Exodus 29 and Communion Today, while reading Exodus, I noticed a possible link between communion as defined in the New Testament, and priests eating the flesh of sacrifices as mentioned in the Torah.  I haven't studied this in depth, so my question is: Is there a basis in the Mosaic Law for Communion?

Here is the passage in Exodus (with more details in the rest of the chapter):

  You shall take the ram of ordination, and boil its flesh in a holy place; and Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram and the bread that is in the basket, at the entrance of the tent of meeting. They themselves shall eat the food by which atonement is made, to ordain and consecrate them, but no one else shall eat of them, because they are holy.

  Exodus 29:31-33 (NRSV)

It appears that the priests were supposed to eat the flesh of the sacrifice and the bread, the food by which atonement is made.  In communion we eat bread that represents Jesus' flesh, who was our sacrifice, and atoned for our sins.  As Christians, we are holy and priests and are therefore allowed to partake in communion.

A follow-up question would be: Why do we drink wine representing Jesus' blood when drinking blood was absolutely forbidden by the Mosaic Law?

Like many things Jesus said, the Jews would have found more than just the drinking of the blood offensive.  They would have also been offended by the concept of eating Christ's flesh, which is akin to cannibalism in the Bible.

The key verse here is this (Leviticus 17:10-14)

  “‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing
  among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.
  For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you
  to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that
  makes atonement for one’s life.  Therefore I say to the Israelites,
  “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you
  eat blood.”

  “‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any
  animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it
  with earth,  because the life of every creature is its blood. That is
  why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any
  creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who
  eats it must be cut off.”

So in the OT, the blood was spilled upon the altar, not ingested, as it is the blood that makes atonement for our sins.  In fact, the reason for the blood itself was as an atonement for our sins, and as such, it was prescribed that it would be spilled before the altar.  To drink the blood would be depriving it of it's purpose: to be spent on the altar.

Enter Christ.  In John 6:53, he says:

  So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the
  flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

So here is is saying that, in order to have life in us, we have to eat of the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood.

So that leaves us with the question:  What is the difference between the animal sacrifice, and Jesus' sacrifice?  When we answer this question, we find that the animal sacrifice was simply symbolic and temporary.  The animal sacrifice itself did not bring life to the one sacrificing, so much as it atoned for their sins, and more importantly, pointed ultimately to Christ.  When Christ came, he actually imparted life to those who believe him.

As one commentator said, all true life comes from Christ, not from the animal sacrifices.  We have no life outside of Christ.  This is why drinking of Christ's blood is acceptable, but drinking of an animal's blood was not.

Or to look at it another way, if Paul is right, and our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, then doesn't it make sense that Christ's sacrifice should happen within our own hearts, and hence the ingestion of Christ's blood and body?  The ceremonial system did not impart the Holy Spirit to those who practiced it.  It was a shadow of what was to come.  Paul puts it like this in 1 Corinthians 6:19:

  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit
  within you, whom you have from God?

So, in Judaism, the altar was in the temple, and the sacrifice was spread before the altar in the physical temple, whereas when Christ came and ended the sacrificial system, his blood must be spread in the temple of our hearts.

Hebrews sheds a bit of light on this too.  In Hebrews 8-10, the writer speaks of the difference between the blood of bulls and calves and the blood of Christ.
Hebrews 10:1:

  For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead
  of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same
  sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those
  who draw near.

That is, the old covenant sacrifices can never impart life.

In Hebrews 10:22 he says:

  Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places
  by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us
  through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a
  great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart
  in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from
  an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. (emphasis
  mine)

In the old covenant, it was the altar sprinkled with the blood of the lamb, but in the new covenant, it is the altar of our hearts sprinkled with the blood of the Jesus.

As for your original question, Jesus and his disciples were actually sharing a Passover Seder together, not a typical sacrificial meal.  The passover, if you'll recall correctly, was the meal that the Israelites would share to commemorate the time that God killed all the newborn children in Egypt, but passed over those whose door sides and top were covered in the blood of the lamb.  The disciples were preparing for such a time, only this time it would be the blood of the Lamb of God that would be covering their hearts, causing death to pass by them.

As for the bread and wine, it was typical to eat bread and drink wine for Passover.  Today, most Jews will drink four cups of wine as described here.  They wouldn't drink the last cup of wine, because that one represents the coming of the messiah.  To this day, the Jews don't drink this cup.  It's likely that it was this fifth cup that Jesus was sharing with the disciples when he said, in Matthew 26:26-29:

  Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke
  it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my
  body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to
  them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of thec
  covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
  I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until
  that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

So to answer the original question, yes, Communion was instituted in the OT, though the interpretation of it's true spiritual meaning wasn't fully revealed until Christ.  Communion, however, is most closely related to Passover as described in Exodus 12, and not to the consecration of priests, as the text in Exodus 29 describes.


How do JWs reconcile the belief that Satan was cast to earth in 1914 with Job 1:7 and Job 2:2? Based on this other question, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the events depicted in Revelation 12:9, 12 happened in 1914.

The text in these two verses says (from KJV here):

  9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the
  Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out
  into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

  12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to
  the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down
  unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a
  short time.

My understanding is that other denominations have other beliefs on when these events happened. For example according to the answers to this other question, the Catholic viewpoint is that it happened very early in the creation.

Also, if I look at the book of Job for example, I see that Satan describes himself as roaming on the earth in some sense. For example the book of Job (completed thousands of years ago) says in 1:7 (KJV)

  7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan
  answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and
  from walking up and down in it.

A similar statement by Satan is also found in Job 2:2 (KJV).

Also if Satan was the one who tempted Eve, he should have been able to be on earth long before 1914.

Are these parts not in conflict with the idea that Satan was cast to earth in 1914? How do Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile them with the belief that Satan was cast to earth in 1914?

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that from the time of his rebellion until 1914 Satan was able to move about in the spiritual realm where Jehovah,Jesus  and the faithful angelic host dwell, and in the realms of the earth.
After being cast out of the heavens Satan and his demon hordes can never again come into Jehovah’s presence.
In an article that discusses what the Bible says about Satan in the June 2013 Awake magazine we read:

Satan is a spirit creature, so he lives in an invisible realm. For a time, Satan was allowed to move about at will where God and the faithful angels reside. (Job 1:6) Now, however, he has been evicted from God’s presence and, along with other wicked spirit creatures, is confined to the vicinity of the earth.—Revelation 12:12.
Does this mean that Satan is limited to one specific place on earth? For example, you may have read that the ancient city of Pergamum was said to be “where Satan is dwelling.” (Revelation 2:13) Actually, that expression alluded to the concentration of satanic worship there. Satan does not call any one physical place on earth home. Instead, the Bible says that “all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth” are his.—Luke 4:5, 6.

So it is not that Satan couldn’t come to the earth before 1914. He could come and go as he pleased. But after 1914 Satan was grounded as it were,passport surrendered,only able to influence affairs pertaining to the earth. The deterioration of world conditions that historians agree began around 1914 like world wars, famines and epidemics like the Spanish influenza are thought to be strong evidence of Satan’s being confined to the vicinity of the earth.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Jesus is Michael? Congregations such as the Jehovah's Witness and Seventh day Adventists believe that Jesus is Michael. What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Jesus is Michael?

Jehovah's Witness

  ...it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role. Source

Seventh day Adventists

  Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, "The Lord rebuke thee."

Early Writings, p. 164.

The Seventh Day Adventist view

The SDA view is well articulated here: Amazing Facts: Who Is Michael The Archangel?

The primary arguments involved are:

There are appearances of the preincarnate Christ with titles of “Angel of the LORD”, “Angel of His Presence” and “Angel of the Covenant”.
The meaning of angel has a wide range of interpretations (it literally means “messenger”).
The use of echad in Daniel 10:13 can mean “one” or “first”, so one interpretation is “Michael, the first of the chief princes” (rather than “one of”).

One note that is important regarding the SDA view is that they do not deny the deity of Christ, but teach that the title “Michael the Archangel” is another title for God the Son in the same vein as “Angel of the LORD” or “Captain of the LORD’s Host.”

From the conclusion:

  In conclusion, we see this majestic and mysterious being, sometimes
  called Michael, sometimes the angel of the Lord, sometimes the
  commander of the Lord’s army, veiling His divinity and appearing in
  the form of a humble angel. Yet this same enigmatic being has the
  power, authority and attributes that belong only to God. He evicts the
  devil from heaven; He resurrects the dead; He intercedes for the
  saints; He judges and then stands, launching the great time of
  trouble. He redeems the saints and receives their worship. He offers
  us a new name.

The Jehovah’s Witness view

The JW view is articulated here: Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

The principle arguments are:

The custom of having more than one name is common in the Bible.
Arch in archangel means “principal” or “chief.”
The word “archangel” is never used in plural form (therefore it describes a unique being).
Jesus spoke of his preincarnate existence.

From the conclusion:

  So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence. After his
  resurrection and return to heaven, Jesus resumed his service as
  Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”

The two views are actually quite similar regarding the use of “Michael the Archangel” as yet another title for Christ.

The two groups differ, however, regarding the deity of Christ. Jehovah’s Witnesses explicitly deny his deity, arguing He was the first of God’s creations and placed in authority over it. He is a created being, albeit the most powerful being short of God himself.

Note: This latter view has always been considered the aberrant view in Christianity. While the SDA view would fall within the camp of orthodoxy, the JW view does not.


Trying to understand Original Sin in light of OT From what I understand so far, is that Adam's sin of eating from the tree is past down and everyone born has this sin on their record.

This Sin is only washed away if one is Baptized, so if a child born dies at say 6 months will go to Hell because they have this Sin.

Women suffer labor pains because of this Sin, and men are put in charge over them.  Men will toil on earth because of this Sin until the end of time.

God is also just and this sin has to be paid for.

The Old Testament makes no reference to this sin, in fact it teaches that you will not bear the burden of anyone else.  How is this fact reconciled?  Was this original Sin only for Christians and not for the previous generations?

Do Catholics believe that God is not able to forgive Sin?

You've got a couple of questions in your question, so I'm going to try and flesh out original sin.

Original sin is not that God punishes you because of the sins of your parents or anyone else. Ezekiel makes that clear for us:

  18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the
  iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the
  son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the
  wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Original sin is that you are inherently sinful. Exodus 25 is often used to show inherited sin, however I think that is a misreading:

  You shall not bow down to [idols] or worship them; for I, the LORD
  your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the
  fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.”

The third and fourth generation are being punished because they still hate God. The parents sin was passed on to the children because children usually mimic what their parents do. If their parents don't worship God, then the kids will (more often than not) also not worship God.

The idea of Original Sin is based on places like Romans 5. It is the concept that because we are human, we are sinful. In Romans 5 we see original sin, that just as one man sinned, we all sin and so we all deserve death.

  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death
  through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (5:12)

The Old Testament does mention original sin at least once. It's a great reminder that like our parents are sinful, we too are sinful at birth. From the moment you are born, you are sinful and rightly deserve God's punishment:

  Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
      and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psalm 51:5 ESV)

In terms of this comment in your question:

  This Sin is only washed away if one is Baptized, so if a child born
  dies at say 6 months will go to Hell because they have this Sin.
  Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:11, Romans 5:12 (I could go on) all tell us that that 6 month old baby is sinful and deserves death, just like you and I do. To us it seems cruel and unjust, but God is the one being sinned against by that baby, not you or me. That child can be saved through Jesus' death and resurrection. I'm not sure on the Catholic position of infant forgiveness, but the bible teaches that the blood of Jesus is capable of saving anyone.

In terms of your question Do Catholics believe that God is not able to forgive Sin? I would say that Catholics believe that God is able to forgive sin. Forgiveness in the Catholic church is received through baptism, penance, confession, and reconciliation. (I'm not a Catholic, but I think I got that right).


What is the historical evidence of people gagging, retching, dry heaving and vomiting during exorcisms? A pattern I've noticed across multiple live recordings of exorcisms from totally independent sources is that in all of them you see the individuals being exorcised have intense gags. Here are a few examples of this phenomenon:
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
F,
G,
H,
I,
J,
K,
M,
N,
O
(the links already include the timestamps of when people start retching). What I find interesting is that they are not vomiting food, they are just dry heaving, spitting out saliva at most, and this usually happens when the exorcist is commanding the alleged "entities" to leave the person, "lift a curse" or something similar. In fact, there appears to be a whole trend of "online" exorcists uploading videos of remote deliverances via Skype or other platforms, and it's very common to see people manifest and start retching and coughing at some point in the videos.
Here is a similar anecdote posted by U.S.Catholic on May 16, 2011:

After a decades-long absence, interest in demonic possession—and the ritual to
defeat it—is on the rise. For more than a decade, Frank, a software
consultant who lives near Silicon Valley, California has been haunted
by depression and rage. Searching for remedies to lift his dark mood,
Frank, 52, tried pills, therapy, even channeling spirits. Nothing
worked.
Three years ago, his wife handed him a book about demonic possession.
Written by a former priest active in charismatic Catholic circles, the
book presented scriptural arguments for the existence of demons and
offered advice to questions such as, “How do we know if an evil spirit
is really present?” and “How do I pray for deliverance?” Desperate for
relief, Frank decided, while jogging one night, to pray for
deliverance.
“If I had known what was going to happen, I would have picked a more
private place,” Frank says.
After reciting the recommended prayer, he doubled over, dry heaving,
by the side of the road. His lungs felt like they were leaping out of his chest.

So, is this just a recent phenomenon, or can we find evidence of retching, gagging, coughing, dry heaving and vomiting during exorcisms all throughout history?

I basically agree with Ken Graham's answer. However, based on some research by Kristen Herdman, it seems like the idea of vomiting during exorcisms is certainly pre-modern.
Research by Herdman
In a MA Thesis by Kristen Herdman (Herdman, 2016), Gregory of Tours (†594) is quoted a couple of times, giving instances of vomiting during exoricisms:

In chapter eight of the Vita patrum, Gregory describes such an
event in the life of Nicetius of Lyon:

Very recently three women coming from the land of Berry, tormented by demons, were on their way to the basilica of St. Martin, and they entered this church. Immediately they clapped their hands together and cried out that they were tortured by the power of St. Nicetius. They threw up out of their mouths I know not what foul substance, mingled with blood, and they were immediately freed from the spirits that had possessed them.

A similar event is described in Gregory’s account of the life of Nicetius of the Trevari:

God also gave [Nicetius] the grace of healing. As he was walking one day around the church of St. Maximin the bishop, in the fore court of which three possessed men rested, overcome by sleep after many convulsions. Seeing them fast asleep, he made over them the sign of the cross, and immediately they woke up, uttering great cries, and suddenly vomiting, they were delivered.

All emphasis mine. Herdman cites these examples on p. 32 from James, 1991. pp. 62 and 107-108 respectively.
She goes on to write:

The examples provided by Gregory have parallels in medieval visual art. In many images of exorcism, a demon is depicted as emerging from the mouth of the afflicted individual, drawn out by the power of the exorcist. In regard to this
imagery, Nancy Caciola writes,

The central element in accounts of demonic possession is the sense that the afflicted individual has incorporated a foreign being within herself... their exit point is the victim’s mouth, a detail that suggests the need for a specific bodily opening. … Seldom were unclean sprits envisaged as numinous forms wafting out the victim. Rather, they crawled out from an orifice: usually though not universally, the mouth.

A case can be made that vomiting (rather than other forms of manifestation) has a theological significance, so the actual historical occurrence of vomiting cannot be demonstrated beyond doubt merely by the report of Gregory (since the report may be theologically motivated), accordingly, Herdman states

The biological functions of the mouth make it a clear threshold between
the interior and exterior of the physical body. It is transformed into a passage by
breathing, eating, and even vomiting—the mouth allows matter to be taken in and
to be expelled. The latter of these functions becomes a classic hallmark of
possession throughout the Middle Ages and has even persisted into contemporary
horror films. In the late Middle Ages and into the Early Modern period, a
possessed person may be observed to vomit foreign matter, such as a great
quantity of pins or paper.

For this, she cites Levak, 2013, who writes:

A recurrent element in many narratives of possession was the vomiting or extrusion of alien objects. Pins and needles were the most common materials, but the list of ejected substances includes nails, glass, blood, pottery, feathers, coal, stones, coins, cinders, sand, dung, meat, cloth, thread, and
hair.

Herdman has plenty more to say, and I encourage you to give the referenced section of her Thesis a read. However, I wish to particularly emphasize the main theological theme associated with these vomitings:

When the former demoniacs vomit, the audience is assured that what was torturing the afflicted from the inside has been forced out.

vomiting is depicted as a physical purging closely associated with the expelling of the demon from the body.

Scripture
A possible (albeit partial) basis for oral expulsion of demons during exorcism is Revelation 16:13:

And I saw, coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs. (ESV)

Speculation about Dry-Heaving
Up to this point the discussion has centered on vomiting. However, what about dry-heaving? There are a number of points to consider.

Firstly, dry-heaving obviously accompanies vomiting. But which of the two is more notable and worth mentioning in passing? In a sense, the dry-heaving is simply part of the process of vomiting. It could be argued that a mention of vomiting therefore implicitly includes dry-heaving as well.
This is especially the case for foreign objects, which are not as easy to vomit up as simple bile, and may require additional dry-heaving beforehand.
Given the theological motivation to emphasize the expulsion of the demon: and thereby symbolically the expulsion of material (be it of human or foreign origin), it is not particularly surprising that dry-heaving was not recorded (even when assuming vomiting was an occurrence during historical exorcisms).
On the other hand, modern exorcisms are not "independent" of historical exorcisms, in the sense that beliefs and expectations about what will occur during an exorcism are going to be shaped by the cultural depictions of historical (and fictional) exorcisms. So it could be argued that many of these dry-heaving episodes which are not accompanied by actual vomiting are more self-induced (perhaps unconsciously).
Proper vomiting is not really possible without having food in the stomach, especially when dehydrated. So dry-heaving would be the alternative.
If the exorcist is explicitly requesting vomiting, then dry-heaving and gagging is the way it appears when someone is attempting to comply with that request.

I cannot offer a definitive answer on the question of dry-heaving, but all things considered it does seem somewhat suspicious when such a thing is not accompanied by actual vomiting proper in these modern cases. My perspective is that there may be a psychological factor at play (see point 4).

References
Caciola, N. (2003) Discerning Spirits: Divine and Demonic Possession in the
Middle Ages. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. p. 41.
Herdman, K. (2016). Effugatis Daemonibus: Possession and the Body in Gregory of Tours' Vita patrum. pp. 31-37.
Electronic Thesis downloaded from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_olink/r/1501/10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=case1459539746
James, E. (1991) Gregory of Tours: Life of the Fathers. Liverpool University
Press.
Levack, B. P. (2013) The Devil Within: Possession & Exorcism in the Christian West.
New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 9.


What made Luther a heretic and not a schismatic? I know the difference between heresy and schism, but I don't know why various Protestant reformation leaders, Martin Luther in particular, wouldn't have been satisfied by merely being a schismatic group.  Were there any reformers who rebelled against papal and church authority, but didn't attempt to change any of the other doctrines of the Catholic Church?

What happened that caused Luther to go from the 95 thesis, which pales in comparison to anything a modern day Lefebrite might say about the Catholic Church, to outright rejection of the core tenants of the Catholic Faith?  Did he even reject them initially or did the Catholic Church leaders somehow coax him into heresy?

Luther and the Church

It must be said that Martin Luther was originally a servant of the Church, and prior to posting his 95 theses, he expressed loyalty (at least superficially) to the Pope.  Despite his frequent battles with spiritual depression, Luther proved himself to be a very intelligent man, was ordained a priest, and became a doctor of theology.

Initially, he was so maniacally in favor of the papacy that he professed his desire to be “the most brutal murderer” on the pope’s behalf and “to kill all who even by syllable refused submission to the pope.”(1) Of course, this was also while he was also disregarding the guidance of his confessor, the rules of his monastery, and traditional Catholic teaching in his excessive forms of self-prescribed penance and refusal to believe that he had been absolved of sin.

Stemming from an abusive childhood relationship with his German occultist Father(2), Luther suffered from frequent God-fearing, self-judgmental panic attacks. He could not look upon a crucifix. He tried to avoid performing Mass or being in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. His life was one continual terror of damnation.

Then came his “thunderbolt” revelation, and he felt he had broken free of his own sinfulness, not by the sacraments of the Church, but by faith alone. As Luther says, rather arrestingly:

  “Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have stronger faith and rejoice
  in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for
  a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin
  must be committed. To you it ought to be sufficient that you
  acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, the sin
  cannot tear you away from him, even though you commit adultery a
  hundred times a day and commit as many murders.”(3)

When Luther posted his 95 theses on the church door in Wittenberg in 1517, his immediate cause of protest was the sale of indulgences by a Dominican friar named John Tetzel whose mission was to raise money, in part, for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica. Tetzel was renowned for packing in the peasant faithful with his preaching. His commercial pitch, however, went far beyond the bounds of propriety and canon law, if not common practice. Ironically, it echoed, in a way, Luther’s own doctrines of salvation by faith alone - Tetzel merely gave that saving faith a monetary value and material form. Anything could be forgiven, said Tetzel, if a punter paid his money and bought a papal indulgence. Luther struck at this inviting and disreputable target. While it was not an unusual occurrence for churchmen and academicians to publicly post theses and then debate them, this time a rhetorical firestorm erupted.

Historian H.W. Crocker III sums up Luther’s separation from Rome(4):

  Luther had not, at this point, entirely broken with Rome. While he
  dismissed Julian II and Alexander VI as inferior popes, he wrote to
  Pope Leo X in loyalty and submission to Church discipline. In this,
  however, Luther was less than honest. He swore he would accept his own
  death if the pope ordered it. But when Leo beckoned him to Rome,
  Luther shied away. Nor did Luther confide in the pope that in his
  private correspondence he was already linking the office of the papacy
  with the Antichrist.

  ...[L]eo took the initiative in reforming the Church precisely on
  the point Luther had attacked. In 1518, the pope clarified Catholic
  practice on indulgences, reminding the faithful that they could not
  buy their way to Heaven; indulgences were merely forms of penance,
  alms offered for forgiveness of temporal punishment, and certainly not
  a blank check for sins to be committed or to buy the freedom of a soul
  in Purgatory. A papal emissary ensured that Tetzel was disciplined,
  and Luther again affirmed his submission to the pope, while concealing
  his continuing doubts about “whether the pope is the Antichrist or his
  apostle.(1)

  The full break came when, in a debate, Luther denied the
  primacy of the pope, held the Council of Constance in error, and even
  praised some of the doctrines of Jan Hus. He had now moved from being
  one of the many vocal Church reformers - though easily the most
  politically powerful because of anti-papal sentiment among the people
  and princes in Germany - to being a Hussite heretic.

  By 1520, Luther was penning such reformist tracts as his “Epitome,”
  which openly declares “that the true Antichrist is sitting in the
  temple of God and is reigning in Rome - that empurpled Babylon - and
  that the Roman curia is the Synagogue of Satan….[T]here will be no
  remedy left except that the emperors, kings, and princes, girt about
  with force of arms, should attack these pest in the world, and settle
  the matter no longer by words but by the sword….[W]hy do we not attack
  in arms the Roman Sodom which has without end corrupted the Church of
  God, and wash our hands in their blood?”(2) (emphasis added)

  Quoted in Durant, p. 349
  Ibid.

In Luther’s mind, the religious hierarchy of the Church deserved no special esteem and no independence under its own canon law from the state. Canon law, in Luther’s view, was merely the law laid down by the Antichrist in Rome. The real church, according to Luther, was an invisible institution, held only in the faith of men. The state - the German princes, the German “Reich” - was the only true, temporal reality, and it was to it, not to the Church in Rome, that men and law should be subordinate.

In Luther’s words:

  No one need think that the world can rule without blood. The civil
  sword shall and must be red and bloody.(5)

Luther’s political platform was earthly, populist, and nationalist - completely at odds with the ideals of Christendom, which were historical, hierarchal, and Catholic, with all nations unified under Christ’s Church, resting on the bones of St. Peter in Rome, with the pope, the Vicar of Christ, a monarch set over kings by Christ. The German people and their rulers were more than ready, by this time, to throw off the power of the Italian Pontifex Maximus.  This secular seizure of localized power not only enthroned Lutheranism as the state religion, but also nailed the lid on the coffin concerning the communion of Luther's Germany with St. Peter's Rome.

Interestingly, Germany can claim credit for being the birthplace of Protestantism, as well as Nationalism, both of which have survived to this day. German nationalism, as we know, came into its own fullness at the turn of the 20th century, but was drastically deflated by the end of the second World War.

By 1525, Germany had been launched into a state of revolutionary turmoil. In less than 10 years Luther’s spiritual disposition had radically evolved from a masochistic Augustinian monk into a Germanic-tribe religious Chieftain.  It goes without saying that Western Christianity has never been the same.

The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes Luther’s theological wake:

  Luther the reformer had become Luther the revolutionary; the religious
  agitation had become a political rebellion. Luther's theological
  attitude at this time, as far as a formulated cohesion can be deduced,
  was as follows:

  • The Bible is the only source of faith; it contains the plenary
  inspiration of God; its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental
  character.

  • Human nature has been totally corrupted by original sin, and man,
  accordingly, is deprived of free will. Whatever he does, be it good or
  bad, is not his own work, but God's.

  • Faith alone can work justification, and man is saved by confidently
  believing that God will pardon him. This faith not only includes a
  full pardon of sin, but also an unconditional release from its
  penalties.

  • The hierarchy and priesthood are not Divinely instituted or
  necessary, and ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or
  useful. Ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortifications,
  monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the
  soul nothing.

  • All sacraments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and
  penance, are rejected, but their absence may be supplied by faith.

  • The priesthood is universal; every Christian may assume it. A body
  of specially trained and ordained men to dispense the mysteries of God
  is needless and a usurpation.

  • There is no visible Church or one specially established by God
  whereby men may work out their salvation.

Luther and the Eucharist

By 1521, Luther had vehemently replaced the doctrine of transubstantiation (which He considered to be the pagan brain child of Aristotelian Scholasticism) with consubstantiation. He taught that there is a change of the substance of the bread and wine, but emphasized that it is symbolical of our union with the spiritual body of Christ. This change must be interpreted not only sacramentally but spiritually and is aimed at the change of the natural man by a common life with Christ.  The sacramental change finds its fulfillment in the incorporation into Christ and fellowship with all Christians. However, all further considerations of just how the presence of Christ comes about are purposely omitted by Luther.

In his The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he labels the doctrine of transubstantiation as the "second captivity,” which the Roman Church imposes as a matter of faith.(6) Luther rejects it because it lacks the support of Scripture, of an approved revelation and of reason.  For himself, the literal sense of Scripture imposes the belief that the species do not change. He maintained that there is no peril of idolatry in the fact that the substance of bread remains because it is Christ that is adored and not the bread.

To show the reasonableness of his stand against transubstantiation, Luther appeals to an example: "Fire and iron, two different substances, are so mingled in red-hot iron that every part of it is both fire and iron. Why may not the glorious body of Christ much more be in every part of the substance of the bread?"(7)  He sees a further analogy in the Hypostatic Union.9 The Divinity is not present under the accidents of the human nature in Christ.

In short summary, Luther’s argumentative reasoning for the rejection and denial of the Catholic definition of the Eucharist are as follows:

Transubstantiation is not in accord with the Scriptures.
This dogma is a philosophical explanation based on Aristotelian metaphysics.
It is unnecessary in view of the analogy with the Hypostatic Union and the omnipresence of the humanity of Christ.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm
Ibid
Ibid.
See H.W. Crocker III, Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church: A 2,000-Year History
See Phillip Hughes, A History of the Church: An Introductory Study, vol. 3, p. 520
Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. October, 1520
Ibid.


Are Jehovah's Witnesses Protestants? Are Jehovah's Witnesses Protestants, or are their own separate category?

No,Jehovah’s Witnesses do not consider themselves a Protestant religion.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, defines Protestant as

a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth.”

It is certainly true that Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the universal authority of the pope and fully support the primacy of the Bible but they  differ from Protestant religions in many significant ways. In fact, The Encyclopedia of Religion refers to Jehovah’s Witnesses as being “distinctive.”
There is this brief explanation of 3 basic differences between Protestants and Jehovah’s witnesses on our official website JW.Org

First, although Protestant faiths reject certain features of Catholic worship, Reformation leaders retained certain Catholic dogmas, such as belief in the Trinity, hellfire, and the immortality of the human soul. Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, believe that those doctrines not only contradict the Bible but also promote a distorted view of God. —See pages 4-7 of this magazine.
Second, the religion that Jehovah’s Witnesses advocate is, not one of negative protest, but one of positive instruction. They take seriously the Bible’s counsel: “A servant of the Lord is not to engage in quarrels, but has to be kind to everyone, a good teacher, and patient. He has to be gentle when he corrects people who dispute what he says.” (2 Timothy 2:24, 25, The Jerusalem Bible) Jehovah’s Witnesses do point out contradictions between what the Bible says and what many religious groups teach. Yet, their goal in doing so is not to reform other religious organizations. Rather, their goal is to help sincere individuals to gain accurate knowledge of God and of his Word, the Bible. (Colossians 1:9, 10) When people of other persuasions insistently disagree with them, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid engaging in fruitless debates. —2 Timothy 2:23.
Third, unlike the Protestant movement, which has splintered into of denominations, Jehovah’s Witnesses have maintained a united global brotherhood. When it comes to Bible doctrine, Jehovah’s Witnesses in over 230 countries follow the apostle Paul’s counsel to “speak in agreement.” There are no divisions among them. Instead, they are genuinely “united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:10) They strive within their own ranks “to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace.” —Ephesians 4:3.


Is there a sense in which Stephen was the first Catholic saint? I was told that St. Stephen was the first saint but read that Ulrich of Augsburg was the first to be officially canonized. Chronologically, however, shouldn't Joseph or John the Baptist be the first saint? The penitent thief is also a saint, St. Dismas, and he was the first saint to die after Jesus.

Does Stephen get honored as the "first saint," and if so, why?
Did the rules for becoming a saint change, and if so, how?

Saint Stephen was the first martyr, at whose stoning Saul/Paul was present.

He doesn't get the honour of "first saint".
The rules have almost certainly changed since antiquity, and are now fairly rigid (two miracles are required, at least).


What is the difference between original sin and a sin nature? As I understand Original sin it is being guilty of sin at birth because of Adam and Eve's first sin.

I also understand that man has a propensity toward sin because of the inheritance of the Knowledge of good and evil which Adam and Eve acquired from that sin.

However having an urge to sin is not the same as knowing the difference between right and wrong.

If a child is born already guilty of sin and died within the first few years of life, they would not be able to repent, or ask forgiveness for that sin.

Are there any Scriptures that delineate what the difference if any is?

Original sin is the doctrine that explains why we are born sinners. I did not deserve to be born a sinner but since the guilt and condemnation of Adam's sin was charged against all humanity in Adam, I was born guilty and deserved to be born a sinner due to Adam's sin. In the same way, I do not deserved to be counted righteous and sinless when believing in Christ, yet his righteousness is imputed to be and I obtain life through the gospel. The idea of being judged by the actions of another Adam, or Christ, humanities two federal heads is the basis of the gospel.

The sinful nature is the result of Original sin. It means that as soon as a child is able to make a moral decisions it will be an evil one. As soon as a human knows right from wrong a human will do what is wrong. In other words as soon as a baby knows what it is to love God, the baby will not love God with it's whole heart. Yet there is more.

The sinful nature is not just a result of original sin but is a result of being found obnoxious and guilty under God's moral law. Therefore Christ must find a way to remove the law's ability to condemn us to restore the nature from its sinfulness. As long as the law has a right to judge, we will be cast into a fully corrupt nature. Only by removing the law's right to judge us can our nature be free from original sin and its guilt.  This again is by Christ fulfilling the demands of the law and providing his perfect righteousness to us, so that under the law we are considered perfect. As the law no longer casts us into a sinful nature we are free from sin. Therefore the only way a human can do good is to first have the law removed through the death of Christ and the imputation of his righteousness to sinners.  In fact the moral commands of the law was added that our sinful nature would become more sinful and thus be made known to our minds, revealing our sinful nature.

Non-Protestant churches accept a form of this doctrine called 'justification' but reduce its meaning to nothing by saying it is a life time process that you can ruin any time you wish. Protestants teach that this justification happens in a moment when a sinner believes in the gospel. In fact this is the greatest point of division between any kind of theology about God that can ever be made and the most important point to be decided on by a student of scripture.

Here is a good summary of what I am arguing and the distinction of the concepts:

  For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
  18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
  20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (NIV, Romans, 5:15–21)


How does one reconcile belief in objective moral values with the notion of moral progress? I've noticed that people tend to prefer moral relativism to moral absolutism because of the idea of moral progress. Moral progress is the notion that the world is on a trajectory towards a better and better understanding of what the right thing to do is.

Morality as being socially constructed seems to harmonize better with moral progress than a fixed, unchanging morality. However, while I believe in moral absolutes myself, I also believe in some version of the moral progress idea, although with serious qualifications. (i.e. I believe that moral progress can  over time result from our efforts to faithfully live out God's Word).

I would like to know of any resources where people have reconciled the idea of moral absolutes with the idea of moral progress, from a Christian perspective.

The idea of Moral Progress is actually less compatible with moral relativism than with absolute morality. The very idea of being "on a trajectory towards a better and better understanding of what the right thing to do is" implies that there is an absolute standard of morality that you can progress towards. Without that there is just "moral change" with no standard by which to judge if any change is "better" or "worse".


According to Catholic sources, what is the "Leviathan" in the Bible? According to Catholic sources1, what is the Leviathan in the Bible?

Is it a mythical creature or a particular animal that it can be identified with or some other creature?

1. E.g. Catholic Biblical commentary, Church Fathers, saints, etc. The best answer will reference these.

cf. Leviathan and Behemoth - JewishEncyclopedia.com.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  LEVIATHAN. — The word Leviathan (Hebrew, líweyãthãn), which occurs six
  times in the Hebrew Bible, seems to have puzzled not a little all
  ancient translators. The D.V. has kept this name, Job 3:8; 40:20;
  Isaiah 27:1; it is rendered by dragon Psalm 73:14, and 103:26; The
  word leviathan means:

  (1) crocodile (Job 40:20 and Psalm 73:14);
  (2) a sea-monster (Psalm 103:26, Isaiah 27:1);
  (3) possibly the Draco constellation (Job 3:8).

In Haydock's commentary on Job 40, he says much the same thing; in Job 40 the reference is to the crocodile, but the reference could also be a whale or dragon. Thomas Aquinas says it is "some great fish" but could also be a reference to the devil. The devil reference is supported by Haydock's commentary on Job 3, in which he says:

  The fathers generally understand the devil to be thus designated.
  Septuagint, "he who is about to seize the great whale," (Haydock) or
  fish, which they also explain of the conflict of Satan with Jesus
  Christ. (Origen, &c.)

Footnote to Job [40:25], Job, chapter 40 | USCCB (New American Bible) has: Leviathan: although identified by some scholars as the crocodile, it is more likely another chaos monster and the Jerusalem Bible Popular Edition footnote to Job 3:8 has: The dragon of primeval chaos; he might be roused by a curse against the present order.

Clearly, there is no consensus within or without Catholicism on what exactly the leviathan is. But they seem to agree it is a large aquatic or semi-aquatic beast or a chaos monster, and possibly a reference to the devil.


What languages were used during Mass from paleo-Christianty until the Council of Trent? I know Latin was a vulgarization in attempting to make Mass more accessible to Christians. So which were the languages used in paleo-Christian Mass? Koine Greek, classical Greek, or something else? What other languages were used, up until the Council of Trent.

In the earliest centuries of the Church, there wasn't a pattern of using liturgical languages, as much as trade languages.

In the East, Greek was predominantly used because whereas it was the first language of few people, it was a second language for many people. It's use could symbolize the internationality of the Church, but more practically, it made it possible for as many people as possible to follow along, if not understand every word. Interestingly enough, Greek predominated in Rome itself, because its heavily international population didn't all speak Latin. By contrast, in North Africa, Latin seems to have been the predominant language almost immediately. Outside of Egypt, Latin was the language of international affairs in North Africa because of its extensive colonization and coordination by Roman authorities. This was also the case in Spain, Britain, and non-Mediterranean France, other regions little influenced by the Greeks. When it was evangelized, Ireland experienced the Mass in Latin. (Nickerson, Jane Soames. A Short History of North Africa. New York: The Devin-Adair Co., 1961, p30.)

In the ninth century, permission was given by the Church to translate the Mass and related texts (such as the scripture) into what is now called Old Church Slavonic. At the time, it was a dated but not quite defunct legal and ceremonial language used in Slavic regions, essentially a mother language to the languages they were speaking at the time. The idea was the same - a single liturgical language for a broad swath of country and for many nations, not exactly native to any of them, but not entirely foreign, either. (Korolevsky, Cyril. Living Languages in Catholic Worship: An Historical Inquiry, trans. Donald Attwater. Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1957, p3.)

Additionally, Franciscan missionaries to the Mongols were given permission to translate the liturgical rites and the sacred scripture into their language in the 13th or 14th century, provided that the most noble and poetic version of the language be used. In like manner, Jesuits were given permission to translate the same materials into Chinese (Mandarin, I think) in the 16th-17th century, but because of the cultural climate in Europe at the time, they never actually made use of these permissions.

So long answer shortened: Latin was in use in the early Church but, ironically enough, not in the region of Latin's origin. The Church's primary concern was not exactly just that the Mass should be accessible. She was also concerned that the Mass should be transnational.

If you're wondering, while in the seminary, I wrote a paper on topic of liturgical and vernacular language in pre-Christian and Christian worship. My thesis is that the Church has always wanted both accessibility and transcendence in the worship of a God who transcends and makes himself accessible. (Here's a dropbox link. It doesn't seem like a very good way to share the file, but I don't think there's a place to upload or attach PDFs here: Vernacular and Liturgical Language in the Mass


Is the phrase, "Heaven is the presence of God, but Hell is the absence of God" an orthodox viewpoint? Is the phrase, "Heaven is the presence of God, but Hell is the absence of God" an orthodox viewpoint?

By orthodox I mean orthodox with a lower case o, not an upper case O, as in Orthodox.

I used this idea when responding to another question regarding exclusion from heaven here:
Will good, God-fearing people who don't believe in Jesus' divinity be excluded from Heaven?.

More to the point, does this phrase describe the primary characteristics of both places, and what verses support/refute this idea?

Depends on what you mean by "orthodox", I guess.

According to the Eastern Orthodox, the answer would be "no".

  Origen, and all rationalists who are like him, was not able to
  understand that the acceptance or the rejection of God's grace depends
  entirely on the rational creatures; that God, like the sun, never
  stops shining on good or wicked alike; that rational creatures are,
  however, entirely free to accept or reject this grace and love; and
  that God in His genuine love does not force His creatures to accept
  Him, but respects absolutely their free decision.  He does not
  withdraw His grace and love, but the attitude of the logical creatures
  toward this unceasing grace and love is the difference between
  paradise and hell. Those who love God are happy with Him, those who
  hate Him are extremely miserable by being obliged to live in His
  presence, and there is no place where one can escape the loving
  omnipresence of God.

http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm


Are there any accidents (philosophical term) in God? Accident being defined as an attribute or property contingent upon the existence of something else, from the Latin word accidēns, or the Greek word συμβεβηκός (symbebēkos). Do accidents exist in God?

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this directly in the Summa.

Article 6. Whether in God there are any accidents?

  I answer that, From all we have said, it is clear there can be no
  accident in God.

  First, because a subject is compared to its accidents as potentiality
  to actuality; for a subject is in some sense made actual by its
  accidents. But there can be no potentiality in God, as was shown (2,
  3).

  Secondly, because God is His own existence; and as Boethius says
  (Hebdom.), although every essence may have something superadded to it,
  this cannot apply to absolute being: thus a heated substance can have
  something extraneous to heat added to it, as whiteness, nevertheless
  absolute heat can have nothing else than heat.

  Thirdly, because what is essential is prior to what is accidental.
  Whence as God is absolute primal being, there can be in Him nothing
  accidental. Neither can He have any essential accidents (as the
  capability of laughing is an essential accident of man), because such
  accidents are caused by the constituent principles of the subject. Now
  there can be nothing caused in God, since He is the first cause. Hence
  it follows that there is no accident in God.

Briefly, there are no accidents in God.

The entire section on The Simplicity of God may help to clarify this, if there's any confusion. The main contributing points, I think, are that God's essence and existence are one in the same, that God is His own essence and existence, and that God is absolutely simple.


Why has God never spoken to me? I was born and raised in the Catholic religion. In the beginning I was, as far as I can judge, a good Christian.

But I never felt any connection to God while praying. It was like talking to myself. Nothing special happened. I’m not talking about God granting me anything earthly, but a little sign, maybe the feeling that he was watching would have been enough.

As time passed, I started to doubt more and more and eventually lost all interest in religion.

Now, several years later, I have a good (material) life. But it seems empty—no sense to it. People who believe appear happier.

I can understand why God would not want to manifest himself to me now. I've sinned a lot.
But why didn’t he talk to me when I was younger and sinless? I didn’t need anything fancy like a bush on fire, but just a few words to keep me on the right path.

What do you think?

Reasons (my rantings) we can't talk to God -

Result of our sin.

  Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

We all inherit the sin of Adam. Adam could talk directly to God but as we fell from grace we lost access to divine grace. But one day we would talk to Him directly.

As a test.

If one could see God face to face, Adolf Hitler would be singing glory hallelujah with tambourines and drums. No one would commit a crime in front of the police. Absence of God from the scene serves to separate the wheat from the chaff.

For our own good.

Those who could be in the presence of God and behaved as we did would drop dead in a second. As Christians we are supposed to go through this life building character and learning to resist sin so that we could be in the presence of Holiness.

God doesn't like hollywood style dramatic dialogues.

And neither does Satan. In real life you will never see Satan appear as Pazuzu. He comes in much more subtle forms. Its the whole concept of free will. Both Holy Spirit and Satan will only suggest things to you. You have to act upon them of your own free will. If Satan or God appeared before you and commanded you to do something there's very less of free will left. This is why God appeared to Ezekiel in all His glory but not to Israel.

  Ezekiel 1:4 "I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north
  —an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant
  light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal."

If he had appeared to Israel in that form they would've repented in ashes. But then as He says elsewhere

  2 Opinions 3:1 "Thou shalt repent if thou art sorrowful in thine
  heart, not because I am the master of special effects."

Speaking to God won't produce faith.

Adam spoke to God, that didn't keep him from sinning. So did Cain, Solomon and most importantly - Satan.
The disciples had the same doubt as you do -

  Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to
  show yourself to us and not to the world?" Jesus replied, "If anyone
  loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we
  will come to him and make our home with him.

If we do not love or obey Him nothing will produce faith -

  Luke 16:31 " ... they will not be convinced even if someone rises from
  the dead."

Perhaps the same reason why the president won't talk to me.

Let's not be proud and forget our own positions in relation to God. It amazes me how I usually assign more respect to my earthly masters than to God himself.

  Ecclesiastes 5:2 "God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your
  words be few."

Perhaps He's afraid that once he engages me I just won't stop chattering. (True story)


What do Chinese Catholics call their priests? This Catholic article explains and defends the usage of the word, "Father," in reference to priests. Now, in the Chinese language, people have a tendency to use the same familial words for society at large. A child may call an unrelated man, "uncle," or an unrelated younger girl, "little sister". Will this be in conflict with the Catholic concept of "Father" of the church? Or do the Chinese Catholics use a distinct honorific term just for the priest?

Catholic priests are called 神父 "Shenfu" (Mandarin) or "Sunfu" (Cantonese), literally "God- father". For reference please go to http://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A5%9E%E7%88%B6; then click on English (on the left hand side) to see a (rough, not very precise) translation of the page.
Another source is myself: Chinese is my native language and this is the word I use when addressing people who are Catholic priests.


How do Jehovah Witnesses explain the anger of Caiphas? So the high priest said to him: “I put you under oath by the living God to tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him: “You yourself said it. But I say to you: From now on you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65  Then the high priest ripped his outer garments, saying: “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? See! Now you have heard the blasphemy. Matthew 26:63-65

  Again the high priest began to question him and said to him: “Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed One?” Then Jesus said: “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” At this the high priest ripped his garments and said: “What further need do we have of witnesses? You heard the blasphemy.Mark 14:61-64

John Calvin and St.Thomas Aquinas both met on a very similar conclusion, that Caiaphas was angry because Jesus claimed divinity. How do Jehovah witnesses explain the anger of the high priest?
And what was the "blasphemy" that he was angry about?

Here are the reasons given in a 2006 Watchtower article:

”The Sanhedrin saw Jesus as a threat to the authority of the religious establishment and to public order, for which Pilate held them responsible. Any popular movement that the Romans might interpret as seditious could provoke their intervention in Jewish affairs—something that the Sanhedrin wanted to avoid at all costs.
Although unable to deny that Jesus performed powerful works, Caiaphas did not exercise faith but sought to maintain his prestige and authority. How could he acknowledge the raising of Lazarus? As a Sadducee, Caiaphas did not believe in the resurrection!—Acts 23:8.
One murder, however, was not enough to attain Caiaphas’ evil ends. “The chief priests now took counsel to kill Lazarus also, because on account of him many of the Jews were . . . putting faith in Jesus.”—John 12:10, 11.
The high priest knew the opinions of his fellow conspirators regarding any self-proclaimed Messiah. So he demanded to know whether Jesus claimed that title. Jesus responded that his accusers would see him “sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” In a show of piety, “the high priest ripped his outer garments, saying: ‘He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses?’” The Sanhedrin agreed that Jesus deserved to die.—Matthew 26:64-66.
As high priest, Caiaphas could have helped fellow Jews to accept the Messiah, but lust for power caused him to condemn Jesus."

I could find no reference in the article that Caiaphas was furious with Jesus because Jesus claimed divinity, that Jesus was equal to his Father in heaven. They say the blasphemy was claiming to be the Messiah.
This is entirely in keeping with the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses - they say Jehovah created Jesus as a spirit creature who is known in heaven as Michael the archangel.  They say they believe Jesus was divine, but deny Jesus was the pre-mortal Word of God who was with God in the beginning and who is God.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20060115/The-High-Priest-Who-Condemned-Jesus/#?insight[search_id]=83d6a072-7ffc-477e-94d3-194b4e6fc386&insight[search_result_index]=1


Should Catholics ignore Hebrews 13:3 if a Prisoner is excommunicated? After researching "Excommunication", I discovered this publication regarding the Catholic Church :

The Catholic Church cannot, nor does it wish to, oppose any obstacle to the internal relations of the soul with God; it even implores God to give the grace of repentance to the excommunicated. The rites of the church, nevertheless, are the providential and regular channel through which divine grace is conveyed to Christians; exclusion from such rites, especially from the sacraments, entails the privation of this grace, to whose sources the excommunicated person no longer has access.

In the papal bull "Exsurge Domine" (May 16, 1520), Pope Leo X condemned Luther's twenty-third proposition according to which "excommunications are merely external punishments, nor do they deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church". Pope Pius VI in "Auctorem Fidei" (August 28, 1794) condemned the notion which maintained that the effect of excommunication is only exterior because of its own nature it excludes only from exterior communion with the Church, as if, said the pope, excommunication were not a spiritual penalty binding in heaven and affecting souls.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_(Catholic_Church)]

The term "binding" in relation to people reminded me of Hebrews 13:3.

Hebrews 13:3

Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.

[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2013:3&version=KJV]

The phrase "as being yourselves also in the body" made me rethink what Excommunication entails for prisoners.

If people are not excommunicated from the Catholic Church, then does their status remain "in the body"?

If a prisoner has been excommunicated, Then do Catholics feel the need to observe Hebrews 13:3?

Does excommunication block Prisoners from prison ministry?

Should Catholics ignore Hebrews 13:3 if a Prisoner was excommunicated?

Remember them that are in bands, as if you were bound with them; and them that labour, as being yourselves also in the body. - Hebrews 13:3
Douay-Rheims

The short answer is no.
Does excommunication block Prisoners from prison ministry?
Again the short answer no, unless one is talking about serving at a Catholic mass or reading at Catholic mass in which case the answer is yes.
If a prisoner has been excommunicated, Then Catholics should feel the need to observe Hebrews 13:3!
Having volunteered in prison ministry, both in my own country (Canada) and in super max facilities in the USA, I can affirm to you that no Catholic is blocked from any form of prison ministry whatsoever.
Under current Catholic canon law, excommunicates remain bound by ecclesiastical obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.). "Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty." They are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.

In Latin Catholic canon law, excommunication is a rarely applied censure and thus a "medicinal penalty" intended to invite the person to change behaviour or attitude, repent, and return to full communion. It is not an "expiatory penalty" designed to make satisfaction for the wrong done, much less a "vindictive penalty" designed solely to punish: "excommunication, which is the gravest penalty of all and the most frequent, is always medicinal", and is "not at all vindictive".
Excommunication in the Latin Church is governed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC). The 1983 Code specifies various sins which carry the penalty of automatic excommunication: apostasy, heresy, schism (CIC 1364:1), violating the sacred species (CIC 1367), physically attacking the pope (CIC 1370:1), sacramentally absolving an accomplice in a sexual sin (CIC 1378:1), consecrating a bishop without authorization (CIC 1382), directly violating the seal of confession (1388:1), and someone who actually procures an abortion.
Under current Catholic canon law, excommunicates remain bound by ecclesiastical obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.). "Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty." They are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.
In the Catholic Church, excommunication is normally resolved by a declaration of repentance, profession of the Creed (if the offense involved heresy) and an Act of Faith, or renewal of obedience (if that was a relevant part of the offending act, i.e., an act of schism) by the excommunicated person and the lifting of the censure (absolution) by a priest or bishop empowered to do this. "The absolution can be in the internal (private) forum only, or also in the external (public) forum, depending on whether scandal would be given if a person were privately absolved and yet publicly considered unrepentant."[37] Since excommunication excludes from reception of the sacraments, absolution from excommunication is required before absolution can be given from the sin that led to the censure. In many cases, the whole process takes place on a single occasion in the privacy of the confessional. For some more serious wrongdoings, absolution from excommunication is reserved to a bishop, another ordinary, or even the Pope. These can delegate a priest to act on their behalf. - Excommunication (Catholic Church)

The Church remains a mother at heart and desires her children to return to the sacramental practice of their faith, whether in prison or not.
Those confined to a penal institution, still retain the possibility of going to mass, but are not allowed to receive the sacraments until they first receive sacramental forgiveness from the Church first.
Thus prisoners are quite free to ask Catholic pastors council on matter of internal forum, the sacrament of penance and advice on spiritual matters.
Prisoners, in general, have the right to access the prison chaplain, whether Catholic or not, for religious literature  and reading material. The security level of a particular offender may make these situations much more complicated. The prisoner on death row has a greater difficulty in getting access to a priest than an inmate in a minimum prison institution, but that is a matter outside the hands of the Church.


When was the title of "Mother of God" first ascribed to Mary? I understand that the phrase "Mother of God" appears in the prayer commonly referred to as the "Hail Mary" prayer.  I'm wondering, though, what the origin is of the phrase "Mother of God".  Did it first appear in the Hail Mary prayer or does it predate that?

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh".

If this is not so then it is like saying that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion will be same as heresy of Nestorianism. On the contrary Mary carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

Precisely for this reason, both Martin Luther and John Calvin  insisted on Mary’s divine maternity.

Here are some of the summarized forms of Mother of God references from very early age of Christianity:

  Irenaeus: [A.D. 189] "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1).

  Hippolytus [A.D. 217] ….Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Discourse on the End of the World 1).

  Gregory the Wonderworker [A.D. 262] "For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Four Homilies 1).
  "It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).

  Peter of Alexandria: [A.D. 305] "They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria).
  "We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D. 324]).

As the length of this answer is increasing, I will restrict here in mentioning only the names and dates when these references were made:
Methodius: (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]); Cyril of Jerusalem:(Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]);Ephraim the Syrian:(Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]); Athanasius:  (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]); Epiphanius of Salamis:(The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]); Ambrose of Milan:(The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]) and many more.


Were John Baptist and Jesus really related? If Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, with both his parents of the lineage of David, and John the Baptist's parents of Levi's tribe, Luke 1.5, how is it possible that John and Jesus could be related, Luke 1.36?

According to the Bible, Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist) and Mary (mother of Jesus) were related.  Luke 1:5 says that Zechariah belonged to the priestly division of Abijah and his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.  Luke 1:36 says that Elizabeth was a relative of Mary.   Here is an extract from an article that explains how this is possible - https://www.gotquestions.org/Mary-lineage.html

An argument sometimes put forward by those who deny the credentials of Christ is that, if Mary was Elizabeth’s “cousin,” then Mary must also have been a Levite. Some translations, such as the KJV, do state that Mary was the “cousin” of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). However, the English word cousin does not have to imply a close relation, and other versions of the Bible translate the word as “relative” (NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, BSB).

Even if Elizabeth and Mary were close relatives, it was still possible for them to be of different tribes, as women were identified with their father’s tribe, not their mother’s. Elizabeth’s father was a Levite, making her a Levite by birth, but her mother may have been of Judah. Conversely, Mary’s mother may have been a Levite and kin to Elizabeth’s family, while Mary’s father was of Judah. Luke’s genealogy shows that Heli, whom we assume to be Mary’s father, was a direct descendant of Judah, not Levi. In addition, the angel Gabriel affirmed Jesus’ Judean lineage, telling Mary that “he will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David” (Luke 1:32, NLT).  David was of the tribe of Judah.

The Bible does not say if Elizabeth was Mary’s cousin, aunt or other relation.  We do know, however, that Elizabeth was getting on in years when she became pregnant while Mary was a young woman.  Regardless of how Mary and Elizabeth were related, Jesus is a descendant of David and Judah:

Hebrews 7:14: For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah....

Revelation 5:5: And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”


What are the "heavenly realms"? Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. (Ephesians 1:3)

Paul talks about God blessing us in the "heavenly realms". What does that mean and why are we being blessed there instead of where we are?

There are many translations that do not use the term "blessed us in the the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing on Christ. I am no scholar of Greek or Hebrew, but clearly experts disagree on the translation. So I wouldn't dwell too long on what "heavenly realms" means.  Here are some versions:

Ephesians 1:3 (ASV) Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ:
Ephesians 1:3 (BBE) Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given us every blessing of the Spirit in the heavens in Christ:
Ephesians 1:3 (CEB) Bless the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! He has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing that comes from heaven.
Ephesians 1:3 (ESV) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Ephesians 1:3 (GNT) Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! For in our union with Christ he has blessed us by giving us every spiritual blessing in the heavenly world.
Ephesians 1:3 (GW) Praise the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! Through Christ, God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing that heaven has to offer.
Ephesians 1:3 (KJV) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Ephesians 1:3 (TYN) Blessed be God the father of oure lorde Iesus Christ which hath blessed vs with all maner of spirituall blessinges in hevely thynges by Chryst
Ephesians 1:3 (MSG) How blessed is God! And what a blessing he is! He's the Father of our Master, Jesus Christ, and takes us to the high places of blessing in him.

I hope some of these are more accessible to your understanding.

I will also offer that Jesus was quoted as saying that the kingdom of heaven is within [us], so a "heavenly place" might not necessarily be "in heaven".

Source: http://www.biblestudytools.com/compare-translations/passage/?q=eph+1:3


Are wives still called to be a "help meet" for their husbands? Genesis 2:18(KJV)

  And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I
  will make him an help meet for him.

Within the broader Christian tradition, are wives still called to help their husbands in their work for the Lord, such as in the home and in the husband's ministry? (I don't mean that they should be employed at the same job as their husbands.)

From what I see, many wives do not support their husbands' ministry, but either have their own non-overlapping ministry, or simply are not interested in participating for other reasons, such as preferring more worldly pursuits.

Does the Bible teach elsewhere that this helper role should be a fundamental aspect of being a Christian wife today?

The word for "help meet" means more than just a helper. She was to be his counterpart. This is not limited to just man's ministry, but to everything in his life. She was not to be seen as lesser, or just a helper, but as his divinely appointed co-equal complement. This quote I believe explains it better.

  God Himself gave Adam a companion. He provided “an help meet for
  him”—a helper corresponding to him—one who was fitted to be his
  companion, and who could be one with him in love and sympathy. Eve was
  created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she
  was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet
  as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and
  protected by him. A part of man, bone of his bone, and flesh of his
  flesh, she was his second self; showing the close union and the
  affectionate attachment that should exist in this relation. “For no
  man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it.”
  Ephesians 5:29...

"The Faith I Live By" P.251

If you see it from this perspective, she is not limited to only help in man's ministry. They are to have one purpose and work together in every aspect of life. After sin came in, she was to be subject to her husband, but notice that this was as a result of sin. God's original plan was to have her be equal with her husband.


According to Catholicism, is it unlawful to cause others to work on Sunday? The Precepts of the Catholic Church say:

  You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor

There are already several discussions about what servile labor is, boiling down to things that are more work than recreation (I'm simplifying here).

Is it also unlawful to cause others to perform servile work? Examples might be eating out or shopping on Sunday.

At least as regards some of the activities mentioned in the O.P.—especially, eating out—it is not problematic for those who are dedicated to providing others with leisure to do so on Sunday or other holy days.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states expressly:

  Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day. Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure (no. 2187, emphasis added).

Regarding keeping stores open, the situation is less clear. Some stores are clearly a public service (pharmacies, etc.), and so keeping them open is not a problem. In other cases, whether there is truly a need to keep the stores open is a matter for prudential judgment, and so the Church has refrained from making any detailed pronouncements.

In any event, in societies (such as the United States) that are predominantly non-Catholic, it is simply not prudent or possible to control when stores will be open. Catholics are not expected to refuse to work on Sunday and holy days, especially if their future employment or advancement is placed in jeopardy. (It would, however, certainly be a good gesture on an employer’s part to allow Christians to take Sunday off, to the degree that it is possible.)

It follows, then, that there is no absolute prohibition against causing others to work on Sunday. An effort should be made to help others keep their Sunday rest to the extent possible, and so it seems prudent to refrain from unnecessarily requiring others to work—e.g., by doing the weekly grocery shopping on a Sunday. This is, however, a prudential judgment, not a question of a strict moral prohibition.

(My answer to the O.P.’s related question, According to Catholicism, is going to work on Holy Days of Obligation sinful?, will also shed light on this question.)


According to Catholicism, do Gabriel, Michael and Rafael still have the option of turning away from God? On the assumption that Satan was once in fellowship with God. Do Gabriel, Michael and Rafael (or any angel) still have the option of turning away from God?

If so, is the sainthood of a human greater than an Angel?

Because if a human dies and goes to heaven, their fellowship with God is eternal and perfect so the option of turning away from him ceases to exist.

If you take St. Thomas's answer as good 'nuff.  He has about 3 articles that hint at an answer in the Summa of which, I think this is the most concise:

  I answer that, The beatified angels cannot sin. The reason for this is, because their beatitude consists in seeing God through His essence. Now, God's essence is the very essence of goodness. Consequently the angel beholding God is disposed towards God in the same way as anyone else not seeing God is to the common form of goodness. Now it is impossible for any man either to will or to do anything except aiming at what is good; or for him to wish to turn away from good precisely as such. Therefore the beatified angel can neither will nor act, except as aiming towards God. Now whoever wills or acts in this manner cannot sin. Consequently the beatified angel cannot sin.

  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1062.htm#article8

So, like Mother Mary,  in Heaven, an angel would follow intellect, not passions, and therefore never turn towards sin.


What exempts a Catholic from going to Mass on Sunday at church? My grandparents are devout Catholics in the Midwest. They are fairly involved in their local church, however if they are away they will go to any close church. This much is fine, and I admire them for their faith and dedication.

As they were born and raised in small Midwest towns during the 1940s, I believe that their dedication to this has to do with their interpretation of "remember the sabbath day" to mean that they need a church and priest.

Where I have concerns is that, last Sunday, the roads were icy enough that they were having trouble safely driving and walking. This is boosted by both of them reaching critical memory issues, and my grandmother not eating enough and relying on a walker. As such, I am concerned for their safety, and want to give them an alternative if the roads are too dangerous for them.

Since they are devout, I am looking for something in Catholic doctrine that defines whether or not a priest or physical church is necessary for worship. A preferred or additional verse would include some prioritization of your own health.

EDIT:
Thank you for the answers! I didn't realize that Mass was a compulsory idea since I come from a Protestant background. I'll see if my grandparent's friends aren't willing to pick them up. God Bless!

The first precept of the Church is to

  go to Mass and refrain from servile work on Sundays and holy days.

Grave inconvenience can exempt one from observing a precept of the Church. Grave inconvenience is, according to Fr. Hardon, S.J.,

  a sufficient reason to excuse a person from fulfilling certain positive precepts of the Church, not of themselves binding by the natural or revealed law. Also sufficient reason for delaying or even not performing certain actions, otherwise obligatory, provided there is a sincere desire to do so.

However, the 3rd Commandment (Ex. 20:8-10),

  Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy works; but on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; thou shalt do no work on it

is "binding by the natural or revealed law".

So, even if one cannot without grave inconvenience observe the first precept of the Church, one still must sanctify Sunday, such as by extra spiritual reading, prayer, or even watching a live "internet Mass" or television or radio broadcast of a Mass, which can have spiritual benefits according to Father Connell Answers Moral Questions (Washington: Catholic University of America 1959) 75–6:

  One may participate in the benefits of the Mass without being actually present — namely, by directing one’s intention and devotion to the sacred rite. By hearing Mass over the radio one can certainly foster his devotion, and thus profit considerably from the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. Indeed, it could happen that one who participates in the Holy Sacrifice in this manner will gain much more benefit than many of those who are actually present.


Whose morals are being referenced by NT authors in the expression "sexual immorality"? When the expression "Sexual Immorality" appears in bible translations (Namely, when Paul uses that word/phrase 1 Corinthians) — to whose morals is it referring?

The morals of the body of the church (or community)?
The morals of the society (Your nations/generation's beliefs)?
Your own personal morals?

What is the actual word in Greek that is being translated? What is an in depth definition of that word?

The most word used is "porneia" (πορνεία), and according to Strong's means "illicit sexual intercourse" - particularly fornication, or sexual intercourse outside marriage. This of course is the real point here - Paul isn't slamming sexual desire and intercourse as a bad thing - look at Song of Solomon. What he is warning against is sex in the absence of the covenant and institution God anointed to accompany it.

This leads into the more general entry in Strong's - "idolatry" - because that's what it is - it's taking something without taking it how God intended it.

So to the question of "whose" morals - it's quite clearly God's morality - the only morality that matters. Hopefully, that lines up with the body of the church - but it needn't and often doesn't align with the morals of society. Romans 1 clearly condemns homosexuality despite the fact that it was rampant and accepted in the culture.

The point is, "sexual immorality" is not a relative term. A lust-ridden man can't justify his pornographic addiction because according to his terms, "sexual immorality" is "actual" sex. It's on God's terms. Always.


Did Dante's Divine Comedy describe or define Christian views on the afterlife? Dante's Divine Comedy, the 14th century epic poem describing a journey through the various levels of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven and the persons or types of persons who inhabit each level (including some of Dante's living contemporaries).  How much of Dante's description describes explicit Church doctrine as of his era, and to what extent, if any, did Dante influence Christian theology going forward?

The geography of the afterlife is not a topic where the church had "doctrine" as such, though there have always been a variety of traditions and stories about this sort of thing. Dante's scheme does reflect an underlying theology, so I'll tackle this from a theological perspective. The layouts of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven are all in some sense "orthodox" in that they are drawn from recognized classifications of sin and virtue. Dante does not claim that this is how things literally are in those realms - especially when we get to Heaven, and the entire scheme is reinterpreted several times, as he grows in understanding. The moral truth is what counts.

There are some specific areas where Dante does things which are novel, and sometimes opposed to actual doctrine.

The vestibule of Hell, an antechamber where the lukewarm, who were neither good nor bad, are stuck forever - this is new. If this area counts as "basically Hell anyway" then it's fine, since all souls are meant to be destined one way or the other. I think the lower levels of ante-Purgatory are also original to Dante, though I'm not sure about that.
Saladin is placed among the righteous pagans, whereas as a Muslim he "ought" to be classed as at least a heretic or schismatic. Mohammed, for example, is placed in the eighth circle of Hell. This indicates some leniency from Dante about whether someone  who is aware of Christianity, but does not convert, attracts the maximum penalty.
Really bad people in the ninth circle (Inferno 33) are said to have descended to Hell while still alive, and their bodies are now possessed by demons. This is completely unorthodox, since standard Catholicism/Christianity holds that one can repent even in the moment of death.
The garden of Eden, or Earthly Paradise, is situated at the summit of Purgatory, which itself is a huge mountain directly on the other side of the world from Jerusalem. This is not completely new - Bede thought Purgatory might be a mountain, and the Eden-Purgatory association was also previously suggested, due to the common image of fire (the flaming sword of Genesis 3:24) and the restoration to primal innocence. The combination of this ideas is new, and Dante gave them a higher profile.

Contemporary doctrinal criticism of Dante was more about his politics, which were perceived as anti-Papal and anti-clerical. His idea of the division of responsibility between Pope and Emperor - a prototype for modern separation of church and state - was arguably heretical, even as late as 1864 and the Syllabus of Errors.


Is a Roman Catholic allowed by Church law to receive sacraments from other Churches in full communion with Rome? In a simple example, a Roman Catholic gets an invitation from a Maronite Catholic to attend Mass in the latter's rite. Can a Catholic participate in the Mass to the point of receiving Communion from the Maronite priest?

With regards to once-in-a-lifetime sacraments such as Baptism, Confirmation, and Matrimony, can a Roman Catholic receive such sacraments from other churches, provided that such church is in full communion with Rome? (Maronites, Chaldeans)

In short: yes, you can validly receive any of the sacraments in any Church that is in union with Rome.
From the Code of Canon Law:

Can.  844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

Catholic minister means any properly ordained person from a Catholic Church in union with Rome (see "Can. 846 §2. The minister is to celebrate the sacraments according to the minister’s own rite.")

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

This means that in cases it is impossible to find Churches in Union with Rome, it is permissible to receive them from non-Catholics whose sacraments are valid (basically the Orthodox Churches), but only of they allow that. The fact that a Catholic is allowed to, say, receive communion, in an Orthodox Church, does not mean that this Church automatically allows this Catholic to participate and/or receive.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

Similar to the above point, but the other way around.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

And this waives (to some extent) the restrictions on §3 and §3 in case of mortal danger, meaning that also members of protestant churches whose sacraments are not recognized as valid can approach Catholic priests, if they present faith in the relevant sacrament and are properly disposed.

As to the second question in regards to singular sacraments (baptism, confirmation and matrimony), as stated above those sacraments are valid and recognized if administered in a Church in union with Rome. This does not automatically change the rite of the child: if Latin parents go to an Eastern rite church (which they freely can), and have their child baptized there, the child still remains Latin.

Can. 111 §1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement, however, the child is enrolled in the ritual Church to which the father belongs.
Can. 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:

[...]

Can 111 §2. Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely choose to be baptized in the Latin Church or in another ritual Church sui iuris; in that case, the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

There are other consequences attached to going to other rites, for instance the fact that if belonging to a Latin rite, children aren't allowed to receive in Eastern Rite churches until they fulfill the Latin Rite conditions for such, which differ from the Eastern rites (even though Eastern rite children not meeting those Latin Rite criteria are still allowed to receive communion in Latin Rite churches).
So while the short answer is indeed 'yes', it isn't a matter of 'free-for-all' cherry-picking for some of those other sacraments. One remains officially part of their own Church sui iuris, and thus subject to all the requirements in accordance to that Church.
Important to note is the following:

Can. 112 §2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another ritual Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church.

Repeated receipt of sacraments in other Churches does not change your own affiliation.