Will we be reunited with our family and friends in heaven? Yes, I have faith in God and I would really like to go to heaven after I die, not hell, no way! I trust in God and would like to see my family and friends in heaven after they die, only if they make it there. I would never, ever want to go to hell!

Although your question is not directly addressed in Scripture, we can draw some ideas from Scripture.

Revelation 7:17  For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
Rev_21:4  And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Since there will be no tears, death, sorrow, crying or pain in Heaven. Does it not follow that not seeing those we loved here on Earth would only cause us sorrow.

Revelation 20:6  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Revelation 20:13 and 14  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Here we see that death is banished and will no longer be an inhibition, nor will it have any effect on those who are part of the first resurrection. the first resurrection is the resurrection of the faithful
and the second death refers to:

Revelation 21:8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

These are those destined for Hell. Although these Scriptures do speak directly to missing any loved one who are not in Heaven, it makes it seem that we will not know that they are not there.


How do evangelicals interpret 1 Corinthians 10:16? Evangelical Christians do not believe in Transubstantiation. Instead, a view held by many is that the communion elements are mere symbols of Christ's body and blood (source).

  The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the
  blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in
  the body of Christ?

  1 Corinthians 10:16 (ESV)

How do evangelicals holding to the symbolism view interpret 1 Corinthians 10:16? What does it mean to partake in the body and blood of Christ by means of the bread and the cup?

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

  The more obvious signification is, that there is a sense in which it
  may be said that the cup is blessed, and that by prayer and praise it
  is set apart and rendered in some sense sacred to the purposes of
  religion. it cannot mean that the cup has undergone any physical
  change, or that the wine is anything but wine; but that it has been
  solemnly set apart to the service of religion, and by prayer and
  praise designated to be used for the purpose of commemorating the
  Saviour's love. That may be said to be blessed which is set apart to a
  sacred use (Genesis 2:3; Exodus 20:11); and in this sense the cup may
  be said to be blessed; see Luke 9:16, "And he took the five loaves and
  the two fishes, and looking up to heaven he blessed them," etc.;
  compare Genesis 14:9; Genesis 27:23, Genesis 27:33, Genesis 27:41;
  Genesis 28:1; Leviticus 9:22-23; 2 Samuel 6:18; 1 Kings 8:41.

  Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? - Is it not the emblem
  by which the blood of Christ is exhibited, and the means by which our
  union through that blood is exhibited? Is it not the means by which we
  express our attachment to him as Christians; showing our union to him
  and to each other; and showing that we partake in common of the
  benefits of his blood? The main idea is, that by partaking of this cup
  they showed that they were united to him and to each other; and that
  they should regard themselves as set apart to him. We have communion
  with one κοινωνία koinōnia,) that which is in "common," that which
  pertains to all, that which evinces fellowship) when we partake
  together; when all have an equal right, and all share alike; when the
  same benefits or the same obligations are extended to all. And the
  sense here is, that Christians "partake alike" in the benefits of the
  blood of Christ; they share the same blessings; and they express this
  together, and in common, when they partake of the communion.

  The bread ... - In the communion. It shows, since we all partake of
  it. that we share alike in the benefits which are imparted by means of
  the body of the Redeemer. In like manner it is implied that if
  Christians should partake with idolaters in the feasts offered in
  honor of idols, that they would be regarded as partaking with them in
  the services of idols, or as united to them, and therefore such
  participation was improper.

(emphasis added by me)

The idea is that it is participating in the body and blood of Christ, not partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the sense that it's literally his body. The point of the passage is to say that when we eat the elements, we participate in their symbolism, their celebration of Christ, and their uniting the believers together. Therefore, similarly, if we participate in idol feasts, we're participating in the symbolism, celebration of the idol, and uniting that comes with it. It's a warning against participating in these things, not necessarily referencing its literal transformation into Christ's body.

EDIT: This is highlighted too by Paul in verses 25 and 26 where he says they can eat anything sold in the market (some of which had been sacrificed to idols) because “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it." Even though it had been sacrificed to idols, by buying it in the market they weren't participating in the idol worship it was originally consecrated for.


Huxley? Agnoticism and Christianity. Both at the same time? Are they call agnostic theist? I believe it's wrong to say I'm certain of things. But I want to believe in God? Knowledge and belief is two different things right?

Or did I not understand Huxley's definition of agnosticism correctly?

Also, what do Christians think of agnosticism?

Since I am unsure as to what you preceived from Huxley, I am taking the liberty of inserting the most common concept of agnosticism.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
ag•nos•ti•cism n.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual
phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

The idea that there is no actual way of proving either the existance or non existance of God does not fly in the face of Christianity.
Christianity is faith based, or that is to say that:

It is based on believing in things which cannot be authanticated by any of the five senses.

It derives its existance from pure belief that there is a supreme power (God), and that he controls all things, and is able to dictate events and circumstance.

It is a basic precept of Christianity that God sent his son Jesus to be an acceptable sacrifice, which would obliterate our debt of sin.

It is also a basic precept that the Holy Bible is the word of God which he himself inspired the various authors to write, and it is his unadultrated word.

The key word here is faith, if there were physical proof of the existance of God then it would no longer be faith it would be knowledge.
The best definition of faith comes from the Bible itself:
Hebrews 11:1  KJV

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

So if God is capable of all things, you might wonder why he doesn't just give proof and be done with it, that way everyone would know and all would be just jim dandy.
Well things would not be just jim dandy:
Genesis 1:27  KJV

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So just what that implies is that man has the same characteristics that God has, and God has a free will, or in other words he can change his mind anytime he want's to; just like a woman does.
So if man has the same characteristics as God man must also have free will. That therefore means that man has within his power the choice to either accept or deny the sovreignty of God.
If there were proof then there would be no choice, because there would be factual backup for God's sovreignty. Could God abolish man's free will? of course he could, but then man would no longer be in the image of God.
Many Christians, and I am one, believe that God will never interfere with man's free will, and so there will never be definitive proof of God's existance. Certainly there is ample proof that the events as described in the Bible are true, but not the existance of a Supreme being.


Does Christianity believe in reincarnation? Most religions of the East believe in the transmigration of the soul from a dead body to a newborn body.

For example let us say a person called Dheeraj dies, then if immediately he is born into another body then we call this process of dying and taking birth as rebirth because before dying he was born and after dying he is again born.

Does Christianity believe in transmigration?

The Christian Bible says you must be re born to enter heaven.  This is a spiritual rebirth through the acceptance of Christ in your heart.  Christianity does not believe in reincarnation.


How do Christians that do not believe in inerrancy interpret the Bible? I know there are several Christian traditions that do not claim that scripture is inerrant (and therefore do not interpret everything in the Bible literally). If this is the case, then it seems like a slippery slope of interpreting the Bible in a way that favors one's own opinion.

What do these traditions use to keep their interpretations in check with what they understand to be God's will instead of what they want to be true?

Maybe another way to ask this question that will limit it to something that is not too subjective is: What other sources of "truth" do people use to supplement the Bible in their beliefs, and how do they justify it (Biblically or otherwise)?

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is very recent in Christian history

First, let's put biblical inerrancy into perspective.

Two  centuries or so ago, and for all of Christian history before that, not a single Christian church, denomination, or preacher held that the Bible is inerrant. The very idea of biblical inerrancy had never even occurred to anyone.

It was only after the Age of Enlightenment (from the 1650s to the 1780s) that any need was seen by Christians for any such doctrine. This need was perceived only when the rapid development of science in the wake of the Age of Enlightenment began to call into question in many people's minds the scientific accuracy of many stories and statements in the Bible, such as the creation of the world in six days and the Flood of Noah.

So for roughly 1,800 years of its history, all of Christianity looked to the Bible as the Word of God without the need for any doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

Biblical inerrancy is not the same as biblical literalism

Further, biblical inerrancy is not the same thing as biblical literalism. Even the well-known 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy "allows for figurative, poetic and phenomenological language, so long as it was the author's intent to present a passage as literal or symbolic" (quote from linked Wikipedia article; italics in the original).

In other words, biblical inerrancy does not require a wholly literal interpretation of the Bible.

Biblical inerrancy is not necessary for faith in the Bible

Given that all Christian churches functioned reasonably well through many centuries of Christian history without the relatively recent doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the idea that now, two thousand years into Christianity, faith in God and the Bible will suddenly crumble without an adherence to biblical inerrancy seems rather shaky and unfounded.

Adherence to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is by no means universal among Christian churches. However, I'll leave it to other answerers to say which denominations do and do not adhere to biblical inerrancy.

Biblical inerrancy misses the spiritual point of the Bible

I can, however, speak for my own denomination, the Swedenborgian Church, on the subject.

From a Swedenborgian perspective, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy simply isn't very useful.

In practice, it is used mostly to assert that the Bible is without scientific and historical error. At other times it is used to assert that particular doctrines are correct because they are claimed to be based on the statements of the Bible.

However, from a Swedenborgian perspective, the Bible was never intended to be a textbook of science and history. Why would God be concerned to teach us about science and history? How would that accomplish God's purpose in speaking to humans on earth?

God's purpose is not to give us correct scientific and historical information. Rather, it is to save our souls and bring us to heaven. So what God wants to convey to humans in the Bible is not material world information, which does not affect our salvation, but spiritual understanding, which does affect our salvation.

The Bible is about spiritual change, not about correct doctrine

Further, the point of the Bible is not to instill correct doctrine. Yes, correct doctrine is important. But the purpose of doctrine in Christianity is to lead to faith in the Lord, repentance, reformation, and new spiritual life.

In other words, God's underlying purpose in the Bible is not to get us to think straight, but to get us to live a Christlike life. Faith and doctrine are merely the doorway to making us into "new creations in Christ" (see 2 Corinthians 5:17).

Biblical inerrancy is a useless doctrine for this purpose because it concerns only the head, not the heart. In the Bible, God is seeking to reach our heart, and to "replace our heart of stone with a heart of flesh" (see Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26).

The original writers of the Bible, whether or not they believed or realized they were writing under divine inspiration, all understood that the main point of their writing was to reach people with a message from God and get people to leave behind their evil and sinful lives and live good and loving lives instead. Jesus himself summed up the entirety of Scripture in these words:

  "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all
  your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and first
  commandment. And a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as
  yourself." On these two commandments hang all the law and the
  prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)

That is the whole purpose of Scripture according to Jesus himself: to prompt us to love the Lord our God above all else, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy touches only the head.

What God wants to reach is our heart. And all of Scripture is designed by God to touch our hearts and prompt us to turn to God and live from God's love instead of from our own selfish and materialistic desires.

A more spiritual basis for Bible interpretation

Speaking for my own denomination and theology, we avoid any "slippery slope" (to the best of our finite and fallible human ability) by looking to the Bible not as a textbook of science and history, or even as a textbook of theology, but as a message from God whose purpose is to turn us toward God, faith, goodness, love, and spiritual life.

Our mode of Bible interpretation, then, does not require or rely on inerrancy. Instead, it focuses on the spiritual messages contained in and delivered by the text.


Does Roman Catholic doctrine recognize a moral distinction or difference between abortion and birth control? Understanding that birth control is renounced in Catholic doctrine, is there a sense that abortion is weightier because in involves the death of a person in addition to the ethical problems Catholics recognize in birth control in general?

Yes, there is a difference.

On the matter of abortion, the Catechism and Canon Law is explicit. It is a grave offence with instant excommunication. The penalty applies to everyone involved, including the mother if she consents and any medical personnel.

  Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
  The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
  "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78
  The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
  Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

  Catechism of the Catholic Church

However, prophylactic contraception does not attract such a penalty, although any act is intrinsically evil.

  Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:158

    Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality ... the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle ... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159

  CCC

The Church holds that abortion is murder; it is the extinction of an existing life, with a soul. The prevention of life being created, although contrary to the natural order and the purpose of marriage and sex, is not murder.

Because abortion (including abortifacient contraception) brings a latae sententiae excommunication, the penalty can be lifted if the offender sacramentally confesses to a bishop (Canons 1355, 1357). Prophylactic contraception is an evil which can be confessed to and absolved by a priest.

76 CIC (Code of Canon Law), can. 1398.
77 CIC, can. 1314.
78 Cf. CIC, cann. 1323-1324.
157 Humane Vitae 16.
158 HV 14.
159 Familiaris Consortio 32.


Robber Councils in Eastern Orthodoxy In Catholicism, one can discern between a robber Council and a true Ecumenical Council: the Pope gives his ratification of one and not the other. Therefore we know that the correct Council was adopted.

Question

In Eastern Orthodoxy, on what basis is one Council accepted (an orthodox Council) and another rejected (a 'robber' Council)—which doesn't strip an Ecumenical Council of its binding authority to teach and inform (i.e. place judgement of Councils on something below the authority of an Ecumenical Council)?1

Thanks in advance.

1 Catholicism rejects the notion that an Ecumenical Council is above the authority of the Pope, which is called the Conciliarist heresy.

There are Ecumenical councils of which there have been seven and local councils of which there have been many.
Ecumenical councils affirm previous Ecumenical councils as Ecumenical.
Councils have to be accepted by the Body of Christ as a whole to be considered Ecumenical.

As such, it is impossible to say directly at or immediately following an attempt at an ecumenical council whether it will be accepted as such.


Are there any examples of sarcasm in the bible? The closest in tone to sarcasm, though somewhat different, that I am aware of is John 1:45-46

  Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote -- Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

  And Nathaniel said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

But that is not really sarcasm. Are there any examples?

The first instance of sarcasm that jumps into my mind is 1 Kings 18:27, where Elijah is taunting the prophets of Baal because their sacrifice is not burning up (they were having a sort of contest). The NET renders the verse:

  "At noon Elijah mocked them, 'Yell louder! After all, he is a god; he may be deep in thought, or perhaps he stepped out for a moment or has taken a trip. Perhaps he is sleeping and needs to be awakened.'"

Some have even speculated that the Hebrew term here translated "deep in thought" may mean "relieving himself," or that the term translated "stepped out for a moment" implies stepping out in order to relieve oneself. I have not found any scholarly support for this other than a former Hebrew professor of mine mentioning it, but either way, Elijah is being sarcastic about Baal.

Almost the entire book of Amos is satirical, dealing with the social injustices committed by God's people in the northern kingdom of Israel. Job can also be fairly sarcastic in the midst of his suffering, often crossing into cynicism.

Those are a few examples that come to mind.


Why is Paul considered an Apostle? Possible Duplicate:
  What is an apostle?
  How do we know Paul wasn’t a false Apostle?

Why is Paul considered an apostle rather than simply a disciple?  What Biblical references show why or why not?

An apostle is one sent from God, a disciple is one who studied under God.

Decent (albeit imperfect) analogues in the terminology would be Apostle is to Missionary as Disciple is to Student.

The 12 disciples included all of the men who studied under Jesus - including Judas.

Once Jesus died and rose again, he sent the remaining 11 of them out (obviously not Judas, since he was dead!) to preach the Good News to the ends of the earth (Matt 28:19-20), and later called Paul to do the same.

Paul, however, did not know Jesus until his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9), well after Jesus' teaching ministry was done. Thus, Paul was sent out (apostolos), but was never discipled directly by Jesus.


Do you have any knowledge on a Catholic Internal Forum on Marriage? The information given to us from the Priest, is that this Ceremony would allow us, with the Grace of God to live together as a married couple, without any fornication sin involved. This was done to avoid going back and forth to confession for living together, without having true intentions of not having sexual relation again and again.
The relation now has some issues, that may cause walking away from the marriage. Promises of stopping drinking and smoking, has turned into still excessive use. We are both 76 years old and lost our spouses several years ago, She has the drinking and smoking problem. I have been bi-polar for over 65 years and go into deep depression off and on. She was aware of this, but the Priest was not aware of the bi-polar. Where when I brought this situation up, he made the comment that if he knew that I was bi-polar, that he would not of married us.
The  question is that if she doesn't quit the smoking and drinking, (plus forgot to mention), that she puts down the Catholic religion off and on.
Help me. The Priest who did the ceremony, says that if I leave her or she leaves me, "I am going to be stuck, in a bad way".

If you looking for a Catholic Internal Forum for Marriage, than I would recommend that you seek out a pastor who can direct you to the priest in charge of the marriage tribunals in the diocese where you are living. That is where the the internal forum for marriages begins.
The Vatican has recently published the following article on the subject: Note of the Apostolic Penitentiary on the importance of the Internal Forum and the Inviolability of the Sacrament Sacramental Seal.
The priest in charge of the Marriage Tribunal, is to be considered an expert on the topic of marriage and all related issues. What is brought up to him is immediately considered part of the internal forum and must be held in secrecy.

Internal forum
The jurisdiction of the internal forum deals with questions concerning the welfare of individual Christians and with their relation to God. Hence it is called the forum of conscience (Forum conscientiae). It is also denominated the forum of Heaven (forum poli) because it guides the soul on the path to God. The internal forum is subdivided into the sacramental or penitential, which is exercised in the tribunal of penance or at least is connected with it, and the extra penitential forum. Causes concerning the private and secret needs of the faithful can often be expedited outside the sacramental confession. Thus, vows may be dispensed, secret censures may be absolved, occult impediments of matrimony may be dispensed outside of the tribunal of penance. The internal forum deals therefore directly with the spiritual welfare of the individual faithful. It has reference to the corporate body only secondarily, in as much as the good of the whole organization is promoted by that of the individual members. Owing to the nature of the civil state and the end for which it was instituted, it has no jurisdiction corresponding to the ecclesiastical forum of conscience.
Sacramental and non-sacramental internal forum
Within the internal forum a distinction is made between the sacramental internal forum and the non-sacramental internal forum, according as matters are decided in the sacrament of Penance, and thus additionally protected by the Seal of the Confessional, or outside of the sacrament.
Thus the name of the parties in a marriage contracted in the external forum are noted in a public register, but a marriage celebrated secretly is to be noted instead in a special register kept in the secret archive of the diocesan curia.
Sometimes power of governance is given for the sacramental forum only: in each diocese a priest is to be appointed who has the faculty, which he cannot delegate to others, of "absolving in the sacramental forum outsiders within the diocese and members of the diocese even outside the territory of the diocese from undeclared latae sententiae censures not reserved to the Apostolic See".
In the Roman Curia, the Apostolic Penitentiary has jurisdiction for matters of the internal forum, both sacramental and non-sacramental, but in some instances its decisions hold also in the external forum, as when, unless it states otherwise, a dispensation that it grants in the non-sacramental internal forum from an occult impediment to marriage, is sufficient even if the occult impediment later becomes public. - Internal and external forum

It is always a poor idea to seek personal advice though the internet. Thus I recommend you talk to the priest in charge of the Marriage Tribunal in your area and seek insight from him. Questions posed to him are considered part of the internal forum and thus are considered questions of conscience. If he can not get you your answer (which I find doubtful), he will be able to point you in the direction necessary.


Commandment about idols and idolatry in OT God continually tells people throughout the Hebrew Bible to not turn to idolatry.

Exodus 20:4:

  “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

Does this mean that they should not try to understand what God "looks" like by trying to recreate an image of Him (we are finite minds, God is an infinite mind), or that they should not make such images because that would lead them to venerate nature gods?

Because the Israelites do make carved images of something that is "in heaven above," namely angels (cherubim): God tells Moses to place cherubim on the Ark.

So then the making of images mentioned in Exodus 20:4 (and other laws concerning idolatry) does not pertain to, for example, making an image of Jesus or making images of various Saints, because those figures are, (in the Christian sense), a continuation of the OT, and thus they are beings created "in the image of God"?

What is actually meant by all this?   To not make images of various things for worship because they were not created "in the image of God"? (God is above, beyond, and outside of nature, and equating God to nature images by creating what is "in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath" is offensive to God?)

Because, once again, didn't God tell Moses to place Cherubim on the Ark?

Normally, I don't link to my own sermons.  But in this case, I'm going to make an exception.  As a Baptist pastor, I wrote this sermon specifically to address this question - Why would God prohibit making graven images?

The upthrust of the answer is that images stick the thing of which the image is made in a fixed point in time.  And, the truth is, that as humans change, our images need to change with us.  Idols don't do that. But our perception of our God does. My image of parents is not the same image I had when I was 5. If it were, something would be seriously wrong.

Unlike Muslims, we don't have a prohibition on images per se - only on images that we would worship.  The Seventh Ecumenical Council in particular clarified that images of Jesus weren't sinful - indeed, God himself had incarnated and taken an image.

The Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant were decoration - indeed, they were only said to "adorn" the Mercy Seat.  The Ark itself was not something to be worshipped, but rather the God who sat there.  To have prohibited any adornment would have been to diminish from the grandeur afforded any monarch.

Christians may have images that remind us to worship, but we are specifically not worshipping the thing itself.  Crosses and crucifixes can, incorrectly, be viewed as idols to the unitiated. But the theology behind it (again see the Seventh Ecumenical Council), is clearly not idol worship any more than a To Do application on my phone dictates my life or a telephone is the thing to which I talk.  It may be a medium that reminds me, but it is not the thing in and of itself.

But to make an image of God specifically is an affront to his character and our own.  By fixing an image of God, it becomes too easy for that to become our only image of God.  And, no one image can capture the full magnificence of his splendor.

As an example, I have, on my desk, this picture I took of the Grand Canyon.

I took that one my way down.  The Canyon itself hasn't changed in thousands of years, but as I walked, my perspective of it changed dramatically.  The deeper I got, the more amazing it got.  I can't give you one picture of the Canyon that captures its full essence - and no one can give you one picture of God that communicates his full majesty.  We just aren't equipped for it.

This is God's motivation - he wants us to experience His fullness and not settle for a single image.  As such, the prohibition on making his image isn't because he doesn't want us to imagine him at all - but rather because he doesn't want us to settle for limited scope.  I can show you what Ganesh looks like.  There are pictures of other "gods" that abound.

But the God that Christians serve is

  "able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us.

When we

  ... exchange the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:23)

then we know that our foolish hearts will be darkened (Romans 1:22) and that we become sinful and stuck. (the rest of Romans 1).

tl;dr> In short, the prohibition on images isn't for God's protection, but our own.


Is this about 'sehnsucht'; in which case, can God be Pleasure manifest or is he a being who is full of pleasure? "I have tried since . . . to make every pleasure into a channel of adoration. I don’t mean simply by giving thanks for it. One must of course give thanks, but I meant something different . . . Gratitude exclaims, very properly, “How good of God to give me this.” Adoration says, “What must the quality of that Being whose far-off and momentary coruscations are like this!” One’s mind runs back up the sunbeam to the sun . . .

If this is Hedonism, it is also a somewhat arduous discipline. But it is worth some labour.”

This is from 'Letters To Malcolm' by CS Lewis. I assume he is, once more, talking about 'joy'/sehnsucht...an ineffible longing for we know-not-what but something 'hinted' at via beauty/pleasure.
But, using God as Lewis's 'Sun' metaphor, is he saying we shall experience God as being the white heat, if you will, of all pleasure that we may/shall experience...or is he saying that God is a person who is full of happiness and goodness as a characteristic rather than his actual material substance and 'energy' he automatically gives off?

Appologies if this seems another whacky question, it's just, well, I like that kind...

I believe he is saying that God is a person who is full of happiness and goodness.  Namely Love love for all mankind.

He uses every experienced pleasure as an opportunity to give gratitude and contemplate the majesty of God.  The God of all creation.

As can be seen here:

Adoration says, ‘What
must be the quality of that Being whose far-off and momentary coruscations are like this!’

He continues:

If I could always be what I aim at being, no pleasure would be too ordinary or too usual for
such reception;

I think he is implying that if we could keep that mindset, even the most mundane every day pleasures or experiences can be opportunities to bring us closer to God through adoration which in turn enriches said experiences.

However it's not always easy to keep this mindset, obstacles such as inattention to the wonders around us.  Or choosing to ignore God's role in said experiences.  Lastly Greed Conceit.  Not being grateful. e.g.

that others would condemn as simply 'grey' the sky in which I am delightedly observing such delicacies of pearl and dove and silver.

In Summary:

What sparkling flashes of God’s wit and brilliance—His coruscations—have caused your mind today to
run back up the sunbeam to the sun and given you cause to give thanks and to worship the Lord?

There is a children's hymn which is sung at my church that I think fits nicely with what C.S. Lewis is trying to get across here.

Whenever I hear the song of a bird
Or look at the blue, blue sky,
Whenever I feel the rain on my face
Or the wind as it rushes by,
Whenever I touch a velvet rose
Or walk by our lilac tree,
I'm glad that I live in this beautiful world
Heav'nly Father created for me.

He gave me my eyes that I might see
The color of butterfly wings.
He gave me my ears that I might hear
The magical sound of things.
He gave me my life, my mind, my heart:
I thank him rev'rently
For all his creations, of which I'm a part.
Yes, I know Heav'nly Father loves me.

Link to music

Link to CS Lewis Letter


Jesus was dead for close to 36 hours, what happened to trinity? As per biblical records, jesus was buried on friday and was alive on Sunday.

If Jesus was dead for close to 36 hours, what happened to trinity?

This is the answer from the Catholic point of view.

In short, the Trinity - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit existed just as it always did and ever will (since God is eternal).

Now, to understand better what happened when Jesus died, we need to remember that death is not a complete annihilation, the state of non-being - it is rather a separation of body and soul, which will end on the last day (the last judgement).

Secondly, we need to remember that Jesus had two natures - Divine and Human. It means that if somebody asked Him "What are you?", he could answer both "God" and "Human". However, if somebody asked "Who are you?" there is only one answer: "Jesus", because there is only one person.

Nature (divine or human) dictates what we are, what we can do - for example we can talk, love, pray - all these things are common to human nature, but no human can, for example breath under water, as this is not part of human nature. In the same way, Jesus could not have died in His divine nature, which cannot know death, but He died in His human nature just as all human beings die - i.e. His Body (which was the body of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity) was separated from his soul. It didn't mean he ceased to exist, he simply died, like humans die.

At the moment of resurrection, His human body was again united with His soul, so in His human nature, God the Son rose from the death (himself), just as He will rise us on the last day.

The answer is based on "Theology for beginners" (Chapter 11, The Redeemer), by Frank Sheed.


How many years are Bible translations usually called New or Revised for? Until this year have used the New American Bible (NAB) for my Religious Ed. class.

Now, we've got a New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE).

How long is a bible New and how long is a bible Revised and can this continue for ever?

Will Bible translators ever just break down and use the Google Chrome incremental versioning system or will bible quotes require more and more ubiquitous bytes to signify the translation?

Specifically, I'm wondering if it is necessary to call the New American Bible Revised Edition published in 2011 AD the NABRE or if we'll just go back to calling it the New American Bible.  Or futhermore if we'll ever just call it the American Bible.

The name given to a version of the Bible is just that, a name. It's a bit like asking how long New York will stay New for - it's not going to be dropped because it's what the city is called, rather than a description of it.

Some versions of the Bible are referred to by year, or sometimes by century, for example:

21st Century King James Version
New International Version 1984
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

Sometimes that's officially part of the name when published (such as the first item on that list) and sometimes the year is added later to disambiguate it from more modern editions of the same version. I think that's as close to the Google Chrome analogy as we're likely to get.


What should a Catholic know about Pilgrims Progress? I'm listening to the Librivox version of Pilgrims Progress and I like it a lot, I really liked reading Pilgrims Regress which I read before I ever even heard of John Bunyan.  So far, in listening to the first 6 parts there are a couple biting remarks about Catholicism (I'm thinking of Formality, Hypocrite and Pope) which may as well have been true as far as Bunyan's perception of the Catholic Church was concerned.

But as a Catholic myself, is there anything in the works that I should be worried about in reading. In other words are there any roads which Christian would walk down that a Catholic priest would advise me against walking down? And are there any portrayals of Biblical characters that are at odds with Catholic belief (I'm thinking we don't believe Moses is such a jerk)

As you pointed out, Pilgrim's Progress was and is a very anti-Catholic book.  Seeing as its author, John Bunyan, was a Baptist writer serving time in jail for opposing an Anglican church in England at the same time England was living in fear of the even-more hierarchical Roman church, you can understand why he might be anti-Pope.

The basic tenant of the book - that the Christian life is a journey that must be accomplished on one's own, is as about as Baptist / Puritanical as it gets.  Like all Puritans, he celebrated rather than suppressed emotion, and wanted to ensure the "personal relationship" with Jesus took center stage. (Yes, Puritans were not the dour people popularly portrayed.  Want to read a theology that celebrates sex between man and wife? Look to the Puritans - not the Catholics!)

These two biggies - the unmediated experience and the anti-hierarchical church polity - are probably the biggest bugaboos for a Catholic.

Beyond that, the book presents salvation as an act of free will, and seems to completely discount election or predestination.  These issues may also cause some interesting discussions.

That said, this is the second best selling book of all time, just behind the Bible. Even if a good Christian were to disagree, I'd suggest it is edifying to read and think.  The praise of Acts 17:11 comes to mind:

  Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

As a Baptist believer in soul competency, Bunyan himself probably wouldn't have wanted you to accept his opinions without considering them against scripture. His genius was to rehabilitate allegory from static symbolism and push the metaphor into dynamic journey and learning that could be used to direct a believer's life.


Are the Sorrowful Mysteries recited when Christmas is on a Friday? The Rosary has four sets of mysteries, each of which is assigned to specific days of the week. The Sorrowful Mysteries are assigned to Friday. When Christmas falls on a Friday is there any guidance from the Catholic Church to recite a different set of mysteries?

Are there any other special days when the Rosary mysteries change from the normal?

Keep in mind that there is no “official” or “correct” way to pray the Rosary. The Rosary is just a devotion, and if someone prays it, he should do so in the way that is most helpful to him.

However, it is recommended that the mysteries contemplated should correspond the liturgical calendar.

For example (as the O.P. asks), it would seem fitting to pray the Joyful Mysteries on Christmas Day, even when Christmas falls on a Friday.

This kind of “change of mysteries” would apply on any solemnity, feast, or memorial that celebrates one of the mysteries in the Rosary.

For example, one would normally pray the Joyful Mysteries on the following days:

The Solemnity of the Annunciation, celebrated ordinarily on March 25.
Christmas Day (which is a solemnity, as mentioned above).
The Feast of the Visitation, celebrated on May 31.
The Feast of the Presentation, celebrated on February 2.

The Sorrowful Mysteries, on the following days:

Palm Sunday.
Good Friday.
Holy Saturday. (Many people also elect to pray the Sorrowful Mysteries during all of Holy Week.)
The Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, celebrated on September 14.

The Glorious Mysteries (those that do not already coincide with a Sunday):

The Solemnity of the Ascension, even where it is celebrated on a Thursday.
The Solemnity of the Assumption, celebrated on August 15.
The Memorial of the Queenship of Mary, celebrated on August 22.

For those who follow the recommendations of John Paul II's Rosarium Virginis Mariae, which recommends praying the so-called Luminous Mysteries on Thursdays and the Joyful Mysteries on Saturdays, the Luminous Mysteries would be prayed on the following days (when they do not already correspond to Thursday):

The Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, the Sunday after the Epiphany.
The Feast of the Transfiguration, celebrated on August 6.
Possibly the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, even when it is celebrated on a Sunday. (Corpus Christi is traditionally celebrated on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday; in most jurisdictions, the solemnity is moved to the nearest Sunday.)


What happened to "the last seminary" website It used to be in the web "my last seminary" / "summer seminary site" with a lot of links for topics on philosophical and theological issues. Does somebody know to where it migrated or mirrors?

Fortunately, this was a temporary problem which is now solved

The site you are looking for has used two domain names over the last 15 years or so: lastseminary.com and apollos.ws. At present, either of these names, with or without a prepended www, should resolve to www.lastseminary.com where the content is.

It appears there was an error redirecting from one url to another. The primary site has been apollos.ws for the last several years, and a lot of the content should be available on archive.org if you ever have trouble finding it on lastseminary in the future. Most of my original answer is no longer valid. If you are interested in the technical details, it should still be in the edit history.

A description on the site (as originally found at archive.org):

  What is Apollos.ws

  Apollos.ws is a resource for Christian academics. We organize audio,
  video, books, and articles related to Philosophy of Religion,
  Apologetics, and Biblical Studies. This site is an ideal research tool
  for graduate and post-graduate students.

The site is quite limited in describing and 'selling' itself. As an example, the easiest way I know to find their 'about us' page is to search for it. If you include the quotes in the search, you will get only one result. In my opinion it is a very useful reference site.


Why do some denominations not wash feet before taking communion? Why is it that some denominations follow the ordinance of humility as described in John 13 while others do not? What reason is there for not performing the foot washing ceremony before partaking in the Lord's Supper?

While I am not familiar with any denomination that practices footwashing as part of communion celebrations, I can address an issue that is implicit in the questions.

Descriptive is not the same a prescriptive

In other words, just because the Bible describes some people as doing something that doesn't mean all Christians should always do that too. As an extreme example the Bible tells us of bad things done, even by people described as 'righteous, such as the adultery of King David, and Peter's denial of Jesus. We are not expected to follow their examples. We have to use judgement, and follow Biblical guidelines, as to what is an example to be followed and what is description.

The Lord's Supper itself is not just descriptive. As well as describing what happens, Jesus' command is recorded: "Do this as often as you eat/drink it". No such command is attached to washing the disciples feet. In fact Jesus makes it pretty clear that what he is doing is not actually about feet, but about leadership and humility. Jesus expects leaders to act with humility towards their followers and be their servants. Actual literal footwashing may or may not be involved. Most Christians would say that a leader who carried out literally the act of washing people's feet, but behaved arrogantly towards the people they lead was not carrying out Jesus wishes.


What are the oldest surviving manuscripts of the scriptures? Torah, Tanach, gospels, septuagint, dead sea scrolls, masoretic, whatever.

Which one is the oldest and how far?

the Ketef Hinnom is typically dated to 600BC - prior even to the fall of Jerusalem.  It only contains 3 verses, however.

In 1979, Gabriel Barkay (or more properly his 13 year old assistant), unearthed the Ketef Hinnom, a small silver scroll containing the blessing in Numbers 6: 24 - 26.  To wit, it is a traditional blessing still used today:

  “The Lord bless you and keep you;
   the Lord make his face shine on you
      and be gracious to you;
  the Lord turn his face toward you
      and give you peace.”’

It's text is essentially unchanged from what we have today, matching both the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have been dated anywhere from 418 BC to 318 AD. (Personally, I favor the Qumran-as-an-Essene-community 200 BC interpretation.)

It looks like this.

In 2004, the scroll was unrolled and discovered to contain what is probably the oldest scripture we have - from 600 BC.  The primary significance of the fragment is to put a "latest date" of composition on the Torah.  JEPD traditionally held that the Scriptures were composed over various authors between 1000 BC and 600 BC.  This fragment shows this blessing, at very least, was in its current form, no later than 600 BC, although some scholars insist that generalizing the blessing to the entire book would be an over-interpretation.


Is there anything like a curse on some people? I was having a debate with one of my friend on whether God exists,
and I was in support of this statement..  Then he asked if there is a real God, then why there is so much differentiations without any deed they have done..

For instance many babies are born with disabilities and some people are born with homosexual genes, so how can they cure themselves, because it is by birth,  and not a psychological disorder.

As I an from a Hindu background, and I just received Lord Jesus as my Savior, (not having sufficient knowledge of bible to answer him).

So can someone suggest me some verses on bible which says about these things....

Actually, we are all under many curses.

Death: We are subjected to death, aging, sickness and deformities because Adam and Eve failed to obey God by eating the fruit from the forbidden tree.

  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all
  sinned (Romans 5:12, NIV)
  Sin: Because of Adam, we are all under the curse of sin. Our heart is now inclined to do evil instead of good. Immorality, homosexuality, robbery, murder, theft, lying and all kinds of sinful things are coming from within us because we are sinful by nature.

  For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality,
  theft, false testimony, slander. (Matthew 15:19, NIV)

Condemnation: Because all are sinners and no one can fulfill the requirements of the Law, we are all condemned and cursed.

  For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is
  written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything
  written in the Book of the Law.” (Galatians 3:10, NIV)

However, we have Good News! Jesus the righteous Son of God took all our curses and made us righteous in the eyes of God the Father.

  Clearly no one who relies on the law
  is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”
  The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person
  who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the
  curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written:
  “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” (Galatians 3:11-13, NIV)

So, because this world itself is under a curse,  some are born with disabilities, blindness, psychological disorders etc. And because we are evil from the inside, we see many horrible things around us - war, murder, robbery, immorality, homosexuality, corruption etc.

  To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very
  severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your
  desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” To Adam
  he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the
  tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed
  is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food
  from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles
  for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of
  your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since
  from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
  (Genesis 3:16-19, NIV)


Have any Christian denominations publicly raised concerns about the Catholic Jerusalem Bible? I have been reading through the Catholic Jerusalem Bible and have found a lot of pleasure in the copious footnotes and the surprisingly readable text. However I am aware that there are some issues, particularly in that the Dead Sea Scrolls are only lightly referenced since they were still largely unavailable at that time, and the number of "corrections"  that have been added in footnotes is rather large, particularly in the Old Testament. I have asked on Biblical Hermeneutics about specific translation issues.

While most of the corrections seem minor1, it seems the prolificty of minor corrections could raise concerns about its value as a Study Bible in the Christian community. Have any particularly denominations raised this as a concern? Overall, how well received and how widely used is it?

1 Consider JB 2 Kings 8:18, which has the footnote "j. 'from the family' corr.; 'daughter' Hebr."  This is a benign and obvious emendation.

The original Jerusalem Bible is apparently still used as the Lectionary of choice for Catholics in many countries like England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India, and South Africa. You can refer to the USCCB's survey of Liturgical Books In The English Speaking World to see what a few [presumably Catholic] folks around the world are using.

I think it's important to note, however, that the Catholic Church does not subscribe to Sola Scriptura. In Church history, the bible has always been treated as a sort of compliment and/or supplement to tradition. All of our beliefs should be affirmed to some extent by scripture. We also draw some insight from scripture "itself," provided that insight is in harmony with the existing understanding. However, given that scripture in Catholicism is not authoritative alone, the accuracy of the translation, though still important, is not as important as it would be for most non-Catholics -- particularly those subscribing to Sola Scriptura.

Glancing at the Wikipedia article for the Jerusalem Bible, you'll see that some portions of it were based on the French translation of the original languages. As such, you'll likely find some "noise" in the translation. The New Jerusalem Bible limits the French influence a great deal, relying much more heavily on the original languages. If I subscribed to Sola Scriptura and were choosing between the two, I think I'd drop the JB in favor of the NJB in a heartbeat.


Was St. John Vianney the first parish priest to become canonized? I saw a local play about the life of St.John Vianney (1786–1859). One of the characters noted that in over 1800 years of Catholic history, a parish priest had never become a saint (to which another character quipped that the profession seemed to be a barrier to sainthood). The irony of course was that Father John Vianney would later become a saint, and is in fact the patron saint of parish priests.

Is this statement accurate? Was St. John Vianney the first parish priest to become canonized? If there were parish priests who were martyred, was he the first non-martyr parish priest to become canonized?

St. John Vianney was not the first "parish priest" to be raised to the altars.

I am sure that one can find several with time permitting, especially in groups of martyrs.

St. Ivo of Kermartin (1253-1303) was also a parish priest.

  Ivo Helory, a legal scholar from Kermartin, France, served as an ecclesiastical judge in the dioceses of Rennes and Treguier, becoming known as an advocate of the poor. Following his ordination, he served as a parish priest for eighteen years. Each day before celebrating Mass, and at other times as well, he would prostrate himself before the altar, tearfully offering fervent prayers. Similarly, he would prepare for his sermons on his knees. In his preaching, Ivo habitually included examples drawn from the lives of the saints. He kept his breviary and his Bible at his side almost constantly. Ivo generously gave his time to his priestly duties of hearing confessions and bringing Viaticum to the dying, carrying the Eucharist in a silver pyx over his heart. On his deathbed, Ivo kept his eyes fixed upon a crucifix placed before a window of his room. Upon hearing a bystander speak of asking for a doctor, Ivo responded that his only doctor was Jesus Christ. He repeatedly made the sign of the cross before breathing his last. Ivo is venerated as a patron saint of lawyers. - St. Ivo of Kermartin

St. Ivo of Kermartin was canonized in June 1347 by Clement VI3 at the urging of Philip I, Duke of Burgundy.

St. Ivo worked amongst the poor of his parish.

  Saint Ivo of Kermartin, T.O.S.F. (17 October 1253 – 19 May 1303), also known Yvo or Ives (and in Breton as Erwan, Iwan, Youenn or Eozenn, depending on the region, and known as Yves Hélory (also Helori or Heloury) in French), was a parish priest among the poor of Louannec, the only one of his station to be canonized in the Middle Ages. He is the patron of Brittany, lawyers and abandoned children. His feast day is 19 May. Poetically, he is referred to as "Advocate of the Poor".

Just as St. Ivo worked much with the poor so the Cure d'Ars worked amongst the needy of his day. He established La Providence, a home for orphaned girls.

  Vianney had a soft spot for the forgotten as well. La Providence, an orphanage for young girls that John Vianney started in 1824, can be found across the street from the church. At the end of the Napoleonic Era, France’s grave economic woes gripped the country. Countless women and girls roamed the streets selling themselves as prostitutes.

  In the true spirit of Saint Vincent de Paul, La Providence was John Vianney’s response to the social injustice of national poverty. The orphanage is a modest, white, two-story French country house where numerous young teenage and orphan girls in need of spiritual direction and shelter learned skills such as housekeeping from Catherine Lassagne, who headed the house.

  One of John Vianney’s great pleasures was his noontime catechism to the orphan girls. In fact, once Ars became a hot spot for pilgrims, Father Vianney’s midday chat with the girls became a crowded affair, one that had to be relocated to the church.

Even though these two priests were "parish priests", their spiritual and practical influences extended well beyond the borders of their parishes. The tentacles of grace are always far reaching in times of need.


According to reformed theology, are _all_ wealthy Christians required to give their wealth to the poor? In Mark 10:17-31, we see Jesus talk to the rich young ruler, and tell him to sell his possessions and give it to the poor.

According to reformed theologians, is this required of all wealthy followers of Christ, or was this merely a test designed for this particular rich young ruler, to show that in his heart, he loved his wealth more than he loved God?

For those arguing the case of "no, wealthy Christinas are not required to give all their wealth to the poor" please explain how to handle verses like Mark 10:31, and 1 John 3:17.

For those arguing the case of "yes, wealthy Christians are required to give all their wealth to the poor", please explain how to handle the wealth of Job / Abraham, as well as why Zacchaeus, upon giving half his wealth to the poor and repaying 4 fold (did this bankrupt him?) earned the praise of Christ.

It's important to note that the Mark passage records Jesus telling one specific person to sell all his possessions and give to the poor.  Jesus did not give this command to all people in all times.

It is inappropriate to take everything Jesus ever said to any person and attempt to apply it to all people for all times.  If we did that, then all of us would be under obligation to go into Jerusalem to get a donkey, throw our nets on the other side of the boat, get out of the boat and walk on water, and fill jars with water in order to get wine.

Jesus' direct command to the rich young ruler applied to that person.  Jesus, in His omniscience, may have understood that this man's wealth would be an insurmountable obstacle to his faith.  We don't know for sure, of course.

Generosity, as you reference in 1 John 3:17, is, however, commanded of all of those who are rich in this world and who are following Jesus.

It should be noted that a man who is wealthy and continues to grow his wealth over time can actually give exceedingly more and care for more poor people than a wealthy man who gives everything he has at a single point in time.

For instance, a man with $1 million could give it all away at one moment in time and help a certain amount of people.  Another man with $1 million, earning a 10% return on his investments, could give 100% of the increase a year in perpetuity.  That's $100,000 a year.  Ten years later, he's given $1 million and can continue giving for another ten or twenty or thirty years or more.

The command is not to become poor, but to be generous.  Money is not the root of all evil--only the love of money.


Are there other historical accounts of the tower of Babel? Are there any other historical accounts that document what happened during or shortly after the tower of Babel? I was wondering if there are any other accounts from the people's that were dispersed, and how exactly they reacted to the event and built new cultures with their new languages.

There are other accounts, which may be considered to tell the same story.  Wikipedia provides a good list.

Whether any of the accounts (including the Biblical one) are historical is entirely another matter. Most historians (outside of a young-earth tradition) view the myths as (primarily*) fictional, meant to explain the existence of languages to an otherwise naïve audience. Historians take this view because the history of languages is fairly well understood and known to predate architecture and human civilization by hundreds of thousands of years.

*This doesn't mean there isn't some element of truth to the stories. I.e. there may have been a tower under construction, which was imbued with additional meaning. But the view is that the story as the origin-of-human-languages is fictional.


In Christ's time the Jews believed in Purgatory and still do. Why don't Protestants? The Jews believe in Purgatory, why don't Protestants?

What Purgatory is; providing that the general impression among Protestants is correct; is a place where the dead await becoming sinless, and when that happens they are then admitted to Heaven. The fact that such a place existed until Jesus suffered on the Cross; appears to be proven by the following Scripture.

Matthew 27:52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Then when Jesus resurrected all those awaiting Heaven, were loosed from there, and proceeded to enter Heaven. Those beliefs are based on Several passages from the Bible. They are:

Job 14:12-15 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens [be] no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man die, shall he live [again]? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.
Job 19:25-27 For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth: And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God:  Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; [though] my reins be consumed within me.
Daniel 12:2-3 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

All of there are prophesies from the Old testament, which precedes Salvation.
From the New Testament the following Scriptures appear to indicate that that place no longer exists:

Matthew 28:6-7 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

Jesus apparently negated the need for a place of atonement when he sacrificed his life on the cross.
Since the man Jesus took on all the sins of those who put their eternal faith in him, He also must be loosed from whatever interment he underwent for the three days he was in the Grave. That alone shows that all sins of those who are destined for Heaven are forgiven.
The following Scripture tells us that at his sacrifice people who are in their graves will come forth to judgment.

John 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Matthew 27:52-53 would appear to indicate that the hearing of his call has already transpired. The part about resurrection of life, and resurrection to damnation, obviously will not happen until the great white throne judgment of the Revelation.
The following Scripture appears to tell us that at some time in the future Jesus will issue another call and that the elect will not be in any waiting place, but will be scattered throughout Heaven.

Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

The following promise of Jesus to the thief tells us that he will not go to a waiting place, but will go to Heaven to be with Jesus.

Luke 23:42 and 43  And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.


What is the biblical argument for eating meat, or that vegetarianism is possible but not commanded? Vegetarianism seems to becoming more and more popular in various parts of the world today.  Some even claim that Christians should be vegetarians to be in line with the command against killing.

What, then, is the biblical argument in support of eating meat?

God's Endorsement of Eating Meat

Actually, God specifically ordained that man could eat meat, starting after the flood.  The only prohibition in this was to drain the blood:

  Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.  But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.  Genesis 9:3-4 ESV

During the Exodus, God sent quail into the camp to provide the Israelites with meat to eat:

  In the evening quail came up and covered the camp, and in the morning dew lay around the camp. Exodus 16:13 ESV

In fact, the Passover was a feast that every Jewish person was under obligation to observe once a year in which they ate the meat of a lamb, so God, once again, ordained and commanded the eating of meat.

  Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household.  Exodus 12:3 ESV

Vegetarianism

Before the Fall and perhaps up until the flood as well, it is true that mankind was enjoined to eat only vegetables, but that was a temporary command.

  And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.   Genesis 1:29 ESV

It is true that Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego did not eat meat during their captivity in Babylon, but that was more likely due to either what kind of meat it was or how it was prepared--perhaps unclean animals that were not kosher for Jews. (See Why did Daniel consider the allotment of food and wine to be wrong for him to eat?.)

  But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.  Daniel 1:8 ESV

What Jesus Ate

Furthermore, Jesus Himself ate meat, as He observed the Passover meal with His disciples:

  And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.  Luke 22:15 ESV

On other occasions, He ate fish as well:

  They gave him [Jesus] a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.  Luke 24:42-43 ESV

Paul's Instructions

The most applicable passage, though, is perhaps found in Romans 14.  In this passage, Paul address the issue of eating meat that had been sacrificed to false gods.  Paul affirms that there is nothing wrong with eating meat, and it is the weaker brother who eats only vegetables in fear that eating meat would be wrong.

  As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.  Romans 14:1-4 ESV

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Bible does not prescribe vegetarianism at all, but records that God actually gave meat to mankind for consumption.


How do Protestants view the prophecy and birth of Jesus The prophecy
Isaiah 7:14 (NIV)

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

The fulfilment of the prophecy
Matthew 1:20-23 (NIV)

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

There is some controversy surrounding these passages where Jewish and some Christian faiths believe that the virgin in Isaiah 7:14 may not be a virgin, and not only that, but she names her son.
Isaiah 7:14 (RSV)

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el.

Interestingly, the RSV quotes Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 to say

Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emman′u-el

How does the Protestant faith view these passages?  Was Jesus' birth foretold in Isaiah 7:14?

Speaking as a Protestant:

One of the core tenants of our faith is Sola Scriptura. As it says in the scripture:

2 Peter 1:19-21

  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye
  take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn,
  and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Peter here is saying that the scriptures are more sure, more trustworthy, than the voice of God booming directly from heaven (see the passages context). Moreover, he states that scripture has no private interpretation; in which he communicates that God Himself wrote the scriptures with a specific intended meaning in mind. This principle declares that there is an absolute truth, and only one correct understanding of the scriptures.

While this principle has been largely lost sight of, the application of this principle to the matter at hand becomes quite easy to understand. Matthew, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, applies the prophecy of Isaiah 7 to Jesus' birth; and so it is not Matthew, but God rather who is divinely interpreting His own prophecy for us through His servant.


What does the Bible say about ones wishes concerning their body after they have died? Sometimes people would like certain things done with their remains after they die. Some want to be cremated and have the ashes saved in an urn or spread over a certain area, while other want to be buried in a specific location. Does the Bible weigh in on this topic? Do the dead have a right to say what happens to their body according to the Bible? Perhaps there are stories that support the idea. If the Bible is silent, what does Christian tradition1 say?

By Christian tradition I first mean what Christians in the past have done, then after that I mean the Catholic Church because of its extremely long history and integral association with the early Church.

Interestingly, the OT saints and, I assume, many NT saints, had two burials! The first was either in the ground or in a cave or crypt, if they could afford it, and after the flesh had decomposed and only bones remained, the bones were reburied in an ossuary, or miniature casket of stone, and then "reburied" in the crypt along with other deceased family members, each in his or her own ossuary. Today, of course, it is not uncommon for relatives of the deceased to bury the loved one in a place specified by the person prior to his or her death, which more often than not is in close proximity to the graves of other family members.

I cannot speak to RC tradition regarding this issue. Furthermore, I think the Bible does not weigh in on this question, at least directly. As with so many potentially controversial issues, we need to be guided, rather, by general principles and not specific prescriptions or prohibitions. In other words, in many issues God gives us liberty to do one thing or another, but we must never flaunt our liberty before a brother or sister in the Lord, or within local assembly which may not have the same liberty as we do.

From Romans, chapters 14 and 15, and 1 Corinthians, chapter 9, then, we can glean some helpful guidelines regarding cremation versus burial, and many other issues besides.

We need to be fully convinced in our own minds about a particular liberty we believe we have (Romans 14:15). In other words, we need to look deeply into our motives for believing the way we do. Are we truly convinced of the rightness of our liberty or are our motives mixed with doubt or obstinance or some other dishonoring-to-Christ attitudes. Some Christians, for example, tend to be "contraries" who when another believer says "I believe __ to be right" says, "Well, I believe ______ to be wrong!" Many other base motives can also be at work, but I'll leave them to you to imagine. Furthermore, whatever attitude or action, belief or behavior, does not proceed from faith is sin (Romans 14:23).
We as Christians hold our beliefs within a community of other believers whose beliefs, convictions, liberties, scruples, and sensitivities are going to be different from ours. This isn't a bad thing; it's perhaps simply the normal state of affairs within any given assembly of believers. God doesn't make duplicates, only originals. God also gave us one mouth, but two ears, so that we'd listen more than we speak.  In other words, we can almost always learn from a brother or sister who feels differently about __ than we do. "None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself" (Romans 14:7). No man is an island, as John Donne (and Paul Simon, of Simon and Garfunkle fame) said. This does not mean we have to give up, say, having a glass of wine with our meal just because Sally feels strongly that the drinking of wine is "sinful." It does mean if we happen to be dining with Sally we forgo the glass of wine for her conscience's sake. What we do in the privacy of our own home is between us and the Lord. This guideline is not much help regarding cremation versus burial, but it does serve to make us more sensitive to the consciences of others. Sometimes Christians simply need to agree to disagree agreeably, which is more difficult, I suppose, for the person who does not share another brother or sister's freedom. This does not mean that a local assembly cannot have, and state, a policy regarding a controversial issue; it does mean that policies not based on the clear teaching of God's word need to have some wiggle room for differences of opinion and liberty.
God judges us as individuals, and we fall or stand before Him alone. Each of us bears his or her own load (1 Corinthians 10:29; Galatians 6:5). Being judgmental in any given area of freedom is not fitting for Christians within the local church. Overt sin is one thing; a grey issue is quite another.

Biblically, the norm in both the OT and the NT seems to have been burial, but even so, only the rich could afford burial in a cave carved out of rock. Jesus was buried that way, not because He was wealthy, but because He had a disciple who was (Joseph from Arimathea). Joseph and Nicodemus (see John 3) brought burial cloths and 75-100 pounds of spices (myrrh and aloes) with which to "anoint" Jesus' body (John 19:38-42; cf. Isaiah 53:9), which was a Jewish custom in that day.

I italicized the word custom deliberately, because regarding the manner of disposing of the body of the dearly departed, there are bound to be controlling customs in any and every culture, whether in the tenth century BC, the first century AD, or the twenty-first century AD. Customs are not necessarily good, bad, or indifferent; they are simply customs. In the absence of any clear biblical mandate, God expects us to use the guiding principles of the passages I've cited above, as well as a good measure of sanctified common sense.

In conclusion, a godly aunt of mine decided on being cremated rather than buried. Her husband retained the ashes in an urn. Her father, had he been alive when she died, may have objected to her decision, but on balance, he (my very godly grandfather) had surprised me on more than a few occasions with some of his laissez faire attitudes about a variety of things, so I guess I'll never really know whether he would've approved or disapproved. My point is this: the cremation-versus-burial issue may be controversial for some, but as with so many issues, whether we do one thing or another, God looks at the heart. If our hearts are blameless before Him and at the same time His word gives no clear guidance in any given matter, then we are free in Christ to be "pro," "con," or neutral, or even to change from one to the other, as the Spirit leads us.


What are the theological reasons some Protestants are Zionists? Zionism, founded by Theodor Herzl, is a movement for reestablishing a political nation for the Jewish people. Thus, what are the theological reasons why some Protestants are Zionists, especially in the U.S.?

(cf. this question)

It would be wrong to think that a majority of Protestants are Zionists, but Christian Zionism is nevertheless a substantial movement, especially in the United States. There is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. The idea that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christians, as a means of fulfilling a Biblical prophecy has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation.

Some Christian Zionists believe that the gathering of the Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. This belief is primarily, although not exclusively, associated with Dispensationalism, a movement begun by John Nelson Darby in the 1830s. For those who eagerly await the coming of Jesus, it is important to accomplish the return to Israel as quickly and as thoroughly as possible so that Jesus can return and establish his kingdom on earth.

Barbara R. Rossing says, in The Rapture Exposed, page 23, that Darby  invented 'dispensations' – intervals of time ordering God's grand timetable for world events. She says (pages 55-56) the dispensationalist's script ca1ls “these things” absolutely necessary for Jesus to come again to reign on earth:

The rebirth of the nation of Israel;
The Rapture of born-again Christians off the earth;
The emergence of an evil Antichrist (and his one-world currency),
probably from Europe;
The Antichrist signs a seven-year peace treaty with Israel, setting
in motion the seven years of tribulation – but the Antichrist will
break the treaty after three and one half years;
The rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and resumption of animal
sacrifices there;
The desecration of the temple by the evil Antichrist, followed by the
second half of the seven-year period of tribulation;
Jesus' return in the "Glorious Appearing" exactly seven years after
the Rapture, beginning with his touch-down on the Mount of Olives,
which will split the mountain into two.

One of the resolutions adopted during a series of Bible and Prophetic Conferences held across North America beginning in 1868 states:

  We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation, but is fast ripening for judgment, while there will be fearful apostasy in the professing Christian body; and hence that the Lord Jesus will come in person to introduce the millennial age, when Israel shall be restored to their own land, and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord; and that this personal and premillennial advent is the blessed hope set before us in the Gospel for which we should be constantly looking.


What is the official status of the person of Philomena who at one time was liturgically canonized by Pope Gregory XVI? What is the official status of the person of Philomena who at one time was “liturgically canonized” by Pope Gregory XVI and not officially canonized?

What are the physical, archeological and scientific historical supports that the Vatican used to suppress her status as a saint in 1961?

She was never officially canonized by the Church.

  Ex his festis "devotionis" sequentia e calendariis expungantur, quare ut plurimum in aliis festis aut anni temporibus iam recoluntur, vel cum aliquo tantum loco particulari relationem habent, scilicet :

    In translatione almae domus B. Mariae V. (10 decembris) ;
    In exspectatione partus B. Mariae V. (18 decembris) ;
    In desponsatione B. Mariae V. cum S. Ioseph (23 ianuarii) ;
    Fugae D. N. I. C. in Aegyptum (17 februarii) ;
    Orationis D. N. I. C. (fer. III post dom. Septuagesimae) ;
    In Commemoratione Passionis D. N. I. C. (fer. III post dom. Sexagesimae) ;
    S. Spineae Coronae D. N. I. C. (fer. VI post cineres) ;
    Ss. Lanceae et Clavorum D. N. I. C. (fer. VI post dom. I Quadragesimae) ;
    S. Sindonis D. N. I. C. (fer VI post dom. II Quadragesimae) ;
    Ss. Quinque Vulnerum D. N. I. C. (fer. VI post dom. III Quadragesimae) ;
    Pretiosissimi Sanguinis D. N. I. C. (fer. VI post dom. IV Quadragesimae) ;
    Eucharistici Cordis Iesu (fer. V post octavam Corporis Christi) ;
    Humilitatis B. Mariae V. (17 iulii) ;
    Puritatis B. Mariae V. (16 octobris).

  Festum autem S. Philumenae V. et M. (11 augusti) e quolibet calendario expungatur. -
  Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Page 174)

This subject may be the cause of some strong opinions one way or other as the following questions shows:

Can Patron Saints be “dethroned”?
Who is the oldest Blessed?

In order to limit this question to a more historical nature, I prefer that personal opinions be limited to the interpretation of historical data. I also do not desire to have what any visionaries or Catholic mystics have said about the life of [St.] Philomena. Visions are not considered historical proofs.

This is exactly how Rome approached the investigation into the beatification of Blessed Catherine Emmerich.

  At the time of the Emmerich's beatification in 2004, the Vatican position on the authenticity of the Brentano books was elucidated by priest Peter Gumpel, who was involved in the study of the issues for the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints: "It is absolutely not certain that she ever wrote this. There is a serious problem of authenticity". According to Gumpel, the writings attributed to Emmerich were "absolutely discarded" by the Vatican as part of her beatification process.

Thus my question could be phrased as such: What are the historical reasons that lead up to the Vatican’s decision to suppress the cult of [St.] Philomena and is her cult still permitted in our days?

What are the physical, archeological and scientific historical supports that the Vatican used to suppress her status as a saint in 1961?

On May 24, 1802, in the Catacombs of Priscilla on the Via Salaria Nova, an inscribed loculus (space hollowed out of the rock) was found, and on the following day it was carefully examined and opened. The loculus was closed with three terracotta tiles, on which was the following inscription: lumena paxte cumfi. It was and is generally accepted that the tiles had not been positioned in the sequence of the words, and that the inscription originally read, with the leftmost tile placed on the right: pax tecum Filumena ("Peace with you, Philomena"). Within the loculus was found the skeleton of a female between thirteen and fifteen years old. Embedded in the cement was a small glass phial with vestiges of what was taken to be blood. In accordance with the assumptions of the time, the remains were taken to be those of a virgin martyr named Philomena. Her name means 'daughter of light'. Philomena is the patron saint of infants, babies, and youth. - St. Philomena (Wikipedia)

Archeological basis and people who oppose

The belief that such vials were signs of the grave of a martyr was still held in 1863, when a December 10 decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites confirmed a decree of April 10, 1668. But this view has been rejected in practice since the investigations of Giovanni Battista De Rossi (1822–1894).[6]
The questions were raised in particular by Orazio Marucchi, whose conclusions won the support of Johann Peter Kirsch, an archaeologist and ecclesiastical historian who is the author of the article on Philomena in the Catholic Encyclopedia,[6]

Who is Orazio Marucchi?

Orazio Marucchi (1852 - January 1931, Rome) was an Italian archaeologist and author of the Manual of Christian Archaeology. He served as Professor of Christian Archaeology at the University of Rome and director of the Christian and Egyptian museums at the Vatican Museums. He was also a member of the Pontifical Commission of Sacred Archaeology and was a scrittore of the Vatican Library.

And what are the findings of Peter Kirsch?

The inscription on the three tiles that had provided the Latin name "Filumena" ("Philomena" in English) belonged to the middle or second half of the second century,[6] while the body that had been found was of the fourth century, when the persecutions of Christians had ended.[8] Not only the name but also the leaf, the two anchors and the palm that decorated the three tiles, and which had been believed to indicate that Filumena was a martyr (though the necessary connection between these symbols and martyrdom has been denied), had no relation to the person whose remains were found.[6]
Kirsch, Johann Peter. "St. Philomena." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 29 Apr. 2013 - St. Philomena (Wikipedia)

Problems with the question of the OP

The Vatican in 1961 did not suppress the status of St. Philomena as a Saint.

The Vatican in 1961 did not suppress the cult of St. Philomena.

The Vatican thru the Congregation of Rites in 1961 published the Congregation's decision in Acta Apostolicae Sedis "ordered the feast of St. Philomena Virgin-Maryr to be expunged from all liturgical calendars. The Congregation's did not order to suppress St. Philomena's status as a saint and the did not order to suppress any devotion to Her cult that a Supreme Pontiff had clearly proclaimed.

To know more about Acta Apostolicae Sedis here is some pertinent information;

Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Latin for "Register of the Apostolic See"), often cited as AAS, is the official gazette of the Holy See, appearing about twelve times a year. It was established by Pope Pius X on 29 September 1908 with the decree Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones, and publication began in January 1909. It contains all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The laws contained in it are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue, unless a shorter or longer time is specified in the law.

The AAS also contain the "decisions of the Roman congregation". The Latin text cited was a decision not by Pope St. John XXIII but by the Congregation of Rites only.
Is the Congregation of Rites decisions superior over the decision or declaration of the Supreme Pontiff? The answer is No. The Pope is the Supreme Interpreter, Legislator and Guarantor of Faith and not the Congregation of Rites.
The Latin text cited above and published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis was a decision coming only from the Congregation of Rites and does not bear the decision or the prudential judgement or even the approval of Pope St. John XXIII. In contrast to the Congregation of Rites in the year 1837 where the decision of the Prefect of the Congregation of Rites bears the approval of Pope Gregory XVI.

In 1837, the Prefect of Congregation of Rites publicly asserted that Pope Gregory XVI had approved the Congregation's decision permitting the local recitation of the Office,and celebration of the Mass of the Virgin-Martyr, in honor of Philomena in August 11. - Source

Here, we can see the force of authority of the Congregation of Rites issued in Acta Apostolicae Sedis has been put into question because it does not bear the approval of Pope St.John XXIII that had cause confusions among the faithfuls in the year they issued the Congregation's decision in 1961.
In fact, when one of the faithful who had a deep devotion to St. Philomena asked St.Pope Paul VI about the issues & confusions sorroundings the Congregation's decision, simply said "Just don't mind it, continue your devotion".
St. Pius X declaration raising the cult of St. Philomena to Universal Archconfraternity cannot be alter by any future Popes much more by a mere Congregation of Rites decision.

The Confraternity of Saint Philomena was raised to the rank of Archconfraternity by Pope Leo XIII, November, 1886
On June 16th, 1907, the Supreme Pontiff Pius X, receiving in audience Father Petit, from Paris, the director of the Work of Saint Philomena, exclaimed: "Ah, Saint Philomena! It is very sad to read what has been written recently against her" (The Holy Father was referring to certain detractors of the cult of Saint Philomena who dared to maintain that our Little Saint did not even exist.) "It is incredible," continued the Holy Father, "that such things can come about without them (the detractors) looking at the great argument in favor of the saint, the Holy CurÉ of Ars. By her, in her name, and through her intercession, he obtained innumerable graces and continual prodigies."
To definitively affirm the cult of Saint Philomena and to give the final word, on May 21, 1912, Pope Pius raised the Venerable Archconfraternity of Saint Philomena into the Universal Archconfraternity with the Apostolic Brief, "Pias Fidelium Societates," in which he states very clearly: "We decree with the present words that it shall remain always stable, valid and effective, that it receive and obtain its effects fully and completely, in this way it must be regularly judged and defined, and if it proceeds in any other way, it will be null and without value, whatever the authority might be…" - The History of the Universal Archconfraternity of Saint Philomena

St. Pius X had made a decree in May 21, 1912 with a very clear statement that no future decision can alter the decision they had made raising the cult of St.Philomena to Universal Archconfraternity.
Did the Congregation of Rites in 1961 oppose this decree of St.Pius X? The answer is No.
or the better question is;
Can the Congregation of Rites has a canonical power to oppose the Decree made by St. Pius X in May 21, 1912?
The clear answer is NO.  Therefore, the devotion to the Cult of St. Philomena stays and the status of St. Philomena as a saint remain because the Congregation of Rites in 1961 cannot also oppose the Congregation of Rites decision in 1837 to celebrate the Office and offering of the Mass in honor of St. Philomena Virgin Martyr because it has the expressed public approval of Pope Gregory XVI, while the latter has none.


For whom did Solomon write Proverbs? Is there anything in Scripture or Hebrew historical documents that says for whom Proverbs was written? Did Solomon expect his sons to read them or were they for the people of Israel? Please provide verses or documents to support your claims.

Proverbs 1:4-5 tells us his audience:

  4 for giving prudence to those who are simple, knowledge and
  discretion to the young— 5 let the wise listen and add to their
  learning, and let the discerning get guidance—

They were written to the "simple," which the NIV defines as "The Hebrew word rendered simple in Proverbs denotes a person who is gullible, without moral direction and inclined to evil." They are also directed to the "young," "wise," and "discerning."

In 2:1, 3:1, 6:1, 7:1, Solomon addresses "My son," and in 4:1, "Hear, my children" (or "sons," depending on the translation).

Chapter 30 includes proverbs written by "Agur the son of Jakeh," and were declared to "Ithiel and Ucal" (30:1).

Chapter 31 was written by "King Lemuel" (31:1) and he addresses "my son" (31:2) and kings and princes (31:4).


What happens to Jesus when received in a unworthy manner in the Eucharist? There is a lot of written on what happens to a person when receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy manner but not so much what happens to Jesus.

Since the whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine and not just his divine nature it is ok to ask. If it's just his nature we could say "nothing much" since nature doesn't do things in itself. But since Christ is present with his soul and the body, He must experience effects of the act on the host.

Does the Catholic Church have any writings or is there any work done by some mystics or saints? This also includes when someone drops a consecrated host and small pieces are still on the ground and people step on it unknowingly.

The short answer: nothing “happens to Jesus” when a person receives the Eucharist unworthily, when the Eucharist is inadvertently stepped on, or even when it is desecrated deliberately.

As the O.P. correctly points, out, when Catholics (and Orthodox) say that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, they affirm that he is present both in his divinity and in his humanity. Jesus is one and whole (he is the Divine Person of the Son), and he cannot be divided. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 1377.)

It should be clear that nothing can “happen” to Jesus as regards his divinity, because the Divine Nature cannot be changed or influenced by anything, least of all the actions of one of His creatures. (If He allows Himself to be influenced by prayers and so forth, that is a deliberate choice on His part that does not produce a change in Him of any kind; see, e.g., Hebrews 13:8, and a long Patristic tradition.)

On the other hand, Jesus in his human nature can (like any other man) undergo changes of various kinds.

As regards unworthy reception of the Eucharist and similar situations, however, there are two important considerations.

First of all, Jesus retains his human nature in Heaven and will retain it for all eternity. (See CCC 659.) However, because he has ascended into Heaven, he is now glorified and therefore impassible; that is, he can no longer suffer. (This is a property of all glorified bodies, including Christ’s; see Revelation 21:4.) Therefore, much as Jesus does not approve of unworthy reception or desecration of the Eucharist, he is not “pained” by it, at least not any longer.

(It is possible that, with his divine foreknowledge, he was aware of future unworthy receptions of the Eucharist, even as he walked this earth 2000 years ago, and that these caused him pain back then, but they do so no longer.)

Second, it should be noted that, although the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is real and substantial (that is, the consecrated bread and wine are no longer actual bread or wine, but Jesus), it is a sacramental presence. (See CCC 1353 and 1369.) One is not to imagine that our consumption of the sacred species causes harm to Jesus physical body that is in Heaven. In a similar way, it is not as though Jesus feels a physical discomfort or anything like that when someone receives him unworthily.

It follows that no action on our own part can harm or otherwise grieve Jesus in the Eucharist (although, of course, deliberately receiving Christ unworthily or desecrating the Eucharist is extremely harmful for the person who does it).

(Naturally, people are not responsible inadvertently stepping on small particles—provided it is truly inadvertent and not due to negligence or something like that. In that case, it does not even harm or affect the persons who do it, still less Jesus.)