Does Hades (The bosom of Abraham) still exist after Christ's resurrection I've been listening to this pastor from AoC Network that has been talking about Hades as there is/was a place of torment and a place of peace, before Christ's resurrection. This is where people who God deemed as men of God or Godly men and women went before the resurrection of Jesus on the Cross. He says he believes (because the bible is not clear on this subject) that people who have died now days who have not had the opportunity to know enough about Jesus or know who he is, can make a decision to invite Jesus into their heart to be their savior, this is where they go.

This sounds like the Catholic belief in Purgatory.

I know the Bible isn't clear on the matter of "The Bosom of Abraham" in today's world, but I've been taught that "The Bosom of Abraham" was closed off when Jesus came back for his disciples after his death and brought them to heaven with Him.  Now, this pastor from AoC says he believes that the Hades that was called "The Bosom of Abraham" (which this pastor describes as a place of peace) still exists (but of course is not called "The Bosom of Abraham" because Abraham is up in heaven,) for those who have not heard of Jesus or had the opportunity to accept his free Gift of Salvation, i.e Babies who are unborn and those who die as infant babies who cannot know Jesus yet, because they cannot understand yet.

My question is: "Does the side of Hades that was once "The Bosom of Abraham" still exist? Is this what the Catholic's call Purgatory, and where is this found in the Bible?"

I will answer the question from the viewpoint of Roman Catholic doctrine.

Before Christ's death, the state or "place" of the souls of all dead people (Hebrew sheol, Greek hades and Latin inferus [1]) was divided into several "compartments".

Gehenna or hell (latin infernus [1]), inhabited by the souls of the damned, where they are tormented by fire (Mt 5:22,29,30; Lk 16:23-24). It is de fide doctrine that this is an everlasting state for each soul in it, and consequently that, as a potential state for souls or "place", it existed before the death of Christ,  exists after it, and will exist forever [2].
The "Bosom of Abraham", "Limbo of the Patriarchs" or "Limbo of the Fathers" (Latin limbus patrum), inhabited by the souls of the purified righteous before Christ's death, where they did not suffer any torment, did not see God, but were comforted by the expectation that at some future time they would be redeemed and taken to the vision of God (Lk 16:22). It is de fide doctrine that this was a temporary state for each soul in it, which ended after Christ's death, and that, as a potential state for souls or "place", it existed only before the death of Christ [3].
The Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum), inhabited by the souls of those who die in original sin only, where they do not suffer any torment, do not see God, and do not have any expectation of being redeemed and taken to the vision of God at some future time. It is de fide doctrine that this is an everlasting state for each soul in it, and consequently that, as a potential state for souls or "place", it existed before the death of Christ, exists after it, and will exist forever [2]. (But it is not de fide doctrine that there are actually any souls in it, because it is not de fide doctrine that any person actually dies in original sin only.)
Purgatory, inhabited by the souls of the righteous who still need purification, where they suffer a pufifying pain which is essentially different from the torment of gehenna. It is de fide doctrine that this is a temporary state for each soul in it, which ends when it is completely purified (after which the soul went to the "Bosom of Abraham" before the death of Christ and goes to the Beatific Vision after it), and that, as a potential state for souls or "place", it existed before the death of Christ, exists after it, and will cease to exist at the time of Christ's Second Coming and the resurrection of the dead.

Notes

[1] There are two different Latin terms, which must not be confused:

Inferus,  meaning just "low" (comparative: "īnferior"), refers to the global state or "place" of the souls of all dead people, encompassing all of the above "compartments". This is the term used in the Apostle's Creed or Symbol of the Apostles when it states that, after his death, Jesus "descendit ad inferos" (plural accusative of inferus) [1.a].
Infernus, a derivative word, refers to gehenna or hell [1.b].

[1.a] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inferus

[1.b] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infernus

[2] After the general resurrection of the dead, the whole human person, soul and body, will be forever in that state.

[3] Pope Benedict XII in his 1336 Apostolic Constitution "Benedictus Deus" [3.a] [3.b] defined that the souls of all the righteous who were completely purified at the time of Christ's death were taken to the Beatific Vision at that time, and that after that time, the souls of all the rigtheous, once they are completely purified, go directly to the Beatific Vision. From that, it follows that, after the death of Christ, the "Bosom of Abraham" no longer exists as a potential state for souls or "place".

[3.a] http://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben12/b12bdeus.htm

[3.b] http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/B12BDEUS.HTM


Why is Eben Ezer used as a shop's name in Chile? I'm Chilean and I want to know the meaning and origin of the name Eben Ezer because in my country is a custom to put that name to trade places, specially small grocery stores. I have consulted many times owners, but usually they tells me that it "is a biblical name". It's also a way of knowing that shop owners are Protestants (my country is mostly Catholic).

n 1 Samuel 7, the prophet Samuel and the Israelites found themselves under attack by the Philistines. Fearing for their lives, the Israelites begged Samuel to pray for them in their impending battle against the Philistines. Samuel offered a sacrifice to God and prayed for His protection. God listened to Samuel, causing the Philistines to lose the battle and retreat back to their own territory. After the Israelite victory, the Bible records: “Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen, and called its name Ebenezer, saying, ‘Thus far the Lord has helped us’ ” (1 Samuel 7:12).

The word Ebenezer comes from the Hebrew words ’Eben hà-ezer (eh’-ben haw-e’-zer), which simply mean “stone of help” (see Enhanced…, 1995). When Robinson wrote his lyrics, he followed the word Ebenezer with the phrase, “Here by Thy great help I’ve come.” An Ebenezer, then, is simply a monumental stone set up to signify the great help that God granted the one raising the stone. In Robinson’s poem, it figuratively meant that the writer—and all who subsequently sing the song—acknowledge God’s bountiful blessings and help in their lives.

Found on Apologetics Press


What is Alvin Plantinga's view on divine sovereignty and free will? The main Wikipedia page on Molinism lists Plantinga as one of its (Molinism's) best known advocates.  However, Plantinga, in a speech given at Azusa Pacific University, describes himself as "a Calvinist, of a certain kind" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UDnOcS20HM 30:55).

Does anyone familiar with Plantinga's work know exactly what his view is, whether it is a hybrid, or has changed from Calvinism to Molinism (or vice-versa) over time?  I am interested in whether he is mainly in agreement with William Lane Craig on this matter, or actually has a more Calvinistic worldview, and if the latter, if and how he has defended this view against objections similar to Craig's (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism).  Of course, I would not expect him to have engaged Craig himself, but certainly these arguments against Calvinism have been around for some time.  It goes without saying that such a defense could have relevance in the life of a Christian contemplating the truth of these views.

Plantinga is definitely a Calvinist, though most Calvinists would call him an inconsistent one. Reformed teaching plays a very significant, if at-times tangential, role in much of his work. (For example his work on epistemology is known as Reformed Epistemology)

He's known for Molinism because of his books God, Freedom & Evil and The Nature of Necessity (among other works). Crucially his free will defense relies on a libertarian conception of freedom.

To answer your question though, I'm not sure what his precise views are. This probably lies at the heart of the difference between philosophy and theology, but philosophers are often quite difficult to pin down in terms of their own personal beliefs. Their focus is on the arguments, and they will often take up a position they don't necessarily agree with because it serves them. For example from God, Freedom & Evil:

  Quite distinct from a Free Will Theodicy is what I shall call a Free Will Defense. Here the aim is not to say what God's reason is, but at most what God's reason might possibly be. We could put the difference like this. [...] He (The Free Will Theodist) tries to tell us what God's reason for permitting evil really is. The Free Will Defender, on the other hand, [...], does not claim to know or even believe that T is true.

Though given the scope of his writing on the subject it's probably fair to say that he advocates it.

In terms of how the two systems might be put together (Calvinism and Molinism), Craig seems generally optimistic that the two systems aren't all that far apart. You can find in some of his writings a variant of Molinism with a stronger view of election (Congruism) that he thinks might help cross the divide.

On the other side many (perhaps most) Calvinists are deeply suspicious of Molinism (consider this paper). For example the Westminster Confession of Faith (3.2) explicitly contradicts Molinism:

  Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

And that probably explains Plantinga's cautious wording: he may not see much tension between the two systems, but many others do.


What is the significance of the Eucharist's sacramental species? When we receive the Holy Eucharist we consume Jesus's glorified body. Now many say it is purely spiritual food.

  The sacrament of the Holy Eucharist was instituted as a food, a
  spiritual food(source).

Also

  Since the Holy Eucharist is a spiritual food, it does for the soul
  what physical food does for the body. When we eat physical food, it
  becomes united to us—it is changed into our own substance and becomes
  a part of us.

  In Holy Communion, something analogous happens to us spiritually, but
  with a great difference: in this case, it is the individual who is
  united to the Food, not the Food to the individual. The lesser is
  united to the Greater. We become one with Christ.

Now my question is: if the Eucharist is a spiritual food why does it need to be presented in a physical form? As a host? Did Jesus embed a physical union with his body too?  Does the physical form have any effects on our physical body too? What does the Catholic Church have to say about this?

He could simply say for example: Pray: Our Father as your spiritual food...or read the bible as your spiritual food but since he established the Eucharist in a physical form there must be some meaning behind it too.

Note: I found some answers here but I wondered if someone found something more in regards to this statement How is a glorified body related to molecules, to that which constitutes non-glorified material objects? The answer is a mystery.

Your questions are addressed in the excellent chapter on the Eucharist of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. For example, it says that as the faithful

  deem it necessary to afford daily nutriment to the body, they should also feel solicitous to feed and nourish the soul every day with this heavenly food. It is clear that the soul stands not less in need of spiritual, than the body of corporal food. Here it will be found most useful to recall the inestimable and divine advantages which, as we have already shown, flow from sacramental Communion. It will be well also to refer to the manna, which was a figure (of this Sacrament), and which refreshed the bodily powers every day.

Humans are comprised of body and soul. Jesus knew this when he quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4:

  …not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

He does not say we live solely off the "word that proceedeth from the mouth of God" (like the angels), nor in "in bread alone" (like the brute animals), but in both.

St. Thomas Aquinas, addressing the question of "Whether the sacramental species [i.e., what appears as bread and wine in a consecrated Host] can nourish?" (Summa Theologica III q. 77 a. 6), writes:

  …food nourishes by being converted into the substance of the individual nourished. Now it has been stated (a. 5) that the sacramental species can be converted into a substance generated from them. And they can be converted into the human body for the same reason as they can into ashes or worms. Consequently, it is evident that they nourish.

  But the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz. that the species do not nourish as though they were changed into the human body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses (as a man is heartened by the odor of meat, and intoxicated by the fumes of wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a man, whose body needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man could be supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine in great quantity.

  In like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who hold that the sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining substantial form of the bread and wine: both because the form does not remain, as stated above (q. 75 a. 6): and because to nourish is the act not of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form of the one nourished, while the form of the nourishment passes away…

The sacramental species nourish the communicant's body not as bread or wine, because there is no bread or wine in a consecrated Host and consecrated Precious Blood. After consecration, the substances of the bread and wine are replaced with that of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ Himself (transubstantiation).

"Christ's body is not changed into man's body, but nourishes his soul." (ibid. ad 1).

He said: "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed." (John 6:56).

Also, several saints and blesseds have been known to subsist solely off the Eucharist (cf. ch. 36, "Eucharistic Fasts," of Eucharistic Miracles: And Eucharistic Phenomena in the Lives of the Saints).


Under what basis does the Catholic Church condemn the use of drugs while permitting alcohol? The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense.

CCC 2291

  Let me state this in the clearest terms possible: the problem of drug use is not solved with drugs! Drug addiction is an evil, and with evil there can be no yielding or compromise. To think that harm can be reduced by permitting drug addicts to use narcotics in no way resolves the problem. Attempts, however limited, to legalize so-called “recreational drugs”, are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects. Substitute drugs are not an adequate therapy but rather a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon. Here I would reaffirm what I have stated on another occasion: No to every type of drug use. It is as simple as that. No to any kind of drug use.

Pope Francis

As we can see, the Catholic Church seems to firmly oppose the use drugs. But at the same time, the Catholic Church seems to permit moderate use of alcohol.

This position spawns much controversy among both alcohol prohibitionists and drug legalization supporters because of the claims that from the medical point of view there are no traits that would distinguish ethanol from other drugs like heroine, LSD, opium, marijuana, etc. Indeed, according to these claims, ethanol is even more harmful and dangerous than some of the others drugs condemned by the Church like marijuana. Therefore, as per this line of argument, Vatican should either prohibit the use of alcohol as sinful (which is hardly possible for liturgical reasons and would require re-interpreting some biblical passages like the one about the Wedding in Cana) or cease implying that the use of other drugs is inherently evil.

I find it hard to believe that this critique hasn't reached Vatican yet. Are there any documents or statements that would explain the Church's teaching on this subject?

I will attempt to answer this question from a natural-law perspective (to complement Geremia’s excellent Scriptural analysis).

The Church’s current teaching on drugs

As the O.P. points out, the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] states the following in number 2291 (which I repeat for the reader’s convenience):

  The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense.

Drug dosage and potency

So, what is the problem with the non-therapeutic use of drugs? The fact that they cause “very grave damage on human health and life.” Said in other terms, drugs (when used for recreation) are essentially poisons that happen to have pleasurable side-effects, which can provoke psychological or (in some cases) physical addictions.

In medicine, there is a maxim that states “the dose makes the poison.” The principle is simple: any chemical substance—even water, sugar, or oxygen—is toxic when taken in an excessive quantity. (For instance, water poisoning requires a lot of water, but it is possible.)

The problem with the most problematic drugs—cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and so forth—is that it takes a very small amount to produce a catastrophic effect. It is easy to overdose, and even with a “normal” dose, the person becomes fully intoxicated: that is, he loses control of his actions. Moreover, these drugs are susceptible to various kinds of addiction (physical and psychological), as well as severe long-term health effects. Because these drugs are so potent, there is generally no way to produce a mild dose, except in a controlled medical environment. For this reason, such substances should only be used for therapeutic, never recreational, purposes. (And as far as I know, of these, only the narcotics—morphine and its relatives, including heroin or “diamorphine”—are currently medically useful. It is also sill possible to use cocaine as a topical anaesthetic and vasoconstrictor, which is very different, obviously, from its internal use.)

Other drugs are less potent and therefore somewhat subject to debate; for example, marijuana (cannabis). (The Church does not have an official teaching on particular drugs, and so it is up to moral theologians to discuss these issues, in the light of the findings of medical science; this debate is ongoing as we speak. It seems to me that it is an exceptionally bad idea to smoke marijuana, either recreationally or as a therapy, since it is certainly a good deal more potent than either tobacco or alcohol. Using the active ingredient, THC, as a medicine for pain relief or other purposes, could be legitimate, much as morphine is.) In any event, it is clearly immoral to use marijuana to the point of intoxication. (See below.)

On the other hand, alcohol poses no particular health risks when it is used in moderation.* Evidently, its abuse leads to intoxication in the short term, and even if it does not, excessive drinking leads to long-term health problems.

The reason that alcohol is so much less problematic is that it that it is much easier to “dose” than other substances: keep your drinking to one or two per day, and you will never have a problem.

The fundamental pitfall to avoid: intoxication

The problem common to all substance abuse is intoxication, the condition in which the person loses control over his actions; drunkenness is one example. However, practically all of the drugs mentioned in this answer produce an intoxicating effect, which may vary in its particular manifestations (e.g., some drugs are stimulants, whereas others are depressants), but all of them are capable of acutely and severely impairing judgment and self-control.

This condition places both the intoxicated person and others in grave danger of life and health. A drunk person can easily do or say things that he would never do if he were sober—even to the point of violence. The particular kind of intoxication produced by a given drug may vary, but the very fact of losing self-control poses a grave danger to self and others.

For that reason, deliberately becoming intoxicated, by any means, is always gravely and intrinsically immoral.

The so-called “hard” drugs have the property that, practically speaking, even the minimum dose produces intoxication. Therefore, these are never to be taken recreationally or outside of a controlled medical environment. (E.g., properly packaged oxycodone will be correctly dosed if used according to the doctor’s instructions; heroin bought on the street will not.)

The so-called “soft” drugs are somewhat less potent, and hence the strict immorality of taking them is open to debate. (I tend to think they are more potent than people appreciate, hence I still think it is an exceptionally bad idea to take them, even once.)

On the other hand, alcohol is clearly safe to take in moderation, since it does not even produce intoxication when taken in small amounts. In fact, the proper enjoyment of alcoholic beverages does not entail intoxication at all.

(One difference, for instance, between marijuana and alcohol, is that plenty of people take alcohol for the taste; no one takes marijuana for the taste, but principally for its systemic effects.)

Short-term and long-term effects

The secondary consideration is the short-term and long-term health effects.

Some drugs (e.g., cocaine) have the potential to cause catastrophic health effects even with one use; and others (e.g., heroin) cause extremely debilitating physical addiction. Even apart from the intoxication, that would be reason alone for making it immoral to take these drugs recreationally.

They also cause terrible long-term effects.

With other drugs (e.g. marijuana), these health effects are debatable. Nevertheless, the problem of intoxication remains.

However, with alcohol, its prudent and moderate use poses practically no health risks, as mentioned. (Naturally, its excessive use poses plenty of risks.)

Summary

The problem with drugs (especially “hard” drugs, but to some extent all recreational drugs) is fundamentally that their principal effect is intoxication, which, when deliberately provoked, is gravely and intrinsically immoral.

With some drugs, there is the added danger of severe and lasting dangers to health and life (apart from the intoxication itself).

Some drugs (e.g., the “hard” drugs), are so potent that it is practically impossible to take them and avoid intoxication. Others (e.g., the “soft” drugs) are less potent, but still easily produce intoxication.

For alcohol, on the other hand, its principal purpose (when used properly) is not intoxication. Its systemic effects (when used in moderation) are very mild—in fact, are hardly perceptible—and pose no particular health problems, nor—crucially—do they produce a loss of self-control. Therefore, whereas drinking in order to get drunk is clearly immoral (especially when followed by a dangerous activity, such as driving), drinking in moderation is not morally problematic at all.

The Catechism sums this teaching up follows:

  The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air (no. 2290).

* Health agencies other than the CDC, such as Chief Medical Officer of the United Kingdom, have made the claim that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. However, if one consumes alcohol at the rate recommended by the CDC (a maximum of two drinks per day for men, and one drink per day for women) or less, then the long-term health risks are vanishingly small. In any case, a small health risk does not make an action immoral; skiing, for example, poses a risk of significant injury or even death, and yet that risk is still relatively small. Only a grave risk to health makes an action immoral.


Does the Catholic Church oppose universalism? I've been reading George MacDonald as of late and have heard in a few places that he argues for universalism. I though that had something to do with unitarianism, but in looking it up a tad more, I guess it means the idea that everyone will be saved.

Is this theology considered a heresy to the Catholic Church? If so, when where and why was it condemned?

According to this article (and I'm not expert enough to verify the reliability) the answer seems to be "not any more."

  A Summary and Some Resources

  The doctrine of universal salvation (also known as Apokatastasis or
  Apocatastasis) has usually been considered through the centuries to be
  heterodox but has become orthodox. It was maintained by the Second
  Vatican Council and by Pope John Paul II and it is promoted in the new
  Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the post-Vatican II liturgy.

It was supported by Pope John Paul II  the following are three quotes from him.

  Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which
  human beings are effectively involved in it. (General Audience of July
  28, 1999)
  Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever ‘clad in a robe dipped in blood’ (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of
  universal salvation. (Message of John Paul II to the Abbess General of
  the Order of the Most Holy Saviour of St Bridget)
  If the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is to convince the world precisely of this ‘judgment,’ undoubtedly he does so to continue
  Christ’s work aimed at universal salvation. We can therefore conclude
  that in bearing witness to Christ, the Paraclete is an assiduous
  (though invisible) advocate and defender of the work of salvation, and
  of all those engaged in this work. He is also the guarantor of the
  definitive triumph over sin and over the world subjected to sin, in
  order to free it from sin and introduce it into the way of salvation.
  (General Audience of May 24, 1989)

As for the statement that the author claims that the teaching is found in the catachism, here's the rationale:

  The new, post-Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church also gives
  us to hope that all will be saved.

  1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save himself,
  it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4),
  and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26).
  1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one
  of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’
  and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good
  works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays
  for ‘all men to be saved.’

Although in reading those myself, I don't know that they teach that universalism is true but rather that they have hope that it is.  But, clearly, if the have hope that it's true, it's not opposition to the teaching.  And much searching has failed to turn up recent statement denouncing universalism.


Is there any biblical doctrine on how to avoid paranoia as a Christian under an Protestant framework? It seems clear to most who have read the Bible that it portrays Christians as a minority among a wicked world empire that desires nothing less than the extinction of Christ in his church. Jesus said narrow is the road that leads to life and ‘few’ find it. (Math 7:13) Jesus warned his disciples about the world hating them (John 15:18).  Also, even within the church Christians are said to be persecuted by the legalists who are absorbed with the outward form of religion (Gal 4:28) while denying its internal power. (2 Tim 3:5)

Considering this extreme level of conflict that the poor believer finds himself facing (at least according to the biblical proposal) how can he/she avoid spinning 'conspiracy theories' and falling into ‘they are out to get me’ mentality? Is there any doctrine about sanctification within an Protestant framework that would enable a Christian to eliminate paranoia in a hostile world?

Five mainstream protestant theories of sanctification are conveniently found here (Wesleyan, Reformed, Pentecostal, Keswick, Augustinian-Dispensational).  Please state the view that the post, is more or less, ascribing to and show how this view of sanctification would be applied to enable a Christian to manage paranoia in terms of a specific crisis and long term control.

What can keep him calm? The ninth blessing:

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

You should be happy when you are persecuted for Christ's sake, not afraid. If you have faith in Christ, then you know that persecution is blessing and that God is more powerful than your persecutor. You don't feel a need to revenge or fear. So you are not in a danger of paranoia.


According to Catholicism, can an imprimatur be revoked? According to Catholicism, can an imprimatur be revoked?

If so under what conditions are necessary to merit such a decision, if any.

According to Catholicism, can an imprimatur by revoked?

The short answer is yes.

Historically, it has happened on several occasions. The reasons also vary.

It usually happens when Rome has received several complaints about a certain printed works (on paper or in modern times digital works).

First of all, what is an imprimatur?

  Imprimatur

  Definition

  The Latin term for "let it be printed," which signifies the approval by a bishop of a religious work for publication. Authors are at liberty to obtain the imprimatur either from the bishop where they reside, or where the book is to be published, or where it is printed. Generally the imprimatur, along with the bishop's name and date of approval, is to be shown in the publication. According to a decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1975), "the Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be vigilant lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings; and consequently even to demand that the publication of writings concerning the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church's approval, and also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals." (Etym. Latin imprimere, to impress, stamp imprint.)

An imprimatur is not a nihil obstat.

  Nihil Obstat

  Definition

  Approved by the diocesan censor to publish a manuscript dealing with faith or morals. The date of the approval and the name of the person approving (censor deputatus, delegated censor) are normally printed in the front of the book along with a bishop's imprimatur.

In 1996, the Holy See order the revoke of an imprimatur from the Psalms translated by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. Rome takes things serious at times. Translations must meet with Rome’s standards.

  On August 6, Bishop Anthony M. Pilla of Cleveland, the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a decree withdrawing the US bishops’ imprimatur from the Psalms translated by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy.

  Bishop Pilla was acting on instructions conveyed in April 1996 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The imprimatur is an official recognition that a work is suitable for publication.

  In his letter to bishops accompanying the decree, Bishop Pilla stressed that "the revocation of the imprimatur should in no way be perceived as a revocation of the judgment of the censors’ opinions concerning the fidelity or accuracy of the text", nor as a reflection on "the judgment of our bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for the Review of Scripture Translations that recommended the granting of the imprimatur.” [Bishop Pilla’s letter and decree were published in Origins, Sept. 3 , Vol. 28:12, pp. 215.]

  Bishop Pilla said the decision to remove the imprimatur was due to "changing circumstances” according to which "the conference’s decision to grant the imprimatur is no longer considered appropriate or opportune.” He did not explain the two-year delay in acting on the Vatican’s instruction.

  The ICEL Psalter was published in 1995 by Liturgy Training Publications of the Archdiocese of Chicago, with the imprimatur of Baltimore Cardinal William Keeler, president of the NCCB.

  The imprimatur was granted after the text was approved by the bishops’ Committee for the Review of Scripture Translations. Members were Bishop Richard Sklba auxiliary of Milwaukee, chairman; Bishop Emil Wcela auxiliary of Rockville Centre; and Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie. (Bishop Trautman was then chairman of the Liturgy Committee.) - Holy See’s 1996 Order to Revoke Imprimatur Revealed in August

Wikipedia states that in 1980 three imprimaturs were revoked.

  If further examination shows that a work is not free of doctrinal or moral error, the imprimatur granted for its publication can be withdrawn. This happened three times in the 1980s, when the Holy See judged that complaints made to it about religion textbooks for schools were well founded and ordered the bishop to revoke his approval. Imprimatur (Wikipedia)

The following may be of some interest also:

Instruments of Social Communication and Books in Particular (Canon Law  822 - 832)
Vatican orders bishop to remove imprimatur.
The Catholic Church in World Politics
Eric O. Hanson · 2014 · Political Science
... Philip S. Keane's Sexual Morality without its imprimatur after Archbishop Hunthausen had been ordered to rescind it.


Why is it a custom in Baptist Churches to vote on new congregation members? My friend recently became a member of the local Baptist church. When she and her mother wanted to join, they went to the preacher and he told them there would be a vote among the congregation members to determine whether they would be accepted into the church. She and her mother had to stand before all the members, and with a show of hands, the congregation agreed to their joining the church.

It struck me as odd because it never occurred to me that there was an acceptance process for the Baptist church. Is this true of all Baptist churches? And what is the scriptural basis for this process?

I'll start out with the last part of your question.  There is no explicit Biblical basis for this.  Voting on membership into the Church is an outcome of several Baptist distinctives, the primary being the autonomy of the local congregation.

From the Baptist Distinctives site's article on Church Governance

  Polity is how an organization, such as a church, functions—the
  policies that guide matters such as governance, decision making,
  structure and leadership. Baptists differ from most Christian
  denominations in matters of polity. The difference especially is
  evident in how congregations of Christians are governed.

  One major difference between Baptists and many other denominations is
  that no person or group outside of a Baptist congregation is to have
  any authority over the church in regard to beliefs and religious
  practices. Furthermore, all of the members within the church
  fellowship are to have equal voice in the governance of the church.

  Baptist church governance often is termed “democratic.” In a sense it
  is. In a democracy, all of the people have equal voices in decision
  making. No individual or group of persons is in control. Such is to be
  the case in a Baptist church. One way that democratic governance is
  practiced is that each member of the church has the right to vote on
  matters at church business meetings.

  To many non-Baptists, and even to some Baptists, this seems to be a
  strange way for a church to function. Putting the governance of a
  church in the hands of persons who have no special training, education
  or calling appears to be foolish. Why would Baptists dare to function
  in this fashion?

The article goes on to list several reasons for governing a Church this way.

To clarify, when the Church is voting on membership, they are not voting on whether a person is saved, or even whether they believe a person is saved. We're  merely voting on whether to allow the person in question to become a voting member of the Church.

From the article on Regenerate Church membership

  What Are Other Factors Related to Membership in a Baptist Church?
  Churches differ on whether persons should be baptized and admitted
  into membership immediately upon their profession of faith or whether
  there should be a delay. Some baptize persons very soon after they
  have made a profession of faith. Others require persons, especially
  children, to go through a process of counseling before being baptized.

  Some churches require all persons seeking membership to be counseled
  concerning their experience of salvation and commitment to church
  membership. Some also expect persons to attend a class for new
  members. Many do neither.

  Baptist congregations vote on a person’s request for membership. The
  congregation is not voting on whether the person is saved or not. That
  is a matter between the individual and God. Rather, the church members
  are participating in Baptist congregational governance under the
  lordship of Christ.

Other relevant disctinctives that bear on voting on membership include Jesus as the only Lord (not a Pope or any governing authority), the Priesthood of all believers,
the belief that all Church members should be regenerate (born again) Christians.


Have any Protestant leaders in Korea expressly supported the destruction of Buddhist statues? In its discussion of inter-religion relations in South Korea, Wikipedia states:

  Buddhist statues have been considered as idols, attacked and decapitated. [...] Such acts, which are supported by some Protestant leaders, have led to South Koreans having an increasingly negative outlook on Protestantism.

The text in bold is not currently cited.  What is the basis for it? Have any Protestant leaders in Korea explicitly expressed support for the criminal destruction of Buddhist statues?

I'm not interested in statements like "You should convert from Buddhism and destroy your idols."  Rather, I want to know if any Protestant leaders have encouraged Christians take it upon themselves to destroy Buddhist statues found in public places or that belong to other people.

Protestant leader is admittedly a wishy-washy term, and I don't know what the Wikipedia editor had in mind when the text was added to the article.  No criteria will be perfect, but I'd prefer someone who is known for something in addition to making these statements.  A pastor, leader of a denomination, etc., who is significant enough to have been quoted in periodicals (Christian or secular) on other topics as well, perhaps.

It is hard to believe that more than a small minority of Korean Christian clergy would provide any support or encouragement for acts of vandalism against the sacred objects of another religion. Moreover, we are unlikely to find written instructions from Protestant clergy to deface Buddhist temples or statues. What we can find is evidence that a few Protestant clergy have incited trouble-makers to perform acts of vandalism. No doubt the vast majority of clergy know their Ten Commandments too well to encourage Christians to perform these acts, but I have compiled some evidence that the Wikipedia claims are probably well-founded.

Barbara O'Brien, an American follower of Buddhism, says ('Christian-Buddhist Tension in South Korea') temple burnings began during the 1980s. In the next few years, through the remaining 1980s and 1990s, several other arsonists destroyed or substantially damaged approximately 20 more Buddhist temple buildings. Vandals often painted red crosses on art and smashed or decapitated Buddha statues.In a few cases Christians, including clergy, were caught in the act but not charged.

Another Wikipedia article about Buddhism in Korea says fundamentalist Protestant antagonism against Buddhism has increased in recent years. Acts of vandalism against Buddhist amenities and "regular praying for the destruction of all Buddhist temples" have all drawn attention to this persistent hostility against Buddhism from Korean Protestants. A Youtube link shows Christians leading a well-organised rally to pray for the destruction of Buddhist temples: not an instruction to vandalism, but some could have taken this as a permission.

The Asia Times (1 Feb 2008) reported that former  South Korean President Lee, a Protestant, sent a video prayer message to a Christian rally held in the southern city of Busan in which the worship leader prayed feverishly: 'Lord, let the Buddhist temples in this country crumble down!'" He may not have specifically called for statues to be decapitated, but this would certainly have encouraged acts of vandalism by naive South Korean Christians.

Harold Olsen ('Protestant Priest Urinates on and Defaces Buddhist Shrine') reports that a Protestant minister was caught on a security camera, entering the inner courtyard of a temple in Daegu, where he defaced and urinated on the altar and wall paintings.

So what we do have is evidence that some Protestant leaders are willing to incite their followers, reckless as to the consequences, and some unidentified clergy defacing or burning down temples. At least one member of the Protestant clergy committed minor acts of vandalism.


Where does this definition of humility come from, if not the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I have found a couple claims like this online:

  The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes humility in this way: "The virtue by which a Christian acknowledges that God is the author of all good. Humility avoids inordinate ambition or pride, and provides the foundation for turning to God in prayer (No. 2559)

But, in the Catechism #2559, there is no such definition of humility, although it does mention the word. What, then, am I missing?

Clarification:

I am not asking how to define humility, or even how the Catechism defines humility. I am asking, What is the origin of this quote: "The virtue by which a Christian acknowledges that God is the author of all good"? Everyone seems to attribute it to the Catechism, but I cannot find it there.

It comes from the Glossary, a derived work of the Catechism, which states:

  HUMILITY: The virtue by which a Christian acknowledges that God is the author of all good. Humility avoids inordinate ambition or pride, and provides the foundation for turning to God in prayer (2559). Voluntary humility can be described as "poverty of spirit" (2546).

You can see a copy of the Glossary online here.. Read the top for details about how it was generated and it’s status.


What's the significance of this image for Jehovah's Witnesses? I was browsing through the friends of one of my Facebook friends. One of them is, I am guessing, a Jehovah's Witness because some of their posts have Jehovah's Witness-related entries such as photos of Kingdom Halls. One of the images I saw under his account was the following:

There was no explanation with this image, so I thought I would ask about it here.

Updated question:

If this is from Nebuchadnezzar's dream (as commented by user bradimus) then what is the JW interpretation of the dream or at least of this image in the dream?

This is a depiction of the "immense image" recorded at Daniel 2:31-35.

The last publication released which discussed the immense image was the June 2012 Watchtower as discussed in Nathaniel's answer. Before that, there was the book, "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy".

For Jehovah's Witnesses, the immense image is a symbol of how God's Kingdom will soon bring an end to the world powers that have prevailed throughout history alongside God's people. In particular, they believe that the feet of iron and clay symbolize the Anglo-American World Power (Britain and the United States). There will be no more world powers after this.

The prophecy about the immense image is also closely linked to several other prophesies in the Bible. On pages 12 & 13, the Watchtower mentioned above includes a diagram of how these prophesies are related.

The article also includes a picture of the immense image being struck at its feet.


The LDS perspective on the Four Horsmen As a continuation of this question, this question and this question:

Few Biblical symbols, allegories, or metaphors have fired the imagination more than the alleged Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse described all too briefly in Revelation 6:1-8.

Does the LDS Church have an official interpretation of these verses? And if so, how are the Horsemen interpreted by it?

From the Doctrine and Covenants, section 77, which lays out revealed interpretations of some of the symbolism in the Book of Revelation:

  6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

  A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

  7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?

  A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Therefore, the four horsemen represent the past, from the perspective of John and his contemporaries: the workings of the world throughout the 4000 years from Adam until Christ.  Among other things, this interpretation explains why the events of the first four seals (and the fifth, to a lesser extent) are glossed over so quickly in John's writing: they're history, they're stuff that's already happened, much of which his audience is already familiar with, so he just provides a quick recap before getting on to the real focus of things which are to come and going into greater detail there.

The Church's New Testament Student Manual, in its chapter on Revelation 4-11, goes into further depth about a third of the way down, speaking of possible interpretations and correlations with scripture and history.


What is depicted on this piece of artwork? Another piece in the belongings of my late grandmother may she rest in peace.

This particular piece is a very beautiful piece in my opinion. This is a part of 7 pieces in total.

I am really intrigued by the artwork itself.

Is it possible for someone to identify this scene?

The picture depicts the Coronation of the Virgin or Coronation of Mary.

  The Coronation of the Virgin or Coronation of Mary is a subject in Christian art, especially popular in Italy in the 13th to 15th centuries, but continuing in popularity until the 18th century and beyond. Christ, sometimes accompanied by God the Father and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, places a crown on the head of Mary as Queen of Heaven. In early versions the setting is a Heaven imagined as an earthly court, staffed by saints and angels; in later versions Heaven is more often seen as in the sky, with the figures seated on clouds. The subject is also notable as one where the whole Christian Trinity is often shown together, sometimes in unusual ways. Although crowned Virgins may be seen in Orthodox Christian icons, the coronation by the deity is not. Mary is sometimes shown, in both Eastern and Western Christian art, being crowned by one or two angels, but this is considered a different subject.

  The belief in Mary as Queen of Heaven obtained the papal sanction of Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam (English: Queenship of Mary in Heaven) of October 11, 1954. It is also the fifth Glorious Mystery of the Rosary. The Roman Catholic Church celebrates the feast every August 22, where it replaced the former octave of the Assumption of Mary in 1969, a move made by Pope Paul VI. The feast was formerly celebrated on May 31, at the end of the Marian month, where the present general calendar now commemorates the Feast of the Visitation. In addition, there are Canonical coronations authorized by the Pope which are given to specific Marian images venerated in a particular place. - Coronation of the Virgin

The Latin (Converte nos)is from Psalm 84 and is part of Complines and  the Little Office of the Blessed Sacrament amongst other places in the Divine Office of the Church:

  V. Converte nos Deus salutaris noster:

  R. Et averte iram tuam a nobis. (Psalm 84:5)

In English:

  V. Convert us, O God our Savior.

  R. And turn away Thy wrath from us.

This illuminated manuscript comes from a beautiful 15th-century leaf from a French Book of Hours with a large miniature of the Coronation of Mary.

  On recto:

  Miniature of the Virgin kneeling before the enthroned God the Father, with an angel holding the crown of Mary. Behind them is a canopy. Miniature measures 100 mm x 65 mm (3.9 x 2.6 inches). The image is surrounded by a foliate border with red, blue, and pink flowers with green leaves; border also contains blue and gold acanthus leaves and penwork along left margin. One triple-line illuminated initial (the letter “C”) in burnished gold and red with white details. One single-line initial in burnished gold and blue. The text, in gold-brown Latin gothic script, is from Psalm 84:5.

  On verso:

  20 lines of text in gold-brown Latin gothic script on vellum. One double-line illuminated initial in burnished gold and blue with white details. 11 single-line illuminated initials in burnished gold and red/blue with white details. The text is from Psalm 69:2 and Psalm 128.

I do not know if you have the reverse side of this image, so I will include it as part of my answer.

Illuminated Manuscript: Coronation of the Virgin Mary


What was the population of the world at the time of the flood? I understand that from the perspective of those who take the Bible literally, the global flood took place about 2400 B.C.  and that the world began about 4000 B.C., giving 1600 years of human population growth.

So, what was the estimated population at the time of the flood?  In other words, how many people incurred the judgment of God in the flood?

Please answer according to the perspective of those who take the Bible literally and historically.

According to Tom Pickett on this site: http://www.ldolphin.org/pickett.html

  Although it is difficult to obtain an actual value of world population at the time of the flood, 5 to 17 billion people would appear to be reasonable populations, with an average of around 10 billion.

The site shows the assumptions and formula used for calculation. Inherent in the assumption of an average age of 900 years is a tacit assumption of a very low mortality rate.  On the other hand, it has what could be considered a very low average family size given the reported ages of the pre-diluvians (6 to 7 children per family for the figures given although other family sizes are considered). In view of these figures, the following comment seems highly pertinent:

  If the population reached over a billion, there would tend to be some logistical problems in feeding and caring for the population (clothing, housing, jobs, etc). This indicates that they would have required a higher level of technology than what we currently give them credit for.

Given this, it seems likely that the pre-flood population was approaching the carrying capacity of the accessible arable land and that at least some of

  ...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. - Genesis 6:5 NIV

may have been triggered by conflict over scarce resources.


What effect did the 1897 decree regarding the Johannine Comma have on Catholic scholarship? The Comma Johanneum, found in some versions of 1 John 5:7–8, such as the KJV, is a disputed text that has been used since at least the Middle Ages to defend trinitarian doctrine.  Scholars now widely consider it to be a later addition to the text, but this was a subject of significant debate in previous centuries.  The Catholic church took notice in 1897, and apparently applied some sort of restriction on allowable positions within the church:

  The Catholic theologian [...] cannot pass over the disciplinary decision of the Holy Office (13 January, 1897), whereby it is decreed that the authenticity of the Comma Johanninum may not with safety (tuto) be denied or called into doubt. This disciplinary decision was approved by Leo XIII two days later. Though his approval was not in forma specifica [...] all further discussion of the text in question must be carried on with due deference to this decree. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Epistles of St. John)

According to Wikipedia, this state seems to have ended in 1927, when Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma was open to dispute.  I'm trying to better understand the practical implications of the 1897 decree during the 1897–1927 period.  In that vein I'll pose the following (hopefully indicative) questions:

Around the time of 1897, what did the phrase "with safety" mean?  For example, did it imply the possibility of excommunication or loss of salvation?  Or perhaps simply that rejection of the Comma was a sin?
Did the 1897 decree provide specific guidance regarding what kind of "calling into doubt" was not permitted?

Presumably direct statements would be included, like saying "The Comma is not authentic," but what about publishing research that could be interpreted as suggesting inauthenticity?

Are any Catholic theologians known to have been punished for violating the 1897 decree during this period?

Wikipedia includes a note that the 1927 decree clarified that the original decree was not meant to stop "moderate and temperate" investigation by scholars who promise to accept the Church's authority.  Be that as it may, I'm not convinced that that's how the 1897 decree would have been understood prior to the 1927 decree, so I'm focusing on how it was originally (perhaps mistakenly) interpreted and applied.

Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., discusses this in the introduction (§ "New Testament Testimony On The Three Persons") of his The Trinity & God the Creator (1952):

The second text of St. John referring to the three persons together is the famous Johannine comma: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one" (I John 5:7). A great controversy has arisen about the genuineness of this text. Those who attack the text argue from the fact that it is not found in any Greek codex of any authority, nor in many Latin codices and versions. From this they conclude that this "comma" was originally a marginal note which in the course of time was incorporated into the text. Consequently the text would enjoy only the force of tradition. The defenders of the text say that it was always in the Latin version, which is more ancient than the Greek codices, for it is found in many Latin codices and is cited by many of the Fathers, by Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and St. Augustine. The omission of this verse in the Greek codices is explained by the fact that the seventh and eighth verses begin and end in the same way and thus the scribes could easily have omitted the seventh verse. In the Latin version the seventh verse is: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." The eighth verse is: "And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one."
On this matter the Holy Office has issued two declarations.[Denz., no. 2198] In the first, dated January 13, 1897, we read:The authenticity of this text of St. John cannot be safely denied or called into doubt.Later, on June 2, 1927, the Holy Office declared:This decree has been issued to repress the temerity of those private teachers who have attributed to themselves the right of completely rejecting this 'comma' of St. John or at least by their final judgment of calling it into doubt... . It is in no way intended to deter Catholic writers from investigating the matter more fully,... or from adopting an opinion opposed to the genuineness of the text, as long as they profess to be willing to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom has been committed by Jesus Christ the duty not only of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures but also of guarding them faithfully.


What is the Catholic interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3? The English translation of 2 Thes. 2:3 according to New American Bible, Revised Edition:

  3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition, NAB, 2011

The Greek text of 2 Thes. 2:3 according to the Textus Receptus states,

  Γ μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας TR, 1550

For the purpose of this question which requests an answer from Catholics, let us assume Catholicism represents the true Christian faith.

Has the “the apostasy” (ἡ ἀποστασία) already occurred? If so, what is it, and when did it occur?
If not, what criteria would the Pope and magisterium use to identify the apostasy when it occurs?
Has “the man of sin, the son of perditionÌ (ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας) been revealed? If so, who is he, and when was he revealed?
If not, again, what criteria would the Pope and magisterium use to identify this individual when he is revealed?

Note: The text seems to imply that “the apostasy” is not simply one individual’s apostasy, as individuals have been apostasizing since the beginning of the Church. Rather, it appears more evident, easily discernable, not en masse, but certainly more than a handful of individuals apostasizing from the Catholic Church (assuming the Catholic Church is the Church, the body of Christ).

The commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (that Antichrist "sitteth in the temple of God") of the very anti-Protestant Original Douay-Rheims Bible says:

St. Augustine therefore li. 20 de civit. c. 19 and St. Jerome q. 11 ad Algasiam. do think, that this sitting of Antichrist in the temple, doth signify his sitting in the Church of Christ, rather than in Solomon's temple. Not as though he should be a chief member of the Church of Christ, or a special part of his body mystical, and be Antichrist and yet withal continuing within the Church of Christ, as the Heretics feign, to make the Pope Antichrist (whereby they plainly confess and agnise [recognize] that the Pope is a member of the Church, & in ipso sinu Ecclesia, and in the very bosom of the Church, say they:) for that is ridiculous, that all Heretics whom St. John calleth Antichrists as his precursors, should go out of the Church, and the great Antichrist himself should be of the Church, and in the Church, and continue in the same. And yet to them that make the whole Church in revolt from God, this is no absurdity. But the truth is, that this Antichristian revolt here spoken of, is from the Catholic Church: and Antichrist, if he ever were of or in the Church, shall be an Apostate and a renegade out of the Church, and he shall usurp upon it by tyranny, and by challenging worship, religion, and government thereof, so that himself shall be adored in all the Churches of the world which he list to leave standing for his honor. And this is to sit in the temple or against the Temple of God, as some interpret. If any Pope did ever this, or shall do, then let the Adversaries call him Antichrist.

This passage makes it clear that a true pope cannot be Antichrist, but Antichrist will be an anti-pope, and anti-popes are not members of the Church.

Cardinal Manning, the most prominent father at the First Vatican Council who was responsible for the definition on papal infallibility, said in his Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ 2nd part (4 lectures), "The Perpetual Conflict of the Vicar of Christ", pp. 81-173 (available in printed form from TradiBooks as The Pope and The Antichrist):

We have here [2 Thessalonians 2:3-11] a prophecy … of a [spiritual*] revolt, which shall precede the second coming of our Lord … The authority, then, from which the revolt is to take place is that of the kingdom of God on earth, prophesied by Daniel [cf. Daniel 2] as the kingdom which the God of heaven should set up … in other words, the one and universal Church, founded by our Divine Lord, and spread by His Apostles throughout the world. In this one only kingdom was deposited the true and supernatural pure theism, or knowledge of God, and the true and only faith of God incarnate, with the doctrines and laws of grace. This, then, is the authority from which the revolt is to be made, be that revolt what it may.

[*"St. Jerome, with some others, interprets this revolt to be the rebellion of the nations or provinces against the Roman Empire. … They have revolted, and no manifestation has appeared." Thus, the revolt is spiritual, not temporal.]


What does "Style" mean in the context of feast days I was wading through the weeds of the Catholic Encyclopedia trying to figure out why and when April 5th was the Feast of the Annunciation and what Lady Day is and whether that means it used to be more likely to fall on the same day as Easter when I ran into something I'd never seen before.

... most common of such starting points were 25 March (Feast of the Annunciation, "Style of the Incarnation") and 25 December (Christmas Day, "Style of the Nativity").
Beginning of the year (Catholic Encyclopedia)

What does "Style" mean in this sense? Sounds like another one of those cool Catholic words you thought you knew the meaning of, but in fact, means something completely different liturgically.

Old vs. New Style means pre- vs. post-Gregorian Calendar reform.
From the OED's "IV. 27. a." definition for "style" (cf. esp. the last ¶):

A mode of expressing dates. Chiefly, Either of the two methods of dating that have been current in the Christian world since the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in 1582: viz., the New Style (abbreviated N.S.), which is the result of the Gregorian reform, and the Old Style (O.S.) which follows the unreformed calendar. The New Style is occasionally called the Roman Style, and the Old Style the English Style. In historical dates earlier than 1582, however, Roman Style, as used by modern writers, means only that the year mentioned is to be understood as beginning on 1 Jan.
The Julian calendar was based on the assumption that the tropical year consisted of 365¼ days. In order that the average calendar year should have this length, it was provided that the normal year should contain 365 days, but every fourth year 366 days. Down to A.D. 1582 the Julian calendar continued to be used by all Christian nations. In calendars and almanacs, the year began on 1 Jan. (like the Roman consular year); but for ordinary purposes the time of beginning the year was different in different places; in England, after some fluctuations, the beginning of the legal year was fixed for 25 March [Feast of the Annunciation]. After the adoption of the Christian era, the leap years were those whose number A.D. (reckoned from 1 Jan.) was divisible by 4.
The Julian estimate of 365¼ days for the length of the tropical year was too great by about 11 minutes, an error which amounts to one day in about 128 years. Hence in 1581 the date of 21 March for the vernal equinox, assumed since the early 4th c. in the rule for computing Easter, was 10 days too late. To remedy this inconvenience, and to prevent its recurrence, Pope Gregory XIII, acting on the advice of the Jesuit Clavius and other eminent astronomers, ordained that in A.D. 1582 the day after 4 Oct. should be reckoned as 15 Oct., and that in future the years which had a number ending in two cyphers should not be leap years unless the number were divisible by 400. The Julian date of 1 Jan. for the beginning of the year was retained. The difference between the old and new calendars continued to be 10 days until 1700 (the first disputed leap-year), when it became 11 days; in 1800 it became 12 days, and in 1900 13 days, from which there will be no further increase till 2100.
The Gregorian calendar (so called from the name of the Pope) was speedily adopted in all Roman Catholic countries, while the other nations of Europe adhered to their traditional reckoning. In the 17th and 18th centuries, it was often found necessary to state whether a date was according to Old or New Style, or to give both datings. As the nations which accepted the reform usually began the year on 1 Jan., not, as in England, on 25 Mar., there was for the March quarter (in addition to the other difference) a discrepancy in the number of the year between the Old Style and New Style dates.
In England and Scotland the Gregorian calendar was established by the Act 24 Geo. II. c. 23 (1751), which provided that the year 1752 and all future years should begin on 1 Jan. instead of 25 Mar. (in Scotland this rule had been adopted in 1600), that the day after 2 Sep. 1752 should be reckoned the 14 Sep., and that the reformed rule for leap year should in future be followed. Ireland followed in 1788. The use of New Style is now universal throughout the Christian world with the exception of certain countries of the Greek Church; in Russia it was officially adopted by the revolutionary government in 1918.
The use of stilus for ‘mode of dating’ was current in medieval Latin, as a specific application of the sense ‘usage’ (cf. 19 above[: A "style" (stilus) is "A method or custom of performing actions or functions, esp. one sanctioned by usage or law."]). In France the expression New Style (nouveau style) had been current before the time of the Gregorian reform, with reference to the change in the beginning of the year from Easter to 1 Jan., which took place in that country in 1563.

Building upon this definition of stylus, see

G. V. Coyne, Michael A. Hoskin, and O. Pedersen, Gregorian Reform of the Calendar Proceedings of the Vatican Conference to Commemorate Its 400th Anniversary, 1582-1982 (Specola vaticana, 1983), p. 62-63 (PDF):

Herald of Landsperg reckoned the year from Christmas day. This was the “Christmas style” or stylus nativitatis, sometimes also called stylus curiae Romanae since it was often used by the Papal chancellery. In the civil calendar it was more common to use the stylus communis which placed new year's day on 1 January; since this was the feast of the circumcision of Jesus this system was also called stylus circumcisionis. In another system the year began in March as in the pre-Julian Roman and some old Germanic calendars. Still another stylus annunciationis or stylus incarnationis placed new year's day on 25 March which was both the feast of the Annunciation and the old Roman vernal equinox. This custom prevailed in England until the Gregorian Calendar was introduced in 1752. Finally one also had a movable year beginning at Easter, either on Good Friday or on the following day after the benedictio fontis. This motley of styles is one of the reasons of the intricacies of Medieval chronology.


Why do we use the Hebrew name for Daniel, but Persian names for his companions? Reading the book of Daniel, an odd thing struck me: all four of the men were given Persian names and yet it's only Daniel that is now called by his Hebrew name.

Why is that we call his companions Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and not their original names of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah?

Since your question is rather general, I'm going to offer a suggestion - a pretty plausible one, but a suggestion. It's probably because they are central to one famous story in the book of Daniel - the fiery furnace - and in that story (which is written in Aramaic) they are given their "Persian" names. After that story, they don't appear in the book at all. In other words, we think "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego" immediately in connection to the story of the fiery furnace, and in that story, they have those Persian names.

Daniel, on the other hand, is mentioned  65 times in the book with his Hebrew name, and ten times as Belteshazzar.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Paul's apparent equating of Yahweh and Jesus in Romans 10? Recently I was listening to a lecture by Reformed theologian Robert Cara, in which he mentioned how frequently NT writers connect and apply OT Yahweh references to Jesus.  A number of examples could be given, but one of the stronger ones is Romans 10:9–13, which reads:

  [I]f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” [ESV]

In verses 9, 12, and 13, "Lord" is a translation of the Greek word kyrios, and verse 9 clearly associates "Lord" with Jesus.  The same association seems to continue in verses 12 and 13.  But, crucially, verse 13 is a quote of Joel 2:32, where the Hebrew text clearly shows Yahweh.

Thus, the argument goes, Jesus is the "Lord" in verse 12 who is called upon, and in verse 13 Paul connects this "Lord" (Jesus) with Joel 2:32's Yahweh. This indicates that he believes Jesus is truly the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh).

How do Jehovah's Witness's explain this?  Do they interpret Romans 10 differently, or Joel 2 differently, or have some other explanation?

Similar issue: How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Paul's apparent equating of Yahweh and Jesus in Ephesians 4?

Lecture 06 Acts 1–2, starting 39:20

The explanation of any group or individual regarding which 'Lord' (or Lords) Romans chapter 10 deals with depends upon their theology, as Ben Mordecai has actually pointed out. Any group or individual believing that Jesus was created by God the Father (Jehovah, to Jehovah's Witnesses) cannot see Romans chapter 10 in any way other than, that, although Jesus is the Lord of verse 9, it is the name of Jehovah that must be called upon in order to be saved by verse 13.

However, for those who believe from the Bible that prior to becoming the man, Jesus, he was the eternal, uncreated Word of God who made everything that was made (John 1:1-14) Romans chapter 10 is clear that the Hebraic phrase to "call upon the name of the Lord" (or Yahweh) to be saved (as in Joel 2:32) becomes calling upon the name of Jesus to be saved in the Christian Greek scriptures (Acts 2:38-39). Jesus is the one Lord Christians acclaim. They do not have two Lords (1 Corinthians 8:6).

For Jehovah's Witnesses, when Romans 10:9 says "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" they agree that that Lord is Jesus, but when verse 13 quotes Joel 3:32, they say THAT Lord is Jehovah and it's actually faith in the name of Jehovah that saves people, not faith in the name of Jesus. That's because, to them, Jesus is subordinate to Jehovah due to having been created by Jehovah.

Now, this is not the place to examine whether the ancient Christian Greek scriptures had the Hebrew letters for Yahweh in verse 13, which Jehovah's Witnesses claim as their reason for refusing to equate Jesus with Yahweh here. Unsurprisingly, their Greek Interlinear footnotes for chapter 10 claim some 'J' manuscript references for putting 'Jehovah' there in place of 'Lord,' whilst insisting that 'Lord' was in ancient texts for verse 9, adding, "Not 'Jehovah'." (Pages 722 & 723 of the Kingdom Interlinear of the Christian Greek Scriptures produced by New World Bible Translation Committee, 1985 edition)

To examine whether the Jehovah's Witness Bible is justified in putting 'Jehovah' in verse 13 yet retaining 'Lord' in verse 9, is another question entirely.  This answer simply explains why Jehovah's Witnesses do not equate the Lord of verse 9 with the Lord of verse 13. They do not believe it is theologically possible so to do, and they can give their reasons for that. This question should not provide a platform for Jehovah's Witnesses trying to convince others that their interpretation and translation is correct. The information here is merely being used in this answer to show why Romans chapter 10 presents no conundrum to Jehovah's Witnesses, because they think they can change the Lord in verse 13 to Jehovah and so maintain their clear differentiation between Jesus and Jehovah, which their theology demands.


Do JWs believe the water canopy theory and do they think it will be restored? Many creationist have beliefs concerning the pre-flood environment on earth.
Are Jehovah Witnesses adamant about the water canopy being the source of flood waters? Do JWs believe the restored earth will have a restored canopy?

The belief of Jehovah's Witnesses and other religions regarding a water canopy that existed at the time of earth's creation is not a concept that is a result of doctrine but one that is advanced in the Bible itself. Genesis 1:7 says: "So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so." The Jewish Tanach agrees with this same concept saying, "And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so."

Jehovah's Witnesses recently published a series of articles on creation which affirms the belief in a canopy of vapor that existed in the pre-flood era (see Awake! March 2014). Additionally an article from the January 1, 2004 Watchtower magazine says this: "Where did the water causing the global Flood come from? During the second creative period, or “day,” when the earth’s atmospheric “expanse” was formed, there were waters “beneath the expanse” and waters “above the expanse.” (Genesis 1:6, 7) The waters “beneath” were those already on earth. The waters “above” were huge quantities of moisture suspended high above the earth, forming a “vast watery deep.” These waters fell upon the earth in Noah’s day."

In regards to whether that canopy will ever exist again has not been officially discussed in recent Jehovah's Witnesses literature.


Why does Jesus value leap of faith more than those who rely on direct evidence? As told in the gospel according to John, following the crucifixion, the resurrected Jesus appears
in front of his disciples and greets them (John 20:19-21). The disciples then run off to tell the only disciple who was not present during Jesus' visit, Thomas, that they had witnessed the resurrected Jesus.
John 20:24-25 (NIV)
Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
Since Thomas did not encounter the risen Jesus as the other apostles did, he decides to maintain skepticism regarding his resurrection. Speaking for myself I respect Thomas' approach. Just because he was not there with the other disciples does not mean Jesus had not actually revealed himself, but if he were to merely take their word for it then by that standard he would have to accept any word of mouth relating any miraculous claim that was supposedly witnessed by anyone ever.
So until Jesus reveals himself personally to Thomas he declares that he would remain unbelieving.
Jesus then in John 20:26-27 reveals himself to Thomas and he comes to acknowledge his resurrection.
But then Jesus says the following:
John 20:29 (NIV)Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Jesus in a way rebukes Thomas, telling him that he has believed because he had seen, but that if you have believed without seeing then you are blessed. What is deduced from this is that those who make the leap of faith are "better" or more appreciated than those who rely on concrete evidence and who are otherwise unconvinced.
Evidence should be the basis of anything purporting to be the truth. If Christianity is true then it should be substantiated by evidence in order that one might be convinced. A person who does not base his faith on evidence might as well have believed in anything other than Christianity, because his faith is arbitrary and not founded on anything. Therefore Thomas in his sincerity declares that he is unconvinced by the words related to him by other disciples and demands superior evidence.
So why is the person who is sincere in his pursuit of truth and who requests better evidence is lesser (according to Jesus) than that who had made the leap of faith?
EDIT: I have just been reading "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, where the author interviews acclaimed New Testament scholar Dr.Craig Blomberg who shares my understanding of the verse at-hand, as page 76 of the book reads:
"He [Blomberg] was quiet for a moment, then continued 'You know, it's ironic: The Bible considers it praiseworthy to have a faith that does not require evidence. Remember how Jesus replied to doubting Thomas: "You believe because you see; blessed are those who have not seen yet believe"'"

he would have to accept any word of mouth relating any miraculous claim that was supposedly witnessed by anyone ever

That's quite the extrapolation there. He was asked to believe what his core group of three years had seen, regarding the most important event in their lives, regarding their leader (that he had seen perform miracles). Not "any miraculous claim", not by "anyone", not "ever".
I'm going to assume that you don't dispute the basic facts of science, say physics, astronomy, etc. Have you done the math yourself? Have you done the experiments yourself? Of course not, and so you are trusting others (who are themselves respected by many), the scientists, on what they tell you. You trusted other people's testimony about most things your learned at school, you trust other people's testimony when you read the news, etc., etc.


How could a sinless Mary die? Ignatius Theophorus's answer to this question about the assumption of Mary states:

  In addition, there is an ancient document which actually relates the death of Mary and the assumption of her body.

When I heard about the Catholic belief that Mary was sinless and was assumed into heaven, I thought the two beliefs fit together well since death is a consequence of sin.  However, if it is taught she did die (or even would have died), how is this reconciled with "the wages of sin is death"?

Orthodoxy has a Tradition of the Dormition of Mary wherein it is belived that she didn't die but merely fell asleep and was assumed into Heaven. Catholic teaching neither affirms nor contradicts the Dormition but we have another tradition which is written in one of the apocryphal gospels ascribed to St. Thomas but written hundreds of years a after his death.

Here is the ancient document alluded to. And the very ancient and venerable and understandable tradition it is in keeping with is that The Blessed Virgin herself didn't wish to in any way not be a perfect disciple and imitator of her Son. So if he chooses to die, she would choose to die as well.

I've got the same questions as to what it exactly means for Mary to have died, but it is a mystery of the Church and one you can contemplate here and ask about in christianity.stackexchange.hvn in the life of the world to come to get a better answer.

  Full of grace, preserved from original sin, Mary never experienced its consequences, and at the end of her earthly life she was taken up body and soul into heaven, where we contemplate her as Our Lady of the Angels and Queen of the Universe.

  Pope John Paul II - Angelus address on Solemnity of the Assumption (August 15 1998)

  In the fullness of time, at the end of her earthly life, he would call her to follow him
  completely into the reality of resurrection. That is what the Assumption is all about. In Mary assumed into heavenly glory, the little one of Nazareth is now resplendent in the divine light. In her we see our eternal destiny, the destiny of the church.

  Most Rev. Peter J. Elliott, KC*HSJ - Retreat Homily - 2009

  In some of the writings of the Church Fathers we find Jesus himself described as coming to take his Mother at the time of her death to bring her into heavenly glory. In this way they present the death of Mary as an event of love which conducted her to her divine Son to share his immortal life. At the end of her earthly life, she must have experienced, like Paul and more strongly, the desire to be freed from her body in order to be with Christ for ever (cf. Phil 1:23).

  The experience of death personally enriched the Blessed Virgin: by undergoing mankind’s common destiny, she can more effectively exercise her spiritual motherhood towards those approaching the last moment of their life.

  Pope John Paul II - General Audience - June 25 1997

The last link addresses very straightforward Our Lady in connection with earthly death and probably succinctly answers the question.  Catholic doctrine merely says "At the end of her earthly life"  it doesn't say, "shortly after her soul left her body" or "when rigor mortis set in".  We wholeheartedly believe that she suffered no decay due to the wages of sin nor would she had she remained on earth after death for 1000 years before being brought into heaven.


Why do Mormons use Trinitarian language in baptism when they explicitly reject Trinitarianism? In conferring the rite of Baptist, Joseph Smith writes in the Doctrines and Covenants as follows:

  73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

And yet, they are also explicitly non-Trinitarian:

  Latter-day Saints believe that the simplest reading of the New Testament text produces the simplest conclusion — that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct personages, that They are one in purpose. We feel that the sheer preponderance of references in the Bible would lead an uninformed reader to the understanding that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate beings. That is, one must look to the third- and fourth-century Christian church, not to the New Testament itself, to make a strong case for the Trinity

So, if they are tri-theistic rather than Trinitarian, why would one baptise in three personages?  My understanding is that Baptism is supposed to be an identification with one person, so having "three" names doesn't seem to gel.  What is the justification here?

It is not the trinitarian language, it is the language with which Christ commanded his disciples to go and baptize:

  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
  the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matt 28:19)

Trinitarianism interprets this to mean one God with three personages. The fulness of the gospel defines this as the Godhead:

God the Father, who is a physical being, the father of our spirits who is all powerful.

God the Son, who was Jehovah born in the flesh as Jesus Christ, our spirit brother, the eldest of all the spirit children of the father, to whom the father gave his power to create the earth, who suffered the atonement for the salvation of men.

God the Holy Ghost, who remains a spirit, and because he is a spirit he can communicate with our spirits and testify of the truthfulness of all things.

There are three Gods in the Godhead, but this does not make the LDS tri-theist, that would suggest that they worship three gods. Latter-Day Saints only worship one God, the God that Christ worshipped; God the Father.

President Gordon B. Hinckley gave this in an address to the church about the The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in 1998:

  Members of the Godhead Are Perfectly United

  They are distinct beings, but they are one in purpose and effort. They
  are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the
  salvation and exaltation of the children of God.

  In His great, moving prayer in the garden before His betrayal, Christ
  pleaded with His Father concerning the Apostles, whom He loved,
  saying:

  “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe
  on me through their word;

  “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,
  that they also may be one in us” (John 17:20–21).

  It is that perfect unity among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
  that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead.


John's question in prison John the Baptist was someone whose job was to prepare the way from Christ. When Jesus makes his appearance, John introduces him to the people.

John 1:29-34, New Living Translation (NLT)

Jesus, the Lamb of God

  The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
  He is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘A man is coming after me who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before me.’
  I did not recognize him as the Messiah, but I have been baptizing with water so that he might be revealed to Israel.”
  Then John testified, “I saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and resting upon him.
  I didn't know he was the one, but when God sent me to baptize with water, he told me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descend and rest is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’
  I saw this happen to Jesus, so I testify that he is the Chosen One of God.”

John 3:31-36, New Living Translation (NLT)

  “He has come from above and is greater than anyone else. We are of the earth, and we speak of earthly things, but he has come from heaven and is greater than anyone else.
  He testifies about what he has seen and heard, but how few believe what he tells them!
  Anyone who accepts his testimony can affirm that God is true.
  For he is sent by God. He speaks God’s words, for God gives him the Spirit without limit.
  The Father loves his Son and has put everything into his hands.
  And anyone who believes in God’s Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn't obey the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God’s angry judgment.”

Mark 1:9-14, New Living Translation (NLT)

The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus

  One day Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and John baptized him in the Jordan River.
  As Jesus came up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting apart and the Holy Spirit descending on him like a dove.
  And a voice from heaven said, “You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy.”
  The Spirit then compelled Jesus to go into the wilderness,
  where he was tempted by Satan for forty days. He was out among the wild animals, and angels took care of him.
  Later on, after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galilee, where he preached God’s Good News.

So the basic timeline is: Jesus enters the scene. --> John proclaims that he is the Messiah. --> John Baptizes. --> John is put in prison.

So, how should I understand this:

Matthew 11:2-3, New Living Translation (NLT)

  John the Baptist, who was in prison, heard about all the things the Messiah was doing. So he sent his disciples to ask Jesus,
  “Are you the Messiah we've been expecting,[a] or should we keep looking for someone else?”

Well, this is confusing, since that way John has been talking it is implying that he knew who was Messiah or not. As far as I know he was executed in prison, so the timeline cannot be backwards.

Answers?

The notes in my Bible say:

  [11:3] The question probably expresses a doubt of the Baptist that Jesus is the one who is to come (cf. Mal 3:1) because his mission has not been one of fiery judgment as John had expected (Mt 3:2).

So the timeline becomes:

  Jesus enters the scene. --> John proclaims that he is the Messiah. --> John Baptizes. --> John is put in prison. --> John expresses doubt because he hears things are not going as he expected them to.

This might have been because John was in some way ill-informed of exactly what was happening, because Jesus sends the following reply:

  Matthew 11:4-6
  4 Jesus said to them in reply, “Go and tell John what you hear and see:
  5 the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them.
  6 And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.”

Many of the people closest to Jesus express serious doubts at one point or another -- Thomas in particular comes to mind. (It should be noted, though, that many others, like His Blessed Mother, Mary, never doubt.)


How to reconcile the original creation of every soul (Creationism) by God with original sin? The Catholic Church teaches that (CCC 366),

every spiritual soul is created immediately by God — it is not 'produced' by the parents.

So, if every soul is uniquely created by God and is not produced by the parents, why is it still subject to original sin?

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice [sic]. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ... III Original Sin ... Paragraph 404
The catechism here makes clear that sin is a matter of the transmissible human nature. Sin is a matter of humanity, of flesh and blood. And the flesh and blood, the humanity, that is inherited by natural generation, is that in which sin is transmitted.