What is meant by "faith and morals" with regards to papal infallibility? There are plenty of questions in this site about infallibility (e.g. here, here, and here). All of them take for granted a certain definition of "faith and morals", which is the area upon which doctrines are to be potentially considered infallible. But, what precisely is meant by faith and morals? In other words, which is the precise and demarcated scope of infallibility?

The Catholic Encyclopedia on this same topic is far from clear. Faith and morals are words that can be colloquially stretched significantly, so it is essential to me that there is theological clarity on what exactly the Church means.

Having a precise demarcation we can then analyse the full range of potential areas of infallibility. For example, regarding "moral" issues like paying taxes, polluting the environment, being in the army, gambling, etc; or "faith" issues like the number of wings of angels (if any), the day Moses died (for a potential "Feast of Moses"), whether the rich go to heaven or not, etc.

The First Vatican Council's Pastor Æternus said, under Pope Pius IX's authority, regarding papal infallibility:

  …we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the
  Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in
  discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by
  virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine
  regarding faith or morals [de fide vel moribus] to be held by the universal Church, by the
  divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of
  that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his
  Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or
  morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are
  irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.

De fide

There are three levels of de fide ("of the faith") truths:

  Theological note: Dogma.
  Equivalent terms: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et Catholica.
  Explanation: A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.
  Examples: The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.
  Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy
  Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.
  Remarks: A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn definition of pope or council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed, to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its long-standing liturgical and practical use and commendation.
  Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith
  Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita
  Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
  Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.
  Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
  Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.
  Remarks: It is a dogma that the Church's infallibility extends to truths in this sphere, so one who denies them denies implicitly a dogma or Divine faith.
  Theological Note: Truth of Divine faith.
  Equivalent term: De fide divina.
  Explanation: A truth revealed by God but not certainly proposed as such by the Church.
  Example: Christ claimed from the beginning of His public life to be the Messias.
  Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in faith).
  Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, but no loss of Church membership. May incur a canonical penalty.

source: Sixtus Cartechini, S.J.'s 1951 work De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (On the Value of the Theological Notes), which confessors have used when dealing with erudite penitents. (It's also available in Italian translation.) The theological notes are a way of classifying the proximity of a theological proposition to revelation. (For a good history of the development of these notes, see The development of the theological censures after the Council of Trent: (1563-1709) by John Cahill, O.P.)

De moribus

Morals ("Etym. Latin moralis, relating to conduct, mos, a manner, custom") are voluntary acts (i.e., acts pertaining to the will). Since the will follows the intellect by necessarily desiring the good that the intellect presents it (cf. Thomistic thesis #21), morals always have a doctrinal basis.

Pope Pius XI's condemnation of onanism (contraception) in his 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii (spec. §59: "…so long as the intrinsic nature of the [marriage] act is preserved.") is a case study of Fr. Cartechini's De Valore Notarum Theologicarum p. 20 regarding ex cathedra pronouncements of morals:

  De qualificatione theologica sententiæ condemnatoriæ abusus matrimonii in encyclica "Casti Connubii": utrum sit solemnis definitio ex cathedra quod onanismus sit semper peccatum mortale. Quidam affirmabant esse dogma quia Pontifex adhibet verba satis solemnia. Certe ad solemnem definitionem requiruntur hæc elementa: quod loquatur ut supremus pastor et doctor, et quod velit adhibere supremam suam auctoritatem in pleno gradu. Quod hic loquatur ut supremus pastor et doctor patet; inquirendum restat utrum voluerit uti sua suprema auctoritate, ferendo sententiam definitivam. Sed, admisso quod non sit dogma fidei, tamen doctrina ab ea promulgata certe est infallibiliter vera ex hoc capite: quod Papa verbis solemnibus authentice significet doctrinam ex antiquis temporibus ab ordinario et universali magisterio constanter propositam ut tenendam et observandam.

  Regarding the theological qualification of the condemnations against the abuses of matrimony in the encyclical Casti Connubii: whether contraception is always a mortal sin is a solemn ex cathedra definition. Some affirm it to be dogma because the Pontiff uses very solemn words. For a solemn definition, these elements are required: that he speak as supreme pastor and teacher, and that he wants to use his supreme authority in its full degree. It is clear that he speaks as supreme teacher and pastor in this encyclical; it remains to inquire whether he wanted to use his supreme authority, giving a definitive pronouncement. But, even if it is not a dogma of the faith, the doctrine he promulgated certainly is infallibly true because the Pope authoritatively and with solemn words expresses a moral doctrine that from ancient times the ordinary and universal magisterium has constantly proposed must be be held and observed.[my translation with comparison to p. 18 of the Italian]

This answer incorporates this answer to the question "Do the Catholic Church ex cathedra pronouncements about necessity of Catholicism to be saved still apply?"


Does "Kehilat Bethlehem" community believe that the Law of Moses are the commandments Jesus is referring to in John 14:15? Does Kehilat Bethlehem community believe that the Law of Moses are the commandments Jesus is referring to in John 14:15?

John 14:15: If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

And do they believe circumcision is or keeping any part of the Law of Moses is essential to be engrafted the household of Israel (called the commonwealth of Israel) to be part of the bride of Jesus?
They state that

We believe that salvation is by grace through faith as revealed in the Torah.

and give emphasis to the Law in the first five books of the Bible and are keen to follow the Jewish traditions which are unusual to both Catholics and Protestants.

EDIT : The question has been edited since I answered. This answer contains general information about Kehilat Bethlechem.
The questions one would first ask of the website are the very questions which the website does not discuss.
Notably, I could find no place in which they confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. They mention Jesus. Separately, they mention God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They mention Messiah. But they never actually say (that I can find) that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God.
Presumably, one has to watch many hours of videos to actually find out information which ought to be on its front page, regarding law, circumcision, faith and works.

The link you provide has extensive information but most is in video form. The website has a large library of videos which form a methodical form of indoctrination.
The website invites donations and the donations are payable to :

Kehilat Bethlechem

Some written material is available :

Our service consists of Jewish liturgy in Hebrew and English, modern Messianic Jewish praise and worship music followed by the message. We also have a Torah service on the first Shabbat of every month. Once the service is over, we meet over a light snack for building community and fellowship.

everyone is not only respected, but encouraged to walk in the faith of Yeshua, our Messiah.

We partner globally with Ahavat Ammi Ministries in United States on all their educational programs.

Kosher Pastor is a program that explores the Jewish Roots of Christian faith by connecting the life of Jesus in its context

Joseph John is the President/ Senior Pastor of Kehilat Bethlechem, a Messianic congregation in Hyderabad, India. He was an Assemblies of G-d pastor when he had a supernatural encounter with the Lord while reading the Book of Romans.

he “saw” that the non-Jewish believers in Yeshua were engrafted into Israel!

Kehilat Bethlechem gathers on Shabbat and is committed to discipleship and training of workers to build the Kingdom of G-d by revealing the true identity of the Jewish Messiah and His Kingdom.

This organisation is affiliated to and is part of the IAMCS -the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America.

The IAMCS is a subsidiary of the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA). The MJAA, founded in 1915, is the largest association of Messianic Jews and non-Jewish believers in Yeshua (Jesus) in the world. Its purpose is threefold:

• To testify to the large and growing number of Jewish people who believe that Yeshua (Hebrew for Jesus) is the promised Jewish Messiah and Savior of the world;

• To bring together Jews and non-Jews who have a shared vision for Jewish revival; and

• Most importantly, to introduce our Jewish brothers and sisters to the Jewish Messiah Yeshua.

The IAMCS has a page in which they state some of their beliefs. In particular there is reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit :
See IAMCS Belief


What happened to the the practice of women covering their heads? Why don't more Christian women wear a covering? Most people today might associate the idea with the Old Testament, but references to the custom are actually found in the New Testament too:

  1 Corinthians 11:6 NIV
  If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off;
  and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved
  off, she should cover her head.

Are there any mainstream denominations that continue to promote head coverings for women? For example is this what the Amish do? When and why did this tradition stop among most orthodox Christians?

This article provides a good summary of the historical and current practices within Christianity regarding head coverings.

Basically for large portions of Christianity wearing some kind of head covering before the 20th century was the norm, even for Protestants:

  Among the Protestant reformers, Martin Luther's wife, Katherine, wore a headcovering in public worship and John Knox and John Calvin both called for women to wear headcoverings in public worship. Other commentators who have advocated headcovering during public worship include John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, A. R. Fausset, A. T. Robertson, Harry A. Ironside and Charles Caldwell Ryrie. In fact, until the 20th century no Reformed theologian taught against head coverings for women in public worship. While Anabaptists, Amish, and Mennonites advocate the wearing of headcoverings at all times, as a woman might pray or prophesy at any time, the Reformed teaching is that "praying and prophesying" refers to the activities taking place in public worship, as the Apostle Paul is dealing with public worship issues in 1st Corinthians, chapter.

For current practice:

  Headcovering, at least during worship services, is still promoted or required in a few denominations and among the more traditional Catholics.Among these are Catholics who live a plain life and are known as Plain Catholics. Some Anabaptist denominations, including the Amish, Old Order Mennonite and Conservative Mennonites, the Old German Baptist Brethren, the Hutterites, and the Apostolic Christian Church; some Pentecostal churches, such as the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, The Pentecostal Mission, the Deeper Christian Life Ministry, and the Christian Congregation in the United States; the Plymouth Brethren; and the more conservative Scottish Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed churches. Though most Protestant denominations have no official expectation that women cover, some individuals choose to practice headcovering according to their understanding of 1 Corinthians 11.

However to properly understand this phenomena of changing practices I think it is necessary to understand Paul's literal teaching. There is both a cultural and natural basis that explains both the submission to the rule and its abandonment. To Paul one should become 'a Jew to a Jew and Gentile to a Gentile', therefore if a given culture communicated submission to her husband by wearing a purple cone on her head, a Christian woman in that culture should also wear a purple cone on her head.

Let's look at the Apostles meaning, this well then explain why in many churches this practice has ceased.

Bible times regarding head dress were not that different than  various places in the Middle East today, where the social meaning is the same (or similar) as it was at the time of Christ. One must  realize woman should keep their head covered in these places otherwise it is seen as a huge protests against a woman's submission to her husband. To do so while praying would almost seem like blasphemy.

However what complicates the issue is when Paul argued this case against some sort of biblical radical 'feminists' who were ready to throw away the authority of men under the new changes of the gospel, he appealed to nature.

Paul said:

  Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. (1 Corinthians 11:14-15, NIV)

I believe we must accept the scripture everywhere without forcing the language and then handle the 'damage' to our own ideas after the fact, as well as resolve any seeming contradictions without twisting the original statements.  Therefore, I think Paul is now referring to something here that is 'not cultural'.

The way I accept this unchanging rule, while opposing the enforcement of the cultural rule, only relevant in the Middle East, is this way.  First, Paul in referring to nature is simply pointing out what most people realize.  In general men look silly with long hair (with some exceptions) and in general women look beautiful with long, flowing, gorgeous hair (with some exceptions).  Nobody would ever be able to deny this, just looked at models in magazines.  Why is this the case? Paul argues it is a natural symbol that shows a woman under the headship of the man.  In a man's case his headship is not in this world but invisible, so when praying to God the open air is a better symbol.  Not that a woman does not ultimately have Christ as her head as well but that she came from the man, i.e. wo-man, as symbols of societies organization from the original template of Adam and Eve.

Now, I would never imagine for a minute that Paul intended to refer to the natural observation to become legalistic, so that a woman can't be bald in modern day, if she chooses, or that a man can't have long hair and play in a christian rock band, or try out for a Jesus movie, where for some odd reason Jesus is depicted as having long hair. Rather, as a bald woman was a great cultural shame back then, and that not keeping her head covered was interpreted as rebellion, the natural images of nature should not at all be rebelled against. That was Paul's argument.  Why rebel against a cultural ceremony if it even has some support in nature? However, once a culture no longer has that meaning, the natural element of beauty is purely a personal matter.  Really its about looking good for the opposite sex, or what takes the least amount of time to get ready in the morning, or suits your career image, etc.

Even God did not always follow his own natural symbolism, therefore neither do we need to as a matter of law.  For example, the Nazirite was instructed to go against this symbolism as a revised symbol of his 'dedication'. Interestingly his hair may have possibly become a symbol of Christ in the flesh, for when it became large it may represented his 'head' on top of his own head, whereby his 'commitment' actually became part of the fellowship offering.  Whenever something is burned in offering to God, it is reasonable for us to draw imagery of Christ in the flesh.

  “‘Then at the entrance to the tent of meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that symbolizes their dedication. They are to take the hair and put it in the fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering. (Numbers 6:18, NIV)

Therefore in the Bible an open airy head may indicate the headship of God as the divine Christ, yet long hair could be the human manifestation of Christ.

Today in most countries we can do whatever we please, even die our hair purple or green and no particular cultural message is being communicated that would be necessarily offensive to Paul.  The natural order of things no longer has a direct ceremonial and cultural significance as it once had for most countries.

This explains why the practice for many has been abrogated. There was no Biblical command inaugurating it, but while a culture communicated its values with this symbolism, there was no reason to oppose it. Now that many cultures do not put much weight on outward appearance in terms of the male-female role, there is no reason to oppose to forms of cultural communication.  If Christianity attached undue importance to clothing than it could be argued that men should wear tunics and sandals to pay respect to Christ's culture.


What are the differences between Catholics and the Jehovah's Witnesses What the are differences and similarities between Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics?

To what extent is the official bible accepted by the Catholic church different from the official JW translation?

Are there any differences in the most important dogmata?

At the most fundamental level, Roman Catholics subscribe to the Nicene Creed, Jehovah's Witnesses do not.  (JWs would call the Creed itself heresy, so this is not a slam.) This means that unlike 98% of the world's Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses deny such things as:

The Trinity
The Divinity of Jesus
The Nature of Salvation
The Communion of Saints / The Role of the Church

and many, many more things.

Additionally, the Jehovah's Witness subscribe only to the New World Translation of the 66 books Protestants put in the canon.  This translation is considered faulty by most Nicene Christians for translations such as:

John 1:1,

  In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god

This implies that God is one god amongst several to Nicene Christians - something that Nicene Christians would reject.

John 10

  I and the Father are One in Unity

This addition is an attempt to reject one of the most obvious prooftexts of the Trinity. As Nicea is explicitly Trinitarian and this is not, it likewise excludes JWs from that category.

Christologically, JWs are essentially Arianist, meaning their Christology also differs.

When most people think of "Christianity" they are thinking of Nicene Christianity. It is entirely fair to say then that Roman Catholics are what most people consider "Christian" and Jehovah's Witness are not.


What prompted the change in Christian attitude towards usury? Lending with interest between Jews is a sin in the Old Testament, which should have gone away for non-Jewish Christians

According to Wikipedia, it was only proscribed by Christianity later; at first only applying to priests.

  The First Council of Nicaea, in 325, forbade clergy from engaging in
  usury[13] (canon 17). At the time, usury was interest of any kind, and
  the canon forbade the clergy to lend money at interest rates even as
  low as 1 percent per year. Later ecumenical councils applied this
  regulation to the laity.[13][14]

Later on, usury became even more emphatically proscribed.

  Lateran III decreed that persons who accepted interest on loans could
  receive neither the sacraments nor Christian burial.[15] Pope Clement
  V made the belief in the right to usury a heresy in 1311, and
  abolished all secular legislation which allowed it.[16] Pope Sixtus V
  condemned the practice of charging interest as "detestable to God and
  man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian
  charity."[16]

  Theological historian John Noonan argues that "the doctrine [of usury]
  was enunciated by popes, expressed by three ecumenical councils,
  proclaimed by bishops, and taught unanimously by theologians."[14]

At what point did the official Catholic position on moneylending change and why? If the change happened after the Reformation, did Protestants have a separate reason?

Evidently it was John Calvin who began the process of changing minds about usury by redefining it from usury to interest and outlining its importance.  Here is a link to his letter.

Chapter XI - Calvin's letter on usury

As to Catholicism, Schaff (who also references Calvin) says this about its change of policy re Canon 17 of Nicea Council forbidding usury.

  "Among Roman Catholics the new doctrine began to be defended about the beginning of the eighteenth century, the work of Scipio Maffei, Dell’ impiego dell danaro, written on the laxer side, having attracted a widespread attention.  The Ballerini affirm that the learned pope Benedict XIV. allowed books defending the new morals to be dedicated to him, and in 1830 the Congregation of the Holy Office with the approval of the reigning Pontiff, Pius VIII., decided that those who considered the taking of interest allowed by the state law justifiable, were “not to be disturbed.” - Excursus on Usury

So, the change was prompted by understanding that money produces money, just as a farm produces crops (money).  If the latter is okay, why not the former?  Calvin: "“And what else is it than to treat God like a child, when we judge of objects by mere words and not from their nature, as if virtue can be distinguished from vice by a form of words."


What is an overview of the way Adam and Eve ate and became like God? And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
  (Gen 3:22)

In what way did Adam and Eve become like God, in knowing good from evil? Most answers to related questions on this site suggest that Adam and Eve already knew it was wrong to disobey God and to eat against His wishes.

In the past, I have taught others that they did not know evil 'experientially.' It had only been theoretical before. But that understanding implies that God knew sin experientially also !!

So, in some way they knew they should not eat, and after eating their knowledge changed or increased. But that new knowledge does not depend on having to sin in order to learn it.

So the only increase in knowledge that I can think of is

  understanding (some of) the results of sin and how it affects others and God.

But I am looking for other ideas or better expressions of this idea. What is an overview of the main theological explanations of what this means?

Notice that in Genesis 3:22, God says "now the man is become like one of us," after Adam had eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God was not equating the angels with himself, so in using the plural he could only have been referring to other gods. Indeed, Keel and Uehlinger say in Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel, page 2 (translated from German by Thomas H. Trapp), that recent Old Testament research, at least so far as this is carried out by German-speaking scholars interested in religio-historical questions, generally assumes that the religion of pre-Exilic Israel and Judah is to be characterised as thoroughly polytheistic.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was more than just, say, an apple tree placed there to see if Adam and Eve would disobey God and thereby experience sin. The ancients divided the entire world into that which was good and that which was evil, so to have knowledge of good and evil was to know everything, just as the gods did. Adam had become like the gods, except that he was still mortal.

So that Adam would not now eat of the Tree of Life which God had also planted in the Garden of Eden, and thus become immortal like the gods, God sent Adam and Eve from the Garden and placed cherubim and a flaming sword to keep (block) the path to the Tree of Life (3:24).


What does it mean that God's wrath is infinite and what is its relation to existence of life on other planets? I heard on the first episode of Cosmos that astronomer Giordano Bruno was punished because he believed there are other planets with life on them. The Roman inquisition sentenced him to execution because they thought this belief violated the fact that 'God's wrath is not eternal'.  I would be appreciate it if you provide me a resource to read about it, or give me an explanation. I am not Christian and this idea is so new to me.

According to the program, Bruno was found guilty

  of questioning the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ, of believing that God's wrath is not eternal, that everyone will be saved, of asserting the existence of other worlds.

To answer your first question, "What does it mean that God's wrath is infinite?" it appears, based on the quote from the program, that Bruno was a universalist.  This was, and often still is by many Christians, considered a heresy.

The answer to your second question, "What is its relation to existence of life on other planets?" is that there is none. These were separate, distinct charges, unrelated to each other. There is no implication that the believing in other worlds is in any way related to the believing that God's wrath is not eternal.


Why is there no first Sunday in Ordinary Time? After the Baptism of the Lord, there’s the second Sunday of Ordinary Time. What happened to the first Sunday of Ordinary Time?

The Catholic website ChurchYear.net has a good explanation, though it goes beyond what you're asking. Briefly:

The title "The Nth Sunday of" any season is short for "Sunday in the Nth week of" that season. This matches the titles given to the other days of the week: for example "Wednesday in the Third Week of Lent".

The Feast of the Epiphany of Our Lord is traditionally celebrated on the 6th of January, and the Baptism of the Lord on the following Sunday. Under certain circumstances, episcopal conferences can choose to have the Epiphany celebrated on the Sunday following January 1st (the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God). If this is the case, and that Sunday falls on or before the 6th, the Baptism of the Lord is to be celebrated on the following Sunday - on its traditional day. If, however, that first Sunday falls on the 7th or 8th (the last possible date), Epiphany is celebrated on that day (while others are celebrating the Baptism of the Lord) and the Baptism of the Lord itself is celebrated in these dioceses on the following day, Monday the 8th or 9th.

If this seems complicated, it is. But the takeaway is that the Christmas season ends with the Baptism of the Lord on either a Sunday or a Monday. The following days constitute the first week of Ordinary Time - but that week doesn't begin on Sunday - the Sunday belongs to the Christmas season! Therefore, there is no "Sunday in the First Week of Ordinary Time" - no "First Sunday of Ordinary Time".

The first full week of the season is the second week, and so here we see Sunday in the Second Week of Ordinary Time - free Second Sunday of Ordinary Time.


How does the Catholic Church handle documents worldwide nowadays? Marriages and baptisms certainly generate certificates that the church needs to store somewhere. Catholic schools such as the Marist Brothers and La Salle Brothers, with hundreds of thousands of students worldwide, also most probably report information back to the Catholic Church.

I was wondering how the church handles all this information. Are they stored locally, regionally, nationally or does the Vatican receive everything back? Can someone in the Vatican in higher positions inside the church easily look up if a certain someone born in another continent was baptised or got married? Or maybe if someone studied in a Catholic school?

And how much of the church's bureaucracy is digital nowadays?

Baptism, in the Catholic Church, is sometimes called "the gateway to the Sacraments":

Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments.
Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1213

and

Baptism [is] the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation...
Code of Canon Law 849

You can't, for example, be confirmed without being baptized, and you can't be ordained without being confirmed—and of course you can't be married or ordained if you've already received either sacrament. So it's crucial to be able to see whether someone was baptized or not.
For this reason, records of baptism are very important in church life, and are required by canon law to be kept at the parish and diocesan levels. The Code of Canon Law has a whole chapter dedicated to the record-keeping process. Central to this is canon 877, section 1:

The pastor of the place where the baptism is celebrated must carefully and without any delay record in the baptismal register the names of the baptized, with mention made of the minister, parents, sponsors, witnesses, if any, the place and date of the conferral of the baptism, and the date and place of birth.

The Code doesn't specify exactly how quickly "without any delay" must be, but 24 to 48 hours seems reasonable in most cases.
The parish records are to be communicated to the diocese:

A diocesan bishop is to take care that the acts and documents of the archives of cathedral, collegiate, parochial, and other churches in his territory are also diligently preserved and that inventories or catalogs are made in duplicate, one of which is to be preserved in the archive of the church and the other in the diocesan archive.
(Canon 491, Section 1)

There's no need or legal requirement for these records to be copied to the Vatican. The Church is less centralized than many people think in that regard.
As far as whether someone could look up to see whether you were married, for example: briefly, yes. Before receiving a sacrament, you (or your guardian) has to provide the parish with your baptismal certificate. Because of the diocesan reporting requirements, you can find this even if you don't know what parish you were baptized in.
Once you are married, or have your First Communion, or whatever, that is noted in your local parish records, and a note is also sent to your baptismal parish. They in turn will annotate your baptismal certificate with a record of the sacrament. That way, if you're receiving a new sacrament, you just need your original baptismal certificate. You don't have to go looking for everywhere you might have had a sacrament administered.
There's only sacramental information on the certificate, though. The Church needs to know what sacraments you've been administered. They don't need to know whether you've gone to Catholic school, or whether you're in the Knights of Columbus, or anything like that.
So: Any parish where you have received a sacrament will have a record of that event. So will the diocese of that parish. And your baptismal parish and diocese will have records of all the sacraments you've ever been administered (including First Confession and First Communion). The Vatican won't have any records of any of these. And no one will have records of non-sacramental actions of yours.


If you believe that Messiah Jesus is a human being what logic you have to guess that he could be a God or son of God? The Messiah Jesus is son of Maryam was a human being. He was born from a woman, he ate and drank, got up and went to sleep, suffered pain and wept… and God (Allaah) is far above all of that, Allah is far than biological characters such as sexuality so how could he be God or son of God?

Note: My Goal is not to argue or to get votes but my goal is to try to understand what is the nature of the logic which works in christianity!

The Christian logic is that God (Allah) incarnated into a baby that was miraculously conceived within Maryam's womb without sexual intercourse, a doctrine called the Virgin Birth.

While being Jesus, God remains the Father simultaneously, so at no point in time God loses any of His divinity nor his greatness.  Obviously it was God's will and His Divine power which made this possible.

Why did He do this?  In order for God (Allah) to save humanity from original sin so all human beings who are willing to make Jesus our Lord and Savior will have eternal life

The logic is:

Only God can fully forgive sin
Only 100% human can be the representative to be in solidarity with humanity

Therefore Jesus has to be fully God and fully Human, a doctrine called the Hypostatic Union.

Addressing the objection:

  By that answer you are decreased the greatness of God (Allah)

In the Christian logic (the doctrine of Trinity), God is still fully God, so there is no reduction of God's greatness by being human.  Jesus as a man, prays to God the Father, who remains fully divine.  It is not like when God incarnated into Jesus there was no God in charge anymore.

  Allah never be similar with human being at all

In the Christian logic, God is the creator of all the universe, including human beings.  Why is it that the Creator cannot assume a human body?  God is Almighty and All powerful.  Islam believes this too.  It is the other way around that is not possible.  No human can become God.  Christians don't believe this is possible.

ADDENDUM

For a much more precise "technical" description of the Incarnation please see the Catholic Catechism on this line from the Nicene Creed: "He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary."
Sola Gratia's answer is also very good.


Can non-inifinite beings make logical deductions about infinite properties of God? Some of the least useful discussions I've seen in Christianity revolve around the absolute, superlative properties of God.  "God is infinitely good, therefore, He ..."; "God is infinitely just, therefore He ...".   For example, I've seen friends posit conclusions based on God's all-knowing, all-foreseeing with absolute confidence in ways that make Him seem less good or just.

Q:  Do either the bible or church fathers offer any caveats on us (we limited beings) making logical inferences from statements on God's infinite character?

Steve gives a good answer, but in regards to those things Christians do profess, such as God's infinite goodness.  That question is not answered by science but through simple philosophy.  One may ask for instance, "is it possible for God to be both good and bad?".  CS Lewis covers this in depth in Mere Christianity in the opening chapters.

Basically, the ying yang view of the world does not work, good and bad are not opposites like black and white, that is a misrepresentation.

It is more accurate to say there is good (or holiness, or love, or whatever you want to call pure goodness)and then there is the curruption of good.  In other words evil does not exist alone, it can not exist alone, for it is nothing except the absence of love or goodness, not something alone by itself.  Read Lewis for an in depth answer.

These things could be debated one by one, but as Steve mentions in his answer, the way God is portrayed in the Bible is as the "hidden God".

The clues we have about His nature are almost all related to how He loves us.  You will find over and over again God defined as perfect Holiness.

In the end Christians see God as a being (horrible word) who is fully and completely aware of our sufferings.  God cares, it He takes sides, He is Love.  The metaphor Jesus uses is "father".  He loves us like a perfect father.


What are the differences between Roman Catholic and Irish Catholic? I've heard the terms Roman Catholic and Irish Catholic since I was little, but I have never understood what, if any, are the differences between the two.  Why the differentiation of the two?  What makes them seperate?  How did they come to be seperate?

Irish Catholic is just a cultural distinction.

There is an Anglican Church of Ireland which might consider itself truly Irish-Catholic in the sense that on England they'd call themselves Anglo-Catholic. But, that's not what people mean when they say Irish Catholic, they mean Roman Catholic or as Catholics prefer to say, Catholic.

There are other countries/regions where having Catholic after the name is actually indicative of being another Rite of the church.  Assyrian Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic etc... They are still in communion (subscribing to the same teachings) with the Church in Rome.

American Catholic, on the other hand, is a schismatic group that is not in communion with the Church in Rome.


What is the Christian position on sleeping with a menstruating woman? Most mainstream Christian denominations teach that the Ceremonial Law has become obsolete, but consider homosexuality to be a sin that one should not do after becoming a Christian. There are quite a few prohibitions in Leviticus 18 besides homosexuality, such as sleeping with one's sister, and also sleeping with a menstruating woman.

However I haven't heard Christians put nearly the same kind of emphasis on abstinence from sex during a woman's period that they do on sex between a man and a man. My question is, how do they treat the subject? Are Christians actively discouraged from this practice? Both practices are condemned and carry the death penalty. Since Jesus did not mention either one, by what principle do Christians decide how to treat these two activities?

References:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+15
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18

Regarding having sex with a woman during her menstrual period, the topic is not addressed directly in the New Testament, and so the conclusion one draws about the matter depends largely on the method one uses to interpret the Old Testament.

The Law of Moses

There is not universal agreement about how to treat the Law of Moses. Some groups claim that it must be followed (except where impossible or instances where it is superceded—like offering animal sacrifices, because Jesus was/is our atoning sacrifice). Others attempt to distinguish between laws that don't apply and laws that do. The third major camp says that the old law is not binding on Christians, that it was for Jews, i.e. Christians aren't compelled to obey anything in the law.1

A seemingly unstated premise of your question is that Christians read passages from the Law of Moses (like the ones to which you've referred) as being commandments they ought to follow (but don't).

The prohibition of homosexual behavior doesn't come exclusively from the Law of Moses (e.g. Lev 15, 18). It's stated explicitly there, but that is not necessarily the best argument for the idea. English translations of the Bible have New Testament authors prohibiting homosexual behavior (e.g. 1 Co 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10). This is much less ambiguous regarding the source and applicability of the commandment. There is some debate about shades of meaning of the Greek words involved, but it's a more logical place to begin the assertion that homosexual behavior is bad.

Principles for Deciding

In general, the principle by which Christians decide (among those who decide, and not those who automatically accept the conclusion of ordained clergy) goes something like this:

Is the matter (or a related principle) addressed in the New Testament?
Is the matter (or a related principle) addressed in the Old Testament?
Is there some historical (Christian) precedent that addresses the matter?
Is there a logical answer that does not conflict with the New or Old Testaments?

Some groups place less/no emphasis on history/tradition, but nearly all groups place emphasis on the New Testament over the Old (where there might be two mutually exclusive rules—animal sacrifices are one example), and Scripture over history/tradition. Generally, Scripture is the authoritative source, followed by historical precedent. Finally, logical reasoning is fine in the absence of (or to make specific use of) related principles in the Scripture or applicable historical precedent or tradition.

1 This doesn't mean the rule is bad or that it's OK to do what the law prohibits. It's just that because it's in the Law of Moses is not a compelling reason to follow it—just like people in Armenia don't have to obey the laws of Mexico because those laws apply to people in Mexico. Murder is against the law in Mexico, but that's not why Armenians aren't allowed to murder. Murder is illegal in Armenia—and that's why the Armenians aren't permitted to do so.


What is the difference between the Gospel and the Holy Bible? Probably my question here is trivial, but I'm interested to know the difference between the Gospel and the Holy Bible. Also, does anyone have the original version of it (I mean the original version which was supplied by Jesus Christ, peace be upon him)?

The difference between the Gospel and the Holy Bible.

The Injeel as Islam describes it has no evidence of existence outside Islamic sources, nor do Jesus' Muslim followers. The early Christians never believed that Jesus was given the Gospel from God like a prophet would be given. But rather he gave the gospel to his followers and it was his followers who eventually recorded it.

  And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. The First Apology (153-155 A.D) (Emphasis Mine)

Notice Justin Martyr never mentions one Injeel given to Jesus, like the one described in Sura 57:27. But rather a collection of documents written by his disciples.

  Also, does anyone have the original version of it (I mean the original version which was supplied by Jesus Christ, peace be upon him)?

No one has the gospel described in the Quran, no one has evidence of the Muslim followers of Jesus either.

"The Gospel" is a phrase used to describe either some books in the new testament (Mathew, Mark, Luke & John) and/or the general message of Christianity.


How was the Bible used to reduce modern slavery? In debates over slavery in the United States, many abolitionists used the Bible as part of their reasoning for freeing the slaves.

In both the Old & New Testaments there is very clear statements that holy people had slaves.

Genesis 17:13

  He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

II Kings 4:1

  Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen.

Colossians 4:1

  Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Matthew 18:25

  But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

How did abolitionists reconcile these two beliefs?

I think this could easily become an answer about American history and and politics unless we confine our answer to usage of the Bible. Flimsy is right in his comment above - the Bible does not condone slavery, but it does not officially abolish the institution (much like the US Constitution). What it does do is place Christ in the master-slave relationship, giving even slavery the possibility of redemption.

Colossians 4:1 (KJV)
1 "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
Colossians 3:22 (KJV)
22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:"

These verses do not answer for using the Bible to abolish slavery, but they could justify a move to abolish it, since it has "become destructive of these [Christ-Centered] ends" and so it is their duty "to alter or abolish it." At least in the United States. In first-century Roman society, it wasn't written in the social framework to be able to reform slavery, or any institution for that matter. But Christians everywhere in all societies do what they can to proclaim Christ until He comes, as many abolitionists did in their efforts.


Violence and Iconography Are there any rules for painting (or praying) Orthodox Christian icons that disallow depictions of violence or conflict?

For example: Would an icon depicting a murder be a problem?

There are no such problem to show the violence in icons in orthodoxy. There are many icons of martyrs, which shows their suffers on. Like behading or quartering. The sample the that kind of icons are: Icon of Daniel the Prophet and the three children:

and St.Sebastian of Mediolan:


Is there a record of an association of prayer with pain? It is well known and well documented that spiritual ecstasies (and the like) are present in Christianity (Paul caught up into heaven &c.). I am looking for theological works which expound on the opposite.

Is there a record (Biblical or extra Biblical) of the association of physical pain with prayer? Clearly Francis of Assisi and all who had the stigmata were afflicted because of/during prayer, but I was wondering if there was any other form which was well known

In Dark Night of the Soul, which is a Western work, John of the Cross talks about the extreme pain that the soul undergoes during prayer if/when God is removing its impurities.

Also, from the East, tears are considered to be an important part of prayer, and they represent the pain of the soul for its sins being poured out in tears of repentance.

As for experiencing physical pain, that appears to be a Western phenomena, the Eastern Church does not have record of anyone experiencing stigmata.

Here is the text for the common hymn for an asectic in the Eastern Church:

  With the streams of your tears, you cultivated the barrenness of the
  desert; and by your sighing from the depths, you beared fruit a
  hundredfold in labours; and you became a luminary, shining with
  miracles upon the world, O (name of saint) our righteous
  Father/Mother. Intercede with Christ God that our souls be saved.


Why at Judges 2:1 does it say the angel of the Lord would never break his covenant he swore to the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? "Now the angel of the Lord came up from Gilgad to Bochim, And he said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, I will never break My covenant with you." Then at Judges 2:5, "So they named that place Bochim and there they sacrificed to the Lord." Going back to Exodus 20:1-3, Then God spoke all these words, saying, Verse 2, I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Verse 3, "You shall have no other gods before Me."
The covenant referred to can be found at Genesis 17:1-7. "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk befor3e Me, and be blameless, verse 2, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Verse 3, And Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, verse 4, As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. verse 5, No longer shall your name be called Abram, But you name shall be Abraham; For I will make you the father of a multitude of nations.
Verse 6, And I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. verse 7, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you."
This covenant is further amplified at Genesis 22 where the Lord tested Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. At Genesis 22:10 Abraham stretched out his hand, and took the knife to slay his son." Verse 11, BUT the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, Here I am." Verse 12, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son from Me."
At verse 15, Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, verse 16, and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son, verse 17, indeed I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. Verse 18, And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."
The New Testament at Hebrews 6:13-16 clearly identifies and confirms who swore the oath. "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, verse 14, saying, "I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you." Notice what verse 16 states, "For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath give as confirmation is an end of every dispute.
In taking oaths, men swear by God who is greater than they are. They do so in order to convince other men that they are truthful and intend to abide by their promises.
So getting back to the question? Why does Judges 2:1 say the angel of the Lord would never break his covenant he swore to the fathers?

The angel of the Lord in Judges 2:1 speaks as Deity. Not as a representative of Deity but speaks as Deity, personally.
The conclusion of what is laid out, competently, in the above question can only, logically, be that the 'messenger of the Lord' (the word is malak in Hebrew) is the same 'messenger of the Lord' referred to in, for example, Malachi 3:1, which states that 'the Lord whom ye seek' is the 'messenger of the covenant' and this 'messenger', says God, is preceded by another 'messenger' whom 'I will send' and he shall 'prepare the way before me'.
Jesus quotes this and, if it is indeed the case that he is quoting the Septuagint, then he changes one letter in the Greek and says (instead of prepare the way before me ) says :

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face [Matthew 11:10 KJV]

Which Mark, in the opening of his gospel account repeats :

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face [Mark 1:2 KJV]

Clearly the messenger before my face (which is a prophecy of John the Baptist in Malachi) is further revealed to be the messenger before thy face, by Jesus adjusting the text.
Thus the messenger of the covenant (the Lord himself) is preceded (before my face in Hebrew but before thy face in Greek).
Thus Jesus Christ, being the messenger of the covenant (preceded before his face by John the baptist) is the Lord himself (preceded before my face, saith the Lord).
The logical conclusion is that the face of Jesus Christ is the face of the Lord.
And this 'messenger of the covenant' (the Lord himself) is also the 'messenger' who came up from Gilgad in Judges 2;1.
What was revealed in careful wording in the Hebrew scriptures - prior to the manifestation of God in flesh - is now revealed plainly in the Greek scriptures, now that Jesus Christ is come and now that he reveals the Father.
He who said 'Before Abraham was, I am (strictly speaking it is 'I, I am' ego eimi) is revealed to be the angel of the Lord seen at the burning bush, seen by Manoah and his wife, seen at Bochim, and prophesied of by Malachi.
Seen in the burning furnace by the Gentile King who witnessed a likeness of 'son of deity', seen by Jacob when he wrestled till the break of day.
Seen by faith by those who have faith to see him.
But hidden from view if the eyes are blinded.


Luther's "Two Kingdoms" Theology Can anyone give me a concise summary of Martin Luther's "Two Kingdoms" theology, and also provide some references back to his original works on the subject?

Two kingdoms doctrine

Without having understood the doctrine of the two kingdoms, it's not possible to understand Luther's theology in its full extent.

It's a misunderstanding to think that by the justification by faith alone all laws have lost their importance. As short as possible: a Christian lives under two completly different kingdoms, where the one is "God's kingdom under Christ"1 – here he lives by faith in the righteousness coram Deo2 – and the other is the world's kingdom – here he is man or woman, young or old, lord, servant, peasant, citizen etc.3 and has to do good works.

Accordingly, the human being is both: Christian person and secular person.

You see: the accusation, that Luther's justification by faith alone shrinks the room for the works that have to be done by us, is a misunderstanding. Especially Luther's theology shows people, how overfull of opportunities for good works the world and the way, which they follow in the world by faith, is.

1: "Gottes Reich unter Christo"
2: before God
3: WA 32, 440, 2
4: "Christperson" and "Weltperson"


In "The Ball and the Cross" where did McIan go wrong? In the G.K. Chesterton's The Ball and the Cross there's a point where it's obvious that Chesterton doesn't think Evan McIan's initial philosophy, if taken to its fullness, would bring about peace on Earth.

What exactly was it about his philosophy that left him open to temptation (in his dream) and how did his viewpoint change.  Furthermore, what was it about seeing the old man that made him want to stop fighting?

I ask this as a Catholic who feels compelled to smash things occasionally, but somehow feels it's not the right thing to do!

I imagine that two important principles would be violated if Mr. McIan's philosophy were taken to its logical extreme:

Free Will (and thereby the loss of Love)
Religious Liberty (or liberty of conscience)

1)  In a world were no evil could take place, even in principle, there would be no place for truly freely given Love: which is to say, there would be no place for Love.  By its very nature, Love needs to be freely given.  The same is true of Loyalty, Respect, Admiration, etc.  But if there is no free will, these cannot exist.

2)  Once Free Will has been instituted, then it is possible for people to be so utterly lost as to not not be able to see or recognize Truth.  Indeed, it may come to pass (as it often does), that a person may confuse a lesser truth with Truth, and if in addition such a person has a healthy understanding of the proper response to Truth, may cling fiercely to this lesser truth with everything in their being.  The Catholic Church has come to accept that such a person cannot be taken out of error by force or violence: that every person deserves a right to follow his conscience (so long as no serious danger comes to others) as part of his human dignity given them by God himself.  Why afford such a lofty place to conscience? Because it is in the depths of our conscience that we meet God himself.  To be denied the right to follow our conscience is to be denied the right to meet God.  Yes, it is possible that the conscience of many persons is ill-formed; or that when people think they are following their consciences they are actually following something else (such as their ego).  But the significance of conscience is so great that this is a risk that must be taken.  We must prod the consciences of men, certainly; we must try to inform their consciences too.  But we cannot force belief into man and remain of God.

Why would Mr. McIan's viewpoint changed upon meeting the Old Man?  Barring miraculous intervention, I would guess it had to do with the most humble demeanor of the Old Man.  In spite of the obvious mystical nature of the Old Man, he nonetheless allowed himself the indignity of being imprisoned, and gave himself into the hands of the evil-doers.  Kind of like Christ that way, I would say.  And his faith remained, despite the ill-treatment.

I think the Old Man served as an example of the approach we should have about teaching The Faith: breaking things can break persons, and thus force their actions, but not their beliefs.

I say this as a Catholic man who is afraid of breaking things lest he offends people.  But I do believe in self-defense, and if people are breaking my God's things, I may just have to defend them.


Why is the Catholic teaching that Mary's hymen remained intact during childbirth important? I am asking this question because the entire comment thread in which I asked the question appears to have gone missing, including references to Aquinas (Summa Theologica q. 35 a. 6), Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma bk. 3, pt. 3, ch. 2, §5, 2.), Pohle (Mariology pt. 2, ch. 1, §3, Theses II), and others.
Wikipedia lists St. Lucia of Syracuse (283-304) as the patron saint of of the blind within Roman Catholicism.  She is venerated, along with St. Agnes (patron saint of virgins) among Roman Catholics, Anglican, Lutheran, and Eastern Orthodox churches.  She is one of only 8 women explicitly commemorated by Roman Catholics in the Canon of the Mass.
There is, within the tradition regarding St. Lucia, the possibility that she was assigned to defilement within a brothel by the Governor of Syracuse. Paschasius ordered her to burn a sacrifice to the emperor's image. When she refused, Paschasius sentenced her to be defiled in a brothel; a particularly heinous crime against someone who had dedicated her chastity to God.
In a question regarding the Catholic tradition that Mary (Jesus' mother) did not suffer pain in childbirth (Where does the Catholic tradition that Mary did not have pain giving birth to Jesus come from?), included in the comments of a particular answer, came the assertion that, even if Lucia was raped and even if she had survived and produced a child from this violation, she would still be honored by name in the Catholic Mass as a martyred virgin even though her bodily integrity was ruined.  This was explained as because an intact hymen is accidental to virginity while the commitment of the will is essential to virginity.  In other words the taking of sexual liberty by force and against one's will does nothing to impinge upon one's state of virginity even though it may change the state of one's bodily integrity.  Therefore the state of one's bodily integrity has nothing to say, directly, to one's virginal condition.
The reference to St. Lucia came about as the bodily integrity of Mary (i.e. no ruptured hymen in childbirth) was indicated as integral to her "perpetual virginity" which is in turn linked to her sinlessness which is in turn linked to her painless childbirth.  It seems to me, however, that if an intact hymen is accidental to virginity then a ruptured hymen must surely be accidental to the birth of a virginally conceived child.
If St. Lucia would still retain her virginal status in the eyes of the Catholic Church regardless of the state of her bodily integrity following rape, why is it so important for Mary's bodily integrity to remain intact as regards her "perpetual" virginity during childbirth?

The answer is simply at that time that was the sole measure of virginity, regardless of how some came to think about it centuries later.  Basically, it is important because it was the proof of virginity.
This is shown in scripture and in a very early tradition.

And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:  Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:  Deut 22:14-15

The tokens of virginity included blood and breakage.
We find this same integrity idea in the Infancy Gospel of James.

[19]Then said Salome: As the Lord my God liveth, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.
20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show thyself; for no small controversy has arisen about thee. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire.
source

This absolutely necessary physical integrity found its way into the Catholic Dogma (de fide).

This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death; first when Mary, arising in haste to go to visit Elizabeth, is greeted by her as blessed because of her belief in the promise of salvation and the precursor leaped with joy in the womb of his mother (cf. Lk. 1:41-45); then also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it,
source

Conceived without blood or breakage.  Birthed without blood or breakage.  Mary's physical virginity remained intact as proof she was and remained a virgin they believe.


According to the Catholic Church, is it a sin to marry your cousin? According to the Catholic church, is it a sin to marry your distant cousin?

I am looking for two-three answers from someone who is knowledgeable in Catholic ecclesiastical laws:

(1) What degree of cousin marriages are allowed?

(2) How does the Catholic Church calculate the cousin's degree?

(3) What is the reason for the Catholic church changing its stances throughout its history? Is it merely political, or is there a moral reason also, in terms of distant (and not close) cousins?

"Consanguinity is a diriment impediment of marriage as far as
the fourth degree of kinship inclusive."
See the table at the end of this article for how 4° kinship is
determined, or this table:
The Council of Trent's session on marriage defined the dogma that the Church has the authority to make impediments:Canon IV.—If any one saith, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage; or, that she has erred in establishing them: let him be anathema.


What symbols are unique to the various denominations? In reading the meta discussion about what logo should be used for Christianity.SE, I got to wondering what symbols are unique to various denominations. Note: I'm not looking for symbols which are common across Christianity -- such as the Cross -- but which are more narrowly focused.

For example, the following symbols are -- as far as I know -- uniquely Catholic:

An example of a symbol which I think is denominationally unique (and I think is Episcopal) is this:

Shield http://aldiechurch.com/images/episshield.png

What other denominationally unique symbols are there?

The Chi-Ro symbol dates back to 312 AD when Constantine had a vision, and was told to fight under that symbol at the Battle of Milvan Bridge. It is truly "catholic" in the sense that it is universal to all of Christianity. [You may have heard of a city in Egypt that the Copts named after this symbol ;) ]

IHS is also fairly common- I've seen that in Baptist churches and Anglican ones. I believe that is supposed to be the Greek form of Jesus but I don't know. (maybe someone should ask!)

The last one is just a coat of arms for The Episcopal Church, much like the emblem of the Holy See.


Scholarly discussion of claims that Paul is a "false apostle" There is a claim in some circles that Paul is a "false apostle", creating a new religion from whole cloth. I fear trying to flesh out any one particular version of such a claim, but one such example is chapter 7 here. This seems like a relatively recent historical claim.

Are there any scholarly discussions of the matter? I know Vermes wrote something from the Jewish perspective awhile ago, making some version of the above argument. I would be especially interested in a robust criticism of this doctrine.

The criticisms that Paul 'invented' Christianity, or 'distorted' the message of Jesus, often boil down to two primary claims:

Paul sought to abolish Torah observance
Paul deified Jesus, equating him with the God of Israel

1. Paul, and the role of Torah
A recent publication, The Jewish Annotated New Testament, contains commentary and perspectives by leading Jewish scholars. In the back is an essay titled Paul in Jewish Thought by Daniel R. Langton.1
In the opening of this essay, Langton summarizes a common Jewish view on Paul:

Generally speaking, Jews have regarded the apostle to the Gentiles suspiciously as a kind of self-hating Jew and as the "real" founder of the Christian religion.

Langton surveys a few Jewish perspectives on Paul from throughout history. In early Rabbinic literature, Langton sees 'some tantalizing references' to Paul as an antinomian who rejected the instruction of his teacher Gamaliel. The Medieval Toledot Yeshu ('Story of Jesus') apparently conflates Peter and Paul into a single individual: 'Simeon Kepha (or Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes)'. This 'Paul' is again accused of rejecting Torah and introducing completely new practices into the community of 'those who followed Yeshu as the Messiah'.
The general portrait is that Paul brought in such innovation, the Christian movement was no longer recognizable as what had come before him. Even still, Langton insists, 'such an image was by no means widespread'. But then Langton comes to the nineteenth century rise of critical scholarship:2

German Protestant biblical criticism increasingly viewed Christianity as brought about by Paul's universalistic teaching. As the cliché states, Paul turned the religion of Jesus into the religion about Jesus. Among the earliest proponents of this view was the German scholar Heinrich Graetz (1817-91), whose immensely influential History of the Jews (1853-76 [English translation 1891-98]) presented Paul as the "inventor" of Christianity, distinguished Paul's superficial Jewish learning from Jesus' high-mindedness and moral purity, and argued that Paul's antinomian theology made him the "destroyer of Judaism."

In other words, the specific idea that Paul created a new religion by distorting Jesus' message mostly originated in the nineteenth century. Langton highlights other scholars who claimed Paul 'injected pagan elements into the religion of Jesus', including:

American Reform rabbi, Kaufmann Kohler (1843-1926), specifically his Jewish Encyclopedia article 'Saul of Tarsus'
German philosopher, Martin Buber (1878-1965)
Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue in the United Kingdom, Jonathan Sacks (1948-), specifically his One People?: Tradition, Modernity, and Jewish Unity

But in contrast to Paul's critics, Langton also lists a few who 'argued that Paul remained authentically Jewish':

German Reform rabbi, Leo Baeck (1873-1956), specifically his article 'The Faith of Paul'
Montefiore
Hans-Joachim Schoeps
Samson Raphael Hirsch
Joseph Krauskopf
Isaac Mayer Wise

Close to the end of his essay, Langton summarizes the views of a few more recent Jewish commentators on Paul:3

Mark Nanos (1954-) has gone so far as to claim that Paul was entirely Torah-observant and that he expected other Jewish followers of Jesus to be so as well. . . . Daniel Boyarin (1946-) maintains that despite the fact that Paul had found the Law problematic, his letters ("the spiritual autobiography of a first-century Jew") show him to be a Jew facing many of the same kinds of challenges that Jews face today . . .

Mark Nanos also has an essay included in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, titled 'Paul and Judaism'. In this essay, Nanos writes:4

More controversial [than accepting Paul 'was born and raised a Jew'] is whether he continued to practice Judaism after his change from being a persecutor of the followers of Jesus to becoming an apostle to the nations (i.e., the Gentiles).

Nanos explains Paul with this:5

Paul's letters arguably indicate that he lived in a Torah-observant manner, including eating according to prevailing halakhic conventions for an observant Jew. But that is not the way he has been most commonly interpreted. Rather, his urging of non-Jews to remain non-Jews, and his own self-deprecating comments about the supposed superiority of his standing as a Jew relative to their own questionable standing in the larger Jewish communities, has led many to suppose that Paul was demeaning the value of Jewish identity and behavior, of Torah as well as Israel. If, however, we look at the rhetorical context of his comments, we see that in all his extant letters they are directed to non-Jews.

Bringing this into a context of the compatibility of Paul and Jesus: Paul himself did not stop following the Torah, and did not expect Jewish followers of Jesus to stop either. He only argued that non-Jews were not required to start following the Torah after coming to believe in Jesus as the messiah, and this argument spilled over into his letters.
Because Jesus said virtually nothing (recorded) on the issue of non-Jews following Torah (and there were a variety of Jewish views on this subject at the time, as there are now), and because Paul did not expect Jewish followers of Jesus to reject Torah (according to Langton, Nanos, etc.), there is little ground to see Jesus' and Paul's teachings as explicitly contradictory on this matter.

2. Paul, and Jesus as God
The other question is whether Paul was the first to deify Jesus, identifying him with the God of Israel. There is huge disagreement on this point in the scholarly community. Some take the critical opinion that Paul perverted Jesus' message by deifying him. Others argue that the perception of Jesus as God is entirely compatible with Jewish thought. Still others claim that neither Paul nor any of the earliest Christians actually perceived Jesus as God.

2a. Christians before Paul identified Jesus as God
Arguably, Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtado are the two most well-known scholars who argue that not only did the earliest followers of Jesus (i.e. before Paul) perceive Jesus to be 'God', this idea, while never-before-seen in Judaism, was completely at home within the wider stream of Jewish thought, and should not be understood as a pagan 'corruption'.
In summary, Bauckham and Hurtado make similar arguments in their writings6 that, prior to Jesus, different Jewish groups wrote about exalted humans (e.g. Enoch, Abraham, or Moses), specialized angels (e.g. Michael, or Yahoel), or divine hypostases (e.g. God's Wisdom, or God's Logos) who mediated between God and his creation in a unique way. The language, ideas, and tropes surrounding these figures were then applied by the earliest Christians to Jesus, with one unique 'mutation': Jesus' followers identified him with the God of Israel:7

Now I turn to my second objective, namely, to demonstrate that earliest Christian devotion [to Jesus] constituted a significant mutation or innovation in Jewish monotheistic tradition. By "mutation" I mean that earliest Christian devotion was a direct outgrowth from, and indeed a variety of, the ancient Jewish tradition.

Please note that our knowledge of such mediator figures largely comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, a huge swath of Jewish literature that was not discovered until long after Paul's critics had been accusing him of creating a new religion in his deification of Jesus. The people who accused Paul of corrupting Judaism into something pagan that allowed for a divine Jesus had no idea such language, ideas, and tropes were actually very common place within the Judaism of Jesus' and Paul's time, even if the actual perception of a human as God was a distinct 'innovation' within 'the Jesus movement'.
Hurtado argues that this identification of Jesus with God is evident in hymns (e.g. Philippians 2.6-11; Colossians 1.15-20) and creeds (1 Corinthians 8.6; perhaps also the Maranatha, 'Come, Lord!' of 1 Corinthians 16.22) that existed before Paul embedded them into his own letters, as well as devotional practices that had been going on before Paul began following Jesus (e.g. prayer and worship for God are directed 'through' Jesus; baptism is done in Jesus' name; Jesus is the center of the Eucharist).
In other words:8

All along, the evidence in the Pauline letters pointed to an origin of the cultic veneration of Jesus [i.e. as God] in the earliest years of the Christian movement and among Christians from an undeniably Jewish background, including Aramaic-speaking believers. Some earlier history of religion researchers apparently found it difficult to reconcile this with their notions of what could be expected of Jewish Christians. Thus they attributed the origin of the cultic veneration of the risen Christ to a later stage of the Christian movement and invoked the influence of pagan cults as the cause.

2b. Paul and early Christians did not identify Jesus as God
Still, an opposing view is that Paul never deified Jesus, nor did any of the other early Christians, and that insisting as much is a severe misinterpretation of Paul's letters.
Pamela Eisenbaum, a Jewish scholar of Paul, insists he remained 'a radical Jewish monotheist' even after becoming a follower of Jesus. Paul certainly revered Jesus greatly, above and beyond the Torah and other people. For Paul, 'Jesus has replaced Torah as the key to salvation'.9 But according to Eisenbaum, Paul made a consistent distinction between Jesus and God in his theology, even when writing his letters:10

. . . from the perspective of outsiders to the Christian tradition, Paul has sometimes been ridiculed for having abandoned monotheism. Such ridicule is part of a more general theological critique, advanced for centuries by Muslims and Jews, against the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, namely that God became human, and the notion of a triune God, namely that God is three-in-one, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. . . . Jesus is clearly a divine figure of unique status in Paul's letters, and this has led many historians to conclude that devotion to Christ as developed by Paul must have come from outside—that is, non-Jewish—influences.

Eisenbaum interacts with Hurtado on his views on the early acceptance of Jesus as a 'divine figure of unique status', but she homes in on different key points of the ancient Jewish texts about mediator figures and how those same ideas are used for Jesus. Her conclusion is that:11

A shift in devotional focus from God to Christ may have already begun with other New Testament writers, but these writers come at least a generation after Paul. As noted by many scholars, Paul carefully distinguished between Jesus and God and did not worship Jesus as if he were a god, nor does the apostle treat Christ as the equivalent of God, the use of similar language notwithstanding. Rather, confessing Jesus as Lord was supposed to point people toward God; it was not meant to distract people from God nor to complicate the unitary nature of God. One misunderstands Paul if one misses this point.

Conclusion
While Paul's exact views on either Torah or Jesus may still be debated, there is sufficient reason for thinking Paul did not 'invent' Christianity. Whatever his views on Torah or Jesus, there is at least a historical congruency between Paul's theology as represented in his letters, and the various beliefs in the stream of Second Temple Judaism. It is a huge question on where we should locate Jesus in this stream, but it's entirely possible Paul is much closer to Jesus than his critics tend to think.

Footnotes
1 Daniel R. Langton, 'Paul in Jewish Thought', in The Jewish Annotated New Testament (2011).
2 Ibid., p.586.
3 Ibid., p.587.
4 Mark Nanos, 'Paul and Judaism', in The Jewish Annotated New Testament (2011), p.551.
5 Ibid., p.553.
6 e.g. Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament (1998); Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (1988, 1998).
7 Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (1998), p.99.
8 Ibid., p.125.
9 Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not A Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (2009), p.173.
10 Ibid., p.177,178.
11 Ibid., p.189.


According to Catholics when were names added to The Book of Life? According to Catholics, are names added to the Book of Life anywhere in the Bible (after Creation)? Including apocryphal writings or extrabiblical sources from within the Catholic spectrum.

I see only examples of names remaining in or being wiped out. I don’t see names being added.

  “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” Revelation 3:5 ESV

In order to never be blotted out it’s implied you were already written in. When was it written in?

What is the Catholic view?

St Thomas Aquinas covers this question (more-or-less) and I don't think you're going to find this in the Catechism.  I think someone smarter than me will have to interpret it for you.

Therefore those who are ordained to possess eternal life through divine predestination are written down in the book of life simply, because they are written therein to have eternal life in reality; such are never blotted out from the book of life. Those, however, who are ordained to eternal life, not through divine predestination, but through grace, are said to be written in the book of life not simply, but relatively, for they are written therein not to have eternal life in itself, but in its cause only.

So there's two times when the writing takes place once for those who St. Paul called predestined:

For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:29

and once for those who drink the waters of eternal life later on.

but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
John 4:14

And the writing in the book, St. Thomas says should be taken in the Metaphorical sense:

The book of life is in God taken in a metaphorical sense, according to a comparison with human affairs. For it is usual among men that they who are chosen for any office should be inscribed in a book; as, for instance, soldiers, or counsellors, who formerly were called "conscript" fathers


Why are thighs important? I know it sounds like a silly or weird question, but I'm serious.

  Genesis 24:2

  One day Abraham said to his oldest servant, the man in charge of his household, “Take an oath by putting your hand under my thigh.

  Genesis 47:29

  As the time of his death drew near, Jacob called for his son Joseph and said to him, “Please do me this favor. Put your hand under my thigh and swear that you will treat me with unfailing love by honoring this last request: Do not bury me in Egypt.

  Leviticus 7:33

  The right thigh must always be given to the priest who offers the blood and the fat of the peace offering.

  Revelation 19:16

  On his robe at his thigh was written this title: King of all kings and Lord of all >lords.

Why is the thigh important?

The usages you give here are varied and not necessarily related. In today's English would could use the word hand as in to 'offer a helping hand' or to 'hand something over' or 'hand something out' or any number of other expressions. In the same way not every instance of the word 'thigh' necessarily refers to the same thing.

The first two cases you give in Genesis have to do with oaths. Placing a hand on the thigh of someone while you made a promise was a sign of submission and the seriousness of the oath. Such an action could also be taken on ones self as a sign of remorse. There several other examples of these two usages throughout the OT.

In your Leviticus passage the meaning is entirely different and you need look no farther than the prices of different cuts in your local butchers shop for an explanation. Some cuts of meat are considered more valuable. Breast and thighs were considered the best portions.

I don't know what the significance in Revelation is. For this one the suggestion to ask on Judaism.SE might be a good one because It think it has to do with a specific piece of clothing, the Tallit. The tassels have significance and where on the garment the name is inscribed corresponds to something about the tassels.


In Catholicism, what can the Saints be patrons of? St. Patrick is known for evangelizing Ireland. Since most saints I hear of are also characterized as "the Patron Saint of X", I wondered what Patrick was the Patron of. According to the wikipedia article, he is a Patron Saint of Ireland along with two others.

I was expecting a position or social class. Like carpenters, miners, loggers, etc. So now I have this question. What things can a saint be a patron of?

So it seems there are patron saints for trade positions and nations.

Are there Patron Saints to:

Emotional types of people - e.g. hot-tempered, passive, patient, generous etc.
Benignly physically characterized people - e.g. blonde, green-eyed, tall, etc.
Morbidly physically characterized people - e.g. hospitalized, murdered, disfigured, etc.
Human journeys - Suffering, oppression, conquering, etc.
Types of status - e.g. wealthy, poor, leader, surf, etc.
Types of relationships - e.g. sisters, brothers, fathers, etc.
Animals or kinds of animals.
Inanimate things - e.g. candles, cake, ice cream, etc.
Earthly things - e.g. dirt, rocks, wind, rain, sunshine, the moon, stars, etc.
Characterized things - e.g. made of specific materials, lost, stolen, etc.
Holy things - e.g. relics, priestly possessions, etc.
Events - e.g. birthdays, death days, graduations, etc.
Holidays - e.g. Christmas, Easter, Lent, etc.
Others I haven't thought of.

I did find this page, which helps a bit. I see places, occupations, illnesses and their caregivers, activities (e.g. baptism) and animals. Is there some sort of logical categories that saints can be patrons of and categories that they cannot be patrons of?

A search of the Catechism, as well as of the Vatican website and of the Catholic Encyclopedia article, do not reveal any particular official protocol to decide whether a given saint is to be considered a patron saint, and of what.

Searching through the Vatican's website for the term "patron saint" yields a number of references to patron saints, including at least one document officially establishing a saint (Thomas More) as patron saint of a profession or class (statesmen). This document is a motu proprio, issued by the Pope on his own initiative, though in this case at least he was impelled by requests from others:

  Recently, several Heads of State and of Government, numerous political figures, and some Episcopal Conferences and individual Bishops have asked me to proclaim Saint Thomas More the Patron of Statesmen and Politicians. Those supporting this petition include people from different political, cultural and religious allegiances, and this is a sign of the deep and widespread interest in the thought and activity of this outstanding Statesman.

(E Sancti Thomae Mori section 1)

It appears then that no particular protocol is required beyond the interest of the faithful and the decision of the Pope, or (in cases of older saints especially) simply a tradition of associating saints with particular causes.

As one reads through lists of patron saints, one does notice certain patterns occur. Saints are often declared patrons of:

locations (real or virtual): e.g. St. Mark as the patron of Venice, Italy; or Our Lady of Guadalupe as the patron saint of the United States; or Isidore of Seville as the patron saint of the Internet
occupations or professions: St. Thomas More, patron saint of politicians; the Blessed Virgin as patron saint of sailors (from her title "Stella Maris": "Star of the Sea")
groups of people in general: St. Stanislaus Kostka as patron saint of the young; Our Lady of Loreto (and Saint Padre Pio), patron saint of air travelers
people with specific illnesses or disabilities: St. Dymphna as patron saint of those with epilepsy; St. Damien of Molokai as patron saint of those with leprosy

Continuing through your list: the only "patron saint of relationships" I could find are Saints Joachim and Ann, parents of the Blessed Virgin and patron saints of parents. Saint Francis of Assisi is patron saint, not of animals but of ecology and ecologists. (St. Felix of Nola is apparently the patron saint of lost pets. Keep that in mind.)

Similarly, Saint Christopher is still the patron saint of travelers, though the Church admits he probably didn't exist (!!).

In terms of holidays—or holy days—those are specifically dedicated to God, or to one or more saints; but the respective saints are not called "patron saints" of those days.

Generally speaking, though, it appears that there are no particular restrictions on what saints may or may not be patrons of, nor any authoritative teaching on the subject.


When were Gentiles under Law? In "Protestant" Christian sermons, I very often notice that preachers say "we are no longer under the law but under the grace now". I don't understand the logic of these statements since the Mosaic Law was given to Moses and Jewish people and not to the Gentiles.

With this in mind, I ask in what manner gentiles were under the law and are now under grace?

Here is an excerpt from the writings of Martin Luther, a reformer and founder of Protestantism, that I think that you will agree serves as a prime example of the phenomena that you have observed. In the quote, Luther is discussing two sermons delivered from God, the first at Sinai, where the children of Israel are given the tablets of the Law, and the second at Pentecost in the New Testament, where the Gospel is preached in many tongues by the disciples of Christ. Emphasis is added by me.

Now the first sermon, and doctrine, is the law of God. The second is the gospel. These two sermons are not the same. Therefore we must have a good grasp of the matter in order to know how to differentiate between them. We must know what the law is, and what the gospel is. The law commands and requires us to do certain things. The law is thus directed solely to our behavior and consists in making requirements. For God speaks through the law, saying, “Do this, avoid that, this is what I expect of you.” The gospel, however, does not preach what we are to do or to avoid. It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the law, does the very opposite, and says, “This is what God has done for you; he has let his Son be made flesh for you, has let him be put to death for your sake.” So, then, there are two kinds of doctrine and two kinds of works, those of God and those of men. Just as we and God are separated from one another, so also these two doctrines are widely separated from one another. For the gospel teaches exclusively what has been given us by God, and not—as in the case of the law—what we are to do and give to God.

We can interpret Luther's use of the first person plural pronouns "us" to mean we, even all mankind.
Included in the Book of Concord, the doctrinal authority of the Lutheran Church, is the Augsburg Confessions. Article 28 includes this passage:

For it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty be preserved in the churches, namely, that the bondage of the Law is not necessary to justification, as it is written in the Epistle to the Galatians 5:1: Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. It is necessary that the chief article of the Gospel be preserved, to wit, that we obtain grace freely by faith in Christ, and not for certain observances or acts of worship devised by men.

It is clear in the doctrinal documents that the Protestants after Luther did not consider the Law to be only applied to Israel, but that it was indeed a pattern of a Supreme Divine Law by which all men are judged, both Jew and Gentile.
Even among the Gentiles, the Jewish people acknowledge that there is a standard of law by which their deeds are measured, which is the Noahide Covenant, since we are all descendants of Noah, though the Jews come from Abraham by Shem and the gentiles from Japheth. In his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, Irenaeus comments on our shared patronage, saying,

Now the blessing of Japheth is on this wise: "God shall enlarge unto
Japheth, and he shall dwell in the house of Shem, and Ham shall be his servant." That is to say:
In the end of the ages he blossomed forth, at the appearing of the Lord, through the calling of the Gentiles, when God enlarged unto them the calling; and their sound went out into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. The enlarging, then, is the calling from among the Gentiles,
that is to say, the Church. "And he dwells in the house of Shem"; that is, in the inheritance of the fathers, receiving in Christ Jesus the right of the firstborn. So in the rank in which each was blessed, in that same order through his posterity he received the fruit of the blessing.

Poignantly in his letter to the Church in Galatia cited in the above, Paul says to them,

Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Paul says this after Jesus, who taught us that (Matt 22:36-40),

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

In Romans 2:9-16, Paul confirms that while all men are not responsible to the Law of Moses, they are all responsible to this summary of the Law. Those who do not love God or their neighbor transgress, and those who are righteous according to this, even if they are Gentiles and do not know the Law, still obey the law with their righteousness.

There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

And so even without hearing the Law, the one who does the Law is justified, and the one who hears the Law and does not do it is condemned. But can a person who does not know the Law and is wicked be considered righteous because he has not heard it? Of course not. He will parish without the Law just as the wicked man who did have the Law. As a summary of the Protestant position, consider another passage from Romans 3:21-31 as Paul continues,

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction [between Jew and Gentile]; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith [that is grace]. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith, is One.

So while both Jew and Gentile alike might have been condemned by God, because righteousness does not come by hearing the Law but by doing the Law and all fall short of doing the Law, God has rescued us from our bondage to condemnation under the law and justified those who were condemned, and justified them through Jesus Christ who believe on him since righteousness does not come by the law, but by faith in Him.


What did the Early Church Fathers think about pets (animals) going to Heaven upon death? Many people believe that a pet goes to Heaven upon its death. I was curious, what did the Early Church Fathers (e.g., Augustine, John of Damascus, Tertullian, etc.) say about this?

I've read a lot of the early Church Fathers and don't recall them addressing this issue.  A good site for reading their writings (for free) is at:  http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Generally, the early Fathers are focused more on answering pagan criticisms of the Christian faith, arguing against heretical ideas, and generally building up the faith of believers.  Ignatius, for instance, wrote letters of exhortation to the congregations he was passing by while on his way to Rome for execution.  Clement of Rome wrote to the church in Corinth, calling them to remember the words of Paul which he had written to them.  Justin Martyr wrote two Apologies to the Roman emperors, defending the Christian faith.  Irenaeus wrote "Against the Heresies" to counter heretical beliefs and to defend the "rule of faith" (i.e. the creedal belief taught by the Apostles as they founded congregations).

My sense, then, in reading the Fathers is that the issue of pets was not something they were concerned about.  I'm not sure how they would have taught about this issue, either, since the Bible is largely silent on the topic.  What the Bible does depict, however, is that God is concerned for His whole creation, and that Jesus Christ is redeeming and restoring all of his creation.  This is seen also, for instance, in the fact that God had Noah preserve the animals on the ark.

Thus, in Revelation, after the resurrection we see the "new heavens and new earth" that has been fully restored to the perfection in which God originally created it.  Things will be perfect, but different there, and we don't quite know what it will be like, other than that it will be "very good" (cf. Isaiah 65:17, Isaiah 66:22, 1 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1, Matthew 22:29-32).

To the underlying question of "will we see our pets again in heaven or at the resurrection," the only answer I have is that God doesn't tell us; I suspect that's why the early Church Fathers don't seem to have addressed the question either.  However, we trust that all things will be made right by God at the resurrection and that He will complete everything according to His goodness.