Are the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang now binding to Catholics and to be held as true? On Monday, October 27, 2014, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences , Pope Francis is reported to have said, 'the Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.'

  “When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining
  God as a magician, with a wand able to make everything. But it is not
  so,” the Bishop of Rome affirmed.

  “He created beings and allowed them to develop according to the
  internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to
  develop and to arrive and their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to
  the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them
  of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so
  creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and
  millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God
  is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to
  all things.”

  Pope Francis said that “the beginning of the world is not the work of
  chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a
  Supreme Principle who creates out of love.”

  “The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world,
  does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires
  it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of
  creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that
  evolve.” - Source: Francis inaugurates bust of Benedict, emphasizes
  unity of faith, science | CNA.

Are the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang now binding to Catholics and to be held as true?

The answer will include a history of papal and Church pronouncements on these theories. Please note the acceptable answer is not the one that tries to explain what the Pope meant. An acceptable answer would be the one that presents the answer as how one understands what the Pope said in light of the Church's teaching.

cf. Video | Reuters.

cf. Address of his Holiness Pope Francis on the Occasion of the Inauguration of the bust in honour of Pope Benedict XVI | Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences | Casina of Pius IV | Monday, 27 October 2014.

There is no official Church teaching on evolution, but this wikipedia article has a very nice summary of the Catholic Church and evolution and provides a history of statements from Church leaders and some theologians. [cf. Catholic Church and evolution | Wikiwand.]

It should be realized that the dedication of a bust is not an occasion where some new Church teaching is going to be given. You go could into how Church teaching comes about. A Pope can speak ex cathedra, but that has only been done twice in history and it is made very clear that he is speaking in this way. For non-dogmatic Church teaching the Pope would issue a document such as an encyclical. If something is going to be required by Catholics then it will be stated in a clear and formal way.

However, this explanation is unnecessary because a careful reading of the statements will show that about the only thing that could be considered as a new teaching would be the idea that the scientific theories of Evolution and the Big Bang do not rule out the idea of creation and can even presuppose the idea of creation.

The Pope does not endorse evolution. He says that evolution does not rule out the idea of creation. "The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.” So, the theory of Evolution could not be considered as here being taught.

The Pope does not endorse the Big Bang when he says, "The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it." He is simply saying that the Big Bang, a currently accepted scientific theory posited as the origin of the world, does not rule out a creating God, but requires it. So, the Big Bang theory could not be considered as being taught.

The Pope realizes he is not a scientist and does not debate with scientific theories. He addresses these theories the scientific community has provided from a philosophical and theological perspective and makes conclusions, e.g. they do not rule out the idea of a creating God.

Even statements such as "... And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today...", and "The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.", are not meant to be taken as Church teaching. His remarks are not focused on these scientific descriptions as being something true, but he uses the description that the theories provide in order to show that they do not rule out the idea of creation.

A careful reading of his remarks will show that this is the reason for his remarks, to show that these scientific theories do not rule out the idea of creation, and this is the only new thing in his remarks that could be likened to a teaching. You can not teach something just by mentioning it, or accepting it for the sake of showing something else.

Popes write books, they answer reporters questions, they make speeches at various events. Not everything a Pope says is 'official'. When a Pope wants to provide anything that would be official teaching it is done in a way to make clear to all that this is the case.


Does Christianity allow Christians to celebrate other holidays? A quick search on Google will come up with several Christian holidays including:

Valentine's Day
Good Friday
Thanksgiving
Christmas

However, in many multi-cultural countries, there are often holidays which are from other religions, other beliefs or even tradition itself. For example a Chinese Christian celebrating Mid-Autumn Festival. Is that allowed?

PS: Today is Mid-Autumn Festival, the 15th day of the 8th Month on the Lunar Calendar. Chinese celebrate this day by bring out laterns, eating mooncakes, and reciting poems. It's kind of a tradition to me personally, but there are beliefs and myths behind the festival.

Nature worship is considered grave matter (i.e. sinful) because of the first commandment no gods before Me.

Barring that traditions, patriotism and culture are compatible with Christian living.  Christianity grew up out of tradition and takes its form in the various parts of the earth because of the local traditions.

That being said, follow your conscience, intemperate celebration is a good way to forget about God.  If you are required to attend Mass or your services on a holiday, put God first and attend.  We've always worked to Christianize pagan holidays in the past, there's no reason we can't continue to do it in the 'multi-cultural' world.


Did the original Greek scriptures use upper and lower case letters, in particular for "Holy Ghost"? Most English translations captialize "Holy Ghost".

Which is true:

The original Greek capitalized it too.
The original Greek capitalized proper nouns, but not these.
The original Greek didn't capitalize proper nouns.

The last two would imply that the English capitalization is due to the Trinitarian beliefs of the translators.

Added clarification: By "capitalization" I don't necessarily mean literal capital letters, but any equivalent textual convention that identifies proper nouns (e.g. "John Baker's father was a baker." would be ambiguous without the B/b distinction).

Actually none of the above. The original Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters. The minuscule script (which evolved into the Greek lowercase) was developed only during the 9th-10th centuries.

Capitalising "Holy Ghost" does not imply Trinitarian theology, all it says is that the translators think it is a proper noun. There are many theological positions which would identify "Holy Ghost/Spirit" as a proper noun without accepting Nicene or Chalcedonian Trinitarian theology, such as gnosticism, modalism, Arianism, Mormonism, and many more.


To the Calvinist, what does it mean that in the beginning God already has His object of wrath? I have a Calvinist friend who told me that before the creation, God already knows the objects of His wrath. (I'm not a Christian).

I question him

"the objects of His wrath" is in a point of view in the beginning or
in the end.
whether God wants His objects of wrath to repent or not

He gave me Romans 9:20-21 and told me the verse is telling that "in the beginning God has decided to make some are the objects of His wrath and some are the objects if His mercy".

But when I read the verses, I found in verse 22 is telling

  What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power
  known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for
  destruction?

So I said to my friend that even the writer of Romans still not sure about what he said in verse 20 and 21. This can be concluded when he say "What IF" in the verse 22.

Thanks for his pointing me out Romans 9:20-21 which made me also read the verse 22, it seems to me the answer of my question #2 is more likely (still not sure though) that God wants the objects of His wrath to repent, as the writer of Romans himself put a question on this case in his verse 22.

But then he starts to speak "bla-bla-bla" which to me is vague and not clear. He told me something like this : "Before the creation God knows that ALL (every) man is the objects of His wrath. Still in before the creation, THEN He choose some of them to repent ... so, after the creation He made His chosen one to repent."

To me, his explanation is more chronological in nature. Which raises the question: "Before the creation, before He knows that all man is the objects of His wrath, before He choose some of them to repent, didn't God know who are the one in Heaven and Hell at the end of the world already ?" From this question, it maybe can answer my question #1 : "the objects of His wrath is in the point of view in the end (judgement day)". (still not sure though if this is what Calvinist think or not).

I'm asking here hoping to get a clear answer from an English speaking Calvinist.

Firstly, the use of "And what if" at the start of the sentence is a rhetorical device. It is not asking a question, thus making Paul unsure as to whether this is or is not the case. Rather, it follows on from his other rhetorical questions, e.g. "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?"

John Calvin addresses this in his commentary on Romans (emphasis mine):

  A second answer, by which he briefly shows, that though the counsel
  of God is in fact incomprehensible, yet his unblamable justice shines
  forth no less in the perdition of the reprobate than in the salvation
  of the elect. He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so
  as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected; for
  it was not meet that the things contained in the secret counsel of God
  should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery
  is inexplicable. He therefore keeps us from curiously examining those
  things which exceed human comprehension. He yet shows, that as far as
  God’s predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just.

  The particles, εἰ δὲ, used by Paul, I take to mean, And what if? so
  that the whole sentence is a question; and thus the sense will be more
  evident: and there is here an ellipsis, when we are to consider this
  as being understood, — “Who then can charge him with unrighteousness,
  or arraign him?” for here appears nothing but the most perfect course
  of justice.

Secondly, the objects of His wrath do not become the objects of His wrath AFTER their creation, because it says He prepares them. Taking into account also the context of Jacob and Esau being loved/hated before their birth, it is not a case of them being born, doing deeds, and then becoming objects of wrath. They are objects of wrath prepared for destruction from before their birth.

In Calvin's commentary on Romans, he also says the following:

  But if we wish fully to understand Paul, almost every word must be
  examined. He then argues thus, — There are vessels prepared for
  destruction, that is, given up and appointed to destruction: they are
  also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that
  they may be examples of God’s vengeance and displeasure. If the Lord
  bears patiently for a time with these, not destroying them at the
  first moment, but deferring the judgment prepared for them, and this
  in order to set forth the decisions of his severity, that others may
  be terrified by so dreadful examples, and also to make known his
  power, to exhibit which he makes them in various ways to serve; and,
  further, that the amplitude of his mercy towards the elect may hence
  be more fully known and more brightly shine forth; — what is there
  worthy of being reprehended in this dispensation? But that he is
  silent as to the reason, why they are vessels appointed to
  destruction, is no matter of wonder. He indeed takes it as granted,
  according to what has been already said, that the reason is hid in the
  secret and inexplorable counsel of God; whose justice it behoves us
  rather to adore than to scrutinize.

From this we can understand that God does intend from the beginning to destroy those He has elected to be vessels of wrath, but He doesn't destroy them immediately. Rather, His wrath is deferred until the Day of Judgment.

Thirdly, your second question asks "Does God wants His objects of wrath to repent or not?" While this could be perhaps more thoroughly addressed, essentially He does not intend for His objects of wrath to ever repent. There is a general sense in which His will is for all men to repent, but His effective will is clear here; there are those chosen who will never repent, because God creates them such that they will never repent. We know that the gospel is for all men from various parts of the Bible, but we also know from various parts of the Bible that God has chosen those who will be saved and those who will not be saved.


How do the 3 Protestant traditions deal with the two types of sin mentioned in 1 John 5:16-17? When reading the letters of John the other day I was struck by 1 John 5:16-17:

¹⁶ If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God[a] will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. ¹⁷ All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

To me this is a very straightforward and a plain indicator of the two types of sin distinguished by no lesser authority than the apostle John himself.
The Catholic tradition calls the two types of sin venial (don't lead to death) and mortal (lead to death), with an accompanying detailed teaching on how to distinguish them and how to deal with them.  See this article for a good introductory explanation and see Matt Gutting's answer for other scriptural support.
For preliminary research:

I found a good exposition of Patristic view of venial vs. mortal sin including many citations from St. Augustine, which Protestants hold in high esteem: Why John Calvin did not Recognize the Distinction Between Mortal and Venial Sin.  The same article proposes an explanation of why John Calvin broke with the 1,000+ year long tradition.
Please note, that in the Catholic tradition, 1 John 5's "sin that leads to death" (forgivable through the sacrament of penance) is different than "unforgivable sin".  Therefore, I would be very interested in how the reformers (Calvin, Luther, John Wesley) changed the interpretation of the relevant verses.
Based on Lesley's preliminary answer and other answers on this site (such as this) it seems that Protestant traditions either conflates 1 John's "sin leading to death" with Matt 22:31's "unforgivable sin" or avoids the issue altogether.  If so, a good Protestant answer should provide good exegetical grounds for equating "sin that leads to death" with "unforgivable sin", or else the answer should explain what John meant in the letter (like what Catholics do).

My question is: In contrast with the Catholic tradition, how do various Protestant traditions (Reformed, Lutheran, and Methodist) take this distinction and apply it to the life of believers?

Here is a quote from Dr. Bruce Milne, formerly lecturer in Biblical and Historical Theology at Spurgeon’s College, London.  The Foreword to his book is by J.I. Packer.  I believe this is still the current Reformed Protestant view:

Recent interpretation sees the sin as essentially Christological.  Jesus distinguished between sin against the Spirit and sin ‘against the Son of Man’ (Matthew 12:32 [1]) before his death, resurrection and outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.  Prior to the first Easter the ‘Son of Man’ was an enigmatic, hidden revelation of God.  Failure to recognize Jesus during his earthly mission (e.g. his own family, Mark 3:21[2]), was less serious than deliberately attributing his entire mission, its good works in particular, to Satan – of which the Pharisees were guilty. With Pentecost, the distinction vanishes.  Jesus is demonstrated as Son of God with power in resurrection and the gospel of the cross is preached in the power of the Spirit.  Rejection of this message and of the Christ it enshrines is rejection of the Spirit who bears testimony to its truth (Hebrews 10:29).  This sin is unpardonable if continued in, for it places one beyond the only hope of redemption.  John calls it a ‘sin that leads to death’ (1 John 5:16).  Source: Dr. Bruce Milne: ‘Know the Truth’ 1982 (Chapter 10, page 109)

[1] Matthew 12:31-32: And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.  Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

[2] Mark 3:21: When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said “He is out of his mind.”  (This was when the teachers of the law accused Jesus of being possessed by Beelzebub – see verses 22-29.)

I found an exposition on 1 John 5:16-18 by Charles Spurgeon, a Reformed Protestant minister, at the end of a sermon he delivered in June 1911.  He explains how it is not possible for a believer who is born of God to commit the sin that leads unto death:

All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. He who has committed the sin which is unto death has no desire for forgiveness, he will never repent, he will never seek faith in Christ, but he will continue hardened and unbelieving. He will henceforth never be the subject of holy influences, for he has crossed over into that dark region of despair where hope and mercy never come.

Perhaps some of you think that you have committed that unpardonable sin and are at this moment grieving over it. If so, it is clear that you cannot have committed that sin, or else you could not grieve over it. If you have any fear concerning it, you have not committed that sin which is unto death, for even fear is a sign of life.

Whoever repents of sin and trusts in Jesus Christ is freely and fully forgiven, therefore it is clear that he has not committed a sin which will not be forgiven. There is much in this passage to make us prayerful and watchful, but there is nothing here to make a single troubled heart feel anything like despair. He that is born again, born from above, can never commit this unpardonable sin. He is kept from it—“that wicked one” cannot even touch him, for he is preserved by sovereign grace against this dreadful damage to his soul...

So, “all unrighteousness is sin,” and you are warned to keep clear of it. “There is a sin unto death,” but you are not told what that sin is on purpose that you may, by the grace of God, keep clear of sin altogether.  (Page 9) http://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs3252.pdf

From the above it is clear that a Christian who has repented of sin and is born from above can not commit the “sin unto death”.   In another sermon (October 1865) Charles Spurgeon had these words of comfort to believers who were afraid that they had committed the unpardonable sin, the sin that leads to death:

“Yes,” says one, “but I believe I have committed the unpardonable sin.” My dear brother, I believe you have not, but I want you to call one thing to remembrance, and that is that the unpardonable sin is a sin which is unto death. Now a sin which is unto death means a sin which brings death on the conscience. The man who commits it never has any conscience afterwards—he is dead there. Now, you have some feeling; you have enough life to wish to be saved from sin; you have enough life to long to be washed in the precious blood of Jesus. You have not committed the unpardonable sin, therefore have hope. “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men.” “But,” you reply, “Oh, I cannot repent! My heart is so hard.” Call to remembrance that Jesus Christ is exalted to give repentance and remission of sins, and you may come to Him to get repentance, and need not bring it to Him. Come without any repentance, and ask Him to give it to you, and He will give it. Rest assured there is no fear whatever that if the soul seeks softness and tenderness, it has that softness and tenderness in a measure even now, and will have it to the fullest extent before long. “Oh, but,” you say, “I have a general unfitness and incapacity for being saved.” Then, dear friend, I want you to call this to remembrance, that Jesus Christ has a general fitness and a general capacity for saving sinners. I do not know what you need, but I do know Christ has it. I do not know the full extent of your disease, but I do know Christ is the Physician who can cure it. I do not know how hard, and stubborn, and stolid, and ignorant, and blind, and dead your nature may be, but I do know that “Christ is able to save unto the uttermost those who come unto God by Him.

I have laboured to speak comfortable words and words in season, and I have tried to speak them in homely language, too.  But, O Comforter, what can we do without You?  YOU must cheer our sadness.  To comfort souls is God’s own work!  Let us conclude, then, with the words of the Saviour’s promise, “If I go away, I will send you another Comforter, who shall abide with you forever.”  And let our prayer be that He would abide with us to His own glory and to our comfort forevermore. Amen.”  (Page 8) https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs654.pdf

Since the sin that leads to death is the sin of rejection of Christ (which means the rejection of the Holy Spirit) then it follows that all who are born again and who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit have not committed the sin that leads to spiritual death and ultimately, eternal death.
EDIT:You may find this answer given by Nathaniel (is protesting) informative: How do Protestants understand the "unforgivable" sin?


What does "one another" mean in John 13:35? In John 13:35 it states:

  By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

which is very commonly put in sing-song format as:

  They will know we are Christians by our love.

My question is whether this verse is only concerning love for other disciples, or if it extends to everyone. Additionally, if it is only concerning love for other disciples, are there any additional verses that make it not a far stretch to claim that people will know we are Christians by our love for everyone?

To understand Jesus meaning it is important to consider verses 34 & 35 together...

“I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another.  By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves”

Jesus said he was giving a “new” commandment.  New in what sense?  Under the mosaic law, Gods people were were commanded to love their neighbors as themselves (Leviticus 19:18). In Jesus day the Jewish Religious leaders taught that the terms “friend” and “neighbor” applied only to Jews. Non-Jews were to be hated. Jesus explained the proper application of the law when someone asked him, “who really is my neighbor?”.  Jesus responded by relating a parable that described a Samaritan who came across a man, a Jew, who had been assaulted by robbers. The lesson? Our love of neighbor should extend to people other than those of our own race, nationality, or religion. (Luke 10:25-37)

However, Jesus command to his disciples was “new” in that it was to be expressed beyond neighborly love. His followers were to show love to one another “just as He had loved them”.

Jesus loved not by a few good deeds, but by feeding people spiritually and laying down his life for others, even for those who had not yet embraced his teachings.

Jesus words further  indicate that Christians would show a unique love, not only for those who are not yet believers, but especially toward those related in the faith.   So different, it would stand out as an identifying mark of true worship... “By this all will know you are my disciples-if you have love among yourselves”.

Regarding the second part of your question, “are there any other scriptures that show Christians would be identified by their love for everyone?” (roughly paraphrased), the 1st thing that comes to my mind is warfare.  Since Christians would not be confined to one nation, but would live globally in different nations, how would such love be displayed and identifiable in times of war?  What bible verses shed light on this?

Early History reports no Christian would kill another human being.
The Encyclopedia of Religion notes: “The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, affirmed that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented them from participating in the Roman army.”

Bible verses that verify this...
Micah 4:1-5 gives a prophecy about the identifying marks of true worship in the last days. One aspect of the prophecy is that gods people would lay down their swords and learn war no more.

Matt 26:52...  when Peter used his sword to defend Jesus, Jesus said “return your sword to its place, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword”

2 Cor 10:3,4...”For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh.  For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things.

1 John 3:10-16....”the children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: whoever does not practice righteousness does not originate with God, nor does the one who does not love his brother...not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother...everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and no murderer has everlasting life remaining in him....we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers”.

1 John 4:20,21...if anyone says “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.  And we have this commandment from him, that whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Rev 13:10...If anyone will kill with the sword, he must be killed with the sword.  This is where it calls for endurance and faith on the part of the holy ones. (Certainly it requires endurance and faith to take the consequences of laying down the sword during the emotional, patriotic frenzy of warfare.  Depending on the country you live in, it could mean imprisonment or death.)

For further reading on this subject....

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993044?q=john+13%3A34%2C+35&p=par#h=23

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2014682#h=7:0-10:220


Who is permitted to write a canon or an akathist hymn to a Saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and how is it done? I would imagine it would be a wonderful and prayerful experience to dive into the life of a Saint and compose a Church liturgical hymn for him/her.  Who is permitted to engage in such activities?  When I read about Saints, it's most often monks that I see composing hymns, but are lay people outside of the clerical orders of the Church also permitted to compose hymns?

Also, how does a hymn become accepted by the Church once it's been written, and is there a review process?

Essentially, who writes canons and akathists and what process do they go through before becoming accepted as Orthodox Church hymns fit for reciting/chanting in the liturgical services?

Since the Internet became widespread, in Romania tens, if not hundreds, of new akathists started to circulate on the web.

Many of them are written in praise of many men and women, not sanctified officially yet, most of them priests, monks and nuns but also common people, which were martyred or brutally tortured by the communist regime of the 20th century for not denouncing their faith and embracing state atheism, for aiding christian dissidents, for opposing destruction of churches etc.

The position of the Church on these akathists is not hostile at all, but rather advising restraint and reading them with great care as although they may be rooted in profound faith and goodwill, many of them contain dogmatic errors, and even biographical errors, not to mention that, although they lived saintly lives, most of these people are not officially sanctified yet.

So, to answer your question, no one in the Church should stop you from writing your own akathists. On the contrary, I'd expect quite the opposite. I'm pretty sure that my father confessor would be thrilled if I would tell him I have such inclinations, unfortunately I don't have the skills needed :)

If you plan to go ahead with this, keep in mind the following:

The akathist has to be dedicated to an officially recognized saint or to Jesus, the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary etc.
If you want to publish your akathists (or any writings related to Orthodoxy) in a book approved by the Church (meaning that it will have a prologue containing a blessing by your bishop), it must be verified for dogmatic and biographical consistency. Ask your father confessor where and how to apply for such proofing. (And no, you don't have to be a clergyman to get the blessing from the Church to publish religious writings, there are tons of lay persons out there publishing all kinds of approved Orthodox books).
Don't forget that akathists are prayers. Discuss seriously your intentions with your father confessor, he'll know best how to guide you to achieve the proper spiritual mood needed for such a task.

As for entering liturgical practice, I'm pretty sure that only time and the reader's response will tell. According to the Church's history, the first akathist (of the Theotokos) was written in 626 by Sergius I, Patriarch of Constantinople, and it is widespread throughout the entire Orthodox world. Other akathists are not as widespread and recited in monasteries only. Others, like the ones mentioned above, are widespread throughout Romania only (I'm sure russians, serbs, greeks etc. have similar ones). And finally, many others probably faded away with the passing of time.


How to ask a Catholic priest to bless something for someone else? So, I am traveling abroad from my home country and will have the opportunity to visit some really cool, super old churches and cathedrals in Europe. I would like to bring a gift back home for a friend who is a Catholic, and I was thinking of bringing something related to the church like a rosary, etc. since I will be so close to so many important historical sites of this organization that's important to their life. I've read that when people get things like that ("sacramentals"?) they often have them blessed (?) and I think that would be something cool to have done in one of the medieval/Renaissance churches I'll visit, it would make it a more unique gift.

I have access to translation tools/know enough Spanish and Italian to physically ask a priest to, but is there like a proper way to approach him or an appropriate time? Should I specify that it's not going to be mine, but a gift? Would he care that I am not religious? And for my friend, are there any steps I would need to take to avoid delegitimizing the blessing in their eyes (not touching item directly afterwards, not taking an active role in the blessing and asking a nearby Catholic to deal with it for me, etc.)? Thanks

You can just literally ask the priest to bless that thing you want a blessing on (which will become a sacramental after it's being blessed). You do not have to mention that it'll be for someone else as it won't change anything. As your friend, just tell him that your gift is blessed already and I guess he'll know what to do with it? :-) Cheers and God bless!


Why do Covenant theologians use the word "dispensation," and what do they mean by it? The first time I read the Westminster Confession of Faith, a confession reflecting Covenant (or Reformed) theology, I was surprised to see the word dispensations used in it:

  There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations. (7.6)

I associate that word most with Dispensationalism, which divides history into a series of "dispensations."  At first glance, it seems like the Westminster Confession accepts such an interpretation.  And yet Dispensationalism is typically seen to be fundamentally at odds with Covenant theology.

Thus, my questions: Why do Covenant theologians like those who wrote the Westminster Confession use the word "dispensations"?  Is their use of the word, and Dispensationalists' use of the word, equivalent?  Do modern Covenant theologians use the word as well?

The word dispensation has been around for a long time, long before John Darby founded Dispensationalism, and the use of it is not unique to his followers.  Covenant theologian Vern Poythress writes:

  Virtually all branches of the church, and all ages of the church, have believed that there are distinctive epochs or “dispensations” in God’s government of the world.1

The distinctive then, between Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, is not, then, the use of the word dispensation.  Neither is the number of dispensations a distinctive: Poythress continues that you "can make as many [dispensations] as you wish by introducing finer distinctions."1

Instead, the difference is between what theologians from each camp "say about these dispensations, not the fact that the dispensations exist."1  So what's the difference?  R. C. Sproul summarizes:

  In the [Westminster] confession the word dispensation means a kind of stewardship or administration, which is far removed from the word's usage in classical Dispensationalism.  Reformed theology knows nothing of different testing periods or different redemptive agendas for Israel and the church.2

By administration, Reformed theologians refer to the specific mechanisms by which God executes the covenant: for example, A. A. Hodge describes the Old Testament dispensation as "administered chiefly by types and symbolical ordinances," while that of the New Testament "is characterized by its superior simplicity, clearness, fulness, certainty, spiritual power and range of application."  But he emphasizes that "in all essential respects" the covenant in the two dispensations is the same.3

These comments barely scratch the surface of the differences between these two theological viewpoints, but fleshing those out is another topic.  Suffice to say that the use of the word dispensation is not unique to Dispensationalists, though their understanding of the word entails more than it does for Covenant theologians (like the Westminster divines), who see it as a mere synonym of administration.

References:

Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (1986), chapter 1
Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology? (1997), 113–14
Hodge, Commentary on the Confession, 179.  For more in-depth discussion of this, see Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.3.5.


Does the Catholic Church allow a professor in a Catholic university to support an idea which is seemingly contrary to Catholic teaching? Is there a Church law or doctrine forbidding professors at Catholic universities from having (or at least declaring) views contrary to Church teaching while employed at the university?

The particular case that motivates this question is a case in which a professor of philosophy claimed to have deduced that free will does not exist. But the more general question holds.

Following the commandment "Going therefore, teach ye all nations" (cf. Matthew 28:19 Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version), part of the mission of the Church generally is to educate—not only in religion, but in other areas—and in service of this mission many universities around the world are specifically recognized as Catholic universities. Canon law governs the naming of such universities, and puts certain requirements on some of the teachers:

  The Church has the right to erect and direct universities, which contribute to a more profound human culture, the fuller development of the human person, and the fulfillment of the teaching function of the Church.

  (Code of Canon Law, Canon 807)

  The authority competent according to the statutes [that is, the statutes or governing documents of the university] has the duty to make provision so that teachers are appointed in Catholic universities who besides their scientific and pedagogical qualifications are outstanding in integrity of doctrine and probity of life and that they are removed from their function when they lack these requirements; the manner of proceeding defined in the statutes is to be observed.

  The conferences of bishops and diocesan bishops concerned have the duty and right of being watchful so that the principles of Catholic doctrine are observed faithfully in these same universities.

  (Canon 810; emphasis added)

  Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.

  (Canon 812)

Most importantly, perhaps:

  The following are obliged personally to make a profession of faith according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See: ... teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines pertaining to faith or morals, when they begin their function;

(Canon 833)

This will certainly affect teachers of theology at Catholic universities.

The "profession of faith" is specifically laid out in a 1998 document published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

  I, [name], with firm faith believe and profess each and everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith [that is, the Creed], namely:

  I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,
   born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

  With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

  I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

  Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

It is therefore apparent that at least professors of theology who teach things which disagree with the Magisterium of the Church may be—indeed, must be—prohibited from teaching their subject at a Catholic university.

Canon law does not specify any teachers at Catholic universities who must take this profession of faith other than those dealing with "faith and morals", generally applied to theology alone; nor am I familiar with instances in which teachers other than teachers of theology have been removed from their teaching functions for a failure of "integrity of doctrine" or "probity of life".

Note: A comment on this question brings up the subject of the teaching of Hans Küng, who in 1979 was prohibited from teaching theology by a decree of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, stating:

  The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the aforesaid document of 1975 refrained at the time from further action regarding the above-mentioned opinions of Professor Küng, presuming that he himself would abandon them. But since this presumption no longer exists, this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role.

This is one example of the process which can be used.


What is the earliest mention of how often the Eucharist was celebrated? There is no explicit mention of how often the Eucharist was celebrated in the Bible.

What are the earliest historical documents that make reference to how often the Eucharist was celebrated?

The earliest indication may be in the Didache, typically dated at the end of the first century.  It describes the celebration of the Lord's Supper in terms of the cup and breaking bread, and then says:

  But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. (§14)

If this is a reference to the Eucharist, then we have evidence for weekly celebration less than 100 years after Christ's death.

In the middle of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr more clearly writes that the Lord's Supper is observed every week on Sunday:

  And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. (First Apology, §67; see also §65)


What is the basis for the Catechism saying that one can always be forgiven by perfect contrition come from? According to CCC 1452:

1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.51
51 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1677.

Thus, all sins, venial or mortal, can be forgiven by perfect contrition—that a sinner must sincerely repent and confess, and that's enough for God to forgive all sins, even the ones against Holy Spirit (as long as the sinner shows repentance).
What are, either Biblical, or infallible Catholic, statements, supporting this?

The answer is given in footnote 51 of what you quote:

Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent (1551), "On the Most Holy Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction," ch. 4, "On Contrition":

  The Synod teaches…that…it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received…

The Council of Trent is infallible because its documents were ratified by a pope.


What is the Biblical basis for the formal 'membership' requirements that some Baptist churches have? When I have been looking for a church to congregate, I have found that there are different ideas about membership. Some churches require a letter of transfer. Other churches need to see my behavior for a while. I must sign and agree with the distinctives and the statutes (a set of rules or responsibilities). I've come to think that is too much of a bureaucratic process. Some people say that as a member, you can participate in the decisions of the church.

Where does the Bible support the concept of membership?  Where is it indicated that this is how things were in the first century church?

Note: A Baptist perspective is sought.

In 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 Paul says

  12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?  13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Church membership is how we know who is and isn't a believer. The church, as a whole, is charged with the task of declaring who is and isn't a believer based on their testimony. In Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus gives another example of the church having members:

  15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

How are we to know who is or isn't a believer if we don't have membership? The ability to exclude someone from the church means that there was also inclusion/membership/a group defined as "the church". Here are a couple other verses to consider when thinking of church membership:

  Acts 5:12-13: “Now many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon’s Portico. None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high esteem.”

So, people faced the decision of whether or not they would join the church in Jerusalem.

This joining is more public and definite than an informal association.

2 Corinthians 2:6: Paul talks about a man who had been excommunicated,

  “For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.”

A majority can't have decided on the exclusion unless there was a definite set of individuals who could make that decision as a church.


What is the relation between the Logos of Greek Philosophy and the Logos in Christianity? The first known mention of the "logos" was by Greek philosopher Heraclitus who lived around 535 - 475 BC. The idea was subsequently developed further by other philosophers such as Aristotle.

The Author of John's Gospel picks up on this "logos" idea and claims that the logos "was in the beginning with God", that the logos "was God", and that the logos "became flesh and dwelt among us".

I've always suspected that a lot of information is lost when translating Johns Gospel to English where they translate "Logos" as "Word". "Word" is such a mundane word compared to "Logos" which is rich in meaning and comes loaded with 500 years of philosophical baggage.

This leads me to wonder, what is the relationship between the "logos" of Greek philosophy and the "logos" as used in Johns Gospel? Why did the author of Johns Gospel use that particular word? Was it their intention to import all of the Greek philosophical baggage that was associated with the term into Christianity? Or were they attempting to completely redefine the word?

Most (English speaking) Christians I've spoken to don't seem aware or concerned by the fact that this Greek word "logos" has much more significance than the English word "Word". Some Christians I've spoken to reckon that all that Greek philosophy is irrelevant and that we should only focus on the "Christian" meaning of the word, which is simply "Word", nothing more or less than that. Personally I dispute that this is the "Christian" meaning, and I reckon that there are a lot of deep connections to be had between Christianity and Greek Philosophy if we ponder "logos" within it's original cultural context and meaning.

Summary question: What is the connection between the "Logos" of Greek philosophy and the "Logos" of John's Gospel? Are they meant to be the same thing? Are they meant to be entirely different? Are they supposed to be similar but not identical?

By using the term "Logos" the author of John's Gospel intends to explain the Lord Jesus Christ in terms of Greek philosophical ideas current at the time.  He may have done this, not because Greek philosophy influenced his beliefs, but rather to make the Gospel easier to understand for those who knew the Greek philosophy; he used Greek philosophical teaching about the Logos to act as a bridge for some of his readers.
To know the background to those ideas might add to our appreciation of John's Gospel.
This is a quote from a book by C.H. Dodd:-

Augustine, in a well-known passage of the Confessions (vii. 9), writes:
Thou didst procure for me through a certain person... some books of the Platonists translated from Greek into Latin.
There [i.e. in those Platonist books] I read - not in so many words, but in substance, supported by many arguments of various kinds — that
in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
By him were all things made, and without him was not anything made.
That which was made in him was life, and the life was the light of men.
And the light shines in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.
And that the soul of man, though it bear witness of the light, is not itself the light; but the Word of God, being God, is the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
And that he was in the world and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
But that he came unto his own and his own received him not, but as many as received him to them gave he power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, I did not read there.
Again I read there that God the Word was born not of the flesh nor of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God.
But that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us I did not read there.

Quoted from "The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel" by C.H. Dodd (page 10):-
http://preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1953_dodd_interpretation-of-the-fourth-gospel.pdf
Reading on from that page 10 is a long section too long to give here.
Or you can look at Augustine's Confessions book 7 chapter 9, page 170, online here:-
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/SpiritualFormation/Texts/Augustine_Confessions.pdf
Augustine is at pains to show that, though the Greek philosophers speak of Logos and even of the Son of God they never speak of this Son becoming man and dying for sinners.  That is unique to the Christian Gospel.
C.H. Dodd's work is referenced here:-
https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/#H11
Philo of Alexandria (20 BC to 40 AD) was the (Jewish) philosopher who sought to construct philosophical bridges between Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish religious thought.  In Chapter 11 (the Doctrine of the Logos in Philo's writings) we read:

The pivotal and most developed doctrine in Philo's writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos.

It does look very much as if the author of John's Gospel used Greek thought about the Logos to write his Gospel, and to appeal better to those with a Greek education and philosophical background, while simultaneously not undermining the ability of those without a Greek philosophical background to understand his message.
What advantage did John see in using the term Logos?  If Augustine is right (see his quote relating to John 1:1 above) then by the time of the writing of John's Gospel Greek philosophy had already progressed from a unitarian understanding of God to a Two-Persons-One-God, a "Bi-une", understanding.  In Greek philosophy the Logos is not just "God's word", but rather one of the Persons of the Godhead.  It was used to help his readers who knew Greek philosophy: it is a much smaller step of the understanding to go from a Biune God to a Triune God than from a Unitarian God to a Triune God.


What is the origin of the Church potluck? When I was being ordained in the Baptist Church, I was asked to write out a statement of faith.  The point was to outline one's theology, but many of you know me well enough to know by now that I can't take everything seriously.

So, when it came time to discuss "sacrements" in the Baptist church, I said:

  "Baptists have three sacrements - communion, marriage, and potluck."

I was only half joking.  Fairly central to the stereotype of the Baptist church is the potluck dinner.  Episcopalians have the sacred rite of Coffee Hour.  And, apparently Catholics have the Church Dinner thing going on too.  In short, it seems like food is a central part of many churches.

I seem to remember something about "love feasts" somewhere in Scripture - but how is it that the humble potluck has had such a wide influence on church life?

A "potluck", in this context, is nothing more than a meal shared among members of a Church after a service.  There's no doctrinal or ritual significance to it, as you know, and it's not ordained.  it's simply sharing a meal amongst our Church family.

Jesus often ate with His disciples, so an argument could be made that Christians can trace it there.  You could use the miraculous feeding of the multitudes, I suppose.  However...

I'm sure the practice of eating after a service or worship, people bringing food, sharing time and a meal together far predates even New testament times.  You could probably, if you liked, trace it right back to Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the Garden (even if only allegorically, as many would interpret that book.)  You may as well ask "When did the institution of greeting a brother in Christ" or "shaking hands after the second Hymn get it's start"

The answer is, of course, back at the beginning.  It's just what families do.  Our Church family, our co-workers, our biological family, or in-laws.  We just enjoy spending time with those we care about.

More here: http://www.fbcbennington.org/sermonsjhh/2011/7/15/in-search-of-the-new-testament-potluck-acts-237-47.html

Excerpt:

  On this final day of VBS, the adults and the children are exploring
  Acts 2:37-47.  Right in the midst of these essentials of the Church’s
  identity, we learn that we are not the first believers to connect
  “food” to the Christian faith.  Indeed, the first churches learned
  that “breaking bread together” gave them as much a sense of identity
  as did the teaching, the praying, and the sharing with one another.
  Being together at table is essential to church as any prayer, hymn, or
  sermon.

  When you think back over your life, do you remember a good meal at
  church?  I think of the dinner rolls of Anna Brown, a dedicated lay
  woman who had a kind word literally for every person around the table
  (a feat among Kansas Baptists, who are better known for having
  opinions on just about everything and everybody).  I recall the
  skilled cooking of Orman Halderman, who learned to cook during his
  WWII service years, able to rally a fine meal every month out of a
  volunteer group of men trying to cook, without Orman’s leadership
  otherwise would have brought new meaning to the phrase “green eggs and
  ham”.  I recollect the kindness shown by the search committee when
  coming to visit First Baptist, Bennington, five years ago.  You heard
  that Kerry was a vegetarian and made especial effort to offer a meal
  sensitive to her dietary convictions.  That meant a lot.  And later
  this morning, we will make our way down the hall for the meal that
  will recall the words of an old hymn:  “feed me till I want no more.”

  If you were to claim that “food” is somehow secondary to “church”, I
  would disagree gladly.  Without meals together, we forget skills and
  values that worship cannot impart to us.  In the pews, there’s a
  formalism that the supper bell sets aside.  At table, we get to know
  the person beside us in the pews.  (A good suggestion for potluck:
  Sit down by somebody later today that you have not connected with in a
  spell.  Breaking bread together is a great icebreaker for churches to
  get to know one another.  Better yet, find somebody you cannot recall
  getting to know yet.  It may be a little uneasy at first, but
  remember, the person across from you is a fellow congregant.  You have
  “First Baptist” in common!)


Are there reliable statistics about divorce rates in Christian churches? I just read an article claiming divorce rates are much lower than commonly believed among Christians, but there are no references.

Church-Divorce-Rate-Way-Lower-than-Anyone-Thought

According to the article, it is a common belief that divorce rates are around 50% and about as high in Christian churches as in society at large.
Are there reliable statistics available for specific denominations or categories of Christians that would help us evaluate these claims?

While statistics for Christians are usually easy to establish, statistics for regular church-goers are much less reliable. This is partly because statisticians know that Americans frequently overstate their attendance at church, and partly because such statistics are often developed by people inexperienced in statistical methodologies. However, the  Barna Group, an evangelical Christian polling firm with expertise in statistical research, has published a report comparing the divorce rates for different Christian and non-Christian groups.

The report, dated 2009, found that only 33 per cent of all currently or formerly married adults had been divorced. This is a lot lower than the 50 per cent often cited, but measures a slightly different statistic. Also, a person who has been divorced more than once is only counted once, so that the proportion of marriages ending in divorce will be slightly higher than the proportion of currently or formerly married persons who have experienced a divorce.

The margin of error given for the total sample of 5017 adults is given as 1.6 per cent, and for the 3792 adults who have been married is given as 1.8 per cent. The margins of error for individual groups, such as Catholics or born-again Christians, are not given but will depend on the number of participants in each group.

Some basic facts:

Catholics - only 28 per cent of all adults had been divorced.  Statistically, this is probably significant, and would reflect the fact that the Catholic religion does not recognise divorce and insists that Catholics remain married for life.
Protestants - 34 per cent of all adults had been divorced. Against an overall divorce rate of 33 per cent, this is not statistically significant.
All born-again Christians - 32 per cent. This is not statistically significant.
Non-evangelical born-again Christians - 33 per cent. This is not statistically significant.
Evangelical Christians - 26 per cent. While this looks statistically significant, only 339 evangelical Christians were interviewed, so without a larger sample not a lot can be read from this.

For comparison, we can look at people from non-Christian faiths, who were interviewed.

Associated with non-Christian faith - 38 per cent had been divorced.
This is slightly higher than the national average, but not
statistically significant because only 197 persons were in this
group, which is too small for a sufficiently accurate estimate. A different sample could well give a quite different answer.

Similarly, the sample of atheist or agnostic participants in the survey was too small, at 269 adults, for a meaningful comparison. In this group, only 30 per cent had been divorced.

It may well be that church-going Christians have a lower divorce rate than Christians who do not attend church regularly, although on the basis of these figures this would necessarily mean that non-church-going Christians must have a particularly high divorce rate, compared with non-Christians. Another issue is whether some church-going Christians tend not to go to church after a divorce, either out of unintended, but subtle pressure from the church itself, or out of embarrassment. Any statistics that attempted to compare divorce rates between church-going Christians and non-church-going Christians must take issues like this into account.


Is the Catholic Magesterium in favor of hard liquor prohibition? As long as I've been a fairly globally aware Catholic, I'd always projected G.K. Chesterton's

  We should thank God for Beer and Burgundy by not drinking too much of them

as a universal maxim enjoyed by the whole church towards temperance, but not "extreme temperance".  But this article in the National Catholic Register struck me as odd.  Apparently Bishops in India are lobbying against all sales of hard liquor, and winning (probably because of the combined support of Islam against all alcohol?).

I wasn't aware that there was anything eviler in rum than in wine or beer.  But is this just a local cause for a local purpose or, given the opportunity would Bishops everywhere be likely to oppose the sale of hard liquor?

[...] All their efforts must aim at preserving the true faith and a
  high moral tone among the people; they attain this end by good
  example, by preaching, by daily solicitude for the good administration
  of the diocese, and by prayer. [...] - Obligations of the bishop |
  Bishop | New Advent.

Therefore it is within the rights and obligations of Archbishop Cardinal Baselios mar Cleemis, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India and head of the Catholic Church in Kerala, to publicly caution the government of “grave consequences if it yielded to the liquor lobby and reopened the closed bars.” - Read more: Indian State Okays Prohibition.


Why doesn't the Pope try asserting doctrines ex cathedra to check if they're true? My understanding is that the Catholic Church teaches that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is infallible, because what he says in such instances is divinely protected from error. There are a lot of questions that the Church considers open, e.g. the question of whether infants who die without being baptized are saved. It seems like it would be a great idea for the Pope to attempt to assert ex cathedra that they are saved. Either the pronouncement would succeed, in which case we would know with certainty that it is true, or else something would prevent the pronouncement from going through, in which case we would have a hint that it is false.

I assume that I am misunderstanding something about papal infallibility and there is a catch somewhere. What's the catch? Naturally, I'm interested in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Here are a couple of possible answers:

Technically, the Pope could "exploit" infallibility in this way, but it would be immoral.
If the Pope decided to try this sort of thing, he would be divinely prevented from making the ex cathedra pronouncement regardless of whether the doctrine in question was true or false, so we wouldn't actually learn anything from the exercise.

In either case, I'm left wondering: What exactly differentiates "legitimate" ex cathedra pronouncements, like the pronouncement of the immaculate conception in Ineffabilis Deus, from the sort of "illegitimate" ex cathedra pronouncement that I suggested?

Pope Pius XII—in his apostolic constitution that defines the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Munificentissimus Deus (1950)—describes the process in which he sought counsel from all the bishops of the world in the letter Deiparæ Virginis Mariæ (1946), where he asked them (§11):

  Do you, venerable brethren, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith? Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?

The response was almost unanimous.

Although a pope has the authority to define a dogma without asking for counsel regarding its "definability," it would be rash not to seek counsel.


How do Jehovah Witnesses explain differences between NWT and Hebrew/Latin/Greek in Zechariah 12:10 and Acts 20:28? How do Jehovah Witnesses explain the differences between the New World Translation and Latin/Greek, specifically in these two Bible verses?

(1) Zechariah 12:10

King James Version (KJV)

  And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn

New World Translation (NWT)

  I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and supplication, and they will look to the one whom they pierced,+ and they will wail over him as they would wail over an only son; and they will grieve bitterly over     him as they would grieve over a firstborn son

Latin Vulgate by Jerome in 382AD

  ..et effundam super domum David et super habitatores Hierusalem spiritum gratiae et precum et aspicient   ad me quem confixerunt et plangent eum planctu quasi super unigenitum et dolebunt super eum ut doleri solet in morte primogeniti

(There is no word indicating 'the one'.)

LXX Septuagint — Greek translation of Hebrew in 132BC

  καὶ ἐκχεῶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Δαυιδ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ιερουσαλημ πνεῦμα χάριτος καὶ οἰκτιρμοῦ καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός [TOWARD] με [ME] ἀνθ’  ὧνκατωρχήσαντο καὶ κόψονται ἐπ’ αὐτὸν κοπετὸν ὡς ἐπ’ ἀγαπητὸν καὶ ὀδυνηθήσονται ὀδύνην ὡς ἐπὶ πρωτοτόκῳ (No word indicating 'the one')

(2) Acts 20:28

King James Version (KJV)

  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

New World Translation (NWT)

  Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers,+ to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son"

Latin Vulgate by Jerome in 382AD

  .adtendite vobis et universo gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit episcopos regere ecclesiam Dei quam adquisivit sanguine suo.

(There is no word translatable as 'son'.)

Greek New Testament

  Προσέχετε { οὖν ♦ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ {κυρίου καὶ ♦ - } θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ { ἰδίου [OWN] αἵματος ♦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου [OWN]}.

(There is no word translatable as 'son'.)

Note

Upon further research, I found the Dead See Scrolls segment that contains Zechariah 12:10  and, in trying to identify the Hebrew words in the English parallel, I am noticing what seems to be an aleph and tau (the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet) right after “inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon...” and before “and they shall mourn for him, as” as seen in this picture. Does anyone know what the aleph and tau (if that’s what they are), are doing there?

Note

FYI, I re-posted this question on hermeneutics.se, as two separate questions as suggested by Affable Geek:

On Zech 12:10 https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7604/how-do-jehovah-witnesses-explain-differences-between-nwt-and-latin-hebrew-greek

On Acts 20:28 https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7605/how-do-jehovah-witnesses-explain-differences-between-nwt-and-latin-greek-on-acts

The bible many times attributes actions to God as if he did them directly, when it is actually that he allowed it or had someone else do it. This is similar to a foreman saying that he build a house even though he didn't even hammer in one single nail. In simple terms, these scriptures are similar to that.
Below I have quoted an old Watchtower article that explains Zechariah 12:10.
Also here is a link to an appendix to the NWT that explains why Acts 20:28 was translated the way it is: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060098

Watchtower 1953 8/15 p. 511 - Questions From Readers
● Zechariah 12:10 states: “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they
shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in
bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”
Jehovah is the speaker, and it sounds as though he was the one pierced
instead of Jesus. Some argue this proves that Jehovah and Jesus are
one in a trinity. So how is Zechariah 12:10 to be explained?—R. B.,
New York.
To avoid what seems to be a piercing of Jehovah some of the
later Hebrew manuscripts read “look upon him whom they have pierced”,
rather than “look upon me whom they have pierced”. At first these late
Jewish manuscripts show this in the Keri, or corrected reading in the
margin; but eventually in some manuscripts the change was brought up
into the body of the text itself. Rotherham’s translation, on the
basis of these late manuscripts, offers in a footnote “him” as an
acceptable reading in place of “me”. So does the American Standard
Version. Some modern translations, such as Moffatt and An American
Translation and Revised Standard Version, use “him” instead of “me” in
the main body of the text itself. However, the oldest and best Hebrew
manuscripts read “me” rather than “him”.
As far as literal piercing is
concerned, this occurred in the case of Christ Jesus, and at John
19:37 the prophecy of Zechariah 12:10 is quoted and applied to Jesus:
“They will look upon the one whom they pierced.” (NW) They did not
literally pierce God, who was in heaven and to whom Jesus spoke when
he was on the torture stake. (Matt. 27:46; Luke 23:46) God could not
die, and then resurrect himself. (Ps. 90:2) Yet inasmuch as Jesus
Christ was Jehovah’s representative who became “the exact
representation of his very being”, in piercing Jesus they could be
said to be piercing Jehovah. (Heb. 1:3, NW) When sending out his
followers to preach Jesus said: “He that receives you receives me
also, and he that receives me receives him also that sent me forth.”
(Matt. 10:40, NW) This shows that in receiving Jesus we receive
Jehovah who sent him. In like manner, to pierce Jesus is to pierce
Jehovah who sent him. It does not prove Jesus and Jehovah are one, any
more than it proves Jesus and his followers are literally one. In
another case Jehovah showed that to reject his representative is to
reject Him. When Samuel was Jehovah’s appointed judge over Israel the
people came requesting a king instead of a judge. Samuel was
displeased when they said: “Give us a king to judge us.” But Jehovah
told Samuel: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.”
(1 Sam. 8:4-7, AS) In rejecting Jehovah’s representative they rejected
Jehovah, in effect; but this did not make Samuel one with Jehovah in a
trinity.
Some of those used as tools to accomplish Jesus’ impalement realized
their mistake and became frightened; the crowds that had sanctioned
the piercing smote their breasts when they saw their blunder, and
later some involved ones repented and followed Christ. (Matt. 27:54;
Luke 23:47, 48; Acts 2:23, 36-42) But the only bitterness and mourning
that hit the religious instigators of the piercing was when things did
not work out fully for their selfish interests. The ones who truly
mourned were his faithful followers. (Luke 24:17) But as Zechariah
12:10 also foretold, about this time Jehovah’s spirit was poured out
upon the faithful remnant of natural Israel, at Pentecost. So the text
had its miniature fulfillment.
At the second presence of Christ Jesus the complete fulfillment takes
place. His followers are persecuted and jailed and some are killed,
and the work of announcing Jehovah’s King and kingdom is pierced and
killed. These things done to Christ’s work and followers are counted
as done to him; the persecutors are charged with piercing him. Any
mourning by them is in selfish fear when they see coming upon them the
dire consequences of their acts. The only true mourning is on the part
of Jehovah’s people who had allowed themselves to fall short of their
duties and be taken captive in Satan’s worldly system and made
inactive in Jehovah’s service. But Jehovah comes to the rescue of this
remnant of spiritual Israel, cleans them up, pours out his spirit or
active force upon them, and under the enthroned King Christ Jesus the
work is revived. (Matt. 25:40, 45; Rev. 1:7; 11:1-13) Their mourning
gives way to gladness.
Hence Zechariah 12:10 cannot be properly understood to support the
trinity doctrine.


What are the primary differences and implications of a propitiatory view of the atonement versus an expiatory view? Western theology tends to view atonement as propitiation, while Eastern tends to view it as expiation. What are the primary differences and implications of each perspective? Are they antithetical or complementary paradigms? This is related to this question, which tackles translation issues concerning biblical passages that use these terms.

I can only answer from the Western bias as I fail to comprehend the Eastern thought even when it is explained. Western thought properly includes propitiation and expiation it does not toss one out for the other or put them at competing sides.  It does not exclude either. However the Eastern thought seems to be uncomfortable with the propitiation involved in the cross and does not seem to me to believe that God’s wrath was poured out on the Son.

In Western thought propitiation, which is that part of the work of Christ on the cross, that makes ‘appeasement’ to an offended God, satisfying his wrath for sin. The other side of Western thought is expiation. Expiation occurs on the cross (not only to have the punishment of sin removed through propitiation) but to have sins cleansed and removed as well.  Cleansing and deliverance from the actual power of sin is implied by expiation.

Cleary both of these aspects are implied by the scriptural view as the idea started with the Passover lamb and as well as the burned 'red heifer'. Both the concept of propitiation and expiation are clearly established under the Old Testament foreshadowing types. First, God’s ‘wrath’ in killing the first-born of Egypt was avoided by the Passover Lamb. The Jews were not cleansed by putting blood on the doorposts but were avoiding a deadly destruction of anger. Second, on the other hand, the burning of the 'red heifer' and collection of ashes oustide the camp clealry implies the actual ceremonial cleansing of the sacrfificial type.  The ashes of the burnt animal were directly used for ceremonial washing buy mixing some ashes with water and sprinkling the unclean. (Ref Leviticus 19, Hebrews 19:13-14))

One can’t properly witness the ceremonial sacrifices of the Old Testament without believing both propitiation and expiation as inseparable objects, each meaningless without each other. First the worshipper or priest would lay hands on the animal to be sacrificed, symbolizing the transfer of guilt. Then the shedding of blood and total destruction of the animal would occur, symbolizing the appeasement to an offended God. Then the blood would ceremonially cleanse the worshipper. Clearly all these things support a proper view and cast grave doubts on any view that might try to limit them to only propitiation, or expiation.

Both propitiation and expiation are implied by each other in the removal of guilt. An angry God is no longer angry when guilt is transferred to another in propitiation.  The stain of guilt is wiped away from expiation. Both propitiation and expiation are meaningless terms unless the removal of guilt in understood in each.

Both propitiation and expiation are implied by each other in the removal of guilt. An angry God is no longer angry when guilt is transferred to another in propitiation.  The stain of guilt is wiped away from expiation. Both propitiation and expiation are meaningless terms unless the removal of guilt in understood in each.

The eastern view is that God changes when he ceases to be angry (according to the Western view) but propitiation does not imply any change in God whatsoever. He still is angry with sin but its guilt has been transferred to another. God can never change or remove his wrath. It must be extinguished on a a subject who bears the guilt of sin.


What are common explanations for the angel being delayed for 21 days in Daniel 10:13? In the book of Daniel chapter 10, Daniel is in a period of mourning because a great war is coming. He fasts for 21 days and then sees a vision of what I presume to be an angel. Before the angel explains what will happen to Daniel's people, the angel explains why he is "late" in meeting him:

12 Then he said to me, "Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words.
13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.
—Daniel 10:12–13, NIV

It seems very unusual to me that an angel would be delayed for three weeks by any force, and that Michael (the archangel?) had to come to help free him from the "kings of Persia" (demons?).
I suppose I've always had the image that an angel could just poof to a place instantaneously, as usually happens in popular media, so being stuck in a location for three weeks and needing a stronger angel to help seems really bizarre to me and doesn't seem to match up with depictions of other angels of the Bible (e.g., the ones that appeared to Mary and Joseph).
I'm really at a loss for how to explain this. What is an overview of the most common explanations for the angel being delayed here in Daniel?

The two most common explanations for the delay are:

To make an accommodation to the kingdom or guardian of Persia
To resist an evil intended by or suggested to the rulers of Persia

Accommodation to Persia
The view of an accommodation to Persia can be found primarily in church fathers like Jerome, Theodoret, and John Cassian.  This view typically understands the "prince" to be an archangel who has oversight over Persia (cf. Deuteronomy 32:8) and who resists the work of the angel out of a sense of justice for his own people.  Thus, Jerome writes:

And so the prince or angel of the Persians offered resistance, acting on behalf of the province entrusted to him, in order that the entire captive nation [Israel] might not be released.  [...] The prince of Persia opposed him for twenty-one days, enumerating the sins of the Jewish people as a ground for their justly being kept in captivity and as proof that they ought not to be released.1

This guardian, says Theodoret, was "displeased" that Israel would be blessed, despite their sins being worse than those of his own people, and thus the angel is delayed due to his debate with the Persian guardian over Israel's merit and God's plan for them.2
John Cassian's view of the prince is similar but less positive: he calls it a "hostile power" and says that it was out of "jealousy" that it delayed the angel.3
Resistance to an evil
The other common view, that the angel's delay was due to his resisting an evil, is held widely by Protestants in particular.  John Gill's explanation is typical:

Gabriel's business in the court of Persia was to work upon the minds of the king of Persia and his nobles, and to influence their counsels, and put them on such measures as would be in favour of the Jews, and be encouraging to them to go on in the rebuilding of their city and temple: in this he was withstood and opposed by an evil spirit that counterworked him; by exasperating the spirit of Cambyses against them.4

The Geneva Study Bible explains the angel's words by suggesting that Persia's rulers would have committed further evil against Israel:

Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church.5

John Calvin,6 Matthew Poole,7 and John Wesley8 see the matter similarly.  Adam Clarke's interpretation is more gracious, seeing the "prince" as the fearful, not malicious, ruler of Persia:

Fearing, probably, the greatness of the work, and not being fully satisfied of his ability to execute it, [the king] therefore for a time resisted the secret inspirations which God had sent him.9

Who is the Prince?
The preferred interpretation of this verse has often depended on one's understanding of the "prince" of Persia: if a good angel, then the accommodation view, and if a bad angel or man, then the resistance view.  Albert Barnes notes that the language does not indicate whether the "prince" was good or bad, but because of his resistance to Daniel's angel, presumes him to be a bad angel.10  Haydock finds this argument wanting, saying that no angel, good or bad, can resist God's will.11

References:

Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, tr. Gleason L. Archer.
Theodoret, Commentary on Daniel, tr. Robert C. Hill, p 273–75
Conferences of John Cassian, 1.8.13
Gill, Exposition
Geneva Study Bible
Calvin, Commentary on Daniel
Poole, Annotations
Wesley, Notes
Clarke, Commentary
Barnes, Notes
Haydock, Catholic Bible Commentary


What is the distinction between Justification and Salvation? (Swedenborgian View) As a practicing Christian, my only hope is for salvation through Jesus Christ. I note that scripture addresses salvation, and that in Paul's letters being justified is proclaimed to be of importance. I have limited understanding (at best) of Swedenborgian theology, but learned in C.SE chat (here) that on this topic it would be significantly different from Protestant views, and Catholic views.

If I am to be saved, must I be justified? I don't think that the two words mean the same thing.

What is the distinction between being saved and being justified?

This question is asking for the Swedenborgian view on the distinction.

In the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), as in other Christian theologies, justification is seen as part of a process that results in our salvation. In a nod to the traditional Christian concept of the ordo salutis, Swedenborg lists justification as one among many elements of that process of salvation. For example, he writes:

The Divine power and activity meant by the Holy Spirit are, generally speaking, reformation and regeneration, which lead to renewal, quickening, sanctification and justification; and these lead to purification from evils and the forgiveness of sins, and ultimately to salvation. (True Christianity #138)

However, his view of justification, in particular, is significantly different from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox perspectives, and radically different from the Reformed perspective.
Salvation
The word "salvation" is so ubiquitous in Christianity that Swedenborg simply assumes that the reader knows what it means. He rarely offers anything like a concise definition of salvation. However, when he does define it, he equates it with eternal life. For example, in commenting on Ezekiel 3:18-21, Swedenborg writes:

Here "dying he shall die" is to perish in eternal death, which is damnation, for it is said of the wicked; and "living he shall live" is to enjoy eternal life, which is salvation, for it is said of those who repent, and of the righteous. (Apocalypse Explained #186:2, italics added)

And in the same work:

"Salvation and glory and honor and power unto the Lord our God" [Revelation 19:1] signifies because eternal life is from the Lord through the divine truth and the divine good from his divine omnipotence. This is evident from the signification of "salvation," as being eternal life; also from the signification of "glory and honor," as being the Lord's divine truth and divine good; also from the signification of "power," as being, in reference to the Lord, omnipotence. (Apocalypse Explained #1198, italics added)

So in Swedenborg's theology, "salvation" simply means gaining eternal life in heaven. He describes the nature of that life in detail in his best-known book, Heaven and Hell.
Swedenborg makes it clear that it is the Lord Jesus Christ alone who saves us. And yet, the Lord does not do this instantaneously, but through a lifelong process—a process that requires our willing receptivity and cooperation to succeed:

The people who are going to receive the powerful spiritual effects listed above are those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. He is salvation and eternal life. He is salvation because he is the Savior—this is the meaning of his name, Jesus. He is eternal life because those in whom he is and who are in him have eternal life. He is even called "eternal life" in 1 John 5:20.
Now, because the Lord is salvation and eternal life, it follows that he is also everything that enables us to gain salvation and eternal life. Therefore he is every part of reforming, regenerating, renewing, bringing to life, sanctifying, justifying, purifying from evils, and finally saving. The Lord is carrying out these processes in all of us, meaning that he is trying to have these effects on us; and when we adapt and modify ourselves to receive them, he actually carries them out in us. (Even the acts of adapting and modifying ourselves are actually from the Lord.) If we do not accept the Lord's processes with a willing spirit, he cannot carry them out in us, but his desire to do so remains constant. (True Christianity #150)

Justification
Justification is one of the elements Swedenborg lists as part of the process of salvation. And this is where Swedenborg departs radically from the Protestant (Lutheran) theology in which he grew up, and significantly from Catholic and Orthodox theology.
In fact, in order to appreciate Swedenborg's view of justification, it is necessary to understand that although he was conversant with the various Catholic and Protestant creeds and doctrinal statements, he skipped over them all, pushed them aside, and looked directly to the Bible itself to formulate his doctrines of justification and salvation.
To understand Swedenborg's theology of justification, then, it is necessary to understand the underlying meaning of the words commonly translated "justify" and "justification" in the Bible.
Justification in the Bible
Our English word "justification" is derived from the Latin word iustificationem. However, the use of this latinate term to translate the underlying Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible can make the Bible's meaning seem more abstract than it actually is.
In biblical Hebrew, the word צָדַק (tsadaq) has the root meaning of "to be right, straight." From this it derives its more common meaning of "to be just, upright, righteous." In its various forms it can also mean "to make just, righteous, innocent" and "to declare someone just, or innocent, to acquit."
In biblical Greek, the word δίκαιος (dikaios) has the basic meaning of "righteous; observing divine and human laws." In a broader sense it means "upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God." Based on this it can also have the meaning of being declared righteous.
In both Hebrew and Greek, the biblical words for "just," and the forms derived from them, such as "justify" and "justification," are primarily speaking about the intrinsic quality of the person, as being a just, righteous, virtuous, and innocent person who keeps the commandments of God. The meaning of declaring a person just or righteous depends upon the person actually being just or righteous.
Justification in Swedenborg's theology
Swedenborg's view of justification, then, involves a person becoming righteous. Without this, it would be a violation of divine justice for a person to be declared righteous. God's judgments are always just and right, Swedenborg says, so God will not declare anything just or righteous unless it actually is just and righteous.
Because of Swedenborg's practical, biblical focus, it is usually more accurate to translate the words he uses for "justification" as "being made righteous"—which is exactly how most of the translations of his works do translate them.
Here is one of the earliest definitions of justification in Swedenborg's published theological works:

Those who have been purified from self-love and love of the world—both those inside the church and those outside of it—are made righteous by the Lord. (Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven") #2114)

Here the distinctiveness of Swedenborg's theology of justification from Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant theology is already on display. By "the church," Swedenborg means Christianity. So by "people inside the church" he means Christians. And here, early in his theological works, he was already saying that both Christians and non-Christians are justified, or made righteous, by the Lord (Jesus Christ) when they are purified from self-love and love of the world.
This shows the practical nature of Swedenborg's doctrine of justification. It is not a mere theological or legal term and process. It is a process of changing a person so that he or she is no longer driven by selfish and worldly desires, but by love for God and love for the neighbor. And this is true no matter whether the person is a Christian or a non-Christian. In all cases—even among non-Christians—this is accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ working in and through the person.
Swedenborg gives a fuller account of what it means for a person to be righteous in a commentary on Jesus' words in Matthew 25:31-46—a passage commonly called "The Sheep and the Goats" or "The Judgment of the Nations":

The expression "the righteous," used of those on the right in these statements,

The righteous will answer him, saying . . . [Matthew 25:37]

and

The righteous will go into eternal life [Matthew 25:46]

means that the Lord's righteousness dwells with them. All in whom the good of kindness [literally "charity"] is present are called "the righteous." Not that of themselves they are righteous but that they are made such by the Lord, whose righteousness they take to themselves.
Those who believe that of themselves they are righteous, or that they have been made righteous to such an extent that no evil at all is present in them any longer, are not among the righteous but among the unrighteous. For they attribute good to themselves and also make that good meritorious; and people like them cannot possibly possess true humility with which to worship the Lord.
Therefore in the Bible those people are called "righteous and holy" who know and acknowledge that all good comes from the Lord, and all evil from themselves, which means that their evil comes from hell. (Arcana Coelestia #5069)

In other words, in Swedenborg's theology, to be "righteous" or "justified" is to accept the righteousness of the Lord into ourselves willingly, while recognizing that it is not our own, but the Lord's in us. And as Swedenborg explains extensively elsewhere, this happens only by our repenting from our sins—which flow from our inborn selfishness and worldliness—and focusing our life on loving the Lord by loving the neighbor through practical service to our fellow human beings, as the Lord himself taught in Matthew 25:31-46 and in many other places.
Swedenborg was aware of the judicial sense of "justification" that is commonly used in traditional Christian, and especially Protestant, interpretations of "justification." See, for example, Arcana Coelestia #9264. However, for an extended statement on Swedenborg's view of justification, or becoming righteous, in contrast to traditional Christian perspectives, see Arcana Coelestia #9263.
In Swedenborg's theology, then, "justification" involves a person repenting from sins and living a new life of love for God and love and service to the neighbor. This, in Swedenborg's view, is not an instantaneous event, but rather a lifelong process. For more on what this process involves, see my article, "What does Jesus Mean when He Says we Must be Born Again?"
Summary and Conclusion
In Swedenborg's theology:

Salvation is attaining eternal life in heaven.
Justification is the process of becoming a good and righteous person through repentance from sins and living a life of love and kindness to the neighbor.

Justification, then, in Swedenborg's theology, is an integral part of the process of salvation. It is the process by which we become good, loving, thoughtful, and righteous people through the active presence of the Lord within us—which presence is the Holy Spirit working in us.
When we have gone through this process of "justification," or becoming good and righteous people (together with other things that the Lord accomplishes in our lives when we are willing and receptive), we are saved—which means that we will move on to eternal life in heaven when our life on this earth is finished.


Are there any reports or stories that the pope has seen God face to face in the last 200 years? In the Old Testament, there are accounts of people (prophets) who saw God face to face.

Specifically in Genesis 32:30, it says

  And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God
  face to face, and my life is preserved.

If God does not vary or change, then my assumption would be that he is still speaking with others face to face, as he did with Jacob.

Are there any modern (last 200 years) accounts of the pope seeing God face to face?

No Pope has made such claim, but he wouldn't need to.

As Hebrews says,

  Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,

Just because one does not have a face to face encounter does not mean that God has not spoken to them. Very few of the prophets claim they saw God's face. Indeed, Elijah perceived him only as a "still small voice."  Jeremiah saw the visions God intended for him, but none was a vision of God himself.

Indeed, Penuiel is a time where God deviated from his normal practice, in revealing himself. Later, when Moses sought to seek God's face (Exodus 33), it was understood he could not see God's face and live.

The lesson has less to do with whether or not God changes, then if man's ability to relate to God changes. And, to box God into a place where he cannot relate to people differently runs counter to his nature as a person who is capable of relating.

Futhermore, as God's appointed representative on earth, Catholics (and I am not one) claim on the basis of Matthew 18:18 that:

  "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This translates into the ability for the Apostolic office (established with Peter to whom Jesus says this) to make heavenly decisions, under God's guidance, in accordance with God's wishes.