Have any real people been de-canonized? People can be canonized (declared to be saints) and these official declarations are held to be infallible. Some people might be considered saints because of popular devotion, without being actually canonized - they could be "grandfathered in," rather than going through the modern process. I am aware of instances where the Church has decided that some of these people are of dubious historicity and therefore are not actually saints.

Examples:

St Guinefort, who was not only fictional, but was also a dog. 1
St Josaphat, whose story is a fanciful version of the life of Buddha (Josaphat = Boddhisatva). Yes, Buddha existed, but the Josaphat story is not historical. 2

Has the Church ever declared "X should no longer be considered a saint" where the reason isn't "because X never existed"?

1: It's like the end of Lady and the Tramp, but seven centuries ago.
2: Also, Wikipedia is wrong to say that he was canonized: he appeared in the Baronius Martyrologium Romanum but Benedict XVI's De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione says that doesn't imply canonization.

Technically… no. The Catholic Church has never decanonized a saint in the sense of saying, "This guy used to be a saint, and now he's not." But the reason is actually quite fascinating.

Canonization doesn't actually make someone a saint, per se. A Catholic "canonization" is the process by which the Church ultimately recognizes something God has already done. The Catholic Church does not claim that all "saints" (in the eyes of God) have been canonized, but they do say that an authentic canonization is both infallible and irrevocable.

In the early 1980s, the Catholic Church made some huge changes to shore up the canonization process. In centuries past (starting in about the 10th century), many of the claims of sainthood were adopted from ancient times, largely through public acclaim and popular stories passed through long-standing tradition and legend. Finally, higher authorities (and eventually the Vatican) took over the process of formally authenticating sainthood.

So what's been going on in the last several decades is the Catholic Church as been meticulously examining the authenticity of some 10,000(?) named saints spread through official sources, local martyrologies, and other historical archives to authenticate if a canonization ever actually took place.

Over the centuries, there were a lot of claims of sainthood without any verifiable authenticity. Several stories of sainthood turned out to be multiple references to a single person. There were mistaken identities, and in many cases, historical figures simply could not be separated from local folk tales and legends.

The more rigorous authentication does not imply a lack of veneration. After 2,000 years, the Church is simply saying that they cannot authenticate the events of veneration, or even if the person actually existed — thus, claims of canonization cannot be authenticated.

But no one has ever been "decanonized", even if such a word could exist.


Is the Prophet Jonah the same Jonah as in 2 Kings 14:23-25? If this is true, then Jonah prophesied that which did not come to pass, good favor from the Lord to Jeroboam.

Then Amos 6:13-14 reverses this word of favor upon the evil king.

So does this give us some insight to Jonah's character or is this another Jonah?

Is the Prophet Jonah the same Jonah as in 2 Kings 14:23-25?

It is quite possible they are one in the same person. But historically it may be impossible to determine one way or another. Most sources are in favour of the interpretation that the two are one in the same person.

  Book of Jonah, also spelled Jonas, the fifth of 12 Old Testament books that bear the names of the Minor Prophets, embraced in a single book, The Twelve, in the Jewish canon. Unlike other Old Testament prophetic books, Jonah is not a collection of the prophet’s oracles but primarily a narrative about the man.

  Jonah is portrayed as a recalcitrant prophet who flees from God’s summons to prophesy against the wickedness of the city of Nineveh. According to the opening verse, Jonah is the son of Amittai. This lineage identifies him with the Jonah mentioned in II Kings 14:25 who prophesied during the reign of Jeroboam II, about 785 BC. It is possible that some of the traditional materials taken over by the book were associated with Jonah at an early date, but the book in its present form reflects a much later composition. It was written after the Babylonian Exile (6th century BC), probably in the 5th or 4th century and certainly no later than the 3rd, since Jonah is listed among the Minor Prophets in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, composed about 190. Like the Book of Ruth, which was written at about the same period, it opposes the narrow Jewish nationalism characteristic of the period following the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah with their emphasis on Jewish exclusivity. Thus the prophet Jonah, like the Jews of the day, abhors even the idea of salvation for the Gentiles. God chastises him for his attitude, and the book affirms that God’s mercy extends even to the inhabitants of a hated foreign city. The incident of the great fish, recalling Leviathan, the monster of the deep used elsewhere in the Old Testament as the embodiment of evil, symbolizes the nation’s exile and return.

  As the story is related in the Book of Jonah, the prophet Jonah is called by God to go to Nineveh (a great Assyrian city) and prophesy disaster because of the city’s excessive wickedness. Jonah, in the story, feels about Nineveh as does the author of the Book of Nahum—that the city must inevitably fall because of God’s judgment against it. Thus Jonah does not want to prophesy, because Nineveh might repent and thereby be saved. So he rushes down to Joppa and takes passage in a ship that will carry him in the opposite direction, thinking to escape God. A storm of unprecedented severity strikes the ship, and in spite of all that the master and crew can do, it shows signs of breaking up and foundering. Lots are cast, and Jonah confesses that it is his presence on board that is causing the storm. At his request, he is thrown overboard, and the storm subsides. - Book of Jonah

Wikipedia has the following to say about the Prophet Jonah:

  In Judaism, the Book of Jonah (Yonah יונה) is one of the twelve minor prophets included in the Tanakh. According to one tradition, Jonah was the boy brought back to life by Elijah the prophet in 1 Kings 17. Another tradition holds that he was the son of the woman of Shunem brought back to life by Elisha in 2 Kings 4 and that he is called the "son of Amittai" (Truth) due to his mother's recognition of Elisha's identity as a prophet in 2 Kings 17:24. The Book of Jonah is read every year, in its original Hebrew and in its entirety, on Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement, as the Haftarah at the afternoon mincha prayer.

  In the Book of Tobit, Jonah is mentioned twice in the fourteenth chapter of the Book of Tobit, the conclusion of which finds Tobit's son, Tobias, at the extreme age of 127 years, rejoicing at the news of Nineveh's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus in apparent fulfillment of Jonah's prophecy against the Assyrian capital.

  In the New Testament, Jonah is mentioned in Matthew 12:38–41 and 16:4 and in Luke 11:29–32. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus makes a reference to Jonah when he is asked for a sign by some of the scribes and the Pharisees. Jesus says that the sign will be the sign of Jonah: Jonah's restoration after three days inside the great fish prefigures His own resurrection.

  The Prophet Jonah is regarded as a saint by a number of Christian denominations. His feast day in the Roman Catholic Church is on 21 September, according to the Martyrologium Romanum. On the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar, Jonah's feast day is on 22 September. In the Armenian Apostolic Church, moveable feasts are held in commemoration of Jonah as a single prophet and as one of the Twelve Minor Prophets. Jonah's mission to the Ninevites is commemorated by the Fast of Nineveh in Syriac and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Jonah is commemorated as a prophet in the Calendar of Saints of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church on 22 September.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says the two are the same person.

  Apart from the book traditionally ascribed to him, Jonah is mentioned only once in the Old Testament, 2 Kings 14:25, where it is stated that the restoration by Jeroboam II of the borders of Israel against the incursions of foreign invaders was a fulfillment of the “word of the Lord the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Amathi, the prophet, who was of Geth, which is in Opher”. This last is but a paraphrastic rendering of the name Gath-Hepher, a town in the territory of Zabulon, which was probably the birthplace of the Prophet, and where his grave was still pointed out in the time of Saint Jerome. Mention is made of Jonah in Matthew 12:39 sqq., and in 16:4, and likewise in the parallel passages of Luke (11:29, 30, 32), but these references add nothing to the information contained in the Old Testament data. According to an ancient tradition mentioned by Saint Jerome, and which is found in Pseudo-Epiphanius, Jonah was the son of the widow of Sarephta whose resuscitation by the Prophet Elias is narrated in 1 Kings 17, but this legend seems to have no other foundation than the phonetic resemblance between the proper name Amathi, father of the Prophet, and the Hebrew Emeth, “truth”, applied to the word of God through Elias by the widow of Sarephta (1 Kings 17:24).


What is the difference between Lutheran and Calvinist beliefs in the apostasy of the Church? What is the difference between Lutheran and Calvinist beliefs in the apostasy of the Church? Do Lutherans and Calvinists believe in the Great Apostasy belief like Mormons do?
B.H. Roberts, an LDS Seventy and LDS Church historian, in his introduction to the History of the Church, stated that the LDS Church is founded upon this very premise. He wrote,

Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
B. H. Roberts, the History of the Church, vol. 1, p. xl.

As far as I know, both Lutherans and Calvinists are not subscribed to ritualistic pattern. The Great Apostasy article in Wikipedia, I believe, refers to the 'ritualistic' apostasy which were increasing in the period of pre-reformation.

Doctrine-wise, Luther and Calvin do not differ on great apostasy, as they hold on 'Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura'. The 'Apostasy' they fought was due to the greediness of the church at that time which deny those 3 principles as the foundation of Christian faith. In both Lutheranism and Calvinism, the important point of sacraments are to remember the work of Christ in this world, instead of doing them for the sake of the rituals. The same goes to the Christian holidays which are celebrated nowadays, they are acting as remembrance for the work of Christ.

Regarding Mormonism

  Survivors of the persecutions were overly-influenced by various pagan philosophies either because they were not well indoctrinated in Jesus' teachings or they corrupted their Christian beliefs (willingly, by compulsion, or with good intentions but without direct revelation from God to help them interpret said beliefs) by accepting non-Christian doctrines into their faith. Latter-day Saints believe that many plain and simple truths of the gospel of Christ were, therefore, lost. (Wikipedia)

I quoted some of the Mormons understanding on the 'Apostasy' of the church. And, NO. Both Lutherans and Calvinists do not believe that the simple truths of the Gospel of Christ were lost due to the human inability to interpret the Scripture. Holy Spirit works, and to conform to this statement would means that we undermine the power of God (in this case via the persona of Holy Spirit), to help the church to understand the Truth.

At the very least, God has preserved the Truth from the time of Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to David to Christ to the early church. He, Himself, is the one and only Truth. After all, preserving the Truth and revealing Himself to the faithful and righteous has been his hobby for quite a while (i.e. Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, I can go on and on with this). And, there wasn't any 'Bible' before Moses, they were all received the Truth orally, too, like the early church.


Ephesians 1: 13-14 and falling from grace Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV

  [13] In whom ye also trusted , after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, [14] Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

How would one, who doesn't believe in the doctrine of "once saved always saved", go about explaining this passage? It seems to me that this passage is saying that once you believe, you are "sealed" (or marked) with the "earnest (pledge) of our inheritance" (the Holy Spirit). How could one lose their salvation if they have the pledge of inheritance by being sealed with the Holy Spirit? Unless that seal can be broken. Are there any other interpretations?

("explain away" presupposes this verse teaches the so-called 'once saved always saved' doctrine)

  Ephesians 1:13-14

  In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your salvation;) in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise, Who is the pledge of our inheritance, unto the redemption of acquisition, unto the praise of his glory.

Right off the bat, we know this is a conditional (Romans 11:22b) assurance (you can't murder someone or commit adultery,and not have that forfeit your salvation).

  Hebrews 10:26-38

  For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, but a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people. It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

  ...

  Do not therefore lose your confidence, which hath a great reward. For patience is necessary for you; that, doing the will of God, you may receive the promise. For yet a little and a very little while, and he that is to come, will come, and will not delay. But my just man liveth by faith; but if he withdraw himself, he shall not please my soul.

Scripture doesn't make an except for Christians, who are called to a higher calling than everyone else, anywhere.

  1 Corinthians 6:8-10

  But you do wrong and defraud, and that to your brethren. Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,  Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

Imagine St. Paul saying this if 'once saved always saved' were true. He would be saying in fact:

"But you sin against your brother. Do you not know that the unjust (but don't worry, not you) shall not inherit the kingdom of God?"

Ridiculous. It strips all meaning from the text.

Or again:

  Romans 6:11-16

  So do you also reckon, that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God, in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of iniquity unto sin; but present yourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of justice unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice.

The extensive use in of the countless imperatives of St. Paul and others in Scripture to urge us not to sin, and tells us that those who sin will go to Hell, are stripped of all their meaning by people to advocate the unbiblical doctrine of unconditional perseverence.

Heck, we are commanded to persevere (Hebrews 10:36). We aren't robots.

  Matthew 24:13

  And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

  Matthew 13:18-23

  Hear you therefore the parable of the sower.

  When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, there cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart: this is he that received the seed by the way side. And he that received the seed upon stony ground, is he that heareth the word, and immediately receiveth it with joy. Yet hath he not root in himself, but is only for a time: and when there ariseth tribulation and persecution because of the word, he is presently scandalized. And he that received the seed among thorns, is he that heareth the word, and the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choketh up the word, and he becometh fruitless. But he that received the seed upon good ground, is he that heareth the word, and understandeth, and beareth fruit, and yieldeth the one an hundredfold, and another sixty, and another thirty.

Matthew 25:14-30

  For even as [a parable] a man going into a far country, called his servants, and delivered to them his goods; And to one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one, to every one according to his proper ability: and immediately he took his journey. And he that had received the five talents, went his way, and traded with the same, and gained other five. And in like manner he that had received the two, gained two more. But he that had received the one, going his way digged into the earth, and hid his lord's money. But after a long time the lord of those servants came, and reckoned with them. And he that had received the five talents coming, brought five more talents, saying: Lord, thou didst deliver to me five talents, behold I have gained five more over and above. His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. And he also that had received the two talents came and said: Lord, thou deliveredst two talents to me: behold I have gained other two. His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. But he that had received the one talent, came and said: Lord, I know that thou art a hard man; thou reapest where thou hast not sown, and gatherest where thou hast not strewed. And being afraid I went and hid thy talent in the earth: behold here thou hast that which is thine. And his lord answering, said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed: Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury. Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath ten talents. For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away. And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

So our deeds aren't inconsequential in the slightest (John 15:6 et seq). Our salvation depends on continuing (Romans 11:22) in goodness.

  Romans 2:7

  To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, [He gives] eternal life

In short, it isn't God who is unfaithful to His promises (John 6:37; 1 Timothy 2:4), but us who forfeit the promise ourselves (2 Timothy 2:12).

See my related answer here.


Why when all are separated by mans sin was Noah chosen? Why, if all are separated from God because of Adam's sin, did God choose Noah?  Why be merciful to Noah's descendants if all are separated by sin?

Genesis 6:5-6 describes God’s view of the people who lived prior to the flood:

  “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on
  the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human
  heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made
  human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.”

God determined to wipe out the evil deeds of men and put an end to their wickedness.

  “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD” (Genesis 6:7, 8).

All the people on earth died except Noah and his family who were found righteous in the eyes of God. The people who perished in the flood died because they refused to acknowledge God or seek His forgiveness. Noah, on the other hand, is described as righteous, blameless, and obedient in that he

  “walked with God” (Genesis 6:9).

Noah and his family were not spared because they were without sin, but because Noah was obedient and without blame.  God had a plan and that plan involved Noah and his family. The polluted, unrighteous population of the world of Noah disappeared from the earth. Mankind was salvaged, and from the line of righteous Noah came the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, who died to atone for the sins of the world. [1]

Hebrews chapter 11 gives examples of other imperfect people who were used by God in the outworking of his divine purpose.  They were all sinners, but God enabled them to overcome and to do incredible things to his glory.

God, in his sovereignty, has the undisputed right to bless and to give, to show mercy and dispense his grace on those whom he favors.  God blessed Abraham (Genesis 12:3) because Abraham believed God, and his faith was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6).  Noah was righteous and blameless “and he walked with God” (Genesis 6:9). God showed mercy to Noah because he was obedient and his faith in God never wavered.

[1]Source: The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, 50th Anniversary Edition.  (Dr. John C. Whitcomb, Dr. Henry M. Morris


Do Christians regard speaking in tongues as necessary? I have heard that some Christians consider it the only sure sign of having received the Holy Spirit, which would seem quite important.

If not generally, which groups hold to this belief, and in what way do they consider it necessary?

And secondly, does Christian tradition back up this belief? What evidence is there?

No, I do not believe that this is the only sure sign of the Holy Spirit.  Also, I would question if someone is truly speaking in tongues when they claim to be.  Can people speak in tongues today?  I have seen people who would claim they were speaking in tongues, but there was no one there to interpret.
Paul lists speaking in tongues as one of the spiritual gifts, but he does say that they are distributed as God determines, not necessarily as we want them.

1 Corinthians 12:7-11 (NIV)
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the
common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of
wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit,
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by
that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy,
to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in
different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation
of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he
distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
1 Corinthians 12:27-30 (NASB)
27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And
God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets,
third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps,
administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles,
are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are
they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have
gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they?
All do not interpret, do they?


Why aren't there any Baptist monasteries? So, why aren't there any Baptist monasteries? Is there some sort of theological opposition, or do Baptists just don't do it?

In general, Baptists have historically harbored animosity towards anything that smacked of "papistry." Note, for example, John Bunyan's polemics in Pilgrims Progress. Add to that a fear of turning the Gospel into a "work," and you will see that it definitely goes against the grain of traditional Baptist upbringing.

As always, with Baptists, nothing is universal. It's not that we "hate" spiritual discipline, it's just that it usually doesn't occur to us.. The same things that apply to mysticism and spiritual discipline would adhere to asceticism and monasticism too. Often after reading something by Dallas Willard a Baptist might get a notion to have a new "experience," but in the main the historical and theological norms would tend to discount the monastic impulse.


What is the sacramental principle at work with Anointing of the Sick? Of the seven sacraments in the Catholic Church.  I see how each of them are some form of Sacramentum, an oath between man and God.

Marriage has a marital vow
Holy orders is a vow to be a priest, deacon or bishop.
Reconciliation is a resolution to "Go and sin no more"
In Holy Communion we say, Amen to "The Body of Christ"
In Baptism we resolve to enter more into the Body of Christ
and in Confirmation we renew and confirm that resolution.

But, what is the oath in Anointing of the Sick?  To die peacefully?

I'll have another go since Affable Geek has redefined the question...

The noted Anglican divine Richard Hooker defined a sacrament as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" [sorry, don't have a reference for that]. The Roman Catholic Church teaches "the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions." [Catechism of the Catholic Church, s.1131]

The sacraments are a means of grace. In fact sacramentum means "made holy". An oath makes a promise holy (and so may be translated as sacramentum); but a sacrament in the Christian sense, although holy, is not a promise or oath. This is why finding a promise or oath in Anointing is so difficult: it is purely a means of grace.

I'm not qualified to say whether it's right to discern an oath/promise in the other sacraments, but I suspect that what Peter discerns as a promise is in fact a manifestation of the grace of the sacrament.

Taking the seven sacraments in Peter's order,

Marriage — the grace of divine love. The sacrament of Matrimony
signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the
grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved
his Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love
of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies
them on the way to eternal life (cf Council of Trent: DS 1799). [CCC
1661]
Orders — the grace of service in the Church. The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the
faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the
faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the
People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus
liturgicum) and pastoral governance (munus regendi). [CCC 1592]
Reconciliation — the grace of forgiveness and reconciliation with God and the Church. The spiritual effects of the sacrament of
Penance are: reconciliation with God by which the penitent recovers
grace; reconciliation with the Church; remission of the eternal
punishment incurred by mortal sins; remission, at least in part, of
temporal punishments resulting from sin; peace and serenity of
conscience, and spiritual consolation; an increase of spiritual
strength for the Christian battle. [CCC 1496]
Communion — the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the
Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated
species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is
present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his
Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS
1640; 1651). [CCC 1413] Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ
increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial
sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this
sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant
and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the
Mystical Body of Christ. [CCC 1416] Transubstantiation is quite successfully described in the accepted answer here.
Baptism — the grace of forgiveness of sin. The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of
original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which
man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a
temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is
incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer
in the priesthood of Christ. Baptism imprints on the soul an
indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the
baptized person for Christian worship. [CCC 1279-80]
Confirmation — the grace of witnessing to the Faith. Confirmation perfects Baptismal grace; it is the sacrament which gives the Holy
Spirit in order to root us more deeply in the divine filiation,
incorporate us more firmly into Christ, strengthen our bond with the
Church, associate us more closely with her mission, and help us bear
witness to the Christian faith in words accompanied by deeds.
Confirmation, like Baptism, imprints a spiritual mark or indelible
character on the Christian's soul. [CCC 1316-17]
Unction — the grace of strengthening, peace and courage. The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as
its effects: the uniting of the sick person to the passion of
Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church; the
strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner
the sufferings of illness or old age; the forgiveness of sins, if
the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of
Penance; the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the
salvation of his soul; the preparation for passing over to eternal
life. [CCC 1532]


Why are the first five books of the old testament named differently in some translations? In my (norwegian) Bible, the first five books are titled the first through fifth books of Moses, instead of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc., which appear to be the common English names. The names of the remaining books are straightforward translations from the English names, so it seems like there's something special about the first five books.

Is there any reason for this difference? Are the first five books also named differently in other languages/translations?

The first five books are closely linked together - they are the "Torah" (Hebrew for "teaching" or "instruction") traditionally attributed to Moses. This explains why they can be called "The Five Books of Moses"; the Greek "Pentateuch" means "five books" and is another title for this section of the Bible.

Calling the books after Moses makes sense, and avoids some awkwardness with the more specific titles - Genesis and Exodus are good names, but Numbers really isn't, given that most of the book isn't about the census. Another reason is to stress the unity of these five books.

In Hebrew, the books are named after the first words in the text (the "incipit"):

Bereshit - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Shemot - "These are the names of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt with Jacob"
Vayikra - "And the LORD called to Moses"
Bamidbar - "The LORD spoke to Moses in the tent of meeting in the desert of Sinai"
Devarim - "These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel"

This is a common practice in many languages, for texts that don't come with their own titles. However, I don't think that languages other than Hebrew use these titles for the Bible books.

The standard names used in English derive from the Greek titles in the Septuagint. These are based on the content of each book:

Genesis - How it all began
Exodus - Leaving Egypt
Leviticus - Concerning the Levitical priesthood
Numbers - Starts with a census
Deuteronomy - "Second law", or "a copy of the law"

I don't know why they did this as opposed to using the Greek incipits. That would have given us Arche ("the beginning") for Genesis, Onomata ("the names") for Exodus, and so on, matching the Hebrew. Nevertheless, these are the traditional titles that have come down to us, and which many translations have followed.

Most other Old Testament books have basically the same name in translation, since they tend to be named after people - Isaiah is Isaiah in any language. But there are differences too:

Psalms is called Tehillim ("praises") in Hebrew; the Greek "Psalmoi" means "pieces of music"
Ezra and Nehemiah used to be called 1 Ezra and 2 Ezra; even earlier, they were a single book of Ezra
1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings are called 1 Basileion through 4 Basileion in the Septuagint. Hebrew formerly just had a single book of Samuel (Sh'muel) and a single book of Kings (M'lakhim).
1 and 2 Chronicles are called the Paraleipomena in the Septuagint, which means "supplementary"

In the New Testament, I think there is much more cross-language agreement about what to call the books. The only one that looks different is Revelation, which in many languages (including Greek) is called Apocalypse. But this means just the same thing as the English word "revelation" (and is "Offenbarung" in German, etc.).


Does Orthodox theology emphasize "redemptive suffering" as much as Catholicism does? Growing up Catholic I've been taught that "my suffering completes what is lacking" in Christ's sacrifice. Any time that I encounter suffering I should "offer it up." St. Bernadette, Francis of Assisi, and Ignatius of Loyola all suffered excruciating pain—rendering them super saints united to Christ's suffering.

How does suffering fit into the Orthodox spiritual life? Is it emphasized as redemptive as much as it is in Catholicism?

No there isn't any theology that ever says Christ's sacrifice and redemptive work is lacking anything in order to save us. Suffering and death are a natural result of Sin. As a Christian you put to death your earthly members and you crucify the works and desires of the flesh for the love of Christ and of mankind. Assisi and Bernadette are not recognized as Saints in the Orthodox Church.


What steps has the Catholic Church taken as a whole to address a shortage of priests? It seems like the first instinct of the news media when it comes to the Church's response to a shortage of priests is to end the rule enforcing celibacy.   But that is not what the Church has been doing.  So, what has she done (as a whole) to address the fact that an aging population of priests is not being replaced at the rate that the Church is growing?

The comments by Pope Francis about allowing older married men to be ordained and serve in isolated areas is interesting, although I don't think this will happen any time soon, and certainly not in the numbers needed if 25 per cent of churches do not have a resident priest.

What I have observed being reported is that dioceses around the world are addressing the shortage of priests as best they can, by merging parishes. This seems to have been made possible because fewer Catholics are attending mass at the same time as there are fewer priests1. Another thing I have noticed in a limited way is the employment of lay ministers to assist the priests.

1The RCC is growing in sub-Saharan Africa. Gross numbers are steady in US, balancing leavers with Latin immigrants, but with falling attendances at mass, which is what we are talking about. Numbers are falling in Europe because of a move away from religion, and also in South America, where significant numbers are converting to evangelical denominations.


Why is the word 'Lord' in all caps in the OT but not in the NT? My friend asked me the other day, why is the word 'Lord' in all capital letters in the Old Testament but not the New Testament?

I tend to lean towards the fact that the OT was written in Hebrew and the word for God in Hebrew is YAHWEH, or rather YHWH, and since they believed His name was so Holy, they only used capital letters.

A convention in many Bibles is to do exactly as you say - convert the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) into LORD. To be sure, you should look at your Bible's preface. In the New Testament, which was composed in Greek, the word Kurios (e.g. Kyrie Elesion) is a title as opposed to a Proper Name.

  To be clear: יהוה (Yahweh) = LORD - specific name, אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) = Lord - title, κύριος = Lord - title

Interestingly, the Jews took the notion of protection against blasphemy so far, that they would not pronounce the YHWH. Instead, during readings, they would substitute the proper name of God for Adonai, which translates to "my Lord". When the Masoretes attempted to add the vowels between the 7th and 11th Centuries AD, they did not know the correct vowels to use, because the tradition of Adonai was so long entrenched. As a result, they adopted the vowels of Adonai and added them to the Y-H-W-H to get Yah voh (Yahweh), or as the English wanted to pronounce it: Jeh-hov-ah.


What is the New Testament basis for the idea the God is a God of judgment and vengeance? The New Testament is frequently seen as presenting a God of love, compassion and mercy, while the Old Testament is often viewed as presenting a God of judgment and vengeance.  However, the Bible collectively presents God as unchanging.

What, then, is the New Testament basis that supports the idea that God is a God of judgment and vengeance?

Let's start with Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus talks about Judgement Day whereon He will separate the sheep from the goats, casting the goats into Hell.

In Romans 12:18-20, Paul cites the extant scriptures for why Christians should not take their own vengeance:

  If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."

In Revelation 2, Jesus dictates a letter to Pergamum wherein He says, "Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth."

Substantial portions of the rest of Revelation discuss God's impending judgement on the world.

In Acts 5, we see God issuing immediate punishment to Annanias and his wife Saphira for conspiring to lie to Him. In Acts 12, God strikes Herod for not giving Him praise, "And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died."

Jesus Himself cleanses the temple of money changers by making a whip and driving them out [John 2:15].

There is no "inconsistency" between the two "halves" of the Bible - it is truly one book, the record of God's work and plan of salvation throughout history.


Does Abraham's Bosom (Hades/Paradise) still exist? My understanding is that Abraham's Bosom was the Saint's portion (Paradise) of Hades while on the other side of a great chasm (gulf) was a portion of Hades described as torment. Does this place known as Abraham's Bosom or Paradise still exist after Jesus's death and resurrection?

  Luke 16:19-31

  19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
  20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
  21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
  22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was
  buried;
  23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
  24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool
  my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
  25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now
  he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
  26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither
  can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
  27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
  28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
  29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
  30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
  31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

NOTE: Paradise is not mentioned in the above Luke 16.

Additional Information Provided by Thomas Shields

This answer is in two parts. Part 1 comes from an Evangelical perspective and attempts to indirectly show that Abraham's Bosom no longer exists by arguing that it never existed to begin with. Part 2 tries to logically show how the definition of Abraham's Bosom is inconsistent with it remaining in existence after Christ's Resurrection.
Part 1: If it didn't exist to begin with...
There's a couple of arguments against its existence. I quote myself (hey, it's the same as just saying it again!)

If all those who died before Christ’s ultimate death were placed
aside in an Upper Sheol (which, by the way, seems to make no sense –
Sheol by definition means “low place”) then what of Enoch and Elijah?
Elijah was taken into heaven by chariots of fire “And Elijah went up
by a whirlwind into heaven.” Is Elijah taken up to heaven, only to be
plunged back down into the depths of the earth? Does the chariot of
fire make a celestial u-turn? Or is Elijah of a special class? An
elite group? Why then did Moses, the greatest prophet of all time
(Deut. 33) not receive this privilege?

To be fair, the language in I Kings about Elijah's "ascension" is quite ambiguous. Calvin talks about it at length in his Institutes, which I won't quote here, but I'll quote my younger and hot-headed self again in summary:

Those who came before Christ were not refused the privilege of Heaven
simply because the physical sacrifice had not yet been made. They had
been redeemed, justified, and purchased. It is not as if God must
await the result of the Crucifixion, hoping that Christ will succeed
but all the while biting divine fingernails; – no, the Sovereign
Yahweh of the Universe is not bound by time and will not be surprised
by His own plan being carried out. The words of Christ echo still
through eternity past, present and future, indeed, Abraham could hear
“It is finished” as clearly as could the those surrounding the cross.
To place the souls of those who precede Christ in a type of Limbo is
to grossly diminish the sovereignty of God and his miraculous grace

That is, why should the Israelites have to wait in Abraham's Bosom for Christ to die? They were God's chosen people too!
Additionally, the whole concept of Abraham's Bosom is biblically rooted only in Luke 16:19-31, the New Testament. Did the Jews not even know about Abraham's Bosom until they got there?
Part II: Regardless, It obviously doesn't still exist
Now, I'm not being technical here. For all I know it's a physical place that, once emptied, remains there, but empty. What I mean by "non-existent" is that it no longer serves any purpose; that no one is there.
First of all, since part of the biblical foundation for Abraham's Bosom is the collection of verses that describe Christ's rescue of its inhabitants, I think we'd need to accept those verses for what they're saying.
Psalm 68:18

You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and
receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the LORD
God may dwell there

If Christ rescued the the captives of Sheol when he descended into Hell (as the Catholic church claims), then surely Abraham's Bosom serves no purpose. It's empty now, right?
I suppose one might argue that it's still in use for us, that as we die we go there just as the Jews did, until the last day.
Yet in Acts 7:56, as Stephen is stoned:

“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the
right hand of God.”

So... unless Abraham's Bosom has Christ at the right hand of God in it, it's gone. (Plus, if that's where Christ is, is it really Sheol at that point?)
Answer taken in part from my previous blog post on this


Does Luke chapter 16 verses 9 through 13 warn us that there is no middle ground between serving God and serving mammon? Luke 16:9 through 13  KJV

9  And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
10  He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
11  If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
12  And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
13  No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Yes, there is no middle ground. The language here is that of worship; the idea is that mammon is an alternative god to God. The stress here from Jesus, and throughout the New Testament (1 Timothy 6:3-10 comes to mind), is that mammon, or money, is to be used to serve the Trinity, rather than to be served as god itself.

This is the antithesis to what has been called the prosperity gospel, where the Trinity is used to serve mammon instead of the other way around.


What are the differences between the ELCA and UCC? Looking for a church community for me and my child, young adult college age. So far trying to decide between ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and UCC (United Church of Christ). What are the differences between these two communities?

I can't give you a text book answer. I can say I am a member of a small church here on the ND/MN border where it is a combination of ELCA and UCC. We are not formally/legally one entity but we act as one with one unified Church Council and a retired Presbyterian minister. All I know is it works wonderfully, because we want it to. It is this works or both congregations would cease to exist. The biggest difference is Lutherans tend to be what is called "high church" and UCC is "low church." What that means is Lutherans, including the ELCA, have more liturgical structure, more ritual than the UCC. For us we just compromised so the ELCA in our church is getting "lowered churched" and the UCC is experiencing a "higher church." And our Presbyterian minister reworked communion so both camps are happy. As a UCC I would not be able to handle the true high church of eh ELCA but our arrangement works. If you have kids ask about the Sunday School and what sources they use. So far our UCC and ELCA parents are happy. A great think about the ELCA and the UCC is they both have progressive stances on gay issues and marriage. The UCC was the first church to hire an openly gay minister in 1972 and our formal language was worked out about 1985. We use the phrase "open and affirming." The Lutherans had a harder, much harder time getting there so I would say about 4 years or so ago they too went progressive (this is the ELCA) and use the language "Reconciled in Christ." So on that critical social issue the UCC and ELCA are very compatible. The UCC has a reputation for being very strong on social and economic justice. Many ELCA are in line with that. I am UCC and will always be UCC but I love my ELCA church members.


How does Roman Catholicism justify a literal meaning of 'Hoc est meum corpus'? The words :-

τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον [Stephanus 1550/Elzevir 1624]
this is my body which is given for you [KJV 1769 Luke 22:19]

and, particularly :

hoc est meum corpus [Vulgate - Jerome 382/Clementine 1592]
this is my body

were spoken as Jesus stood before the disciples, his hands holding out bread to them.

How then, at that instant, could bread have been - literally - his own real body. ?

It was not - literally - true that the bread was 'given' (sacrificially) at that instant of time. It is a figure of speech. It is the way concepts are expressed in language.

And if Jesus requires

this do in remembrance of me [KJV 1769 Luke 22:19]

then it is a memorial of what was about to occur. Not a physical re-enactment. It is the faculty of memory that he wishes to be engaged, not the process of digestion.

How are these particular questions answered by those who suppose a literal meaning to hoc est meum corpus ?

I will attempt to answer your questions, but I think we need to start with a detour into what the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist actually is. You use a couple of words that lead me to think you misunderstand the doctrine: "digestion" and "literally ... real".
The Catholic doctrine is not that the Eucharist is Christ's body in the same way that you could get a sharp knife and cut a bit of him off. (This isn't The Merchant of Venice!) The doctrine is that

In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶1374)

Similarly, we can read Thomas Aquinas, who answers the question "Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place?"

Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. (Summa Theologia III, 76.5)

That is to say, Christ's presence in the Eucharistic species is not restricted to the Eucharistic species. It isn't "a bit of Christ". It is just "Christ".
I think that answers your first question: "How then, at that instant, could bread have been - literally - his own real body?"
You next say that the bread was not "given" at that moment of time. Well, yes: the sacrifice in question is the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, of which the Last Supper is part and of which the Eucharist is a re-presentation. Again, from the Catechism:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶1367)

Or, from Sacrosanctum Concilium:

At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, ¶47)

The Eucharist is intimately related to the Cross: they are one sacrifice.
Finally, you talk about the question of a "memorial", which you contrast to a "physical re-enactment". The Catholic doctrine is that "memorial" means a lot more than a simple "remembering". Really it's worth reading the entire section of the Catechism entitled "The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church". Here are a few key parts:

The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. ...
In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.
In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶¶1362ff)

So the Catholic view is that a memorial is a much richer thing than you suggest. The Eucharist is about presence, memorial, sacrifice, communion, and a whole host of other themes.


What is the biblical support for the Nicene creed's statement of the Son being "eternally begotten"? What is the biblical support for the Nicene Creed's statement of the Son being "eternally begotten"?

Lee Irons addresses this question in his paper, "The Eternal Generation of the Son."  In response to the question of exegetical basis for the doctrine, he writes:

  Traditionally, the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son was supported by an appeal to the five Johannine texts in which Christ is identified as monogenes (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; I Jn 4:9). As early as Jerome's Vulgate, this word was understood in the sense of "only begotten" (unigenitus), and the tradition was continued by the Authorized Version.

Irons admits that modern scholars often reject this understanding of monogenes, but he contends that the traditional understanding is preferable. Following a textual variant, he renders John 1:18 as follows:

  No one has ever seen God, but the only begotten God, who is in the Father's bosom, has made him known

Now we must ask, in what sense is Jesus begotten?  Our experience with "begottenness" is always temporal – a baby does not exist, and then it is begotten and comes into existence.  The fathers at Nicaea, responding to Arianism, wanted to defend the eternity of the Son, so they said "eternally begotten" in their creed.  Though perhaps Schaff's translation of the phrase is more accurate:

  begotten of the Father before all worlds

Such language is reminiscent of several biblical passages, like John 17:5:

  And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

And Colossians 1:15–17:

  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature [...] 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Irons concludes:

  The framers of the [Nicene] creed interpreted the Johannine monogenes in the traditional sense [...] The fathers of Nicea seem to have believed that the biblical teaching regarding the generation of the Son (as indicated by the term monogenes) was powerful evidence that he is homoousios with the Father!


What is the basis for the Catholic practice of only the priest drinking from the common cup during communion? I've heard from a number of people that in most Catholic churches, only the priest drinks from the common cup in communion. Is this true?

Assuming it is true, what is the basis for this teaching?

Communion is always "valid under both species" as Catholics would say. That means that if you only receive Jesus under the form of wine or under the form of bread, you're receiving the whole of God.

For about 20 years or so (depending where you live) in much of North America it has been common practice to offer the cup to the laity at communion for all masses on every day of the week. This is extra-ordinary, and not necessary and seems to be going away. The diocese of Phoenix was the first to go back to the old norms and my diocese (Madison, WI) just went back starting this past advent.

The rationale out priest gave was that the bishop felt that absence would make the heart grow fonder. And on those occasions when we could recieve from the cup, we'd be more apt to do so.  When half the congregation just passes the Eucharistic minister by like there's nothing in the cup, you get to seeing why absence is necessary for a time. Hopefully, come Holy Thursday or Corpus Christi we can get a few more people considering Who they're passing up.

The other good (well, I think it's good) thing the new reversion in norms does is limit the excruciating number of Eucharistic ministers (I mean extra ordinary ministers) any time you have to have a dispensation to recieve an indult you're looking at an institution within the church that won't last.  Nothing doctrinal about it, the Church is free to let lay people distribute communion and recieve in both species as well as end that practice.

If there were enough priests and deacons to distribute communion in the first place the practice might have continued or even spread, I'd imagine.


Was Martin Luther known to have read the First Epistle of Clement? The First Epistle of Clement is an early Christian document that was commonly circulated in the early church before being rejected as part of the New Testament canon. There is a passage in it that addresses faith and works that sounds rather reminiscent of Martin Luther's theology 1500 years later (emphasis mine):

  All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

It then goes on to talk about the value of works, but doesn't say that there is justification from it.

Is Martin Luther known to have read the First Epistle of Clement? And if so, did he comment on what he thought about it?

No. Luther is not known to have read the First Epistle of Clement. In fact it is certain that he did not read it.

Luther was, in general, very well read in the Church Fathers; and he would have known, from Eusebius and others,  that such an epistle had once existed. However it  had long since disappeared, and no copies were known to exist. It was only in 1628, more than 70 years after Luther's death, that Western scholars were able to read it. This happened when  Patriarch Cyril I, of Constantinople, presented King Charles I of England etc. with a copy of the Bible containing, separately at the back, a copy of Clement's Epistle. This became known as the Codex Alexandrinus, because it had been found, a few years earlier, in Alexandria.  The Patriarch had intended it to go to King James,  but he died before it arrived. It was published by Patrick Young, the Royal Librarian.

Doctor Bell in his translation of the Familiar Discourses of Luther lists some, though not all, of the Early (and later) Fathers Luther was familiar with including a date when they were thought to have been active.

Athanasius of Alexandria (387)
Basilius Magnus and Gregorius (380)
Ambrose of Milan (380)
Aurelius Prudentius (380)
Austin of Hippo (430)
Beda, a Benedict in England (737)
Cyprian of Carthage (259)
Cyril of Alexandria
Chrysostom of Constantinople (420)
Gregory I, Pope (511)
Hierem, eldest of Striden (522)
Irenaeus of Lyon (175)
Polycarpus, tutor  to Irenaeus (1&5)
Nicolas de Lyra (330)
Origen of Adomantz (261)
Philo the Jew (50)
Josephus (100)
Ignatius of Antioch (111)
Prosperus of Rogen (460)
Sedulius (430)
Tatianus the Heretic (170)
Thomas Aquinas  (1274)
Bonifacius of Mentz (755)
Bernard of Cistern (1140)
Hugo Parisiensis (1130)
Anselmus (1110).

Further detail is included in Staniforth Maxwell's Early Christian Writings and the Apostolic Fathers. This link is to a preview. The pages are not numbered but it is on the twelfth page.


Which doctrines are Catholics required to accept? I only recently figured out that some Catholic doctrines are required for a Catholic to accept, while the denial of others doesn't prevent being a Catholic.

Examples of both cases:

Mark Trapp, in his answer to List of papal teachings considered infallible, quotes two instances of ex cathedra, both of which contain a judgment of those who don't accept the doctrine. The declaration of Immaculate Conception, for example, ends with

  Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church...

The doctrine of papal infallibility was not a strictly required one in 1860, as Keenan's Catechism used in British Catholic schools included the following: (as quoted in Wikipedia)

  (Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
  (A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.

What are the distinctions between these two kinds of doctrines? Is there a list of required doctrines somewhere?

The degree to which Roman Catholics need to accept doctrines as required is directly related to how certain they are known to be true. There is a range of levels of certitude, from immediately revealed truths (fides divina) and the infallible teachings of the Church (fides ecclesiastica) as the most certain to things commonly believed to be true by most theologians (sententia communis) down to things tolerated by the Church but not really well founded (opinio tolerata).

To wit, there are three classes of dogma:

truths formally and explicitly revealed
truths revealed formally but not explicitly revealed
truths known through their connection to other truths, but not revealed

The first two are what generally constitutes necessary dogma: things every person needs to believe in order to be considered in communion with the Church. These are well-known and binding: things like the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the primacy of the Pope and the Apostolic succession, and so forth.

The third category is where there is some leeway in what is necessary to believe. These are open for debate amongst theologians, and include things like whether the existence of a proof for God exists, whether we can have knowledge of Heaven, etc.

The part which you quote from the pronouncements made ex cathedra is actually procedural and is meant to classify the teaching as formally revealed; the First Vatical Council laid out conditions that need to be met for a teaching to be considered made ex cathedra:

  Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

  So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

That is, the formula is:

The Holy Father speaks in his official capacity

  by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own

He speaks definitively

  we declare, pronounce, and define

Anyone who doesn't believe what was taught has left the Church

  Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church

And so to reconcile with the question and answer pair in the Keenan's Catechism, it's important to note that the pope himself is not infallible: he only has the ability to speak infallibly, and only when he speaks ex cathedra. This doesn't happen all the time: it's a very rare occurrence used only in very specific situations (to date, only about the Marian dogmas mentioned in my answer).

Instead, most of the dogma Roman Catholics believe comes directly from the Magisterial teachings of the Church. The pope can speak about those infallible teachings, but he speaks about them in a fallible manner (i.e. he can misunderstand or misinterpret them, as he's only human).

As for lists of necessary dogmata, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the formal collection of what the Church believes. Peter Turner in his answer to the question about the list of teachings considered infallible mentioned another great resource, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which summarizes nearly every dogmatic teaching.


What biblical basis is there for written records being kept around Jesus's time I'm wondering if there is any historical information or biblical references that describe the ability to write and record information around the time of Jesus and his disciples.  I.e. to what extent were they able to record what happened at that time?

In Luke 4, Jesus read from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah.  Jesus had not received the training of a priest or Pharisee.  He was the son of a carpenter.  So, it seems that this would indicate that literacy was not restricted to the ruling class of the priestly class.

Jesus challenged the Pharisees at one point, saying, "Have you never read...?"

Jesus may also have been writing actual words in the dirt in John 8 and the woman caught in adultery, though this is admittedly speculation.

Paul also indicates that he wrote letters with his own hand.  Of course he had been a Pharisee.

In older times, Moses commanded the people in Deuteronomy 6 to observe the law and to write it on the door frames of your houses.  This seems to assume the ability to write.

The king of Israel was commanded to write for himself a copy of the law and read it all the days of his life.

I could go on, but it seems there is significant evidence to support the idea that literacy was not uncommon among the Jewish people at the time of Christ.


What ethical considerations, if any, should Catholics have about cryptocurrencies? Is there anything intrinsically evil in the "wave of the future" in cryptocurrencies?  My father-in-law was going to set up some accounts for my kids and I was thinking.  Hmm, I should think about this a bit.  I see bitcoin mining to be a bit like gambling, but only in the sense that mining in general is kind of like gambling and I see several categories that a Catholic sense of justice might be troubled in terms of accessibility and accountability.
But what issues, if any, have Catholic moral theologians, ethicists and purveyors of natural law (i.e. popular bloggers) came up with concerning Cryptocurrencies.

What ethical considerations, if any, should Catholic have about cryptocurrencies?
An article published on 19 July 2017 suggested that the Vatican may launch a “blessed” cryptocurrency, taxed in favour of the world’s poor.  One fear is that nefarious traders would continue their schemes, now under the blessing palms of the Pope.  Part of the article said:

It is the “taxation void” of crypto currencies that attracts this initiative. This void is especially attractive given the fact that all crypto transactions are exposed on a general ledger, making transaction taxes so readily enforceable. And what’s more: traders can be taxed without having their identities exposed. The Vatican angle will replace the ugly word of taxation with the uplifting word of charitable contribution.

Some analysts expressed concern that this idea might be preemptively taken up by nimble Muslim clerics, cajoling more than a billion Muslims to trade with a “caliphate cryptocurrency” and pour money to terrorists. It is the very fact that Bitcoin ‘backed-by-nothing’ currency is steadily gaining in value that sends more and more people towards creative imitations, with some hard to foresee consequences.

Source: A Catholic Bitcoin? Vatican may launch a “blessed” cryptocurrency, taxed in favor of world poor
Another article, published 6 June 2018, reprinted from the Institute of Economic Affairs, said this:

The most famous cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, tries to mimic a gold mine. People beaver away using computing algorithms to solve puzzles that earn them a Bitcoin. The supply of Bitcoin is limited and, just like gold, it becomes harder to mine as time goes on. It is because it is limited in supply that its proponents hope it will keep its value and not be subject to inflation.

Unlike gold, however, Bitcoins have no intrinsic value...  Because of this, the value of Bitcoin fluctuates wildly as people speculate on it.  There is a long history of Catholic teaching on speculation – much of it sceptical. Most economists, though, would argue strongly against any prohibition of speculation, because without speculation prices can deviate from their fair value for long periods, causing significant disruption. Nevertheless, if cryptocurrencies were simply vehicles for speculation, we would have to question their social value.

However, the decentralised systems and encrypted record-keeping used by cryptocurrencies have made them attractive to money launderers, drug dealers, and fraudsters. Certainly, the Church should condemn this activity and any involvement with it, but this is no reason to oppose cryptocurrencies themselves.

The article concluded that because different systems have their own ethical and economic challenges, Catholic social teaching should address these rather than condemning new forms of money out of hand.
Source: A Catholic take on cryptocurrencies
Apart from ethical issues surrounding speculation and possible financial crashes, there is also the question of criminal activity, using Cryptocurrencies to launder money.  However, one of the more shocking issues concerns the amount of electricity consumed by such activities and the resulting C02 emissions into our environment.  "Mining" for the cryptocurrency is power-hungry, involving heavy computer calculations to verify transactions.  Here is an extract from a BBC News article:

Bitcoin uses more energy than Argentina.  If Bitcoin was a country, it would be in the top 30 country energy users worldwide.  In order to "mine" Bitcoin, computers - often specialised ones - are connected to the cryptocurrency network.  They have the job of verifying transactions made by people who send or receive Bitcoin.  This process involves solving puzzles, which, while not integral to verifying movements of the currency, provide a hurdle to ensure no-one fraudulently edits the global record of all transactions.  As a reward, miners occasionally receive small amounts of Bitcoin in what is often likened to a lottery.  To increase profits, people often connect large numbers of miners to the network - even entire warehouses full of them.  That uses lots of electricity because the computers are more or less constantly working to complete the puzzles.

Source: Bitcoin consumes 'more electricity than Argentina
Read the article and weep.
P.S. I have no idea if the Vatican has entered into any scheme involving cryptocurrencies, but I believe that the ethical issues surrounding cryptocurrencies should be carefully considered by ALL Christians.
P.P.S. Revelation 13:16-17 came to mind, that "no-one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name".


What roles do faith and works play in the LDS/Mormon understanding of salvation? A primary point in the Reformation was the issue of sola fide--the position that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works.  This was to distinguish the position that works were necessary for salvation.

In LDS/Mormon theology, what is the position on faith and works in salvation?  Is it sola fide or something else?

As consolidated as I can make this: Mormons believe that we are saved from death by the grace of Christ, that faith is demonstrated by good works, and that these combined result in salvation.
Interestingly, I've often heard it accused that the LDS doctrine is that works save. I've come to find this is not true, for while works are required for salvation, no amount of good deeds will actually redeem us from spiritual death.
The actual LDS doctrine is that only by the grace and power which is in Christ can man be saved, after all we can do. Nephi wrote it:

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Jacob, a prophet in the Book of Mormon, makes this clear too:

11 Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh.

Ammon, a missionary in the Book of Mormon, teaches the relationship between faith and works:

18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.

Evidently by our faith we are expected to bring about works, which do not save us, but which are of benefit to our neighbors, and that is a quality of Christ.
Alma also makes this clear:

24 And see that ye have faith, hope, and charity, and then ye will always abound in good works.

And earlier in Chapter 5, Alma is exhorting the people of Zarahemla to follow Christ:

16 I say unto you, can you imagine to yourselves that ye hear the voice of the Lord, saying unto you, in that day: Come unto me ye blessed, for behold, your works have been the works of righteousness upon the face of the earth?
17 Or do ye imagine to yourselves that ye can lie unto the Lord in that day, and say—Lord, our works have been righteous works upon the face of the earth—and that he will save you?
...  41 Therefore, if a man bringeth forth good works he hearkeneth unto the voice of the good shepherd, and he doth follow him; but whosoever bringeth forth evil works, the same becometh a child of the devil, for he hearkeneth unto his voice, and doth follow him.

Our works reflect who we follow.
Hence, Christ saves, not faith. By our faith in Christ comes good works, and although works do not save, our faith in Christ (and all that implies) qualifies us for salvation.
For further reading:

http://www.lds.org/plan/jesus-christ-is-the-way
http://mormon.org/jesus-christ/
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/05/have-you-been-saved


What are the arguments for and against the Anglican Covenant? The Anglican Covenant is a proposal for governing how the member churches of the Anglican Communion should relate to one another. Paul Avis writes (Ecclesiology 7.3, 2011):

  The Anglican Communion is under stress because of
  disagreements about Christian morals and about what kind of
  mutual obligation is involved in membership of the Communion.
  The Windsor Report (2004) tackled the problems raised by the
  consecration of a bishop in a same-gender partnership in The
  Episcopal Church in the USA, the liturgical blessing of same-gender partnerships in a diocese of the Anglican Church of
  Canada, and the cross-jurisdiction interventions by Anglican
  churches from the Global South in response to this situation.

  The single most significant proposal made by The Windsor Report
  (2004) was for a Covenant between the churches of the Anglican
  Communion. It proposed that they would covenant together to
  commit themselves to exercise restraint in contentious areas, to
  consult carefully about potential developments and to strengthen
  processes of mutual accountability. The Covenant has since gone
  through various drafts and the final "Ridley" draft is now being
  considered by the member churches of the Anglican Communion.

What arguments do Anglicans use, for and against adoption of the Covenant?

After discussing this with our rector, I discovered that the key bone of contention is Section 4, the enforcement mechanism (or lack thereof) that holds the Anglican Communion together.

The subtext of disagreement, of course, is the subject of the authority of the Scripture in Anglican life. Probably the most visible manifestation of this debate is the question over same-sex blessings and the elevation of homosexuals to the priesthood, and in 1 1/2 cases, the office of bishop. (One = Gene Robinson in New Hampshire, 1/2 = the process for replacing the Bishop of Los Angeles in which three of the six candidates were publically acknowledging and celebrating their own homosexuality.) Support for this is strongest in the West, particularly in Canada and the United States. In contrast, most of the growth in the 80 million member Anglican Communion is in Africa, where attitudes are quite different.

The question on the table for the Anglican Communion is how such a wide diversity of opinion can co-exist. If a bishop is elevated who, at least in the minds of one wing, is living in open and unrepented sin, the Biblical mandate is fairly clear - that person should be excommunicated.  By contrast, the Anglican Covenant requires the following procedure:

  (4.2.4) Where a shared mind has not been reached the matter shall be referred to the Standing
  Committee. The Standing Committee shall make every effort to facilitate agreement, and may
  take advice from such bodies as it deems appropriate to determine a view on the nature of the
  matter at question and those relational consequences which may result. Where appropriate,
  the Standing Committee shall refer the question to both the Anglican Consultative Council
  and the Primates’ Meeting for advice.

  (4.2.5) The Standing Committee may request a Church to defer a controversial action. If a
  Church declines to defer such action, the Standing Committee may recommend to any
  Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional
  limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the
  process set out below

This is bascially the status quo - The ABC asks everybody not to provoke anybody in either direction. The problem for conservatives is that acquiesence is tacit to complicity.  "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil," would be their response.

The Economist (3/24/12) describes the situation this way:

  In the 80m-strong worldwide Anglican Communion, things are even messier. American liberals hate a covenant which Anglican churches are being asked to sign, pledging to avoid provocative actions like consecrating openly gay bishops. If the future Archbishop of Canterbury insists on the covenant, bits of the communion may reject the arrangement whereby an English prelate chairs the global fraternity, says Frank Kirkpatrick, an American Episcopalian priest. An emerging block of African and American conservatives also questions Canterbury’s historic role. For some hardliners, the covenant does not go far enough in penalising liberals.

  The next Archbishop of Canterbury will also have to answer a more basic question: is the institution he heads part of the establishment, with an accepted role as its moral guide, or is it called on to be a provocateur, speaking its own version of truth to power? Defeat over gay marriage will make it tougher to play the first role, but a church that strives to be idiosyncratically prophetic will be harder to keep together. And the church’s role at home has implications for the communion: can an English church that is steadily disestablishing itself retain any natural place as a pacesetter for much bigger churches abroad?

In short, Canterbury is in a no-win situation, and it is not clear if anyone (let alone the likely nominee John Sentamu) could hold it together.  The covenant appears to be a weak attempt at reconciliation without any teeth.


Tridentine Latin Mass in Hebrew? In 1957, Pope Pius XII gave permission to St. James Vicariate for Hebrew Speaking Catholics in Israel to celebrate the traditional Tridentine Latin Mass of Pope Pius V in some part in Hebrew.

In Catholicism, the Hebrew and Aramaic languages have always been considered sacred languages from time immemorial.

Can anyone point out to me what parts of the Mass were said in Hebrew and what parts of the Mass were said in Latin? Was Hebrew used in the Canon of the Mass?

From the link you gave:

"In February, a report was sent to Cardinal Tisserant. It concluded that the Syrian rite was seen as foreign to many members of the community. The Cardinal referred to the Pope who gave permission to use the Latin rite with some parts of the mass in Hebrew (including the readings)."

So, the Epistle and the Gospel (and the homily) must have been in Hebrew.  But probably not the Canon, otherwise it would not be the Roman Rite. Just a guess.


According to Reformed Theology, why do unbelievers deserve punishment? I read this quote from John Calvin on some website:

  "...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined. John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70

I believe in determinism, and I have no problem with the idea that humans need to be chastised for bad behavior. For example, a child steals a candy bar. The mother catches the child, makes them return the candy and apologize, and then issues whatever corrective chastisement to cause the child to think twice next time they want to steal.

I also have no problem with the fact that God appointed for this to happen, so that the child's will was not free. The child stealing and then getting chastised is a good lesson to both the child and others about the consequences of sin, and this lesson will cause them to behave appropriately (as well as continue the chain of determinism towards God's ultimate goal). Had the child never stolen, then the chastisement would have never occurred, and nobody would have learned any prudence.

What I don't understand is why the child deserves to be punished, namely in an eternal hell with flesh burning (or whatever other ideas are associated with this place.)

According to Reformed Theology, why do humans deserve to be punished forever in hell for their predetermined actions?

The simple answer is that God has decided that the wages of sin is death. It is entirely up to God as to what punishment sin deserves, and the punishment God chose was eternal damnation.

The Heidelberg Catechism's first section on Sin and Misery speaks about this, in particular question and answer 10:

  Q. Does God permit
  such disobedience and rebellion
  to go unpunished?

  A. Certainly not.
  God is terribly angry
  with the sin we are born with
  as well as the sins we personally commit.
  As a just judge,
  God will punish them both now and in eternity,
  having declared:
  “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey
  all the things written in the book of the law.”

The Westminster Larger Catechism also mentions this, in question 29 in particular but previous questions too:

  Q. 29. What are the punishments of sin in the world to come?

  A. The punishments of sin in the world to come, are everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire forever.

And also question 89:

  Q. 89. What shall be done to the wicked at the day of judgment?

  A. At the day of judgment, the wicked shall be set on Christ’s left hand, and, upon clear evidence, and full conviction of their own consciences, shall have the fearful but just sentence of condemnation pronounced against them; and thereupon shall be cast out from the favourable presence of God, and the glorious fellowship with Christ, his saints, and all his holy angels, into hell, to be punished with unspeakable torments, both of body and soul, with the devil and his angels forever.

And also question 152:

  Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?

  A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, and against his righteous law, deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come; and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.


Why did Jesus say the dead girl was "not dead but asleep"? Luke and Matthew tell of when Jesus brought a young girl back to life. Before he did it however, Jesus says to the people that the girl is only sleeping:

Luke 8:52
Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. "Stop wailing," Jesus said. "She is not dead but asleep."
Matthew 9:24
he said, "Go away. The girl is not dead but asleep." But they laughed at him.

Why did he tell the people that she was only asleep when she was clearly not?
A few things come to my mind:

It was a parable
He wanted to hide his power from the people, as he did at other times. The problem here is that that would've been a lie.

So, what reason was there to tell the people that she was sleeping, rather than that she was dead and he raised her from the dead?

The Bible often uses the word sleep to refer to those who are dead, especially those who are going to be resurrected to life. So I think Jesus meant that the girl was not dead forever, without hope.

Yet you sweep people away in the sleep of death— they are like the new grass of the morning (Psalm 90:5)
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2)
After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.” His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead,” (John 11:11-14)
Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. (Acts 13:36)
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:6)
Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:51-52)
Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-14)


Should we love Satan since he is our greatest enemy? Jesus asked us to love our enemy Mat 5:43-44:

  43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

So, should we love Satan?

Our command to love our enemies is intended for our human enemies, whom God also loves.  God's love for us is shown through His sacrifice on the cross, and also in the statement that it is His desire that every man come to repentance.

Satan, on the other hand, cannot come to repentance, and there is no hope for his redemption.

A good answer with scripture references can be found here: Should We Love Satan?

The following is copied directly from the article:

  A young girl asked me this question: "Should we love Satan?" She
  clarified her question by saying Jesus taught us to love our enemies
  (Matthew 5:44-45) and that Satan is our enemy (1 Peter 5:8).

  After careful consideration of the question, I answered something like
  this. All of mankind has hope; the apostle Paul said he had a goal or
  an aim to "... present every man perfect in Christ Jesus" (Colossians
  1:28). We are to seek every man's highest good -- that is to love him
  that he might be saved. On the other hand, Satan's eternity has been
  sealed, there is not anything that man can do or should do to change
  that. We are told that Satan has gone forth with great wrath because
  he knows that he has but a short time (Revelation 12:12). Jesus tells
  us that he has prepared a lake of fire for the devil and his angels
  (Matthew 25:41).

  What should be our attitude towards Satan? We should follow the
  example of Michael the archangel who refused to get involved with
  Satan, even in a discussion. Michael was willing to leave Satan in
  God's hands. He said, "The Lord rebuke thee" (Jude 9). Our attitude
  towards Satan should be to resist him. God said, "Resist the devil,
  and he will flee from you" (James 4:7). We are to be on guard and
  watchful because Satan is our enemy trying to devour us (1 Peter 5:8).

  Satan has many devices; he is tricky. He is trying to lead us to the
  grave separated from God (2 Corinthians 2:11). He is trying to blind
  our minds to the word of God through unbelief (2 Corinthians 4:4).

  We are not instructed in the inspired scripture to love Satan, but to
  overcome him. The only way we can do this is to fill our hearts with
  the word of God (1 John 2:14). Jesus is our example; Satan threw
  everything he had at Jesus -- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the
  eyes, and the pride of life -- and each time Jesus would answer, "It
  is written." He defeated Satan with the word of God, and He did not
  try to convert him (Matthew 4:1-11) because Satan's eternity in the
  lake of fire had already been sealed.

  In the context of Matthew 5, when Jesus said, "Love your enemies," He
  was discussing our relationship with our fellow man and not with
  Satan.

  Roy Dunavin West-Ark Church of Christ, Fort Smith, AR

In addition to the above, your question ignores the context.

The verse is in the midst of a series of "You have heard it said" statements that show that the Old Testament law is the bare minimum of what is required for righteousness, and in this example, the statement that we should love our enemy was "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'"  The essence of the verse is (like the surrounding verses) that the law says to do this, but the true requirement for perfect love and righteousness is to do this more perfect fulfillment of the law of love...

In the context of this verse, "thy neighbor" was clearly meant to denote human relationships.  There is no reason, other than to set up a straw-man argument, to believe that "your enemy" is meant to be viewed in a different context.


According to Catholicism, is it sinful to drink alcohol in order to get drunk? Say you drink and you know if you drink more you might get drunk, or you simply drink to get drunk.  You will become drunk and you know it, and no one is forcing you to drink.

Is that a sin, according to the Roman Catholic Church?

St. Thomas Aquinas explains (Summa Theologica II-II q. 150 a. 1 c.):

  Drunkenness may be understood in two ways.

  it may signify the defect itself of a man resulting from his drinking much wine, the consequence being that he loses the use of
  reason. In this sense drunkenness denotes not a sin, but a penal
  defect resulting from a fault.
  drunkenness may denote the act by which a man incurs this defect. This act may cause drunkenness in two ways.

  through the wine being too strong, without the drinker being cognizant of this: and in this way too, drunkenness may occur without
  sin, especially if it is not through his negligence, and thus we
  believe that Noah was made drunk as related in Gn. 9.
  In another way drunkenness may result from inordinate concupiscence and use of wine: in this way it is accounted a sin, and
  is comprised under gluttony as a species under its genus. For gluttony
  is divided into "surfeiting [Douay:,'rioting'] and drunkenness," which
  are forbidden by the Apostle (Rm. 13:13).

There's also Ga 5:19-21 (taken from this answer):

  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts (φαρμακία), enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.


How should we dress when attending church? What are some verses from the Bible which instructs us on our attire when attending church worship services and activies?

Is "formal" dress good / bad / required / optional / recommended?

We are not commanded to dress a certain way in Scripture, other than that it should be modest.

However, I have a strong personal conviction - one I would not try to force on anyone else - that you should dress up for Church.

When God appeared to Moses as a burning bush, He commanded Moses to "put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground."  To me, this implies that God expects us to respect Him, and approach Him with reverence, as one who is Holy and worthy of our best.  Therefore, I dress up, not to look good to others, but because it's such a small thing for the God who created me and saved me.

That said, I do not look down on anyone who doesn't feel the same.  Not everyone thinks the same way, and it's not for me to try to force them.  Christianity isn't about a bunch of rules and regulations, it's about our hearts, and our relationship with God.


Are there any denominations that baptize ONLY in the Name of Jesus? From this question, are there any Christian denominations that baptise ONLY in the Name of Jesus and not by the Trinitarian baptismal formula?

Would such a baptism be considered valid by those who use the Trinitarian baptismal formula? And if not valid, would Trinitarians consider those with such a baptism Christian?

Oneness believers believe that for water baptism to be valid, one must be baptized in the name of Jesus, rather than the mainstream baptismal formula in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. They believe this follows the example found in Acts 2:38;

  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
  the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
  receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

"Jesus-Name" is a description used to refer to Oneness Pentecostals and their baptismal beliefs. The Oneness revival movement was sparked by a sermon given by R. E. McAlister in 1913 in which he stated,

  "Apostolic baptism was administered as a single immersion in a single
  name, Jesus Christ...The words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were never
  used in Christian baptism."

Churches that accept the oneness belief include: United Pentecostal Church International, Affirming Pentecostal Church International, Apostolic Assemblies of Christ, Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus, Apostolic Gospel Church of Jesus Christ, Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God, and Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Those who hold to the Trinitarian formula most certainly would not consider such a baptism to be valid because Trinitarians recognize Oneness believers as Modalists, and modalism was named a heresy in the third century. Considering that up until the year 1826 the Catholic Church used to execute heretics, I would assume that they would not consider those individuals Christian today unless they were re-baptized using the traditional formula.