Are all Methodists "Evangelical Methodists"? So today, I found a sign for a "Evangelical Methodist Church." In light of the recent split in the Methodist denomination, it has me wondering: are they using "Evangelical" here to say which side of the split they are choosing, or does it not really mean anything related to that? Or are all Methodists "Evangelical"?

No, not at all. Methodism, as with most Protestant denominations, went through a time of theological division in the 19th century as Liberal Christianity grew.

If you're not familiar, Liberal Christianity largely stems from challenges to the doctrine of sola scriptura in the post-enlightment period. There was and is a range of positions, but most Liberal Christians challenge the spiritual authority of the scriptures in some way: by ranking human reason above scripture, but challenging the traditional received authors of the Bible's texts, or by rejecting the infallibility/inerrancy of scripture. Liberal Christianity has also often rejected the traditional Protestant doctrines of original sin, penal substitutionary atonement, or the wrath of God and the propitiatory work of Christ.

The division between Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism has cut through most Protestant denominations, including the Methodist denominations. (Pentecostalism/Charismaticism is usually considered part of Evangelicalism, but could be argued to be a third major division when modern prophecy is allowed to supersede scripture's authority in the church.) In the USA Liberal Protestant denominations are often called Mainline Protestants; in other parts of the world they may be called Liberal or Progressive. Some denominations are essentially entirely Liberal, others may be mixed between Liberal and Evangelical.

Note that the presence of the word "Evangelical" in a denomination or church's name no more ensures that its theology is actually Evangelical in nature than a country's name containing "Democratic" ensures that it is actually a democracy. So the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is considered a Mainline denomination with generally liberal/progressive theology. Similarly there is a denomination called the Evangelical Methodist Church which split in the 1940s from a different Methodist denomination, and so has nothing to do with the recent conflict in the UMC. It is generally on the side of evangelicalism, but we should expect pockets of more liberal churches within it as in all denominations. It's not clear from your question if the sign you saw referred to this denomination or to some other Methodist church which called itself Evangelical; either way the name is not guaranteed to reflect what the church teaches and if you want to know more you'll need to ask them yourself.


Does "all Israel shall be saved" mean that all Jews, even those who die in their sins, will be saved? I am confused by the statement that Paul makes in Romans 11:26, where he explains that all Israel shall be saved. My church believes that if you die in your sins, there is no further hope for you. Jewish or not.

All of Romans 9-11 should be read together. Paul was responding to the accusation that God's promises to Israel had failed, and his response is basically: "you misunderstand what God means by 'Israel'; it is only the remnant of Israel's natural descendants that count as 'Israel', so actually, all Israel will be saved and God's promises have not failed".


What is the current and historical viewpoint on universal salvation as a doctrine in the Catholic Church? What is the current and historical viewpoint on universal salvation as a doctrine in the Catholic Church?

Is there any defence or reference to this doctrine in any of the current catechisms?  And what are the historical debates which have influenced the current day opinion of the church on the subject of apokatastasis?

In the past, various saints, apparitions and other authoritative sources have stated that many people are in hell or go to hell. For example, the Marian apparitions in Fatima stated that "many souls perish in hell" and included a graphic vision of hell. In many cases, these sources have listed specific categories of people that will go to hell.

The current catechism also states:

  The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."

However, later in the same chapter:

  God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. [...] the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance"

In another chapter titled "the necessity of baptism":

  The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.
  [...]
  "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."

The latter part is a quote from Lumen Gentium, a document produced by the Second Vatican Council.

In short, as per the catechism the Church decrees that hell exists, and lays out under what circumstances a person may or may not go to hell. However, it does not state that any given person or group did go to hell, and Catholics have differing opinions about this.

Universal salvation is an allowable belief in this framework, but it is not the mainstream.


What is the ecclesiastical 'hierarchy' of the Eastern Orthodox Church? I know that every cultural expression of Orthodoxy has different terms for the orders (roles) from the language of their home country, but I am interested in the English terms. What is the 'hierarchy,' in order, of the ecclesiastical offices/roles in Eastern Orthodoxy?

As you are probably aware, there is not a high degree of unity in Eastern Orthodoxy in English-speaking nations, especially in North America (cf. Phyletism, autocephaly, controversy concerning autocephaly and the OCA, controversy over the broad appointment of metropolitans). However, there is somewhat general consensus on the orders. But it should be noted that not all Orthodox Christians will recognize all of the titles within the orders, and some consider them to be in a slightly different order. Also, many of the English titles borrow heavily from the Greek conventions, so some of those will be noted. With that said, there are three major orders in Orthodoxy:

Bishop (episkopos, ἐπίσκοπος)
Presbyter (πρεσβύτερος, more commonly called priest, hiereus, ἱερεύς; literally "elder")
Deacon (diakonos, διάκονος)

There are also two minor orders:

Subdeacon
Reader

There were formerly other minor orders but most have fallen into disuse (such as doorkeepers, exorcists, and acolytes). The major orders can be further subdivided.
Bishop

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The first in honor among all Orthodox bishops (first among equals, as the Pope of Rome once was prior to schisming). He is a special patriarch (which is often considered equal to an archbishop in various traditions, different only in honor).
Patriarch. A bishop who is the head of an ancient or ethnic Church (originally there were only five in the early Church, comprising the Pentarchy).
Archbishop. The head of an Orthodox country or capital city (depending on the tradition, these may be above, below, or equal to metropolitans. This is an area of disagreement and difference of practice).
Metropolitan. A bishop who is the head of a large city or a diocese (see note on archbishop).
Bishop. Oversees a diocese or special community of Orthodox Christians. Possesses the full priesthood and may ordain clergy. Chosen only from monastic priests (archimandrites).
Titular / Auxiliary Bishop. A bishop who is not in charge of a diocese. Assistant to a diocesan bishop. Sometimes also granted as a role of honor to those whose dioceses no longer exist.

Presbyter / Priest

Archimandrite. A title of honor given only to monastic priests. This originally referred to a supervisory abbot appointed over other abbots and/or monasteries, or to the abbot of a prominent monastery. It has come to more or less be an honorary title for hieromonks. Only archimandrites are eligible to be appointed as Bishops (which is why I've listed it first, although in many ways they are equal to or below protopresbyters and/or archpriests).
Protopresbyter / Protopriest. A title of honor given only to non-monastic priests. It literally means "first elder" (some traditions do not distinguish between a protopresbyter and an archpriest).
Archpriest. A title of honor given only to non-monastic priests. A priest placed over several parishes may sometimes be appointed to this role (see note for protopresbyter).
Hieromonk. Literally, a "priest-monk." A monk who is also an ordained priest.
Presbyter / Priest. An ordained elder who may administer the sacraments.

Deacon

Protodeacon. A title of honor given only to non-monastic deacons. It literally means "first servant/server" (some traditions consider archdeacons above protodeacons).
Archdeacon. The senior deacon in a diocese, responsible for serving at hierarchical services (services with the bishop). Usually he travels with the bishop. Some traditions only give this title to monastic deacons (see note for protodeacon).
Hierodeacon. A deacon-monk. A monk who has been ordained as a deacon.
Deacon. An ordained servant who may assist the priest in the administration of the sacraments (as well as a variety of other duties).

Minor Orders
Concerning the minor orders, a subdeacon (also called a hypodeacon) may assist the bishop and/or priest in various ways (but not with the administration of the sacraments). The ordination to subdeacon is not performed during Divine Liturgy nor at the altar as it is a minor order. He may be assigned any of the other roles of the minor orders such as Reader (but also former minor orders that have fallen into disuse such as Cantor, Catechist, or other leadership roles in the community). While canon law does consider the ordination of subdeacons to be binding on their marital status, many do not enforce this or consider the ordination to be of a different sort. Thus the canon laws concerning the marriage or celibacy of candidates is generally only enforced for the major orders.
A reader (or lector) is ordained by the bishop to read during services and in the Divine Liturgy. This role developed due to low literacy rates in past history, so being able to read was a special gift. The only way scripture was normally heard by early Christians was when it was publicly read in the church. He may also be assigned any of the other roles of the minor orders other than subdeacon (such as Cantor, Catechist, or other leadership roles in the community).


How is one expected to ask for a dispensation to miss Sunday mass due to work obligations? The Catechism for the Catholic Church says that missing mass on Sunday is a grave sin, unless there is a serious reason (like needing to care for others), or a dispensation is given by their pastor.

  2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

Say that a person wanted to get a dispensation from Sunday mass (perhaps they got a job at a restaurant that required them to work on Sundays, which is noted as something that may be necessary in 2187). How are they expected to go about getting this dispensation? Is it as simple as sending an e-mail (or otherwise communicating with their pastor)? Or is there a more formal process?

If a person has to work on Sundays, and cannot attend Mass on Sunday morning, Sunday evening or Saturday evening, which are all canonically valid as fulfilling Sunday obligation, then they should speak to their pastor in person and explain the situation, so that he may evaluate the situation and offer some sort of compromise.

Now, regarding this obligation, unless the region has a great lack of priests, there should be a good amount of choice in Masses so that someone who works Sundays is able to attend at least one. If not, then perhaps the person could talk to their boss at the restaurant to see whether they can spread their shifts more during the week so they have some time on Sunday to attend Mass.


How do JWs respond to Jude 9 in light of Matthew 4:10? Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one in the same.  However, in light of these two verses:

Jude 9 (NIV):

  But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Matthew 4:10 (NIV):

  Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

We see that Michael was afraid to rebuke Satan directly, but Jesus was not.  This seems to clearly indicate that they are not the same person at all, but that Jesus is a higher authority than Michael.

How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain this apparent discrepancy?

Both accounts in Jude 9 and Matthew 4:10 are the same person (Jesus).

Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is known as Michael, The Archangel while in heaven. There are also other things to keep in mind why Jesus is believed to be the archangel.

The prefix “arch” means “principal” or “chief,” (http://www.yourdictionary.com/arch) and the word “archangel” is never used in the plural form in the Bible.

The other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: “16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud cry of summons, with the shout of an archangel, and with the blast of the trumpet of God.” (AMP Bible) So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.
Now, in regards to your question about Jude 9 and Matthew 4:10. These verses do not contradict.

In Jude 9, Jesus has apparently resumed his service as Michael the chief angel or Archangel. As you mentioned, Michael did not rebuke Satan in this instance. Why? Well, consider the surrounding verses before verse 9.
Jude 8 says, "Nevertheless in like manner, these dreamers also corrupt the body, scorn and reject authority and government, and revile and libel and scoff at [heavenly] glories (the glorious ones)."

Apparently, there were men during Jude’s time who spoke abusively and rejected the authority of the glorious ones. Jude does not speak highly of these such men who obviously lacked humility due to haughtiness. Then, at verse 9 Jude gives a contrast of the behavior of those ungodly men and how Jesus handled a situation in regards to Moses body in a dispute with Satan. Jude was using this example to illustrate the importance of humility.

While Michael resisted Satan’s wicked scheme, he showed remarkable self-restraint. Satan surely deserved a rebuke, but Michael, who at the time he was disputing with Satan had not yet had “all the judging” committed to him, felt that such a judgment should come only from God. (John 5:22) As archangel, Michael had extensive authority. Yet, he humbly deferred to God rather than trying to seize additional authority. Besides humility, he also showed modesty, or an awareness of his limitations.

Jude was inspired to write about this incident for a reason. Sadly, some Christians in Jude’s day were not humble. They were haughtily “speaking abusively of all the things they really [did] not know.” (Jude 10) So Jude was in essence saying that if Jesus did not rebuke Satan even though he very well deserved it, why should you (these ungodly men) speak abusively of the glorious ones? Just as Jesus left it to the God to address Satan, they were encouraged to do likewise.

So, it wasn't that Michael was afraid to rebuke Satan, but rather Jesus did not want to go beyond his authority. Instead, God’s Son showed humility and modesty. He was pleased to have Jehovah God, the Supreme Judge of the universe, handle matters in His own way and time.


What is the argument in support of personal interpretation of the Scriptures? The Catholic church teaches that only the Church (Magisterium) has the right to interpret Scriptures whereas Protestant churches typically believe that anyone has that right.

What is the argument that supports the idea that anyone can and should interpret Scripture for himself or herself?

The Bible itself -- if you'll pardon my interpretation -- seems to support such a practice.

In the Old Testament, the law is read aloud to the people (Deut 31:10-13; Josh 8:34f; 2Kgs 23:2; Neh 8:1ff) and the king is required to copy out the law so that he may know it and do it (Deut 17:18ff). In both cases, it is read "raw" and the people and rulers are to understand it and do it. Likewise, the Psalms are meant to be sung by the people, and Proverbs is in part a training manual in wisdom for princes to be read and understood.

In the New Testament, Jesus preaches directly to the people, the Apostles and missionaries preach to the people, and Paul intends that his letters be read aloud to the people (Col 4:16 -- possibly with the courier providing some additional clarification).

Now these are authoritative teachers teaching, so one could argue they are similar in function to the Magisterium, but the "noble Bereans" are also commended for independently searching the scriptures to confirm Paul's teaching (Acts 17:11); Priscilla and Aquila, who are certainly not in the Magisterium, tutor Apollos (Acts 18:24ff); and Luke-Acts was written for the private individual Theophilus (Luke 1:1ff; Acts 1:1).

None of this is to say there is not a binding authority given to the church; there certainly is -- even in Protestantism (how else could church discipline exist as one of the "true marks" of the church?). But individuals are still encouraged to read, hear, understand, and apply the words of the Bible themselves.

In Richard Pratt's formulation of Reformed hermeneutics, IIRC, there are three sources of interpretation one seeks to respect: historical (the church of the past, tradition), community (the church of the present, your pastor and elders), and individual ("private interpretation", conscience, internal illumination by the Holy Spirit). In "remnant" situations, the individual interpretation may be the most correct, and God expects his people to abide by his true word, regardless of what the corrupt authorities say (cf. the OT prophets, and Jesus and John the Baptist vs. the scribes and Pharisees in the NT). That being said, going against broad agreement in interpretation across history and in one's present community should be done only with great prayer, humility, self re-examination, and trepidation.

A footnote on 2 Pet. 1:20 ("no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation"), a contested verse in this context: "Prophecy" here is effectively "God's communication." Reading the surrounding verses shows (I think!) that the passage is concerned with the origin of a prophecy, specifically that it does not come from a private or merely human source. It is not addressing interpretation or understanding of that divine communication, which is what we're talking about in this question.


Are LDS members expected to contribute a certain amount of time as a full-time missionary? As I understand it, all LDS members are expected to serve some time as Missionaries.  It's been years since I attended an LDS Church, but when I was attending, I seem to recall being told several times that if I joined, I would be expected to spend a certain amount of time (I believe it was one year) as a full-time missionary, going wherever the Church sent me.

Looking through the LDS site, I cannot find any such teaching.  I find plenty of information about how everyone is a Missionary (even if it's not full time, sharing the faith is a part of normal everyday life), why everyone should want to be a missionary, what full-time Missionaries do, how they are supported, and how they are trained, but I'm not finding a requirement to go into missions for a full year.

Is my memory faulty?  Did I misunderstand?  Is there any such requirement?

In October 2012, when the full-time missionary age requirement was reduced for both men and women, President Thomas S. Monson reiterated the call to missionary service, for men, women, and seniors:

We affirm that missionary work is a priesthood duty—and we encourage all young men who are worthy and who are physically able and mentally capable to respond to the call to serve. Many young women also serve, but they are not under the same mandate to serve as are the young men. We assure the young sisters of the Church, however, that they make a valuable contribution as missionaries, and we welcome their service.
We continue to need many more senior couples. As your circumstances allow, as you are eligible for retirement, and as your health permits, I encourage you to make yourselves available for full-time missionary service. Both husband and wife will have a greater joy as they together serve our Father’s children.

So the call to missionary service is:

to young men: a commandment from the Lord. For practical and legal reasons, they must be out of high school, age 18-25 (inclusive), worthy, and physically/mentally/emotionally able. Men who may serve but choose not to don't lose privileges, only blessings. Their missions are 2 years (and 4 days, technically).

to young women: not required or commanded, but their service is certainly welcome. They must be at least 19 years of age (no upper age limit). Their missions are 18 months.

to senior members: senior couples and individuals may serve if they choose, but it's not uncommon for a local leader to call them into a meeting and issue a mission call, knowing the couple or individual is able to serve. Their full-time missions are typically mostly self-funded and offer them a great degree of options because of their seniority and circumstances. Their missions can vary in length according to their situation.

Years ago, to a group of young men, the President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball, said:

"The question is frequently asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer has been given by the Lord. It is 'Yes.' Every young man should fill a mission. ...
"... Every man should also pay his tithing. Every man should observe the Sabbath. Every man should attend his meetings. Every man should marry in the temple"

("When the World Will Be Converted," Ensign, Oct. 1974, p. 8)
So the commandment for young men to serve a mission is as universal as others in the LDS faith such as attending Church and tithing.
There's a whole article by President Kimball that would be worth reading on this matter.
Elder Rasband of the Presidency of the Seventy, gave a talk a few years ago in a General Conference, wherein, he described the process of full-time mission calls, how they are issued, and why it is a divine commandment.
The whole talk gives a great, little-known insight into issuing calls to missionaries, but he concludes with this, in a more direct answer to your question:

I suppose many of you young men have asked yourselves that same question. Here is the Lord’s answer: "And now, behold, I say unto you, that the thing which will be of the most worth unto you will be to declare repentance unto this people, that you may bring souls unto me, that you may rest with them in the kingdom of my Father." (Doctrine and Covenants 15:6; 16:6.)
At this time in your life, a mission call from the Lord, my young friends, is the most important work that you can do. Prepare now, live righteously, learn from your family and Church leaders, and come join with us in building the kingdom of God on earth—accept your divine appointment in "so great a cause."


The nature of Jesus's 40 days post-resurrection but pre-ascension I recently learned that the gap in time between the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus into heaven was given as "40 days".  I'm curious about that period and have a few related questions about it that I'd be interested in learning about any dominant Catholic or Protestant understandings of it, if they exist:

Is there a name for this period in the various traditions?
When he wasn't appearing to people, where and on what was Jesus spending his time?
Was his being the same as pre-resurrection, or was he somehow fundamentally different?
Was there a purpose to this "stopover" back on Earth?  (I assume to indicate the resurrection).

If there aren't any Biblical or doctrinal views of it, if there are any literary or artistic conceptions of this period that you know of, I would be interested in that as well.

1. Is there a name for this period in the various traditions?
I am not aware of any for protestant Christianity, but Catholicism refers to this period as Eastertide or the Season of Easter.
2. When he wasn't appearing to people, where and on what was Jesus spending his time?
Jesus told the thief on the cross that "today, you will be with me in paradise", so it's reasonable to assume that he was moving between this creation and the next eternal creation being prepared for the redeemed of the Lamb (that place commonly known as "heaven").
That said, neither scripture nor tradition has anything definitive to say about where he was when he was not revealing himself here on earth.  Do note, though, that the concept of time is very different outside of this creation (if it has any meaning at all).
3. Was his being the same as pre-resurrection, or was he somehow fundamentally different?
Jesus' body, post-resurrection, was indeed fundamentally different - it was his glorified eternal body, not limited by created time and space. This body is the incorruptible, immortal and eternal state that is the future for all those who are saved, as described in 1 Cor 15:

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
1 Cor 15:35-49

And this is part of the stunning wonder of the incarnation; that eternal God could have put off his glory to become, for a time, limited, finite man constrained by our dimensions of time and space, to effect the salvation of those who "confess with [their] mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in [their] heart that God raised him from the dead." (Rom 10:9).
4. Was there a purpose to this "stopover" back on Earth? (I assume to indicate the resurrection).
It was, in part, to bear witness to his bodily resurrection.  For as Paul says:

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
1 Cor 15:12-14

And also that he could give final teaching and instruction to his disciples now that his purpose and mission had been fully revealed to them.


Why does Judaism celebrate Sabbath on Saturday and most Christians celebrate Sabbath on Sunday? When did most Christians (possibly excluding exceptions such as Seventh Day Adventists) and Jews start celebrating Sabbath on different days of the week and why?

To be clear, most Christians do not celebrate "The Sabbath" on Sunday. Strictly speaking, Christians do not celebrate the Sabbath at all* (although many Christians still refer to their "day of rest" as their "sabbath day", even though this has no direct relationship to the Jewish Sabbath.)  Christians traditionally celebrate on Sundays because this is the day Christ was raised from the grave.

I have not yet found a specific, authoritative reference for the fact that Christians worship on Sunday because that is when Christ was raised, but some references include here and here

*Apparently some Christian groups do call Sunday "the Sabbath" (with a capital S), but I believe this is a minority view out of ignorance of the significance of words, and is rarely considered dogma.


What work of Augustine is Aquinas Citing Here? In Summa Theologica I q. 1 a. 10 ("Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?") ad 1, Aquinas writes:

  Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded
  on one - the literal - from which alone can any argument be drawn, and
  not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says [Epis. 48].
  Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this,
  since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual
  sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its
  literal sense.

What writing of Augustine is referred to by [Epis. 48] here?

There is a Letter 48 from Augustine, but the content seems disconnected from the reference here.

The English translation of that passage is incomplete. The Latin of Summa Theologica I q. 1 a. 10 says

…ut dicit Augustinus in epistola contra Vincentium Donatistam.
…as St. Augustine says in his letter against the Donatist Vincent.

Opera omnia, iussu impensaque Leonis XIII (vol. 4): Summa Iᵃ q. 1-49 (p. 25) gives this as the full reference:

Ad Vincent. Rogat. Ep. XCIII (al. XLVIII), c. VIII.

Thus: chapter 8 of letter 93 (45 in another numbering scheme).
Relevant passage:

For what else is it than superlative impudence for one to interpret in his own favour any allegorical statements, unless he has also plain testimonies, by the light of which the obscure meaning of the former may be made manifest.


What is the/any Arminian/Catholic interpretation of Hebrews 10:14? Hebrews 10:14 reads:

  For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are being
  sanctified.

How do Christians who believe that salvation can be lost interpret this verse? I hear lots of Reformed people using it, but in all the commentaries I've read the subject isn't really addressed, so I don't know.

In paragraph 480 of St. Thomas Aquinas' Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, he explains that the way sacrifice was done in the past was to wipe out past sins. The people sinned, and then a priest offered an animal sacrifice in reparation for those sins. This verse states that by Christ's one sacrifice, past and future sins are being accounted for, thus encompassing 'all those being sanctified.' This may seem in contradiction to Catholicism, because we offer the sacrifice of the mass every day. However, Aquinas contests that this sacrifice is no different than the very one that Christ offered, re-presented in a non-bloody form.

So in summary, Christ dying on the cross was enough to perfect all those seeking sanctification, but we have to choose to participate in that sacrifice, it is not just handed out to those who turn their back on God.


Why did Jesus say "you will be put to death" and yet "not a hair of your head will perish"? Jesus' words here contain an apparent contradiction:

  You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. All men will hate you because of me.  But not a hair of your head will perish. By standing firm you will gain life.

Luke 21:16-19

How can someone be "put to death" and yet "not a hair of their head will perish"?

Jesus is talking here about the resurrection of the dead. Because of what Christ did all will live again. So yes you could die for the gospel but you would gain eternal life in Christ.

Just adding some scripture to back this up:

  (KJV) 1 Corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

Just supporting that we will be raised from this mortal state which is corruptible (hence why we die) to an immortal state that is incorruptible.


Why is Green Martyrdom green? I'd heard of green martyrdom a few times on the radio, but never gave it much thought

Three kinds of martyrdom that are counted as a cross to man, i.e. white martyrdom, green martyrdom, and red martyrdom.—The Cambray Homily (Thesaurus Palæohibernicus, II., p. 246).

Green martyrdom somewhat anachronistically seems to have been defined as having something to do with dollar bills being of a greenish hue.  I don't think that would be the case in the Ireland when the Cambray Homily was transcribed.
So why green?  Red and White I understand, but green usually has a different significance than dying.

Why is ”green martyrdom” green?
A green martyrdom is a type of spiritual mortification or martyrdom that the faithful may perform during the entirety of their life without shedding their blood or fleeing persecution to live an ascetic life style such as the Desert Fathers. Green is the color most commonly associated in Europe and the United States with nature, vivacity and life.
If someone were to say that it is simply because this terminology originated in Ireland and green is the colour of the Irish or leprechauns, I would say that symbolism is all wrong.

The modern image of the leprechaun sitting on a toadstool, having a red beard and green hat, etc. is clearly a more modern invention, or borrowed from other strands of European folklore. The most likely explanation for the modern day Leprechaun appearance is that green is a traditional national Irish color dating back as far as 1642.

The original colour of Ireland was blue, not green!

In reality, the authentic color for St Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, is blue. It can still be seen today on Ireland's Presidential Standard and other ancient Irish flags. In the 1700s, green replaced blue and became the official color for Ireland. It is one of the three colors of the modern Irish flag. Green seems like a more logical choice when you consider that Ireland is known as the Emerald Isle because of its beautiful green countryside. The expression "the wearing of the Green" refers to both the shamrock that St. Patrick used to teach the Trinity and the bright green uniforms worn by soldiers during the Irish Rebellion of 1798. Green has also been the color that represents support for the Irish dream of independence.
The green of the Irish flag is the official color for St. Patrick's Day. It is a spring green with less blue in it than some of the other shades. - The Official Colors of St. Patrick's Day

So why is green martyrdom green?
First of all let us look at the symbolic colours of martyrdom which actually were mention by Pope Gregory the Great at a time in history that the Celtic Rite was very much alive within the Church. This is the same pope that called the Anglo-Saxons Angels. The story goes that Pope Gregory the Great saw some fair-haired and fair-skinned slaves in a slave market in Italy, and was told that they were Angles. “Not Angles but angels,” he replied.

Degrees of martyrdom
Some Roman Catholic writers (such as Thomas Cahill) continue to use a system of degrees of martyrdom that was developed in early Christianity. Some of these degrees bestow the title of martyr on those who sacrifice large elements of their lives alongside those who sacrifice life itself. These degrees were mentioned by Pope Gregory I in Homilia in Evangelia, he wrote of "three modes of martyrdom, designated by the colors, red, blue (or green), and white". A believer was bestowed the title of red martyr due to either torture or violent death by religious persecution. The term "white martyrdom" was used by the Church Father Jerome, "for those such as desert hermits who aspired to the condition of martyrdom through strict asceticism". Blue (or green) martyrdom "involves the denial of desires, as through fasting and penitent labors without necessarily implying a journey or complete withdrawal from life".
Also along these lines are the terms "wet martyr" (a person who has shed blood or been executed for the faith) and "dry martyr" which is a person who "had suffered every indignity and cruelty" but not shed blood, nor suffered execution. - Christian martyr (Wikipedia)

Thus a green martyrdom "involves the denial of desires, as through fasting and penitent labors without necessarily implying a journey or complete withdrawal from life*”.
From the Celtic understanding, adopted through out Christian lands, there are three types of martyrdom:

Red Martyrdom - those who die for the sake of the faith.
White Martyrdom - those who leave behind all possessions, titles, and relationships for the sake of the Kingdom of God. This includes hermits, anchorites, and most monastics.
Green Martyrdom - Living the ascetic life in the place and position where God placed you. It "...consists in this, that by means of fasting and labour he frees himself from his evil desires, or suffers toil in penance and repentance."

Green is the color of new vegetation and the most wide spread colour in nature. It symbolizes the hope of new life which is ours in the life of Jesus Christ. Because green martyrs practiced forms of penance without necessarily implying a journey or complete withdrawal from daily life of the Christian community, it is fitting that their form of martyrdom would be green!
The green martyrdom was a way to sacrifice when lives were no longer in danger.

The Irish monks in their ingenuity thought up another form of martyrdom that did not require persecution and bloodshed: they would come to call themselves, “Green Martyrs” and give their whole lives dedicated to worship and prayer.
The Green Martyr was one who followed the cost of discipleship that Jesus laid down, the “deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me” kind of commitment that leads to a self-sacrificial existence. It is in this sense that the symbolic colour of green should be understood.
They chose the most remote corners of the Island, places like Skellig Michael, a rocky outcropping some 8 miles southwest of the tip of the Irish coast. Literally, “the ends of the earth” as their maps simply did not go any further than this point.
Perhaps without realizing it, all of these modern movements have their roots in the ancient “Green Martyrs” of Ireland!
So here are 3 possible applications to becoming a modern “Green Martyr” (without having to move to Skellig Michael in Ireland):

Cultivate a lifestyle of radical commitment to God in prayer.

You can learn to cultivate a daily, hour by hour dependence upon the Spirit by new levels of self-control and self-discipline. Pray more! Pray fervently. Fast & pray, too. Try checking in with the Holy Spirit every hour of the day.

Read & meditate on scripture, daily.

The monks did. I visited the ruins of Nendrum Monastery, between Belfast and Downpatrick in Ulster, Northern Ireland. It contains the best-preserved ancient sundial in Ireland, where I noticed there were 8 markers which marked 8 distinct times of the day that these men and women of God would pause in their lives, pray, and meditate on Scripture. Try this: set some markers on your mobile phone to alert you to pause and pray throughout your day!

Find a spot in your home to dedicate as “holy space” to God.

The Christian Celts called these places, “thin places” because the veil between Heaven and Earth was so thin and they could sense the glory and presence of God lingering there. This could be a prayer room, or even a favorite chair where you commit to daily communing with the Spirit of God, interceding for others, or just reading Scripture. And the more time you spend in communion with God, the more you personally carry a “thin place” with you, wherever you travel, and can bring the presence of the King of Kings to others who need Him. - The Green Martyrs of Ireland at the Ends of the Earth

The following articles may be of interest to some:

Not just red anymore: the colors of martyrdom
Friday Fact: Red, White, and Green Martyrdom


Is it against the LDS Word of Wisdom to use marijuana as medicine? The Latter-day Saints subscribe to a revelation dubbed the "Word of Wisdom" which outlines a code of health which Saints in good standing are expected to live. It's found in Doctrine and Covenants 89. Generally it prohibits use of "herbs" (drugs) such as tobacco for the body, but recommends it for treating cattle.

However, the LDS Church is pretty clear that drugs which are prescribed by a competent medical professional (a doctor) are allowed within the recommendations of the doctor. (This has traditionally meant things like morphine, sleeping pills, etc.)

When there is sickness or disease and healing is desired, there are a few recommended courses of action, such as obtaining a blessing with faith under the hands of priesthood brethren. Just as important to Latter-day Saints, however, is seeking care using the best medical knowledge available.

I've seen this question online before, but haven't found any answers that are definitive or official: How does the Word of Wisdom or LDS doctrine in general apply to medicinal marijuana (prescribed by a doctor)? Is it prohibited entirely, are there only some permissible cases, or is it A-OK? (Assume it is legal in the politick; Mormons believe in following the law of the land.)

Again, I'm posting here because I'm sure it'll attract higher-quality answers than I've seen elsewhere which are more speculation than citing official or declarative sources.

No, medical use of prescription drugs is compatible with the Word of Wisdom. Opiates, alcohol (e.g., cough syrup), and other drugs are commonly used as medicine but would clearly violate the Word of Wisdom if taken recreationally. A recent article in the Ensign (the official Church magazine) stated, "We should not use any drugs except when they are necessary as medicine. Those who misuse legal or illegal drugs need to seek help so their bodies can become clean again and free from addiction" ("The Lord Has Given Us a Law of Health", Ensign, Feb. 2012).

However, using drugs recreationally with a prescription is by no means the same thing as legitimate medical use. Spencer W. Kimball (12th president of the Church) stated, "We hope our people will eliminate from their lives all kinds of drugs so far as possible. Too many depend upon drugs as tranquilizers and sleep helps, which is not always necessary" (General Conference, October 1974). As with many issues in LDS doctrine, individuals are expected to prayerfully make responsible decisions. A bishop in a temple recommend interview asks a fixed set of questions (which are somewhat vague). A temple recommend holder is considered responsible to God if they are dishonest or insincere.

Boyd K. Packer's book, The Holy Temple, and the adapted pamphlet based on it, Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, discuss the introspective purpose of temple recommend interviews:

  [A temple recommend interview] is an occasion to explore with an ordained servant of the Lord the pattern of your life. If anything is amiss in your life, the bishop will be able to help you resolve it. Through this procedure, you can declare or can be helped to establish your worthiness to enter the temple with the Lord’s approval... The person must certify that he or she is morally clean and is keeping the Word of Wisdom, paying a full tithing, living in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and not maintaining any affiliation or sympathy with apostate groups.


Do Protestants believe Jesus and Satan are brothers? Many, many times, I've seen or heard "Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers".
Technically, it's true. Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are sons of God, and by dictionary definition, people can extend this to say "brothers". (Jesus's is also God's son in the flesh as well as in the spirit, but nonetheless, the statement holds true.)
For example

One answer to what is different about Jesus in the LDS faith is that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

There is According to LDS (Mormon) teaching, what is the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer?, which boils down to "spirit brothers".

And literally hundreds more instances as seen with a simple Google search.

My surprise, I suppose, is that this is a surprise. I had thought other Christians believed the same thing, technically.
Possibly relevent scriptures:
God has sons (angels?)

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
(Job 38:4–7 (KJV))

And Satan is a fallen angel... a (disowned) son of God?

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! (Isaiah 14:12)

And Jesus is a son of god:

I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)

Does mainstream Protestantism believe that Jesus and the devil are "brothers"? If so, does the belief differ from Mormonism in any way? If not, what is the belief and how does it differ?

Good question with a simple answer: No. Categorically no.

All mainline Protestants (and actually most branches of Christianity including Catholic and Orthodox) believe that they are radically different. "Categorically" different if I may overload that word.

Jesus is God.

Son of God in that he is the "son" part of the Trinity, but the very person of God, not a separate being.
Satan is a created being.

As an angel or archangel or whatever (the nuances of what sort of creature he is vary between traditions) he is in every way separate from and subordinate to God. There is no relation or lineage, and he is not himself a God.

Furthermore Protestants (and again most Christian groups) believe that God's work of creation was done through the person of Jesus per Colossians and others:

  The Preeminence of Christ

  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

  (Colossians 1:15-17 ESV)

Satan would fall in the one of the categories above (e.g. "thrones" or "dominions"). In other words: Jesus created Satan. They are not on a level.


Did early Christians believe the world was about to end? Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who
  will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His
  kingdom. (Matthew 16:28, NIV)

Edit: adding another verse in order to make sense of the answer linked below.

  Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until
  all these things have happened. (Mark 13:30, NIV)

End of edit

One interpretation of this is that Jesus believed the end of the world would happen within a few decades. If that's what Jesus meant, was it a new suggestion or were there precedents? What evidence is there that Christians in the first century subscribed to this belief?

Other interpretations have been suggested, like the ones summarised in this answer:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4310/45084

What are the earliest sources we have for such interpretations?

What sources show us how ideas about the apocalypse changed over the course of the first hundred years or so of Christianity?

I'd sort of expect there to have been a big crisis in the religion when it started to become clear that the first generation was all dead and the end of the world hadn't come, but as far as I can gather that didn't really happen. There were new sects and theological disputes as the faith spread, but the date of the apocalypse doesn't seem to have been a central factor. Is that right?

The text you link to, Matthew 16:28, is so very closely linked to the next verse, '... and after six days' that its natural interpretation is that the those present actually saw the coming of the Son of man on the mount of transfiguration and that Jesus' words relate to that experience, not to the end of the world.

But it is evident that the early church viewed the return of Christ as immediate. That is to say, as imminent in their own, personal apprehension.

Paul says to Titus :

  ... the grace of God that bringeth salvation ... looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ. [Titus 2: 11, 13 KJV.]

The urgency and immediacy of the expectation was a hope and a desire. Faith looked in hope for the coming of the Lord Jesus. Love longed to see him as he really is, either again or for the first time.

The women who went to the tomb went there in love, to anoint the body of Jesus. Mary was bereft without him, longing just to find his deceased body, frustrated because someone appeared to have stolen him, John 20:15.

After his ascension, the disciples had to be exhorted to activity by no less than angels as they were standing around looking at the spot in the sky into which Jesus had disappeared, Acts 1:10 and 11.

Paul had to exhort some of the Thessalonians that if a man will not work neither let him eat as it appears some had given up working because of the imminence of the Lord returning and the world ending. Paul had to remonstrate with them that it was irresponsible to respond in that way, II Thessalonians 3 : 6-15.

At the end of his life, Paul exhorts Timothy :

  Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day : and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing, [II Timothy 4: 8 KJV.]

It was love that prompted the early church to look for the appearing of the Lord.

Towards the end of that era, as scripture closed, John the apostle, aged then between ninety and more than an hundred years old - at the very end of his Revelation and at the close of the first century, writes :

  Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus. [Revelation 22:20 KJV.]

Yes, I see that "early Christians viewed the end of the world as imminent". And I believe that the bible itself as a "source" demonstrates that views about the apocalypse did not change at all during the first century.

For further generations, faith and love and hope should be unchanged, despite the passage of time, despite the passing generations. For with the Lord, a day is as a thousand years, and just a couple of days have passed since he ascended. And the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, II Peter 3:8.

Faith and hope and love still gaze upwards, imminently expecting the return of the Lord Jesus.


Did John Calvin help Nicolas Cop write his infamous inaugural address? Early in John Calvin's career, he was involved in a controversy that forced him to flee Paris and live in hiding for a time.  Calvin's friend, Nicolas Cop, delivered an address that many considered heretical, and Calvin was implicated as well.  R. C. Sproul says:

  Now it was also discovered that this student, John Calvin, helped him compose this sermon, and so, as a result of this event, Calvin also had to flee not only the city, but he had to flee France itself. (10:30–11:00)

Bruce Shelley relates the event this way:

  In the autumn of 1533, Calvin was so closely linked with his friend Nicholas Cop that when Cop gave a strongly Protestant address as rector of the university, some suspected Calvin wrote the speech. (CHPL, 269)

While Wikipedia says, without a citation:

  Calvin certainly influenced but did not write Cop's address (permalink)

So, my question is, do modern biographers of Calvin or historians of the Reformation believe:

that Calvin had a role in the actual drafting of the speech?
that Calvin had any influence on the content of the speech?
or that Calvin was accused simply because of his friendship with Cop?

That is, what is the scholarly consensus, and the basis for that consensus, on Calvin's involvement in the writing of Cop's fateful address?

According to Alexandre Ganoczy's Calvin’s Life and Context, chapter 1 in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin there is no scholarly consensus as to the extent of Calvin's involvement in Nicolas Cop's speech "made on the Feast of All Saints in 1533 at the opening of the academic year":

  Who was behind this speech? Scholarly opinions differ. Some attribute
  to Calvin merely an advisory role; others think that Calvin wrote the
  speech himself; and others attribute to Cop, the Erasmian physician, a
  time of private study and a competence in theology similar to the
  young jurist. One thing is certain: Calvin felt solidarity with Cop
  and was able to affirm his statements.

Ganoczy himself seems non-committal, as is Thomas J. Davis, Professor of Religious Studies at Indiana University. In John Calvin, he writes

  Historical evidence is ambiguous as to the authorship of Cop’s
  address. Some think Calvin wrote it, or at least had a hand in writing
  it.

Also in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, Wulfert de Greef in chapter 3, Calvin's Writings , is of the opinion that:

  Calvin was involved in drawing up Cop’s address.

De Greef does not give any reasons for his conclusion, but a more complete account can be found in Calvin: A Biography by French scholar Bernard Cottret. He is of the opinion that, while the question remains "open", Calvin probably did not write the speech but he

  participated in its writing and...he even exercised a friendly
  influence over Cop...

In arriving at this view, Cottret notes that

  Various intriguing indications show clearly Calvin's involvement at
  Nicolas Cop's side. A fragment of this text in Calvin's own hand
  exists in Geneva, while the complete version, corrected by Cop, was
  henceforth located in Strasbourg.

In a footnote, Cottret adds:

  It is probable, moreover, that the two known manuscripts are
  themselves copies of an original draft of the text.

Calvin's friendship with Cop certainly did him no favours in the eyes of the opposition. After the speech, Calvin's room was searched by the authorities, who also took his papers, but the backlash from conservatives was not aimed only at him, and nor was it entirely to do with Cop's speech. Ganoczy again:

  ...the reaction of the opposition affected Calvin exactly as it did the
  university rector: both found themselves in that constantly shifting
  middle ground of loyalty to the church and a desire for reform. In the
  eyes of the Sorbonne occupying middle ground still meant schism and
  heresy. This radically conservative group was successful in regaining
  the confidence of the king by December, 1533. He ordered the
  extermination of the “damned Lutheran sects.”

The king referred to is Francis I (1515-47) who was initially relatively tolerant of Protestantism despite pressure from pope Clement VII in August 1533 to take action against "the Lutheran heresy and other sects infesting this kingdom". The pressure and incentives to take action increased, though, as Francis was also vying with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V for the pope's favour in achieving "Christian unity". The French king, after meeting the Pope on the 10th of November in Marseilles, was able to proclaim a "diplomatic victory".

It wasn't until an unrelated incident in 1534 (see Affair of the Placards) that Calvin was forced to flee France altogether (note that Sproul is mistaken: Calvin did not flee France because of Cop's speech).


Why does the Catholic Church require miracles for someone to be canonized? Why does someone have to have a miracle (or two) attributed to them before they can  officially become a Saint? Why isn't clear evidence of a righteous lifestyle enough?

Why does someone have to have a miracle (or two) attributed to them before they can officially become a Saint? [...]

Understood as asking,

"Why is there a formal Canonization process within the Church and why are miracles required when 'clear evidence of a righteous [life ought to be sufficient]'?"

The latter part of the question is answered by this article Beatification and Canonization | New Advent:

  The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have
  been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after
  this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive
  arguments.

Why a formal process?

The answer is in the formula of canonization such as the one below:

  Therefore, today, in a solemn Mass in St. Peter's Square, before an
  immense multitude of the faithful, We have pronounced the following
  formula: In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the
  uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the
  authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter
  and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called
  frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother
  Bishops, We declare and define Blessed N to be a Saint, and We
  inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that,
  throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the
  Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
  Spirit.

Since raising someone to the altars honors the Blessed Trinity and will be for the uplifting of the Catholic faith and increase of the Christian life, the act was preceded by careful deliberation, calling frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many Bishops.

Why are miracles required?

People may be mistaken about a person's reputation for sanctity but not God. Before the real Marcial Maciel came to light, if one went by the works he founded, one might think he were a living saint.

The article Beatification and Canonization | New Advent quoted above states:

  the Church [sees] in the saints nothing more than friends and servants
  of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love.

After Jesus performs a miracle whereby a man born blind receives sight, the gospels testify that, '[we] know that God does not listen to sinners, but if any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.'

Therefore the miracles wrought through the intercession of the friends and servants of God testify to the now definitive friendship in heaven in God's presence.

Endnotes:

Please note that there are saints in heaven not formally canonized whose Solemnity [All Saints] is celebrated on November 1.
Saint Paul referred to Christians as "saints". This is the calling for everyone.
For canonizations, the pope may, and does, use one of two methods, each constituting a new species of canonization, i.e. formal canonization and equivalent canonization. [cf. the New advent article linked above].

Further reading:

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION DIVINUS PERFECTIONIS MAGISTER | Pope St. John Paul II [the Great].
NEW LAWS FOR THE CAUSES OF SAINTS promulgated in 1983 | CONGREGATION FOR THE CAUSES OF SAINTS.

Please note Can. 1403 §1.

  Special pontifical law1 governs the causes of canonization of the
  servants of God.

1. Please see the preceding bullet points.


What was the reason why the Jews specifically used the substitute Adonay/Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton? God has one name. ‘’I am Yhwh and that is my name’’ (אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה ה֣וּא שְׁמִ֑י Isaiah 42:8).

In the Hebrew Pentateuch the name of God was the Tetragrammaton (the four letter) ‘Yhwh’.

The Jews respected the Hebrew name of God so much to the point of actually using a substitute word for the divine name which was ‘Adonay’ (my Lord) whenever they spoke of it or read of it in the Tanakh. The exilic Jews followed this tradition of using a substitute for the divine name and they translated the name of God as Kyrios in Greek as found in the Septuagint. Kyrios simply means ‘master, owner, lord’.

What was the reason why the Jews specifically used the substitute Adonay/Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton?

Here is an answer from a Jewish perspective.

The Bible calls G-d Y-h-v-h, which is called “the Tetragrammaton,” which means a four-letter word. While the Tetragrammaton appears on Torah scrolls, even today, Jews say it as Adonai whenever they read the Torah (more on that later).

Many think that this is the name of G-d in the Hebrew Bible, but this is not true. It is a description of how G-d functions in the universe. Thus, when Moses asks G-d in 3:13, the people “will say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what should I say to them?” G-d replies, “‘I am that I am’." Virtually all Jewish commentators and rabbis understand verse 14 to be saying that this is describing how G-d functions or acts. It is not a name.

Since ancient times, Jews have avoided using the Tetragrammaton out of respect around 250 BCE. When they translated the Bible into Greek in Egypt, they substituted the Tetragrammaton for the Greek word Kurios, which means “Lord.” Around 250 the Jews began to substitute Kurios for the Hebrew version of Kurios, Adonai, which also means “Lord.” Eventually, Jews began to treat Adonai as the Tetragrammaton and reverted to the new circumlocution Hashem, meaning The Name. Out of respect, Jews no longer use Adonai, substituting Hashem in its place. Yet others went as far as to write the word "God" as G-d.

Similarly, the word “Elohim” is not a name for G-d but a function. In English it is G-d. The word el is the singular of Elohim, which means “powerful.” Idols, too, is called el, because the ancients felt that these idols were also powerful. G-d is called Elohim (plural) in the Bible because G-d is more powerful than anything else.


According to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are there any doctrinal barriers to Christians sharing places of worship with non-Christians? Hagia Sophia was originally the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople, then the chief mosque of the Ottoman Empire, then a museum. A few days ago, it reverted to being a mosque once more. Numerous Christian religious leaders have decried this last transition (as, in my opinion, they ought to), but it left me wondering what a long-term resolution of the matter would actually look like.
The building could, in principle, revert to being a church. Personally, I feel that, given the centuries of history that Muslims have with said structure, this would be unjust; and, in any case, short of a Christian reconquest of Constantinople/Istanbul, it's never going to happen. Atatürk's compromise of turning the building into a museum seems well-intentioned but ultimately unsatisfactory: this building was built for the glory of God.
The one remaining option that I can see is to share the building. Christianity's and Islam's holy days seldom overlap. Could the building be a church on Sundays and a mosque on Fridays? I'm a practising Roman Catholic myself, and I can't think of any insurmountable reason forbidding sharing a place of worship outright. There are, after all, stories of Catholic priests celebrating the eucharist in Auschwitz; I can't imagine that any putative unholiness brought on by reciting the Quran could compete with an extermination camp. But I'm far from an expert, and I hardly need to add that the Eastern Orthodox perspective would be essential in the case of Hagia Sophia.
And, of course, Hagia Sophia is just a prominent example. There are plenty of other locations, e.g. the Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba, where it might be reasonable for Christians to share a place of worship with another faith.

According to current Catholic Canon Law, sharing a space in the manner proposed would pose problems.
Canon 1205: "Sacred places are those which are designated for divine worship or for the burial of the faithful by a dedication or a blessing which the liturgical books prescribe for this purpose."
Canon 1210: Only those things which serve the exercise or promotion of worship, piety, or religion are permitted in a sacred place; anything not consonant with the holiness of the place is forbidden. In an individual case, however, the ordinary can permit other uses which are not contrary to the holiness of the place.
While it might be justifiable for a non-Catholic Christian group to use a Catholic space in accord with their customs as long as in the church "cleanliness and beauty are preserved as befit a house of God and that whatever is inappropriate to the holiness of the place is excluded." Canon 1220, that would be much harder to support for a religion entirely distinct and theologically at odds with Catholicism.
The comparison to Auschwitz is unsuitable. One case is making due with the best which is possible given the circumstances (i.e. the alternative would be not having Mass at all) and the other would be an ongoing situation. Canon Law, like civil/common law has a general, but not absolute law principle along the lines of necessity not obligating strictly (or you are not bound to the impossible).


What are Presbyters in Presbyterian groups supposed to be? Are Presbyters in Presbyterian groups the same thing St. Luke calls Presbyters in Acts 11:30, which seems to be more like a congregation of elders or what St. Peter calls a Presbyter in 1 Peter 5, which I think is more like a priest?

The word that is translated Presbyter in both places (or elder in some translations) is πρεσβύτερος or presbyteros. (Strong's G4245)

There were four types of leader in the early church:
1. apostles (ἀπόστολος or apostolos meaning delegate or messenger)
2. bishops (ἐπισκοπή or episkopē meaning overseer or guardian)
3. presbyters (πρεσβύτερος or presbyteros meaning elder)
4. deacons (διακονέω or diakoneō meaning servant or minister)

The Presbyterian church takes it's name from the presbyterian method of church governance. It's a "bottom up" approach instead of the "top-down", episcopal method favored by the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Methodist churches. It's a church governed by the presbyters instead of the bishops. It's not always clear from the Biblical texts who had which responsibilities but in the Catholic church, presbyters ended up being called priests. That carries over to the protestant denominations. The presbyter or elder, does what a priest does in Catholicism: lead worship, administer sacraments, council, teach, etc. Churches group together and then groups group together to form a presbytery which is a council of Church elders who govern the churches within their respective groups.

So, I suppose the short answer to your question is that they're both.

Presbyterian Polity


Recommendations for Ancient Greek NT "versions" What are some methods I can use to look for and find an Ancient Greek Bible that I can buy and use? My goal is to find one that would be as accurate as possible to the manuscripts. If my use of "manuscripts" is vague (b/c not all manuscripts were EXACTLY the same) or represents a naiveté of the subject, please correct me. And if so, perhaps this next question can be answered: Is there a version of an Ancient Greek Bible that is generally held to be the most reliable? That would probably be the one I want to get my hands on.

The Nestle-Aland/UBS text is standard. This is an edited text which shows what the editors think the original text was most likely to be based on the evidence they have researched. The NA and UBS names refer to two editions of the same base text. They have occasional differences in punctuation or spelling, but the main difference is their apparatus. The main body of the text shows what the editors think is the most reliable option for each verse, but it then has detailed footnotes showing the evidence for all the textual variants, as well as a confidence rating. The apparatus shows not just which families of texts have which variants, but even lists the individual manuscripts for hundreds of the earliest known manuscripts. Even if you disagree with the editors' choices, the apparatus is an invaluable tool, letting you see the evidence to make up your own mind. The biggest difference between the NA and UBS editions is their apparatus: the NA apparatus is somewhat more detailed, while the UBS apparatus has some material that is useful for translators. Copies of the UBS5 text are $31USD with free shipping worldwide at the Book Depository. (The description is in German, but this is the same ISBN as those sold in Australia so I'm pretty sure it's got English footnotes.)

Or if you're happy with a digital text then the SBL GNT is free. It is a different edited text that mostly agrees with the Nestle-Aland/UBS text, but disagrees in 540 places (out of possibly as many as half a million total textual variants). Its main draw back is its inferior apparatus, which lists other edited texts rather than their sources. But hey, it's free!

The Tyndale GNT is another new option, but I don't have any personal experience with it yet.


What is the scriptural basis for gluttony being a sin? Gluttony is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. What is the scriptural basis for it being a sin at all (much less a severe enough sin to be a deadly one)?

Vices (Capital / Deadly Sins) are opposed to Virtues

Soundbyte answer (scripture)

  Sirach 18:33 Become not a glutton and a winebibber with nothing in your purse.

Scripture supporting the virtue of Temperance, which is Gluttony's opposite:

Esther 1:7 Esther 1:8 ; Proverbs 23:1-3 ; 25:16 ; Daniel 1:8 Daniel
1:12-16 ; Romans 13:14 ; 1 Corinthians 9:25 1 Corinthians 9:27 ;
Philippians 4:5 ; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8 ; 1 Timothy 3:2 1 Timothy 3:3
1 Timothy 3:8 ; Titus 1:7 Titus 1:8 ; Titus 2:2 Titus 2:3 Titus 2:12
; 2 Peter 1:5 2 Peter 1:6; Sirach 37: 28-30

Reasoning based on scripture for why a vice (for example gluttony) is a sin.

Most of the scriptural support for that position relates to temperance (ample citations in both OT and NT).  Since gluttony is in opposition to temperance, and temperance is a virtue, and temperance is amply cited in scripture as how one should behave, then gluttony is framed as a sin, though its character as a sin becomes a matter of degree.

The Definition of Sin

  CCC 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it
  is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse
  attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures
  human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a
  desire contrary to the eternal law."(Saint Augustine).

The four cardinal virtues taught from the Roman Catholic perspective are:
prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.  (CCC 1805; Wisdom 8:7)  Scripture supports Temperance as a virtue.  To directly oppose virtue is to pursue or to commit (or to be predisposed to commit) sin.

Note: gluttony may be classified a venial sin, rather than as a mortal sin.  It's being "deadly" or "capital" is not negated by that classification.  Like other venial sin, it predisposes one to sin in general. In due course, this is believed to lead to more serious (mortal) sin.

  1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

To put that in modern jargon, some sins (mortal) put you in the waiting line to get into Hell.  Without an explicit turning back to God, repentance, baking or broiling is in the cards.  Lesser sin (venial) puts you on the highway to hell, but there is more time or hope for a detour (through Christ, reconciliation, repentance, penance, prayer, etc) to turn around.  (From the older meaning of repentance, which is "to turn again, toward God" -- the connotation being that you turned away from God through sin in the first place).

Confusion in terms.  Mortal sin ("sin unto death") is the condition or state wherein life {eternal life, life with God} is either voided, at risk, or in some way a first class ticket to damnation.  What is now referred to as capital sin (to avoid confusion, I suppose, from deadly sin meaning mortal sin) may not necessarily be deadly (mortal) but it also may be.  (For example, another vice, lust can be or can lead to mortal sin per Jesus' admonition about those who lust after another's wife already being adulterers ...)

A variety of scripture on avoiding sin (to whatever degree) is folded into the tradition of classifying the seven deadly sins / seven capital sins.  (This answer is confined to the Catholic perspective. @DickHarfield has provided some historical context on the origins of this belief: the Catechism cites the same tradition).

What are vices? (Capital / Deadly sins)

  V. The Proliferation of Sin
  CCC 1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts.  This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce
  itself and reinforce itself ...
  CCC  1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called "capital" because they engender other sins, other vices.  They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.

Gluttony as a deadly sin (Capital sin)

The vice (capital sin/deadly sin) of gluttony is opposed to the virtue of temperance.  It is considered a capital sin because it leads to sin and near occasions of sin.  Why?  Focus in earthly/fleshy/material things, things of the world, rather than focus on God. (1 John 2:6-17, per @Marc's citation).

What is temperance?

  CCC 1809 Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of
  pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will's mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits
  of what is honorable.  The temperate person directs the sensitive
  appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: "Do
  not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the
  desires of your heart."  (Sirach 5:12) Temperance is praised in the Old
  Testament: "Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your
  appetites." (Sirach 18:30)  In the New Testament it is called "moderation" or "sobriety." We ought "to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this
  world. (Titus 2:12)"

Given the virtue presented, avoidance of the opposed vice follows.  When temperance is not pursued, sin will follow.

An example from the book of Sirach.

  Sirach 18:30
  27 A wise man is circumspect in all things; when sin is rife he keeps himself from wrongdoing.
  28  Any learned man should make wisdom known, and he who attains to her should declare her praise;
  29  Those trained in her words must show their wisdom, dispensing sound proverbs like life-giving waters.
  30  Go not after your lusts, but keep your desires in check.
  31  If you satisfy your lustful appetites they will make you the sport of your
  enemies.
  32  Have no joy in the pleasures of a moment which bring on poverty redoubled;
  33  Become not a glutton and a winebibber with nothing in your purse.

An example from the epistle to Titus 2:11-14

  11 For the grace of God has appeared, saving all  12 and training us
  to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live
  temperately, justly, and devoutly in this age,   13 as we await the blessed hope, the appearance* of the glory of the great God and of
  our savior Jesus Christ,   14 who gave himself for us to deliver us
  from all lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a people as
  his own, eager to do what is good.

(Lawlessness implies sin / vice)

A "deadly" sin may be, or may lead to, mortal sin.  It's a matter of degree.

Gluttony is at least (as a vice) a venial sin.  Self indulgence is believed to lead to other sin due to focus on the flesh/world, away from God.  It can go from deadly to mortal depending on whether a person indulges themselves in it.  It remains capital/deadly in the sense that it leads us in the wrong direction, which ultimately (if left uncorrected) can only lead to one place: damnation.

A crude physical analogy:
There are varying degrees of physical danger (analog for sin) via ingestion.

Heavy drinking/alcoholism (venial) can lead to death, but there is
time, for all the wrong that it does, to reverse the trend. It may also lead to drunk driving and either killing one's self, or killing someone else. (mortal sin).
Drinking hemlock (mortal) leads straight to death.

(note l) In love, we pray (1 Jn 5:16–17) for those who are in sin, but not in deadly sin (literally, “sin unto death”), probably referring to apostasy or activities brought on under the antichrist;


What's so bad about monoergism and monothelitism? Two early heresies that intrigue me a bit are monoergism and monothelitism.  Both basically suggest that while Jesus was both human and divine, he only had one "energy" or one "will."  Both were eventually called heresy by the church, but why? Does this this guard against the frankly worse heresy of Nestorianism?.  What is so bad about these heresies? What practical effect does it have on one's perception of Jesus if we fall into this trap?

I was trying to explain these two Christological concepts to an unsaved friend of mine, and he said, "Oh, so you're talking about the opposite of demon-possession - that Jesus the man was simply possessed by God."

Stripping that analogy down to its essentials, I think he may be on to something.  If Jesus only had one "energy" or one will, then Jesus is essentially a docetist God, only appearing to be man.  If his humanity is scooped out and overridden by God's indwelling, then he can't really identify with humanity.  To hold to a monothelitist idea is to say that God only "appeared" to be human - but a lobotomized human isn't really all that human.

As such, to hold to this heresy would be to make a mockery of the incarnation.  God may have taken on flesh and bone, but not mind and spirit.

And, if he didn't, then he didn't know jack about every Tom. Dick, and Harry out there...


Why is the Notre Dame Cathedral not a Major Basilica? The April, 2019 fire brought the Notre Dame Cathedral of Paris into limelight all across the world. It is said to be home to many important relics including the Crown of Thorn traditionally believed to have been worn by the Lord on the cross. My question is: Why has the Catholic Church not extended the status of a Major Basilica to Notre Dame Cathedral ?

There are only 4 Major Basilica's and they're all in Rome.  They all have feast days celebrating their dedications (Which might be one less saint to celebrate).  They have a special blessing associated with a pilgrimage to each of them (and others, in Rome).  Rosaries depicting the 4 major basilicas would be obselete.

A better question might be, why isn't it a Minor Basilica.


Are the ancient indulgences still valid, those decreed by the previous Popes? I found in a 1676 old book that indulgences are granted to the people who wear their rosary around the neck, around the wrist or at the belt.

Is it still valid ?

Are the ancient indulgences still valid, those decreed by the previous Popes?

The short answer is possibly but doubtful. Some are valid but not all.

The reason I say possibly but doubtful lies in fact whether the indulgence in question was partial or plenary and were the objects blessed by a priest or not as well as if the particular indulgence was requested to stay in force.

In Pope Paul VI's new rules for indulgences were published in his Indulgentiarum Doctrina he states the following:

  Transitional Norms

  These new norms regulating the acquisition of indulgences will become valid three months from the date of publication of this constitution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

  Indulgences attached to the use of religious objects which are not mentioned above cease three months after the date of publication of this constitution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

  The revisions mentioned in n. 14 and n. 15 must be submitted to the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary within a year. Two years after the date of this constitution, indulgences which have not been confirmed will become null and void.

  We will that these statutes and prescriptions of ours be established now and remain in force for the future notwithstanding, if it is necessary so to state, the constitutions and apostolic directives published by our predecessors or any other prescriptions even if they might be worthy of special mention or should otherwise require partial repeal.

  Given at Rome at St. Peter's on January 1, the octave of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 1967, the fourth year of Our Pontificate.

Norms 14 and 15 are as follows:

  n. 14 — The lists and summaries of indulgences special to religious orders, congregations, societies of those living in community without vows, secular institutes and the pious associations of faithful are to be revised as soon as possible in such a way that plenary indulgences may be acquired only on particular days established by the Holy See acting on the recommendation of the Superior General, or in the case of pious associations, of the local Ordinary.

  n. 15 — A plenary indulgence applicable only to the dead can be acquired in all churches and public oratories—and in semipublic oratories by those who have the right to use them — on November 2.

The present list of indulgences can be found in Pope John Paul II's Enchiridion Indulgentiarum of July 16, 1999.

I know that some of those ancient indulgences are still good, but which ones I am unaware of. I will look for a possible list to add to this response.

Some Franciscans still wear their rosaries on their belts. I am guessing that this particular indulgence is still valid. Historically they had a stone in the place of the Crucifix as they thought it was not appropriate to have a crucifix dangling near the ground.

  What does the Catholic Church say?  Here it becomes less clear-cut:

  Pope Innocent XI, 1679: To those who openly wear the rosary out of devotion and to set a good example: a hundred days’ indulgence — confirmed by our Holy Father Pope Innocent XI on 31st July 1679, and received and made public by the Archbishop of Paris on 25th September of the same year.

  Canon Law: ‘Sacred objects, set aside for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated with reverence. They are not to be made over to secular or inappropriate use, even though they may belong to private persons.’

  Catholic Answers: Essentially, sacramentals such as rosaries must be treated with respect, particularly if they have been blessed. Reverence is the attitude of awe or respect that is most often given to sacred things. By its very definition, it is an interior disposition that usually cannot be determined by onlookers by appearances alone. A person may be wearing a rosary as a statement of faith, to keep it handy for praying throughout the day, or to avoid losing it. Those reasons would be indicative of reverence and would not interfere with the canon’s directive that sacramentals must be treated reverently.

Obviously, if this indulgence does still exist it would now listed as a partial indulgence.

Seeing the historical nature of wearing a rosary, I would be incline to say that it still exists, but will confirm when possible. Nevertheless the rosary must be blessed by a priest or bishop.

  Artistic evidence in the later 1600s suggests that it is in that period that the wearing of the Rosary, now on the belt, finally became a “universal” custom. It is very difficult to trace the introduction of customs, but artistic representations are usually a good indication, and it is in the 1660s and 1670s, that artists first begin to portray Dominican saints wearing a Rosary. A good example from this period is the painting to the right by the Spanish late-Baroque painter Claudio Coello (1642–93), which shows St. Dominic wearing the Fifteen-Decade Dominican Rosary. I do not claim that this is the earliest example of this iconography, only the earliest I have found. If a reader knows of a dated earlier example, I would be happy to add it to this post.

  Dominicans wearing rosaries and cappelli romani (Roman hats)

  It is interesting that the same artist knew that St. Rose of Lima (1586–1617) would have worn her Rosary around her neck, as that was the practice among Dominicans in Peru during her time. This, even though he has all the rest of her dress incorrect, painting her in the habit of a cloistered nun, rather than in the Tertiary habit she would have worn, with a white veil, no scapular, white tunic, and black mantle.

  The Dominican Habit and the Holy Rosary

Helpful sources:

The rosary — should you be wearing it?


Is there a sound doctrine or biblical explanation why Satan is called "the ape of God"? I encountered this word in the book entitled "The Devil", I forgot the name of the author. It was Tertullian who called Satan the "ape of God" but offered very little explanation.

We know from the bible references Satan was attributed to the serpent, roaring lion and ancient dragon.  This description is supported by biblical references in Genesis, Revelation and 1Peter 5:8.

But to call Satan "the ape of God" - is there a sound Catholic biblical perspective on this, or perhaps an early Church writing, explaining the soundness of this phrase?

Is there a sound doctrine or biblical explanation why Satan is called the “Ape of God”?

The Adversary, in waging war against the Almighty, is understood to copy all of his acts and attributes. Popular tradition, moreover, asserts that the Devil, impotent to do anything original, has set his heart on aping
everything created by the Deity.
Tertullian was led to declare that "Satan imitates the sacraments of God" and "goes about to apply to the worship of the idols those very things of which the administration of Christ's sacraments consists.”
Tertullian has already said that the Devil, as the ape of the Deity, practices baptism on his subjects. -  Diabolus Simia Dei

St. Augustine of Hippo says this about the ”Ape of God”:

Dr. Farr says, “In Eph. 5:18, two possible sources of simulation are indicated - drunkenness and Deity; full of wine or full of the Spirit. Satan was called by Augustine Simius Dei, the Ape of God, because he counterfeits the work of God. Human nature needs a stimulus of some kind. Doubtless, the Holy Spirit was intended to be the only original stimulus of humanity, but Satan invented alcohol as a substitute, stealing the nomenclature of the truth to mask the lie, i.e., Aqua vitae, eau de vie.” - Outline Studies in Christian Doctrine

The Encyclopedia Britannica adds the following:

Among the early Church Fathers, the idea of Satan as the antagonist of Christ led to a mythical interpretation of the incarnation and disguise in the “form of a servant.” Through this disguise the Son of God makes his heavenly origin unrecognizable to Satan. In some medieval depictions Christ appears as the “bait” cast before Satan, after which Satan grasps because he believes Christ to be an ordinary human being subject to his power. In the Middle Ages a further feature was added: the understanding of the Devil as the “ape of God,” who attempts to imitate God through spurious, malicious creations that he interpolates for, or opposes to, the divine creations.

St. Augustine actually liked comparing the Devil to animals, as it is something our imaginations can understand.
The saints have their own specific way that they name or describe the devil and each description manifests a different dimension of the evil of the devil himself.  St. Augustine also calls him an angry dog bound to a chain.

He (the devil) is tied up like a dog on a chain, and can only bite someone who, deathly sure of himself, goes near him. Wouldn’t you think a man a fool who let hiimself be bitten by a chained up dog?
He can only bite those who willingly let him. It is not by force, but by persuasion, that he harms: he asks for our consent, he does not drag it from us. - Augustine on the binding of the devil

Finally, the Prince of the Apostles, St Peter calls the devil “a roaring lion seeking whom he can devour…”  This Biblical name as well as names that the saints have coined for us can help us to understand the malicious intent of the devil!