Were Jews allowed to sacrifice to the LORD at altars other than at the tabernacle and temple? I am familiar with the references in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that legislated that the sacrifices were to occur only where the LORD had chosen to "put His name." He evidently had put His name with the ark of the covenant. Therefore, sacrifice could only occur at the tabernacle and then later at the temple in Jerusalem after the ark was moved there.

However, what do you make of 1 Kings 18 & 19?

  Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come near to me.” So all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that was broken down. And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, “Israel shall be your name.” Then with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD; and he made a trench around the altar large enough to hold two seahs of seed (I Kings 18:30–32, NKJV).

Elijah repaired an altar to the LORD on Mount Carmel that was broken down.

Then there is the 1 Kings 19 reference illustrating that altars (plural) dedicated to the LORD had been known of in the Northern Kingdom of Israel in Elijah's day and even prior to his time, albeit that they had been torn down at the time of Elijah's words.

  So he said, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take my life” (I Kings 19:10, NKJV).

And again...

  And he said, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God of hosts; because the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take my life” (I Kings 19:14, NKJV).

What I would like comments on is if the sacrifices were supposed to take place wherever the tabernacle was located, prior to the temple in Jerusalem, then why had these altars to the LORD been built at various places? Elijah seems to comment on their being torn down as a bad thing. However, Hezekiah and others present the tearing down of these altars as a good thing, even if the altar was not dedicated to an idol but to the LORD.

At first glance, it seems the theory that all sacrifices had to be at the tabernacle (before the temple being built) may not be entirely correct. One could say perhaps that 1 Kings 3:2 provides the answer:

  Meanwhile the people sacrificed at the high places, because there was no house built for the name of the LORD until those days. And Solomon loved the LORD, walking in the statutes of his father David, except that he sacrificed and burned incense at the high places. Now the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place: Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night; and God said, “Ask! What shall I give you?” (I Kings 3:2–5, NKJV).

But then, one may still be left with the difficulty of explaining why Elijah is lamenting that these altars were torn down, for the temple in Jerusalem was certainly built in his day!

And then there is also the matter of the altar built by Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh in Joshua 22. Those on the east side of the Jordan had to clarify that it was merely a replica of the altar before the tabernacle, and not a substitute altar for sacrifice and burnt offering. Had it been such it looks like a civil war was going to break out.

Any thoughts or insights you could share on this perceived dilemma would be appreciated. Thanks!

Many places in the Old Testament show the people of Israel either being directed by God, or of their own accord, building altars to Him that were not either in the tabernacle, or (much later) the temple.

A sampling of passages:

Deuteronomy 27:4ff, "So when you have crossed over the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, about which I am commanding you today, on Mount Ebal, and you shall cover them with plaster. And you shall build an altar there to the Lord your God, an altar of stones on which you have not used an iron tool. You must build the altar of the Lord your God of unhewn stones. Then offer up burnt offerings on it to the Lord your God, make sacrifices of well-being, and eat them there, rejoicing before the Lord your God. You shall write on the stones all the words of this law very clearly." (followed up in Joshua 8:30)
Joshua 22:10, "When they came to the region[a] near the Jordan that lies in the land of Canaan, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar of great size."
Judges 6:24a, "Then Gideon built an altar there to the Lord, and called it, The Lord is peace."
Judges 13:19-20, "So Manoah took the kid with the grain offering, and offered it on the rock to the Lord, to him who works wonders. When the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar while Manoah and his wife looked on; and they fell on their faces to the ground."
Judges 21:4, "On the next day, the people got up early, and built an altar there, and offered burnt offerings and sacrifices of well-being."
1 Samuel 14:35, "And Saul built an altar to the Lord; it was the first altar that he built to the Lord."
2 Samuel 24:18, "That day Gad came to David and said to him, “Go up and erect an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.”" (followed up later in the chapter)
1 Kings 18:30, "Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come closer to me”; and all the people came closer to him. First he repaired the altar of the Lord that had been thrown down;"

Worship offered at those altars appears to not be the same as the Levitical worship prescribed to the people of Israel - ie, they were meant for specific purposes at specific times, and not for "general" or "normal" worship.


How can John the Baptist be the greatest man born of woman, when Jesus was also born of woman? Pope Francis tweeted today:

  Both John the Baptist, who is the greatest man born of woman, and the
  Son of God have chosen the path of humiliation. God shows this path to
  Christians so they can move forward. One cannot be humble without
  having suffered humiliation. - #HomilySantaMarta

This definitely connects with (and may be based on) the following passage from Scripture:

  11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no
  one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the
  kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the
  Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence,[d] and
  the violent take it by force. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law
  prophesied until John, 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is
  Elijah who is to come. (Matthew 11 ESV)

In these verses, Jesus does clearly say that there is no one born of women who is greater than John the Baptist. He also places John in the position of Elijah (who was prophesied to return, as far as I know). It is easy to understand why John the Baptist is great, and there is no one greater than him except for Jesus. But Jesus does not exclude himself in this statement, which surprises me.

I would automatically assume that Jesus is greater than John the Baptist. Jesus is the Messiah, the only begotten Son of God, the Lord and Savior of Christians. Jesus is also born of woman (the Virgin Mary). How can John the Baptist be the greatest man born of woman, when Jesus Christ was also born of a woman?

In the introduction to his letter to the Romans, Paul says this:

  3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
  -- Romans 1:3 (KJV)

The Greek here is: τοῦ the one γενομένου upon being made ἐκ from σπέρματος of the seed Δαυὶδ of David

Also, in his letter to the church at Galatia, Paul says this:

  4But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
  -- Galatians 4:4 (KJV)

Again, the Greek here is: γενόμενον upon being made ἐκ from γυναικός of woman

The passage quoted by the OP contains this:

  11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
  -- Matthew 11:11 (KJV)

The Greek here is: ἐν among γεννητοῖς born ones γυναικῶν of women

So, Jesus says John was γεννητοῖς born of a woman, but Paul says Jesus was γενόμενον made of a woman. What's the difference?

Clearly, being "born of a woman" relates to conception by means of human sexual union, i.e. the process that gives rise to the fertilisation of an ovum by a sperm cell. However, Jesus wasn't born in this way:

  35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
  -- Luke 1:35 (KJV)

Apart from those who believe that non-corporeal beings have reproductive bits and pieces with which they can mate with corporeal beings, then this depicts what Paul referred to as being "made of a woman", i.e. being knit together in the womb of a woman.

For those who are inclined to imagine sexual union here, Paul strongly refutes such a notion when he writes that Jesus was "made under the law" (Galatians 4:4, above), for when Joseph was contemplating "putting away" (divorcing) his betrothed, the Angel said to Him:

  20... Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
  -- Matthew 1:20 (KJV)

It would have broken the law for Mary to have been taken "sexually" and then given to another without a certificate of divorce. Countering the notion of "sexual union" was clearly what Paul had in mind when he wrote that Jesus was "made under the law", else he would not have referred to it.

John records Jesus words:

  63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
  -- John 6:63 (KJV)

The spirit is what moves a body and gives it life. Those "born of women" have a spirit that is separate from God. The Spirit of God can coexist with the spirit of man to endeavour to move him counter to his fleshly inclinations, but He will not extinguish the freedom of his spirit to do so. Luke records:

  15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
  -- Luke 1:15 (KJV)

So, the Holy Spirit coexisted with John's spirit from the moment he entered into the world.

However, the manner of Jesus birth had to be such that the Spirit of God alone was the power that moved him. The bag of bones (which profiteth nothing) that bore the name Jesus, had a beginning, but the Spirit that moved the bag of bones was the eternal Spirit of God alone. Jesus was free to express the agony and anguish of his flesh through earthly trials, but it was God Himself who experienced the anguish and agony and rejection, not the spirit of a man with whom the Holy Spirit coexisted.

Conclusion

When Jesus said, "among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist", he was fully cognisant of the miraculous nature of His own birth. Jesus was not born of sexual union, but of "the power of the highest" that literally knit him together in the womb of his mother - a holy gamete formed from the genetic attributes of both Joseph and Mary.

It is only at our end of the timeline that we can fully comprehend what God had done.


What will New Earth, New Heavens and New Jerusalem really be like according to Catholicism? Revelation:21 talks about the New Earth and New Heavens. It also talks about the holy city New Jerusalem. Various physical aspects of this city is described by St. John.

Is this city and the New Earth and New Heavens (new universe) physical places as far as Catholics must understand?
(St. John specially emphasises on the dimensions of the city in 'human measurements' which should imply that the city is a very physical place just as this earth)

Moreover, in (Isa. 65:21-23) Bible very literally says that the righteous people will even "build houses and plant vineyards" in the New creation. Shouldn't this imply that the New creation and New Jerusalem will be just as physical?

Some people also say that many aspects of human work and creativity (such as artists, musicians and other good works directed only for God's purpose) will also continue in the New Earth, because work was a part of God's original creation and it will be part of his coming New Creation also.

Is this also true? In (Mic. 4:3) it is said that “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks”. This must imply that there will be work in New Earth too, must it not?(Works without 'thorns and thistles')

Will there also be human creations like technology etc.?

What does the Church say about it?

The best Catholic commentary on St. John's Apocalypse, Fr. Herman Kramer's  The Book of Destiny, says this about Apoc. 21:1-2:

Verse 1
The prediction voiced at the blowing of the seventh trumpet (XI. 15) has at last become actuality: "the kingdom of this world is become our Lord's and His Christ's". A new heaven and a new earth appear. The promise of a new heaven and a new earth was not new in the New Testament; it had been enunciated in the Old. Isaias wrote: "For behold I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former things shall not be in remembrance, and they shall not come upon the heart" (Is. LXV. 17). To this is added the promise of the conversion and restoration of the Jews: "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I shall make to stand before me, saith the Lord: so shall your seed stand and your name" (Is. LXVI. 22). St. John obviously had the text of Isaias in mind, for his own is verbally almost identical with it. Exegetes interpret this passage in Isaias to mean the happy state of the faithful under the dispensation of the Messias, for they shall be free from the dangers and anxieties of former times, and those who wish to live a Godly life in the world shall find no hindrance to their desires. Since the text is so nearly identical with that of Isaias, St. John surely expresses a fulfillment of the prophecy. By restating it so closely, he applies it to the new state of the world after Antichrist. Isaias, moreover, states that this new heaven and new earth means the changed condition of all things during the millennium (LXVI. 20-23). After the conversion of the heathens, who were ritually impure, and of the obstinate Jews, the Church shall be further embellished by the elevation of the Jews to the priestly dignity and the office of advocates between God and man. Their nation made the coming of the Messias possible; after they are all converted, they shall reap the delectable fruits of that distinction. Thus, after Elias has purified the Church of all hypocrisy, she shall stand in imperishable beauty before the Lord. The new EARTH is the changed state of society, which before and during the days of Antichrist was antichristian and anti-God. It is now entirely submissive to Christ and willing to have all relatons of man regulated and directed by the Church.
The antagonism against the Church is no more. Hence the "sea" has vanished. This "sea" produced all evil in the world. The Church was herself purified and perfected, as far as this is possible on earth, and now this new heaven will radiate benedictions everywhere. The dogmas and moral law of the Church shall suffer no change, but the evils within her at times: the worldliness, lack of fervor, hypocrisy, scheming for control instead of faithfulness to duty, lack of adherence to principle, and above all — lukewarmness in people and clergy — these evils shall be expurgated from the Church in the supreme struggle.
The true spiritual Israel comes forth transformed from the judgment under Antichrist; and transfused with grace it is united in one brotherhood with the remnants of converted heathen nations and stands before the Lord as did the first converts in VII. 9. The NEW HEAVEN is the Church after the conflict with Antichrist mature and transfigured with grace and adorned with all virtues the triumphal achievement of the Lamb. In her earthly form, she reflects the image of the Triumphant Church in Heaven: divine beauty, holiness, immutability, infallibility and indefectibility; and pervaded by the Spirit of God she bears the pledge and germs of divine glory and yearns with inexpressible longing for the pouring out of the messianic benedictions upon all flesh and for the transfiguration and ineffable bliss of the elect in the life beyond.
Verse 2
As the new heaven is the purer survival of the old, and the new earth arises out of the wreckage and decay of the old: So The New Jerusalem is created to be the metropolis of the new earth. The Church cannot exist on earth without a local center, and this will be established at Jerusalem, since Rome is a heap of Ruins and shall never be rebuilt. The Jerusalem of the Old Covenant has been in ruins since the war of Titus, and this fact must have set the Christian mind a-questioning, even in St. John's time, whether and when a new Jerusalem would arise. This new Jerusalem would be of another order and would be the fulfillment of Christian hopes expressed by St. Paul in several letters (Gal. IV. 26). The Apostle clearly designates it to be the Jerusalem of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews. His prophecy has been fulfilled in a spiritual way since the change of pagan into Christian Rome, which has become the Holy City of the New Testament as Jerusalem had been of the Old. Jewish tradition and literature looked for an ideal, a new and greater Jerusalem. They understood this in an earthly sense only, and it remained an indetermined hope until the apostles defined it in a spiritual sense. Yet Jewish traditions were based on the prophecies. When the Church shall establish headquarters at Jerusalem, the prophecies will have literal fulfillment, the blessed visions of peace become true and Jerusalem becomes the Celestial City (Isa. LXVI. 20; LXV. 19; LXII. 6-7; IX. 13-14, etc.). Most modern interpreters have discarded a literal fulfillment of the prophecies of a greater city to be built on the site of ancient Jerusalem and of the Church making this her metropolis. Yet why should not this be contained in the scope of the prophecies along with the spiritual sense?
The New Jerusalem coming from God may be called into existence by Almighty Power, as the prophets intimate, or the city may be rebuilt for earthly purposes and made glorious by the Church. If the Church rebuilt Christian Jerusalem as she rebuilt Christian Rome, it would literally come "out of heaven". Since the Church derives her divine life from the eucharistic Lamb and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whatever city she should select for her headquarters or build to suit her needs would come forth from God and would be the Holy City coming down from heaven and elevated to the place of glory intended in the divine plans. The New Jerusalem thus becomes identified with the Church. (Gal. IV. 26).
The sciences have been developed and been proven to harmonize with divine revelation and to call for a Supreme Cause, God, as the origin and end of creation. The true principles of education have been accepted from the Church, because all educational systems that varied with the principles of the Church have to the extent in which they differed been proven failures. Art has been made the servant of truth and morality. Theology has been perfected and philosophy been made to serve theology. Medical science has been transfused with charity. The true and just relation of Labor and Capital and the rights of each have been proclaimed. The moral laws of the Church have leavened all governments to aim at justice for all and privileges for none. All civil laws are tested by the revealed law and interpreted to conform with it. The source of all contentment and felicity in the world is admitted to be a virtuous life, which receives its inspiration and strength from the eucharistic Lamb. And finally the Church possesses the principles long ago clearly taught that shall insure lasting peace on earth between nations. The Church is worthy to be the Queen of the Lamb and with Him graciously to rule the nations of the world. And she shall people heaven with the souls she begets and rears for Christ, the "Father of the world to come". She is thus prepared for the Great Consummation.

The last paragraph here answers your question about "human creations like technology etc."


What does it mean to "flee to the mountains" as writen in Mark? Mark 13:14
  New International Version (NIV)
  14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

First off, is this meant figuratively or literally? I lean towards believing it is literal. But then it specifically mentions that it is those in Judea that should flee... is this also literal Judea? What about those of us in the nations, now?

I do not like Jehovah's Witnesses' explanation that they are the symbolic mountains and that by joining them we are already 'safe'; I believe there is more to it than that. For instance it is only when we see the abomination causing desolation that we are meant to flee, so that does not make sense if you compare it to joining a religious group.

And what of people living far from any mountains? This is where it is difficult to believe that it is literal, yet the detail of the rest of the verses in Mark do suggest that actual fleeing is necessary.

I'm a little stumped. What does "fleeing to the mountains" actually mean in this context?

You get the sense of literal fulfillment by reading the verses before and after. Jesus is not switching back and forth between the two in the chapter when He talks about what will happen in the last days. When Jesus told His disciples that the temple will be torn down (13:1-2), the disciples wanted to know when that would happen, and what the sign will be for it's fulfillment (13:4). In other words, Jesus was talking about a real temple (the one they were looking at, that Herod built), and real, discoverable signs concerning its end.

The events in the verses immediately after that are easily discoverable in our literal world and relationships. In verse 14, Jesus starts answering the second part of the disciple's question about signs of the fulfillment. That sign refers to an event mentioned in Daniel 9:27, from which Jesus gets the phrase, "abomination that causes desolation." Some pretribulation groups claim that this event will take place when an antichrist figure will set himself up as a god to be worshiped (taking their text as 2 Thess. 2:3-4). When the Jews see that literal sign, they are to flee out of Judea, which is surrounded by hilly, mountainous terrain. Read again verses 15-18; Jesus indicates in these verses that the fleeing is literal, and extremely urgent. If you are on your housetop, don't stop to pick up stuff on your way out (v15), if you are in the field, don't stop to pick up your garment (v16); if you are pregnant or care for little ones, it will be hard for you (v17); and "pray that your flight may not be in winter" (v18). All of these details emphasize the literalness of the event in question, of the urgency of fleeing when the sign is seen.

The literalism comes to an end in the chapter when Jesus deliberately injects a parable, and says He does so ("Now learn this parable from the fig tree"). Once the brief parable is over, He goes back to using terms that can be understood literally.

In some cases of prophecy, they have a near fulfillment and far fulfillment. It is so with this prophecy. In its near fulfillment, the temple was indeed torn down as He said it was, in 70 A.D. by the Roman armies of Titus, and those Jews who fled when they saw the armies surrounding the city (a detail recorded in Luke's version of this chapter of Mark, Luke 21:20-21) escaped to safety, and were spared the grievous horrors suffered by the Jews left behind recorded by Josephus.

However, the Abomination of Desolation was not set up at that time. That will be left for a future day, which must take place after another literal temple is built in Jerusalem. After that event, according to the sequence of events in Mark 13:24-27, Jesus will come again.


May Christians work while fasting? Is there a Christians (preferably protestant) viewpoint that you may not work while fasting?

A while back I talked to a guy that told me you may not work while fasting and quoted a few verses to make his point (which I cannot recall) I know he had a protestant background, so I am wondering if this is a common belief or practice in the church; if so, why?

Jesus said:

  Matthew 6:16 through 18 NKJV  "Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 17  But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18  so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.

According my understanding of these verses, what Jesus said was really 'when you do anything which draws attention the fact that you are fasting that is wrong.'

But actually it goes much further than that;

  Matthew 6:1 through 8 NKJV  "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2  Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3  But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4  that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly. 5  "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6  But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. 7  And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8  "Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.

The lesson of all of these Scriptures is that God listens to your Heart, or possibly more accurately to your Spirit, and therefore whatever you do expecting the acclaim of mankind, when they take notice of what you do then you have gotten what you really desired.

On the other hand it seems that Jesus is saying 'After all don't you know that the God who created all things already knows what things you are needing.'

The actual way in which we need to accept the teachings of our Savior, is that what he taught us while on Earth is the bare minimum for how God wants his Children to be.

To put the answer to your question into everyday terms 'Fasting which is a form of worship in that it's purpose is to get nearer to God, If you just fast in the idea that it relieves you of other obligations then when you have your day of rest be happy because you have gotten you heart's desire.'

Those other obligations of which I spoke include work since:

  Genesis 3:17 through 19 NKJV  Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. 18  Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. 19  In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return."

Hope this helps.


How do Traditional Latin Mass going Catholics usually prepare and receive their sacraments of initiation? Our parish is starting to off a Traditional Latin Mass and there's a group in our diocese that has their children confirmed in the that form as well.  It's quite a bit different, we were wanting to do this for our kids, but we found out about it way too late.  But I'm wondering, what are the ages and what kind of preparation do Traditional Catholics do for the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and their First Communion?  What ages are appropriate for receiving these sacraments?  Is First Communion generally withheld until after Confirmation?

The ages rarely differ from the general practice in that region. As far as preparation goes, the particular pedagogy might vary (e.g expectations may be higher), but it's not substantially different, certainly not in any uniform way.
Some parishes that host both forms of the rites use a common sacramental preparation program (Especially for converts), some have them separate.

Is First Communion generally withheld until after Confirmation?

That would be up to the diocese and not dependent on the form of the Liturgy. The reason why some places do Confirmation before 1st Communion is a desire to restore the traditional ordering, but that ordering was displaced not with Post Vatican II reforms but with Pius X's lowering of the age of First Communion to 7.


Is the Bible an inexhaustible source? "I have heard many pastors on online and in sermons make the statement that the bible is inexhaustible. I am trying to wrap my mind around that. Isn't it a finite book. can't you know what it says completely?

I would love for it to be inexhaustible because I love to learn new things about God and Heaven etc. Maybe people make the claim that it is inexhaustible because it shows us how to have a relationship with God and he is Infinite.

Can you shed any light on this?"

Disclaimer: The above question was asked on my church's website by a seeker.  I have some definite ideas about this, but I would like some input from the community.

When we talk about the Bible from a Christian point of view (and especially as men preach about it), we cannot separate the Bible itself (a collection of words) from the power of the Holy Spirit who not only inspired its writing, but who also gives light to us as we read and hear the words.

We can live our whole lives reading the Bible, and the Holy Spirit can continue to shed increasing light on what we understand the Bible to say about who God is and the great works he has done.

Is the Bible a finite book with a finite number of words that have specific meanings?  Yes.
But we do not get wisdom from the Bible without the work of the Holy Spirit teaching us.  And the God that the Bible speaks of and the Holy Spirit shines light on is truly infinite.


What does the "second coming of Christ" mean? I am not up on my scripture but is the 'second coming of Christ', Jesus specifically?
'Christ' is a title, meaning the 'anointed one', so is the 'second coming' Jesus coming down from a cloud, or is it the coming of a yet another 'anointed one'?

Read Matthew 24:30(ESV) - "Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory..."
Jesus referred to himself as, and is referred to as, the "Son of Man" many times throughout the New Testament.  In fact the New Testament in general refers to the return of the "Son of Man", rather than the return of Christ.
Also ref. Matthew 24:36-39.
In Revelation 20:4-6, "Christ" is used not as a title but as a proper noun.  While the word Christ is a title, it has now become the name of our savior and is his alone, the name above every name (Philippians 2:9-11).
There is only one savior, one Messiah, which is our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of God, and the Son of Man.
Jesus warns us not to believe the false Messiahs who will appear (Matthew 24:23-27).
It is definitely Jesus Christ himself who will return to gather his elect.  I pray to the Lord that you and I will be among them.


Can a Uniate (Eastern) Catholic priest celebrate the Mass according to the Latin Rite? It is known that eastern priests can be married. On the other hand Western rite claims priest to be unmarried.
So consider Uniate eastern catholic priest who is married. Can he, if he wants can he say a Latin Rite Mass?

Priests and bishops of the Eastern Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome may concelebrate at any celebration of the Eucharist in any rite, including the Latin Rite, provided they have the permission of the diocesan bishop or eparch.

The Code of Canon Law is silent on this issue, but the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches (CCEO) says,

  A concelebration between bishops and presbyters of different Churches sui iuris [of which the Latin Church is one] for a just cause, especially that of fostering charity, and for the sake of manifesting unity between the Churches, can be done with the permission of the eparchial bishop, while observing all the prescriptions of the liturgical books of the principal celebrant, having removed any liturgical syncretism and wearing the appropriate vestments and insignia of his own Church sui iuris (Can. 701).

Except for concelebration, as mentioned, priests and bishops may not simply celebrate the Eucharist using a different rite from their own, unless they receive an indult from the Holy See. This is commonly called becoming “bi-ritual.” (The Syro-Malabarese eparchy of Adelaide, Australia, made a good summary of how to deal with the pastoral situation of members of an Eastern Church living in a predominantly Latin-Catholic area.)

In practice, it is quite common for Eastern priests to receive the indult to celebrate in the Latin Rite (but not vice-versa, probably because the Latin Rite is generally simpler to learn, and because the Latin Church is so pervasive), and married priests from an Eastern Church are in no way impeded from receiving it.

So in summary: any Eastern priest may concelebrate in the Latin Rite, with permission from the diocesan bishop, and likewise, any Eastern priest may solicit from the Holy See an indult to celebrate in the Latin Rite as the principal celebrant (just as a Latin-Church priest may do, in order to celebrate an Eastern Divine Liturgy).

Whether that priest is married is not a consideration.


What is the difference between LORD and GOD? I need to understand whether GOD and LORD is the same or different.

The all upper-case "LORD" and "GOD" are used where the original Hebrew used the sacred name of god, YHWH (יהוה).

Traditionally, that four letter name (Tetragrammaton) is not supposed to be pronounced except by the high priests on the Day of Atonement.

To avoid accidentally saying it while reading the Hebrew scriptures, incorrect vowel marks are added to the word, specifically the vowels from "Adonai", meaning "lord".  Anyone reading it would know to say "Lord" at that point.

This article, "Why Does the Old Testament Sometimes Capitalize Lord or God?", includes a summary of the general rules that apply:

  When you see LORD, the specific name YHWH is used and it always
  refers to Him.
  When you see lord, the word adonai is used in such a way as to
      refer to a human master or lord.
  When you see Lord, the word adonai is used to refer to the
      true God.
  When you see God, the Hebrew words elohim, el, or eloah
  are used to refer to the one true God.
  When you see god or gods, the Hebrew words elohim, el,
  or eloah are used to refer to idols, spiritual beings, the objects
  of other nations’ worship, etc.
  When you see Lord GOD, the author has used both adonai and
  YHWH together.

So, to answer the original question, there is no real difference between "LORD" and "GOD":

"LORD" means that "YHWH" is supposed to be said as "lord".
"Lord GOD" means that "YHWH" is supposed to be said as "god" (otherwise the first rule would suggest saying "lord lord").


How could Jesus be surprised? Matthew 8:5-10 (NLT)
   5 When Jesus returned to Capernaum, a Roman officer came and pleaded with him, 6 “Lord, my young servant lies in bed, paralyzed and in terrible pain.”
   7 Jesus said, “I will come and heal him.”
   8 But the officer said, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come into my home. Just say the word from where you are, and my servant will be healed. 9 I know this because I am under the authority of my superior officers, and I have authority over my soldiers. I only need to say, ‘Go,’ and they go, or ‘Come,’ and they come. And if I say to my slaves, ‘Do this,’ they do it.”
   10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed. Turning to those who were following him, he said, “I tell you the truth, I haven’t seen faith like this in all Israel!

[Emphasis mine.]

If Jesus is God and therefore omniscient, how could He possibly be surprised by the Roman officer's words?

I don't have a definitive answer, but here are a few things to keep in mind about the text. When I consider some combination of these, it doesn't bother me that an omniscient God is "surprised".

The word in the text is not usually translated "surprised" as if it was an unexpected event. The sense is one of wonder or awe or marvel or (as in your translation) amazement. God being omniscient had to have known this ahead of time, but that doesn't preclude a sense of wonder.
Jesus was fully man. This means he felt and knew the things that men and know feel in addition to the things that God feels and knows. This could just the the human side of him expressing wonder.
The narrator of the story is NOT omniscient and, in spite of being guided by the Holy Spirit in the authoring of the text, is unable to know what was in Jesus mind and exactly how it worked. He described things as they appeared.
Jesus was deliberate communicator. If having a visible physical/emotional reaction to something would help his audience understand the situation better, I'm sure he could manage that. If we needed to know that that kind of faith was a wonderful thing, his marveling at it is a great way to mark it's importance.


Relationship between Mary/Elizabeth or Jesus/John? How were Mary and Elizabeth related, outside of the obvious of being of the children of Abraham.  Mary was of the tribe of Judah, and Elizabeth would have been a Levite.  How could Mary and Elizabeth be related that would make Jesus and John to be considered cousins?

Luke 1:36

  And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.

The declaration in Luke 1:36 that Elizabeth is a relative of Mary comes from Gabriel.

From Gabriel's introduction of himself to Zacharias we know that he is God's messenger and stands in the presence of God .

Those who believe God's Word by faith will thus find a way to understand how Elizabeth is indeed an historical figure and is both a 'daughter of Aaron' as recorded by Luke, and a 'relative' of Mary, mother of Jesus, as declared by Garbriel.

A reasonable explanation is that Elizabeth and Mary were related through Elizabeth's mother and not through her father.  If Elizabeth's mother was of the Tribe of Judah but her father was of the Tribe of Levi she could be called a daughter of Aaron.  Mary's father was certainly of the Tribe of Judah, and so was her husband, Joseph.  Mary's mother could also have been of the Tribe of Judah.

This gives three possible ways in which Mary could be a relative of Elizabeth's, either by blood or by marriage.  The term 'relative' is most likely referring to a blood relationship, so it is reasonable to believe that they were related through Elizabeth's blood relationship to either Mary's father or mother in the Tribe of Judah.


Why is Apostolic succession required in some denominations? Many of the old churches such as the Roman Catholics and the various Orthodox churches hold to the principle of Apostolic succession. To quote from Wikipedia:

  The Orthodox Church traces its development back to the earliest church established by St. Paul and the Apostles, through the ancient Roman Empire and its continuation the Byzantine Empire. It regards itself as the historical and organic continuation of the original Church founded by Christ and His apostles.

As a protestant I can appreciate the desirability in being able to trace your church back to the time of the apostles, but I can't understand why these churches consider it to be necessary so that they consider churches without apostolic succession to be invalid.

Why do churches which hold to Apostolic succession require it? Or, what is it about Apostolic succession that validates a church so that one without it is invalid?

The Catholic Church teaches that Apostolic Succession is necessary because it was instituted by the original Apostles.  Other denominations claims are similar.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  It remains to consider whether the so-called "monarchical" episcopate
  was instituted by the Apostles. Besides establishing a college of
  presbyter-bishops, did they further place one man in a position of
  supremacy, entrusting the government of the Church to him, and
  endowing him with Apostolic authority over the Christian community?
  Even if we take into account the Scriptural evidence alone, there are
  sufficient grounds for answering this question in the affirmative.
  From the time of the dispersion of the Apostles, St. James appears in
  an episcopal relation to the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13;
  Galatians 2:12). In the other Christian communities the institution of
  "monarchical" bishops was a somewhat later development. At first the
  Apostles themselves fulfilled, it would seem, all the duties of
  supreme oversight. They established the office when the growing needs
  of the Church demanded it. The Pastoral Epistles leave no room to
  doubt that Timothy and Titus were sent as bishops to Ephesus and to
  Crete respectively. To Timothy full Apostolic powers are conceded.
  Notwithstanding his youth he holds authority over both clergy and
  laity. To him is confided the duty of guarding the purity of the
  Church's faith, of ordaining priests, of exercising jurisdiction.
  Moreover, St. Paul's exhortation to him, "to keep the commandment
  without spot, blameless, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"
  shows that this was no transitory mission. A charge so worded includes
  in its sweep, not Timothy alone, but his successors in an office which
  is to last until the Second Advent. Local tradition unhesitatingly
  reckoned him among the occupants of the episcopal see. At the Council
  of Chalcedon, the Church of Ephesus counted a succession of
  twenty-seven bishops commencing with Timothy (Mansi, VII, 293; cf.
  Eusebius, Church History III.4-5).

The Orthodox Wiki explains the significance and importance like this:

  The unbrokenness of apostolic succession is significant because of
  Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" (Matthew 16:18) would
  not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he himself would
  be with the apostles to "the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).
  According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such
  apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept as
  would an apostolic succession which, while formally intact, completely
  abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate
  successors; as, for example, if all the bishops of the world agreed to
  abrogate the Nicene Creed or repudiate the Holy Scripture.

The LDS teaching has a similar ring, if not a similar line of Presidents.  They believe that the current lines recognized by Catholic and Orthodox Churches are invalid because all other denominations are apostate, and the "true Church" was restored by Joseph Smith.  A new line of succession began with him, but the concept of succession is the same.

The belief is that the line in the "restored" Church" is ordained and protected by God.  Therefore it is by His will that succession is necessary, and by His will that it is protected.

  Succession in the Presidency of the Church has been established by the
  Lord. The Church is never without inspired leadership, and there is no
  reason for speculation or controversy over who will become the next
  President of the Church. President Harold B. Lee (1899–1973)
  explained: “[The Lord] knows whom he wants to preside over this
  church, and he will make no mistake. The Lord doesn’t do things by
  accident. He has never done anything accidentally” (in Conference
  Report, Oct. 1970, 153; or Improvement Era, Dec. 1970, 127). President
  Ezra Taft Benson (1899–1994) taught that “God knows all things, the
  end from the beginning, and no man becomes president of the church of
  Jesus Christ by accident, or remains there by chance, or is called
  home by happenstance” (“Jesus Christ—Gifts and Expectations,” New Era,
  May 1975, 16–17).

That may seem a simplistic answer, but the idea is that authority must be granted, and that for authority to be granted, it must come from one who has the authority to grant it.  The need for a line of succession is similar to the need for a central Church authority, which was asked about at What is the doctrinal or Scriptural basis for a central Church authority?  The accepted answer there provides Scriptural support for both ideas.

Borrowing from JustinY's answer:

  A central church authority is a necessary byproduct of believing that
  certain ordinances are necessary for salvation. Ordinances often have
  rules for who can be administered to as well as how it must be done.
  Church authority is a very orderly and efficient way to regulate those
  requirements. The Old Testament is an excellent example of this.
  Notice that churches who put more emphasis on ordinances also have
  more structure (Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS churches, as well as the
  Jewish faith). And it's not just a good way to regulate the
  ordinances, but also a good way to regulate doctrine.


When was the first time God promised eternal life in the Bible? One of the central tenets of the Bible is that you can enter heaven if you follow the way of the Lord, living harmoniously with him.

At some point of time (If not from the very beginning of the Bible), the promise/concept of eternal life was said to be one of the reward for someone who pleased the Lord.

When exactly did this happen?

When was the first time Mankind was promised eternal life as a reward?

It is implicit in the command given to Adam (Genesis 2:17):

  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Theologians understand this as the covenant of works.

The promise of blessing and life on the condition of obedience often comes with the punishment of curse and death upon disobedience.

For Adam, such promise was implicit because he lived in a state of blessedness.

See also Romans 5:18:

  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

The 'one trespass' meant here is the trespass of Adam, while the 'one act of righteousness' is that of Jesus.

The agreement between God the Father and His Son Jesus that He would die to redeem sinners of course happened in eternity, before the command was even given to Adam.


Does Nehemiah Gordon self-identify as a Christian? Does Nehemiah Gordon self-identify as a Christian? Does he believe that Yeshua is the Christ ?

I heard that his conversion story exists on the internet but I am unable to find it. If someone can help me find it that would be great.

I found an article that examines the beliefs of Nehemiah Gordon and briefly mentions that although brought up in an Orthodox Jewish family, he converted to Karaite Judaism after he moved to Israel in 1993. The article gives a critical overview of Nehemiah Gordon’s book ‘The Hebrew Yeshua versus the Greek Jesus (Hilkiah Press, 2005).  Apparently he rejects Jesus as the Messiah:

I still do not believe Yeshua to be the Messiah; like all Karaites I eagerly await the coming of the anointed Davidic king who will reign as king over Israel, ushering in an era of eternal peace...
It seems more and more that Yeshua may have been a first century Karaite opposing man-made laws of the Rabbis and returning people to the Torah.

For the purpose of answering your question, it would seem that Nehemiah Gordon does not believe that the Jesus of the New Testament is the Christ, or Messiah.
Source: https://carm.org/nehemia-gordon


Why is the number three special? What is the significance to the number 3 in the Bible? There is already a question about the number seven, but no one said anything about 3.

Here are a few 3's I came up with:

The Trinity (Godhead) is 3 in one
Peter denies knowing Jesus 3 times and later says he loves him 3 times
Jesus rose on the 3rd day
Both 777 and 666 consist of 3 digits
"holy, holy, holy" is the Lord God Almighty (Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8)

There are probably more that I can't think of right now. I just looked up 777 and it's not even in the Bible, so I don't know where that came from but I heard it somehow represents God.

So what is the significance to the number 3?

Three is the number of perfection, or completion. This number is repeated throughout the Bible as a symbol of completeness.

God's attributes are three: omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

Time is divided in three: past, present and future.

Three is the first of four perfect numbers...

Three denotes divine perfection;
Seven denotes spiritual perfection;
Ten denotes ordinal perfection; and
Twelve denotes governmental perfection.

Abraham offered three measures of meal to his guest(s), showing the perfection of God's divine nature. In Numbers 15:9, the instructions to offer with a burn offering read, "Then shall he bring with the bullock a meal offering of THREE tenth deals of flour.", as were the instructions for the cleansing of a leper in Lev 14:10.

The third book in the Bible, where we learn about true worship, is Leviticus.

During His ministry Jesus raised three persons from the dead.

On the third day, the earth rose from the water, symbolic of resurrection life. He was crucified at the third hour, was on the cross from 3 hours, rose from the grave on the third day.

The inscription above His cross, in three languages, showed the completeness of His rejection by man.

He fulfilled the three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King (Deut 177:15, 18:3-5, and 18:15).

For more on the number three, please reference EW Bullinger's excellent book Number in Scripture.


Can you renounce part of the bible, and still be a Christian? A really simple question, the title says it all really. Just to provide some background as to what I'm on about:

I was raised Roman Catholic. As, I suspect, many of you know, the Catholics and Protestants have had their differences throughout history. Both "groups" consider themselves being Christians, but disagree on some of the interpretations of the Scripture.

However, as far as I know, none of the major Christian doctrines uses a Bible that contains more than the 4 Gospels (Mathew, John, Lucas and Mark). The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is left out.
The way I see it, throughout the history of Christianity, a selection of scriptures has been made to form the Bible as we know it today.

I'm not interested in sparking a historical debate on when these Gospels were written, who wrote them and what makes Gospel A suited for the Bible, and why Gospel B is not.
This fact just gives me the impression that various people and institutions, for whatever reasons, cherry-picked scriptures, in a way. Perhaps because the contents\, in particular of the Gospel according to Thomas, was deemed dangerous in its day.
If selecting, and cherry-picking was OK back then, why would I not be allowed to call myself a Christian, while at the same time disbelieving in parts of the Bible that I feel are dated, and in some cases proven wrong?

Note that with "proven wrong" I mean: I feel as though I have been presented with sufficient evidence to accept that what is written in the Bible is incorrect. If you don't feel the same way about these passages, then that is entirely up to you. Again, as with the subject of the various books of the
Bible being historic accounts: I don't want to go into any of those things.

Christanity != The Bible

The Bible isn't Christianity. Christianity is about believing in Jesus (and all that it entails). We learn about Christianity from the Bible, but we really learn about Christianity from other Christians. This is the primary mode of the transmission for the faith.

  John 13:35 (NASB)
  By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

Christianity was around for decades before any of the books of the New Testament were written. Christianity existed before them, and would exist even if they had never been written, because Christianity is all about the work of God through Jesus to redeem us. Christianity doesn't depend on the Bible, nor is it defined by the Bible, because Christianity is defined by Jesus.

The books of the Bible were chosen by Christians because they accurately described the faith.

The Bible was compiled by early Christians as a reliable reference that was sufficient for our needs. They were not cherry picking based on their whims. They chose books based on reasonable criteria, and most Christians since have accepted their decision because they were in a far better position to know about authorship and doctrinal coherency than we are hundreds and thousands of years later. Most Christians that place emphasis on the Bible accept their decision (or one that came much closer to it than it came to us) and do not really consider altering the canon. The original group that established the canon chose documents that were consistent with Christian doctrine as they knew it. In a sense, Christianity established the Bible, though it still claims divine origin for the material in it.

Conclusion: Yes, Theoretically

All this said, you could conceivably reject (all or part of) the Bible and still be a Christian because Christianity does not hang on the Bible itself. It hangs on belief in Jesus.

However, how would you know what Christianity actually is? Who was Jesus? What did he teach? What did the early church believe and practice? All these things are recorded in the Bible and have been preserved for our benefit. The vast majority of Christians from whom you would learn about Christianity use the Bible as an authoritative reference. On what basis would you reject what they assert to be true? I don't know what in the Bible you would have good reason to reject. How would you be certain that you were correct about such a rejection? What is your source of authority for such a conclusion? It seems like it would be very difficult to make a good logical argument for modifying the canon.


What works do the LDS Church recognize as Scripture? I understand the LDS Church recognizes the Book of Mormon and the Old and New Testaments as well.

What other works are also considered Scripture?  Any Apocryphal works? Doctrines and Covenants?

What is considered scripture

The Standard Works

The LDS Church accepts 4 volumes as "standard works" of scripture:

The KJV Bible (minus Apocrypha)
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great Price
The Doctrine and Covenants

Each book is esteemed basically equally with the others as pertaining to their scriptural value. Of course, Mormons will emphasize the Book of Mormon since that is the book which mainly sets the LDS religion apart from other Christian faiths.

See: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/standard-works

The inspired words of modern prophets

In addition to the standard works, Latter-day Saints acknowledge the inspired words of prophets and apostles since the Restoration began in about 1820 as the revealed word of God in our day.

Several Articles of Faith mention living prophets as God's spokesmen on the earth today, and their importance is reinforced with Biblical teachings by prophets like Amos, Jesus, Paul, and Moses.

Not everything prophets and apostles, seers and revelators, say might be scripture. They are human, and have candid moments as anyone would. So the LDS are careful to distinguish their opinions and other, non-authoritative statements from actual, prophetic teachings over the pulpit in, say, a General Conference.

Teachings of modern prophets are given considerable weight as they have the authority to reveal anew the will of God atop older revelations contained in ancient scriptures.

See: The current LDS Church leadership (general authorities)

Patriarchal blessings

Not all scripture is general, meaning, intended for everyone. In an abstract sense, any truly-God-inspired words are scripture. But that inspiration may have a narrow scope in some cases, applying to only an individual or a small group of people.

Patriarchal blessings are important instances in a Mormon's life, as these blessings contain their declaration of lineage and also inspired counsel from a patriarch, who can receive such revelation. These blessings become very personal and sacred scripture to individuals. They don't apply to everyone and aren't usually shared.

See: http://www.lds.org/topics/patriarchal-blessings

Official declarations (and similar)

There have been only two Official Declarations which are published in the Standard Works, but similar declarations, such as The Family and The Living Christ, are equally important. Many Mormons have one or both of these hanging on the walls of their home.

What is not necessarily considered scripture

These are likely to contain truth and may be cited reliably, but they are more like secondary sources, in that they draw upon more authoritative scripture from prophets or the standard works to lay their doctrinal foundation, or their main purpose is to edify and uplift, or inform: not necessarily declare doctrine.

These items may have truth in them, but any readings of these should be done carefully with the guidance of the Spirit to discern truth from error.

New doctrine/revelation for the church will never originate from these sources:

CES Devotionals
Speeches at BYU
Books written by general authorities (though these are often opinion)
Publications from the Maxwell Institute at BYU
Content on LDS Church websites (just because it's on lds.org, mormon.org, or mormonnewsroom.org, or others, doesn't mean it's scripture)
Things said by general authorities away from the pulpit
Talks by members of the Church in sacrament meetings
Scripture reference material
Student manuals
Scripture footnotes, chapter headings, approximate dates, etc.
The Apocrypha

It quickly becomes apparent that Mormons believe that God will reveal His truth in a very organized and specific way.

What is not at all considered scripture

Note that these also may not be affiliated with the LDS Church in any way.

The Journal of Discourses
Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)
Wikipedia
Any secular publication or statement, esp. not by the LDS church
Videos / multimedia (scripture is written)

Have I missed anything?


Where can I find some information about Nathanael besides John 1? In John 1:46-50, Nathanael is introduced to Jesus for the first time.

We know He was Philip's friend from Bethsaida and He was "truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit"

Where can I find some information about Nathanael besides John 1?
Any passage or book, biography, site...

Nathaniel in the New Testament was a good friend of the Apostle Philip's and became one of Jesus' Apostles later on. He is only seen with the name Nathaniel in the Gospel of John but in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, he is mentioned under the name of Bartholomew. He witnessed the majority of Jesus' ministry along with his death and resurrection. Afterwards, it is thought that he was a missionary to India, and was eventually flayed and crucified for his testimony the Jesus' life and teachings.


When are lay men and women permitted to proclaim the Gospel in a Catholic church? I know that proclaiming the Gospel at Mass is restricted to ordained folks. But, is it permissible for a lay man or woman to lead a word and communion service and read from the Gospel?

Can they lead a different sort of prayer service in a Catholic Church that includes the proclamation of the Gospel?

Well, at a minimum, most people read from the Gospel on Palm Sunday and Good Friday (only about four lines which are labeled "[said by the] crowd:"). I think that counts as laity ;-).

As to "communion service", the prayers of an EM with the homebound can be considered a "communion service," and anyone is allowed to read there.

Coming back to this post several years later. It should be noted that Mass is the only liturgical prayer of the church where the reading of the gospel is specifically designated to the clergy. In the normal form of the Divine Office, there is no gospel. There is, however, a canticle from Luke which is read or sung in common. In the Lectio Divina, sometimes prayed in conjunction with Matins, Vigils, or as a separate service, the gospel may be read by any in attendance, according to the norms of the particular community.

None of this is different from prior to the reforms of the liturgy under Paul VI. The Divine Office was open to all and supported a variety of expressions, even within the more restrictive hours (you can read more about the different liturgical approaches to Vespers here). The Lucan Canticles were said in common.

Preaching on the gospel, however, was a good deal more restricted. However, even in this case, there was a good deal of leeway. It is the task of the prior, whether ordained or no, to exhort the brethren while they eat. This implies 1. that a quasi-liturgy is in effect, and 2. that a non-ordained person is preaching.


How many are there of God's angels? According to Revelation 5:11, there are many:

  11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering
  thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They
  encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.
  12 In a
  loud voice they were saying:

  “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
      to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
      and honor and glory and praise!”

Are there any doctrines that document/describ how many angels God would have?
Are they more than us?
If they are these many, why are there that many? Does it have to be in proportion to God's creations? Is it because of division of labour?

None of the major branches do. All they say is that it is a large number, and most say that there are more than all humans who have ever existed:

A Protestant view: (Drawing from Scripture only)

  While the Scriptures give no definite figures, we are told that the
  number of angels is very great (Daniel 7:10; Matthew 26:53; Hebrews
  12:22).

  It appears that all angels were created at one time. No new angels are
  being added to the number. Angels are not subject to death or any form
  of extinction; therefore they do not decrease in number.

  It seems reasonable to conclude that there are at least as many spirit
  beings in existence as there will have been human beings in all their
  history on earth.

  Author: Dr. Paul Eymann.

A Catholic view:

  The number of the angels is frequently stated as prodigious (Daniel
  7:10; Apocalypse 5:11; Psalm 67:18; Matthew 26:53). From the use of
  the word host (sabaoth) as a synonym for the heavenly army it is hard
  to resist the impression that the term "Lord of Hosts" refers to God's
  Supreme command of the angelic multitude (cf. Deuteronomy 33:2; 32:43;
  Septuagint). The Fathers see a reference to the relative numbers of
  men and angels in the parable of the hundred sheep (Luke 15:1-3),
  though this may seem fanciful. The Scholastics, again, following the
  treatise "De Coelesti Hierarchia" of St. Denis, regard the
  preponderance of numbers as a necessary perfection of the angelic host
  (cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica I:1:3).

An Orthodox view:

  St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes: "Imagine how great in number is the
  Roman people, imagine how great in number are the other barbarian
  peoples that now exist, and how many must have died even! In a
  century, imagine how many have been buried in a thousand years,
  imagine all mankind, from Adam to the present day. Great is their
  multitude, but it is small in comparison with the angels, whose
  numbers are greater. They are the ninety-nine sheep, whereas the human
  race is the one lost sheep. By the greatness of a place one can judge
  the numbers of those who dwell in it. The earth we inhabit is a mere
  dot in the heavens, thus the heaven that surrounds it must have a much
  greater number of inhabitants. As is has greater space, the heavens of
  heavens hold their innumerable number. If it is written that 'a
  thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousands of myriads
  attended upon Him' this is only because the prophet could express no
  greater number." When the numbers of the angels are so great, it is
  natural to assume that in their world, as in the material: world,
  there are various degrees of perfections and therefore various ranks
  or a hierarchy of the heavenly powers. Thus Holy Scripture calls some
  angels and others archangels (I Thess. 4:16, Jude v. 9).

There are a great many teachings of the number of types  or ranks of angels, but no serious writings about the population count.

Of course, there may be smaller groups within Christianity that try to pin a number on it, but most of Christianity would discount any such attempt the same way we'd discount all of the various attempts to set a date of the second coming.  It wouldn't be accepted by Christianity as a whole.

The only exception I can think of - the only group within Christianity that puts an actual number to it is the group of "Christian Atheists" that discount all supernatural altogether.  Those in that group probably put the number at zero.  But that is a small group that does not represent any of the major denominations or teachings (nor do they believe in them except, perhaps, the moral ones they agree with).


When did the idea of a scriptural "canon" originate? This question What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is NOT closed? made me wonder:

1) When did the idea of a canon originate? I would suppose this should be quite early, and Jews probably had the concept of a canon for quite some time... did they not?

2) The idea that this canon could somehow be closed - when did it originate? Seeing that we have 400 years of silence between Malachi and the New Testament, or a little less if you count Maccabeans as canon (which some people object), it could be a jewish idea, but I don't see any such indications in the New Testament. So, independent of deciding what the canon is, when did the idea originate that the canon is closed (or even can be closed)?

The best reference for answering this question, is not surprisingly, from Bruce Metzger. He is probably the foremost textual critic of the 20th Century - a fact that both Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrmann would agree with. The UBS4 is, in large part, his baby. His work: The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance can be found online here.  Of key interest is the chapter "Attempts at Closing the Canon," which sort of gives a flavor for the process.

Summarizing, Metzger essentially asserts the following key points:

Prior to Augustine (c. 400), the Church is less about a "canon" than about a spectrum of the worth of various books.  Especially in the East, the key was "grading" the books into those that should be read out loud in church, those that should be read by the ecclesiasticals, those that should be read by layman, and those that were heretical.  Those lists were somewhat fluid, but a pretty solid consensus had formed by the mid 300s

  The Latin Church had, in general, a stronger feeling than the
  Greek for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with
  regard to the canon. It was less conscious than the Greek
  Church of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books
  that it accepted, and therefore was more often disposed to
  assert that the books which it rejected possessed no spiritual
  quality whatever. In the search for the highest authority it
  showed a far more lively feeling for an uncompromising Yea or
  Nay; a classification such as that of Origen, or still more that of
  Eusebius, was consequently quite unheard of.

Like so many things, Augustine's opinions really held sway for most of the Middle Ages. His opinions on what was "best" effectively closed the canon in practice, if not in dogma

  With Augustine, whose influence upon the Western Church
  was even greater than that of Jerome, we come to a natural
  terminus in our survey of debate concerning the closing of the
  New Testament canon. ... Augustine's treatise De doctrina Christiana ('On Christian
  Learning' in four books) might well head his works on Biblical
  scholarship. The greater part of it (i. i-iii. 24) was written in
  396-7, but completed only in 426. In ii. 13 he gives our present
  list of New Testament books (but places James at the end of the
  Catholic Epistles, thus giving Peter the first place): the four
  Gospels, fourteen Epistles of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and
  3 John, Jude, James, Acts, Apocalypse. Although he includes
  Hebrews in the list (following Philemon) as Paul's, in his later
  works when he quotes from it he assiduously avoids calling it by
  the Apostle's name." But while he came to hesitate as to the
  authorship of the Epistle, he had no scruples as to its canonicity

  Before citing the list of Biblical books, Augustine exercises
  critical judgement, recognizing that some books are received on
  weightier authority than others. The Christian reader, he says,
  "will hold fast therefore to this measure in the canonical Scriptures,
  that he will prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to
  those which some of them do not receive. Among those, again, which
  are not received by all, let him prefer those which the more numerous
  and the weightier churches receive to those which fewer and less
  authoritative churches hold. But if, however, he finds some held by
  the more numerous, and some held by the churches of more authority
  (though this is not very likely to happen), I think that in such a case
  they ought to be regarded as of equal authority (De doct. chr. ii. 12)".

  Twenty-seven books [in the New Testament], no more, and no less, is henceforth the
  watchword throughout the Latin Church. Yet it would be a
  mistake to represent the question of the canon as finally settled
  in all Christian communities by the beginning of the fifth
  century

The dogmatic interpretation that the received canon was closed was finally brought about in the Middle Ages, nearing the time of the Reformations.

  During the Middle Ages the Church in the West received the
  Latin New Testament in the form that Jerome had given to it,
  and the subject of the canon was seldom discussed. At the same
  time, however, we find a certain elasticity in the boundaries of
  the New Testament. This is shown by the presence of the
  Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans in more than one hundred
  manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (including the oldest, the
  celebrated codex Fuldensis, A.D. 546), as well as in manuscripts
  of early Albigensian, Bohemian, English, and Flemish versions

  It was not until the Council of Florence (1439-43) that the See of Rome delivered for the first time a categorical opinion on the Scriptural canon.

Finally, the Council of Trent (1540s) formalized the doctrines of canonicity and its closedness. Note that Trent is largely seen as the beginning of the "Counter-Reformation" and the thing that creates a "Roman" Catholic Church distinct from the Protestant ones.

  Finally on 8 April 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15, with 16 abstensions, the Council issued a
  decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which , for the first time in the
  history of the Church , the question of the contents of the Bible
  was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an
  anathema . 'The holy ecumenical and general Council of
  Trent' , so the decree runs, '.. . following the example of the
  orthodox Fathers receives and venerates all the books of the
  Old and New Testament.. . and also the traditions pertaining
  to faith and conduct.. . with an equal sense of devotion and
  reverence (pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia).

Thus, the quick answer to your question is probably best summarized as thus:

The idea of "canon" originated in the Western (Roman) church, in response to a "gradation" approach in the East.
Augustine more or less definitively settled what was in the canon for the Nicene Church around 400AD.
In the Middle Ages and the Reformations, there were minor quibbles around individual books
Formally the canon itself is best "officially" classified as closed in the 1400s.
That dogma, however, is more a recognition of actual practice and solidarity than a "new" idea that it was closed.


Do any copies of the Gutenburg Bible still exist? Could you actually buy a Gutenburg Bible? Assuming you got enough cash, do they actually come up with for sale?

From, "The Top 10 Rare Books" https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/literature/10-rare-books1.htm:

"It is believed that 180 copies of the Bible were produced--135 on paper and 35 on vellum, or calfskin.  Today, only 48 copies are known to exist, some of them only partial, almost all of them in the hands of museums, universities and libraries..."
"How much is a Gutenberg Bible worth?  A perfect copy hasn't changed hands in years, but in 2007, a single leaf went on sale for $74,000.  In 1978, Christie's auctioned off a perfect two-volume Bible for $2.2 million.  Another Christie's auction in 1987 transferred an incomplete version to a Japanese company for $4.9 million..."


If there were sentient aliens, would Jesus be their messiah also? Let us suppose that there were aliens, that like us are gifted with souls and free will.
Would they have their own alien messiah, or would Jesus be their messiah?

If there were sentient aliens, would Jesus be their messiah also?
That will depend on several a variety of things such as their origins of sin
, if any or what some Christians call original sin. It will also depend if they are in some degree human!

The discovery of life beyond Earth would be a triumph for science but might wreak havoc on certain religions. Some faiths, such as evangelical Christianity, have long held that we are God’s favorite children and would not easily accommodate the notion that we would have to share the attention; others, such as Roman Catholicism, struggle with thorny questions such as whether aliens have original sin.
Now that researchers have discovered more than 1,500 exoplanets beyond the solar system, the day when scientists detect signs of life on one of them may be near at hand. Given this new urgency, Vanderbilt University astronomer David Weintraub decided to find out what the world’s religions had to say on the question of aliens. In his new book, Religions and Extraterrestrial Life: How Will We Deal with It? Weintraub investigates the implications of life beyond Earth on more than two dozen faiths. Scientific American spoke to him about his findings, including whether Jesus saved the Klingons as well as humanity.
Which religion will have the toughest time reconciling aliens with its beliefs?
The ones that have decided that we humans are the sole focus of God’s attention. The religions that see the world through that viewpoint tend to be some of the Christian evangelicals. The Eastern Orthodox Church, a branch of Catholicism, also has that view.
There are some people who claim that if God had created extraterrestrials, then there clearly would be words in the Old and New testaments, which we would have already found, that would have said explicitly that God created extraterrestrials—and since those words don’t exist, there can’t be. Well, there’s nothing in the Old and New testaments that talks about telephones either, and telephones do seem to exist.
You write that the Roman Catholics have a particular issue when it comes to extraterrestrials. What is their viewpoint?
Original sin is an important idea in Roman Catholicism. The idea that Adam and Eve shouldn’t have eaten the apple—they committed a sin and that’s how sin entered the lives of humans. Jesus’s act of dying on the cross was to redeem all humans from that original sin, to allow us to get to heaven.
Let’s say you discover some aliens on some other planets and you decide that you should convert them to Christianity. A reasonable question should be why? If they live on planet Earth, they could be descendants of Adam and Eve but if they are Klingons living on planet whatever, they couldn’t suffer from original sin because they’re not descendants of Adam and Eve. Christianity would make no sense for these creatures, unless our understanding of original sin makes no sense.
Roman Catholic theologians are starting to rethink that in light of the possibility that there could be living beings on other worlds. The idea of original sin may be recast not as sin that comes directly from a literal Garden of Eden and a literal Adam and Eve but that original sin somehow simply exists in the fabric of the universe.
Then you’ve also got to rethink some other ideas. If the redemption by the son of God who was incarnated in human form on the Plains of Galilee 2,000 years ago provides redemption for human beings on Earth, does that also provide salvation for Klingons?
Or does Jesus have to separately visit their planet?
Right. That’s a serious theological problem. Most theologians are pretty seriously averse to the idea that the son of God will have to visit every planet and get crucified on every planet.
What if there’s another planet that’s been in existence for 100 million years before us? Do all of those creatures not get to go to heaven because the Jesus event didn’t happen until 2,000 years ago? Is that fair? It’s not for me to say.
Some Catholic theologians are wiling to wave their hands and say it’s simply not a problem; God will take care of it. Some say it’s a serious problem. But theologically it’s a pretty interesting problem. These questions have been sitting out there for several hundred years. Two hundred years ago [American revolutionary and political philosopher] Thomas Paine put these questions out there very eloquently, and theologians started to address this and decided, yeah, this is a problem.
Do any religions explicitly discuss the possibility of life beyond Earth in scripture?
The middle of the 19th century is when a whole bunch of new religions were born, and many of those religions had something to say about extraterrestrials. In Seventh-Day Adventism, for example, the founder had visions of extraterrestrials—Saturnians—in which she saw them and saw that they were pure; they had not sinned. The only sinful beings in the universe were humans on Earth. That was her solution to the Thomas Paine problem, the original sin problem. The Saturnians didn’t need Christianity because they didn’t suffer original sin. - Did Jesus Save the Klingons?

The Catholic Church doesn’t have an official teaching on aliens but doesn’t discount their possibility either. Pope Francis made headlines in 2014 when he said that even Martians have the right to receive the Holy Spirit through baptism.

Pope Francis has declared everyone has the right to be baptised, even aliens should they come knocking on the church's door.
Christians cannot "close the door" to all those who seek baptism even if they are "green men, with a long nose and big ears, like children draw," the pope said at his daily mass on Monday, according to Vatican Radio.
"If tomorrow, for example, an expedition of Martians arrives and some of them come to us ... and if one of them says: 'Me, I want to be baptised!', what would happen?" Francis said in another display of his lively sense of humour.
The Argentine pontiff known for his down-to-earth style has often used colourful and humorous expressions to make his points on the direction of the Roman Catholic Church. - Pope says baptism for all - even Martians

In any case of extraterrestrials, there is doubt whether they are human, so a conditional baptism would be required! In the case they have never sinned, there would be in principle no need to have Jesus as their Messiah, unless they are able to freely do so.
God’s ways are not man’s ways. And frankly there is too much unknown in the whole of the universe to absolutely take this question in an absolute manner at the present moment.


Do any Christian groups consider divorce sufficient cause for excommunication? If a man or woman divorces their spouse, would that be a sufficient reason to excommunicate them from the church according to any Christian groups? Does the fact of whether or not they remarry, or whether or not they repent, make a difference regarding excommunication?

I can't speak for every Christian denomination, but in general, the answer to your first question is no. The answer to your second question is yes, with some qualifications.

My denomination is the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and the following is a summary of this resource: Report of the Ad-Interim Committee on Divorce and Remarriage to the Twentieth General Assembly.

The reason divorce itself is not a sufficient reason for excommunication is that scripture allows for divorce in some instances. So church leadership must first determine whether the desired divorce would be valid (scriptural). If the reason for divorce is found to be valid, then it may be allowed and not result in church discipline.

If it is found not to be valid, and the church member continues to want a divorce, then church discipline ensues. If during the process of formal church discipline, the person demonstrates repentance by pursuing reconciliation with the spouse, then church discipline may end. If the person continues in the sin of desiring a non-scriptural divorce and follows through, they have broken their membership vows to the church and are demonstrating continued unfaithfulness to Christ, and are therefore subject to excommunication. This would result in the church treating this person as a non-Christian and pursuing them accordingly.

So repentance does make a difference. Re-marriage would most likely be determined on the validity of the divorce.


Why did Onesimus return to be a slave? Why did Onesimus feel an obligation to return to be a slave? This seems rather counter-intuitive to me.

From the perspective of Faith, I can't see the difference between human master and human slave.
From the perspective of Secular, Onesimus managed to escape the existing system.
From the perspective of Morality, Onesimus broke an unjust law of humankind.

Thus, what was Onesimus's reason for returning to be a slave?

You have to start by remembering that in the society of 50AD, slavery was considered an absolutely normal and proper part of society. To suggest in those days that slavery should be abolished would be the equivalent of proposing today that money and wealth should be abolished, or that eating meat was immoral. So your claim that "Onesimus broke a unjust law of humankind" would simply not have been understood by those of the time - certainly by non-Christians.

Secondly it has always been a principle that Christians should obey, except in exceptional circumstances, the law of the land. If the government says they should pay taxes, they should pay taxes. If the government says they should keep off the roads at night, they should keep off the roads at night. So in essence Onesimus has an obligation under the law to return to Philemon, and Paul sends him back to fulfil that obligation. 'Escaping' doesn't free him from that obligation, any more than getting away with a robbery entitles someone to keep the proceeds. Moreover, because Philemon is also a Christian, Onesimus is in effect stealing from a fellow-Christian if he doesn't return.

However there is much more to the book of Philemon than that. Paul makes a great deal of pointing out to Philemon the new relationship between him and Onesimus: as you put it, there being in Christ "no difference between human master and human slave". He strongly hints without ever expressly commanding it, that Philemon should free Onesimus because of this. He hints rather than commands because he realizes that Philemon is fully entitled to keep and punish Onesimus, and he wants Philemon to not do this of his own free will, not because he has been told to.

We will never of course be sure that Philemon followed through with this, but I personally like to think so.


Why did St. Martin give half of his cloak, and didn't give the whole? There was a saint called St. Martin, from the city of Tours (France)
He gave half of his cloak to a poor he saw, because he felt pity for him, it was cold, and the beggar was more or less in rags.

I see the lesson in this story, but what I wonder is why he only gave half of his cloak, why not the whole coat?

I wonder if it was a real act, or an allegory (sharing when you have very little), but giving the whole wouldn't have been even more generous?

What is the (Catholic) Church's opinion about this story? Is this story known outside the Catholic Church?

Sulpicius (or Sulpitius) Severus was a younger contemporary of St. Martin, being 34 years old  when Martin died. He wrote, amongst other things, a biography of St. Martin. The story of the cloak is in Chapter Three.

This chapter relates how, in an extremely cold winter, there was a beggar outside the city of Amiens, about 75 miles North of Paris. He is described as being "destitute of clothing" and was beseeching everyone who passed by to have compassion on him, but nobody did.

  Martin, that man full of God, recognized that a being to whom others showed no pity, was, in that respect, left to him. Yet, what should he do? He had nothing except the cloak in which he was clad, for he had already parted with the rest of his garments for similar purposes. Taking, therefore, his sword with which he was girt, he divided his cloak into two equal parts, and gave one part to the poor man, while he again clothed himself with the remainder.

So Martin had already given away his other garments, which would normally be worn under a cloak. If he had given the beggar the whole cloak Martin would have left himself naked.

Severus goes on to describe the reaction of onlookers

  Some of the bystanders laughed, because he was now an unsightly object, and stood out as but partly dressed. Many, however, who were of sounder understanding, groaned deeply because they themselves had done nothing similar. They especially felt this, because, being possessed of more than Martin, they could have clothed the poor man without reducing themselves to nakedness.

It would have been possible for other people, who had not already given away their undergarments, to assist the beggar much more easily than Martin could.

That night Jesus appeared to Martin in a vision:

  In the following night, when Martin had resigned himself to sleep, he had a vision of Christ arrayed in that part of his cloak with which he had clothed the poor man. He contemplated the Lord with the greatest attention, and was told to own as his the robe which he had given. Ere long, he heard Jesus saying with a clear voice to the multitude of angels standing round— ‘Martin, who is still but a catechumen, clothed  me with this robe.’ The Lord, truly mindful of his own words (who had said when on earth— Inasmuch  as you have done these things to one of the least of these, you have done them unto me), declared that he himself had been clothed in that poor man; and to confirm the testimony he bore to so good a deed, he condescended to show him himself in that very dress which the poor man had received.

This is, of course,  a reference to Matthew 25:40.

OP asks if it was real or an allegory. There is nothing in the biography to suggest this was an allegory. It is told as something which really happened.

Even though giving the beggar the whole cloak would have left Martin naked himself, wouldn't that have been even more noble than just giving half?

On St. Martin's Day, 11/11/2007, Pope Benedict XVI spoke before the Angelus of St. Martin:

  May St. Martin help us to understand that only by means of a common commitment to sharing is it possible to respond to the great challenge of our times: to build a world of peace and justice where each person can live with dignity

The Pope referred to sharing and dignity. Martin and the beggar both needed clothing. They had one cloak between them, so Martin decided they would share it. He treated the beggar as an equal, so each had half a cloak. How would the beggar have felt if he had been given the whole cloak, and seen Martin reduce himself to the beggars former position?  He would have felt embarrassed and undignified, a mere object of Martin's largesse. In sharing  there is dignity and equality. Martin did not say he didn't care about himself, he showed that he cared about the beggar just as much as himself.

St. Martin did many things, but the incident with the cloak is by far the best known. It is a frequent subject in art, and as KorvinStarmast says, El Greco did a very famous painting of it.  In the Orthodox Church Martin is known as Martin the Merciful. His feast day is November 11th, and this day was traditionally marked across Europe in Protestant and Catholic countries alike. He is (I think) the only human saint whose day has a specific name in English: Martinmas.    It's position in the year was partly responsible as it marked the end of the harvest, New  wine was ready then, and indeed Martin is a patron saint of alcoholics.

In Germany the carnival traditionally began at 11.11 am on this day. Martin had been a reluctant soldier and the  Armistice, bringing to an end the fighting in the Great War, took place on his day in 1918.


Are Catholics free to disagree about whether it is prudential to not forbid abortion by law? Question: Are Catholics free to disagree about whether it is prudential to not forbid abortion by law?

Namely, can a Catholic ever take a position, that abortion should remain legal for any reason (for example forbidding abortion by law would not stop as many abortions as some other strategy would in which abortion remains legal)?

Or maybe, can a Catholic take a stance that it is not prudent to make abortion illegal at this moment, but that we should continuously strive for that, and after definite time make it illegal?

I believe the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has anticipated your question to help Catholics to think about public policies and to vote accordingly within the United States political system.  I can see how other current Western democracy-like political systems like those of Canada, Britain, and most European countries are covered by the principles espoused by this 2015 document called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.  The 42-page PDF version can be downloaded here.

Some quotes [bold is mine, to highlight portions relevant to this question]

[From "Introduction"]

  In this statement, we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom
  to vote. Our purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God’s truth.
  We recognize that the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in
  light of a properly formed conscience, and that participation goes well beyond casting a vote in a
  particular election.

[From "How Does the Church Help the Catholic Faithful to Speak About Political and Social Questons?  - Making Moral Choices"]

  Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing
  legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times
  this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught
  that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely
  overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life,
  “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible
  (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps
  toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral
  requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until
  natural death
  Prudential judgment is also needed in applying moral principles to specific policy
  choices in areas such as armed conflict, housing, health care, immigration, and others. This does
  not mean that all choices are equally valid, or that our guidance and that of other Church leaders
  is just another political opinion or policy preference among many others. Rather, we urge
  Catholics to listen carefully to the Church’s teachers when we apply Catholic social teaching to
  specific proposals and situations. The judgments and recommendations that we make as bishops
  on such specific issues do not carry the same moral authority as statements of universal moral
  teachings. Nevertheless, the Church’s guidance on these matters is an essential resource for
  Catholics as they determine whether their own moral judgments are consistent with the Gospel
  and with Catholic teaching.
  Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important
  to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among
  moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an
  intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting
  workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its
  essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such
  cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter
  should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or
  inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
  There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position
  even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that
  candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly
  grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a
  fundamental moral evil.
  When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the
  conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not
  voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate
  deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other
  authentic human goods.
  In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed
  conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral
  obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our
  consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s
  commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a
  decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.


In the parable of the sower, what exegetical reasons are there to interpret the third type of soil to be genuine Christians? In the parable of the sower, four types of soil are mentioned.  It seems to be pretty commonly accepted that the first two types of soils represent unbelievers or "make believers".  The fourth type of soil is held to be true believers that are living fruitful lives.

The debate appears to come in when considering what the third type of soil is--the seed that fell among the thorns.  What exegetical reasons are there to accept that this type of soil does refer to genuine believers who are living apart from the abiding life to which we are called rather than a third type of unbeliever?

  Mark 4: 1-8 ESV

  1 Again he began to teach beside the sea. And a very large crowd gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat in it on the sea, and the whole crowd was beside the sea on the land.

  2 And he was teaching them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them:

  3 "Listen! A sower went out to sow.

  4 And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it.

  5 Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil.

  6 And when the sun rose, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away. **

  7 Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain**.

  8 And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold."

Mark 4:10-20 explains in a little more detail what 4:1-8 recorded. Jesus is explaining to the disciples the purpose of parables as a whole, and we see that he uses the Parable of the Sower again to describe the people that the disciples will encounter.

  18And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, 19but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.

Initially, the person is hearing the Word (v 18), but desires of the flesh and worldly things make their way in, causing that person to not produce fruit (v 19).