The Glory Be prayer and consolation - Catholic Spirituality Is there a Catholic author who discussed how praying the Glory Be prayer can provide consolation? I am looking for a book/article on that topic.

St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica II-II q. 83 a. 13 co.) that

the effect of prayer is threefold.

The first is an effect which is common to all acts quickened by charity, and this is merit. […]

The second effect of prayer is proper thereto, and consists in impetration: […]

The third effect of prayer is that which it produces at once; this is the spiritual refreshment of the mind […]

This third effect he later (ibid. a. 15 co.) calls "causing spiritual consolation at the time of praying".
Thus all prayer—regardless if it is a long or short prayer, as long as one is attentive to it an not willfully distracted—can be consoling.
See also St. Thomas's commentary on 1 Cor. 14:13-17:

– But is it true that whenever anyone prays and does not understand what he is saying, he obtains no fruit? The answer is that the fruit of prayer is twofold: one fruit is the merit the person obtains; the other fruit is the spiritual consolation and devotion produced by the prayer. In regard to the fruit of spiritual devotion, one is deprived of it, if he does not attend to what he is praying, or does not understand; but in regard to the fruit of merit, one is not necessarily deprived of it. For many prayers would be without merit, since a man can scarcely say the “Our Father” without his mind wandering to other things. Therefore, it must be said that when the one praying is sometimes diverted from what he is saying, or when a person engaged in one meritorious work does not continually think at each step that he is doing this for God, he does not lose the reason for merit. The reason for this is that in all meritorious acts ordained to the right end, it is not required that the intention of the performer be united to the end in every act: but the first influence, which moves the intention, remains in the entire work, even if in some particular it be distracted; and this first influence makes the entire work meritorious, unless it is interrupted by a contrary affection which turns one from the original and to a contrary end.

Also, appendix 1, ch. 6, from

Catholic Church. 1914. The little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, fully explained and annotated also the Office of the dead and the Office for November 2. London & Dublin: Burns Oates & Washbourne.

as reprinted on pp. 201-206 of

Catholic Church. 2015. Little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary: in Latin and English. London: Baronius Press.

is a great brief overview of the history of Gloria Patri prayer (also called the Glory Be or Minor or Lesser Doxology prayer) and saints' profound devotion to praying it:

Chapter VI
The "Gloria Patri"
The Gloria Patri is commonly referred to as the Doxology—a Greek word signifiying a hymn of praise and honour to God.
"Glory be to the Father," etc., is said at the end of every psalm and hymn, and at the close of the responsories in all, more than forty times [in the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary]. Through it the faithful are constantly reminded that the end and aim of the Office is the praise and adoration of the Blessed Trinity. In the Office of our Lady we especially wish to praise and thank the Three Divine Persons for all the great things They have done on behalf of Their well-beloved Daughter, Mother, and Bride.[Dr. Schäfer.]
According to St. Basil, this Doxology goes back to the Apostolic age. It was used by the earliest Christians to distinguish Christian worship from that of the Jews. "The first Christians sang the psalms in the synagogue as in the church," says M. Olier, "but to the psalms the Christians added the Gloria Patri, to show that their law adds to that of Moses the religion and express worship of Three Divine Persons, which, up to that time, had been scarcely distinguished."
St. Damasus, on the advice of St. Jerome, sanctioned, confirmed, and generalized this holy practice of the first Christians, who began each of their actions with an express invocation of the Three Divine Persons in whose name they had been regenerated. It was equally the practice of the Bishops and Doctors, particularly in the East, to terminate their instructions by a testimony of veneration or of gratitude towards the Adorable trinity—the Beginning and End of all things.
The Arians and other heretics having tampered with the Doxology to give colour to their errors, the General Council of Nicea in 325 condemned their heresies, and added to the Gloria Patri the words which form the second part of it: Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
The first words of the Doxology recall the chant of the Angels at the Birth of our Saviour—Gloria in excelsis Deo; Glory to God in the highest (Luke ii. 14)—and that which St. John (Apoc. v. 13) heard repeated in Heaven: To Him that sitteth on the Throne, and to the Lamb, benediction, and honour, and glory, for ever and ever. Nothing is better calculated to raise the soul above the world than to re-echo the heavenly song: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of Hosts, all the earth is full of His glory (Isa. vi. 3). The Doxology enunciates with majestic simplicity the most sublime sentiments we can conceive, and the most perfect love which our Lord is Himself capable of feeling for His Father. If the nobility of its language results from the elevation of thoughts, what can be more magnificent than these few words where the Supreme Majesty finds the only offering that becomes its greatness, and which its oversight demands from every creature?
St. Francis de Sales says: "It is not only the glory that Jesus Christ renders Him in His humanity and by His saints; it is a glory incomparably more perfect. The human acts of our Saviour, although infinite in value and merit on account of the Person who produced them, are not therefore infinite essentially, because they are performed according to His human nature and substance, which is finite. God cannot be glorified according to His merit except by Himself, He alone being capable of equaling His goodness by a sovereign praise. In this sense we cry aloud: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. And that it may be understood that it is not the glory of created praises that we wish to God by these words, but truly the essential and eternal glory which He has in Himself, we add: As it was in the beginning,, etc. And we add this to each psalm, as was ordained by Pope St. Damasus, in order to protest that every praise, both human and angelic, is but a small thing for God, and that to be worthily praised it is necessary that He Himself should be His glory, His praise, and His benediction."
So that whatever may be the particular object of the psalm, this Doxology always sums up and completes its principal meaning; it is like the abridged expression of the purest sentiments, of the most generous and sublime aspirations that Divine Love can utter.[Bacquez.]
We read in the life of Bartholomew of the Martyrs, that illustrious and pious Bishop, one of the lights of the Council of Trent, that each time he sang or recited the Gloria Patri he felt such an ardour of soul, and experienced so lively a joy, that these sentiments were apparent externally in his face and in the sound of his voice. The same remark has been made in the case of Father Serarius, a religious of the Society of Jesus, a man of great learning and eminent piety. "It is impossible to express," says Pére Saint Jure in his Homme Spirituel, "with what ardent devotion and with what raptures of heart and mind, he said or heard these grand words. On feast-days, especially when he heard them sung with more than ordinary solemnity, he could no longer contain himself; the delight of his soul burst forth in spite of himself, and bore him away into a pious ecstasy."
A praiseworthy practice is to incline the head when pronouncing these words, according to the rubrics. St. Francis of Jerome never neglected to do so. By arousing the attention, this helps us to enter into the sentiments of respect and humility which this act expresses; and so by our attitude, as well as by our words, we imitate the angels and blessed in heaven. When those living creatures gave glory and honour and benediction to Him who sitteth on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, … they fell down before Him that sitteth on the throne and adored Him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worth, O Lord our God, to receive glory, honour, and power (Apoc. iv. 9-11). To this general signification we may add another, more particular and more precise. One day when St. Magdalen of Pazzi bent herself thus, with mor than ordinary earnestness, one of her Sisters inquired the reason of this observance. "It is," she replied, "a practice I have, through my confessor, to offer my life to the Holy Trinity in bowing my head at the Gloria Patri as if I were presenting it to the executioner to suffer martyrdom."
By the same inclination of the head, a pious priest proposed to himself to honour the self-abasement of the Son of God, descending from heaven in order to restore to His Father that glory of which the pride of man had robbed Him; and he united himself in this manner to the homage which the Incornate Word offered to the Divine Majesty. Another, more inclined to compunction, regarded himself as a useless and guilty servant who offers himself to the Divine Justice to undergo the punishment due to his negligence and faults. The Blessed Jordan, successor to St. Dominic in the government of his Order, had the custom to implore at this moment the blessing of the ever-august Trinity. Once, on the Eve of the Purification, God rewarded him with an extraordinary favour. As the Invitatory was being sung he was the Blessed Virgin come down from heaven, and seat herself with our Saviour upon a throne that angels had prepared for them. They both looked benignly uponeach of the religious; then, when these, having finished the Venite, exsultemus, … bowned whilst signing the Gloria Patri, Jordan saw the Mothe of God take the hands of her Son, who blessed them sweetly, making the sign of the Cross over them.[Bacquez.]
The Venerable Bede—the man of prayer, as his name implies—lovned the Doxology. He died while repeating it on the Eve of the Ascension, May 26, 735, according to the account of his disciple Cuthbert.
The Gloria Patri inspired St. Francis of Assisi with liveliest devotion. He could never tire of repeating it, and he exhorted everyone to say it frequently. Once when he desired to return thanks to God for a special favour, he ordered the Magnificat to be said by one of his friars, he himself saying a Gloria Patri after each verse. He likewise much recommended meditation upon this Doxology. To one of his brethren, who was very desirous to learn, he said: "Study well the Gloria Patri; in it you will find the whole substance of the Scriptures."[Ibid.]
In the Life of Blessed Jean Gabriel Perboyre, who had the glory of shedding his blood for the Faith in China not long ago, we read: "An extreme attention was noticed in him whenever he repeated the Gloria Patri at the end of the psalms. He then bowed his head with great respect, and his devotion seemed to redouble. 'We ought to recollect ourselves,' he said, 'during the Doxology, in order to arouse our fervour and make up for the distraction we allowed ourselves to have during the psalm we have just finished, and to dispose ourselves to recite better the one that follows.' He had, besides, so great a desire to honour the ever Blessed trinity, that it often happened that he repeated this prayer four or five times in succession."
Whenever St. Alphonsus, in his old age, heard of some good news for the glory of God or the welfare of Holy Church, he cried out with heartfelt emotion: Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Great things are told us of the devotion of the Blessed Paul of the Cross to this Doxology, and he taught the same spiritual devotion to his Religious.[Father Faber.]


How does the relationship of the Church of Scotland to the state differ from that of the Church of England? Both England and Scotland have "state churches", but what exactly does that mean? How did these special relationships between a church entity and a sovereign state come about and how specifically do the two states/churches handle their relationship differently?

I'm particularly interested in how the Church of Scotland came into it's current position and if any part of the process was directly influenced by (either modeled after or in opposition to) the status of the Church of England at the time.

The Church of Scotland is not a state church. It is recognised as "national church", but it is independent of the state in matters spiritual. The Church of Scotland and the Church of England have very different histories - it is not a question of one trying to imitate the other.

The Scottish Reformation of 1560 took place when Scotland was still a separate state. The Reformation was recognised by the Scottish Parliament. A long struggle between Episcoplian and Presbyterian factions ensued; Presbyterianism was finally recognised in 1689-90. The Treaty of Union between Scotland and England in 1707 also guaranteed Presbyterian church government within the Church of Scotland. State intervention, however, proved problematic and was a contributing factor to the "Disruption" in the Church of Scotland in 1843 (over the right of appointment of ministers). To help secure the reunion of the majority of the United Free Church of Scotland and the Church of Scotland in 1929, the British Parliament recognised the "Articles Declaratory" of the Church of Scotland as lawful (by the Church of Scotland Act 1921). The Articles Declaratory express the Church's self-understanding as a national church, yet independent from the jurisdiction of the state in matters spiritual.

Bishops in the Church of England are (technically) appointed by the Queen. "Measures" of the Church of England's General Synod are subject to Parliamentary approval. There is no such state appointment/ratification system applying to the the Church of Scotland; the General Assembly is the Supreme Court of the Church of Scotland - the Queen may observe (or send a Lord High Commissioner in her place); the "throne gallery" is formally regarded as being "outside" the Assembly Hall.


What are the major differences between Eastern and Western Orthodox Christianities? I've looked around but can't really find a proper answer. Would anyone mind clarifying this for me?

I'm a Western Orthodox Christian, and I attended the baptism of my young cousin on Sunday, and this question just popped into my head.

Big question!  Here is my source:

  The culture - The East is familiar to Greek, Russian and Arabic
  languages/cultures, and the West is more familiar to Americans and
  English languages/cultures
  The Clergy Vestments
  The Liturgy/Mass - The
  East primarily uses the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, and the West
  primarily uses the Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great.
  The East has an
  Iconostasis ("Icon Wall") separating the Sanctuary from the rest of
  the church, and the West either has a rail (like the old Roman
  Catholic style) or nothing at all separating the Sanctuary from the
  rest of the church


Why is literary style not inspired? During Religious Ed. last night the review book had a question that we didn't see explained in the text (using Faith and Life Series for 7th Grade).

It asked, "what part of scripture was not inspired?"

The kids were like, "um, Judas?" and I thought that was a good answer, but said we do learn a thing or two from him.  The answer key however, said "the literary style" is not inspired.

I did not understand this and couldn't explain it to the kids. I just told them, the fact that some of it is poetry and some of it isn't is not in it self inspired. I can't for the life of me see how this tidbit will help them to understand the Bible or even how thinking that a poem can be inspired in and of itself.

What does it mean that the literary style is not inspired and why is it not inspired?

This is asked from a Catholic perspective, but I think any tradition that doesn't hold that the literary style was in fact inspired (whatever that means) could help me answer this question.

The understanding of inspiration understood by Baptists (and many others) is that God allowed the authors to use their own literary style, but still write the exact meaning He wanted them to convey. This makes sense, because each book, each author clearly does have their own style.

This view is known as Plenary verbal inspiration. It is not the only view, but but is the one that allows for the author's literary style to show through.

From http://www.theopedia.com/Inspiration_of_the_Bible

  Plenary verbal inspiration (emphasis mine.)

  The word plenary means "full" or "complete". Therefore, plenary verbal
  inspiration asserts that God inspired the complete text(s) of the
  Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, including both historical and
  doctrinal details. The word verbal affirms the idea that inspiration
  extends to the very words the writers chose. For example, in Acts 1:16
  the Apostle Peter says "the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake"
  (KJV). Paul calls all scripture "God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16
  (referring to the Old Testament). Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the
  writers along (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21) while allowing their own
  personalities and freedom to produce the Bible we have today. This
  view recognizes and asserts both the human and divine element within
  Scripture. This understanding has sometimes been compared and
  contrasted to the understanding of the two natures of Jesus.

Opposing understandings include:

Neo-orthodox
Dictation
Limited inspiration

All are covered on the page I linked to.


How do Protestants explain Zechariah 12:10-14, used by Roman Catholics to prove Mary's perpetual virginity? For those Protestants that believe that Mary had other children after Jesus was born, what do they make of Zechariah 12:10-14?

  10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of
  Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on
  me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one
  mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves
  for a firstborn son. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be
  as great as the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12
  The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by
  themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan
  of the house of Nathan and their wives, 13 the clan of the house of
  Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, 14 and all
  the rest of the clans and their wives.

All Christians agree that Jesus was pierced and was a firstborn son. Why should we not also conclude from this passage that Jesus was also an only child? One Catholic article makes this point:
http://whynotcatholicism.net/view/mary-ever-virgin

To connect Mary with this passage, is added this from Luke 2:

  34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child
  is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to
  be a sign that will be spoken against, 35 so that the thoughts of many
  hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

The sense of Zech 12:10 "only" is an expression of one of a kind.

Here is another use as regards Abraham and Isaac.

  And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

The word "only" is yachiyd.  It does not necessarily mean one and only with no other children, but as unique, special, only in the sense of the one child of promise.

So, Zech 12:10 is not about Mary and Joseph, but rather, all about Jesus Christ the only Son.


Did the Jansenists deny the gratuity of grace? Did the Jansenists deny the gratuity of grace? That is, did they think praying more or doing more works of supererogation could always coerce God into granting them more grace, not that God grants or withholds grace as he pleases?

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man may glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

No, Jansenists did not deny the gratuity of grace
According to one of the foremost authorities on Jansenism, Dr. Shaun Blanchard, the Jansenists were fighting for the gratuity of grace!

The Augustinians who came to be known as Jansenists thought that this new system [of Molinism] was basically semi-Pelagian. It made humans the authors of their own salvation and sacrificed the total gratuity of grace.
-Are Jansenists Among Us?

Blanchard's extensive writings on the topic include some of the following:

The Synod of Pistoia and Vatican II: Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform
The Neglect of Catholic Theology From Westphalia (1648) to the Bastille (1789)
Jansenism: A Rough Sketch of a Complex Phenomenon
“Third Party” Catholic Reformers of the Eighteenth-Century: Between Jansenists and the Zelanti
A Quasi-Defense of Gallicanism
Are Jansenists Among Us?
The Long History of Catholic Dissent
The Twists and Turns That Led to the First Vatican Council

Gratuity of Grace
Grace is not gratuitous precisely when it is earned or merited.  One of the basic problems with Jansenism, as seen in the third condemned proposition of Cum Occasione, is that Jansenism makes it impossible for humans to merit.  Therefore for Jansenists nothing can be earned or merited, including grace.  And if grace cannot be merited, then it must be gratuitous.
The doctrine of irresistible grace is very much in keeping with the doctrine of the gratuity of grace, and those who hold to this doctrine often do so in order to safeguard the gratuity of grace.  This was the case with the Jansenists.  If one cannot resist something, then that thing is clearly not under their control.  If one cannot resist grace, then grace is under God's control, not man's.  This is very much in line with Ephesians 2 as quoted by the OP, "...it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man may glory..."
The denial of the gratuity of grace is characteristic of the Molinist Jesuits, who were the opponents of the Jansenists.  The Molinists were accused of denying the gratuity of grace not only by Calvinists and Jansenists, but also by Thomists such as Domingo Báñez.  The Jansenists were accused of denying the freedom of man (which was thought to be a denial of the ability to keep commandments, the ability to merit, the ability to resist grace, and the ability to cooperate with grace, which respectively align with the first four condemned propositions).  This is the same thing that Calvinists and Thomists are often accused of.


Are there any Christians who are partially cessationist with regard to the gifts of the Spirit? I'm aware of the existence of both cessationism and continuationism as extreme positions regarding the gifts of the Spirit. One affirms that all the gifts of the Spirit have ceased, whereas the other argues that all of them are still in effect. However, I was wondering if there are any Christians situated somewhere between these two extremes? Do "partial cessationists" exist? Are there notable examples? If so, what is the biblical basis for their "partial cessationism"?

Actually the majority of Protestant Evangelicals hold this view that you describe - the view that is in the middle.
This is because the view that all the gifts have ceased is patently absurd at every level, and if this were true- then there could not be pastors.
There is no mention anywhere that there is some special exception for pastors and evangelists.
The ones in the middle react to the abuse done by some who take verses about Languages/tongues out of context and in some Pentecostal churches, there can be

10, 15, or 40 or more people, all praying in tongues at once and
with no interpretation- both explicitly violating Paul's teaching on use of tongues in the church.

Additionally the majority of Protestant denominations deny that this is the litmus test of being filled with the spirit- which some Charismatic groups teach.
These middle groups mostly teach that the gifts are alive and for believers today except for the "so-called sign or miraculous gifts", which are prophecy, (sometimes equated as "word of knowledge") tongues and healing.
This is the teaching of most Baptist, Freewill Baptists, Nazarenes, Bible Methodists, and Church of God Holiness and many  Independent.
As for scripture to support this view - there isn't any.
The Evangelical Free Church of America is a great example of the balance of scripture and the purpose of the gifts Each church is autonomous and self governed.
They teach that all the gifts are alive today and for all believers- but all for edifying (building up) the body of christ. When 99% of people speak the same language, its not practical or efficient to have someone stand up and teach in a foreign language.
If someone has a prophetic word- or Word of Knowledge- they take it to the elders.
When there There are foreign special guests, they have an interpreter, which sits beside them and interprets for them, and if it's a special guest speaker, then his sermon or testimony is interpreted for the entire body, because the majority doesn't speak Danish, or Korean, etc.
Gifts of healing are alive and in use today but you don't order which gifts you want like a Spiritual Christmas list and it's not like a "magic switch or button."
The Holy Spirit determines if and when someone is healed.
It's a very solid, biblically based and practical approach which places a lot of weight on the context - how and where is the gift being used.
These gifts are used in the context of Growth groups or Home groups.  Not in corporate worship.
Prophecy is taught as not being "spooky" or seeing the future, but rather something that is revealed by the Holy Spirit, and should always be weighed/ tested against scripture so you don't have "God told me to divorce my wife" kind of thing.


Does it matter which day I celebrate Sabbath / Lord's day on? Inspired by this question: What qualifies as work on Sunday?

I know some churches are very specific that we should commit one weekday to the Lord (Saturday or Sunday). Much like Jews celebrate the Sabbath.

The need to rest one day a week is very real for me. I really find it necessary to take one day off work, studies and all that. I usually do this on Sunday, as it's usually practical. However, if I need to do something on Sunday, I have no problem with instead taking the following Tuesday off, resting, reading and praying. This seems to work well for me.

I've never found a reason to specify the weekday I should spend like Lord's day. Are there any?

In Genesis 2:2-3 (NIV) it says,

  2  By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3  Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

It would seem to indicate only the existence of 'a day of rest', but there is no reference to a certain day of the week being more deserving of said title. I only see evidence that we should observe 'a day of rest'; though whatever day of the week that might happen to be is of little to no consequence really.


Has the impact of a practitioner's theological framework on pastoral counseling methodology been studied? Do any existing pastoral counseling programs take into effect how the theological framework concerning the doctrine of free will affects the counselor's therapeutic approach? For instance, an institution that gravitates towards theological determinism (such as Calvinism) might be more likely to adopt an approach based on radical behaviorism such as CBA (e.g. ACT, which has an underlying worldview of functional contextualism; or functional analytic psychotherapy), while an institution that leans towards theological indeterminism/libertarianism (such as Pelagianism or Arminianism) might feel more comfortable with standard CBT approaches.

From my experience, most pastoral counseling programs seem to teach some form of CBT without considering how the underlying worldview of the therapeutic approach conflicts (or agrees) with the theological ideologies of the institution and thus might create unintended countertransference. Has anyone dealt with this in scholarly publications or studies? Do any institutions who teach pastoral counseling directly address this issue?

I'm not sure I would agree that Calvinism is deterministic. Calvinists believe that God is sovereign and man is responsible. Calvinists also believe that the Bible is sufficient for faith and practice. As a result, some Calvinists would tend towards a nouthetic approach, such as Jay Adams and the Tripp brothers advocate.

Indeed, I would definitely say that Jay Adams and the Tripp brothers have thought deeply about how their theological framework and worldview affect counseling. Read Jay Adams's book Competent to Counsel and Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands, by Paul Tripp.

As for institutions, you could look at Adams's group, the Institute for Nouthetic Studies at http://www.nouthetic.org/, or the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation at http://www.ccef.org/.


Why did Jesus say that "Mary has chosen the better part"? Why did Jesus tell Martha, who was serving the Lord and making preparations, that Mary had "chosen what is better"?

  As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village
  where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister
  called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But
  Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She
  came to him and asked, "Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left
  me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!"

  "Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about
  many things, but few things are needed-or indeed only one. Mary has
  chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her." (Luke 10:38-42)

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all
  these things shall be added unto you.

  Matthew 6:33

This is what Mary was doing. Although what Martha was doing was not wrong, her focus was on those things and not on Jesus. Many people can get so caught up in church and completely forget about Jesus. Fixing things, making sure everything is ok, cooking, etc... They're not bad things, but when you leave Jesus aside, you are leaving salvation aside. We must seek Him first, everything else will be added on. This is what Mary did.


Is the betterment of the world impossible? As I understand, Christians believe the world is inherently sinful and going in a downhill spiral until its end, when Jesus rescues the good and leave the bad. Am I correct?

If I am, are the initiatives to make the world a better place by Christians (without the intent to convert people to Christianity) genuine? In other words, are Christians being cynical when working on such initiatives because they truly believe it is an impossible task?

Christians believe that mankind is inherently sinful (original sin) and that the world suffers from the curse of sin in mankind as well.

It is true the evil will increase, but "where sin increases, graces increases much more."  (Romans 5:20)  The Bible informs us that before the end of the world there will be people from every tribe, nation, and language who will name Jesus as Lord (Revelation 7:9).  So, even though things do get worse, at the same time the Gospel continues to spread to more and more people, and they experience the the forgiveness, joy, peace, and fulfillment that is only found in Christ.

Christians are absolutely genuine in their attempts to make the world a better place.  It is instructive to see in John chapter 5 that Jesus heals a man who was an invalid for 38 years, and when people ask him who healed him, the man didn't even bother to get Jesus' name.  Jesus healed the man not to get something out of him, but simply because He delighted in doing good.

As Jesus said elsewhere, it is better to give than to receive.  Giving is its own reward, as is serving.  There is true joy in giving to others and helping them in their times of need.

I would also say it most certainly is possible to make the world a better place.  Jesus actually tells us that we are the "salt of the earth" (Matthew 5:13).  Salt is a preservative.  Christianity ought to hold up a very high standard of moral excellence to which unbelievers can aspire.  Without that standard of morality, the bar is set much lower.

Also, historically speaking, as Christianity has spread, the world has indeed gotten better.  Only when it decreases does the world get worse.  Europe was full of barbaric people prior to Christianity.  The gospel transformed it.  Orphanages, hospitals, saving girls from forced prostitution, the feeding of the poor, the digging of wells... all this comes from Christian organizations all over the world today.  In fact, it is a sobering thing to think of how dark the world would be without Christianity.


Attending two different churches Does the Catholic Church teach that is a sin to attend another Christian Church that is truly focused on the Bible?

If it is OK to attend another Christian Church can they take the Holy Bread and Grape Juice? Is this the same as the Eucharist?

The Catholic Church requires attendance at a Catholic Mass on Sunday's and Holy days of Obligation. Attending another Christian Church does not meet this obligation.

  The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day

CCC #2180

If you do attend another Christian Church you should not take the bread. Other Christian churches do not have valid Holy Orders and usually do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as Catholics do.

  Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."

CCC #1400


Does transubstantiation occur when the Eucharist is received by one barred from sacraments? If someone is banned from receiving the sacraments through interdict or excommunication but does so anyway (perhaps they go to a different parish where their status is not known) does the sacrament still take effect?  Specifically, if someone is barred from receiving the Eucharist, does transubstantiation still occur?

It's my understanding (and agreed with in this question) that the transubstantiation occurs when the priest says the words of instantiation – that is, before they are received by the potential excommunicatee.

The Bible itself implies that the occurrence of the act of transubstantion is independent of the worthiness of the recipient.
In 1 Cor. 11:27, it is written,

27 Wherefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
ΚΖʹ ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου ἀναξίως ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου NA28

If a man was unworthy, then why would he be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if transubstantiation did not occur on account of his unworthiness? Yet, he is guilty for the very fact that what he consumed and drank was the very body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ despite unworthily receiving it.
Furthermore, if he only consumed mere bread and wine, why would he be guilty of anything? Unworthy individuals eat bread and drink wine all the time, e.g. unbelieving Jews. Did the apostle Paul really intend to say that all unbelieving Jews are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord for eating bread and drinking wine on, say, the Sabbath? I hardly think that was his point. He was directing his comments to those that participated in the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Communion because that bread and that wine that is received during the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, unlike common bread and wine that is received by others, elsewhere.


How can I teach someone to pray? So, the best question any pastor can be asked is "How can I learn to pray?"  I know how I do it, but what resources (preferably in Scripture, although classic works are acceptable) would be useful for actually guiding someone in developing a disciplined prayer life?

In Acts 4, after being arrested and subsequently released by the Council of Pharisees, Peter and John lead "their friends" in prayer:

  24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God
  and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the
  sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father
  David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,

“‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
     and the peoples plot in vain? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves,
     and the rulers were gathered together,
     against the Lord and against his Anointed’

  — 27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus,
  whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the
  Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28  to do whatever your hand and
  your plan had predestined to take place. 29 And now, Lord, look upon
  their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your
  word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal,
  and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy
  servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they
  were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the
  Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

Several things can be noted from this prayer.

They immediately address God as "Sovereign Lord". They acknowledge his power and knowledge, but most importantly his status as King over his people.
They go on to praise God for his works of creation ("heaven and earth and the sea")
They quote Scripture in the prayer - scripture that they use to reinforce their later plea
They reason with God. They say "you yourself say, why did the Gentiles rage? Look! They're raging now, they raged against Jesus! Show your power, protect us, enable us to keep preaching your word"
It's gospel-centric. At the core of their prayer is "your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed."
Their goal is not physical well-being, but the proclamation of the gospel. They say "look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word will all boldness." They don't ask for protection - all they care about is preaching the word of God.
It was a pretty darn good prayer. The Holy Spirit shook the place! It was an edifying prayer - the Holy Spirit filled them and they continued in their goal to preach the word of God.

I expounded on this on because I find it a very good prayer, but there are plenty of others. It's a good rule of thumb, in my opinion, to take the prayers of the saints as templates. Peter and John were apostles - they asked Jesus how to pray - and they learned well!

Our church's Assistant Pastor preached a series on prayers of the bible once. Here's some of the passages he preached on:

Solomon's Prayer for Wisdom: 1 Kings 3:1-15
David's Prayer of Gratitude: 2 Samuel 7:18-28
David's Prayer of Thanks: 1 Chronicles 29:10-22
A Prayer for a Church Oppressed by Heresy: Colossians 1:9-14
Part 1 & Part 2 of A Prayer For Boldness: Acts 4:24-31
On Prayer itself: Phil. 4:6-7


In Catholicism, what are some examples of views considered opinio tolerata? In Roman Catholic theology, opinio tolerata (tolerated opinion) refers to beliefs that are considered unlikely to be true, but are nonetheless tolerated by the Church. What are some examples of beliefs that are opinio tolerata? I have heard it suggested that belief in the Limbo of Infants is a contemporary example, but I'm not sure if that is true. In any case, even if that is true, I would be interested in other examples also.

Before going into some examples of some tolerated opinions in Catholic theology, it would be beneficial to understand a few terms first.

What is a tolerated opinion in the eyes of Catholic doctrine?

  In Catholic theology, opinio tolerata refers to pious beliefs with a low degree of theological certainty, but which are tolerated by the magisterium of the Catholic Church. These are ranked less certain than sententia probabilis and hold the least degree of certainty in the hierarchy of dogmatic teachings for Catholics. - Opinio tolerate (Wikipedia).

What are pious beliefs, or as some call them popular beliefs?

Did the Annunciation and Good Friday coincide?
Some Catholics believe that Mary did not see death when she was taken up to heaven. In the Apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. However, Pope Pius XII deliberately left open the question of whether Mary died before her Assumption.
Catholics are free to believe that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces since this too is at the present moment an undefined dogma in the Catholic Church.
Some Believe that Jesus was crucified  near the tomb of Adam at Calvary.
Before 1854, when Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus, some Catholics were of the opinion that Mary was conceived without sin, while others doubted this privilege as being given to Mary. Once this decree was promulgated on December 8, 1854, Catholics must believe that the Immaculate Conception is dogma.
Some of the faithful honor Mary with the title of Co-Redemptrix and as of the present moment it has not been defined as Catholic dogma. Catholics are permitted to hold this opinion. Pope Benedict XVI was not in favor of the dogmatization of this subject.

These are just a few of the many piously held opinions of some of the Catholic faithful.


Why does God promise something that satisfies our greed for longevity? New to Christianity.SE and Christianity in general, but I've had this question for some time.

The intrinsic greed of humans is to live forever—so why does God promise us eternal life after death as a reward for our faith?

  "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

  -John 3:16

Wouldn't consolidating our greed cement our nature as sinful people? Shouldn't God be trying to steer us away from desiring such things instead of using them as motivation to believe in Him?

I imagine it's a misinterpretation on my part, but I was wondering if anyone could clear this up for me :)

God does indeed promise eternal life. John 3:16 is pretty obvious of that and such plain and simple verses probably explains why there are so few (probably not any) Christian traditions that deny eternal life is part of God's promise.

Generically, God promises restoration continually in the Bible (e.g Acts 3:19-21; Revelation 21:1-5; 1 Peter 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17 1). The very large majority of Christians believe that Eternal life was apparently part of our original state. Even the non-literalists, like Theistic Evolutionists, believe The Fall was something and that the story highlights that we were once in perfect communion with God. The Gospel is the promise of that restoration, the restoration of perfect communion with God and we get to be in communion forever.

Most Christians believe that the wicked will also live forever, if you can call eternal hellfire "living". This further completes the answer for those who believe in an eternal, indestructible soul. The promise is actually restoration of communion with God, not that you get to live forever, per se. However, this leaves Annihilationists with some further explaining to make and I'm not sure how that would make it.

So, I personally do not think the typical Christian sees the promise of eternal life as pandering to our "greed for life", but rather as part of the promise of restoration, leading to a belief that death is unnatural (at least for the Creationist, non-evolutionist variety), or more like "naturally undesirable". I recall reflecting on it many times saying "Death just seems wrong, like it shouldn't be part of our lives." A more naturalist approach, as I suspect you are more familiar with, would likely view death differently, and perhaps as even serving a greater purpose. Cynics have throughout the years, especially since the Enlightenment era, simply agreed. A promise of eternal life is pandering to human fear of death, but even if Christians agree, it doesn't change the fact that the promise is more accurately restoration which includes everlasting life.

Old Testament restoration verses are also plentiful, but seemingly focus on immediate restoration, not lasting restoration. This highlights the Gospel message, rather than diminishes it, showing that with God (literally Emmanuel, God was with us) we have our eyes opened to see how great and powerful God truly is. He can not only restore us for today, but for all eternity.


Explanation of the bell, book, and candle ritual of excommunication Wikipedia's page contains a rather disturbing translation of the ritual:

  ... we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth,  ... we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, ... we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

which sounds as if the priests are actually claiming power both over God and over the person's eternal soul.

I'm assuming there is a more innocent explanation; does anybody know of it?

Note that this is an old ritual that only makes sense in the context in which it was developed. The ritual is no longer used, no doubt in part because it seems very strange for modern sensibilities.
A couple of clarifications are in order, first of all. Excommunication (and other ecclesiastical penalties) are, and always have been, "medicinal." Their purpose is to draw attention to a person who has committed a very grave crime (under ecclesiastical law), so that he may repent.
Excommunication specifically does not remove a person from membership in the Church (a common misconception), nor does it exclude one necessarily from eternal salvation (for example, in cases where the interested party repents, or else the penalty is applied in error or abusively). It does, however, exclude one from the reception of the Sacraments (although one may, of course, always receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation when in danger of death).
Canon 1331 §1 of the Code of Canon Law explains:

An excommunicated person is forbidden:
1° to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;
2° to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;
3° to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

Some of the ritual's more flamboyant expressions, such as the ones referred to by the original post, must, therefore, be considered as exaggerations to make a point.
I should point out that the ritual has numerous allusions to the Bible. For the benefit of readers, the full text of the rite is

Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive him and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

"Binding and loosing" refers to Matthew 16:19

I will give you [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

or Matthew 18:18

Truly, I say to you, whatever you [apostles] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The "eternal fire with Satan and his angels" alludes to Matthew 25:41:

Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Finally, the very last sentence is almost a direct quotation for 1 Cor 5:5:

You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

(Note how his quote emphasizes that, for all its flamboyancy, the purpose of the penalty is above to help the person receiving it to repent and return to communion with the Church.)
Another important point is that priests do not have, per se, the authority to excommunicate. Rather, the Church teaches, based on the passages from Matthew cited above, that only the competent authority in the Church has the authority to impose such a penalty. That means, practically, that only a diocesan bishop (or his equivalent: the "ordinary" of one of the Anglican-use ordinariates, for example). Naturally, whoever has authority over the entire Church may also impose such a penalty (for example, the Bishop of Rome—i.e., the Pope—or an ecumenical council, or possibly even a dicastery—a "congregation" at the Vatican—with delegated authority).
In any event, the Catholic Church does not claim to have authority over God, merely that God has bestowed upon the Church the power to "bind and loose"—to impose penalties on persons guilty of grievous crimes, and to re-admit them into communion if they repent.
So, analyzing the particular phrases in the original question:

... we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth

This is to be understood as excluding the person above all from receiving the Sacraments, unless and until he repents. The ritual is, so to speak, assuming that the penalty is just and that the person is really guilty. The exclusion from communion is, as it were, only a public manifestation of what is going on internally in the person's soul.

we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate,

Again, this presupposes that the person in question has really committed a grievous crime, and has done so out of malice. The idea is, if he persists in that state, then his eternal salvation will be lost.

we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

As I mentioned, this is almost a verbatim quotation from 1 Cor. 5:5, in which St. Paul prescribes a rather harsh treatment for a man who persists in a grave sexual sin:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.  And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you (1 Cor. 5:1-2).

In summary, the ritual described here uses the flamboyant language of the early Middle Ages. According to the custom of the time, since the ritual was pronounced after the person was put on trial, it presupposes the guilt of the person, and this comes out in some of its more extreme phrasings. Moreover, since excommunication is intended to help a person repent of a grave crime, language is used to help him understand the grave consequences of persisting in his depravity.


From a Dogmatic Catholic perspective, what is the eternal destination of an unbaptized embryo? This dogmatic statement from the Council of Trent makes it Crystal Clear that we inherit sin from Adam.

  If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that he lost for himself alone, and not for us also, the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost; or that he, defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema; inasmuch as he contradicts the apostle, who says: By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

The Inspired Author shows us that the infant is not an exception.

  Therefore behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me. Psalms 51:5

Is there a infallible dogmatic statement from the Catholic Church addressing the eternal destination of the deceased Embryo as a result of his original sin?

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)- 1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

So, the Catechism follows the teaching of Trent (of course) that all have a fallen human nature and all are in need of water baptism to effect the new birth.

What happens, however, if an infant isn't baptised?

  CCC- 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

To add:

  Before Vatican II, in the Latin Church, there was no Christian funeral rite for unbaptised infants and such infants were buried in unconsecrated ground. Strictly speaking, there was no funeral rite for baptised infants either, but in their case a Mass of the Angels was celebrated and of course they were given a Christian burial. Thanks to the liturgical reform after the Council, the Roman Missal now has a funeral Mass for a child who died before Baptism, and there are also special prayers for such a situation in the Ordo Exsequiarum. Though the tone of the prayers in both instances is noticeably cautious, it is now the case that the Church liturgically expresses hope in the mercy of God, to whose loving care the infant is entrusted. This liturgical prayer both reflects and shapes the sensus fidei of the Latin Church regarding the fate of unbaptised infants who die: lex orandi, lex credendi. Significantly, in the Greek Catholic Church there is only one funeral rite for infants whether baptised or not yet baptised, and the Church prays for all deceased infants that they may be received into the bosom of Abraham where there is no sorrow or anguish but only eternal life.


Do the 10 commandments forbid desire? The bible passages

Exodus 20:17

  You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

and

Deuteronomy 5:21

  You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

both talk about covet/desire. Also, every version of the ten commandments (at least the ones I came across) forbid in some sense the desire of your neighbor's property and/or wife.

In this context, is the desire forbidden or just acting upon the desire?

I think your answers lays in the New Testament where Jesus explained how "10 commandments" work in practical use and not just in theory (also today's problem, not just Pharisees in Jesus's time) - Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:27-30 NIV
Adultery

  27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
  28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Isn't looking at somebody lustfully a desire? For me it is.
Sin happens in our hearts/mind and we are already guilty of it, even if we didnt "act", but we acted in our hearts and our Creator knows our heart.

That is why:

  29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
  30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

That is why sanctification and purification is needed daily so our mind and heart are clean of sinful thoughts.

Hope this can help brother.


Are those who have a history of eating disorders excused from obligatory Roman Catholic fasts? Say that a person has a history of eating disorders, such as anorexia or bulimia. Are they excused from obligatory Roman Catholic fasts like those on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday? I've heard of exceptions for physically demanding jobs or current illness, but not this.

Given that regulations for fasting are adopted per nation, I'd like an answer for the United States, although other nations would be useful supplementary information.

From a Question and answer page from the United States conference of Catholic Bishops:

Q.  Are there exemptions other than for age from the requirement to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday?
A.  Those that are excused from fast and abstinence outside the age limits include the physically or mentally ill including individuals suffering from chronic illnesses such as diabetes.  Also excluded are pregnant or nursing women.  In all cases, common sense should prevail, and ill persons should not further jeopardize their health by fasting.

I know of no one that would not consider fasting to be risky for someone with an eating disorder. Those who will jeopardize their mental or physical health by fasting are exempt.


Martin Luther Quotes Regarding Hebrew In the Hebrew language we hear God speak...thus study directed toward learning this language might rightly be called a kind of worship.

This quote shows up several times on the internet attributed to Martin Luther, but I have found no proper attribution nor have I found out what goes in the ellipses.
Is this a quote of Martin Luther? What is a good citation of it? What is the rest of the quotation?

Between August and November 1532 Luther delivered a series of lectures on psalm 45, part of a longer series on  selected psalms. Rorer took notes, using shorthand and these were later published, though Luther said he spoke to his students as the words came to him, and so the published record was not as polished as he would have liked.

The prelegomena to psalm 45 are in volume 12 of the St Louis edition of Luther's Works, to which I cannot find a link. The relevant part, on page 198-9, is qouted by Westerholm as follows:

  Even if this language [Hebrew] were useless otherwise, one should still learn it out of thankfulness. It is part of religion and divine worship to teach and learn this language through which alone we can learn anything of the divine. In it we hear God speak, we hear how the saints call upon God and achieve the mightiest deeds; thus study directed toward learning this language might rightly be called a kind of mass or divine service.

The Latin can be seen in the Weimar edition, volume 40 part 2, page 474, from line 18.

Although Luther believed strongly the Bible should be available in the German of the ordinary people, he did not think that German could fully convey the original meanings, or was adequate for ministers.


Why doesn't the Catholic Church ordain women to be deacons? I understand that women within the Roman Catholic Church and I am guessing in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches as well, cannot be ordained Priests.

What I am wondering, is why they cannot be ordained as Permanent Deacons? Where is this written in Canon Law, and if it is, WHY?  The traditional Deacon positions I can understand them not being allowed into, as it leads to the Priesthood.

It would seem to me, that in this day and age of the great lack of Priests we see around our country (USA) and even around the world in many other countries, that this would an excellent way to ensure the Priests that need help would be able to get it. The Women would be doing the exact same duties and functions that Men Permanent Deacons presently do; so it is not like there are any need to change the rules regarding the positions, just the allowance to have women being able to serve as well. This seems to me to be a no-brainer for our Church, and would at the same time give women more inclusion in the Church functions. It could be open to both the laity and Religious women.

The reason that the Church does not ordain women as deacons is similar to that for not ordaining women as priests. (There is a separate question answering that.)

In essence, the answer is that the Church only has the power to act with those powers and abilities that Jesus has entrusted to it; it has no capacity do otherwise.

For example, Jesus gave priests and bishops the power to confect the Eucharist: that is, to convert wheat bread and grape wine into the Substance of Jesus Christ. He did not give them power, however, to confect the Eucharist using other substances, and attempting to do so would be without effect. It is impossible, for example, to confect the Eucharist using rice cakes, or wine made from fruit other than grape. If there were a shortage of either wheat or grapes, the Church would simply have to refrain from celebrating the Eucharist, since there is no other “matter” available. (See a document from the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship called Inaestimabile donum, no. 8.)

In a similar way, Jesus gave bishops the power to ordain baptized males to the diaconate, the priesthood, and to the episcopate. He did not give them the ability to ordain women (certainly not to the priesthood or to the episcopate—see below), and so no matter how pressing is the situation, ordaining women is simply not possible. (In fact, attempting to do so would be without effect.)

The only difference, as regards the possibility of ordaining women, between the diaconate and the presbyterate (priesthood) is that the Magisterium (the teaching authority) of the Church has pronounced definitively on the impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood. Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic letter called Ordinatio sacerdotalis in 1994, which says,

  Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful (No. 4).

Although ordination to the diaconate is not expressly excluded in this document, it is nearly certain that the exclusion also applies to that case, because the Sacrament of Holy Orders is a unified whole, albeit with three degrees, and also because it has been the universal practice of the Church to ordain only males, even to the diaconate, from the beginning.

Deaconesses?

At this point, attentive readers of the New Testament will note that in a few cases, women are called diakonoi, which is the term that came to be used for members of the first degree of holy orders (i.e., deacons). For example, there is Romans 16:1:

  I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant [diakonon] of the church at Cenchreae (ESV).

The problem is that, as the ESV suggests, the term “diakonos” was much broader in meaning in Koine Greek than it is today: it essentially meant “servant.” (For example the servants who fill the water jugs at the wedding at Cana, in John 2:5, are also called diakonoi.)

There is evidence that the early Church had orders of “deaconesses” who would, for example, assist adult women in their full-immersion Baptisms (which was the norm back then). It is clear by all accounts, however, that the deaconesses never received the Sacrament of Holy Orders through the imposition of hands, as (male) deacons do. Again, the term “deaconess” was applied before the term “deacon” came to have the technical use it has today. (There is a good summary of this issue in the old Catholic Encyclopedia).


LDS expected future relationship with God after exaltation The LDS concept of exaltation states that

  As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.

(A quote by the LDS Prophet Lorenzo Snow, from here)

The question I wanted to ask is, do Mormons have an expectation on how their relationship with God will be after they have been exalted?

More specifically, if they will become equal to God in glory, is the expectation that they will at that point cease to worship God?

(From a selfish technical point of view there certainly would not seem to be any need to worship God after that point as the reward will have been received, assuming that it cannot somehow be revoked.)

This is just my personal belief (as an active LDS member), but I would imagine that the relationship would be similar to father-and-child.  The distance would probably be much shorter and probably seem more familial.

Will we stop worshiping Him because we are now "equal in glory"?  I don't think so, though I imagine the method of worship might change.  It's worth knowing that simply reaching the highest heaven (the Celestial Kingdom) doesn't automatically turn a Mormon into a God.  There is still a learning and growing process that may take thousands (if not millions) of human years!  (When you have an eternity to do it, though, it doesn't seem so bad).  Our Heavenly Father will still have plenty to teach and instruct, even in the after-life.


"Spirit"of God the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit? Biblically there's is a phrase for the Spirit of God the Father and the Spirit of Christ the Son. And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

How about the "Spirit" of the Holy Spirit? Looking at it, it seems that, the thing called "spirit" do not point to the Three Person in the Triune God. The phrase would mean as if the Triune God has a "spirit" that animates the three person namely, Father Son and the Holy Spirit.

God is a Spirit, how come God who is a Spirit also has a "spirit"?

Comparing to a created man who is composed of body and soul. The soul animates the body and the spirit animates the soul.

Is God who existed in eternity as Spirit animated by "spirit" too?

What is the logical and biblical understanding of the "spirit" of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit?

Catholicism is preferred but a Christian biblical understanding is also welcome.

Jesus said :

Pneuma 'o Theos [John 4:24 TR]
Spirit the God  (literally)

This is an equivalence. He is saying that 'God' means 'Spirit'. The nature of deity is a spiritual nature. The scripture (written by Paul the apostle) also says (of the Son of God, Jesus Christ) :

... being in form, of God ... Philippians 2:6 (literal)

The form of God is spirit. God is a spirit.
This is a matter of the nature of Deity.
This nature is shared. From the beginning the plural (or 'composite') term Elohim is used in Genesis to express Deity. It is a matter of union. A perfection of unity within Deity.
The term 'Spirit of Christ' is used in scripture (I Peter 1:11, for example) and the term 'Spirit of the Father' is also used (Matthew 10:20, for example). But the term 'Spirit of the Holy Spirit' is never used.
Thus we learn that the Holy Spirit acts on behalf of the Father and on behalf of Christ.
By carefully observing such expressions we may understand more of the revelation of God by his own word.


Why does the Eastern Orthodox Church call the 49 days following Easter, Pentecost, and the Western Church does not? Just from Wikipedia I have found that the 49 days before Pentecost are called "Pentecost" (there's even "Mid-Pentecost" which is the midpoint from Easter to Pentecost) but in the Western Church I can't seem to find if there is even a name for this time frame. I have found some looser comments that "the 49 days before Pentecost can also be called Pentecost" but I don't know if it's just so loose that they're mixing Western and Eastern.

Is there a name for this time frame in the Western Church? And is there a circumstance where the Western Church refers to this time as Pentecost?

Why does the Eastern Orthodox Church call the 49 days following Easter, Pentecost and the Western Church does not?

To put it in a nutshell: It is their tradition to do so. The Eastern Orthodox Church calls this the Season of Pentecost because there are 50 (Pente) days between Easter and Pentecost. It is that simple.

  The Christian holy day of Pentecost, which is celebrated on the seventh Sunday after Easter, commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and other followers of Jesus Christ while they were in Jerusalem celebrating the Feast of Weeks, as described in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2:1–31). In Christian tradition, this event represents the birth of the early Church.

  Eastern Churches

  In Eastern Christianity, Pentecost can also refer to the entire fifty days of Easter through Pentecost inclusive; hence the book containing the liturgical texts is called the "Pentecostarion". Since its date depends on the date of Easter, Pentecost is a moveable feast.

  The holy day is also called "White Sunday" or "Whitsunday", especially in the United Kingdom, where traditionally the next day, Whit Monday, was also a public holiday (now fixed by statute on the last Monday in May). In Germany Pentecost is called "Pfingsten" and often coincides with scholastic holidays and the beginning of many outdoor and springtime activities, such as festivals and organized outdoor activities by youth organizations. The Monday after Pentecost is a legal holiday in many European nations.

  In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Pentecost is one of the Orthodox Great Feasts and is considered to be the highest ranking Great Feast of the Lord, second in rank only to Easter. The service is celebrated with an All-night Vigil on the eve of the feast day, and the Divine Liturgy on the day of the feast itself. Orthodox churches are often decorated with greenery and flowers on this feast day, and the celebration is intentionally similar to the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, which celebrates the giving of the Mosaic Law.

  Western Churches

  The liturgical celebrations of Pentecost in Western churches are as rich and varied as those in the East. The main sign of Pentecost in the West is the color red. It symbolizes joy and the fire of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost (Wikipedia)

It is also the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church and those Eastern Catholic Churches to celebrate Mid-Pentecost.

  Mid-Pentecost or Midfeast, also Meso-Pentecost (from Greek: Μεσοπεντηκοστή); Russian: Преполове́ние Пятидеся́тницы is a feast day which occurs during the Paschal season in the Eastern Orthodox Church and those Eastern Catholic Churches which follow the Byzantine Rite.

  Mid-Pentecost celebrates the midpoint between the Feasts of Pascha (Easter) and Pentecost. Specifically, it falls on the 25th day of Pascha (Easter). At the feast of Mid-Pentecost, a Small Blessing of the Waters is traditionally performed after the liturgy of the feast.

  Mid-Pentecost is a one-week feast which begins on the 4th Wednesday of Pascha (Easter), and continues until the following Wednesday. That is to say, it has an Afterfeast of seven days. Throughout these eight days (including the day of the feast) hymns of Mid-Pentecost are joined to those of the Paschal season. Many of the hymns from the first day of the feast are repeated on the Apodosis (leave-taking of the feast). Although it is ranked as a Feast of the Lord and has an Afterfeast, Mid-Pentecost itself is not considered to be one of the Great Feasts of the church year.

  The liturgical texts for the feast are found in the Pentecostarion (the liturgical book containing propers for the period from Pascha to Pentecost).

In the West, we call this time frame Eastertide and Paschaltide.

Dom Gueranger has this to say about Eastertide:

  The fifty days between Easter and Pentecost have ever been considered by the Church as most holy. The first week, which is more expressly devoted to celebrating our Lord’s Resurrection, is kept up as one continued Feast; but the remainder of the fifty days is also marked with special honours. To say nothing of the joy, which is the characteristic of this period of the year, and of which the  Alleluia is the expression,- Christian tradition has assigned to Eastertide two practices, which distinguish it from every other Season. The first is, that fasting is not permitted during the entire interval: it is an extension of the ancient precept of never fasting on a Sunday, and the whole of Eastertide is considered as one long Sunday. This practice, which would seem to have come down from the time of the Apostles, was accepted by the Religious Rules of both East and West, even by the severest. The second consists in not kneeling at the Divine Office, from Easter to Pentecost. The Eastern Churches have faithfully kept up the practice, even to this day. It was observed for many ages by the Western Churches also; but now, it is little more than a remnant. The Latin Church has long since admitted genuflexions in the Mass during Easter time. The few vestiges of the ancient discipline in this regard, which still exist, are not noticed by the faithful, inasmuch as they seldom assist at the Canonical Hours.

  Eastertide, then, is like one continued Feast. It is the remark made by Tertullian, in the 3rd century. He is reproaching those Christians who regretted having renounced, by their Baptism, the festivities of the pagan year; and he thus addresses them: "If you love Feasts, you will find plenty among us Christians; not merely Feasts that last only for a day, but such as continue for several days together. The Pagans keep each of their Feasts once in the year; but you have to keep each of yours many times over, for you have the eight days of its celebration. Put all the Feasts of the Gentiles together, and they do not amount to our fifty days of Pentecost." [De Idolatria, cap. xiv.] St. Ambrose speaking on the same subject, says: "If the Jews are not satisfied with the Sabbath of each week, but keep also one which lasts a whole month, and another which lasts a whole year;- how much more ought not we to honour our Lord’s Resurrection? Hence our ancestors have taught us to celebrate the fifty days of Pentecost as a continuation of Easter. They are seven weeks, and the Feast of Pentecost commences the eighth. ... During these fifty days, the Church observes no fast, as neither does she on any Sunday, for it is the day on which our Lord rose: and all these fifty days are like so many Sundays." [In Lucam, lib. viii. cap. xxv.] - THE HISTORY OF PASCHAL TIME

In the West, the Season of Pentecost designates the time after Pentecost until the First Sunday of Advent.


Romans 9:14 to 9:24 and free will Do all Christians believe in predestination? If not, for those who don't, how do they explain Romans 9:14 - 9:24?

14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

The passage says some are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," and others are "vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory..." Also when it says "He hardens whom he desires," the implication is that when a person's heart becomes hardened, it is hardened by God in which case they did not do so of their free will. Both of these support the idea of predestination (the former more than the latter) and I want to know how a Christian who doesn't believe in predestination (or one who somehow harmonizes predestination and free will) would interpret this passage, particularly the things I mentioned.

Do all Christians believe in predestination?  No.

Do all Christians
   believe in free-will?  No.

Does the Bible teach predestination? Yes

Does the Bible teach Free-Will?  Yes

Romans informs us that salvation is about God's choice.  Romans 10 informs of of man's responsibility to believe or man's choice.  Is Jesus God?  Yes.  Is Jesus Man?  Yes.  Coincidence that God operates in this way?


What do the Apologists mean by three persons as "one in nature" if the Son and Spirit are not eternal? The christology of the Apologists is known to be the Logos Christology. Their teaching is summarized as follows:

Logos endiathetos - eternal reason within God
Logos prophorikos - the spoken word of God ( the begotten Son)

The Son, according to the Apologists, was begotten in order to create all things. It means that there is neither eternal Father nor eternal Son. (source)

The Apologists believe that God became a Father when his logos became his Son. Although they are two persons, there is still one God because the Son is from God's being and hence, inseparable to him. They further teach that the Father and the Son are "of same nature" and even used analogies like the Sun and its light are of same nature. The Latin Apologists, Tertullian says:

  Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the
  Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One
  from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is
  said, I and my Father are One, John 10:30 in respect of unity of
  substance not singularity of number. Against Praxeas 25

On the otherhand, Athanasius taught that the Father and the Son are both eternal. He taught that the Son is without beginning because the Father who begot him is without beginning. (source)

So as I understand it we have:

Athanasius ( Son = eternal) of one nature with the Father. I do believe this is logical.
Apologists (Son = not eternal) of one nature with the Father. I can't understand how could they affirm the Son's consubstantiality with the Father when they affirm that the Son has a beginning of existence.

Now, my question is this:

In what sense do the Apologists mean when they affirm the consubstantiality of the Trinity? Both the Apologists and Athanasius ( + all of the Pro-Nicene Fathers) agree that the Three are "of one nature, essence, substance, being", but the former affirm that the Son has a beginning while the latter affirm that the Son has no beginning, so what's the meaning of their affirmation "of one nature"?

Not all the Apologists taught the Trinity using the Stoic λόγος and not all of them have equal understanding of the divine substance.

The Following are facts about the belief of an Apologist who uses the Stoic λόγος in teaching the Trinity:

1) The λόγος is eternal just as God who has it is eternal. It means that λόγος is coeval with God.

2) In the beginning [ of creation]or before creation, God made his λόγος a subsisting person to be his Son.It means that the Son isn't eternal.

3) The begetting of the λόγος is not necessary but only happened because of God's will in creating all things and in saving people.

This sort of teaching is known as the "economic Trinitarianism."

The Latin Apologist Tertullian taught that the Son learned things in order to prepare for the incarnation and so that people might also be prepared for his incarnation( Praxeas 16:3).

This sort of theology makes the Son subordinate to the Father in its real sense of Father and Son relationship but also stretches into the divine life itself. What this means is that the Father does not lack any knowledge because he his λόγος in all his activities ad extra and hence, by having the Son, experience is not necessary for him but for his λόγος alone.

Notice the analogy used of Tertullian. He taught that the Sun cannot be seen except by its light and so is the Father by the Son ( cf:John 1:18).

The only eternal is the 'name' of God and 'God' himself as well as his substance.

The λόγος, being in God, is eternal but as proceeding from God he is still of same substance, having been of same origin but now, with God's name and subsistence as the Son.

Athenagoras ( AD. 133-190) is an Apologist yet he did not subscribe to the Stoic λόγος in teaching the Trinity:

If … it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that he is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence, for from the beginning God, who is the eternal mind, had the Logos in himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos. ( Plea for the Christians, Chap. 10)

Irenaeus (AD. 120-200)too is an Apologist yet he believed in an eternal Son:

180 AD Irenaeus "But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues..." (Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 30, section 9)

Also, Clement of Alexnadria ( AD. 150-215) teaches the same thing, that is, that the Son is eternal:

When [John] says, "from the beginning," the elder explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, "That which is from the beginning," he touches on the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity, as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being by equality of substance one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated.(Fragments of Clement of Alexandria: Comments on the First Epistle of John from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II)

These received the teachings of the Apostles about theology in its purest form and in the next century ( 3rd century) , we see this continuation of teaching an eternal Trinity as opposed to the economic Trinity, by Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian and Dionysius of Rome and in the next century( 4th century), Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius ( + the Cappadocian fathers) all defended this ancient teaching of an eternal Trinity against the error of some of the Apologists that resulted into Dynamic Monarchianism and Arianism.

Conclusion:

The theological speculation of some of the Apologists were clearly an error. The adoption of the Stoic λόγος , therefore, is not a wise thing to do.


Where does Taizé Community phrase, “Stay With Me” come from in the bible? I'm writing a Theology of the Body work, and was wondering where the song’s phrase, "Stay With Me" by Taizé Community comes from in the bible.
Is this too powerful of an image for young people, and parents when contemplating consumer relationships of the fallout of the sexual revolution (I'm thinking I would only pull this card out only around easter time other than in the paper/book):
knowing that our partner will be there when we're unable to help ourselves
Matthew 26:36-46, Taizé Community: Stay With Me

With regard to the Taizé Community song, “Stay With Me,” you made reference to Matthew 26:36-34 which describes the events in the garden of Gethsemane on the night our Lord was betrayed and arrested.  Jesus, knowing what lay ahead of him, pleaded with three of his disciples to stay with him and keep watch with him.  But they fell asleep.  They did not realise that Jesus would be taken from them and that the time was short.
Jesus himself was left alone, utterly forsaken by his Father in heaven, because he had to take upon himself the sins of the world.  His suffering is almost incomprehensible to us because we can only begin to imagine the mental anguish he endured, alone on that instrument of torture, knowing he had become sin.  Yet, because he was faithful to the bitter end, and did the will of his Father in heaven, we have hope – hope of the resurrection and of life eternal:

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13).

Because Christ is the righteousness of God, we who have faith in him and who obey him can take hold of this promise:

Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.  So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid.  What can man do to me?” (Deuteronomy 31:5-6 and Psalm 118: 6-7, quoted in Hebrews 13:5)

Jesus asks us to stay awake and keep watch.  The time is short.  If Christ Jesus is our partner, we can be confident that he will be there for us when we're unable to help ourselves.
You ask: Is this too powerful of an image for young people, and parents when contemplating consumer relationships of the fallout of the sexual revolution?  Well, the image of the Son of Man betrayed into the hands of sinners (Matthew 26:45) reminds us that our sins nailed him to that cross and that we must repent, turn around and follow him.  There is no other Saviour.


Does Paul ever actually quote Jesus anywhere as a primary source? "Does Paul ever actually quote Jesus anywhere as a primary source"

However, I came to that post because of my puzzlement regarding Hebrews 10:5-9.  I believe Paul is generally considered the author of Hebrews. Verses 8-9 are very recognizably in the style of the Talmud. Verses 5-7 seem to be attributed to incarnated Jesus before his resurrection. Doesn't, then, Hebrews 10:5-7 count as "Paul quoting Jesus", and, in fact, is this perhaps the only place outside the Gospels where incarnate Jesus is quoted saying something not also found in the Gospels? Possible he met Jesus prior to his Passion and Death?

Does Paul ever actually quote Jesus anywhere as a primary source?

The short answer is possibly.

Since Paul was not a personal witness of Jesus' words, how could he quote him directly from his public ministry.

However, St. Paul is possibly seen as quoting Jesus on the Road to Damascus when he was converted but the author of the Acts wrote in the third person: Acts 9:3–9.

Although written in the third person here it is:

  As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

  "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

  "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

  The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Paul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

It is very conceivable that the Apostle St. Paul passed on this information first hand to the author of the Acts of the Apostles. Did St. Paul recount this event directly to St. Luke presumed author of the Acts of the Apostles does not mention. It is nevertheless possible.

Yet it does that the Apostle St. Paul did in fact quote Our Lord in 1Corinthians 11: 23-26. But this would have been recounted to him from one of the Apostles or Disciples of Jesus:

  For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

For some people, it does seem that St. Paul does not directly quote Jesus:

  Christians have long assumed that Luke’s Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s letters were written to illustrate and apply the things Jesus taught through His words and deeds. Both Acts and the epistles of Paul are Jesus-centered and consistent with all that Jesus taught. Acts describes the emergence of the apostolic church and Paul explains the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ in ways that made them easily accessible to the diverse Gentile communities of the Roman Empire. In neither case would it have been practical for Luke or Paul to duplicate the detailed records of Jesus’ teaching and ministry that were cherished and carefully preserved by the church.

  This argument that Paul must not have been concerned with Jesus as a real person because he didn’t quote Him is based on the underlying assumption that the Gospels’ description of Jesus isn’t accurate. Assuming that a miracle-working Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God with the authority to forgive sin could not really have existed, it offers an alternative explanation for how the Jesus tradition came into being. It claims that Paul created an entirely new religion about Jesus based on his own religious experience expressed in terms common to the religious and philosophical language of his day, transforming a popular teacher into a godlike mythological figure. It postulates that the whole Christian community eventually began to view Jesus in Paul’s mythologized way so that when the four Gospels were eventually written they didn’t contain accurate historical recollections of Jesus’ real life and deeds, but a collection of stories constructed around Paul’s imaginary Jesus.

  Paul’s conversion occurred only two or three years after Christ’s ministry. Recent orality studies (studies of how group memories and traditions are preserved in predominantly oral cultures) have also shown that when a group considers a tradition worthy of preservation, it selects individuals to be the official representatives (tradents) of the tradition. These tradents are the experts entrusted with the responsibility to preserve and transmit the tradition. In the case of the early church, tradents listed by Paul himself in his epistles were apostles and eyewitnesses of Christ’s ministry. They included Peter, John the son of Zebedee, the rest of the Twelve, Jesus’ half brother James, Barnabas, Andronicus and Junia, and Silvanus. All of these eyewitnesses would never have allowed Paul to begin teaching something that changed or distorted the Jesus narrative. - Why Didn’t Paul Quote Jesus?

As for your question about Hebrews 10: 5-9, St. Paul would be quoting what one of the other Apostles passed on to him. Jesus himself is quoting Psalm
40: 6-8. Remember this was written for the Hebrew brethren.

  5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

  “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
      but a body you prepared for me;
  6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
      you were not pleased.
  7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
      I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a]
  8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second.


If God desires salvation for all, how come many people died without hearing the gospel? 1 Timothy 2:4 states that God wants everyone to be saved:

  This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and
  to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator
  between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for
  all people. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

Furthermore Timothy possibly implies that Jesus also saves those who don't believe:

  That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the
  living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those
  who believe.

In Ezekiel 18:23 we read:

  Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the
  Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their
  ways and live?

Ezekiel 18:32

  For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign
  LORD. Repent and live!

Ezekiel 33:11

  Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take
  no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from
  their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die,
  people of Israel?'

Here is my question: it is obvious that lots of people in the world have never heard the gospel. This includes pretty much everyone living in East Asia, Australia and the Americas in the year 50 AD.

These people had NO CHANCE to hear the gospel. Yet the above verses all show that God desires all to be saved.

Doesn't that logically imply that people can be saved without coming to believe in the Gospel? After all, you can't have all three statements being true:

God desires all people to be saved
The only way to get saved is hearing the gospel and accepting Jesus
Many people never heard the gospel.

One of these must not be correct and I think it's #2.

"3. Many people never heard the gospel." Among them are people who don't want to hear about spiritual matters; they are satisfied with this life. Paul the apostle preached the gospel to the hardened Pharisees and they would not listen. They were not thirsty; they wanted life to remain as is. They heard and did not want to change. So it is with many who are satisfied with life as they know it.

So I posit another line to add your list: 4. Among those who never heard the gospel, God reaches out to those who genuinely hunger for something more than this life. Cornelius is a prime example (Acts 10); this story specifically addresses the charge people have that you raise here. I've read writings by missionary organizations about natives coming to God this way -- that God approaches quietly, one-by-one, those who are thirsty for more, and direct them to the missionaries or the missionaries to them.

You wrote: "These people had NO CHANCE to hear the gospel. Yet the above verses all show that God desires all to be saved. Doesn't that logically imply that people can be saved without coming to believe in the Gospel?"

Those verses logically imply that people can be saved without coming to believe in the gospel. But you did not include another verse, John 14:6, which states that no one goes to the Father but through Jesus. That's why #2 is correct.

With the addition of John 14:6, the logical conclusion changes. God desires all men to be saved. God chooses to save those who believe in Him through Jesus during and after His ministry, and possibly through faith in Himself beforehand. All three points are correct and without contradiction.

You don't state it, but it appears that your real question is one that has been asked thousands of times: "What about those who have never heard the Gospel? Isn't it unfair that they would go to  @#!*%  when they did not have the chance to hear the gospel and be saved?" If this is your question, you should ask it.

You wrote: "If God desires salvation for all, how come many people died without hearing the gospel?"

There are many answers to this as there are people. God doesn't force His will on His hearers. It's their choice whether they will accept the message, whether through preaching or, if they never heard, through a guilty conscience to seek relief, which God can use to draw to Himself (as I mentioned with the missionaries earlier).