Late for Mass, can I still receive the Eucharist? I got to Mass late yesterday (like at the start of the Homily during a weekday mass, so really only about 7 minutes - because of an unexpected detour) and I told my wife that we shouldn't go up for communion and she said that it wasn't our fault and I said nothing because you shouldn't talk at Mass, right?

But my kids heard us and were a bit perplexed. So, rather than not know something and live in ignorance, I'd like to know if there is a hard-and-fast rule for what the latest time one can arrive at Mass and still receive the Eucharist and if any circumstances might change that.  For instance, I'd imagine that people waiting for confession might not be fully engaged in the Liturgy and still be likely to receive Our Lord.  And if we have to take the kids out entirely, etc...

Late for Mass, can I still receive the Eucharist?

At a week day Mass, I see no problem. Being late however should be avoided if at all possible.

First of all, we must distinguish between receiving Communion on a week day Mass and a day of obligation. Reception of the Blessed Sacrament on week day Mass is permitted, even if we are late for the obligation to attend Mass in non-existent. Canon Law permits us to actually receive Communion outside of Mass during non-obligatory days. Thus it is in essence a non-issue. Communion may be received a second time in a day, providing that the second reception of Holy Communion is within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

  The Code of Canon Law (No. 917) stipulates, "A person who has received the Most Holy Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only during the celebration of the Eucharist in which the person participates, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 921, 2." Following this lead, Canon 921, 2 stipulates, "Even if they have received Communion in the same day, those who are in danger of death are strongly urged to receive again." Succinctly, a person may receive Holy Communion twice a day. - How Many Times a Day May One Receive Communion?

If we were to receive Communion at a second Mass on a week day or at a first one on a day of obligation, when is considered that we have arrived too late to  receive Our Lord in Holy Eucharist?

In other words when it that we have not attended Mass because we have arrived too Late?

When
I was in the seminary, we were taught that if we missed the offertory, it was considered that we did not fulfill our Sunday obligation to attend Mass (or Mass on another day of obligation).

Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum puts it this way:

  Like most priests, I am loath to give a straight answer to this question because, in a way, it is a catch-22 question for which there is no right answer.

  It is true that before the Second Vatican Council some moral theology manuals placed arrival before the offertory as the dividing line in deciding whether one fulfilled the Sunday obligation of assistance at Mass. But after the liturgical reform, with its emphasis on the overall unity of the Mass, modern theologians shy away from such exactitude.

  Mass begins with the entrance procession and ends after the final dismissal and we should be there from beginning to end. Each part of the Mass relates and complements the others in a single act of worship even though some parts, such as the consecration, are essential while others are merely important.

  To say that there is a particular moment before or after which we are either “out” or “safe,” so to speak, is to give the wrong message and hint that, in the long run, some parts of the Mass are really not all that important. It may also give some less fervent souls a yardstick for arriving in a tardy manner.

  Although I prefer not to hazard giving a precise cutoff moment, certainly someone who arrives after the consecration has not attended Mass, should not receive Communion, and if it is a Sunday, go to another Mass.

  Arriving on time is not just a question of obligation but of love and respect for Our Lord who has gathered us together to share his gifts, and who has some grace to communicate to us in each part of the Mass.

  It is also a sign of respect for the community with whom we worship and who deserves our presence and the contribution of our prayers in each moment. The liturgy is essentially the worship of Christ’s body, the Church. Each assembly is called upon to represent and manifest the whole body but this can hardly happen if it forms itself in drips and drabs after the celebration has begun.

  Thus people who arrive late to Mass have to honestly ask themselves, Why? If they arrive late because of some justified reason or unforeseen event, such as blocked traffic due to an accident, they have acted in good conscience and are not strictly obliged to assist at a later Mass (although they would do well to do so if they arrive very late and it is possible for them).

  If people arrive late due to culpable negligence, and especially if they do so habitually, then they need to seriously reflect on their attitudes, amend their ways, and if necessary seek the sacrament of reconciliation.

  Depending on how late they arrive they should prefer to honor the Lord’s day by attending some other Mass, or, if this is not possible, at least remain in the Church after Mass is over and dedicate some time to prayer and reflection on the readings of the day. - Communion for Late Arrivals at Mass?

Even on Sundays we may receive Communion twice provided that the second time round is during the celebration of the Mass.


How can I tell the difference between the Moral law and other laws in the old testament? Many Christians believe that there are three kinds of law in the Old Testament:

The moral law that declares how man should live.
The civil law that was the legal structures for the ancient nation of Israel.
The ceremonial law that declared how ancient Israel was to worship.

Covenant theology teaches that the moral law still applies to Christians.  How can I tell the difference between the moral, civil, and ceremonial law?

This may be an oversimplification, but truly, it's the best answer I have for this.

Moral Law deals with our relationship to God and to our fellow man.  Moral law can all be traced back to Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV quoted below)

  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
  with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first
  and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your
  neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on
  these two commandments.”

Take any of the laws and trace it back to the obvious purpose, and you can see what is moral law, what is civil law, and what is ceremonial law.

For example:

the Ten commandments, including thou shalt not Kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet...  All of these have to do with showing love toward our fellow people.  If we love someone we will not kill them, steal from them, or covet their things.  If we love God, we will have no other gods before Him, we will not bow down to idols.

Civil law deals with things like establishment of guilt, proper punishment for offenses.  It's easily recognizable as similar to our own civil laws.

Ceremonial law would include such things as the dimensions of the temple, the colors of the robes for certain priests, etc.


Did Jesus teach the Trinity? Did Jesus teach the doctrine of the Trinity?
And by teaching I mean giving a lesson to someone regarding the subject matter.

It depends on who you ask.  That's because it depends upon how you interpret the meaning of certain Biblical passages.

Both Trinitarians and Non-trinitarians feel very strongly that their doctrine is taught clearly in the Bible.  Trinitarians will answer, "Yes, Jesus did teach the doctrine of the trinity."  Non-trinitarians will answer, "No, Jesus never taught the doctrine of the trinity."  Both will provide biblical support for their arguments.  So, your question is not really a matter of whether or not Jesus did or did not teach it.  The question really is, whose interpretation, of those Biblical passages in question, do you find to be the most convincing.

Below are some of the most common examples that Trinitarians will point to, where they claim that Jesus teaches their doctrine.  Non-trinitarians each have slightly different interpretations of these passages depending upon their particular doctrines (non-trinitarian doctrines can range anywhere from Sabellianism to Adoptionism, so it's difficult to give a single definitive non-trinitarian interpretation of these passages).

Matthew 28:18-20 (NASB)

  And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

John 5:17-18 (NASB)

  But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”  For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

John 8:48-59 (NASB)

  The Jews answered and said to Him, “Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges. Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.” The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.’ Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

John 10:25-38 (NASB)

  Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”  The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

John 14:9-17 (NASB)

  Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.  “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.  I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

John 16:12-15 (NASB)

  I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

Those, and other passages like them, would be the closest Jesus came to directly teaching the doctrine of the Trinity.  It is impossible to fully support the entire orthodox doctrine of the Trinity using only the teachings of Jesus.  Supporting the entire doctrine on a Biblical-basis requires incorporating many other passages from both the Old and New Testaments.  There is no place in the Bible where all of the aspects of the doctrine are expounded in a single passage.  The word "trinity" is certainly never used in the Bible.

As far as whether or not the passages above constitute what you refer to as "giving a lesson regarding the subject matter," I will leave that judgment call up to you.


When and how did the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John get attached to the gospels? Most of the books of the New Testament—all the letters except Hebrews, plus the Revelation—give the author's name at the beginning. The gospels do not. Only one gospel identifies its author ("This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true." John 21:24), and even then it does not state his name.

So how did we get the names for the four gospel writers?

Irenaeus

We can thank Irenaeus, not only for identifying the tetramorph gospel, but also for providing the names of the authors who are traditionally assigned to them.  He summarized the tradition he received:

  Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.—Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1.

Matthew

Irenaeus was likely dependant on Papias (who Eusebius quotes):

  But concerning Matthew [Papias] writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able."—The Church History of Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 39.

From a historical perspective, this is a bit awkward as the evidence is that Matthew was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.  But for the purposes of this question, that's the answer. (See also: Gospel of Matthew on the Early Christian Writings site.)

Mark

Eusebius writes:

  Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

    This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.

  These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.—The Church History of Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 39.

So Eusebius quotes Papias (of whose works we only have fragments quoted in other works) quoting1 John the Presbyter who identifies Mark as recording Peter's gospel message.  Although Irenaeus also identifies Mark as the author, it's likely he got his information from Papias.  Justin Martyr seems to2 also link the Markian text with Peter, which is an independent confirmation.  Usually this Mark is identified with John Mark mentioned a few times in Acts and one of Paul's letters.  There really aren't any other candidates if you credit Papias' account.  (See also: Gospel of Mark on the Early Christian Writings site.)

Luke

Appropriately, the author of the earliest church history (Acts) and the most careful study of Jesus' life among the Gospels (Luke) is fairly conclusively identified with Luke the physician.  Clement of Alexandria positively identifies Luke as the author of Acts:

  It remains that we understand, then, the Unknown, by divine grace, and by the word alone that proceeds from Him; as Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates that Paul said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For in walking about, and beholding the objects of your worship, I found an altar on which was inscribed, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.”—The Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 12.

Clement also quotes a bit of Luke's gospel and names him as the author in another book. Tertullian and the earliest manuscript bear witness to Luke's authorship.  Since the recipient of the work is included in the preface, it's even possible the author signed the copy he originally submitted, though we don't actually have that copy to know for sure.  (See also: Gospel of Luke on the Early Christian Writings site.)

John

Internal evidence suggests that author of John was the Beloved Disciple.  Traditionally, that figure has been associated with John, one of Jesus' inner circle.  Again, Irenaeus likely received his information from Papias.  Eusebius jumps quickly over the question of who wrote the Gospel of John (probably because the identification was common knowledge by the 3rd-century) in order to address the authorship of Revelation:

  It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

  This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John’s. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.—The Church History of Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 39.

By calling John the apostle, "the evangelist", Eusebius identifies him as the author of the gospel (euangelion in Greek).  He proposes another John as the author of Revelation.2  There are a number of other candidates, but this is how John got associated with the gospel that bears his name.  (See also: Gospel of John on the Early Christian Writings site.)

Footnotes:

Or perhaps paraphrasing.  Ancient texts didn't use much in the way of punctuation, so it's hard to delineate quotations in the best of circumstances.  With this many layers of quotation, it's especially rough.
The key is to see that Justin Martyr mentions Boanerges, which indicates the Gospel of Mark. He calls the gospels the "memoirs of the apostles" and Mark seems to be Peter's memoir:

  And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of [him] that this so happened..."—Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, Chapter 106.

However, the memoir could be of Jesus ("Him"), so this is only supplementary evidence.
It's possible that this is a misreading of Papias by Eusebius.  Irenaeus seems to think there was just one John in the Asian church:

  And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him.—Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 33.

Perhaps at issue is the authorship of Revelation, which was the source of the early chiliasm controversy.  If there are two authors named John (one for the Gospel and one for the Apocalypse), than one may be taken as historical and the other as fanciful.


What differences will being a Christian make in this life? What are the differences being a Christian will make in this life (on earth not entrance into heaven or hell)?

Or is it just a group identity of a hopeful passage into Heaven upon the next life and really will not make much difference on this earth if it is ruled by the fall of man?

I'm not sure what you mean by "on a personal scale".

Being a Christian can (should!) change oneself to model oneself more closely on Christ and follow his teachings.

It can also affect others on a personal scale: William Booth and Edith Cavell are two modern examples who come immediately to mind, but there are many, many more stretching back into antiquity (for example, monastic orders who provided education and healthcare).

It's not simply a group identity as you propose, although of course there is the sure and certain hope of resurrection to new life. However, even if someone should like the idea of Heaven in the next life, or feel there should be more to this present life than they have, it's my experience that investigating that by joining a congregation will convince them of what it is to know Christ and that is their entry to Heaven. That sounds really evangelical; but I'm Roman Catholic.

This probably won't be sufficient. Could you expand on your question?


How much authority does Pseudo-Dionysus still have in today's Catholic Church? Ancient and medieval Church identified the sixth century Syrian Christian Neoplatonist author Dionysius the Areopagite, and not until modern times the truth has been revealed. However, Pseudo-Dionysus was seen as an authority figure among medieval theologians like Saint Thomas Aquinas. Therfore he has tremendous impacts in the development of Christian theology. But how much authority he still has after the modern general acceptance of his works as pseudepigrapha?

How much authority does Pseudo-Dionysus still have in today's Catholic Church?
The works of Dionysius were readily accepted by the medieval Scholastics. His works were not so highly valued during the the period of the Renaissance and thus broke with the time-honoured tradition of holding them in high esteem. There is too much uncertainty surrounding Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite and his writings for the Catholic Church to hold his works on the same level as say St. Augustine of Hippo.

By "Dionysius the Areopagite" is usually understood the judge of the Areopagus who, as related in Acts 17:34, was converted to Christianity by the preaching of St. Paul, and according to Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, Church History III.4) was Bishop of Athens.
In the course of time, however, two errors of far-reaching import arose in connection with this name. In the first place, a series of famous writings of a rather peculiar nature was ascribed to the Areopagite and, secondly, he was popularly identified with the holy martyr of Gaul, Dionysius, the first Bishop of Paris. It is not our purpose to take up directly the latter point; we shall concern ourselves here (1) with the person of the Pseudo-Areopagite; (2) with the classification, contents, and characteristics of his writing; (3) with their history and transmission; under this head the question as to the genuineness of, origin, first acceptance, and gradual spread of these writings will be answered.
Deep obscurity still hovers about the person of the Pseudo-Areopagite.
The doctrinal attitude of the Pseudo-Areopagite is not clearly defined. A certain vagueness, which was perhaps intended, is characteristic of his Christology, especially in the question concerning the two natures in Christ. We may well surmise that he was not a stranger to the latter, and rather modified, form of Monophysitism and that he belonged to that conciliatory group which sought, on the basis of the Henoticon issued in 482 by Emperor Zeno (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., III, iv), to reconcile the extremes of orthodoxy and heresy. This reserved, indefinite attitude of the author explains the remarkable fact that opposite factions claimed him as an adherent. As to his social rank, a careful comparison of certain details scattered through his works shows that he belonged to the class of scholars who were known at the time as scholastikoi.
The fact must, indeed, appear remarkable that these very writings, though rejected outright by such an authority as Hypatius, were within little more than a century looked upon as genuine by Catholics, so that they could be used against the heretics during the Lateran Council in 649 (Hardouin III, 699 sqq.).
As to the second period, universal recognition of the Areopagitic writings in the Middle Ages, we need not mention the Greek Church, which is especially proud of him; but neither in the West was a voice raised in challenge down to the first half of the fifteenth century; on the contrary, his works were regarded as exceedingly valuable and even as sacred. It was believed that St. Paul, who had communicated his revelations to his disciple in Athens, spoke through these writings (Histor.-polit. Blatter, CXXV, 1900, p. 541).
The works of Dionysius, thus introduced into Western literature, were readily accepted by the medieval Scholastics. The great masters of Saint-Victor at Paris, foremost among them the much admired Hugh, based their teaching on the doctrine of Dionysius. Peter Lombard and the great Dominican and Franciscan scholars, Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, adopted his theses and arguments. Master poets, e.g. Dante, and historians, e.g. Otto of Freising, built on his foundations. Scholars as renowned as Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln and Vincent of Beauvais drew upon him freely. Popular religious books, such as the "Legenda aurea" of Giacomo da Voragine and the "Life of Mary" by Brother Philip, gave him a cordial welcome.
It was reserved for the period of the Renaissance to break with the time-honoured tradition. True, some of the older Humanists, as Pico della Mirandola, Marsilius Ficinus, and the Englishmen John Colet, were still convinced of the genuineness of the writings; but the keen and daring critic, Laurentius Valla (1407-1457) in his glosses to the New Testament, expressed his doubts quite openly and thereby gave the impulse, at first for the scholarly Erasmus (1504), and later on for the entire scientific world, to take sides either with or against Dionysius. The consequence was the formation of two camps; among the adversaries were not only Protestants (Luther, Scultetus, Dallaeus, etc.) but also prominent Catholic theologians (Beatus Rhenanus, Cajetan, Morinus, Sirmond, Petavius, Lequien, Le Nourry); among the defenders of Dionysius were Baronius, Bellarmine, Lansselius, Corderius, Halloix, Delario, de Rubeis, Lessius, Alexander Netalis, and others. The literary controversy assumed such dimensions and was carried on so vehemently that it can only be compared to the dispute concerning the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals and the pseudo-Constantinian donation. In the nineteenth century the general opinion inclined more and more towards the opposition; the Germans especially, Möhler, Fessler, Döllinger, Hergenröther, Alzog, Funk, and others made no reserve of their decision for the negative. At this juncture the scholarly professor Franz Hipler came forward and attempted to save the honor of Dionysius. He finds in Dionysius not a falsifier, but a prominent theologian of the fourth century who, through no fault of his own, but owing to the misinterpretation of some passages, was confounded with the Areopagite. Many Catholics, and many Protestants as well, voiced their approval. Finally, in 1895 there appeared almost simultaneously two independent researches, by Hugo Koch and by Joseph Stiglmayr, both of whom started from the same point and arrived at the same goal. The conclusion reached was that extracts from the treatise of the neo-Platonist Proclus, "De malorum subsistentia" (handed down in the Latin translation of Morbeka, Cousin ed., Paris, 1864), had been used by Dionysius in the treatise "De div. nom." (c. iv, sections 19-35) A careful analysis brought to light an astonishing agreement of both works in arrangement, sequence of thought, examples, figures, and expressions. It is easy to point out many parallelisms from other and later writings of Proclus, e.g. from his "Institutio theologica", "theologia Platonica", and his commentary on Plato's "Parmenides", "Alcibiades I", and "Timaeus" (these five having been written after 462).
Accordingly, the long-standing problem seems to be solved in its most important phase. As a matter of fact, this is the decision pronounced by the most competent judges, such as Bardenhewer, Erhard, Funk, Diekamp, Rauschen, De Smedt, S.J., Duchesne, Battifol; and the Protestant scholars of early Christian literature, Gelzer, Harnack, Kruger, Bonwetsch. The chronology being thus determined, an explanation was readily found for the various objections hitherto alleged, viz. the silence of the early Fathers, the later dogmatic terminology, a developed monastic, ceremonial, and penitential system, the echo of neo-Platonism, etc. On the other hand it sets at rest many hypotheses which had been advanced concerning the author and his times and various discussions---whether, e.g., a certain Apollinaris, or Synesius, or Dionysius Alexandrinus, or a bishop of Ptolemais, or a pagan hierophant was the writer.
A critical edition of the text of the Areopagite is urgently needed. - Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite

Until many historical and doctrinal issues can be formerly resolved, the works of Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite will not enjoy a high amount of genuine authority within the Catholic Church these days.


Does Catholicism teach that the Wise Men from the East in fact, Jews settled in a far away place? At Matthew 2:16 (RSVCE), we read about the visit of the Wise Men to Infant Jesus, and the massacre of children  by Herod :

"Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men."

That implies that Child Jesus was nearly two years of age when the Wise Men reached Him. Surely, they should have come from a far away place.
The book "Travel in the Mogul Empire AD 1656- 1668" by Francois Bernier, with an English translation published in 1891 (available online on Rarebooks online State Central  Library, Kerala), cites the presence of settlement of Jews in Kashmir, India in ancient times. Of course, other parts of the world could also have had Jewish settlements at the time of Jesus' birth.
My question, therefore, is: Were the Wise Men from the East, in fact, Jews who had settled in a far away place, say India? What  do the teachings of Catholic Church say about such a prospect?

Given the accompanying texts to the Gospel that are read in the Epiphany of the Lord (based on the Roman Calendar), these magi might have well been non-Jews.

For example, the first lecture, in the link above, taken from Isaiah, states:

  Caravans of camels shall fill you, dromedaries from Midian and Ephah; All from Sheba shall come bearing gold and frankincense, and proclaiming the praises of the LORD.

The genealogy of the Bible states that Midian, Ephah, and Sheba are, strictly speaking, not Jews (mainly descendants of Jacob).

Similarly, the Psalm reads:

  The kings of Tarshish and the Isles shall offer gifts;
  the kings of Arabia and S[h]eba shall bring tribute. All kings shall pay him homage, all nations shall serve him.

So, given this context, there seem to be a suggestion that these magi were indeed non-Jews. Surely, these could have been Jews settled elsewhere, but the context of the quotes is that of non-Jews expressing homage to the Lord.

Another interesting answer comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia (not official doctrine but official in the sense that it has the Imprimatur). The entry on the magi states:

  The religion of the Magi was fundamentally that of Zoroaster and forbade sorcery; their astrology and skill in interpreting dreams were occasions of their finding Christ.

It also refers to non-biblical evidence:

  Herodotus (I, ci) is our authority for supposing that the Magi were the sacred caste of the Medes.

The Medes were non-Jews.


How do we get morals? The Bible often makes references to the law being written on our hearts, for example:

  The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom,
           And his tongue talks of justice.  The law of his God is in
  his heart;
           None of his steps shall slide.

Psalm 37:30-31 (NKJV)

I know it's not being literal when it says the law (morals) are written on our hearts. So how do we get morals?

Are we born knowing (genetic?).
Is it spiritual and morals are
transmitted to our brains from our spirits?
Are they learned from reading the Bible?
Are they passed down from generation to generation?
Something else?

Background (my justification for asking the question)

I'm an agnostic atheist and an emotivist. I enjoy watching debates between atheists and theists.

The theists frequently ask the atheists:

  If god isn't real, then how do you know what is right and wrong?

Which is a good question, but I rarely hear the reverse asked:

  If god is real, then how do you know what is right and wrong?

Thanks.

If you are asking how is morality defined, or "who decides what is moral and immoral?" then Christians believe that God decides that, and that He makes His will known to us through various means, like the Bible, tradition, revelation, prophets, etc. Various Christian religions dissent on the exact details here.

If you are asking how people become moral, then a big, big part of morality comes from education, from family, society, etc. Morality is certainly taught and Christ is described as a teacher very clearly in the Gospels.

Its also quite evident if you look at different Faiths. Muslims truly consider immoral to eat pigs, whereas Christians wouldn't flinch. If morals were innate we would all share the same morality, which we clearly don't.


Why does the Catechism of the Catholic Church abridge the first commandment? (This question came up while I was speaking with someone, and I don't think that I was able to answer it very well. Note that I am not asking whether the Church is right or wrong, just for a clear explanation of why Catholics have chosen to present a particular document in a particular way.)

In part 3, section 2, the Catechism of the Catholic Church lists the Ten Commandments. It provides a table with three columns: "Exodus", "Deuteronomy", and "A Traditional Catechetical Formula".

Why is the First Commandment abridged in the third column? Why aren't the commandments numbered in the first two columns? Is this meant to be a table of revisions, with the right side representing the "revised" commandments? What is the third column even supposed to be? Which of the columns is the "official list" of the 10 things Catholics are supposed to obey? Is the Catechism changing scripture?

The answer, I think, is straight out of the "training manual" for filtering and interpreting the Catechism:

  Inculturation of the faith, under certain aspects, is a linguistic task. This implies that catechesis respect and value the language proper to the message, especially biblical language, as well as the historical-traditional language of the Church (creed, liturgy) and doctrinal language (dogmatic formulations). It is also necessary for catechesis to enter into dialogue with forms and terms proper to the culture of those to whom it is addressed. Finally, catechesis must stimulate new expressions of the Gospel in the culture in which it has been planted. In the process of eculturating the Gospel, catechesis should not be afraid to use traditional formulae and the technical language of the faith, but it must express its meaning and demonstrate its existential importance. Similarly, it is also the duty of catechesis "to speak a language suited to today's children and young people in general and to other categories of people—the language of students, intellectuals and scientists; the language of the illiterate or of people of simple culture; the language of the handicapped, and so on".

#208 - General Directory for Catechesis

Basically, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is supposed to be a template for all particular Catechisms to follow. It's the official interpretation of scripture.  Not the only interpretation, but certainly the most broadly acceptable

  In virtue of being a catechism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church collects all that is fundamental and common to the Christian life without "presenting as doctrines of the faith special interpretations which are only private opinions or the views of some theological school"

#124 ibid.

So, if you're looking for the Catechism to pick a fight with the Bible, you've came to the wrong place.  In the instance of the Decalogue, the Catechism lists the broad statements that justify each of the commandments as subheads to subsequent sections. Which, from the standpoint of being good literature, makes perfect sense.


How does John Polkinghorne define the soul? The Reverend Doctor John Polkinghorne, Anglican priest, theoretical physicist, and knight of the British Empire, seems to have interesting ideas about what the soul is. From Wikipedia:

  He regards the mind, soul and body as different aspects of the same underlying reality—"dual aspect monism"—writing that "there is only one stuff in the world (not two—the material and the mental) but it can occur in two contrasting states (material and mental phases, a physicist might say) which explain our perception of the difference between mind and matter."

What is his definition of the soul?

Introduction
Polkinghorne briefly states his conception of the soul in the introduction to The God of Hope and the End of the World:

The soul ... is conceived of as the information-bearing pattern carried by the matter of the body, a revival in modern dress of the Aristotelian-Thomistic idea of the soul as the form of the body. It is claimed to be a coherent hope that God will hold that pattern in the divine memory following its dissolution at death, and then finally restore a person's full humanity through the re-embodiment of the soul in the final great act of resurrection.

Before we can understand this fully, we'll need to understand his philosophical outlook on the relationship between matter and spirit (which he terms "dual aspect monism") and what he means when he refers to an "information-bearing pattern."
One more note: Polkinghorne does not address whether or not this definition is unique to humanity, but it's worthwhile to note that Thomas Aquinas, to whom he acknowledges his indebtedness, believed that there were three kinds of souls: plant, animal, and human. Polkinghorne only seems to have humanity in view in his discussions of the soul, but he probably wouldn't rule out other beings having souls in a Thomistic sense.
Dual aspect monism
Philosophies of mind are broadly broken down into monism and dualism. Some are hard to classify as one or the other, including Polkinghorne's preferred theory, which is called "dual aspect monism" or "double-aspect theory". In an interview, he offers this description:

"Dual aspect monism" is an attempt to wrestle with the persistent unsolved problem of how mind and matter relate to each other. It differs from classical dualism, which maintains that there are two sorts of substance: mind and matter. Its problem was how they relate to each other. I'm sure that we're not simply matter, and I'm sure that reality is more than just ideas. None of the classical solutions seem to correspond to our experience. Dual aspect monism tries to take seriously both our mental experience and our material experience. It says that they're related to each other in a very deep and complementary way, that there is only one stuff in the world. Dual aspect monism seeks to avoid devaluing or subordinating one side or the other. Sometimes it might seem a little like a subtle form of materialism, but I don't think it is, because it doesn't treat the mental as being just an epiphenomenon of the material.

He gives the subject a much more in-depth treatment in his book Faith, Science and Understanding, pages 95-98. First he describes in what way classical monistic and dualistic conceptions have proved inadequate:

The classical metaphysical strategies of materialism, idealism and Cartesian dualism all exhibit a bankruptcy in the face of the many-layered, and yet interconnected, character of our encounter with reality. This recognition encourages the search for some form of dual aspect monism, an account that would acknowledge the fundamental distinction between experience of the material and experience of the mental but which would neither impose on reality a sharp division into two unconnected kinds of substance nor deny the psychosomatic unity of human beings. Stating this metaphysical aspiration is one thing; its attainment, even in a sketchy and conjectural form, is quite another. ...
Just as relativity theory has integrated matter and energy into a single account, so one might hope for an eventual discovery (at least as revolutionary as relativity, and most probably much more so) that would integrate the triad: matter-energy-information. That achievement would be a significant step in the search for a dual aspect monism. ...
It would, however, be no more than a first move in a direction whose ultimate goal was still over the horizon. A much more important step would have been made if it were ever possible to attain an understanding in which consciousness was taken into an integrated account. Despite many over-confident reductionist claims to the contrary, consciousness is presently both an undeniable experience and also an irreducible mystery.

With that established, he moves on to describe his own conception of dual aspect monism and what it entails:

If a dual aspect monism is on the right track, then there will be entities, such as stones, whose nature is located wholly at the material pole, and other entities, such as ourselves who are 'amphibians', participating in both kinds of polar experience. It would seem entirely reasonable to suppose that there are also entities whose nature is located wholly at the mental pole. (This could provide a metaphysical lodging place for created non-embodied spiritual beings, such as angels, if such there are.) There is another candidate for this end of the metaphysical spectrum, less controversial than angels, namely, the truths of mathematics. There is a widespread conviction among mathematicians (which I share) that the pursuit of their subject involves discovery and not mere construction. Mathematical entities, such as the prime numbers and the Mandelbrot set, are 'out there' in some platonic world of mathematical ideas. Not only can a dual aspect monism accommodate such a belief but also this conviction of the mathematicians would point to an interesting aspect of such a metaphysics.
The material world is a world of process, characterised by temporality and becoming. ... A noetic world containing the truths of mathematics would have a different character. It would be everlasting, in the sense that such truths just are and do not evolve. ... It follows then that, if these two worlds, material and noetic, are but complementary aspects of a larger created reality, then the duality involved in that wider picture is more than just that of material/mental; it must also embrace becoming/being and everlasting/temporal. Once again, humanity is the 'great amphibian', participating in both poles of this complex reality.

Information-bearing patterns
On pages 18-19 of The God of Hope and the End of the World, Polkinghorne attempts to illustrate the need for science to account for an idea of "information as a complement to energy in the description of the process of the world." To that end, he describes an experiment done by Stuart Kauffman originally described in chapter 4 of Kauffman's At Home in the Universe. Here is Polkinghorne's summary:

A physical realisation of his computer model would consist of a large array of light bulbs, each of which has its behaviour of being on or off correlated with the behaviours of two other bulbs somewhere in the array. If they are both on, it is more likely to be on also at the next step of the system's development. If the system is started off in some random configuration, with some bulbs on and some bulbs off, and then allowed to develop according to these rules, instead of just flickering away haphazardly for ever, the system soon settles down to cycling through a very limited number of particular on/off patterns. This unexpected behaviour represents the generation of an astonishing degree of overall orderliness. If there are 10,000 light bulbs in the array, there are about 103000 possible configurations that might in principle occur. In practice, however, the system cycles through only about 100!
This remarkable generation of order out of chaos strongly suggests that if the behaviour of complex systems is to be described and understood adequately, this task will call not only for the conventional 'bits and pieces' account in terms of the interactions of constituents but also for a complementary holistic account in terms of the overall pattern of the whole. In scientific terms, one can say that the conventional picture of energetic exchanges between particles will need to be supplemented by a description of the whole, framed in terms of the effects of information generation (that is to say, the specification of complex pattern).
We see here the prospect of the revival of an antique notion, reclothed in modern dress. Aristotle had spoken of both matter (hyle) and form (eidos). We are just beginning to learn how to speak, in a parallel way, about energy and information. Just as Thomas Aquinas used the revived Aristotelian science of his day as an aid to his theological thinking, so we, in our time, may find theological value in making use of the analogical resource that these scientific developments offer us. In pursuit of our present eschatological task, we shall see later that this method may be of particular relevance to how we may understand the nature of the human soul.

Definition of soul
We should now be ready to understand Polkinghorne's definition of the soul, which he gives on pages 105-106 of The God of Hope and the End of the World and pages 61-62 of Science and Theology. Quoting first briefly from the former work:

The soul must be the 'real me' that links the boy of childhood to the ageing academic of later life. If that carrier of continuity is not a separate spiritual component, what else could it be? It is certainly not merely material. ... What does appear to be the carrier of continuity is the immensely complex 'information-bearing pattern' in which that matter is organized. This pattern is not static; it is modified as we acquire new experiences, insights and memories, in accordance with the dynamic of our living history. It is this information-bearing pattern that is the soul.

Now quoting from the latter for a more complete definition:

A primary human concept is that of the continuing self, linking golden-haired youth to snowy old age. (At least, that is so in traditional Western thinking; Eastern thought has more frequently considered the individual self to be an illusion from which release is to be sought. In this book we shall take the Western view.) One of the attractions of dualist thought is that it assigns to each human person a spiritual component, a soul, which acts as the carrier of the self, defining a unique human identity in this life and beyond it. Yet the tenor of the foregoing argument has been to reject dualism and to treat human beings as psychosomatic unities, 'animated bodies rather than incarnated souls', in a famous phrase. This was the way in which the ancient Hebrews seem to have conceived of humanity and a psychosomatic account of human nature is the dominant, but not exclusive, way of thinking to be found in the Bible. One of the few matters relating to humanity on which there is a substantial degree of contemporary agreement is that men and women are to be treated as unities and not as spiritual beings housed in fleshly bodies.
This does not imply eschewing all talk of the soul - that would be a grave difficulty for much of theology - but a redefinition of what the soul might mean. In essence, it must be 'the real me'. It is clear that this is not simply the material that happens to compose my body at some particular time. The atoms in each of us are continually being changed by eating and drinking, wear and tear. They cannot be the source of our experience of a continuing self but, rather, we may suppose that the self is composed of the immensely complex 'pattern' in which that matter is organized. It is beyond present human power to explicate exactly what are the characteristics of this pattern, what changes (as new memories are acquired, for instance) and what remains the same (defining the continuing life of a specific person). The rejection of a computer model of brain/mind implies that it would be totally inadequate to think of the soul as the superprogramme running on the hardware of the body, but that impoverished analogy would at least point in helpful direction, however much it might require augmentation in order to correspond to the profound complexity of human nature.
As with all attempts to describe humanity, one soon reaches the hand-waving stage of the discussion. Yet the need simultaneously to acknowledge both psychosomatic unity and also the existence of a carrier of human identity is an insight that has had a long philosophical history. Aristotle spoke of the soul as the 'form' of the body; in other words, he too thought of the soul as pattern. This way of thinking was taken up by Thomas Aquinas, who rejected the Platonic dualism that had dominated Western Christian thinking since Augustine.


Why is the Roman Catholic infant baptism called "christening"? In popular culture, particularly in stories and fairy tales, infants are christened. The story of Sleeping Beauty begins with the christening of the princess, and at her christening ceremony, there are the three fairies that bestow the princess blessings or gifts.

In the English language, the verb to christen is (1) to baptize an infant or (2) name someone or something.

How did naming connotation arise? What really occurs during the christening ceremony in the Roman Catholic Church? Are babies christened or named by the priests in the sense that the priests assign a fitting Christian name for the child? Is the naming connotation only a European Catholic thing?

It's instructive here to look at the etymology of "christening". It is, obviously, derived from the word Christ. Here's what the Online Etymology Dictionary has to say about christen:

christen (v.)
c.1200, from Old English cristnian "to baptize," literally "to make Christian," from cristen "Christian". General meaning of "to name" is attested from mid-15c.

The original meaning of the word is "to make Christian", which is very much what baptism does. For instance, see the Catechism page on baptism:

Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission (CCC 1213)

So the original meaning of the word was very close to the meaning of "baptism".
Of course, baptism was a significant moment in the life of the child, not least because it was the first time their name would be recorded officially. (No birth registers in those days!) So the baptism/christening ceremony also had the idea of name-giving incorporated into it.
The situation became complicated by the analogous use of the words "christen" and "christening" to refer to naming ceremonies more widely, and thence to meaning "giving a name to something", as in "I christened my new car Hazel."
I'm fairly sure that the weird etymology has only happened in English (as on so many occasions in English, we have a French-derived word (baptism) and a German-derived word (christening) that mean basically the same thing), and therefore that this is restricted to the English-speaking Christian world.


Did the Apostles “worship Jesus” in Luke 24:52? What is the correct reading of Luke 24:52 - did they worship Jesus?  Latin Vulgate does not mention this and RSV puts this in footnotes.

Luke 24:50-53 (NIV)

  50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up
  his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left
  them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and
  returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually
  at the temple, praising God.

Latin Vulgate Luke 24: 50-53

  51 And it came to pass, whilst he blessed them, he departed from them,
  and was carried up to heaven. 52 And they adoring went back into
  Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they were always in the temple,
  prais-ing and blessing God. Amen.

  Rsv – Luke 24:52 And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

footnote: ‘worshiped him’

There was some controversy over the phrase in the 80's because some minority of manuscripts appeared to omit the phrase which led to some Bible versions removing it or footnoting it. However, earlier manuscripts were found in the 50's that did have the phrase in it which make the later omissions likely scribal errors (mistakes).  It has since been restored to the majority of the versions that had removed it because of this find.  This is likely the reason why your version is missing it - if it's an older version.

Text Note: Luke 24:52

I will attempt to give you the reason the Greek (and now English versions) have the alternative that you stated.

In the best manuscripts the Greek states

  24:52 καὶ αὐτοὶ προσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν...

Literally this states, "And they worshiped him..."

προσκυνήσαντες is the aorist, active, participle which means it is a variant. The root would be προσκύνέω.

  προσκύνέω has a range from "to do reverence or homage by kissing the hand" in the OT Septuagint but in the NT it means "to do reverence or homage by prostration (bowing or kneeling)"; to pay divine homage, worship, adore; "to bow oneself in adoration."

  from The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament William D. Mounce

To your question about the Vulgate:

You translated this as "52 And they adoring went back into Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they were always in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen."

This is what the Vulgate states in Latin

  24:52 et ipsi adorantes regressi sunt in Hierusalem cum gaudio magno

This translates to "And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy."

It appears that whatever English translation you are using just did not translate the Latin word "adorantes" to worshiped but it still came close. If we go back to the Greek this is easier to see.

The operative clause is αὐτοὶ προσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν.

In προσκυνήσαντες the ντ identifies it as a participle (participles are verbal adjectives as in they describe an action happening to someone or something)
The "σα" means that it is Aorist tense (a sort of past tense that means that it happened prior to now but doesn't specifiy time in itself)
The "ες" suffix means that it is identifying the adverb as describing the group (αὐτοὶ, "they").
We also know that a participle must modify something since if describes an action happening to someone or something and if there are only 2 nouns in the whole clause αὐτοὶ and αὐτὸν (αὐτὸν is singular and referring to a "him" and by context we know the him is Jesus) and the participle is plural and the only noun that is plural is αὐτοὶ (them) then the object of the participle (who it is being done to) must be the αὐτὸν (him).

In the translation you quoted above it doesn't make sense to say "And they adoring went back into Jerusalem with great joy." Here adoring is also a participle without an object. What were they adoring? If this were a verb, that is just an action the group was performing, then we would not expect this to be a participle and would have just been an plural, aorist, active, indicative (think time) form (as far as I know that form is never used anywhere in the NT).

There seems to be something missing as it is stated in your Vulgate version (not your documentation of it but an issue with the translation within it). Remember that the Vulgate was written by Jerome using the Greek so the priority should also go to the Greek text which clearly states that "they worshiped him..."

(All emphasis mine)


What does the Good News refer to? What is the Good News?

Is there a different meaning when Jesus mentions it and when Paul does?

Edit:

I'll clarify my question. Jesus mentions the Good News (or "gospel" in some translations) in Mark 1:15:

  And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

It seems that His gospel is that "the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand." Does that relate to the time of His laying down His life for the sin of men, as the term "gospel" is understood after His death, or does the term have another meaning in Jesus' mouth?

The "Good News" in the Bible refers specifically to the Gospel of salvation. Simply that.

As you stated, it is sometimes translated as "gospel". This is because, the Greek word it came from, can be translated as "good news", "glad tidings", or "gospel", etc.

  (from Koine Greek euangélion — also translated as "gospel", "glad tidings" and variants


Why isn't the cross considered an idol? Exodus 20:1-15 ESV

  And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who
  brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
  “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for
  yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven
  above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under
  the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the
  Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
  on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who
  hate me, ...

and

  Leviticus 26:1 ESV

  “You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar,
  and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to
  it, for I am the Lord your God.

How is this different than a Cross in a church?

I don't see how this cross
 is different than this idol .

The difference is that a cross in a church is not worshipped. As the translators' notes in the New English Translation (NET) Bible indicates, regarding Exodus 20:4, the concern of the Law with respect to pesel—the Hebrew term referring to "an image that was carved out of wood or stone"—was about statues that "would be made for the purpose of worship, an idol to be venerated, and not any ordinary statue." In John Gill's exposition of this verse he makes the same distinction, that God's commandment regarded things shaped from wood or stone, cast into a mold, or engraved by men "in order to be worshipped." There is no compelling reason to think that the Law was opposed to any and all images whatsoever; after all, God himself commanded Moses to make a snake and set it on a pole, so that all those who were bitten if they looked upon it would live (Num. 21:4-9). As Gill notes, the Jews of Christ's era had no religious aversion to coins impressed with images, although "they vehemently opposed the setting up any images of the Caesars or emperors in their temple, because they seemed to be placed there as deities, and had a show of religious worship" (emphasis mine). Nor is there any compelling reason to think images were forbidden for use in worship—such as a cross in a church?—for were there not golden cherubim set over the Mercy Seat, which God commanded be made? As noted in the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, "The mere making was no sin—it was the making with the intent to give idolatrous worship" (emphasis mine), which is surely indicated in the rest of this second commandment, particularly as seen in verse 5: "You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God." The same thing is seen in Lev. 25:1, where the same worship qualification is found: "to bow down before it."

As described in The Christian Observer (p. 41)

It is manifest also that the art of the graver, sculptor, and embroiderer, was sanctified under the old dispensation. Still there is that sweeping intolerance of the second commandment towards any image or likeness of any created thing wherever or whatever it might be. But it scarcely needs much knowledge of the Hebrew idiom to be aware that when two clauses are paired together as in that commandment, "Thou shalt not make … Thou shalt not bow down," it does not mean two precepts but one. In most other languages the meaning would be conveyed something to this effect, "Thou shalt not make … in order to bow down thereto." If thou make for other purposes, the commandment touches thee not. So Calvin with his usual acute perception comments thus: "There is no necessity to refute what some have foolishly imagined, that sculpture and painting of every kind are condemned here." Otherwise Solomon's lions and oxen and palm trees must stand condemned, and the positive command to cast the brazen serpent and to model the cherubim would be a scandal and a difficulty. It was thus [in this fashion] that John of Damascus, Gregory II, and others replied to the broad assertions of the Iconoclasts.

("Early image-worship in the church," The Christian Observer, No. 1 [London: Hatchards, 1877], 41.)

(Note: I originally had more links in here, pointing to where these things can be read online, but it seems I need a higher reputation before I can post any more than two.)


Why would orthodox Christians consider Christian Science unorthodox if it essentially a mix of Augustine and healing? Why is Christian Science considered unorthodox?

How is Mary Baker Eddy's neo-platonism different from Augustine's,
Aquinas', Calvin's, Jonathan Edwards', et. al.?
How is her understanding of the Incarnation different from
Scheiermacher's, Tillich's, Marcus Borg, et al?
How is her view of the sacraments different from the Quakers?

From what I can see, Mrs. Eddy puts together perfectly orthodox views on evil as privation, matter as shadows, and Jesus as Wayshower--just like Meister Eckhardt--and then applies these doctrines to Christian healing.

If evil is a privation of good and has no real existence, isn't the best way to approach healing to see disease as a privation and not real?

Maybe Jesus healed by removing the shadows which distort our vision of our true nature as God's children. If God is Spirit, and we are in His Image and Likeness, then doesn't it follow that we are spirit, and not matter? I'm not sure why Christian Science is a heretical cult since it is rooted in many purely orthodox strands of Christianity, albeit put together in an original, insightful way.

Why, then, is Christian Science considered unorthodox if it has orthodox views?

This quote from catholic.com sums up why a Catholic group considers it unorthodox pretty well:

  Christian Science purports to be a Christian organization. It borrows
  heavily from the Christian vocabulary but denies all the fundamental
  Christian dogmas. It rejects the belief in a personal God, the
  Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin and the devil,
  the Resurrection, and heaven and hell.

In short, Christian Science denies the fundamentals of the faith. This is how heresy is defined. It has nothing to do with having ideas similar to other Christian writers.

Mary Baker Eddy (Catholic Answers)

Want more details? Mary Baker Eddy's full teachings are found in her book, now online, Science and Health, with Keys to the Scriptures. Here are several extracts with links. As you can see, Mary uses the same terms as the Bible does, but reinterprets them.

25:3-9 tells us that Christ's blood did not cleanse us from sin on the cross:

  The efficacy of Jesus’ spiritual offering is infinitely greater than
  True flesh and bloodcan be expressed by our sense of human blood. The
  material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin
  when it was shed upon “the accursed tree,” than when it was flowing in
  his veins as he went daily about his Father’s business.

from http://www.christianscience.com/the-christian-science-pastor/science-and-health/chapter-ii-atonement-and-eucharist?citation=SH%2025:3-25:12

361:1-3 tells us that Christ is not really God Himself, but only an idea of God:

  The Jew believes that the Messiah or Christ has not yet come; the
  Christian believes that Christ is God. Here Christian Science
  intervenes, explains these doctrinal points, cancels the disagreement,
  and settles the question. Christ, as the true spiritual idea, is the
  ideal of God now and forever, here and everywhere.

from http://www.christianscience.com/the-christian-science-pastor/science-and-health/chapter-xi-some-objections-answered

335:24-30 Tells us that sin and sickness are not real:

  XX. Mind is the divine Principle, Love, and can produce nothing unlike
  the eternal Father-Mother, God. The one divine Mind Reality is
  spiritual, harmonious, immutable, immortal, divine, eternal. Nothing
  unspiritual can be real, harmonious, or eternal. Sin, sickness, and
  mortality are the suppositional antipodes of Spirit, and must be
  contradictions of reality.

from http://www.christianscience.com/the-christian-science-pastor/science-and-health/chapter-x-science-of-being

30:3-12 tells us that Jesus and the Christ were separate entities. Also, He was a way-shower, and not the way Himself:

  Born of a woman, Jesus’ advent in the flesh partook partly of Mary’s
  earthly condition, although he was endowed with the Christ, the divine
  Spirit, without measure. This accounts for his struggles in Gethsemane
  and on Calvary, and this enabled him to be the mediator, or
  way-shower, between God and men. Had his origin and birth been wholly
  apart from mortal usage, Jesus would not have been appreciable to
  mortal mind as “the way.”

from http://www.christianscience.com/the-christian-science-pastor/science-and-health/chapter-ii-atonement-and-eucharist?citation=SH%2030:5-30:13


If marriage is not a sacrament, why should Christians care how the civil authorities define it? The reformers rejected the sacrament of marriage and turned marriage over to the civil authorities. (I understand that reformation churches even stopped conducting weddings for a few centuries.) Today, many Christians object to how the civil authorities are redefining marriage. But if marriage is under the purview of the civil authorities, how can this be a valid objection? Should churches take marriage back from the civil authorities?

If marriage is not a sacrament, then what is it?

At the start of the Church of England wedding service, the minister refers to marriage as having been "instituted by God in the time of man's innocency". Marriage is universal,  and a gift of God to all mankind. Even those who believe marriage can be a sacrament, generally do not believe it is always so.

Luther saw marriage as a civil contract blessed by God. He recommended that ministers pose questions to the couple at the Church door and that they there make their promises. They were then led into the church whereupon the marriage received blessing.

A civil contract is not the same as a private understanding. A contract is enforceable at law, by either of the parties but also sometimes by society at large.

Some Christians object to redefinition of marriage where the redefinition involves a loosening of the ties that bind. An agreement terminable at will by either of the parties is not the kind of civil contract Luther had in mind. The very concept of marriage entailing a civil contract implies that such a contract is legally permitted. In many jurisdictions it is impossible to make a legally binding permanent marriage contract, because the state  will not uphold it. Some Christians believe divorce should not be an option, or should be available only in very restricted circumstances.   This is not necessarily to deny the right of non-Christians to enter into temporary agreements of various kinds if they wish; it is about claiming the right to make  a particular type of contract, whose terms have historically been meant by "marriage".

Another issue is that many Christians believe that the permanent union of a man and a woman is the foundation of human society, and that we need a word for this special relationship. If the word "marriage" comes to mean something wider, then we no longer have  a word referring specifically to this special and particular relationship of husband and wife. This then leads to a reduced understanding of the importance of traditional marriage.

Another way marriage  can be re-defined is to include couples of the same sex. One objection to this is that again it means we no longer have a word for traditional marriage. Another is that the sexual aspects which may be involved are regarded, by some Christians,  as sinful. That is not to say that covenants such as that between David and Jonathan are objectionable.

A concern in some countries is that if marriage between persons of the same sex is allowed, and if discrimination on grounds of sexuality is not allowed, then churches and ministers could be forced to conduct same sex weddings, or sued for not doing. Established churches may be especially vulnerable since refusal of marriage there might in the future be construed as state discrimination, on which laws may be especially strong.

There are Christian and non-Christian views for and against, but the question asks only for Christian views against redefinition.

The statement in the body of the question that Reformation churches generally did not conduct weddings is not correct. Independent denominations usually did not conduct weddings, but they were customarily conducted in the official churches.

To summarise: it is precisely because of the Protestant understanding of marriage as a civil contract, that many Protestants believe that a civil contract, meeting the requirements of Christian marriage, should exist and be available.


Can someone explain the argument that Jesus believed in Adam and Eve? It has been said that Matthew 19:4-6 indicates Jesus believed in an original Adam and Eve. I don't reach this conclusion at all. Can somebody help explain why people read it this way?

Matthew 19:4-6

  Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

In order to interpret what Jesus is saying in Matthew 19:4, you must first understand the reference he is making.

From Matthew 19:4:

  4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
  5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
  6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." - Matthew 19:4-6 ESV

The bolded portion above is taken from Genesis:

  20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
  21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
  22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
  23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
  24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
  25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. - Genesis 2:20-25 ESV

That section of Genesis is dealing specifically with Adam and Eve, and by referencing it in the way that Jesus does, he is using the correct interpretation of the law to respond to a test by the Pharisees.  As such, it is a direct reference, not a parable.   Also note that he says:

  he who created them from the beginning made them male and female

Created from the beginning as male and female, along with a direct Genesis reference to Adam and Eve is a strong indication of Jesus' acknowledgement of the veracity of the Adam and Eve account.


Is it fair to say that Baptists have a liturgy? One distinctive of Baptists and many other congregational churches is that they have no prescribed method of worship. Unlike, say, an Episcopalian or a Roman Catholic, there is no prayer book and no guidance "from above" (in the earthly, not heavenly sense) as to the elements and order of a church worship service. Each congregation is free to explore and promulgate its own worship order.

That said, in effect, most Baptist services I've ever participated in or led have boiled down to:

A Welcome
Two or three songs, one of which might be a choir special
A single Bible reading
An offering
The Doxology
A prayer
A sermon
An altar call and a final hymn

Followed by coffee hour in truly progressive churches :)  Additionally, communion, to be held quarterly or monthly  is inserted between the sermon and the altar call.

While there is no strict order, I'm willing to bet that I've just described about 95% of them, and I've probably even got the order right in at least 80%.

Here's the question—is that a liturgy?  I know I'd reject that label, but is it fair to call it a liturgy? If it is, why do Baptists reject the claim. If not, what element is missing to call it such?

Yes and No

It is fair to say that Baptist services are liturgical, but I don't think I'd say that they have "a" liturgy (meaning that they generally adhere to a common liturgy).

Many Baptist churches I've been to don't quite follow the formula you described.  Most follow it somewhat, but I think that to call it a common liturgy, it needs to be followed more closely than it actually is.

The best formula that I can come up with that describes every Baptist church I have been to is (in varied order):

Singing (varied number of songs)
Announcements
Prayer
Sermon

I feel that that is too generic to be called a liturgy, because:

The order varies from church to church.
These are common elements, but these elements are practiced very differently in different churches (hymns versus rock bands, etc.)
Churches often have additional elements.

But that said, most Baptist churches are liturgical within themselves.  In other words, they don't necessarily follow the liturgies of other Baptist churches, but the pattern of a given Baptist church service changes very little from week-to-week.


Why was Jesus called Jesus, and not Immanuel? Was the choice of Jesus (Joshua) in addition to Immanuel(Matthew 1: 21 and 23) in order to fulfil the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18: 15? This gives a message that Jesus, like His namesake, would lead Israel into the promised land and not Moses (the law).

Can the answers concentrate on the prophesy in Deuteronomy.

Because Emmanuel/Immanuel is a nick name.
It is like saying Clark Kent, his name is SuperMan, though people also know him as Man of Steel.
Which is the same with Jesus, he's name is Jesus of Nazareth, we call him Jesus Christ (Christ means Messiah) but we know him as Emmanuel because he's God in the flesh who walked with us.

and the prophecy is

  Isaiah 7:14 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
  Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his
  name Immanuel.

(And Abram to Abraham has no connection to this. Abram did wrong things, lying to those kings and allowing Sarai to be taken as the King's wife while Abram accepted the good/provision over Sarai. A man to be Father of all nations should not bare a name and remembrance of someone who lied and gave up his wife. God had to change his name to Abraham.
The thing was back in those times, names actually meant something. Jacob's name meant cheating and his name was changed to Israel. Jacob who would become the first to bear Israel was cheating a lot of people and did wrong things, so we cannot let the Jews bare the forever name Jacob to someone who cheats. That was why God had to change his name to Israel. Saul people knew him as a persecutor so he had to change his name to Paul.
I do think it's important for us to look at our name meanings for they can impact our lives. If name makes changes to our life as a bad thing, it is best to change our name. If you look at the prophet names in the bible, they all have good meaning outcome like David means beloved.)

God bless


Why did not Jesus praise John the Baptist before the latter's disciples? At Mtt 11:2-11 we see an account of the delegation that John the Baptist sent to Jesus :

"When John heard in prison what the Messiah was doing, he sent word by his disciples   and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?”   Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see:  .........   And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.” As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John ...."

It appears that Jesus was a  bit disappointed by the doubt that John had expressed, as is evident from Verse 7 :   "" And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.”

But then, once John's disciples have left, Jesus showers praises on John. My question therefore,  is: Why did Jesus wait for the disciples of John the Baptist to leave before showering praises on him ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say about the delay ?

TL;DR: Jesus was not disappointed and St. John the Baptist did not have doubt.  Some Church Fathers interpreted the passage to mean that either

John the Baptist was sending the disciples for their sake (so v.6 was directed at the disciples), or

the reference "the one who will come" meant John was asking "whether Jesus also would come into the underworld so that John could proclaim him as the forerunner there also after his death." (see Hermeneia commentary below and catena aurea on Matt 11).

The rest of this answer is based on Volume 2 of the Hermeneia commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, which is a commentary emphasizing technical exegesis and history of interpretations rather than theological, so I believe it can apply for the Catholic point of view as well, as it covers the view of the Church Fathers.
Verse 11:6 is treated under "The Baptist's Inquiry (11:2-6).  I'm skipping the Analysis portion (Origin, Redaction, Source) which discusses the authenticity of the pericope text before final redaction and the verse by verse Interpretation.

History of Interpretation (verse 3)
Why does the Baptist, who—for both the church and the evangelist!—had proclaimed Jesus as the coming one, suddenly become a doubter? The question angers Luther. “Most of what I can find written about this gospel deals with the question of whether St. John did not know that Jesus is the rightful Christ; but that is an unnecessary question, and it is of no great consequence.”26 In the ancient church Tertullian, among others, dared to say that John had doubted Jesus’ messiahship27, but he encountered unanimous and indignant protest. The usual answer was that John had asked Jesus not for his own sake but for that of his disciples.28 Beginning with Origen a number of interpreters have understood “the one who will come” with a future meaning and have interpreted John’s question just before his own death as asking whether Jesus also would come into the underworld so that John could proclaim him as the forerunner there also after his death.29 Since the Enlightenment, Protestant exegesis has again taken seriously the possibility that John genuinely doubted. Depending on one’s theological position, the interpretations have gone in different directions. Some found it to be understandable that even brave men would experience all kinds of doubts and anxieties in a prison cell.30 Another was confident that doubt is part of a prophet’s “religious condition.”31 Widespread is the thesis of the Baptist’s messianic impatience whose doubts came simply from the fact that Jesus delayed his messianic revelation too long.32 It was said that such impatience would also be understandable in a prison cell! At the same time, it was said, there are obvious pedagogical reasons why Jesus delayed. He wanted first to win the hearts of the people.33 Knabenbauer announces, not without pride, that in his time “practically all” Protestants believed that John doubted Jesus’ messiahship, while the Catholics attempted to remove from him any shadow of doubt.34
[Some footnotes]
Joseph Knabenbauer, Commentarius in Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, 2 vols. (Cursus scripturae sacrae 3/1–2; 3d ed.; Paris: Lithielleeux, 1922).
29 Since Origen Hom. in 1 Reg. 28.3–25 = GCS Origenes 4.290.30–32. In the West this interpretation was spread through Jerome (77–78); idem Ep. 121.1 ad Algasiam = CSEL 56.5 on the basis of the translation in the Vulgate “qui venturus es” (future). Cf. Daniel Sheerin, “St. John the Baptist in the Lower World,” 1–22, 7–17; later material in Simonetti, “Praecursor” 372–82.
Manlio Simonetti, “Praecursor ad inferos: Una nota sull’ interpretazione patristica di Matteo 11, 3, ” Augustinianum 20 (1980) 367–82.

Commentary's Interpretation:

3 There is no indication that Matthew would have seen John’s doubt as a problem. However, since in his entire gospel he strongly Christianizes the Baptist,36 precisely in his gospel John’s question is somewhat strange. Do we have here simply traditional material passed along unthinkingly? Or is the basic aspect of John’s question important for Matthew? Are people to approach Jesus as openly as John (and his disciples!) in order to give Jesus an occasion for talking about his activity? In that case the skeptical crowds are compared with John’s disciples after they have left (vv. 7–19*). Then John and his disciples would be important not so much as individual figures but as representatives of that part of Israel that was favorable toward Jesus. However, none of that is stated explicitly.
4-5 (skipped)
6 Only in the concluding macarism of v. 6* is the person of Jesus mentioned explicitly. Σκανδαλίζω, a late Jewish and Christian word, means “to set a trap,” “to erect an obstacle,” then more generally “to give offense,” “to lead to ruin,” “to seduce to sin.” Ἑν designates the person or thing through which the offense comes. In Matthew (and Mark), the word is used of the final abandoning of Jesus in the passion (26:31*, 33*) and in the end-time (24:10*). Our text looks ahead to these texts and to 13:57*; 15:12*. The general formulation in the third person shows that more is involved than a warning to John’s disciples.47 Instead, here at the conclusion is the christological-parenetic point of our text that is fundamental for the evangelist. He is concerned not that one should have the right knowledge about Jesus but that one not reject the experiences of salvation to which Jesus extends an invitation. These experiences of salvation make a claim; they require a decision for or against Jesus. It is for just this reason that the evangelist, after Jesus’ healing ministry in Israel (chaps. 8–9), had Jesus give the disciples the task of confronting Israel with a decision (chap. 10)
Summary [for 11:2-6]
First of all, the meaning of our text must be determined on the basis of Matthew’s entire story. After the programmatic proclamation and the miracles of Israel’s Messiah, Israel must respond to the question of who Jesus truly is. It can respond not by formulating a correct messianic answer but only by actually becoming part of the story of Jesus and by letting the story bring it to a life decision about Jesus. Our text is a model of how Matthew takes christological titles and concepts into his story of Jesus and subordinates them to it. It is a model of what is called narrative Christology and of how it lays a claim on people. Thus Matthew uses the Baptist and his disciples to show the way of understanding “on which the disciples also had to go and on which the people should go.”49 What is important is that one become part of the story, the deeds of the Christ. No “abstract” christological answer can replace this participation in the story of the Christ. The Baptist and his disciples demonstrate positively the possibility of salvation for Israel.50 The continuation of the story will then clarify, in the form of prophetic warnings whose central figure is once again John the Baptist, the negative possibility—Israel’s no.


What does "Habemus Papam" mean? I'm seeing this phrase being displayed on all the news channels, in conjunction with a lot of cheering people under umbrellas who have been waiting for the new pope to be elected. Is there some sort of background and history that explains why this obscure latin phrase is being used?

What is the meaning of the phrase "Habemus Papam"?

It means "We Have a Pope!"

Usually the media declares this as soon as it sees white smoke, but the proper announcement is actually given by the Cardinal Protodeacon a short time later. Here is the English text of the full announcement, from the recent election of Pope Francis:

  I announce to you a great joy: We have a pope!
  The most eminent and most reverend lord, Lord Jorge, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, Bergoglio, who has taken for himself the name Francis.

From Wikipedia:

  Habemus Papam! ("We Have a Pope!") is the announcement given in Latin by the Cardinal Protodeacon, the senior Cardinal Deacon, upon the election of a new pope. The announcement is given from the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. After the announcement, the new pope is presented to the people and he gives his first Urbi et Orbi blessing.

The practice of giving this announcement actually goes back to the election of Martin V in 1417. At that time, several people had claim to the papacy, so when this was resolved with the election of Martin V, there was great joy, since the people finally had a pope. From New Short History of the Catholic Church, quoted on news.va:

  Pope Gregory XII, of the Roman line, was persuaded to resign in July. John XXIII also abdicated, under pressure. Benedict XIII, of the Avignon line, adamantly refused to resign and was eventually deposed by the council. Thereby the path was cleared for a fresh election and in November 1417 Oddo Colonna was duly elected by the council and took the name Martin V.

The announcement looked like this:


Does the Catholic Church have a contingency plan for the case that the pope and all cardinals are dead? Most modern democratic countries have a chain of command which can be triggered in case of disastrous events and is intended to ensure the continuity of the functioning of the country.

This chain of command also relies on the fact that there is a plan to get back to normality. This usually means that the person in command has a set of elections to call (at a gouvernemental level) or people are automatically promoted to the missing positions (army, companies, ...).

How would that work with the Catholic Church?

Let's imagine a case that during papal election all the electors (cardinals) die (accident, terrorist attack, ...). Let's also imagine that all of the cardinals are present (which is likely).

Is there a plan for such situation?

I am curious about that fact because in a democratic country the solution are popular elections (which bring in new rulers, from an extensive pool of candidates, though the voices of the population), in other institutions people would be automatically promoted to the new functions promotion. In contrast, the Catholic Church  only has a handful of electors (compared to the whole Church) and cardinals are explicitly nominated by the Pope (and nobody else). The candidate for Pope is also from the ranks of the cardinals.

Does the Catholic Church have a contingency plan for the case that the pope and all cardinals are dead?

There is no known official contingency plan for the Catholic Church in the case that if God forbid the pope and the entire College of Cardinals were to perish due to some unforeseen catastrophic event such as a terrorist attack or some highly contagious pandemic like the coronavirus during a papal election!

Ultimately, the Holy Spirit would through his inspirations would guide the Church in choosing another pope and thus a new pope could name cardinals of his choosing.

First of all let us remember what Our Lord said to St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-19:

  17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

  18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

  19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Thus as Catholics, we are assured that the Church will exist to the end of time and will be guided and protected through the inspirations of the Holy Spirit.

But how could this possibly be if the papacy and the entire body of the Sacred College of Cardinals were to die simultaneously?

Obviously there can not be many possible solutions as to how a new pope could be named and thus new cardinal electors could be forthcoming. However a few possible scenarios could happen.

There is no guarantee that there would be any need for a pope or cardinals at the moment of Our Lord’s second coming, according to Sacred Scriptures which guaranties only that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. Thus this could simply be a prelude to the end of the world. The pope and cardinals would certainly not be necessary when the Jesus returns as Head of the Church!
Each pope generally makes a last will and testament. A particular pope could under his unique apostolic authority name his successor if he so wish to. A pope does not have to be chosen from the ranks of the cardinals. Any baptized Catholic male could in theory be elected pope. At one time, it had been rumoured that Pope Pius XII wrote a letter that was to be published in the case he was taken prisoner by the Germans during World War II. In it he supposedly stated that he rescinded his rights as Pope Pius X if he was taken by the Nazis and was to once again Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli. For more information about this possibility see this post: Can a pope name his successor?
The most viable solution, would be that either the remaining Roman clergy and/or local bishops surrounding Rome would elect a successor to the See of St. Peter, in lieu of the College of Cardinals. In fact this was how the pope was elected for centuries before Canon Law and various papal documents defined how a papal election was to be handled.  (If need be the choice of naming a new bishop could be extended to all the remaining bishops of Italy.)

  In 1059, the right of electing the pope was reserved to the principal clergy of Rome and the bishops of the seven suburbicarian sees. In the 12th century the practice of appointing ecclesiastics from outside Rome as cardinals began, with each of them assigned a church in Rome as his titular church or linked with one of the suburbicarian dioceses, while still being incardinated in a diocese other than that of Rome.

  The term cardinal at one time applied to any priest permanently assigned or incardinated to a church, or specifically to the senior priest of an important church, based on the Latin cardo (hinge), meaning "pivotal" as in "principal" or "chief". The term was applied in this sense as early as the 9th century to the priests of the tituli (parishes) of the diocese of Rome.

Seeing that Canon Law is silent on this situation, simply because it is simply speculative and highly doubtful of actually occurring, the most simple solution would be that the world’s bishop would opt to this most ancient form of voting for a new Bishop of Rome.

If only the pope and the Roman Curia where destroyed as if a hydrogen bomb was detonated in the Colosseum of Rome, effectively wiping out the entire Roman Curia, there would still remain enough cardinals worldwide to elect a pope and start rebuilding!

In any case the Church would find a way and it would be aided by the Holy Spirit.

Here follows a couple of related questions which although similar, are not duplicates to this particular question:

What would the Catholic Church's hierarchy look like without the Vatican?
What would happen to the Catholic Church if all of the bishops get wiped out?
Existence of Catholic Church without hierarchy

Nota Bene: Perhaps a future pope reading this post could make amends to Canon Law accordingly to include such dire situation scenarios for the papal elections as mentioned above?