What is the basis for the Roman Catholic teaching regarding the Sin of Presumption? The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is something called the Sin of Presumption, which states that it is a sin for one to believe that he or she is assured of his or her salvation.

It seems to follow, then, that one must be, at least to some degree, uncertain of his or her salvation.

What is the basis for this doctrine, including a biblical basis?

This question actually touches on two topics.

Firstly, and most directly, it's asking for some elaboration on the Church's teaching about the vice of presumption. From the Catholic Encyclopedia,

  Presumption is here considered as a vice opposed to the theological
  virtue of hope. It may also be regarded as a product of pride. It may
  be defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly
  regulated reliance on God's mercy and power, hopes for salvation
  without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins
  without repenting of them.

Reading onward, several examples or types of presumption are presented. Ultimately, the "sin of presumption" is the presumption that God will forgive all sins, regardless of the sinner's disposition towards those sins, or with minimal effort in repenting. Or, in some particularly twisted cases, one might presume all of their own sins will be forgiven, somewhat regardless of their effort and sincerity in repenting.

So, while I can't offer an official list of biblical references to support this teaching, I think, when clarified as such, it becomes more obvious where the biblical basises and echos of this teaching are. I think this is most obvious in cases where Christ forgives someone:

  Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they?
  Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus
  said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any
  more.” (John 8:10-11)

Christ forgives the woman's sins and then commands her to sin no more. Forgiveness comes with a demand for repentance. Presumably, we can reject that forgiveness by neglecting to repent.

From a more theological basis, the Kingdom of God entails operating within the confines of God's will. In fact, the delight of God's Kingdom is precisely in God's will. Therefore, if we're not actively seeking to refine ourselves into alignment with God, it's not God's Kingdom we're really after. It's our own personal kingdom -- hell, in a word. And if hell is what we're actively working towards, forgiveness is moot; we're not asking for forgiveness.

So, I think the Catholic Church is trying to make it clear, by this teaching, that lip-service and half-hearted efforts are an indication that the sinner isn't really interested in God or God's Kingdom. It's an indication that the sinner is self-interested and self-loving to the point of believing forgiveness is only a formality or a form they need to fill out so they can enter the gate, allowing the rest of God's Kingdom to bask in their own personal awesomeness. And in such a state, while God may still be perfectly willing to accept this charming soul into His kingdom, that charming soul has no sincere interest in being there.

Secondly, you've noted a sense of uncertainty about one's own salvation. And while I don't know that I could easily locate sources for this, it is a general attitude of the Church that each individuals salvation is uncertain. In general, we claim a great deal of ignorance as to who and how many are saved. Is Hitler in hell, for instance? We have no idea. Some individuals within the Church are pretty certain he is; others are hopeful he isn't -- that no one is.

This concept can then be extended into the sin of presumption. In addition to the requirement that we acknowledging that all salvation is an unwarranted gift, it's also a mystery. The Church may believe itself to hold the "keys" to the Kingdom of Heaven. But, by no means can it force anyone through the gate. And we, as individuals, must acknowledge regularly that we get lost, mis-informed, etc.

It's seems it's precisely at the moment we attain satisfaction with our triumphs against sin that we're in the greatest danger of damnation. So, we do well to proceed with some uncertainty.


Is being asexual considered the same as having the virtue of Chastity? Some people seem to have not any sexual desire (asexuality). In 1 Corinthians 7:7 it is stated that, "God has given different gifts to each of us". The question is, can being asexual be seen as such a gift or is this something different?

Are there any comments on this in the RCC?

"Asexual" people are eunuchs.
St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Commentary on St. Matthew (19:12):

For there are eunuchs, etc. Hence, He distinguishes the continence that is in some men by nature…because certain men are eunuchs by nature, who were born so from their mothers’ womb.

This first type of eunuch needn't refer only to those born without genitals but also to those lacking sexual desire. St. Thomas also mentions that people have various degrees of frigidity/calidity (cf. Summa suppl. q. 58).
"Asexuality" is not synonymous with chastity/virginity.
Discussing whether virginity is a virtue, St. Thomas Aquinas poses the following objection (Summa Theologica II-II q. 152 a. 1 arg. 1):

Objection 1: It would seem that virginity is not a virtue. For "no virtue is in us by nature," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1). Now virginity is in us by nature, since all are virgins when born. Therefore virginity is not a virtue.

to which he responds (ad 1):

Reply to Objection 1: Men have from their birth that which is material in virginity, namely integrity of the flesh and freedom from venereal experience. But they have not that which is formal in virginity, namely the purpose of safeguarding this integrity for God's sake, which purpose gives virginity its character of virtue. Hence Augustine says (De Virgin. xi): "Nor do we praise virgins for being virgins, but, because their virginity is consecrated to God by holy continency."

Similarly, some people are born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, for example, but that does not mean those without this predisposition necessarily practice the virtue of sobriety.


According to the Orthodox church, what is the purpose of the Bible? I was raised with the view that the Bible is the book which contains everything we need to know, enumerates everything which is good and everything which is evil, is the manual for how to live a human life, and is the ultimate authority regarding all matters pertaining to Christianity (maybe even everything else as well).

I have even heard people suggest that Jesus is mysteriously united to the Bible in some way because they are both the 'Word of God'.

I do not think the Orthodox believe these things. What do they believe is the Bible's purpose?

The Bible's Purpose
Archimandrite Justin Popovich lays out the reasons for reading the Bible in "How to Read the Bible and Why":

All that is necessary for this world and the people in it--the Lord has stated in the Bible. In it He has given the answers to all questions. There is no question which can torment the human soul, and not find its answer, either directly or indirectly in the Bible.
...
In the Bible God make known:

what the world is; where came from; why it exists; what it is heading for; how it will end;

what man is; where he comes from; where he is going; what he is made of; what his purpose is; how he will end;

what animals and plants are; what their purpose is; what they are used for;

what good is; where it comes from; what it leads to; what its purpose is; how it is attained;

what evil is; where it comes from; how it came to exist; why it exists -how it will come to an end;

what the righteous are and what sinners are; how a sinner becomes righteous and how an arrogant righteous man becomes a sinner; how a man serves God and how he serves satan; the whole path from good to evil, from God to satan;

everything - from the beginning to the end; man is entire path from the body to God, from his conception in the womb to his resurrection from the dead;

what the history of the world is, the history of heaven and earth, the history of mankind; what their path, purpose, and end are.

Rev. Dr. Eugen J. Pentiuc expresses similar thoughts in "The Untamed Textbook and Its House-Trained Handouts":

Scripture is an open textbook, an endless reservoir of wisdom in the making. But above all, Scripture is a living and ever-refreshing means of communication with God, its primus auctor. ... Scripture is not, nor does it claim to be, a complete "recording" of God's mind. Rather, it is a means through which God re-creates us each time when we approach the Scripture, as he did on the sixth day when he breathed his breathing of life on the dust and the dust became a "living breath" of God (Gen 2:7). The Lord re-creates each reader of Scripture as a partner in dialogue with him, the source of life.

The Bible's Authority
In an episode of the Ancient Faith Today podcast called "The Eastern Orthodox Approach to the Bible," Presbytera Jeannie Constantinou says this about the nature of the Bible's authority:

First of all, the Church does not rely on the Bible for its doctrine. We don't rely on the Bible, because the Church came first. ... The Church knew what it believed about Christ before the books of the New Testament were written.
...
There is no question that the Bible is authority, so if I gave the impression that the Bible is not authority in the Church, that's certainly not true. It is authority, but it's not over the Church, it's not under the Church, it's part of the Church. It does stand as part of the Tradition, part of apostolic Tradition. It's just the written form of apostolic Tradition. To that extent, it's not exclusive authority.
...
For us we have this consistency through the centuries, because we read the early Church Fathers who comment on these, who use these verses, because we have them in our hymns and in our prayers, we understood what is meant by them, so they are less susceptible to being distorted by the individual opinions of people. We have a consensus of meaning within the Church, and we do not exceed that boundary. We don't substitute our own personal opinion.

The Bible and the "Word"
Constantinou elsewhere in the episode explains the relationship between Jesus, the Bible, and the term "Word of God":

The Bible is the Word of God because the message is from God, but the ultimate Word of God is Jesus Christ, because he is the ultimate revelation of God. As we said, human language has its limitations to describe or explain God, but Christ was unlimited. The apostles experienced God in the Person of Jesus. What they experienced went beyond human language.


According to Catholicism, would it be allowed for Jews to stone a woman caught in adultery after the scenario in John 8? In the Gospel according to John, we can read about the encounter of Jesus with women caught in adultery. Jesus saved the women from being put to death by stoning. Let us suppose that a similar situation happened again the next day, with the difference being that Jesus did not come to rescue.
Would it be moral to stone the women?
Why?

The Jews did not have the right of execution under Roman power. We see this in the case of Jesus himself, whom they wanted to kill but had to go through the process of taking Jesus to Pilate to influence him to carry out the execution.

This is part of the tempting of Christ. Not only do they tempt him with regard to the principle of executing an adulteress (and where was the man, by the way ?) but they are also tempting Jesus in regard to submitting to Roman authority - as they tempted him at another time regarding giving tribute to Caesar when he asked for a coin and told them :

  Render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar's and unto God the things that be God's [Mark 12:17m KJV.]

But the Jews should have accepted the precedent of submitting to a foreign power from, particularly, the Babylonian captivity and from the prophecy, especially, of Jeremiah wherein there is much instruction regarding what sort of attitude Israel should have if God sees fit to humble them with adverse providence and with the chastisement of an occupying force.


Why did Rome and Constantinople split in 1054 AD? The Great Schism represents the break between the Eastern and Western churches. I know that a primary bone of contention that the East had with the West was Rome's insistence on Papal Supremacy. My understanding is that for a millennium there had been an understanding that Rome would be first among equals, and clearly this somehow fell apart.

I'd like to know

what was the proximate cause of the mutual anathema,
why they each anathematized the other (one would assume that one side could have denounced the other, but mutual allegations seem odd), and
why a simple governance question couldn't be resolved politically.

And, finally, for bonus points :) I understand that the Pope recently (like in the 1990s) has reconciled with the Orthodox.  Is this true, and how did it come about?

Note: There is already a question about filioque so feel free to gloss over any details about that in particular.  Per cwallenpoole, it is a fairly contentious thing.

Put another way, Can't we all just get along?

This site has a good overview of the history from a Catholic viewpoint.

Here is a high level overview based on that site and the article on Wikipedia (which currently stands in question of its neutrality).

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the church headquartered at Constantinople began to have ongoing squabbles with Rome due in some part to the Emperor's meddling in Church affairs.
In 1054, after the Norman conquest of southern Italy, the friction escalated due to the imposition on the Greek colonies there of the practice of Eucharist using unleavened bread.
A Papal legate was sent to address the situation, but (apparently largely) personality issues  caused the two delegates to mutually anathemize each other (but not their respective churches). This was not considered very momentous at the time, but in retrospect it marked the departure point between the two bodies.
Even after that, there were future attempts at reconciliation. The collapse of the Byzantine Empire, between 1450 and 1490, precipitated the enduring split.

With the last few popes, there have been renewed attempts at reunification. In fact there are a number of Eastern-Rite churches in communion with Rome (e.g. the Byzantine Catholic rite). But it seems that the laity of the Eastern Orthodox are more opposed to reunification than the leaders, at least in some ways.

An important aspect of this the differing views, from an early age, of the role of the Pope. Easterns regard him as "first among equals" or to have primacy, while Westerns, of course regard his role as one of authority.

The Filioque question was an early (sixth century) bone of contention between the East and the West. These days, Rome considers the two to be equivalent statements and it seems likely that it would be a small or nonexistent issue if serious reconciliation were ever to take place.


What did Jesus mean by saying "only a few find the narrow gate"? Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the
  road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small
  is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few
  find it. (Matthew 7:13-14, NIV)

For any individual to enter the kingdom of God, it is necessary to use a gate. Why is it true that so few find this gate?

Matthew Chapter 7 is often thought to be in reference to those that will enter into the kingdom versus those that will not.  If one reads in advance to verse 13 they will discover that the opening line is “judge not, that ye be not judged” and what follows is a warning: “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again”.
Then in verses 7-11

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you…if ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”  In verse 12 we are given insight: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

This whole narrative is in regard to our relationship with one another.  “Judge not”,  “remove the plank out of your own eye”,  “whatsoever ye would that men should do to you”, this is the law of the Prophets.  In Matthew 22 Jesus also spoke of the law of the Prophets: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind… love your neighbor as yourself.”
Therefore in keeping with the narrative the wide gate that leads to destruction would be those works Paul speaks of that will not stand the test of fire and the narrow gate would be those works that stand the test of fire as they are conceived by God’s love.

1 Corinthians 3:8-…every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour…Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

The word in Matthew 7 translated as “narrow” is done so only in this verse.  The Greek word being translated “thlibō” generally is translated as trouble or afflict.  Grace, Christ’s work on the cross (His trouble or affliction) is the narrow gate and the greatest love.  John 15:13 “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

John 10:9 "I am the door (gate): by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."
Matthew 16:24 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me"


Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John write anything other than the Gospels? Currently I'm studying Youth Ministry and have a New Testament class that has been challenging. One of the tips for understanding an author better is to read everything they've written.

Have these four written anything else that we know of other than the Gospels? Or were they only inspired to write the Gospels?

With respect to the traditional attributions, here's the simple list:

Matthew: None
Mark: None
Luke: Acts
John: 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation

Modern scholarship, which typically rejects the traditionally attributed authors of these books, still generally attributes Luke and Acts to the same author.  There is less agreement on the authorship of the other books attributed to John, however.

Finally, there are some apocryphal works that are attributed to these authors, but they are not part of the canon:

Apocryphon of John (2nd century)
Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (7th century)
Secret Gospel of Mark (claimed by some to be a late forgery)


What is a Scapular, and what theology is tied to it? I ran across this question, and I'm wondering if someone can give me more information on what a Scapular is, and what, exactly, the significance and/or theology goes along with it?

The Scapular was given to St. Simon Stock, a Carmelite monk.

  the Mother of God appeared to Simon Stock with the scapular of the order in her hand. This scapular she gave him with the words: "Hoc erit tibi et cunctis Carmelitis privilegium, in hoc habitu moriens salvabitur" (This shall be the privilege for you and for all the Carmelites, that anyone dying in this habit shall be saved).

Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Simon Stock

It's essentially two small pieces of wool attached by two 18 inch cords with the words (in the vernacular) "Whosoever dies wearing this scapular will not suffer eternal fire".

For this reason, I wear a scapular all the time, except when I take a shower and then I am very careful not to drop the soap.

If you want to associate a theology with the scapular, then I guess it would have to be Carmelite spirituality which is austere, loving and personal.  St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross would be good starting points to know about Carmelite Spirituality.  St. Therese of Lisieux too, but she came along long after the first two and her words are, well they're just amazing.

In any event, I think the priest who answered my question you linked to gave a good explanation of what one needs to do in conjunction with the scapular.  It's a sacramental and a devotion.  It should be blessed by a priest and the prayers should be recited every night.  But it's not magic and by itself will not pull your soul out of hell.  I think it was made as a small mortification, which fits in excellently with St. Therese's little way.  It's two itchy spots on your chest and back that. If you've got a decision that makes you sweat a little, will pull you back in to reality.  It works a bit better than a WWJD bracelet, but in this sense is the same thing.


How do young Catholics remember a set of prayers in order to pray the rosary? How do young Catholics remember a set of prayers in order to pray the rosary? Do they have to memorize everything by rote, or do they get some help with mnemonics? Should they pray in Latin or in the vernacular? Is there a bit of wiggle room if someone is a little amnesic so that they don't have to remember a set of prayers? Would just reading the prayers suffice instead of actually memorizing, or is memorizing a form of pious behavior for young people who are taught to become faithful practicing Catholics?

So, I was reading this article [Cunningham, L. S. (1999). Mary in Catholic Doctrine and Practice. Theology Today, 56(3), 307.], and I noticed that the author was raised Catholic as a youngster, as shown.

  By the time I was in elementary school, I knew how to say the
  rosary-which meant that I had memorized the Hail Mary, the Lord’s
  Prayer, the Apostle’s Creed, and the Glory be to the Father as well as
  the titles of the fifteen mysteries upon which we meditated as we
  prayed.

How do young Catholics remember a set of prayers in order to pray the rosary? Do they have to memorize everything by rote, or do they get some help with mnemonics?

Rosary is a combination of many prayers like Apostles' Creed, Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory to the Father.., twenty mysteries divided into four sets,  Hail holy Queen, Litany of Mary etc. All these individual prayers are therefore memorised so that one can say them fluently at the time of their recital. All these prayers are mandatory (to be learnt by heart) before the members are made eligible for Sacraments like First Communion, Confirmation etc.

  Should they pray in Latin or in the vernacular?

All these prayers are said in vernacular languages. In my place the Litany sometimes is still recited in Latin, but that is by a few exceptional groups of people who are of older generation.

  Is there a bit of wiggle room if someone is a little amnesic so that they don't have to remember a set of prayers?

I am not very sure but for such members only the basic prayers like  Apostles creed, Our Father, Hail Mary  are made to remember  so that they become eligible for requisite Sacraments.

  Would just reading the prayers suffice instead of actually memorizing, or is memorizing a form of pious behavior for young people who are taught to become faithful practicing Catholics?

It is necessary and mandatory that all these prayers are memorised and this is usually done at home as well as in the Sunday catechism classes. There are about seven text books that children have to learn and pass during the catechism classes. During these classes they are taught these prayers as well as other tenets of Roman Catholicism/Christianity. But mostly the memorising is done at home. Then they have to answer exams of sort in the catechism classes and pass them. The Sacrament of First Communion is given for those who have learnt and passed first two text books. And those who have completed all the seven would be selected for the Sacrament of Confirmation.


Do Protestants think of Mary as the "Mother of All Peoples"? I recently ran across a photo of a statue of Mary with her arms outstretched horizontally and the caption "Mother of All Peoples." A Google search reveals that this title is derived from a similar title, Lady of the Nations, associated with a Dutch visionary in the 1930s. See
The Lady of All Nations.
I'm curious to know to what extent "all peoples" or "all nations" who are not Catholic accept Mary as "mother." For example, what do various Protestant denominations teach about Mary's role, if any, in God's plan for human salvation? Are there any Protestant groups who look to Mary in the role of companion or advocate?

I am quoting, below, from the Second Helvetic Confession which is a generally accepted statement of the Reformation :

It was adopted by the Reformed Church not only throughout Switzerland but in Scotland (1566), Hungary (1567), France (1571), Poland (1578), and after the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Scots Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism is the most generally recognized confession of the Reformed Church. The Second Helvetic Confession was also included in the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.'s Book of Confessions, in 1967, and remains in the Book of Confessions adopted by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Helvetic Confessions - Wikipedia

The Helvetic Confession only makes one mention of Mary, the mother of Jesus :

For Scripture has delivered to us a manifest distinction of persons, the angel saying, among other things, to the Blessed Virgin, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God" (Luke 1:35)

Chapter III - The Second Helvetic Confession

In regard to images in general there is this statement :

But in fact in order to instruct men in religion and to remind them of divine things and of their salvation, the Lord commanded the preaching of the Gospel (Mark 16:15) - not to paint and to teach the laity by means of pictures. Moreover, he instituted sacraments, but nowhere did he set up images.

Chapter IV - The Second Helvetic Confession

As noted in comment, above, the only place in scripture to speak of a woman being a 'mother' to all humanity is the pronouncement upon Eve when Adam named her :

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

[Genesis 3:20, KJV]

As noted in comment, the Wikipedia entry on Anglican Marian Theology does not carry sufficient citation to be a reliable statement of the very broad spectrum of belief within the Anglican/Anglo-Catholic community.


What are the Church Laws governing ingredients and shapes of altar bread in the Catholic Church? There appears to be perfect uniformity in the texture and make of the Sacramental Bread in Catholic churches all across the world. I wish to know if there are any laws governing the ingredients and method of preparation of the Sacramental Bread in the Roman Catholic Church? I also wish to know why the Holy Host administered to the faithful is perfectly round in shape whereas it could have been given the shape of `having been broken', say square, in order to avoid waste while it is  being cut from a larger bread.

Can.  924 §2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.
[…]
Can.  926 According to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread in the eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.

Regarding the shape, canonist Dom Augustine, O.S.B., commentates on the 1917 Code Can. 815, the equivalent of 1983 Can.  924 quoted above:

As to the form of the bread, round hosts are used in the Latin Church, whereas the Oriental Church employs square hosts.9 The size of the host for Holy Mass and exposition in the Ostensorium should be from two to three and of the particles for distribution about one inch. The altar breads should be neither too thick nor too thin.10

Benedict XIV, Di Sac. Missæ, I, c. 6 [De Hoſtia, "On the Host"].

Prümmer, l. c. [Manuale Theologiæ Moralis], III, n. 171.

Also, round hosts are made with an iron, so there is no "waste while it is being cut from a larger bread". This baking machine makes hosts and particles:


Why do Evangelicals like a spirituality book by a 16th century Catholic monk? I recall in my early days as a Christian I remember reading a book called ‘The Practice of the Presence of God’ by a Monk called Brother Lawrence in France.  It always baffles me a bit that this book exists at that time and that reformed theologians and evangelicals will recommend it to others.

Some think Protestants admire Mother Teresa, but I would have to say I have rarely seen a book by Mother Teresa in an Evangelical Christian bookstore but have commonly found this little book by Brother Lawrence?

What I am wondering is according to evangelical or reformed thought why would this book above possibly all other Catholic books in the last 1000 years be so appealing? Why would it seem so non-Catholic and acceptable to those who strongly oppose Catholicism?

The Practice of the Presence of God is one of a variety of different Christian "classics" which really cross denominational boundaries (Imitation of Christ might be another). Since the truths it discusses are universal to Christianity and because there is very little in the document which must be Catholic, its benefits are generally considered to far outweigh the detriments.

But, here is a counter question: if it is acceptable to read documents by other Protestant traditions/denominations, why is it unacceptable to read Catholic material as well? From the perspective of a devout Calvinist, Bonhoeffer got some things dead wrong, but he was recommended reading in my Presbyterian Church. C. S. Lewis is an Anglican, but you'll often see Baptists reading Mere Christianity. Chesterton is a Catholic, but Orthodoxy is one of the better apologetics texts in the English language. If all of these alternate theologians are acceptable, why is it unacceptable to read the writings of a humble monk on how to live one's life?


Why do Catholic persons not partake of mass every single day? The Douay Rheims bible states this for Matthew 6:11 :

Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

Why, therefore, do Catholic persons not celebrate the mass every day ?

If the Douay Rheims bible states this for Matthew 6:11 : “Give us this day our super-substantial bread.” Why is it, therefore, that Catholics not attend Mass every day?
The short answer is that many choose not to or can not do so for a variety of reasons.
Daily Mass is attended out of devotion and piety. There is no official obligation on the part of the Church to go to Mass everyday of the week.
For myself, the number one reason, why I can not get to daily Mass is work. But some may ask: Surely there would be enough time after work? Well not true! There are three parishes in my area. Daily
Mass is at 8:00 AM at all three and that corresponds with the middle of my shift!
No pope has interpreted this passage as solely meaning the Eucharist, but it may well be applied to the Eucharist. According to Catholicism it can  be applied to another interpretation as well:  our daily necessities or our daily Eucharist.

Our Supersubstantial Bread
The Lord has left us a mystery to contemplate.  It is right there in the middle of the “Our Father” when Jesus teaches us to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread.” (Mt. 6:11) This is generally recognized to mean pray for our basic daily necessities. (CCC 2837)  This is true.  Yet, hidden in the mundane and seemingly redundant word “daily” is the veiled, mysterious Greek word epiousios (επιούσιος).  Epiousios is a unique word, sacramental-like in nature, a visible sign of a hidden reality.  Epiousios occurs nowhere else in the Greek Bible except in the same Our Father passage in Luke 11:3 and the Apostle’s Didache.  In fact, epiousios is not found anywhere else at all in Greek literature.  The only recorded reference to epiousios, ever, is Jesus’ prayer.
As the early Church Father and master of the Greek language Origen (d. 254 AD) concludes, epiousios was “invented by the Evangelists.”  The millennia have bore out his assertion that epiousios was a new word, a neologism of uncertain etymology.  The usual Greek word for “daily,” hemera, is, after all, used this elsewhere in the New Testament, but not in this instance.  Why did St. Matthew and St. Luke feel compelled to create a new Greek word to accurately reflect the words of Jesus?  They most likely had to use a new word to faithfully translate a novel idea or a unique Aramaic word that Jesus used in His prayer.  What was Jesus’ new idea?  Although there are multiple levels of meanings to epiousios, Jesus is making a clear allusion to the Eucharist.  “Our daily bread” is one translation of a word that goes far above our basic needs for sustenance, and invokes our supernatural needs.
St. Jerome translated the Bible in the 4th century from the original Latin, Hebrew and Greek texts to form the Latin Vulgate Bible.  When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.”  Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial.”  The root words are: epi, meaning “above” or “super;” and ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance.”  When they are read together, we come to the possible translations of “super-substantial,” “above-essence,” or, in effect, “supernatural” bread.  This translation as supersubstantial is still found today in the Douay-Rheims Bible.  Taken literally, our supersubstantial bread is the Eucharist. (CCC 2837)  In his commentary on St. Matthew’s gospel, St. Jerome states this directly: “We can also understand supersubstantial bread in another sense as bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures.”
St. Jerome translated the Bible in the 4th century from the original Latin, Hebrew and Greek texts to form the Latin Vulgate Bible.  When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.” Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial.” The root words are: epi, meaning “above” or “super;” and ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance.”  When they are read together, we come to the possible translations of “super-substantial,” “above-essence,” or, in effect, “supernatural” bread. This translation as supersubstantial is still found today in the Douay-Rheims Bible. Taken literally, our supersubstantial bread is the Eucharist. (CCC 2837) In his commentary on St. Matthew’s gospel, St. Jerome states this directly: “We can also understand supersubstantial bread in another sense as bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures.”
St. Jerome also suggests that the Hebrew word for epiousios was the word maar meaning “for tomorrow,” invoking an eschatological interpretation of epiousios. In this sense, we are praying “this day” for our bread “for tomorrow,” or our future bread.  We are petitioning God for tomorrow’s future bread today. Pope Benedict reflects on this “petition for an anticipation for the world to come, asking the Lord to give already ‘today’ the future bread, the bread of the new world – Himself.”  This again has Eucharistic overtones, as the Catechism states, “the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come.” (CCC 2837)
This eschatological interpretation is also borne out in the parable for the “coming day’s bread,” that Jesus teaches immediately following the Our Father. In Luke 11:5-8, Jesus tells the story of a man, who at “midnight” asks a friend to lend him three loaves of bread, as another friend of his has arrived from a journey and he has nothing to give him. As scholars have noted, there is the crucial matter of timing in this parable.  In the morning the man can provide an abundance of food and bread for his guest, but at midnight he has nothing.  This is an allusion to the fact that in the coming day of the Lord in heaven we will have a superabundance to meet our every need, both material and spiritual. But, as of yet, in this temporal life, a constant need remains. - Our Supersubstantial Bread

The Church has never obliged the faithful to go Mass everyday. This would cause undue hardship on many. Historically, this would have been impossible for those working in agriculture in days prior to modern machines.
Would one travel x miles to Mass and leave the fields or livestock unattended?
In towns and cities, it would be more possible to attend daily Mass. But then, this too is thought as by being out of devotion and not out of obligation.
So, why do Catholic persons not partake of mass every single day?

Sometimes the distance to Mass is very great and not all Catholics have vehicles.
Some Catholics are in prison or doing military service for their country.
Work schedules for many conflict with Mass times, especially the further away from cities one dwells in.
Daily Mass has never been an obligation for the faithful. Many do go to daily Mass.


Is the term *Kyrie Eleison* Latin or Greek? Kyrie Eleison is a term that is used in the Latin Mass of the Catholic Church. However, I've been told that the phrase is entirely Greek and not Latin at all!

So is the phrase Latin or Greek? Is it transliterated from Greek and therefore Latin?

It is simply Greek that has been written in Roman letters.

The city of Rome was essentially bilingual from around the time of Caesar Augustus until at least the third or fourth century A.D.: the people spoke mostly vulgar Latin or common (Koine) Greek. Greek was the more common language among the poor, who formed the majority of the ranks of the Church at first. The Roman liturgy, therefore, was originally composed in Greek, and was only translated into Latin in the third century, as vulgar Latin gradually became the more common language. (The Wikipedia article on the pre-Tridentine liturgy has some good sources and information, actually.)

In any case, the Kyrie is simply the transliteration in Roman letters of the Greek Κύριε (or Χρίστε), ἐλέησον, “Lord (or Christ), have mercy.” It is all that remains of the original Greek version of the Roman Rite.


What should I expect at a Roman Catholic funeral? A funeral notice announces a "mass of Christian burial" (at a Roman Catholic church in the US) followed by a burial followed by a luncheon.  As an outsider I have a few questions about what to expect:

Is the mass the same as a Sunday mass with extra stuff added, or is it different?  What content is unique to a funeral mass?
What happens at the burial beyond putting the casket in the ground?  (In movies you always see what looks like another religious service there, but I don't know if that's accurate.)  If there is a service of some sort, how does it differ from the mass?
Where is the eulogy given (or does that vary)?  Will visitors be asked to say something about the deceased at one of these services?
Is it practical to skip the mass1 and go to the rest, or would that be "weird"?  If it's practical, approximately how long after the announced start time for the mass should one show up to proceed to the cemetery?
What are the cultural/social norms around interacting with the mourners?  Are there specific things you should (or shouldn't) say or do, beyond what common sense suggests?  For example, in Judaism we have a specific phrase of comfort that we say; is there anything like that?
Are you supposed to bring a dish to the luncheon?

1 Because participating in, or appearing to participate in, another religion's service can be problematic.

Is the mass the same as a Sunday mass..

Same basic format as Sunday mass, but read from a different part of the book.
What happens at the burial...

This is not part of the Mass and doesn't even necessarily need to coincide with the Mass for the Dead.  It's pretty much the same as at any other secular(ish) event.
Where is the eulogy given...

A eulogy is not part of the Mass, the Mass is for the repose of the soul of the deceased, not to honor his or her life.

However, eulogies are often given, after the priest has spoken his homily (about halfway through mass)
Is it practical to skip the mass...

That's entirely cultural and subjective.  The only thing a non-catholic shouldn't do at Mass is receive the Eucharist.  Beyond that, do what is comfortable.  Chances are very good that over half of the people with you are cultural Catholics and wouldn't give a hoot if you sat through the whole Mass.

One thing than is probably acceptable (at least in a traditional sense for those who are not fully accepted into the Catholic Church) would be to leave after the homily (or the eulogy).  That way all you're hearing is the stuff you've probably heard before and all the stuff you're missing is the stuff you might feel uncomfortable either in participating in or visibly avoiding.  So then you can mill around for half an hour or so and join the entourage to the cemetery when you see the casket being carried out of the church.
What are the cultural/social norms around interacting with the mourners?

It's always dependent on the circumstances, but generally Catholic funerals are pretty happy events, even if the death was fairly tragic.  My brother, who died at 29, was an awful experience, but I got hugs from nearly everyone in the entire town and felt good to have the support of everyone who knew him
Are you supposed to bring a dish to the luncheon?

Probably not (unless it's a funeral of epic proportions) this is usually handled by the ladies of the Parish who seem to have the uncanny ability to materialize tons and tons of food out of nowhere.

more info on Funerals from the US Council of Catholic Bishops. Apparently, in extraordinary circumstances, non Catholic's can read at the Mass.


Reasons for Restriction of Tridentine Rite post Vatican II If I understand correctly, the Second Vatican Council ordered the revision of the liturgical books based on the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. These revisions where carried out in the years after the council and implemented in 1969/70.

Even during the council and even more up to the implementation of the revised books there was plenty of criticism of the council as a whole, specific teachings in particular and of the liturgy and the upcoming liturgical reform.

If my research is correct, in 1974 the congregation for divine worship announced that no more permissions would be given to those who intended to celebrate the liturgy according to the pre-vatican formulae.

This situation eventually led to the founding of SSPX and the schismatic consecration of four bishops by Marcel Lefebvre.

Later on the restrictions on the use of the older liturgy where loosened until Benecit XVI made access to the now called extraordinary form widely an mostly unrestrictedly availably.

This leads me to the following two questions:

What reasons where there to heavily restrict access to the old liturgy after the council?
Was it expected that these restrictions might give further rise to the SSPX-schism (or similar problems within the church)?

Reasons for Restriction of Tridentine Rite post Vatican II

There will never be published any official reasons for the seemed restrictions of the Tridentine Mass and it's liturgy. If one can find some then they are free to make a response to this very question.

The real reasons for the restriction of the Tridentine Mass promulgated by Pope St. Pius V seem to be more of a conundrum than anything else.

Before getting involved in this answer, I wish to state that I attend both Forms of the Sacred Mass in use within the Roman Rite (the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (EF) and the Ordinary Form of the Mass (OF)). I do not like to  criticize either Mass within the Roman Rite. Both can be prayed in a holy manner and both are valid forms of Catholic worship. However as I tell many others, the Tridentine Mass in more conducive to my spirituality and thus is the one I prefer to attend. If a traditional priest is continually blasting apart the New Mass from the pulpit, I will likewise go somewhere else. For myself the opposite is equally true.

I know of a certain French prelate that desired to say the Mass of Pope Pius V and went to Rome in 1978 to seek out permission. Rome reply  from the particular congregation was simple: "No, say the New Mass only." It is obvious that Rome truly wanted the New Mass in and the Tridentine Mass out.

Just a few points before really digging into this question.

As for your research (which you do not say what), you state that "in 1974 the congregation for divine worship announced that no more permissions would be given to those who intended to celebrate the liturgy according to the Pre-Vatican II formulae." That is not completely accurate. For example, in France the clergy were not obliged to say the New Mass until the French bishops had actually approved the French translation of the Mass. That happened in 1977. I remember a certain French abbot telling me that when this took place, he told his community to obey and hope for better times and hope that the former "Old Rite" may come back.
Priests of a certain age were never obliged to say the New Mass.
Pope Benedict XVI stated the Mass of Pope St. Pius V was never abrogated.
Rome actually published yet another Missal during the Second Vatican II Council, which almost everybody in unaware that really existed: The Interim Roman Missal of 1965?. I have actually seen this Missal, even though they are now extremely difficult to find. The Missal was in Latin and English and was basically the same Mass as in use in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Now for the crux of the matter in question. The Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, commonly known as the Second Vatican Council or Vatican II, addressed relations between the Catholic Church and the modern world. The council, through the Holy See, was formally opened under the pontificate of Pope St. John XXIII on 11 October 1962 and was closed under Pope St. Paul VI on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception on 8 December 1965. As you state in your question "the Second Vatican Council ordered the revision of the liturgical books based on the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. These revisions where carried out in the years after the council and [were to be] implemented in 1969/70," as seen in Pope Paul's Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum. "We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent."

What were the reasons for the restriction of Tridentine Rite following Vatican II?

Rome desired that the New Mass be made available to all the faithful and clergy alike. After all, Pope Paul's Constitution on the Missale Romanum clearly stated that "we order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year (1970), the first Sunday of Advent." Thus the Mass of Pope Pius V had to be put on the back burner. That much is obvious.
One of the most common reasons one will hear is that Rome desired more Scripture readings for the faithful. A fact that the New Mass tries to bears out. "Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For it is from scripture that lessons are read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung; the prayers, collects, and liturgical songs are scriptural in their inspiration and their force, and it is from the scriptures that actions and signs derive their meaning. Thus to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that warm and living love for scripture to which the venerable tradition of both eastern and western rites gives testimony." - General norms Pope Paul"s Apostolic Constitution goes on to state that "in prescribing that "the treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's Word" (ON NEW ROMAN MISSAL) It also goes on to state: "According to the prescription of the Second Vatican Council which prescribes that "a more representative portion of the Holy Scriptures will be read to the people over a set cycle of years," and of the readings for Sunday are divided into a cycle of three years. In addition, for Sunday and feasts, the readings of the Epistle and Gospel are preceded by a reading from the Old Testament or, during Paschaltide, from the Acts of the Apostles. In this way the dynamism of the mystery of salvation, shown by the text of divine revelation, is more clearly accentuated. These widely selected biblical readings, which give to the faithful on feast days the most important part of Sacred Scripture, is completed by access to the other parts of the Holy Books read on other days."
The Tradentine Rite had only one Eucharistic Prayer (The Roman Canon) whereas the New Mass has the Roman Canon, plus three additional Eucharistic Prayers that the celebrant was free to choose from.
It was also desired that the Laity have a greater participation in the Mass. Thus vernacular languages were introduced into the liturgy, something that the Old Rite seriously restricted. The Sacrosanctum Concilium document desired "to promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence."
Rome desired more Eucharistic concelebrations under certain circumstances. These were not done in the ordinary usage of the Tridentine Mass.

  Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases:

  a) on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.

  b) at Masses during councils, bishops' conferences, and synods;

  c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.

  Also, with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs to decide whether concelebration is opportune:

  a) at conventual Mass, and at the principle Mass in churches when the needs of the faithful do not require that all priests available should celebrate individually;

  b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests' meetings, whether the priests be secular clergy or religious. - THE MOST SACRED MYSTERY OF THE EUCHARIST

These are the main reasons why Rome seems to have restricted the use of the former Mass of Pope St. Pius V. There are certainly others, such a priest facing the people during Mass. But it is still permitted to say the Mass of Pope Paul VI ad orientem.

What I truly find as a real conundrum is that the Missal of 1965 permitted  most of the changes we see, yet remained in essence the Mass of Pope Pius V! Some have actually called it the  “Mass of Vatican II.” A copy of this "Vatican II Missal" as approved for the use in the United States of America can be found here and here. Some religious communities are using this Mass in their liturgy with the approval of Rome.

In desiring a greater love of the Mass and the Sacred Liturgy, some point out the use of communion on the hand as an innovation of Vatican II. Nothing is further from the truth. Sacrosanctum Concilium does not even mention it at all. Nor does any of the successive documents speak of it, nor the New Roman Missal, but only Memoriale Domini, which establishes it in terms of an indult.

  The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand first began to spread in Catholic circles during the early 1960s, primarily in Holland. Shortly after Vatican II, due to the escalating abuses in certain non-English speaking countries (Holland, Belgium, France and Germany), Pope Paul VI took a survey of the world's bishops to ascertain their opinions on the subject. On May 28, 1969 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini, which concluded: "From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful." After he had considered the observation and the counsel of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See then strongly urged bishops, priests and the laity to zealously observe this law out of concern for the common good of the Church.
  Despite the vote, in 1969 Pope Paul VI decided to strike a compromise with his disobedient bishops on the continent. Given “the gravity of the matter,” the pope would not authorize Communion in the hand. He was, however, open to bestowing an indult – an exception to the law – under certain conditions: first, an indult could not be given to a country in which Communion in the hand was not an already established practice; second, the bishops in countries where it was established must approve of the practice “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority.” Beyond this, the Holy See set down seven regulations concerning communion in the hand; failure to maintain these regulations could result in the loss of the indult. The first three regulations concerned: 1) respecting the laity who continue the traditional practice (of receiving kneeling and on the tongue), 2) maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist, and 3) strengthening the laity’s faith in the real presence. - Truth About Communion in the Hand While Standing

No matter what Ecumenical Council the Church holds, there are those who will be at odds with it's decisions, no matter how trivial they may seem. Archbishop Lefebvre was actually was in favor of the Missal of 1965, but not the New Mass of Pope Paul VI from the very start. What went wrong is anyone's guess? Rome wanted the New Mass in and the Tridentine Mass suppressed. It's not clear exactly why. Some traditional groups, Deo Gratias, just would not give up the Traditional Mass and this forced Rome to start reopening up in favor of the Tridentine Mass. If it was not for them the Old Mass would have the way of the dodo bird.

For example, after Vatican I, Fr. Charles Jean Marie Loyson (10 March 1827 – 9 February 1912), better known by his religious name Père Hyacinthe, was excommunicated for refusing to acknowledge the infallibility of the pope. He was so sure of this that he left the priesthood and eventually got married.

Yet a more bizarre one from Vatican I is the case of Bishop Edward Mary Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Arkansas is as follows:

  Summoned to Rome for the First Vatican Council in December 1869, he was one of two bishops to vote against the dogma of papal infallibility — an act that earned an entry in Universal Church history as “Big Rock versus the Little Rock.” Bishop Fitzgerald explained later that he voted as he did because he believed affirming infallibility would hinder his efforts to convert non-Catholics back in Arkansas. - Bishop Edward M. Fitzgerald

Unlike Fr. Hyacinthe, the Bishop of Little Rock was not excommunicated. In fact, he accepted the final outcome of the Vatican Council I. True to his own deep faith, Bishop Fitzgerald acknowledged his own faith in the theological truth of papal infallibility and was asked by the pope to be at the side of His Holiness when he officially proclaimed that papal infallibility(Pastor aeternus) as a dogma of the Catholic Church. He did.


Did God give Moses visions of History and the Tabernacle on Mount Sinai? After Moses spent forty days and nights on the mountain, he gave the people the requirements God had told him to say to the Israelites:

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation unless otherwise noted.

  Exodus 19:3  And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

In the chapters between 19 and 25 are the laws God gave Moses, but in chapter 25,God in giving Moses instructions on building the Tabernacle said:

  Exodus 25:8 and 9  And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

according to that Scripture God showed Moses some visions, and also;

  Exodus 25:40  And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount.

If I am reading the Scriptures correctly God not only told Moses what to tell the Israelites to do, but also gave him visions of exactly how the Tabernacle and its furnishings should be made.

Did God also give Moses visions of History which he then recorded in Genesis?

Most definitely. The passage makes it clear that the earthly sanctuary was modeled after another Sanctuary, the True Sanctuary made by the LORD Himself. This is what was shown to Moses in vision.

  Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a
  High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the
  Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true
  tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

  Hebrews 8:1,2

  For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are
  priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy
  and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed
  when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you
  make all things according to the pattern shown you on the
  mountain.”[a] 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry,
  inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was
  established on better promises.

  Hebrews 8:4,6

Divine inspiration does not work in the way that God dictates word for word, as it is known that different authors had different writing styles. Nevertheless, they were all inspired by the Holy Spirit. Because Moses did not live in that time, a vision must have been shown to him in order for him to be able to write the Genesis account in such detail. Some also think that Moses was the author of the Book of Job.


God is love, pure, and all good, and omnipotent? In my opinion, if someone says, "God is" or "God is not" or "God looks like" or "God doesn't look like" they've limited him and he's no longer omnipresent, omnipotent, or omnificent.

So then, how can God be omnipotent and be limited to only love?  Love cannot be hate.  Good cannot be evil.  The light cannot be on and off at the same time.  Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive but not both.

"only God understands how this can be" is not a valid answer.

1 John 4:8

  Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

But does that mean, he is only love?

The assertion that God's omniscience, omnipresence, and omnificence somehow means that God must be everything is false.  God's omniscience means God knows all things.  God's omnipresence means that God is everywhere present.  God's omnificence means that He has all creative power.  None of these mandate that God must be both love and evil.

God is certainly not everything.  He is holy--not unholy.  He is just--not unjust.  He is good--not evil.  He is infinite--not finite.

God is truly indescribable, though, in that He cannot be completely defined by words.  Indeed, I'm not sure any person could be completely described by words, even as finite as we are.

God created the physical universe of time, space, and matter, so He is completely outside of those things--beyond space, beyond time, and matter--and is not limited by those things.  Yet, again, that does not mean He is everything--or everyone.  He is only Himself and not His creation.

As an aside, hate is often misunderstood as the opposite of love.  However, apathy seems to be a better candidate for this.  The fact that one does not love a particular person does not necessarily mean he hates the person.  He may not know the person at all, so he would be apathetic towards him.


Are Catholics married in a civil ceremony still permitted to receive communion? A couple was married in a civil ceremony.  They attend Catholic Church and are Catholic.
Are they permitted to receive Communion at Mass, per Catholic Church teachings?

A Catholic "married" in a civil ceremony is not in a valid marriage—unless they have regularized their marriage, thereby respecting the 6th precept of the Church on obeying the Church's marriage laws. If that Catholic is cohabitating and having sexual relations, he or she is committing fornication, which is a mortal sin. Receiving Communion outside of the state of grace (i.e., with a mortal sin on one's soul) is very dangerous:

1 Cor. 11:27:

  Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of our Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of our Lord.


How could the person in Luke 9:49 cast out demons without Jesus' mandate? Luke 9:49 (ESV):

  John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.”

The 12 (and later the 70) only started healing people and casting out demons AFTER Jesus "gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases."

The Holy Spirit had not been sent yet, so with what authority was this person acting?

I am not questioning the good will of the anonymous healer. Was he an imposter Jesus would have stated so.

What I'm really wondering is that people didn't need a direct command (or mandate) from Jesus to act in His name?

DEV--Don's Edited Version

The answer to your question comes from Jesus, and also from the words of John in the verse you quoted.

John's words: John assumed that because the unnamed exorcist was not in the inner circle of the Twelve that his exorcism could not therefore be on the "up and up."
Jesus' words:  In essence, Jesus told John (and all the other disciples who were present during the "Who is the greatest?" incident),

  "Hey [he didn't say 'Hey'], if that person you speak of exorcised demons in my name successfully, then he must be one of us, even though he is not a member of this particular group of twelve disciples."

I think many Christians (and I count myself among that number) assume that the only disciples who performed miracles in Jesus' name were those whom Jesus sent out (or commissioned, as in Mark 6:7, Luke 9:2 and 10:1) to precede him and pave the way for him by preaching the kingdom and by performing miracles such as exorcisms and perhaps other works of healing. This assumption may not be warranted, particularly in light of Jesus' words; namely,

  "'Do not hinder him [i.e., the man who cast out demons], for he who is not against you is for you'" (Luke 9:50)

In other words, Jesus could very well have commissioned this man on a one-to-one basis. Perhaps for whatever reason this man could not "follow along with"--as John put it--the Twelve or some other recognizable group of Jesus-followers (e.g., "the 70" in Luke 10:1), so Jesus permitted him to heal people in Jesus' name.

I think it unwise to assume, for example, that this man was a nonbeliever (similar to Simon Magus in Acts 8:9 ff.) and a "Lone Ranger" who was performing miracles without Jesus' sanction. Jesus could very well have sanctioned him to perform these miracles. Moreover, as I've suggested above, Jesus seems to have assumed that since the man performed miracles "in Jesus' name," that he was indeed "one of us"--meaning the Twelve and all his other disciples, even if John did not recognize him as such.

In conclusion, there is no reason of which I am aware why this "lone wolf exorcist" was any more in need of the sending authority of the Holy Spirit than were the Twelve. After all, the Holy Spirit did not commission the Twelve (and others); Jesus did. On the authority of Jesus, the Twelve and this unnamed disciple were given the ability to heal. The power to do so undoubtedly came from the Holy Spirit, but the disciples were not even aware at this point that there was such a person called the "Holy Spirit." That awareness came later (e.g., in John 15).

Additional Thought/Addendum

Jesus had a way of surprising--shocking even--his closest followers and disciples. Example par excellence: Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar, in John 4:4-45. This woman had a number of strikes against her, at least from the disciples' perspective:

  She was a she. In other words, she was a second- or third-class citizen, as were most women in those days (with a few exceptions, to be sure).
  She was a member of a despised people group, the Samaritans, whom the Jews considered to be a bunch of religious half-breeds--which was partly true, since after the divided kingdom and the subsequent exile of Israeli Jews, Samaria was "seeded" with the importation of foreign colonists who brought their own syncretistic views of religion to Palestine. Consider Wayne Brindle's comments:

  "The development of Samaritanism and its alienation from Judaism was a process that began with the division of the kingdom of Israel, and continued through successive incidents which promoted antagonism, including the importation of foreign colonists into Samaria by Assyria, the rejection of the new Samaritan community by the Jews, the building of a rival temple on Mt. Gerizim, the political and religious opportunism of the Samaritans, and the destruction of both the Samaritan temple and their capital of Shechem by John Hyrcanus during the second century B:C. The Samaritan religion at
  the time of Jesus had become Mosaic and quasi-Sadducean, but strongly anti-Jewish. Jesus recognized their heathen origins and the falsity of their religious claims."

  She was a woman of questionable morals. (Today, a bigot would probably label her a slut!)
  She was alone with Jesus and conversed with him in a give-and-take discussion, which could have lasted an hour or more. Pious Jewish men simply did not talk with women in public, let alone have a religious confabulation. Unthinkable!
  She gave Jesus a drink of water from her own bucket, which to the Jews of Jesus' day would be unthinkable (just think of the ritual uncleanness of it all!).

Nevertheless, Jesus, John tells us, "had to pass through Samaria" (4:4). Why? Because a Samaritan woman had a divine appointment with her soon-to-be Savior and Lord! Jesus could have bypassed Samaria as he travelled from northern Israel to southern Israel, as did his fellow Jews, but he was never one to depart from the path his Father had chosen for him. Furthermore, his Father and he shared a love for outcasts, outsiders, the foreigner, the stranger, and the alien. Why else would the Law of Moses contain so many instructions regarding the humane treatment of non-Hebrews with whom the Israelis interacted.

My point is this: John--and perhaps the other disciples--did not realize at the time he registered his opinion about the "interloper" who was casting out demons in Jesus' name
that Jesus' compassionate heart had room for outsiders and interlopers, such as the Samaritan woman at the well, and also the Syro-Phoenician woman whose daughter was plagued by a demon:

  "Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold , a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying , 'Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.' But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying , 'Send her away; for she crieth after us.' But he answered and said, 'I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' Then came she and worshipped him, saying, 'Lord, help me.' But he answered and said, 'It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.' And she said, 'Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus answered and said unto her, 'O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.' And her daughter was made whole from that very hour'" (Matthew 15:21-28 KJV).

In conclusion, the people to whom Jesus reached out may not have fit the mold of "disciple material" which was in John's (and others') mind, but then Jesus was not big on molds. Jesus was more interested in people's hearts, and he was an equal opportunity Savior, Healer, and Lord, and not just to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."


Does the Catholic canon law say anything about women being priests? Is there any canon law in the Catholic Church about the role of women in the church and its possibilities to be groomed for Priesthood?

Can.  1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

The Code of Canon Law makes it clear that only a male can be ordained validly. This is teaching of the Church going back centuries and most recently outlined by Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

The priesthood being only for men doesn't mean women have no role. Not all men are eligible to be priests and not every man desires to either. There are many roles for both men and women, some are exclusive to one or the other and some are for either.

Men can be priests (and bishops or cardinals or popes), but also monks, friars, altar servers, teachers, professors, hermits, fathers, etc.

Women can be nuns, religious sisters, teachers, professors, mothers, hermits, consecrated virgins, etc.


Were musical instruments alowed in the temple holy and holy of holys? There appear to be examples of musical instruments on the temple grounds but is there any law allowing musical instruments in the temple sanctuary, the holy  and the  Holy of holys?

Except for maintenance, nobody was allowed in the Holy of Holies but the high priest on Yom Kippur and music making was not part of the service.

I Chronicles 25 talks about the musicians who worked in the Temple and their instruments.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16545


How old was St. Joseph when he married the Blessed Virgin Mary? According to the Church Fathers or other Catholic theologians, how old was St. Joseph when he married the Blessed Virgin Mary?

According to ch. 1 of The Divine Favors Granted to St. Joseph (1973) by Père Binet, S.J., the general opinion among theologians is that St. Joseph was, when he married, "neither an old man nor a youth, but in the prime of life, between thirty and forty":

A secret inspiration from heaven caused both Mary and Joseph to contract this alliance, while adoring in their hearts the impenetrable counsel of the great God. Mary was in her fifteenth year; the age of Joseph is not known so exactly, tradition being silent on the subject. The opinion that he was about eighty years old is without reasonable grounds, and is not held by theologians, the most esteemed of whom think that he was neither an old man nor a youth, but in the prime of life, between thirty and forty. There are many reasons in support of this opinion, which is now generally held.

The first treatise on St. Joseph, the 1522 Summa de donis de S. Joseph by Isidore de Isolanis, O.P. (pp. 81-88, PDF pp. 110-17), advances several arguments:
in favor of a young St. Joseph

Spouses were roughly the same age. St. Mary was younger. ∴, St. Joseph was young.
St. Mary couldn't be thought to be St. Joseph's daughter.
St. Joseph needed to be young and healthy to protect St. Mary and Jesus, travel to different regions, and work for them.
The prophecy Isaiah 62:5: "For the young man [St. Joseph] shall dwell with the virgin [St. Mary]"

opposed to a young St. Joseph

He was middle-aged, but old enough to be manly and knowledgeable of Holy Scriptures.
He must have been old enough to have acquired a grave demeanor, prudence, and fortitude.
He stayed 7 years in Egypt. The Egyptians hated the Israelites, so he must have been old enough to defend against this.


What is considered to be free choice in the context of "choosing to go to hell"? Let me preface this by stating that I received a Christian education and have seen the idea that individuals choose to go to hell (rather than God sending them there), mostly from a vaguely evangelical context. This statement bothers me for various reasons, I won't go into, but it strikes me as rather vague for the following reason.

Suppose person X hears about Christianity, but for some reason, does not accept it. There are various reasons for why this might happen (it's not convincing enough, for instance), but one that strikes me as particularly "problematic" (and not just so from my perspective as an atheist) is one where X hears about Christianity from some very poor representatives of the religion (e.g. Christians who have decimated the people of X's religion of ethnicity). As a result, because of X's poor experiences, he refuses to convert even when he is told about Christianity. (There's some reference to this sort of scenario in some accounts of the conquest of Latin America.)

Does this count as a scenario where X chooses to go to hell, as per the formulations of people who believe in this account of where people end up in the afterlife? More broadly, what is meant by "choice" in this context of choosing to believe in God?

The statement of "choosing to go to hell" is an over-simplification that really is an example of intellectual laziness, and is a great example of the difference between the "true theology" of a group and the type of pop-theology that springs up and causes great confusion.

Looking at it from any side, saying that people choose to go to hell does not make sense.

First, there are no passages of scripture that specifically mentions a person choosing to go to hell. Rather, multiple passages mention an action by God causing the separation of people, from the allegories of separating goats from sheep, or wheat from chaff, to the judgement scene in Revelations 20. Note that the separation is more of an acknowledgement of a preexisting distinction, but still only happens at the action of God. Then there is Matthew 7:21, in which it appears there is a person who wants entry to heaven, but God turns them away because they did not approach the correct way. Obviously not a choosing of hell, but rather a failure to choose heaven the right way.

Second, even just a casual examination of those who are not "born again", or those who have not "accepted Jesus", clearly shows that they have not seen a black and white choice between a choosing of heaven and a choosing of hell. Almost nobody ever believes in the existence of hell and then deliberately chooses it. As you said in your example, normally people just don't believe; not a choosing for one side versus the other, but rather an absence of choosing either.

So yes, according to the normal Evangelical interpretation there is a choice, but it is a choice to believe in and follow Jesus versus a choice not to believe in Him or not to follow Him. And yes, a choice to follow Jesus results in being allowed into Heaven, whereas a choice to not follow Him results in not being allowed into Heaven, and instead being sent to Hell, but that is a consequence, not the actual choice.

Unfortunately some people boil this down into the statement that a person is choosing to go to hell when they are actually choosing to not believe in Jesus (or at least the Evangelical interpretations).

All denominations/movements, and religions for that matter, are filled with pop-theology - the latest thoughts that spring up, which sound good to those sharing it, but don't hold up under scrutiny based on the group's base theology.


Where does God draw the line when it comes to Sin? So I've read 1 John alot and I understand that I cannot continue to sin if I want to be a child of God's.

  1 John 1:6 (NIV)

  6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the
  darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

But then at the same time, if we accomplish the call to be holy and to be righteous and to be free of sin then we are not children of God.

  1 John 1:8 (NIV)

  8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth
  is not in us.

I'm personally struggling with this very line in my own life. I don't hate people, because I know that I'm commanded to love. But when it comes to my own desires of the flesh I continually fail. I have no self control, I cannot even get out of bed when my alarm goes off lol.

Where does God draw this line? does He give us any more insight into the battle with sin through scripture? So I ask again, where does God draw the line when it comes to Sin?

Well, taking advntage of the God's mercy and forgivness is certainy not a right thing. In my opinion, unless we compeletly sway out of God's way, we should not worry to much about what kind of sins we do everyday; unless it is serious. We are humans, after all, we all make mistakes. Like Jesus said in the bible:

  Matthew 26:41:
  41 Stay awake and pray for strength against temptation. The spirit wants to do what is right, but the body is weak."

In the end, it is not how we can avoid sinning, but it is how we can be more like Christ. We will always have transgressions, but we should be trying to make it better.


Why is Infant Baptism considered to be invalid by so many Protestant denominations? Catholics and several Protestant denominations (and maybe even Orthodox churches) practice Infant Baptism, while many other Protestant denominations do not.

This question addressed the argument for Infant Baptism.  So, what is the argument against it?  That is, "Why is Infant Baptism considered to be invalid by many denominations?

In order to be saved, one must follow the order of salvation that the scriptures set forward. Romans 10:14 tells us that the order is 1) preach, 2) hear, 3) believe, and 4) call upon the name of the Lord (baptism, Acts 22:16). Acts 2:38 tells us that repentance comes before baptism, and Romans 10:10 tells us that confession comes after belief.

But let's look at this logically. How could one believe something that they can not understand or even know about? That does not make any sense. That is the reason.

Many other denominations use infant baptism for the parent's benefit. It is a proof that they WILL help their child grow and believe. Then later, in some denominations, the child is re-baptized.

However, the argument against it is simply because the Bible says you must believe before baptism. Those who hold to this belief will follow this standard, and consider baptism invalid.


What significance, if any, does the doctrine of the eternal virginity of Mary have? I understand that the Catholic Church (and perhaps the Orthodox church as well) teaches that Mary is "the eternal virgin" Mary.

If this were an important doctrine, it seems there would be fairly clear reference to it in the Scriptures.  However, the Bible is incredibly silent on it and even seems to indicate that Joseph had no union with here until Jesus was born.

  When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded
  him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth
  to a son. And he called his name Jesus.  Matthew 1:24-25 ESV

Admittedly, I don't believe Mary is the eternal virgin, and it seems by implication that Joseph would need to be an eternal virgin as well since he was married to her.  Nonetheless, in my understanding, it seems to me to be such a minute issue that it's hardly worth the effort to invest any significant amount of energy debating it.  Other things seem to be of far greater importance.

So, here's the question:

What importance does the eternal virginity of Mary have?  What does it matter?  A what would have been so horrible about her and Joseph enjoying the intimacy God provided for a married couple?

The importance of the perpetual virginity of Mary lies in the scriptural parallelism between Mary and the Ark of Covenant.

The Ark:

Journeys to a town in the hills of Judah (II Samuel 6:2)
It is greeted with awe “How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?”
(II    Samuel 6:9 KJV)
It remains at the house of Obed-Edom for three months (II Samuel 6:11)

In the same way Mary:

Journeys to a town in the hills of Judah (Luke 1:39)
It is greeted with awe "And whence is this to me, that the mother of
my Lord should    come to me?" (Luke 1:43)
It remains with Elizabeth for three months: "And Mary abode with her
about three months,  and returned to her own    house" (Luke 1:56 KJV)

I quote orthodox wiki:

  The Ark of the Covenant and the Mother of our Lord are in a sense two
  ways of looking at the same reality [...]

Because both are different manifestations of the presence of the Lord. Mary --who is a limited being-- carried in her womb the uncontainable --who is God incarnate: Jesus Christ. And in the same way that Jesus chose to lay his dead corpse in a new sepulcher (John 19:41), it is natural to believe that he also chose a "new" womb to come to this world.

The belief in ever-virginity of Mary has been a long held tradition, even the protestant reformers held such belief. I won't go deep into the testimonies of the early fathers or the protestant reformers.

A more extensive article can be read at orthodox wiki and at Newman Catholic Apologetics

EDIT

This answer would have been incomplete without addressing virgin birth. As article 499 of the Catechism explains, virgin birth and perpetual virginity are intertwined doctrines.

To gain some insight on perpetual virginity I'll decided to add an excerpt from an homily of St. Josemaria Escriva in which he explains the importance of the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary.

  You don't have to wait to be old or lifeless to practice the virtue of
  chastity. Purity comes from love; and the strength and gaiety of youth
  are no obstacle for noble love. Joseph had a young heart and a young
  body when he married Mary, when he learned of the mystery of her
  divine motherhood, when he lived in her company, respecting the
  integrity God wished to give the world as one more sign that he had
  come to share the life of his creatures. Anyone who cannot understand
  a love like that knows very little of true love and is a complete
  stranger to the christian meaning of chastity (Is Christ passing by, In St. Joseph Workshop)

Paraphrasing, Joseph decided not to know Mary as a sign that God had touched her.  I'll try to explain: Mary's perpetual virginity is important because it leaves a material imprint, an evidence of his coming to us. If we think that Mary was not ever-virgin, how are we so sure that Mary's first son is indeed the Son of God? On the other hand, if Mary is ever-virgin (as has been held for many centuries) we can readily admit that her first and only son was conceived by divine intervention.

In Catholic doctrine, Mary's perpetual virginity is a sign that God has come to us indeed.


What differences are there between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understanding of the sacrament of marriage? I read somewhere a couple of years ago that Eastern Orthodox believe marriages contracted on earth, remain in place in heaven (however it is impossible to get married once you arrive in heaven). Whereas Catholics believe that marriages are dissolved at death and everyone in heaven is single.

I also heard that Eastern Orthodox allow divorce, but I don't understand how that fits with the "eternal marriage that persists even after death" theology I described above.

Is my understanding of catholic and orthodox marriages correct? More generally, what is the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of marriage?

I've never heard or read anything about marriage similar to what you quote (i.e. that marriages contracted on earth remain in place in heaven).  I've looked through the Longer Catechism of Philaret, Elder Cleopas' Truth of Our Faith (Vol. 2), and Protopresbyter Michael Pomazanski's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.) and haven't encountered such a teaching.  You can read the Service of Marriage online here - I don't think you will find any suggestion of what you are saying.

Within the Eastern Orthodox Church a marriage can be dissolved "chiefly when it has been defiled by adultery, or when it has been destroyed by conditions of life (for example, long absence of one spouse, without word."1.  Generally only a second marriage is permitted, although a third may be "tolerated only as a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil", as  taught by St. Basil the Great2 (also a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church):

  We look on third marriages as disgraceful to the Church, but do not
  absolutely condemn them, as being better than a vague
  fornication.3

1 Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p.307.
2 Ibid.
3 Canon L, Second Canonical Epistle


When is the Christmas Season? So, Christmas is, of course, on December 25th* .  Technically, Advent precedes Christmas, and Epiphany follows it.  But, in several traditions, Christmas is the set of Sundays following Christmas, regardless of what Macy's wants to tell you.

Are there any church calendars that include Advent as Christmas, or is Christmas always supposed to follow December 25th?
Historically, did the church celebrate Christmas before or after December 25th?
Why has the emphasis on Christmas switched to Advent (the time of preparation)?
Why is it 8 weeks long?

*(on the new Gregorian Calendar.  for the Orthodox, still on the Julian Calendar, this is 12 days later. For their purposes, it is still December 25th, its just that December 25th on the Julian Calendar corresponds to January 6 or 7 on the Gregorian one.  Please assume I am using the relevant calendar for the relevant tradition.  Mostly, I'm concerned about the order of the seasons.)

My response if focused from the Catholic perspective.
Are there any church calendars that include Advent as Christmas, or is Christmas always supposed to follow December 25th?
The Day
From the Catholic Church, Christmas Day ("The Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord") starts on Christmas Eve, December 24th as sundown.
The Season
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In different Churches, the Christmas Season might end on Jan. 6 (the traditional date of the Feast of the Epiphany), or might last until the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord (usually the Sunday after Epiphany), or might even last all the way to Feb. 2 (the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord, 40 days after Dec. 25).

I think it it interesting that the song, "Twelve Days of Christmas" is referring to the twelve days from Christmas to Epiphany.
Historically, did the church celebrate Christmas before or after December 25th?
The Day
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (section titled "Early Celebration"):

The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.21) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus.
It goes on from there to list many different dates that Christmas (the day as the Birth of Christ) was celebrated on.

The Season

Codex Theod., II, 8, 27 (cf. XV, 5,5) forbids, in 425, circus games on 25 December; though not till Codex Just., III, 12, 6 (529) is cessation of work imposed. The Second Council of Tours (can. xi, xvii) proclaims, in 566 or 567, the sanctity of the "twelve days" from Christmas to Epiphany, and the duty of Advent fast; that of Agde (506), in canons 63-64, orders a universal communion, and that of Braga (563) forbids fasting on Christmas Day. Popular merry-making, however, so increased that the "Laws of King Cnut", fabricated c. 1110, order a fast from Christmas to Epiphany.

Why has the emphasis on Christmas switched to Advent (the time of preparation)?
I think it is important to note that Advent is not just the time of preparation for Christmas but for the second coming.
According to the USCCB:

Beginning the Church's liturgical year, Advent (from, "ad-venire" in Latin or "to come to") is the season encompassing the four Sundays (and weekdays) leading up to the celebration of Christmas.
The Advent season is a time of preparation that directs our hearts and minds to Christ’s second coming at the end of time and also to the anniversary of the Lord’s birth on Christmas. The final days of Advent, from December 17 to December 24, focus particularly on our preparation for the celebrations of the Nativity of our Lord (Christmas).

[emphasis added]

"Advent, this powerful liturgical season that we are beginning, invites us to pause in silence to understand a presence. It is an invitation to understand that the individual events of the day are hints that God is giving us, signs of the attention he has for each one of us."
---Pope Benedict VXI, Homily at First Vespers of Advent, November 28, 2009

In the weeks before or during the Christmas season, many people set up a "manger scene" which has its origins from the nativity scene erected by St. Francis of Assisi. This could be taken as either a celebration of Christmas or an Advent celebration (many people will put the figures in the manger only at the appropriate times -Jesus on the 25th of Dec, the magi on Jan 6/7th).