'Song of the Vine' colophon to the Codex Cairensis).
Several attempts have been made to decode the Masoretic cantillation, but the most successful is that of Suzanne Haïk-Vantoura (1928–2000) in the last quarter of the 20th century. Although some have dismissed Haïk-Vantoura's system, Mitchell has repeatedly defended it, showing that, when applied to the Masoretic cantillation of Psalm 114, it produces a melody recognizable as the tonus peregrinus of church and synagogue. Mitchell includes musical transcriptions of the temple psalmody of Psalms 120–134 in his commentary on the Songs of Ascents.  Regardless of academic research, Sephardic Jews have retained a tradition in the Masoretic cantillation.  Source: The ancient music of the Psalms

Aryeh posted an excellent answer to my question, quoting from sources which show that the Levitical priests would sing in the Temple.  One quote presents a construction of a daily Temple service.  The answer concludes by saying:

Scholars infer what parts of what this Levite music sounded like from the Hebrew text of the Psalms, which might show call-and-response forms or refrains, the use of an unclear instrument (such as the alamot in Psalms 46), or the name of a forgotten scale (e.g., the shminit in Psalm 6).

Here is the link to the question I asked so you can read Aryeh’s answer in full: What religious music would have been sung in Israel after the time of David and Solomon?
Ancient Echoes has done recordings with melodies done in what they believe to be sung at the time of Jesus.

On a new CD, Ancient Echoes, SAVAE has once again turned to history for inspiration, this time in the ancient music of the Middle East. The recording is a collection of tunes, songs and prayers that date from the time of Jesus and Jerusalem's Second Temple, when Jews were returning to the holy city from exile in Babylon.
Before recording Ancient Echoes, SAVAE founder Covita Moroney and her husband, artistic director Christopher Moroney, spent a year and a half learning Aramaic, a language spoken in the Middle East 2,000 years ago. They also studied the proper pronunciations of ancient dialects of Hebrew and Arabic.
The prayers and lyrics on Ancient Echoes draw on a variety of sources, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Torah, the New Testament and an engraving on a Greek gravestone dating from the first century. The Moroneys based most of the musical compositions on the work of Jewish musicologist Abraham Idelsohn. Living and working in Jerusalem early in the 20th century, Idelsohn studied the music and stories of the early Jews returning from exile. He then compared their songs and tales with those of Jews moving back to Palestine in the early 1900s. - Music from the Time of Jesus

One can listen to the commentary about the making of this CD here.
If you find it helpful, you might want to give Aryeh’s answer an up-vote.  I don’t know anything about Gregorian or Early Byzantine Chants, but the Wiki article on the ancient music of the Psalms may be of use to you.


Luke 21:32 and the coming of the kingdom I'm new to Christianity and am still exploring the gospels. According to the gospel of Luke, verse 21:32, Jesus says that

  this generation shall not pass until all these things have taken place."

Does that mean that all the things mentioned in the bible, including the coming of the kingdom, should've already happened by now (in that generation)?
What are we waiting for?

All Christians are still waiting for the Second Coming of Christ, where Jesus would come in glory as a King and a Judge in contrast with the "First Coming" about 2000 years ago, where He came in humility (baby in a manger) as God Incarnate (fully human being born of a woman) and as the Lamb of God / Suffering Servant (sacrifice for our sin as He was slaughtered on our behalf on the cross).

There is a concise answer to what "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" refer to at gotquestions.org website, which describes 2 interpretations:

Future Generation: "this generation" means a future generation shortly before the end times events.
Double Fulfillment: some events (like the destruction of the temple in AD 70) has happened while other events connected to the end times events haven't.


Is Zion associated with Mary in Catholic doctrine? In the accepted answer to this question, How is the Catholic interpretation of the Woman of the Apocalypse as being Mary reconciled with the dogma of perpetual virginity?, I find reference to Isaiah 66:7:

“Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she delivered a son.

This is given as a prophetic foretelling of the Catholic belief that Mary did not suffer pains (nor was her hymen even ruptured) in birthing the Christ child.  Reading on in the Isaiah passage it becomes evident that the "she" who is in labor and delivered a son prior to the pain is Zion:

Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth in one moment? For as soon as Zion was in labor she brought forth her children. - Isaiah 66:8

Zion (Tsiyon in Hebrew) was a Canaanite hill fortress which was captured by King David and thereafter referred to as the "City of David".  It can be understood Scripturally as the most ancient areas of that hill, Jerusalem as a whole or, spiritually, as the Kingdom of God.
In order for this passage to foretell Mary's painless childbirth there would have to be some connection between Zion and Mary.  Is there a teaching in Catholicism that equates Zion with Mary in some fashion?  If so, does this have any biblical basis at all or is it pure tradition?

In the Litany of Loreto, which apparently was composed to suppress other Marian litanies. I don't know if they were extravagant or borderline heretical or what.  But that's what the intention was so there must have been something behind it.

The place of honor it now holds in the life of the Church is due to its faithful use at the shrine of the Holy House at Loreto. It was definitively approved by Pope Sixtus V in 1587, and all other Marian litanies were suppressed, at least for public use. Since then, several Popes have added titles to the Litany, as only they may do.

But, what the Litany does leave in is the reference to Mary as the "Tower of David", which is a reference to Song of Songs.

"Thy neck is like the Tower of David built with turrets, whereon there hang a thousand shields, all the armor of the mighty men"

History seems too confusing to me to place the Tower of David on Mt. Zion, but it's clear that Medieval Christians thought it was on Mt. Zion and I'm not sure why it would be a long way away from Jerusalem.
The other Marian connections to Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ, etc... are pretty firmly entrenched in the minds and traditions of all Christians except those descended from Protestant sects today.  They certainly had a hold over the popular conception of the Virgin Mary in the Middle Ages, but it's always been up in the air whether those ideas came from just Vox Populii or Vox Dei or a combination of the two.
Suffice it to say, Constantine's mother St. Helena was enthralled enough to try to bring Our Lady's house to Italy, it hit a few bumps along the way, but miraculously reappearing houses are wont to do that and Catholics don't put limits on God's works or question His designs. That's there the Loreto part comes in, as the Litany mentioned above is the Litany of Loreto and the house itself, found its final resting place in the same town.
So 1000 years later, 1000 years of accruing traditions and codifying doctrine we wind up with a popular devotion that still contains a veiled reference to Mary and Zion as one that made the cut.

HOWEVER, and to the contrary, from the passage of Isaiah that you quoth. I was reading through the Little Office of Our Lady which seemingly contains every veiled and unveiled reference to Mary in the Old and New Testaments and did not come across that particular passage.  I expected it to be there and it wasn't so it might be the case that nobody has prescribed any particular typography of Mary to this scripture.


The Last Judgement: a civilized trial or a barbaric ordeal? From the Book of Revelation I've got the idea that the Satan will be our prosecutor at the Last Judgement. I've got this idea by interpreting the word 'accuser' as 'prosecutor' in the context of the Book of Revelation.

So I can imagine the Last Judgement as a very civilized trial with a prosecutor and, perhaps, other things similar to what we have here on Earth in civilized countries.

But then the Book also says that at the Last Judgement "the deeds of everyone will be exposed". It can be thought then that no formal procedure is required at the Last Judgement and there will be no prosecutor nor anything.

So, then is it correct to understand that at the Last Judgement the Satan will be our prosecutor? Otherwise how I will even know what I am accused of??

Neither. You're asking the wrong question.

Earthly and fallable court systems work one way. As omniscient maker of the universe and its sovereign King, God is not required to work quite the same way. We use the imagery of a courtroom to talk about the last judgement, but it is just imagery. The actual proceedings are a little different.

For one thing, there won't be a "discovery" phase. God knows every detail of your life backwards and forwards better than you do -- including your motivations. There will be nothing to argue, nothing to learn.

You will be found guilty.

What role Satan may play is not terribly important. He is an accuser and would love to remind God of the fact that you are guilty. But God already knows that. You are going to know it too. There won't be any doubt.

The only question remaining is, who is your defense. You will either have none at all, or if you belong to Him, you will have Christ who can step up and say, "That one is mine, I paid his ransom, I have removed his guilt and made him a new creation."

The guilty will have no chance of slipping through because some evidence against them is inadmissible. There is no jury that might let things slide. There will be no question about the strength of the evidence, whether presented by Satan or whether it's just known.

There is nothing barbaric in this. You will either be administered perfect justice or you will be redeemed through another having been justly punished in your place.


Into how many languages has the Bible been translated? I understand that the Bible has been translated into more languages than any other book in the world.  What is the current total of languages into which the Bible, or part of the Bible, has been translated.  I would also be interested to know if there are any predictions about how long it will be before the Bible is translated into every language.

This is a moving target as more translations are being completed all the time (a friend of mine went to the dedication of the Inuktitut Bible only a few weeks ago). The Bible is also usually translated in stages, so the number of languages with some of the Bible translated is higher than those with all of it translated.

The United Bible Socities in October 2011 said that there were 469 languages with a complete Bible, and 2527 with at least some portion of scripture translated. The Catholic Biblical Federation in October 2008 said there were 438 complete translations and 2454 partials - close enough to be considered agreement. According to UBS ten languages acquired a complete Bible last year. 135 have the deuterocanonical books.

The latter reference claims that there are 4500 languages left to go. However it is very difficult to make predictions based on those numbers. Many of those languages have very few speakers, and the language may die out before a translation is done.

Corroborating statistics from Wycliffe as of 2013 (portions would combine some projects in progress with those with the New Testament and complete Bible)

Number of Languages in the World                           6918
Languages w/o translation (and needing one):               2000+

Number of languages with Bible portions:                   1010
Number of languages with New Testament:                    1294
Number of languages with entire Bible:                     513

Total World Population:                                    7 billion
Number of people who speak languages with no translation:  ~350 million


What was first, sola scriptura or sola fide? I just watched a video with an Orthodox professor, in which he said that "Sola Scriptura" came first, and then "Sola Fide". Is that true? The best I can gather from the Wiki articles on these two topics is that both of them came pretty much simultaneously.

The video itself is in Russian.  Here is my translation of his words (starting at 5:57):

  …And all these new ideologues outraged by this so called scholasticism
  |of Roman Catholic Church| have declared, “The truth is only what the
  Scriptures say. Only the Scriptures and nothing else! Period. Let’s
  abandon all these theologians!” This apparently magnificent thesis
  made a big impression on many Christians. Because many had already
  been racking their brain over some speculations by some |theologians|
  like Duns Scotus or Thomas Aquinas. Indeed, their speculations were
  just abracadabra and no one really knew what to make of it.

  So, they said, “Only the Scriptures!” Perfect! Who would’ve dared say
  anything against that? It really sounded just perfect.

  But what was the outcome of that? |The outcome of that was:| “You
  think this way?”, “And you think another way?”, “And you have yet
  another opinion?!” So, as a result, the whole Protestantism began to
  fall to pieces. Soon it was like peas spilled and scattered all over
  the floor. Everyone had his own opinion.

  And where was the criterion for determining who was right and who was
  wrong? How was one to know which opinion was correct? Well, it was
  already too late |to look for such a criterion|. There were no
  authorities anymore. The Fathers were no longer held as the authority.
  Each person now considered his own way of thinking and his own
  understanding as true. The truth for each person was now his own thoughts
  and convictions. And each one would claim now, “That’s how the Holy
  Spirit showed me this!” (|Of course, it begs the question,| “How can
  it be the Holy Spirit if you are arguing with one another and just
  can’t find any common ground in your understanding?!”) They were
  really now all scattered like peas on the floor! You see? This is how
  sometimes a very attractive thesis, which one would think shouldn’t
  cause any disagreement, can |turn out to be false|.

  So what did they finally arrive at? They arrived at another thesis,
  which came right after “Sola Scriptura”, and that thesis is
  indisputable in Protestantism – the whole Protestantism is standing on
  this thesis like on a strongest foundation. This thesis is “We are
  being saved only by faith” By what kind of faith? By believing that
  Jesus Christ is the Lord, that He has suffered on our behalf, that He
  has redeemed us from sin, that we are saved through His sacrifice…

So he seems to be claiming here that "Sola Fide" was put forth as a reaction to the many divisions among Protestants caused by "Sola Scriptura". Thus, his chronology is as follows:

Sola Scriptura –> divisions –> Sola Fide

This contradicts to a story that I heard before about Martin Luther climbing some ladder on his knees in some temple and suddenly recalling, if I remember correctly, Rom 1:17 ("The righteous will live by faith"), which happened even prior to 95 theses.

However, I may have gotten this story wrong and my knowledge on Reformation is quite limited, so I don't know.

This is a complex topic, for at least two reasons: 1) there was a wide diversity of thought in the pre-Reformation and Reformation periods, and 2) today's definitions of sola scriptura and sola fide vary and the particulars can be difficult to trace within the pre-Reformation and Reformation periods, and any attempts to do so are naturally susceptible to bias.

For example, on one hand, one could argue that Alexei Osipov is simply incorrect – that the extreme version of sola scriptura that he is describing did not appear until the Radical Reformation (~1520s) and that Luther's doctrine of sola fide (~1515) predates that by several years. But many (mostly non-Protestants) would counter that the professor's description of sola scriptura substantially matches that of Protestantism generally, not just the Anabaptists of the Radical Reformation.  And of course, we're ignoring that many Protestants argue that both these doctrines can be found in the writings of the early church.

With those caveats, I'd argue that while Osipov's treatment is imprecise, his general point can be defended in two ways:

Many Pre-Reformation thinkers, like John Wycliffe (1320–1384) and John Huss (1372–1415), placed higher emphasis on the authority of Scripture than was expressed at the Council of Trent by the Roman Catholic church.  These Pre-Reformation thinkers, however, did not clearly articulate "faith alone."
Logically, sola scriptura comes before sola fide, because the doctrine of sola fide as argued by Luther and other Reformers was defended on the basis of the Bible against the tradition and authority of the Church.

Pre-Reformation

At the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church held that both scripture and tradition were authoritative:

  Both saving truth, and moral discipline [...] are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves (Session 4)

In contrast to this, many pre-Reformation thinkers placed a higher priority on Scripture.  Two notable names along these lines are John Wycliffe and John Huss, who both died over a century before Luther released his 95 theses.  These men opposed what they saw as abuse and excess in the Catholic church, and attacked a variety of the church's doctrines, including the papacy, transubstantiation, and indulgences, and often did so on the basis of the Bible.  John Wycliffe "recognised as an authority, apart from reason, only the Holy Scriptures, not tradition." (Lechler, 267)

However, these men did not lay out a doctrine of justification like that of sola fide.  Thus, if the views of Wycliffe on Scripture suffice as an example of sola scriptura as understood today, then it preceded the sola fide of Luther.

Sola scriptura logically antecedent to sola fide

Alistar McGrath writes:

  Every strand of the Reformation movement regarded Scripture as the quarry from which its ideas and practices were hewn (Thought, 91)

That is, in the Reformation, everything ultimately comes back to the authority of the Bible, including justification by faith alone.  We see this, famously, in Luther's 1521 statement at the Diet of Worms:

  Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.

When challenged, Luther naturally fell back to the ultimate basis for his beliefs, which he argued was the Bible – he didn't argue for sola scriptura on the basis of sola fide, but instead held that the things he believed were true because he found them in the Word of God.  Though this doesn't prove that sola scriptura chronologically preceded sola fide in the mind of any particular reformer, we can still say that the logical connection indicates that sola fide needed sola scriptura in order to stand and survive.

The origins of sola scriptura and sola fide

One of the difficulties mentioned above associated with this question is defining sola scriptura.  Alistar McGrath identifies three views that can feasibly carry this name:

Scripture and tradition are "coinherent or coterminous," that is, that Scripture alone is materially sufficient, and tradition acts as a reliable guide that defines the limits of acceptable interpretation

McGrath associates this view with Wycliffe, Huss, and the theologians of the schola Augustiniana moderna, that is, scholastics associated with Gregory of Rimini.

Scripture alone serves as the basis for faith and practice

This is the view expressed by Ulrich Zwingli at Zurich, resulting in the mandate that only Scripture could be used as the basis of public preaching (Origins, 45; see Wikipedia).

Tradition has no relevance in the interpretation of the Bible; "every individual or community is free to interpret the Bible without reference to the Christian past."  (Thought, 100)

This is the view of the Radical Reformers (Anabaptists), originating in the 1520s.

The sola scriptura of the Reformers is often defined along the lines of #2 above.  But is #2 more like #1 or #3?  In his quote, Alexei Osipov closely associates #2 and #3.  But Alistar McGrath argues that #1 and #2 are more closely linked, arguing that the Reformation view was not an innovation in light of the diversity existing in late medieval catholicism (Origins, 145).  He also argues against a close connection between #2 and #3:

  It is totally wrong to suggest that the magisterial reformers elevated private judgment above the corporate judgment of the church or that they degenerated into some form of individualism. No leading mainstream reformer was prepared to abandon the concept of a traditional interpretation of Scripture in favor of the radical alternative. (Thought, 102)

The origin of the doctrine of sola fide, on the other hand, is usually seen to be more straight forward.  McGrath sees its roots in the schola Augustiniana moderna, but it first appears clearly in the thought of Martin Luther around 1515, in his "tower experience." (Thought, 120–21)  Thus Osipov's claim that sola fide appeared as the result of Protestant divisions is incorrect at least in the sense of its origin; it preexisted the division between the Reformers and the Radical Reformers.

Summary

Alexei Osipov lumps together the sola scriptura of the Reformers and that of the Radical Reformers in his discussion, which, depending on one's views on the Reformation, may or may not be agreeable.  But noticing this reveals the difficulty inherent in identifying the origin of sola scriptura and thus its connection with the Reformer's sola fide.  Still, it seems safe to agree with Osipov's general point, that the doctrine of sola scriptura precedes that of sola fide, both chronologically and logically, in the context of the Reformation.

References

Lechler, Gotthard Victor, John Wycliffe and His English Precursors
McGrath, Alister, Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation
McGrath, Alister, Reformation Thought


What is the origin of holding hands when praying around a circle before a meal? My impression is that, among many Christians, people around a table saying a prayer thanking Jesus for a meal hold hands with one another. What is the origin of this practice, and are there any reasons for it given in reliable sources?

Protestantism and Tradition

I'm coming at this answer from a Protestant perspective.  Since I've seen a variety of folk in my branch of Christianity hold hands during prayer, I'll assume you've been observing my people.  We've inherited from Paul a suspicion of traditional rites and practices.  When we do observe some custom, we are very likely to either:

create a post hoc justification, or
protest that the custom is not binding (and we can stop at any time).

I doubt either of these will be satisfactory to you, but maybe the sociological aspects will be of interest.

No Biblical justification

Laying hands on a person (especially when they are sent off to perform some ministry) has strong support in the practice of the early church.  Probably the earliest example is:

  These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.—Acts 6:6 (ESV)

That practice has roots in the life of Jesus and in Hebrew culture.  Of course, praying while putting one's hands on another isn't the same thing as joining hands.  We get a hint of the idea of holding hands from this mention in one of Paul's letters:

  and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.—Galatians 2:9 (ESV)

Again, this sounds more like a handshake than a prayer circle.  So the goto source for Protestants seems to be silent on this issue except that the posture of the hands can be important somehow.

Practicalities

There's a lot of stuff that Christians (and Protestants in particular) do for strictly practical reasons.  For instance, as far as I know the only reason we have lots of guitar in our worship services is that it's an easy instrument to learn well enough to make some semblance of music to accompany singing.  Churches are removing organs (the musical instrument, I mean) because it's getting harder to find decent organists.  So while you will still find Christians who think God only hears music accompanied by some sort of keyboard and that guitars are from the devil, most of us are more relaxed about the whole thing.  (Culture and the rejection thereof have a lot more to do with these attitudes than any sort of solid theology.)

When it comes to holding hands in prayer, I think there are several practical purposes:

It symbolizes that we are all equal before God and creates a sense of unity.  (See the Galatians passage above.)
It shows who is participating in the prayer.  (This can be helpful when praying at a restaurant to avoid the awkward situation of a server interrupting a prayer.)
When praying with small children, it ensures small hands are not making mischief while eyes are (theoretically) closed.
It allows for silent communication (a squeeze of the hand) during the prayer.

No doubt there are other considerations.  There's no hard and fast rules about posture in prayer, so it's not uncommon to have some participants holding hands while others place their arms over their neighbor's shoulders.  (I'm often the link between the two for some reason.)

The mind-body problem

Finally, I must find a way to quote C. S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters.  It's a work of fiction from the point of view of a demon writing to an underling about how to divert a man ("the patient") from God ("the Enemy").  This is Screwtape's advice about prayer:

  The best thing, where it is possible, is to keep the patient from the serious intention of praying altogether. When the patient is an adult recently re-converted to the Enemy's party, like your man, this is best done by encouraging him to remember, or to think he remembers, the parrot-like nature of his prayers in childhood. In reaction against that, he may be persuaded to aim at something entirely spontaneous, inward, informal, and unregularised; and what this will actually mean to a beginner will be an effort to produce in himself a vaguely devotional mood in which real concentration of will and intelligence have no part. One of their poets, Coleridge, has recorded that he did not pray "with moving lips and bended knees" but merely "composed his spirit to love" and indulged "a sense of supplication". That is exactly the sort of prayer we want; and since it bears a superficial resemblance to the prayer of silence as practised by those who are very far advanced in the Enemy's service, clever and lazy patients can be taken in by it for quite a long time. At the very least, they can be persuaded that the bodily position makes no difference to their prayers; for they constantly forget, what you must always remember, that they are animals and that whatever their bodies do affects their souls. It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out.—The Screwtape Letters, Chapter 4.

In other words, we must orient our bodies toward God if we are to orient our minds and souls toward Him.  Christians don't have a precise requirement for how to do this, but we have traditions that we follow because they have that practical effect.


Did the Quartodecimans perform the eucharist only once a year on Nisan 14? The Quartodecimans held a Christian
Passover on Nisan 14. Does this mean that they performed the eucharist (Lord's Supper) only once a year on Nisan 14, or was the Christian Passover something additional to a regular eucharist celebration?

No, "they" celebrated the Eucharist throughout the year.

I am not sure what your source material is, but perhaps there is some confusion about the term "Passover" in a Christian context.  "Easter" has always been referred to using the Hebrew word for Passover - "Pascha" - in the Christian east and continues to be referred to as such to this day in the Orthodox Church.

I put "they" in quotes above, because I don't think "Quartodecimians" refers to a distinct Christian sect, but rather those ancient Sees who had chosen to observe Pascha on Nisan 14 (see, e.g., Eusebius), which was forbidden by the Apostolic Canons (Canon VII)

James Campbell has written a very detailed essay on the history of the dating of Pascha (Easter) that discusses the above and more.


How is new humanism different from the catholic teaching? “A global educational pact is needed to educate us in universal solidarity and a new humanism,” Francis said in a video message to launch the initiative.

Definition of new humanism. :

  a 20th century doctrine marked by a belief in moderation, the dignity
  of the human will, a sense of permanent values, and a dualistic order
  of existence.

Does the definition of new humanism contradict or go against the Catholic teaching and if so how?

Fr. Hardon, S.J.'s definition of "humanism" distinguishes "pagan humanism" and "Christian humanism":

  Name originally given to the intellectual, literary, and scientific movements of the fourteenth century through the early sixteenth. Their aim was to base every branch of learning on the culture of classical Greek and Roman antiquity. On its pagan side, it extolled the early non-Christian writers who stressed the full development of human nature, only vaguely interested in life after death. On its Christian side, believing humanists encouraged the free use of the treasures of antiquity without compromising the truths of the Gospel. Christian humanism began with Dante (1265-1321), while pagan humanism reached its peak in Petrarch (1304-74). Popes Pius II, Sixtus IV, and Leo X favored Christian humanism and did much to promote it. St. Thomas More (1478-1535) typified its best spirit in England. After the French Revolution the extreme humanistic spirit rebelled against Christian revelation and the Church.

"Pagan humanism," since it denies or neglects the supernatural order, is naturalism, which Pope Pius IX condemned in his Syllabus of Errors and Pope Leo XIII condemned in his encyclical Humanum Genus.


Did any actual Puritan congregations impose scarlet letters on adulterers? Nathaniel Hawthorne's (fictional)  book, the Scarlet Letter, in my opinion, has seared a characterization in people's minds that Puritans were dour, hypocritical, legalistic, and shame-driven Christians. Having read many of the actual writings of the Puritans, this characterization seems completely foreign, almost to the point of thinking that Hawthorne was deliberately inventing a horrible community so he could drag the Puritans down.

Are there any real historical examples of scarlet letters (figuratively or literally) on sinners for their sins?

It is hard to imagine that the religious movement that produced Richard Baxter (himself a notorious drunk before conversion), Hugh Binning, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, or Jeremiah Boroughs would be associated with something as antithetical to their doctrine as the public shaming of notorious sinners as a form of penance.

I found only one instance of where a woman caught in the act of adultery was forced to wear the letters AD round her neck.  Whether this punishment was imposed on her by the Puritan congregation, or by the Court, I don't know.  However, that seems to be getting off lightly!

In 1631 the Massachusetts Bay General Court declared adultery a capital crime. Mary Latham, only 18 years old when she married a much older man, was executed for adultery.  She was convicted for committing adultery with one man and then confessed to having sex with 12 others.

  “The woman proved very penitent, and had deep apprehension of the foulness of her sin, and at length attained to hope of pardon by the blood of Christ, and was willing to die in satisfaction to justice. The man also was very much cast down for his sins, but was loath to die, and petitioned the general court for his life, but they would not grant it...  They were both executed, they both died very penitently, especially the woman, who had some comfortable hope of pardon of her sin, and gave good exhortation to all young maids to be obedient to their parents, and to take heed of evil company."

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/adultery.htm

In 1639 Mary Mendame was found guilty of committing adultery with an Indian man; she was whipped at a cart's tail, which meant she received a whipping while the cart was being drawn through town.  Her lover was "only" whipped at the post, a lesser punishment than the whipping she received at the cart's tail, because the judges said she had enticed him.

In 1641 Anne Linceford confessed to committing adultery and was punished by "an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth [and] a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth [where the act was committed]," according to "Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony." She also had to wear the letters "AD" on her clothing from that point on.

Married men who had sex with a single woman were charged with fornication, while married women who had sex with a single man were charged with the more serious crime of adultery.  You might find the information in this link helpful, part of which says:

  “Fornication was by far the most common sexual offence to come before the Plymouth courts. Between 1633 and 1691, sixty nine cases of fornication were presented. I include "carnal copulation," "uncleans," and births of illegitimate children with fornication. The enactment of 1645 that outlined the punishment for crimes of fornication distinguished between acts committed before and after the time of marriage contract. The fine for fornication after contract was only five pounds per person -- half the fine for fornication before contract. Interestingly, only four of the sixty nine cases clearly occurred during the period of marriage contract. The chart below shows the percentages of fornication cases that occurred during the period of contract, before contract but between couples who eventually married, and completely outside of intended wedlock. The split between eventually married and never married couples is a near fifty-fifty division.”

http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/Lauria1.html


What does "saving grace" mean in Christianity? I am not talking about "salvation" or "grace". I am talking about "saving grace". I tried looking up on Google, and the Free Dictionary explained that in Christian theology, it meant a state of being sanctified. I looked at sanctification, and I got "made holy". Okay. So, it means something along the lines of being made holy or righteous with God or following God. Basically, what do American Christians mean when they use the term? A related question: how would people attain saving grace? What is the origin or etymology of this term, "saving grace"? These questions are closely related to each other. First, I would like to see an introduction to the etymology of this term. Second, I would like to see how this term is used in modern-day America. Third, I would like to see how this term plays a role in theology, or in other words, how people put this concept into practice.

"Saving grace" is grace that saves.  The relevant definition of 'grace' is:

  mercy; clemency; pardon: He was saved by an act of grace from the governor. Synonyms: lenity, leniency, reprieve. Antonyms: harshness.

So "saving grace" is God's mercy, clemency, or pardon shown to us.


Bible changed? Example from Arminianism vs Calvinism From my understanding and through examples in history and my life as well, God allows good and bad things to happen. Although I would always be curious as to why certain things happen, especially when it comes to bad stuff, I know His reasonings would go beyond my comprehension and understanding as He knows all.

God will only allow certain things to happen if He wants it to happen.

The devil, on the other hand, can only do things as he is allowed to by God.

With that being said, would it be possible for God to allow the devil to skew His Word (Bible) in any way, shape, or form?

Knowing that the devil is pure evil and one who deceives, manipulates, and twists the things of God, one would wonder what kind of things he would do prevent Christians from fully benefitting from reading God's Word and progressing in their spiritual life.

An example that I think could be something that he would do or has done is change certain words in the Bible. As you may be aware, one word or phrase can have the power to change a sentence or meaning completely, whether in the Bible or just everyday conversation.

John 3:16

“For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. ~ NLT (New Living Translation)

For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life. ~ BLB (Berean Literal Bible)

Both are the same verse, that pretty much says the same thing, but one glaring difference is the words will not and should not.

Would it be fair to say that will not is pretty definitive, that if I truly believe in Jesus, I will be saved regardless of what happens afterwards?

As opposed to should not or shall not (in other translations), which would indicate that it could happen but not guaranteed.

For this verse, I would think that figuring out which translation or meaning is the true meaning would be pretty crucial.

One implies that I'm good once I'm saved and the other implies that I should be good to go once I'm saved but...

It would seem that either you can or cannot lose your salvation once you accept Christ. If you can't, then that would allow me to focus on other aspects of the Bible and if you can, then that makes me wonder what I must do to make sure that I keep it that way and not mess up (unforgivable sin comes to mind).

God is not one to cause confusion when it comes to those that want to seek Him and His Word, so I'm wondering to what lengths or permissions would He allow the devil to do his thing?

EDIT

I read through the reason for the hold and understand now I think??

If I add that these are beliefs from arminianism vs calvinism, which if I'm not mistaken, for this topic, is that you are good once you're saved vs you can be unsaved, respectively.

I'm not asking which view is correct, but clarification of which words would more accurately reflect the original texts/Scriptures. Would it be will or should?

And if you read my responses in the comments, I made a point about why I'm not convinced that they are the same words. Unless I'm misunderstanding something and that back in the day, those words meant the same thing or something, those two words do not convey the same meaning to me.

I would be much more convinced that something was or wasn't going to happen with the words will/will not than should/should not.

Between God's speaking and our hearing, many steps intervene:

The prophet hears from God, either face-to-face (Moses), or through dreams, or visions
The prophet speaks
The scribe records
Other scribes copy
A translator reads and renders the Word in a new language in which the words and idioms do not correspond exactly to their original intent
That language changes over time
Translations are revised to accommodate the change in language
Printers typeset and reproduce the Word
You hear preachers, family and friends explain the English language (or some other), the Bible and its ideas,
You read the Bible
The sum of all you have been taught and experienced and are reading and the Holy Spirit's whispers combine to supply a meaning to you

Theories of Biblical inspiration have something to say about each of these steps. However, no matter which one you subscribe to, it is apparent that at the level of individual words, the Bible is an approximation of God's original message. However, by reading the whole Bible and how the same truths are expressed in different ways throughout its pages, you can narrow down the magnitude of the difference between what God said and what you are hearing. The will's and should's will and should sort themselves out. The Spirit, the Church, godly friends and prayer should clarify things in time.


Who first distinguished between the inerrancy of the Bible and the inerrancy of the original autographs? It's common these days among those who believe in the inerrancy* of the Bible to limit the statement to the original manuscripts.  For example, the Chicago Statement reads:

  We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture [...]. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

Augustine apparently saw matters similarly:

  If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. (Contra Faustum, 11.5)

Who is the first Christian to specifically distinguish between the inerrancy of the copied and/or translated biblical text, and the inerrancy of the original autographs?

* Note that I'm defining "inerrancy" broadly, so that it includes both Evangelical and Catholic understandings of the doctrine.

In an essay titled "Inerrancy as Inheritance: Competing Genealogies of Biblical Authority," Published in a book titled Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, a collection of essays by various authors, Dr. Thomas Buchan, Associate Professor of Church History at Nashotah House Theological Seminary  reviews the late Dr. Harold Lindsell's The Battle for the Bible, Dr. Jack  Rogers and Dr. Donald McKim's The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach, and Dr. John Woodbridge's Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal. In this essay, Dr Buchan notes, that Lindsell, Rogers and McKim all agree that the doctrines of biblical inerrancy were not meaningfully discussed or engaged with by theologians until after the 19th centry.

  Lindsell's work, in my opinion, correctly identified the fact that the issue of biblical inerrancy did not become a matter of contention until the nineteenth and twentieth centrues.

  ...

  Rogers and McKim argued correctly that biblical inerrancy as he conceived of it could not be found in the earlier periods of church history.

Dr. Buchan goes on to note:

  These three works sought to settle the question of the status of biblical inerrancy as the authentically evangelical doctrine of Scripture by means of accounting for its historical lineage. Our consideration of them ,however, raises another question: does the project of writing the history of biblical authority need to be re-envisioned? We must face the possibility that Lindsell was right when he observed that the inerrancy of the bible has only become a controversial issue within the recent history of the church. If this is so, we ought not be surprised if we fail to find inerrancy as it has been articulated in the twentieth-century evangelicalism in the theology of the patristic, medieval or Reformation periods.

And concludes by saying,

  None of this rules out a an evangelical commitment to biblical inerrancy as a theology of Scripture, but it does call into question the perceived weight of the claim that an evangelical conception of biblical authority is historically normative.

This is not to say that the doctrine of inerrancy did not exist as an assumed fact by early church fathers, as other answers, like Dick Harfield's have pointed out. The problem is that because the inerrancy of scriptures was assumed, little to no meaningful thought was given to the difference between the original autographs and present manuscripts. The assumption was that there was no difference or only minor topographical errors - errors so minor as to render them essentially meaningless differences. As Mr. Harfield notes:

  Church Fathers up to the time of Augustine were unanimous in considering the scriptures perfect and inerrant, with no apparent thought that the manuscripts known to them differed in any way from the autographs.

Within Jewish circles, there was a belief that scripture was inerrant as early as 200CE (or as late as 500CE) as recorded in the Babylonian Talmud. In A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, author Emil Schürer notes

    "He who says that Moses wrote even one verse of his own knowledge is a denier and despiser of the word of God"3

  The whole Pentateuch was thus now regarded as dictated by God, as prompted by the Spirit of God.4 Even the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, in which the death of Moses is related, were said to have been written by Moses himself by means of divine revelation.5 Nay at last, the view of a divine dictation was no longer sufficient. The complete book of the law was declared to have been handed to Moses by God, and it was only disputed whether God delivered the whole Thorah to Moses at once or by volumes.6

  3 Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 99a
  4 See in general, Joh. Delitzsch, De inspiratione scriptura sacrae quid statuerint patres apostolici et apologetae secundi saeculi (Lips, 1872, pp. 4-8, 14-17
  5 Baba bathra 15a (lat. in Marx, Traditio rabbinorum veterrima de librorum Bet. Test ordine atque arigine, Lips. 1884, p 23). Philo, Vita Mosis iii. 39 ed Mang. ii 179). Joseph. anit. iv. 8 48.
  6 Gittin 60a

Yet despite this, there was still no distinction between the textis receptus and the manuscripts of the time. This was largely due to the belief that not just the written Torah was inerrant, but the oral Torah was also inerrant and supernaturally preserved as well. User [Aaron Shaffier] of the Mi Yodea Stack Exchange explains:

  Maimonides (also know as the Rambam) codifies 13 principles which are basic to Judaism. These principles are pretty much universally accepted as binding in all Orthodox forms of Judaism. Principle number 8 is, "The belief in the divine origin of the Torah." Principle number 9 is, "The belief in the immutability of the Torah."

  This being said, it is important to differentiate between the idea of the Torah being perfect as understood in Judaism and the concept of "Biblical Inerrancy" as understood by many Christian groups.

  Judaism believes that the Torah was revealed in two parts. The written text of the Torah was dictated to Moses exactly as we have it today. Together with this "Written Torah", much additional information about each commandment, as well as a complete system of Torah interpretation was was also given to Moses and passed down through the generations.

  After the destruction of the Second Holy Temple in 70 CE, a process of collecting and recording these teachings was begun. The teachings of the Oral Torah were eventually codified in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar etc. This process is explained in great detail in the Introduction of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.

  This means that according to Judaism, one cannot just read the text of the Written Torah and fully understand what God wants from us. One needs to also consult the teachings of the Oral Torah.

This explanation, which is supported by Dr. Elizabeth Shanks Alexander in her essay "The Orality of Rabbinic Writing" published in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and William Gaventa in his book Jewish Perspectives on Theology and the Human Experience of Disability provides an important clue as to why, though church fathers may have mentioned that there could be differences between the manuscripts of the time and the original autographs, this did not rise to the level of being a distinction between the modern manuscript being inerrant and the original autographs being inerrant.

In much the same way that Judaism had a tradition of oral Torah and a system of adjudicating and clarifying apparent errors in the Torah, so too did Catholicism. Should an issue or question regarding the inerrancy the the original autographs vs. the Vulgate, Geneva Bible or King James, one need only look to the Pope for clarification through an encyclical, decretal, Papal Bull, or other such means of issuing church doctrine. This rendered the question of inerrancy and the whole discussion moot and rather silent until it began to stir in 1512 when Desiderius Erasmus began to collect as many variants and copies of the Vulgate as he could in order to publish a Greek and Latin New Testament Critical Text. Shortly thereafter (1645–1707) John Mill collated 82 additional Greek manuscripts into the Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS.  he reprinted Desiderius Erasmus' original work, but also enumerated 30,000 textual variants. A few years after publication, Daniel Whitby criticized the work of Mill, and in some way it could be said that this was the first inkling of the idea that only the original autographs might be inerrant. About this same time, Richard Simon, a French Catholic Priest who published a work titled A Critical History of the Old Testament in 1682. This work was controversial in the Catholic Church and 1,300 copies of his work were seized and destroyed by royal decree. According to historian Philip Shaff in Theological Propaedeutic: A General Introduction to the Study of Theology it was Simon who was first to make the distinction between the inerrancy of the Bible and the inerrancy of the original autographs in a meaningful way.

It was not until 1881 with the publication of Inspiration by Archibald Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield, leaders of Princeton Theology that the issue of Biblical inerrancy entered the mind of the theology community, and Warfield and Hodge put forth the doctrine that it was only the original autographs which were inerrant. Only after the topic of inerrancy entered the main stage of theological discussion could the more narrow idea of the inerrancy of the original autographs be put forth and discussed. Though it is obvious that they were not the first, Warfield and Hodges were the most influential in bringing this idea to center stage and it was Inspiration which introduced the topic to the world as we know it today.

This also coincides with the rise of archaeology at the beginning of the 1800s and the Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered between 1946 and 1956. As we began to discover older manuscripts and were able to compare them, only then were we able to realize just how different the original manuscripts could be from the present day manuscripts, thus bringing into focus the idea and question that it might only be the original autographs which were inerrant.

Software developer Brandon Staggs has an excellent video discussing the topic.


Why is Satan commonly believed to rule in hell? Satan (Devil, Lucifer and all these not exactly the same meaning names) is often told to rule in hell, tormenting the damned souls and so on, while in the Bible I could not find anything more than the fact of putting him there. Basing only on the Bible I'd rather assume that he is as punished there together with human sinners.

Where does the idea of Satan as the ruler of hell and punisher of the souls come from and is it an official doctrine (in either Catholic or Protestant Churches)?

I can only answer from a Protestant perspective and that perspective would be from scripture itself, since Protestants professedly believe that scripture is 'binding' (I am quoting here from the the first of the 39 articles of the C of E for want of anything more broadly indicative.)

I cannot find anything that 'explains' why there is a misconception. But misconception, I agree, there definitely is, through (I would say) ignorance of the scripture itself.

So I would suggest that ignorance is the reason for the misconception rather than any party or parties deliberately putting about an error.

I would suggest that it is just superstitious rumour from non-religious sources and from paintings which attempt to depict hellfire, such as those paintings accompanying the written work of Dante Alighieri.

A previous question dealt with the common misconception that the Entity variously referred to as Serpent, Satan and Lucifer (in Hebrew descriptions); as Diabolos, Poneros and Antidikos (in Greek descriptions); and as 'the Devil' (a rather poor English translation) will have the power to torment the souls and bodies of resurrected humans in the lake of fire.

The first answer to that previous question explained from scripture that the misconception was false. However the second answer to the question introduced the concept of the Entity "ruling" in hell - something that the question had not asked.

So this present question focuses on the matter of 'ruling'.

I would agree with the OP here as I, also, cannot find any text of scripture that attributes future 'rule' (in hell) to the Entity so described above. (They are not personal names for no personal name is ever given to that individual, only descriptive titles that convey his activities and characteristics).

The texts only convey (as the OP states) the fact of the presence of Satan, not any activity open to him to conduct in the future.

==========================================================================

The last - specific - mention in the bible of that individual is in Revelation 20:10 :

  ... the diabolos that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone ... [KJV] (I have written 'diabolos' rather than 'devil'.)

Thereafter, in the closing two chapters of scripture, there are two general references in which he would be included with all who are in the same state as he.

Firstly there are those who did not overcome within the context of time and who shall therefore not inherit anything in the new heaven and the new earth, Revelation 21:8. The multiple description ends with the category 'all liars'.

  ... and all liars, shall have their part in the lake of fire which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. [KJV].

Secondly, there are those have no right to the tree of life and thus may not enter the gates of the new city, Revelation 22:15. This multiple description ends with the category 'and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie'.

They are described as being :

  without.

=====================================================================

Thus after being described for the last time, the individual under discussion is no longer given any specific attention and is classed among all those who behaved in similar fashion.

Which, I would say, is conclusive proof that the idea of him 'ruling' anything is a fiction.

To those men, who behaved towards Jesus in a way which was exactly the same as the way in which the Entity behaved towards him, he said :

  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44 [KJV].

The last chapters of the Apocalypse indicate that both the father of liars and  all who are liars like him, shall be together, none ruling another, for ever in the lake of fire.


How does Jesus' pre-incarnational existence relate to oneness pentecostalist godhead doctrine? I've watched a few Youtube debates on trinitarianism vs unitarianism and the trinitarian apologists invariably try to prove Jesus "backwards" eternality (that he existed before the incarnation).

But I don't get why this is so important? Why do trinitarians go after this argument so often, and why do oneness adherents resist it?  That is, if it was hypothetically proved that Jesus was pre-existent, then what does that say about oneness godhead?

From an orthodox trinitarian perspective, Jesus talks to the Father at the Garden of Gethsemane which proves Jesus is distinct from the Father (multiple persons). God in classical theism is understood to be the only uncreated substance in reality. So if Jesus did not preexist the Incarnation, then He is not God. If Jesus did preexist the Incarnation in such a way that He always existed, then Jesus is uncreated and therefore God. There is only one substance which is uncreated, so there is only one God. But in this substance are multiple persons.

So to answer your question, the preexistence of Jesus is important to the trinitarian because it implies that Jesus is uncreated and therefore God. The preexistence of Jesus is dangerous to the unitarian because they are trying to assert that there are not multiple persons in the uncreated substance we call God, so they instead attempt to prove that Jesus is a created being.

It all comes down to whether or not Jesus is created or uncreated.

P.S. I noticed someone had downvoted you, and I don't know why they did that. I thought your question was well formulated and honestly asked.


Besides the LDS church, do any other churches believe there will be a restoration of all things? The scriptures speak of a restoration of all things, Elias coming back to restore all things, and a dispensation of the fullness of times (Eph. 1:10, Acts 3:21, Matt. 17:11). Besides The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS church), does any other church believe these scriptures were fulfilled?

This question is premised on a faulty understanding of both Mormonism and Christianity. The clear implication of the way it was asked is that few other churches believe what the Scriptures say.

Such is not the case. The vast majority of Christian traditions hold very strongly that these Scriptures have been, are being, or will be fulfilled. Considerable debate surrounds the exact meaning and the expectations of what this looks like vary considerably, but almost all branches of Christianity hold very core beliefs that Christ is indeed about the work of restoring all things and that such will come to complete fruition and after the last judgment. They also believe, almost universally, that this work has begun already and that the coming of Christ ushered in, at the very least, the start of that restored kingdom being made visible on earth.

The issue here is not whether or not other Christians believe these Scriptures, but what they believe them to mean in the first place. Ironically it is Mormons, not other Christians, that take the larger departure in interpreting them. In my answer about whether Mormons are Protestants I briefly outlined how this departure came to be, but the birds eye view is that they believe in the apostolic succession of priests and that such a secession was completely lost, thus the church being non-existent. Furthermore they believe the Scriptures were unable to be understood apart from an authoritative interpretation of the apostles. The way they believe the church was restored involves new divine revelation separate from that of original Scripture and that succeeds it. They, of course, believe this to be bringing the correct interpretation to light, other Christians would say they are over-riding it as they see these new revelations as being in conflict with what was previously revealed.

Thus the question that must be asked is not whether other Christians believe these verses to be true and accurate, but whether the LDS's commentary on their meaning is correct, or mainstream Christianity's. That is not a question for this site to answer (we don't do truth question) but hopefully this can at least help clarify what the issue actually is and where the groups stand in relation to each-other. For further study it would be appropriate to examine the actual hermeneutics employed by each group to arrive at their respective interpretations.


Why does Methodism exist? Methodism was born out of the revivals of John Wesley and George Whitfield who were both Anglicans in America. Whether or not they maintained a relationship with the Church of England, it seems like they could have easily established churches of the Evangelical Free Church model if they were going for a version of evangelical Anglicanism with a congregationalist polity. Why a new denomination?

Wesley and Whitfield were Englishmen, and staunch members of their national Church. Wesley spent two years in America. Whitfield made prolonged visits to America on seven occasions, and died during his last. Likely they could, if they had wished, have founded churches with a congregational polity, but nothing could have been further from their minds. Wesley was not a denominationalist, never mind a congregationalist.

Methodism was a movement and Society within the Church of England,  not a rival to it.Methodist meetings were never timed to coincide with services in the parish Church, and members were strongly urged to attend both, and certainly to take Holy Communion in the C of E. Methodist leaders, unless episcopally ordained in the Established Church, were known as lay preachers, and never presided at Communion.

Not only did Wesley believe schism was evil in itself, he believed it would be disastrous in practice. For Methodists to leave the Church would be "like throwing balls of wildfire", stir up bitterness, split Methodism, hinder preaching, consume and waste time and energy and deny people the chance to hear the gospel.

See http://anglicanhistory.org/wesley/reasons1760.html

and http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-75-On-Schism

It was developments in America which led to the Anglican Methodist split.

Firstly, the Church of England was never ubiquitous in America,  as it is in England.
Secondly the Oath to the King led many clergy to leave the U.S. for England, Canada over American Independence.
Thirdly was the fact that there were no bishops in America.  Episcopal Ordination involved travelling to London, whose bishop was responsible. After 1776 American citizens were not able to swear loyalty to the King, and the Bishop of London was unable to ordain them unless they did.

There were not enough priests/presbyters and no way to get more. According to Anglican/Methodist understanding Holy Communion could only happen with an episcopally ordained priest/presbyter. This was the Sacramental Crisis. Of course, the impasse was eventually resolved, but in the meantime John Wesley came up with his own solution.

Searching the Scriptures, and the Continental practices, he became convinced that it was not true that only a bishop could appoint a presbyter. Any presbyter could appoint others. He therefore appointed some for America,  and they began celebrating Holy Communion.

Methodism went on to become the largest denomination in the US.

Following Wesley's death in 1790, English Methodists decided to follow where America had led. The lay preachers, some, were ordained by the Methodist Connexion, without bishops, and celebrated the sacraments. Methodism had become a denomination.


When was the first recorded account of pre-tribulation teaching? I'm not looking for Biblical support of the doctrine, but for a post-Biblical teaching that clearly articulated a pre-tribulation rapture, as opposed to a post-tribulation or mid-tribulation rapture, or clear documentation that an early Christian group specifically held pre-tribulation views.

John Darby (1800-1882), often considered the father of dispensationalism and one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren, tends to be given credit for inventing the doctrine, or at least for having "provided the intellectual mantle that helped make it respectable." (1 2 3 4). Anti-pre-trib sources often allege that he got it from a certain Margaret MacDonald, who could be described as a proto-Pentecostal, but that's not generally seen as plausible by scholars (for instance, F.F. Bruce, who instead says that "it was in the air in the 1820s and 1830s among eager students of unfulfilled prophecy.")

C. I. Scofield (1843-1921) is also an important figure in the development of the doctrine, which popularized, legitimized, and gave authority to dispensationalism and related doctrines in the century since first publishing one of the most successful study Bibles in the world. Of course, the fact that Darby's and Scofield's eschatological schema is the default position of so many Christians owes much to writers such as Hal Lindsey (The Late Great Planet Earth) and Tim LaHaye (Left Behind) as well.

Pro-pre-trib sources would say that the seeds of the doctrine were present in the teachings of churchmen well before Darby, dating back to the first century. They may list Papias, Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian as supporters of the doctrine. (1 2)

However, the pre-tribulationist Larry Crutchfield says in his article, "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation in the Apostolic Fathers":

  With few exceptions, the premillennial fathers of the early church believed that they were living in the last times.  Thus they looked daily for the Lord's return. ... It should be noted that dispensationalists have neither said that the early church was clearly pretribulational nor that there are even clear individual statements of pretribulationism in the fathers.  As Walvoord says, "the historical fact is that the early church fathers' view on prophecy did not correspond to what is advanced by pretribulationists today except for the one important point that both subscribe to the imminency of the rapture."

Crutchfield is referring to page 25 of John Walvoord's (a fellow pre-trib advocate) The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation. Just prior to that (page 24) Walvoord says:

  The preponderance of evidence seems to support the concept that the early church did not clearly hold to a rapture as preceding the end time tribulation period. Most of the early church fathers who wrote on the subject at all considered themselves already in the great tribulation. Accordingly Payne, as well as most other posttribulationists, takes the position that it is self-evident that pretribulationism as it is taught today was unheard of in the early centuries of the church. Consequently the viewpoint of the early church fathers is regarded by practically all posttribulationists, whether adherents of the classic view or not, as a major argument in favor of posttribulationism. However, the fact that most posttribulationists today do not accept the doctrine of imminency as the early church held it diminishes the force of their argument against pretribulationism.

Others list post-Reformation pre-Darby writers who wrote things that seemed to agree with the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture, but here too, it is at least clear that their idea of the rapture was not well developed. Such cited writers include John Gill and Increase Mather.

So to sum up, early church fathers taught the imminence of Christ's return, which is vital to pre-tribulation doctrine, though they believed they were in the midst of the tribulation. Many centuries later, Darby systematized the teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture, which Scofield helped rocket to popularity.


Numerology and the Bible The Bible has been the subject of many numerological attempts at applying greater / different meaning. The Bible Code being a popular example resulting in a book and a movie (at least one movie). My step-mother (raised Catholic) was a big fan of The Bible Code, but I never knew how to take it.

This isn't a reference to the meaning or symbology of the number 7 in the Bible, but instead to the practice of decoding the Bible by applying number patterns to it.

I've always considered Numerology to be a practice like Astrology. Is the application of it to the Bible accepted by Christians as another way that God speaks to man, or just more pop-theology?

Numbers are wonderfully flexible things that can manipulated into nearly any end result that the manipulator wants to see.

However, I have read of some amazing inferences which the Jewish Cabalists have drawn from the numbers of words, letters and etc. associated with the OT scripture, including some scientific predictions only proved true one and a half millennia later in the 20th century.

So I would approach the area with extreme caution, but not necessarily discard it outright without looking closer.

I found an excerpt from GL Schroeder's book Genesis and the Big Bang online.  Note that I do no subscribe to Cabalist mysticism, but it's intriguing nonetheless.  Cabalism is but a small part of the argument that Schroeder makes too, so don't make the mistake of assuming he all about ancient Jewish mysticism.

  the Cabalists theorized that at the instant of creation, God, filling all eternity, contracted. Within that contraction, the universe expanded.

...

  The Cabalists believed that only four of the ten dimensions are physically measurable within today's world. The other six contracted into submicroscopic dimensions during the six days of Genesis.

There was more in the book, and specifically about the conclusion they drew from the numbers of letters, words, syllable and correlations between verses on this basis.

The relevant books from Schroeder are:

Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible
The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth
The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom

(A word of caution, I have read one critique of Schroeder's Genesis and the Big Bang, stating he is a theistic evolutionist; I didn't see that, but it's been quite a few years since I read G&BB, so it could be his bent.  I am an old-earth creationist, and I still think he is interesting reading).


Does the New Testament mention Christians worshipping the Holy Spirit? The New Testament often mentions Christians worshipping God the Father, as well as His only-begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (John 5:23). However, does the New Testament mention Christians worshipping the Holy Spirit?

The New Testament does not explicitly mention worshipping the Holy Spirit as it does God the Father and His only-begotten Son. However, it does mention worshipping the Holy Spirit in an implicit manner.

The Father is worshipped (John 4:23)

But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him.

The Father is spirit (John 4:24)

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (Mark 13:11 cp. Matt. 10:19-20):

But when they lead and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand about what you shall speak, nor meditate, but whatever shall be given you in that hour, speak that, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you shall speak, for what you shall speak shall be given to you in that same hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.

The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father (Matt. 28:19).

Therefore, go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

If people worship the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, then they must also be worshipping the Holy Spirit when they worship the Father.


What are the sources concerning the deaths of Peter and Paul Where do we learn that the deaths of Peter and Paul were during the Neronic persecutions of 64 - 68 AD?  What is the source of this information and is it considered valid?

John Foxe, in his 'Book of Martyrs', 1563, catalogues his sources regarding the martyrdom of Paul and Peter.

Of the recorded history of Paul's death, Foxe quotes :

  Eusebius, Hierom, Maximus, and other authors do but briefly pass it over; so Abdias, (if his book be of any substantial authority,). . . .

Of the sources of the record of Peter's death, he says . . .

  Hierom, Egesippus, Eusebius, Abdias, and others, although they do not all precisely agree in the time.

So it would seem that there are limitations in the availability of verifiable historic material.


According to traditional Catholicism, what is the spiritual solution for the divorcee who hasn't had their marriage annulled? There has been quite a bit of controversy over what is becoming known as 'modern Catholicism' (post-Vatican II) and 'traditional Catholicism' (pre-Vatin II). 'Modern Catholicism' thought generally holds that divorcees who have not had their marriages annulled and are in another marriage can still receive Communion, so long as they repent. 'Traditional Catholicism' thought, to my understanding, generally holds that divorcees who have not had their marriages annulled and are in another marriage cannot receive Communion since they are still in a state of sin so long as they are neglecting their previous marriage that is not annulled. Assuming the traditional Catholic view to be true, what would be the solution to this problem for the remarried divorcee? Would the traditionalist Catholic suggest that the divorcee divorce the person that they are currently married to (in which case I'm assuming that marriage would be annulled)? And if so, would the person then be obligated to return to the marriage they left (which seems very improbable and unrealistic)? If it is a continual sin to be with another person while your previous marriage is still considered valid, in what way should the more complicated situations of divorce without annulment be evaded?

Let's start with a discussion of what the situation is, as the Church traditionally has seen and taught it:

The official teaching of the Church is that civil divorce is usually immoral in itself, but may be morally tolerable under certain circumstances:

  If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2383)

And a Catholic who is "the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law" (Catechism paragraph 2386) is not committing a moral offense.

However, even in these two cases, the Church teaches that the civil divorce does not in itself end the marriage before God - indeed, that is impossible if the marriage is valid:

  A marriage that is ratum et consummatum [that is, validly constituted, and subsequently consummated] can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 1141)

That being the case, the question of whether the couple are "still married"—that is, whether they were validly married in the first place—must be investigated beyond determination of their divorced status. The Church will presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the couple are indeed still married, because this is how the Church works: it assumes a marriage is valid until it can demonstrate it to be invalid:

  In a doubtful matter marriage enjoys the favor of the law.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 1150)

Thus, the traditional Catholic view is that a divorced couple who have not obtained a decree of nullity (an annulment) are still considered married.

This is not a problem in itself; but if the couple is remarried (civilly—they wouldn't be able to be remarried in the Church), the Church considers them to be committing adultery:

  If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.

(Catechism, paragraph 2384, quoting St. Basil, Moralia paragraph 73)

Adultery being a quite serious sin, the Church teaches that the civilly remarried couple are not fit to receive the Eucharist:

  If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.

(Catechism paragraph 1650)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does offer some suggestion about what to do in such a case:

  Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence. ... They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace.

(Catechism para. 1650–51; the second sentence is quoted from Familiaris Consortio)

It is not specified what "in complete continence" means; it could mean that the remarried couple is to separate, or at least that they are to live together without sexual or romantic activity of any sort—either of which would be no doubt rough on their relationship, and certainly on any children of their union. The Church nowhere seems to teach that someone must go back to their previous marriage, though perhaps that might be suggested by individuals whom the couples could consult for guidance. It appears to prefer that, since the civilly divorced couple have given an indication that they are unable to live together, they should live separately and in celibacy—either with or without the company of their civilly-remarried spouse.

This is no doubt "a hard saying" (cf John 6:60); many in such a situation understandably feel that the Church is abandoning them. Nevertheless, the Church currently teaches that this is the only way available to insist on (a) the holiness of the Eucharist and (b) the lifelong nature of marriage. Those who are searching for a different approach do so out of pastoral feelings for Catholics affected by the situation, which they are trying to reconcile with the formal teachings of the Church.


In LDS Doctrine, is the Resurrection a Priesthood Ordinance? I have heard some LDS members say that the act of resurrection is actually a Priesthood ordinance. Is there scripture or words from LDS leaders stating such? Or is this an assumption?

Brigham Young spoke of it as a Priesthood ordinance:

  It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and exaltation, and that we are administering in these ordinances. This is not the case. We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would ask what they are. I will mention one.

  We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more.

  -- Journal of Discourses, 15:137-38

While Latter-Day Saints do not hold the Journal of Discourses to be authoritative scripture, this is the word of a prophet on the matter, and President Spencer W. Kimball considered this talk authoritative enough to quote and comment upon in General Conference.