How do Roman Catholics interpret 1 Timothy 4:3 In it's context in the NRSVCE (including section title):

False Asceticism
4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. 3 They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer. (1 Timothy 4:1-5 NRSVCE, emphasis added)

This passage appears to list forbidding marriage and demanding abstinence from foods as examples of 'teachings of demons'.
It seems that to enter the priesthood in the Latin rite either a promise (for diocesan priests) or a vow (for religious priests) of celibacy is required.  The best argument I've seen so far on this issue, argues that this isn't a 'requirement' but only something entered into voluntarily. But on the surface, this argument seems somewhat at odds with language used in some of the sections of the ordination ceremony of the Latin rite subdiaconate:

You ought anxiously to consider again and again what sort of a burden this is which you are taking upon you of your own accord. Up to this you are free. You may still, if you choose, turn to the aims and desires of the world (licet vobis pro artitrio ad caecularia vota transire). But if you receive this order (of the subdiaconate) it will no longer be lawful to turn back from your purpose. You will be required to continue in the service of God, and with His assistance to observe chastity and to be bound for ever in the ministrations of the Altar, to serve who is to reign. (Source, emphasis added)*

Even if the initial decision was voluntary, the process seems to admit no possibility for a later change.  A priest (in the Latin rite) is certainly forbidden from resiling from an earlier intention to remain celibate and to instead pursue marriage.
In regard to 'demanding abstinence from foods', I note that there has been a change since Vatican II, but we still have:

On Ash Wednesday and all of the Fridays of Lent, Catholics over the age of 14 are required to abstain from meat and from foods made with meat. (Source, emphasis added)

Now that doesn't sound particularly voluntary does it?
So what is the Catholic understanding of this verse and why isn't it referring to their practices in these areas?

edit: *I accept Matt Gutting's assurance that the order of the sub-diaconate has been dissolved and the particular text quoted is now only of historical interest and not necessarily a corresponding match to the instructions currently given to modern candidates for the Catholic priesthood. While I'm not sure that this has a significant effect on the underlying issue my question stems from (I'm not aware of a substantial change in the character of, or the requirements for the priesthood post-Vatican II), I'm certainly willing to update this reference to current intructions (or the recommended promissory/avowed responses) if someone is kind enough to provide the text for them.

I don't see this particular passage referred to in, for example, the Summa Theologica (where I might expect to see it in an Objection to a discussion of whether priests should be celibate). In fact, I don't see in the Summa (though surely it must be somewhere) any discussion of the question of priestly celibacy.

In the (standard Catholic) New American Bible, Revised Edition, the words are slightly different than in the translation you quote (highlighting the differences):

  Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer.

Note the perhaps significant omission of the comma after the word "foods".

This appears to point the meaning of the passage to things that will happen in "the end times", not now; and perhaps things that are wrong when enjoined generally, not in particular.

There is no note in the text about the third verse in particular, though a note on the passage as a whole reads:

  Doctrinal deviations from the true Christian message within the church have been prophesied, though the origin of the prophecy is not specified (1 Tm 4:1–2); cf. Acts 20:29–30. The letter warns against a false asceticism that prohibits marriage and regards certain foods as forbidden, though they are part of God’s good creation (1 Tm 4:3).

In addition, consider Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7:8:

  Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do

which appears to endorse celibacy for those not currently married (though the rest of the chapter accepts marriage as a godly state, under the principle of "everyone should accept the life to which he was called").

It seems, then, that to the extent that the Catholic Church has a particular interpretation of this verse, it interprets it to mean that celibacy and fasting are wrong when enjoined on everyone at all times, but not if enjoined on particular groups or at particular times.

With respect to the words of the ordination to the subdiaconate: Keep in mind that the Order of the Subdiaconate was dissolved over 40 years ago; it's not surprising that you're looking at words (probably dating back to the time of the Council of Trent) that take a very strict view of celibacy. There are two Orders in the Church now: deacons and priests. The Order of Deacons is no longer simply a "first step" to the priesthood; deacons are ordained as permanent deacons. They are under no immediate obligation of celibacy, and indeed I've known very few unmarried permanent deacons. They are, however, obliged not to marry after their ordination.

Priests are, of course, obliged to be celibate at as well as after their ordination; but even there the requirement can be dispensed from. I've known a couple of married Latin-rite priests. They were ordained Anglican priests who converted to Catholicism and petitioned Pope Paul VI to allow them to become priests. He dispensed them from the requirement of celibacy. I don't believe such a dispensation is in the cards again; but it is possible (the Code of Canon Law, canon 1042 note 1, lists marriage as an impediment to ordination, but canon 1047, section 2, note 3 allows the Pope to dispense from this requirement).

As far as abstinence from meat: This is a traditional Catholic observation; however, it's not strictly necessary. Canon 1253 states:

  The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

So it's not an absolute requirement; in addition, if an individual has (for example) a medical condition which would be worsened by abstinence from meat, he or she is excused from that requirement. The USCCB's website states:

  A.  Those that are excused from fast and abstinence outside the age limits include the physically or mentally ill including individuals suffering from chronic illnesses such as diabetes.  Also excluded are pregnant or nursing women.  In all cases, common sense should prevail, and ill persons should not further jeopardize their health by fasting.

(emphasis added)


Why was the mark of Cain necessary? In Genesis 4:14-15 (NRSV) it says:

  14 I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.’ 15 Then the Lord said to him, ‘Not so! Whoever  kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.’ And the Lord put a mark on Cain

Who could possibly kill Cain if Adam and Eve are the first people?

Cain was not married at that time (suggesting he was young) and was the first born there doesn't seem to be a rational explanation that someone that was born of Adam could have grown up without knowing Cain and attack him while he was wandering.

First, it doesn't necessarily say that Cain was the first born, only the first who did anything significant enough to be included in the record.

Second, even if Cain was the first son, that doesn't preclude Adam being the one to hypothetically take vengeance.  For example, The Law of Moses included a passage requiring parents of incorrigible adult children to be the ones to bring the accusation before the elders of the city.  (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21.  And as shocking as this may sound, consider the psychological effect: it makes an amazing motivator for parents to make sure their kids turn out well!)

Also, when you consider that Genesis tells of people living for centuries, there's no reason why someone born after Cain wouldn't have grown to adulthood, then run across him, recognized or found out who he was, and tried to take vengeance into their own hands.


What is the Biblical basis against the existence of one "ideal" spouse for each person? What is a Biblical rebuttal of the belief that there is one right person (a soulmate) to be your spouse?

Finding the Right Spouse Not Really Biblical

The history of marriage in the Bible seems to provide little basis for the idea that we must find "the one right person in the entire world."  Abraham remarried after Sarah died and, as the saying goes, "had many sons".  Abraham's servant chose a bride for Isaac, so Isaac certainly had no opportunity to find the right one for him.  Jacob actually chose one and ended up getting the one he wanted and another one he didn't want (or expect).

A problem with the idea of "the one right person in the entire world" is that more often than we would like, tragedy strikes and a spouse dies.  That leads to the surviving spouse finding another "one right person in the entire world," who presumably was not the "one right person in the entire world" while the other "one right person in the world" was living.

Finding the Right Kind of Person

There is, however, good reason to seek "the right kind" of spouse.  The passage about being "equally yoked" is often quoted to support the idea that believer should not marry unbelievers.  It would seem, however, that the verse is broader than marriage and broader than just believer to unbeliever.  A large discrepancy in the commitment level of two people to Christ could certainly be problematic.  One person who is deeply committed to Christ could probably experience a lot of grief if the spouse prioritizes other things over church and such things as that.

  Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has
  righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with
  darkness?  2 Corinthians 6:14 ESV

So, it is wise to look for a godly person with integrity and honor who is emotionally healthy, not selfish, who you would be friends with even if you weren't married to them.

Be the Right Person

The Bible actually gives a lot of instructions, not about finding the right spouse, but about being the right spouse.  Husbands are commanded to love their wives sacrificially, as Christ modeled in His sacrifice for the church.  Wives are urged to respect their husbands.

  25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave
  himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her
  by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the
  church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such
  thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same
  way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves
  his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but
  nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because
  we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father
  and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one
  flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to
  Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife
  as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.  Ephesians 5:25-33 ESV

We are not accountable for the life and actions of others, but we are, indeed, accountable for our own lives and actions.  So, we are responsible to become the person God calls us to be.

We should each seek to become a caring, servant-minded, giving, humble, honorable, faithful, godly person of integrity and honor--not just try to find someone like that to marry who then has to put up with us for the rest of their lives.


Why can't Jesus periodically visit Earth? “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

Matthew 24:36

The Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus will return someday. All Christians yearn for his return.

But why is Jesus scheduled to return only once at some indefinite time in the future?

Why can't He periodically visit Earth?

Is he "busy" visiting other planets? Does he need to do "chores" in Heaven?

John 16:

  7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

I have heard it said that Jesus going away physically allows for God to be spiritually with everyone.  One can imagine the "scandal" if Jesus were only to visit a few people in bodily form, once in a while. Wouldn't it be a bummer if your spouse said, "Jesus stopped by before you got home from work and gave me a big hug: I really needed it."


Epiphaneus: “Martyrdom of Peter and Paul” I’m researching a particular subject in Epiphanius’ writings and have found every often listed reference except one, despite a long, wearying search in every nook and cranny of Google.

This reference is entitled Martyrium Petri et Pauli in Latin, possibly (also) entitled Martyrdom of Peter and Paul in English.

Chapter 1 alone would suffice, but I MUST see the actual text in the original Greek, if possible. Regrettably, I have seen no further bibliographical details.

The complete works of Epiphanius (as of the end of the 19th century) can be found in the Patrologia Graeca. His works constitute volumes 41 and 42, and part of 43. There are two "analytical" (i.e. topical) indices for his works: one for volumes 41–42 and one for volume 43. I can't see a reference to "martyr", "Peter", or "Paul" in any applicable sense in either index. It appears that either this is a newly discovered work (though I don't see it in, for example, the Wikipedia article on Epiphanius), or there is a mis-attribution of some sort.


I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, but considering attending a Greek Orthodox church instead of our local RC church. Will I be welcomed? I am Roman Catholic, but am considering attending an (Greek)Eastern Orthodox Church on Sundays instead of my local RC Church. Will I be able to receive communion? What differences should I expect? I understand that the Divine Liturgy is different from Catholic "mass", but as I read about the reasons for the split back in 1054 I have recently realized that I tend to lean toward the Orthodox beliefs.

I cannot speak for whether the Orthodox will welcome you or not, although I'm fairly sure they'll push for you to convert, that is, formally leave the Catholic Church and join the Orthodox one; depending on the Church, they might even not recognize your baptism as valid and thus require you to be baptized again, though most will allow conversion through chrismation.
Regarding the Catholic Church, however, Canon 844 forbids Catholic faithful to receive Eucharist from non-Catholic ministers except in emergencies:

Can.  844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.
§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

So, if you're somewhere there are no Catholic priests, and you understand that it is better for you as a Catholic to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic priest (even if Eastern) rather than a non-Catholic one, you may go receive it from an Orthodox or Old Catholic or some other kind of non-Catholic priest with a valid Apostolic Succession and Eucharistic prayer.  It doesn't seem to be the case with you, though; so I would recommend looking for an Eastern Catholic parish near your home, where you may participate in Byzantine (or Antiochene, or Alexandrian) Divine Liturgy and remain in the Barque of Peter.
One more point, raised by AthanasiusOfAlex in the comments, is that Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox Church also does not fulfill Sunday obligation (save in the case of some very small Eastern Churches where the Church in question and her Orthodox sister have formally agreed to share priests).
The relevant Canon is 1248:

Can.  1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.
§2. If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families.

Again, all these issues do magically solve themselves if you manage to find an Eastern Rite parish somewhere you can attend; then you may attend Divine Liturgy there and never worry about violating any Canons, or worse, receiving Communion illicitly or invalidly.


How do we know Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception? Luke 1:26-26:

  26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Many other Bible verses talk about Mary's virginity, even to the point that the Catholic church teaches she was a virgin her entire life*.

What evidence exists (either Biblical or extra-Biblical) to support the claim that she was indeed a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception?

*This question is not asking whether Mary was a perpetual virgin; only for evidence that she was a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived.

Matthew 1:25 (NIV)

  But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

This shows that she didn't have sex with Joseph until she had given birth.

Furthermore, it fulfilled prophecy:

Matthew 1:22-23 (NIV)

  22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

From the prophecy of Isaiah:

Isaiah 7:14 (NIV)

  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

From a different gospel, we have this account:

Luke 1:30-35 (NIV)

  30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

  34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

  35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

If you want, we can get into the Greek and Hebrew here, but it's pretty clear all over that she had not had sex with anyone and yet she became pregnant.


Did Mormons have a "blood oath" ceremony before April 1990? This YouTube video shows what it claims to be an "endowment ceremony" recorded using a hidden camera in 2012. The description below the video says that

  The audio portion of this video was recorded in a Mormon Temple
  "endowment ceremony" in 1984. The video portion was recorded in a
  Mormon Temple in 2012 with the 1984 audio playing over the appropriate
  part of the video in an effort to reenact one of the penalties (aka
  "blood oaths") as they were prior to April, 1990.

  This video represents what the penalty for revealing the 1st token of
  the Melchizedek Priesthood prior to April, 1990. The Mormon (aka LDS)
  Church removed the "penalties" from the endowment ceremony in April,
  1990. In addition to pantomiming their own disembowelment, all participants would also draw their right thumb across their own throat
  in a slitting motion and they would also make a clawing motion on
  their chest to pantomime having their own heart ripped from their
  chest.

At the beginning, the video says:

  Prior to April, 1990, everyone who participated in the Mormon Temple
  endowment ceremony was required to swear oaths of secrecy that were
  punishable by death.

Did Mormons actually have a ceremony as described above before April 1990? If they did, which part of the canon is the ceremony based on?

Please understand that you are asking questions about a ceremony that is considered the most sacred of our ordinances and that does involve secrecy.  Before I give you my answer, please understand that the purpose of the secrecy is not really to hide things others shouldn't know or wouldn't understand.  The purpose of the secrecy is to teach us a very valuable lesson in integrity.  To make my point: I once asked a friend of mine, a convert to the LDS faith, about the ceremonies of the Masons, of which she was a member.  She wouldn't reveal what she had promised to keep secret even though she was no longer a Mason --- she understood the point.

Yes, there were penalties as part of the Endowment Ceremony prior to 1990.  No, I will not tell you what they were because I covenanted to keep those things secret (I was endowed in 1984).  Penalties were not an uncommon thing in many societal ceremonies of the 1800's as they were a very visceral way of helping generally uneducated people to understand the sobriety of the covenants.  There is no specific scripture that teaches the need for the penalties.  Indeed, there is no specific scripture that requires the secrets.  There is a scripture that teaches why the Church implements procedures that help teach lessons in integrity.  D&C 84:54-55:

  And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief,
  and because you have treated lightly the things you have
  received—which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under
  condemnation.

As people became more educated, the need for the penalties diminished, and were finally discontinued.  We no longer need such blunt tools to teach a well educated membership a lesson in integrity.

Having said that, I would like to point out that the person who captured the video has failed the test of integrity and didn't understand the point of the secrecy at all.  Why should the Lord trust such a person?  Why should we?  It is also worth pointing out the disrespect shown by those who have promulgated the video.  Doesn't the Golden Rule teach that if you want to be treated with respect, you should first show it?  Many people interpret our reluctance to discuss our Endowment Ceremony as proof there is some nefarious intent.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  If we suggest that the covenant of Baptism is made in our spiritual infancy, granting us time to learn how to stand before the Lord with honor, then the Endowment Ceremony serves to make our covenants of obedience in our spiritual maturity.  We should not treat that with lightness, but with considerable respect and solemnity before the Lord.

It is my sincere hope that you understand my answer.  You've asked a delicate question, but I don't believe you are looking to disparage or mock.  And so I've provided what answer I can to respect an honorable query.


Are Lutherans comfortable with worshipping a consecrated host or do they consider it to be idolatry? Lutherans believe in a real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, similar to Catholics. However they also believe that the bread and wine remain as bread and wine even after consecration. Does this belief that the bread is still bread (despite also being God) prevent Lutherans from engaging in eucharistic adoration/worship out of fear of idolatry?

If not, can you please provide some examples of situations in which Lutherans engage in such adoration? Does it happen during the liturgy? Does it happen outside the liturgy?

The Book of Concord condemns the adoration of the elements, though without specifically calling it idolatry:

On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which are opposed and contrary to the doctrine presented above, the simple faith, and the [pure] confession concerning the Lord's Supper;

That the external visible elements of the bread and wine should be adored in the Holy Sacrament. (Epitome of the Formula of Concord, VII, para. 40)

Accordingly, with heart and mouth we reject and condemn as false, erroneous, and misleading all Sacramentarian opiniones (opinions) and doctrines which are not in accordance with, but contrary and opposed to, the doctrine above presented and founded upon God's Word:

Likewise, when it is taught that the elements or the visible species or forms of the consecrated bread and wine must be adored. However, no one, unless he be an Arian heretic, can and will deny that Christ Himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper, should be adored in spirit and in truth in the true use of the same, as also in all other places, especially where His congregation is assembled. (The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, VII, para. 126)


How ambitious should a Christian be? According to Luke 16:13 (ESV):

  No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

It seems to me that God gave us the desire to pursue certain things for a reason to begin with, so being successful and enjoying your career isn't necessarily a sin in and of itself. Is this the correct attitude?

How can a Christian keep God in the center of his or her life and properly enjoy worldly ambitions (such as a successful career)? Is there anything wrong with being focused on your career?

It's important to maintain an eternal perspective.  Enjoy your career, sure, but keep in mind that your career is over once you're dead, but eternity lasts forever.  As long as you keep your priorities straight and you're willing to give up your career if God's plan calls for you to do something different, you'll probably be all right.

Remember to keep Luke 18: 29-30 in mind:

  29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that
  hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for
  the kingdom of God's sake,

  30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in
  the world to come life everlasting.


What was the definition of the spiritual gift of the word of Knowledge in early pentecostalism? I will ask a series of questions concerning individual spiritual gifts (pneumatika/charismata), or manifestations of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12.

The first questions are about the gift of the word (logos) of knowledge (gnosis) (1 Cor 12:8).

In most teaching in the charismatic/neo-pentecostal movements, this gift is about supernaturally revealed insights about specific facts, usually medical conditions. However, the Pentecostal theologian Donald Gee considered this gift to be more of a "turbo-charged" (obviously not his words) natural understanding. This is from his book Concerning Spiritual Gifts, originally published in 1947.

I highly suspect that the definition now in use arouse during the healing revival in the 50's and that Gee's view was the mainline pentecostal one before that movement.

Can anyone enlighten me if I am right or wrong. Arguments from original sources are very much preferred.

BTW, when I ask about the view in early pentecostalism, I mean the view from the leaders and teachers of the first generation (1900-1940).

P.S. I am not looking for what one might consider to be the correct answer. I've done my exegesis homework and agree with Gordon Fee, that we simply can not know exactly what Paul originally intended. Fee says[1]:

  Most likely, it is a "Spirit utterance" of some revelatory kind...
  How the content of such utterance makes gnosis as distinguished from
  "wisdom" or "revelation", is perhaps forever lost to us.

I will ask some more questions for additional aspects.

From God's Empowering Presence, Baker Academic, 1994, pages 167-168.

Since asking the question I have now read three books by influential pentecostal pioneers on the issue, and they do not agree on the definition of the gift of the word of knowledge.

In the book on Spiritual Gifts, a collection of sermons by Smith Wigglesworth (1859-1947), who received the baptism of the Spirit in 1907[1], the gift is described as a quickening that gives understanding of the Scriptures[2]:

  It is as we feed o the Word and medidate on the message it contains that the
  Spirit of God can vitalize what we have received and bring forth through us
  the word of knowledge... As all the Scriptures were inspired by God
  (2 Tim 3:16) as they came forth from the beginning, and though the same
  Spirit they should come forth from us vitalized...

It is unclear if SW think that the essence of the gift is the act of illumination per se, or if it also must include a speaking forth of the knowledge received to others. The passage in the book is very short and neither exegetically or systematically complete.

A view more in line with the current understanding within the charismatic movement is given in the book Questions & answers on spiritual gifts by Howard Carter (1891-1971).[3] The book consist of stenographic notes from a Q and A session at Hampstead Bible College in London. Carter claims that he received his insights on the gifts during imprisonment as a conscientious objector during world war one.[4]

Carter says on page 43:

  The word of knowledge is a participation, to some infinitesimal degree, in
  the omniscience of God. If the Lord who knows all things, is pleased to
  reveal to us by His Spirit any fragment of His unlimited knowledge, then we
  can claim to have this manifestation of the Spirit, which is designated
  "the word of knowledge".

Furthermore, Carter says, that the fragment may be received by the mind as a thought, but it is not created by the human, only received (page 53). The process is completely supernatural. It is not the by-product of diligent study, nor is it in any way connected to education (page 38, 46, 49-50. (Carter does not despise diligent study, but it is unrelated to the definition of the gift.)

The scope of the knowledge includes everything that God knows, which may be worldly facts as when Jesus saw Natanael sitting under a fig tree (John 1:48) or when Ananias was told about the name of the street where Paul was praying after his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:11) (Carter:45). But what makes this a very eminent gift is that God has used it to reveal His very own nature to the authors of the Bible (Carter:43-44). Carter is, however, clear that no new insights can be given that conflicts with Scripture or appends new doctrines to it (page 23-24).

Revelation about the purpose and plans of God, and of the future are not words of knowledge, but words of wisdom (Carter:17ff).

Carter is very clear that we should not talk about the gift of knowledge or the gift of wisdom, but the gift of the word of knowledge and the word of  wisdom (page 20-21), as we are all expected to grow in wisdom and knowledge through a plethora of means.

A very different view is offered by Donald Gee in the book Concerning Spiritual Gifts[5]. The book was originally published 1947, but builds upon earlier works published 10 and 20 years earlier (page 133), and Gee says that his views on this subject "have undergone practically no change".

According to Gee, the word of knowledge is a teaching gift in the church (page 134. However, before he arrives at that conclusion, he has a few words of warning:

  The Scriptures provide for the task [of defining the gift] no material
  that is avowedly and unmistakably a manifestation of the word of knowledge...
  Assumption is not proof... We ought carefully to avoid dogmatizing on this
  subject. (page 41)

Having acknowledged the types of supernatural revelations that Carter speaks of in a way that affirms that Carters view indeed was held by many, Gee proceeds to call such revelation prophecy, neither denying its existence or its value (page 42). But when it comes to the definition of the gift, he still begs to differ.

For Gee the setting of 1 Cor 12 is of utmost importance, it is in the gathered Church that the gifts are to be used, whereas most of of Carters examples are from happenings in individual lives. In agreement with Carter, Gee claims that the gift is completely supernatural (page 44f), but it is not "spectacular" (page 45-46).

  There come times when the Spirit of revelation is so operating through a
  teacher exercising an anointed ministry that we become conscious of an
  illumination transcending all natural ability either to gain or to impart
  (knowledge). It is in such hours that the sheep hear the voice of their good
  Shepherd speaking through human lips... We know it because our hearts burn
  within us as surely as theirs did upon the Emmaus road when Christ "expounded
  unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself". By the gift
  of of the Spirit that Voice still expounds the Scriptures on the sweetest of
  all themes - himself (Gee:46-47)

In the book edition from 1947, Gee has added a whole chapter that was not part of the edition from 10 years before, where he gives a systematic argument in favor of his interpretation. However, those arguments are outside the scope of this question on StackExchange.

In summary we see that although Gee argues strongly for his view and he at least is in some agreement with an influential preacher (although he was not a "teacher") like Wigglesworth, he pleads his case as if he perceives himself to be in a minority view. At least that is how I judge his tone. Thus it seems that Carter's view was more widespread within early pentecostalism. But it did not enjoy complete dominance.

Later teachings (2nd generation pentecostalism/charismatics/neo-pentecostals) are mostly using definitions similar to carter, but they are, according to the teaching I've read and heard, very reluctant to include revelation about the nature of God, and restrict the gift to worldly knowledge.

According to the view within the pentecostal movement. I am aware that this view is not shared by all Christians, but it is a significant fact to date the involvement of SW in pentecostalism.
Wigglesworth, S. (1998). Smith Wigglesworth on spiritual gifts. New Kensignton, PA: Whitaker House. Pages 76-77
Carter, H. (1976). Questions & answers on spiritual gifts. Tulsa, OK: Harrison House.
Off topic fact: Pacifism was very common among the early pentecostals.
Gee, D. (1980). Concerning spiritual gifts. Sprinfield, Mo: Radiant Books.


Why was Jewish High Priest commanded to have a golden plate inscribed “Holiness to the Lord”? Why did God ask the High Priest to have a golden plate with the inscription “Holiness to the Lord” on his mitre (Exodus 28:36)? Is there any significant meaning in this?

In Exodus 28:38 it says, “Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things” and “they [gifts from the people of Israel] may be accepted before the LORD”.

The complete passage (Exodus 28:36-38) from the King James Version:

  And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD. And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be. And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.

Why does this Golden plate receive such impressive lines?

There is a specific purpose for every part of the Priest's attire, and that is most certainly true of the High Priest; since only he can ever enter the Holy of Holies, and then only once a year for the specific purpose of atoning for the sins of Israel.

It is worth noting that nearly all of Chapter 28 is devoted to describing only the High Priest's garments, and in meticulous detail.

  Exodus 28:33 through 38  And beneath upon the hem of it thou shalt make pomegranates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, round about the hem thereof; and bells of gold between them round about: 34  A golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, upon the hem of the robe round about. 35  And it shall be upon Aaron to minister: and his sound shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the LORD, and when he cometh out, that he die not. 36  And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD. 37  And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be. 38  And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things,* which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.

In the above passage notice that there are two items that are designated with a specific purpose, that being the bells at the bottom of his robe and the plate.

the bells are to announce the identity of who is entering so that the ire of God is not unleashed, and he be killed.
The plate that identifies him as the bearer of the sins of Israel.

Hope this helps.


LDS Church view: was the earth and all life on it created in six 24-hour days? I was looking for information on whether, according to the LDS Church, the "days" in Genesis chapter 1 are literal 24-hour days or something else.

I found this article at lds.org (aimed at a younger readership though) which states that

  The Creation took six days and was done by Jesus Christ under the
  direction of Heavenly Father.

That seems to indicate that Mormons view those days as being 24-hour days.

Do Mormons view the creation days in Genesis chapter 1 as literal
24-hour days?
Or are they viewed as representing some other length of time?

As mentioned in the comments the LDS church believes:

  Latter-day Saints have additional information that allows a third view—that each “day” of the Creation was of unspecified duration and that the Creation of the earth took place during an unknown length of time. Abraham stresses that day is synonymous with time. For example, Abraham 4:8 summarizes the second creative period by stating that “this was the second time that they called night and day.” This usage is consistent with ancient Hebrew. The Hebrew word YOM, often translated day, can also mean “time” or “period.” In other words, the term translated day in Genesis could be appropriately read as “period.”1

See also:

  A third theory says that the word day refers to a period of an undetermined length of time, thus suggesting an era. The word is still used in that sense in such phrases as “in the day of the dinosaurs.” The Hebrew word for day used in the creation account can be translated as “day” in the literal sense, but it can also be used in the sense of an indeterminate length of time (see Genesis 40:4, where day is translated as “a season”; Judges 11:4, where a form of day is translated as “in the process of time”; see also Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, pp. 130–31). Abraham says that the Gods called the creation periods days (see Abraham 4:5, 8).2

1 https://www.lds.org/liahona/1998/03/i-have-a-question/the-length-of-creation?lang=eng

2 https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng


Feast of the Holy Innocents traditions? Outside the Sacrifice of the Mass and the use of the Roman Ritual, are there any Catholic historical traditions that are have been or are in use amongst the Catholic faithful for the feast of the Holy Innocents (December 28), either within religious communities or the domestic church?

Religious Customs in the Family: The Radiation of the Liturgy into Catholic Homes by Fr. Francis X. Weiser, S.J., mentions this regarding the Feast of the Holy Innocents (a.k.a "Childermas day"):

  December 28, the feast of the Holy Innocents of Bethlehem, is a festive day for little children, according to ancient tradition. In Catholic families, December 28 should be the "feast of babies." The babies themselves cannot consciously celebrate it, of course; but the rest of the family can, with some appropriate observance like decorating the baby crib, having a party "for the baby," and/or blessing the baby with the Sign of the Cross; and everyone can pray to the Holy Innocents for their intercession, that God may bless the baby in body and soul.

Dom Guérenger's The Liturgical Year says this:

  In Rome, the Station for the Feast of St. Stephen is in the Church dedicated to the holy Protomartyr, on Monte Celio; that for St. John is in the Basilica of St. Mary Major; today, the Station is made at St. Paul’s beyond the Walls, which possessed several of the bodies of the Holy Innocents. In the 16th century, Pope Xystus the Fifth caused a portion of these Relics to be translated to St Mary Major’s, and put near the holy Relic of our Lord’s Crib.


According to Catholic doctrine, is every woman that has an abortion automatically going to hell? This is something I've just heard but never verified. Does the Catholic church teach that every woman who has an abortion automatically earns hell no matter what?

If so, then why? And how are other murderers in the bible granted eternal life--like David and Paul?

Au Contraire

There is no exception to the sin the Church is able to  absolve a penitent from1, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives:

  Catechism of the Catholic Church | ARTICLE 10: "I BELIEVE IN THE
  FORGIVENESS OF SINS" | II. THE POWER OF THE KEYS,
  979
  In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be
  brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church
  has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means
  of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ.
  The Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."[524
  Roman Catechism I, 11,4.]

The only unforgivable sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit - matter for another answer.

  Mark 16:8-10
  (RSVCE)
  [...] Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene   9 Now when he rose early
  on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Mag′dalene,
  from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went out and told
  those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

If you heard what you asked from one who has suffered from abortion, the above should be consoling and encouraging for them. The number 7 has a very significant meaning in Judaism. My take is that St. Mary Mag′dalene had sin in its totality [completely under the power of those 7 demons - inciting the seven deadly sins? - as far as God would allow them]. The LORD appeared to her first. First step is go, show yourself to the priest2 = confession [a good shepherd should be able to guide once there cf. MattGutting's answer esp. on excommunication, etc.]: “Take heart; rise, he is calling you.” [cf. Mk 10:49]

  Si 17:24
  (RSVCE)
  Yet to those who repent he grants a return,
  and he encourages those whose endurance is failing.

Rachel's Vineyard: This or the like may be of interest to women suffering after having had an abortion.

1. [cf. CCC 982]↩

2. [Matthew 8:4 (RSVCE)]↩


What does Jesus call God? Is it accurate that it was only on the cross that Jesus referred to God as "God"?

My God why has thou forsaken me?
Matthew 27:46

No, prior to the cross, Jesus spoke of God as ‘God’. In Mark 12:29-30 he quoted the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 which says,

  “Hear, O Israel. The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your
  God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
  strength.”

A few verses further on in Mark’s gospel, Jesus commends one of the teachers of the Law by saying, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (vs 34)

Then, after his resurrection, Jesus said to Mary, “I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)

You quote from Mark 15:34, (or Matthew 27:46) which relates an event sandwiched between those two other occurrences of Jesus speaking of God as ‘God’. On that occasion, Jesus spoke in Aramaic the words, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?’ This was a quotation from Psalm 22:1 and verses 6-8 also happened while Jesus was on the cross when he was scorned, despised and insulted with the challenge, ‘He trusts in the Lord, let the Lord rescue him’.” Verses 16 and 18 also happened: they pierced his hands and his feet, and cast lots for his clothes. Prior to that cry of dereliction, Jesus had called God his Father while on the cross (as in Luke 23:34, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”) But before Jesus breathed his last, he was able to call God his Father, once more. “Jesus called out with a loud voice, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit’.” (vs 46)

Jesus mainly addressed God as his Father, and spoke of himself as God the Father’s Son.


Why did God describe the light as being good, but not the darkness? In the account of creation in Genesis 1, it seems that God describes many of the things He creates as being "good".  Verse 2 indicates that prior to there being light, there was "darkness over the face of the deep".  God's first created act, aside perhaps from the heavens and the earth themselves, is light.  He specifically calls the light "good", but not the darkness.
So, was the darkness "not good", or did God simply not explicitly declare it as such?

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:1-5, ESV)

If you look over the account, God pronounced all of the things that he created "good," after he was finished creating them.  But look at what it says about the darkness: the earth was without form and void, and darkness covered everything... and then God said "Let there be light" and Creation began.

This implies that darkness wasn't something that God created, but rather the default state, the absence of the light that God created.  (Which is in line with modern scientific knowledge about the nature of light and optics.)


What is the translation methodology for the Nueva Versión Internacional (NVI)? I'm wondering about what sources were used for the NVI.  Was it translated from from ancient Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek manuscripts?

All I can find online is that the translators "follow[ed] the NIV tranlation [sic] principles," meaning that "the translation process sought to preserve the original language while taking into account the target language as well" (NVI version information).

I would assume that means that the NVI is in fact based on ancient manuscripts, since the NIV was, but it's unclear.

Yes, it was translated from the ancient manuscripts.  The preface of my copy of the NVI is also available online, "Historia de la NVI".  I'll quote and translate key sections of that article here.  First, a summary:

La traducción se hizo directamente de los textos hebreos, arameos y griegos en sus mejores ediciones disponibles.

The translation was made directly from the best-available editions of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

Later, it goes into more detail on the NT:

La traducción [del Nuevo Testamento] se basa en el texto crítico griego actual, que da preferencia a los manuscritos más antiguos. Cuando se dan diferencias sustanciales entre este texto crítico y el texto tradicional conocido como Textus Receptus, la lectura tradicional se incluye en una nota, como variante textual.

The translation [of the New Testament] is based on the current critical Greek text, which gives preference to the oldest manuscripts.  When there are substantial differences between this critical text and the traditional text known as the Textus Receptus, the traditional reading is included in a note, as a textual variant.

And on the OT:

La base de la traducción [del Antiguo Testamento] es el Texto Masorético (TM), pero en algunos pasajes se ha aceptado una lectura diferente. En estos casos, la nota incluye entre paréntesis la evidencia textual (principalmente en las versiones antiguas) que apoya tal lectura; luego se indica lo que dice el TM.

The basis of the translation [of the Old Testament] is the Masoretic Text (MT), but in some passages a different reading has been accepted.  In these cases, the note includes, in parentheses, the textual evidence (mainly in the oldest versions) supporting that reading; afterwards it indicates what the MT says.

Another important thing to note is that the translation includes a moderate revision of personal names:

Otra diferencia entre la Nueva Versión Internacional y las versiones tradicionales tiene que ver con la onomástica hebrea. En el caso de nombres propios bien conocidos, esta versión ha mantenido las formas tradicionales, aun cuando no correspondan con las del hebreo (p.ej. Jeremías, aunque el hebreo es Yirmeyahu). En otros casos se ha hecho una revisión moderada para que los nombres no solamente reflejen con mayor exactitud el texto original (p.ej., la consonante jet se ha representado con j en vez de h), sino también para que se ajusten a la fonología castellana (p.ej., se ha evitado usar la consonante m en posición final).

Another difference between the Nueva Versión Internacional and the traditional versions has to do with Hebrew onomastics.  In the case of well-known proper names, this version has kept the traditional forms, even when they do not correspond with the Hebrew (for example, Jeremías, even though the Hebrew is Yirmeyahu).  In other cases a moderate revision has been made so that not only do the names more exactly reflect the original text (for example, the consonant jet is represented with j instead of h), but also to adjust them to Spanish phonology (for example, to avoid using the consonant m in the final position).


Benefits of Mass without a congregation Bishops of all Catholic dioceses in Germany currently ban the public celebration of mass because of the Corona outbreak. In some European countries the general public is largely confined to their homes and houses.

In this situation our vicar general issued a note (March 16., 17:00) declaring:

  In the current situation, it is the Church's mandate to bring people's concerns before God and to continue to be close to them spiritually. Can 906 CIC (Codex luris Canonici / Code of Canon Law) only requires the existence of a just and reasonable reason for the private celebration of the Eucharist of a priest, i.e. without the participation of any believer. Such a reason is given in the current exceptional situation, so that the priests can continue to celebrate the Holy Mass on behalf of the faithful, i.e. without the participation of believers and altar servers.

  [In der derzeitigen Situation ist es Auftrag der Kirche, die Sorgen der Menschen vor Gott zu bringen und ihnen auch weiterhin geistlich nahe zu sein. Can 906 CIC (Codex luris Canonici/Gesetzbuch des Kirchenrechts) verlangt für die private Feier der Eucharistie eines Geistlichen, also ohne die Teilnahme irgendeines Gläubigen, lediglich das Vorliegen eines gerechten und vernünftigen Grundes. Ein solcher Grund ist in der derzeitigen Ausnahmelage zweifelsfrei gegeben, so dass die Priester weiterhin stellvertretend für die Gläubigen die heilige Messe, das heißt ohne Beteiligung von Gläubigen und Ministranten feiern können.]

The quoted canon reads:

  Can. 906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.

My question is: What benefits for the Church or the faithful arise from the celebration of mass without congregation? What other reason compels priests to say mass without congregation?

For this question I am not interested in benefits for the priest (who takes part in the liturgy, receives the Eucharist and so on) and I am not interested in reasons that could also be satisfied by some form of intercessory prayer (which might still be part of the celebrated mass). I am more interested in this specific case of mass being important to celebrate even if no congregation will participate.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has intrinsic value, apart from the congregation.

A Mass without a congregation is called a private Mass (Missa privata), and it has just as much intrinsic value (valor intrinsecus) as a Mass with a congregation.

  [I]n view of the infinite worth of Christ as the Victim and High Priest in one Person, the [Holy] sacrifice [of the Mass] must be regarded as of infinite value, just as the sacrifice of the Last Supper and that of the Cross.

—J. Pohle, Catholic Encyclopedia, "Sacrifice of the Mass" §"The Causality of the Mass", §§"The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass"; cited in: Fr. Chad Ripperger, "The Merit of a Mass", p. 21

The priest alone causes transubstantiation.

Pius XII's 1947 encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei, condemns the error that a congregation is necessary for a Mass:

  Some in fact disapprove altogether of those Masses which are offered privately and without any congregation, on the ground that they are a departure from the ancient way of offering the sacrifice; moreover, there are some who assert that [multiple] priests cannot offer Mass at different altars at the same time, because, by doing so, they separate the community of the faithful and imperil its unity; while some go so far as to hold that the people must confirm and ratify the sacrifice if it is to have its proper force and value.
  They are mistaken in appealing in this matter to the social character of the eucharistic sacrifice, for as often as a priest repeats what the divine Redeemer did at the Last Supper, the sacrifice is really completed. Moreover, this sacrifice, necessarily and of its very nature, has always and everywhere the character of a public and social act, inasmuch as he who offers it acts in the name of Christ and of the faithful, whose Head is the divine Redeemer, and he offers it to God for the holy Catholic Church, and for the living and the dead.88 This is undoubtedly so, whether the faithful are present—as we desire and commend them to be in great numbers and with devotion—or are not present, since it is in no wise required that the people ratify what the sacred minister has done.

  88. Roman Missal, Canon of the Mass.

This error that Pope Pius XII condemned found its way into the 1969 Institutio Generalis's Protestant-friendly definition of the Mass, which was subsequently corrected.

Private Masses valid.

Council of Trent sess. 22 can. 8:

  If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated: let him be anathema.Si quis dixerit, missas, in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat, illicitas esse ideoque abrogandas: anathema sit.

Multiple simultaneous private Masses

at side altars of

an Institute of Christ the King Catholic church in Tucson, Arizona, circa 2019 anno Domini:

priests in a seminary:

bishops during Vatican II:


What prophecy was about Timothy? Paul refers to a prophecy about Timothy

  1 Tim 1:18-19 ESV Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.

Which prophecy is he talking about?

What prophecy was about Timothy?

  Timothy 1:18  This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according
  to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them
  mightest war a good warfare;

Both the Amplified and the Weust translations use the phrase "prophetic intimations" for the word "prophecies" in the KJV. This might mean that what was prophesied about Timothy was not specific.

Since Paul is citing them as a resource to use in bolstering Timothy for the work under difficulty that is before him, we might surmise that these prophesies were at least in general indicating a favorable report of the work Timothy was to do.

We know that Timothy had received a spiritual gift.

  1 Timothy 4:14  Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given
  thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

This may have been the gift of evangelism.

  2 Timothy 4:5  But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do
  the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Timothy may have been inclined to put off the work to which he was called and in need of encouragement and exhortation.

  2 Timothy 1:6-7  Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up
  the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.  For
  God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love,
  and of a sound mind.

It would seem theat the "prophecies" about Timothy were not from the Old Testament but from the milieu of prophetic activity that was to be found in the early church.

  1 Corinthians 14:3  But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to
  edification, and exhortation, and comfort.


Why would Jesus Christ ascend, then descend again? Millenialism, as such, postulates the return of Jesus Christ to this present earth to reign for a thousand, literal, years. The evidence for this is taken from the visionary mention in Revelation. This view has serious Gospel implications regarding an earthly reign and regarding the concept (held by some) of the re-instating of sacrifices on earth. The article to which I have linked, explains various historic forms of this doctrine.
Anti-Millenialism states that resurrected saints and saints remaining on earth, will be caught up from this present earth to Jesus Christ and there shall be new heavens and a new earth (once Judgment is effected). They say that the thousand years in Revelation is a symbolic figure and relates to the present rule of Christ over deceased saints in heaven and faithful saints on earth, in a reign of Spirit, not physical. Importantly, and importantly to my present question, they say that Jesus Christ shall never set foot, again, on this present earth.
There are implications to Jesus Christ returning to earth for a thousand years and re-instating an earthly reign : implications regarding the parables of Jesus, which express an immediacy and urgency regarding an everlasting Kingdom; and implications regarding the apostolic epistles which, again, express immediacy and urgency regarding a finality associated, immediately, with the return of Jesus Christ.
My question is, Why did Jesus Christ ascend, if only to descend again, thereafter, in order to establish an earthly kingdom ?
Why ascend at all ? Why not remain and reign on earth ?
What do those say who adhere to the Millenial system ?

According to Ellis Skolfield:

The Greek word translated thousand, here and through the rest of
Revelation 20, is χίλιοι, chilioi, an indefinite plural of χιλιάς
chilias, one thousand.

His contention was that millennium should instead be rendered as "millennia", meaning two or more. He accepts a literal "millennium" period, but insists that the length was not set at a single thousand years.
Regardless of length, your question is "Why?"
The time we live in now is the time of preparation. God is preparing his church to be ready for his return.

Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the
Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. (Revelation 19:7)

If you read Ecclesiastes 3, you will see the many trials and phases that the church must go through before reaching full maturity:
There is a time for everything,
    and a season for every activity under the heavens:

2     a time to be born and a time to die,
    a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3     a time to kill and a time to heal,
    a time to tear down and a time to build,
4     a time to weep and a time to laugh,
    a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5     a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
    a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6     a time to search and a time to give up,
    a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7     a time to tear and a time to mend,
    a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8     a time to love and a time to hate,
    a time for war and a time for peace.

The above verses describe all the challenges that a child must go through to reach full maturity as an adult (at roughly age forty). They also apply to the church as the "Body of Christ" or "Bride of Christ".
As you can see, the last two times that the church must endure are a time for war and a time for peace. The time for war is Armageddon, the great battle in Revelation. The time for peace is the millennium.
When a person reaches full maturity, then they are ready for the great work of their life, whatever that may be. When the church reaches full maturity after the time of war, it will be ready for the great work of the church.
What is that great work? I am not sure and do not want to speculate. But it is to join the fully mature church to accomplish that great work that Christ is coming back. It is a work that we will be doing together.
UPDATE:
Why did Jesus ascend?

7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away.
Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I
will send him to you. (John 16:7)

Unless Jesus ascended, the Father and he (unless you are Eastern Orthodox, filioque and all) could not send the Holy Spirit.
Also, Jesus prayed in John 17 for those who would believe in him who had never met him. Then after he rose:

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

Jesus' prophetic words could not come true unless he went away. God is not a liar. If Jesus promises something, he has to do it. If there are to be believers who never see Jesus in the flesh but only hear about him from others, then he must leave.
Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
    Whose hands have gathered up the wind?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?
    Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is the name of his son?
    Surely you know!

5 “Every word of God is flawless;
    he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
    or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. (Proverbs 30:4-6)

Ultimately, it all comes down to this: Jesus ascended into heaven in fulfilment of the scriptures. Jesus did it in obediance to the Father.


Can I believe in evolution and still be a Christian? It would seem that the first part of the book of Genesis contradicts what science teaches about the origin of life on earth. If I am to reconcile evolution and Genesis, it seems that I have a number of options.

Accept Genesis as a metaphor for the sinfulness/corruption of mankind
Dismiss the story entirely
Believe that God picked two early humans and the first that he 'breathed' life into, and these two were Adam and Eve.

These options are not very good in my book because both Jesus and St. Paul, in the New Testament, made it clear they understood the story to have been a historical truth. At the same time I believe God gave us two eyes and a brain, and you cannot reject evolution out of hand.

This is a question that has had quite a heated debate for quite some time, and I do not have expectation that one answer will be 'right'. However, I am asking it anyway since it is one I continue to struggle with.

You certainly can, and some percentage of believers do believe in some form of (usually theistic) evolution in an effort to reconcile the findings of science with the revelation of God in his word.

The essential breakdown for creation systems is (with lots of co-mingling and blurring):

Naturalism: Old universe with evolution and no God at all, for which evolution is the only game in town to explain the "how" of it. (NE)
Theistic Evolution: Old universe with divine inception and left largely to run itself, with varying though usually quite minor subsequent involvement by God. (TE)
Old Creation: Old universe in which a creator specifically and miraculously creates. (OEC)
Young Creation:  Young universe in which a creator specifically and miraculously creates. (YEC)

(where "young" means a few thousand to a few tens of thousand earth years, and "old" means anywhere from 9 to 14 billion earth years).

But in my opinion, and it's just my opinion, the scientific evidence seems to have much more to say about the age of the universe and the fact that time and space has a beginning than whether or not macro evolution occurs.

This is an extensive subject, and I have arrived at my current position (which is that of old-earth creation) after many years of believing differently and after a lot of research and mulling on the matter. If you would like a lot of material on such a model, I strongly recommend Reasons to Believe.  Also worth reading is material from Jewish theologian and scientist Gerald Schroeder.  Another good source looks to be the Evidence for God website (though I am not as well versed with their material as I am RTB).

I have found old-earth creation to be, on balance, the best interpretation so far of both scientific evidence and Biblical revelation when the anticipation is for both to be true and accurate and in harmony.

For me, the most compelling arguments on the matter are those from scripture along the vein of Romans 1:20, NIV:

  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

and Psalm 19:1, NIV:

  The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

This, to me, says we can and should expect that the revelation of God through creation is consistent with the revelation of God through scripture.  If the two seem to be in conflict then we are misunderstanding one or the other (or both).

Furthermore, if what we can discover of God from observing his creation is deliberately misleading (or even downright deceptive), then that seems to put Romans 1:20 in a very bad light in terms of what it says about God's attributes.  Consideration of this principle (that we can know God by his creation), which appears to be quite Biblical, seems to render arguments that God created the universe with apparent age (and such arguments as light from distance stars being created in-transit) dubious - and certainly such arguments would not be seem to be the best explanation of the entire body of evidence we currently have.

Keep in mind that the Genesis account is not the only part of Scripture that deals with creation, and therefore your understanding of the mechanics of creation needs to consider the other relevant verses as well as the scientific evidence available.

EDIT: 2011-08-26

Some theological/doctrinal problems that occur with evolution (theistic or otherwise):

Humanity is no longer uniquely created in the image of God, which means we no longer have innate dignity and value as distinct from the rest of creation.
Humanity is no longer created to reign over the rest of creation.
Adam and Eve are no longer historical people.  Therefore the doctrine of man's sinful nature inherited from Adam is abolished, since there was no single progenitor from which to inherit a sin-nature.  Were Jesus and the apostles mistaken when they spoke of Adam and Eve as real historical individuals - esp. Paul who bases his entire thesis of salvation on Adam's fault in Romans 5?
Genesis must be considered mythological or semi-mythological rather than being regarded as a historical narrative.
Theistic evolution generally limits or eliminates God's providential intervention in the creation that he "set in motion".
Genesis 2:7 in describing the creation of Adam seems to require an intellectual stretch to understand as describing simpler species evolving into humans.


How does a Roman Catholic reconcile a preference for purely procreative sex with the Song of Solomon? Premise #1: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that sex is for procreation

Peter Turner has an excellent answer to the question on Onan. In it, he suggests that Onan really was misusing sex, and that angers God.

When I also consider priestly celibacy and the general nature of Roman teaching on contraception, masturbation, and other regulations around sex, it seems like the Roman church really wants to suggest that the beauty of sex is when it furthers the end of "being fruitful and multiply"ing.  I'm probably not doing it justice, but it seems like procreation is the point of sex.

Now, my question then, could be mis-read as antagonstic, but its not.  I really do want to understand how these go together.  Here's my conundrum -

Premise #2: The canonical Song of Solomon celebrates the passion of sex

The Song of Solomon clearly celebrates a sexual relationship between a man and a woman who dearly love each other.  I know that some have historically tried to say that the Song of Solomon is Christ's love for his church, but I can't buy that with verses like these:

  SOS 5:3 I have taken off my robe— must I put it on again?
  I have washed my feet— must I soil them again?
  4 My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him.
  5 I arose to open for my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh,
  my fingers with flowing myrrh, on the handles of the bolt.

I find it very hard to read that and not think that is physical. (We're all grownups here, right?)

The book goes on to warn us not to "arouse or awaken love, until it so desires, because love is as strong as death." (Its a common refrain).  Clearly here the focus is on that passion.

But, that passion is seemingly celebrated, and not necessarily because of the kids that result. It may be dangerous, like fire, but the two lovers aren't saying its a bad thing at all.

Question: How do these fit together?

So, the question in all sincerity is this - How do Romans read the Song of Solomon?  How is it reconciled with the seeming Papal preference for purely procreative reproduction?

Or, am I misreading Catholics here - maybe they're not nearly as stuffy as people make them out to be? The Puritans were no prudes either, and it would be nice to understand if a Roman could endorse "the joy of (marital) sex."

According to the Catholic Church, the marital act has two effects: procreative and unitive.

  Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

CCC 2351

That Catechism reference is in relation to the sin of Lust, which Jesus equates with adultery.

It's lust that is the problem, and the Church does not teach that man and women are somehow freed from an inclination to lust by virtue of their marriage.  Nor is it even logical, St. Paul says that marriage is better for those who whose inclination to fornicate burns within them he doesn't say that the passion will be put out by marriage.

I've heard that The Song of Solomon is the most commented on book in the entire Bible by Christians throughout the history of the Church and what St. Jerome makes of it is very interesting.

  In the Song of Songs the precept is given as a hard one: "Regulate your love towards me." And so we plead that, if we err, we do so not from ignorance but from feeling.

St. Jerome - Letter 46

I'm not sure what verse he translated to be "Regulate your love towards me" but if it's the overall feeling he had in the translation it ought to have some effect.  It's true that other commentaries use the Song of Songs to describe God's love for His church or just the whole Trinitarian dynamic of love.  But that's just the necessary and fruitful anagogical understanding of the book.  The literal interpretation is just that, make love to your beloved.

We even use scripture from the Song of Songs in scriptural rosaries to meditate on the 5th Glorious mystery, the Coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth.  It doesn't mean we believe she was not a virgin, even though in some metaphor we see her as the woman in the song who everyone said, "Who is she?"

Love and Responsibility is the best and most dense way to gain a full understanding of the purpose of sex and marriage as put forth by the Catholic Church.


Which denominations follow "queer theology"? According to this page, it briefly describes this:

  Queer theology begins with an assumption that gender non-conformity and homosexual desire have always been present in human history, and are present in the Bible. It is a way of unraveling structures and stories that have been oppressive. It is also a way of understanding the Bible as a source of stories about radical love.

It seems to me that this type of theology is strictly limited to academia; however, I may be wrong. Are there any denominations that follow "queer theology", and who are they? I know denominations that are open to LGBT Christians, but they do not seem to be focused on this style of interpretation of the Bible.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America went through a deliberation process on whether to change its restrictions against non-celibate homosexual pastors, culminating in a vote in 2009.  Some of the documents prepared by the ELCA to argue for this change sound very similar to what you have typed.  Here is one such document, "Journeying Faithfully Together". Here is their summary page on "Historical Resources" on the topic.  Individual congregations went further, some signing on to a Reconciled in Christ program, which raises similar themes.

Another reference is the book, Sexual Fulfillment: For Single and Married, Straight and Gay, Young and Old, written by a former bishop, Herbert Chilstrom.  The Amazon.com summary includes Chilstrom's comment that for people of all orientations,

  ... sex is a gift from God, intended, in spite of our broken world, for our enjoyment and fulfillment.


Christian view on chimeras Motivated by the question What are the theological implications/problems with theistic evolution?, consider that Jasher 4:18 seems to imply that there is something wrong with the mixing of animal species to create "chimeras". The creationists group species into "kinds" but the naturalistic evolutionary view would probably say that the whole thing is a spectrum and that nothing is special about a particular given phenotype other than its current adaptability to the current environment, i.e. everything is just in continuous flux. But if Jasher 4:18 is true, then there is something "divinely special" about certain fixed phenotypes that we see nowadays. The two philosophies are completely in opposition. The technology to create chimeras will surely exist in future. What should a Christian say about chimeras? The view of Jasher 4:18 seems incontrovertible.

Theistic evolution allows that God used evolution as tool prior to the creation of Man, but that this part of his plan is now completed, and he will no longer allow one "kind" to evolve into another "kind". A new species? Sure. A new genus? Maybe, if it's really similar to a prior one. After all, the classification system is an invention of man and therefore imperfect. A new family or phylum? Probably not gonna happen, except maybe among bugs or microbes. Note that theistic evolution doesn't demand this interpretation, but it allows it.
The book of Jasher isn't exactly canon to most Christians.


Adam and Eve versus ecology Estimates vary widely of the minimum viable population for humans to stably reproduce without being subject to significant detrimental effects of inbreeding. Minimum estimates (e.g., for space colonisation) usually range in the dozens to hundreds, but most general estimates for Earth repopulation err on the safe side and choose numbers well into the thousands.

In light of the fact that the MVP of humans is certainly greater than two, we cannot interpret the story of Adam and Eve as a literal account, unless other divine provisions were made after the Fall in order for humans to be able to make it on their own. Is there consensus among Biblical scholars about this?

You can interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally. What you're attempting to do is what all scientists do, assume that the situation today has always been the same and estimate incorrectly.

What you fail to realize is that DNA has probably been copied a few trillion times from cell to cell to cell to human to cell to human. All things copied tend to break down, become unstable and begin to produce error.

If the DNA was perfect (containing not a single error), as we can expect it to be, in Adam and Eve's time, or even in Noah's time, then this would not be a problem. Modern science has already learned that every human being on the planet contains genes from one dominant male and one dominant female.

  New DNA studies suggest that all humans descended from a single
  African ancestor who lived some 60,000 years ago. To uncover the paths
  that lead from him to every living human, the National Geographic
  Society launched the Genographic Project, headed by Spencer Wells. (link)

The particulars could very easily be up for debate, but the premise that a single male and single female were the start of it all, is truly the only evidence that we have.


What does it mean that baptism "erases original sin"? The Catechism of the Catholic Church states regarding original sin:

  Human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the
  natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the
  dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that
  is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's
  grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the
  consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man
  and summon him to spiritual battle.

So in baptism, original sin is erased, but the nature is still "inclined to evil." What's the difference between a baptized and unbaptized person with regard to their inclination to sin and the state of their nature?

The Church teaches that the human propensity to sin is a result of original sin:

  Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 403; emphasis added)

Now as you note, Catholicism holds that baptism removes all sin, both actual and original. In addition to the excerpt you cite from the Catechism, St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica states:

  As the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3), "all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death." And further on he concludes (Rom. 6:11): "So do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Hence it is clear that by Baptism man dies unto the oldness of sin, and begins to live unto the newness of grace. But every sin belongs to the primitive oldness. Consequently every sin is taken away by Baptism.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 69, Article 1. The Bible quotes in this translation are taken from the Douay-Rheims Bible.)

However, the baptized person is in the same state as the unbaptized with regard to what (as you see in your quote) the Church calls "concupiscence", the desire to put one's own will over God's, and thus to sin. This "concupiscence" is not identical with original sin, but is inherited as a consequence of the original sin. Thus, even with baptism when the original sin is washed away, the consequences are not:

  By Baptism He takes away from man forthwith the guilt of original sin and the punishment of being deprived of the heavenly vision. But the penalties of the present life, such as death, hunger, thirst, and the like, pertain to the nature, from the principles of which they arise, inasmuch as it is deprived of original justice.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 69, Article 3, ad 3)

In other words, we were created to live in God's justice ("original justice"); but the sin of Adam and Eve—the original sin—permanently removed all their descendants from that state by changing the nature of human beings, and consequently we are inevitably prone to actual sin, even when the guilt of original sin (and any prior sins we may have committed) has been washed away in Baptism.


According to Catholicism, did Jesus have a Guardian Angel? According to Catholicism, did Jesus have a Guardian Angel?
If so do we know their name(s)?
We see the Angels ministering to the needs of the Godman while on earth, but Scripture does not employ the term Guardian Angel to them.

Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.
11 Then the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him. - Matthew 4:10-11

According to Catholic theologians or mystics, who was Our Lord’s guardian angel(s), if any?

We see not one but many angels, administering to Jesus , for instance after the temptations in the wilderness:

Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels came and waited on him. - (Mtt 4: 11)

But we see only one angel giving comapany to him at the Garden of Gethsemane:

He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed,  “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”  An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. - (Lk  22: 41-43).

This angel is named as Chamuel in the traditions. "This angel performed a vital ministry for Christ just prior to His going to the cross to die for the sins of humankind," writes Ron Rhodes in his book Angels Among Us: Separating Fact from Fiction. (Courtesy: Learn Religions.com)
We also see that Jesus was in a position to seek physical protection by the angels, when he was being arrested and taken away by the soldiers:

With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.  Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? - (Mat 26:51-53).

So, the scriptures  do not as such say that Jesus had a Guardian Angel attached to him, but being Son of God, he had the services of many angels  at “short notice”.
PS: I am not aware if any Catholic Theologian or Mystic has made an authentic statement on the subject.


According to LDS teaching, why should we worship this God? This question discusses the LDS teaching that

“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.” ( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)

The teaching is partially motivated by the passage from John5:19,

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Joseph Smith himself said:

As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again
-- History of the Church 5:426
I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.
-- History of the Church 6:373

From LDS.org:

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”

As to this notion in the modern LDS church, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Joseph Fielding Smith said in an address in 1971:

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’

So, in summary:

God the Father was once a man who became exalted to Godhood, and created us in his own creation.
The man who is exalted now will be God of his own creation, as God is God of this one.
All Gods have endured this process.

My question is:
If God was once a man who had a God of his own, then from a Mormon perspective, why don't we worship the God of that previous Earth who created the man that is now our God, and who therefore is the God of our God, instead the God who created the Earth we inhabit? In other words, is the Creator of our Creator not also worthy of our worship?

Edit re. close vote due to duplicate question: I'm not asking about monotheism or polytheism, or asking Mormons to reconcile the claim with monotheism. I'm simply asking why we are directed to worship this God in particular, and not the God who created the Earth from which he was exalted. These are clearly very different questions.

Consider any reason a Christian would worship God:

He created us.
He (through his Son) saved us.
He has commanded that we worship him and pray to him in the name of Jesus Christ.
We know and love him.
We fear the consequences of not reverencing him.

All apply, and specifically to God.


Do Luke 1:48 and Luke 11:27-28 contradict each other? I have been replaying Luke 1:48 and Luke 11:27-28 in my mind. Something doesn't make sense here. Luke 1:48 is the part of Mary's song where Mary announces that all successive generations will call her blessed because of her son Jesus. Then, in Luke 11:27-28, when Jesus is a grown man in his ministry, a woman tells him that his mother is blessed for carrying him in the womb and nursing him, which ironically seems to allude to what Mary says earlier, but Jesus replies, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." Apparently, Jesus is not concerned with his own pedigree, and if that is the case, does this mean that he rejects Mary's happiness? What's going on here?

Jesus' answer emphasizes what is more important. It is more important that a person hear the word of God and obey it than to be chosen by God for some special task. Not everyone will be chosen for a special position, but anyone can choose to obey God.

Jesus puts things regarding (his own) family into perspective: they are not as important as seeking the kingdom of God. When his family shows up, seemingly to talk some sense into him, Jesus tells the crowd:

  Matthew 12:50 (NASB) (also Mk 3:35)
  "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Regarding familial relationships and the call of God, he says:

  Luke 12:51,53 (NASB)
  "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; ... They will be divided, father against son and son against father, ..."

Nothing is more important than responding to God's call.

I don't think it's necessary to conclude that Jesus rejects his mother's happiness or her elevated position. He only tells the rest of us: don't wish you were her; instead, obey God.


What is the meaning of "Advocata Nostra" according to Catholic Tradition & Teaching? The famous hymn "Salve Regina" in Latin contains the words "Advocata Nostra"
and it is recited at the end of the Holy Rosary.

What is the meaning of that phrase "Advocata Nostra" according to Church Tradition and Teaching? Is it biblical?

  Salve Regina

  *Salve, Regina, mater misericordiae:

  Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve.

  Ad te clamamus, exsules, filii Hevae.

  Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes

  in hac lacrimarum valle.*

  Eia ergo, Advocata nostra,

  *illos tuos misericordes oculos

  ad nos converte.

  Et Iesum, benedictum fructum ventris tui,*

  *nobis, post hoc exsilium ostende.

  O clemens: O pia: O dulcis*

  Virgo Maria.

This famous hymn is alluded to Mary as the "Advocata Nostra" or "Gracious Advocate" aside from being the Mother of Mercy or Mater Misericordiae.

I am looking for a sound doctrine or the roots of that phrase who formulate or articulate the lyrics of this famous Catholic hymn specifically expounding the importance of the word "Advocata Nostra" to Catholic beliefs.

An apostolic tradition, church father commentaries or teaching and Catholic Church doctrines would be appreciated.

This site has some insightful comments about this. Notice Mary as our Advocate has not yet being declared as a dogma, but as you indicated, it is stated in the Salve Regina, a one thousand year old prayer. First, notice that Jesus is the mediator between God the Father and Us:

  God the Father dwells in unapproachable light. No human being has, or can see, the face of God (Jn 1:18) because of our impurity and sin. Nothing flawed could stand in the presence of God. Therefore, the Father, sent Jesus, to become a man and by His act of redemption, He reconciled man with God but also continually mediates between the people He has won and the Father.

We know this from Jesus himself (John 14:6):

  Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

But to go to Jesus, the Church and NT show us that we can also have some "advocated" that pray for us, or through which we can be the object of prayer. The article above states:

  It would certainly be more humble for us to have someone go to the Lord on our behalf. In fact, we do this all the time when we ask others to pray for us. Often, our prayers are answered more effectively this way because God desires for us to be humble and to depend on one another in prayer. This not only helps in our need but also builds up the body of Christ, the Church.

Who is best at this task than the Blessed Virgin Mary. From the very fact of her "Yes" to the angel, which enabled our salvation, to Jesus' own commandment to take St. Mary to "our home" (John 19:27), evidence of this is abundant (see the article for some).

It is important however to differentiate Mary as "official" mediator of graces and as advocate. The former is the belief of Mary Mediatrix, which also is not (yet?) a dogma. Here we are dealing with the latter. I quote the article above, in extenso:

  However, at this point I had better make a distinction between the teaching of Mary being mediatrix of all graces and the devotion of choosing to go through her to Jesus and to the Father. Mary as Mediatrix or Dispensatrix of All Grace is something we believe and, as defined above, needs to be acknowledged as a truth and as such is a contemplative act, while the devotion to Mary as our mediator is an active practice of our spiritual life. This latter devotion to Mary as our mediator with the one Mediator, Jesus, comes under the title of Mary as Advocate. This word gives a further dimension to Mary as our mediator. She is not just interceding for us she is advocating, actively championing our cause. This process of Mary mediating and advocating for us is completely and correctly explained in St. Louis Marie De Montfort's treatise, "True Devotion to Mary" and is too large a topic to be dealt with in this short work. Nevertheless, for those who would know more about this practice, I recommend St. De Montfort's book which is reported to have transformed the life of the man who was to become Pope John Paul II.


When did Christmas (the birth of Christ) first begin as a Christian celebration? I remember hearing something about a true Saint Nicholas who maybe helped poor children or something, but to be honest, I really don't know much about when Christmas began to be celebrated by Christians.  I do know that the Orthodox Church celebrates it on a different day.

Did it begin in the Catholic Church?  If so, when did it become adopted by the Orthodox Church?

St. Nicholas of Myra predates the Great Schism by over 600 years. His feast day traditionally was December 6th, but has been taken off the Catholic calendar recently. Orthodox celebrate the feast of the nativity on the same day Catholics do, but their celebration with gifts, etc... is 12 days after (like it is in Spain and parts of Louisiana) on 3 kings day (feast of epiphany (catholic) or Theophany (orthodox)). That's January 6th, which remembers when the 3 kings came, quite a bit later than Jesus' birth (unlike in popular depiction).

St. Nicholas's feast day, like St. Stephen's who the song "Good King Wenceslas" takes place on, is conflated with Christmas for a few good reasons. Namely charity. On St. Nicholas's feast day there is a tradition of children leaving their shoes out for him to come and fill.

The older feast is the feast of the annunciation which apparently goes back to when the Anno Domini system was established. It was and is March 25th, and that was the greater of the two feasts in those days. Like the annunciation of Mary and John the Baptist, Jesus' annunciation feast day is 9 months previous to His birth. So, even in 731 there is a tradition of having Christ's birth be celebrated on December 25th.

However, there's nothing particularly special about the times and seasons of liturgical feasts. They arise through tradition and not through scripture. But the indisputable fact is, it is old.