Does any Biblical basis exist for a year to be called a day? According to Peter 3:8, thousand years is like only one day for God:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Thus, God has the  broadest scope of history than anybody else; which also Isaiah alluded to:

“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (55:9)

Acknowledging that we come up short in comparison with the wiser spiritual entity we call God, I am asking: does any Biblical basis exist for a year to be called a day?

2 Peter 3:8 likens a day to a thousand years in the sight of God.  A similar expression is found in Psalm 90:4:

For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

Neither passage is saying a year is a thousand years, only that when viewed in the light of eternity, it could be likened to a thousand years, or even “a watch in the night” which is but a few hours.  The Jews divided the night into three watches (Judges 7:19; 1 Samuel 11:11) but the Romans had four night watches, each lasting three hours (Matthew 14:25).
There are other biblical examples that illustrate how time can be viewed.  “The day of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 5) is not a literal 24-hour day.  It is an unspecified period of time.
We are still in the seventh day after God finished his work of creation, His day of rest (Genesis 2:1-3).
Jesus, quoting from Isaiah 61:1, spoke of “the year of the Lord’s favour” (Luke 4:19).  That “year” is still with us.
God, as the creator of time, does not view time as mortal humans view time.  Our allocated “three score years and ten” are but a fleeting moment.  God stands above time, and He waits patiently for humans to repent and turn to Him (2 Peter 3:9).
There is, however, a danger in taking the expression “a day is like a thousand years” and applying it literally to biblical chronology.  Some denominations have used this as a means of measuring time in order to predict the tribulation period or the second coming of Christ Jesus.  No man knows the day or the hour when He will return to bring judgment on God’s enemies.  The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night (2 Peter 3:10) when people least expect it.
“A day is like a thousand years” is a figure of speech which makes a description more emphatic or vivid.  The expression simply brings home the fact that God, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, sees time through the eyes of eternity, and not through the eyes of human experience.


According to the Catholic magisterium, are sedevacantists by definition schismatics? This is both a terminology question and a Catholic doctrine question regarding the status of sedevacantists, that is, those who reject the current pope as illegitimate.  I found the following Catholic definition of "schism" in Canon §751:

  schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

This seems like it could plausibly applied to sedevacantists by the "official" Catholic Church, but I'm not sure that it actually is.  The penalty for schism is severe – excommunication, per canon §1364 – and I haven't heard of this being applied.

So my question is, according to the post-Vatican II magisterium of the Catholic Church – that is, the official teachings of the pope (Francis, Benedict XVI, etc.) and his bishops – are believers of sedevacantism necessarily in schism with the Church?  If not, why not?  And if only some are in schism, where is the dividing line?

Note that I'm focusing here on the magisterium – not the views of sedevacantists themselves, nor those of theologians who recognize the legitimacy of post-1970 popes.  Here I'm interested in the official teaching of the Catholic Church (as led by Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, etc.).

Bishop Ngô Đình Thục, a sedevacantist, was declared excommunicated, but not considered schismatic. (He did not die in the state of excommunication, though.)

On how excommunication does not necessarily imply schism, cf. p. 60 of An Open Letter to Bishop Clarence Kelly on the "Thuc Bishops" and the Errors in The Sacred and the Profane by Mario Derksen, M.A..


What is an overview of what the kinds of things the beast in Revelation represents? I've asked many people this question, but they all have different opinions. Some say that the beast is a disease or war or something along that line. Others tell me that the beast is an actual beast.

I am looking for answers among the broad spectrum of all denominations Christianity. I know there is no way of knowing, but I would just like to know the different beliefs about the kinds of things the beast might be.

This question refers to ALL of the beasts.

I would also like to know what types of denominations think that the end of times have already come.

Introduction

Wikipedia gives a pretty good summary of Revelation beasts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(Revelation)

It names the beast from the sea (ch 13), the scarlet beast (ch 17), the beast from the earth (13:11-18).

There is also the dragon identified as Satan (Ch 12, 16:13, 20:2). The beasts found in the seals and throne sections (ch 4,5,6, 7:11, 14:3, 15:7, 19:4) are a different Greek word, zoon as opposed to Therion. These beasts are like cherubims and Seraphim found in various books of the Bible (Eze Ch 1, ch 10, Isa ch 6). They bear resemblances to other middle-eastern composite beasts such as sphinxes, lamassu, and genii. The middle-eastern creatures are related to seasons and zodiacal signs. In Revelation, they are associated with the throne of God and the four horsemen (ch 6).

Interpretations

Wikipedia lists four modern interpretations of the later beasts (ch 13-19).

Preterism - Most often the first beast is Nero and the second is the imperial cult.

Historicism - Favored by the Reformers.  The beast and false prophet were most commonly identified with the papacy in its political and religious aspects.

Idealism -  The beast from the sea is interpreted as the state or any human kingdom that is in opposition to God. This would include the Roman Empire but would broadly apply to all empires. Scholars take their cue from the parallels between Revelation 13 and Daniel 7, noting that in Daniel 7:17 that the beasts are revealed as kingdoms.

Futurism - Futurism often interprets the beast from the sea to represent a revived Roman empire that will oppose Christians in the last days.

Relation to Daniel

As noted, these beasts are similar to the beasts found in Daniel where they are usually interpreted as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek Empire, and the Roman Empire. However, the church historian Eusebius gives us an alternate interpretation of Daniel.

  For it was quite consistent in the king, whose view of the spectacle of life was so false, and who admired the beauty of the mere sensible colours, so to speak, in the picture set up to view, to liken the life of all men to a great image; but (it became) the prophet to compare the great and mighty tumult of life to a mighty sea. And it was fitting that the king, who prized the substances deemed precious among men, gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, should liken to these substances the kingdoms that held the sovereignty at different times in the life of men; but that the prophet should describe these same kingdoms under the likeness of beasts, in accordance with the manner of their rule. And again, the king—who was puffed up, as it seems, in his own conceit, and plumed himself on the power of his ancestors—is shown the vicissitude to which affairs are subject, and the end destined for all the kingdoms of earth, with the view of teaching him to lay aside his pride in himself, and understand that there is nothing stable among men, but only that which is the appointed end of all things—the kingdom of God."
  Scholia on Daniel

In comparing the vision of chapter 2 to the vision in 7, Eusebius sees the differences as different views of how the king and prophet consider the lives of all men. This is perhaps similar to the way the Greek poet Hesiod describes his ages of man. Hesiod describes the five Ages of Man.

Golden Age - Men had a youthful appearance and eventually died peacefully.

Silver Age - They lived only a short time as grown adults, and spent that time in strife with one another.

Bronze Age – Men of the Bronze Age were hardened and tough, as war was their purpose and passion.

Heroic Age – The Heroic Age is the one age that does not correspond with any metal. It is also the only age that improves upon the age it follows.

Iron Age – During this age humans live an existence of toil and misery.

There seems to be a correspondence to the ages of man and the physical aging of a natural person, with the Heroic age representing intellectual wisdom while the body weakens, and eventually, dies.

Church Fathers

Another early Christian apocalypse is the Shepherd of Hermas, which seems to bring together the parables of Jesus with the symbolism of the Apocalypse. Hermas sees a tribulation beast with four colors that are reminiscent of the beasts in Revelation. Instead of multiple heads and horns, Hermas is told of commandments and similitudes.

Although Hermas doesn't mention 7 and 10, other church fathers associated these numbers with the spirit and the law.

  For if we determine on the number that should indicate the law, what else can it be but ten? For we have absolute certainty that the Decalogue of the law, that is, those ten well-known precepts, were first written by the finger of God on two tables of stone. (Deut. ix. 10.) But the law, when it is not aided by grace, maketh transgressors, and is only in the letter, on account of which the apostle specially declared, “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” (2 Cor. iii. 6.) Let the spirit then be added to the letter, lest the letter kill him whom the spirit maketh not alive, and let us work out the precepts of the law, not in our own strength, but by the grace of the Saviour. But when grace is added to the law, that is, the spirit to the letter, there is, in a kind of way, added to ten the number of seven. For this number, namely seven, is testified by the documents of holy writ given us for perusal, to signify the Holy Spirit. For example, sanctity or sanctification properly pertains to the Holy Spirit, whence, as the Father is a spirit, and the Son a spirit, because God is a spirit, so the Father is holy and the Son holy, yet the Spirit of both is called peculiarly by the name of the Holy Spirit. Where, then, was there the first distinct mention of sanctification in the law but on the seventh day? "
  NPNF1-07. St. Augustine: Lectures or Tracates on the Gospel according to St. John; Tractate CXXII, Chapter XX. 30-31, and XXI. 1-11.

Jerome:

  ...The number ten signifies the Decalogue, and one hundred shows the crown of virginity.
  For he who has preserved entire his resolution for virginity, and faithfully fulfilled the precepts of the Decalogue, and has overcome impure actions and impure thoughts among the chambers of the heart so that they do not rule him, this is truly a priest of Christ and entirely completes the millenary number, believed to rule with Christ, and rightly with Him the devil is bound...
  Jerome (ending to his version of Victorinus' commentary, which replaces Victorinus' material on chapters 20 and 21 of the Apocalypse)

Methodius:

  Therefore, taking to you a masculine and sober mind, oppose your armour to the swelling beast, and do not at all give way, nor be troubled because of his fury. For you will have immense glory if you overcome him, and take away the seven crowns which are upon him, on account of which we have to struggle and wrestle, according to our teacher Paul. For she who having first overcome the devil, and destroyed his seven heads, becomes possessed of the seven crowns of virtue, having gone through the seven great struggles of chastity. For incontinence and luxury is a head of the dragon; and whoever bruises this is wreathed with the crown of temperance. Cowardice and weakness is also a head; and he who treads upon this carries off the crown of martyrdom. Unbelief and folly, and other similar fruits of wickedness, is another head; and he who has overcome these and destroyed them carries off the honours connected with them, the power of the dragon being in many ways rooted up. Moreover, the ten horns and stings which he was said to have upon his heads are the ten opposites, O virgins, to the Decalogue, by which he was accustomed to gore and cast down the souls of many imagining and contriving things in opposition to the law, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” (Deut. vi. 5.) and to the other precepts which follow.
  Methodius, Symposium, Thekla, Chapter XIII.—The Seven Crowns of the Beast to Be Taken Away by Victorious Chastity; The Ten Crowns of the Dragon, the Vices Opposed to the Decalogue; The Opinion of Fate the Greatest Evil.

I call this the "Wisdom" interpretation of Revelation. The Greeks loved wisdom (1Co 1:22). After all, Revelation calls for wisdom to understand the beast (13:18, 17:9).

  2Pe 2:12  But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;


Why aren't the Apostles called the Church Fathers? If the traditional “Church Fathers' are from about 160-380 AD, why are they called the Church Fathers?
The Church was started by Jesus and ministered by the apostles from the very beginning - teaching, baptising and sorting out problems and misunderstandings which are written about throughout the NT.
Why aren't the Apostles called the Church Fathers?
Who decided which figures would be “Church Fathers”, ignoring the Apostles unquestioned esteem, experience and de facto appointment for that title and role?

Why aren't the Apostles called the Church Fathers?
The term Church Fathers was coined by unknown Christian authors to refer to ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers of the Patristic Era who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity.
The Church founded by Jesus Church is now some 2000 years. Churchmen have found it logical to divide this 2000 years in various ways in order to be able to understand various historical times of Church history.
For example, St. Augustine divided the world into six ages.

The Six Ages of the World Latin: (sex aetates mundi), also rarely Seven Ages of the World (Latin: septem aetates mundi), is a Christian historical periodization first written about by Augustine of Hippo circa AD 400.
It is based upon Christian religious events, from the creation of Adam to the events of Revelation. The six ages of history, with each age (Latin: aetas) lasting approximately 1,000 years, were widely believed and in use throughout the Middle Ages, and until the Enlightenment, the writing of history was mostly the filling out of all or some part of this outline.
The outline accounts for Seven Ages, just as there are seven days of the week, with the Seventh Age being eternal rest after the Final Judgement and End Times, just as the seventh day of the week is reserved for rest. It was normally called the Six Ages of the World because in Augustine's schema they were the ages of the world, of history, while the Seventh Age was not of this world but, as Bede later elaborated, ran parallel to the six ages of the world. Augustine's presentation deliberately counters chiliastic and millennial ideas that the Seventh Age, World to Come, would come after the sixth.
Six Ages
The Six Ages, as formulated by Augustine of Hippo, are defined in De catechizandis rudibus (On the catechizing of the uninstructed), Chapter 22:
The First Age "is from the beginning of the human race, that is, from Adam, who was the first man that was made, down to Noah, who constructed the ark at the time of the flood", i.e. the Antediluvian period.
The Second Age "extends from that period on to Abraham, who was called the father indeed of all nations".
The Third Age "extends from Abraham on to David the king".
The Fourth Age is "from David on to that captivity whereby the people of God passed over into Babylonia".
The Fifth Age is "from that transmigration down to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ"
The Sixth Age: "With His [Jesus Christ's] coming the sixth age has entered on its process."
The Ages reflect the seven days of creation, of which the last day is the rest of Sabbath, illustrating the human journey to find eternal rest with God, a common Christian belief.

In a similar manner ecclesiastical history is divided up into different ages.
Early Christianity is generally reckoned by church historians to begin with the ministry of Jesus (c. 27–30) and end with the First Council of Nicaea (325). It is typically divided into two periods: the Apostolic Age (c. 30–100, when the first apostles were still alive) and the Ante-Nicene Period (c. 100–325).

Apostolic Age
The Apostolic Age is named after the Apostles and their missionary activities. It holds special significance in Christian tradition as the age of the direct apostles of Jesus. A primary source for the Apostolic Age is the Acts of the Apostles, but its historical accuracy is questionable and its coverage is partial, focusing especially from Acts 15:36 onwards on the ministry of Paul, and ending around 62 AD with Paul preaching in Rome under house arrest.
The earliest followers of Jesus were apocalyptic Jewish Christians. The early Christian groups were strictly Jewish, such as the Ebionites and the early Christian community in Jerusalem, led by James, the brother of Jesus. According to Acts 9:1–2, they described themselves as "disciples of the Lord" and [followers] "of the Way", and according to Acts 11:26 a settled community of disciples at Antioch were the first to be called "Christians". Some of the early Christian communities attracted gentile God-fearers, who already visited Jewish synagogues. The inclusion of gentiles posed a problem, as they could not fully observe the Halakha. Saul of Tarsus, commonly known as Paul the Apostle, persecuted the early Jewish Christians, then converted and started his mission among the gentiles. The main concern of Paul's letters is the inclusion of gentiles into God's New Covenant, deeming faith in Christ sufficient for righteousness. Because of this inclusion of gentiles, early Christianity changed its character and gradually grew apart from Judaism and Jewish Christianity during the first two centuries of the Christian Era.

The ante-Nicene period was the period following the Apostolic Age down to the First Council of Nicaea in 325. It saw the period now known as the Apostolic Fathers which in time was followed by the traditional known age of the Church Fathers.

The Apostolic Fathers
Christian writers of the first and second centuries who are known, or are considered, to have had personal relations with some of the Apostles, or to have been so influenced by them that their writings may be held as echoes of genuine Apostolic teaching. Though restricted by some to those who were actually disciples of the Apostles, the term applies by extension to certain writers who were previously believed to have been such, and virtually embraces all the remains of primitive Christian literature antedating the great apologies of the second century, and forming the link of tradition that binds these latter writings to those of the New Testament.
The name was apparently unknown in Christian literature before the end of the seventeenth century. The term Apostolic, however, was commonly used to qualify Churches, persons, writings, etc. from the early second century, when St. Ignatius, in the exordium of his Epistle to the Trallians, saluted their Church "after the Apostolic manner." In 1672 Jean Baptiste Cotelier (Cotelerius) published his "SS. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt opera", which title was abbreviated to "Bibliotheca Patrum Apostolicorum" by L. J. Ittig in his edition (Leipzig, 1699) of the same writings. Since then the term has been universally used.

The Church Fathers were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. The historical period of the Patristic Era spans approximately the late 1st to mid 8th centuries.

Fathers of the Church
The word Father is used in the New Testament to mean a teacher of spiritual things, by whose means the soul of man is born again into the likeness of Christ: "For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the Gospel, I have begotten you. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 4:15, 16; cf. Galatians 4:19). The first teachers of Christianity seem to be collectively spoken of as "the Fathers" (2 Peter 3:4).
Thus St. Irenæus defines that a teacher is a father, and a disciple is a son (iv, 41,2), and so says Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.1.1). A bishop is emphatically a "father in Christ", both because it was he, in early times, who baptized all his flock, and because he is the chief teacher of his church. But he is also regarded by the early Fathers, such as Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian as the recipient of the tradition of his predecessors in the see, and consequently as the witness and representative of the faith of his Church before Catholicity and the world. Hence the expression "the Fathers" comes naturally to be applied to the holy bishops of a preceding age, whether of the last generation or further back, since they are the parents at whose knee the Church of today was taught her belief. It is also applicable in an eminent way to bishops sitting in council, "the Fathers of Nicaea", "the Fathers of Trent". Thus Fathers have learnt from Fathers, and in the last resort from the Apostles, who are sometimes called Fathers in this sense: "They are your Fathers", says St. Leo, of the Princes of the Apostles, speaking to the Romans; St. Hilary of Arles calls them sancti patres; Clement of Alexandria says that his teachers, from Greece, Ionia, Coele-Syria, Egypt, the Orient, Assyria, Palestine, respectively, had handed on to him the tradition of blessed teaching from Peter, and James, and John, and Paul, receiving it "as son from father".
It follows that, as our own Fathers are the predecessors who have taught us, so the Fathers of the whole Church are especially the earlier teachers, who instructed her in the teaching of the Apostles, during her infancy and first growth. It is difficult to define the first age of the Church, or the age of the Fathers. It is a common habit to stop the study of the early Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. "The Fathers" must undoubtedly include, in the West, St. Gregory the Great (d. 604), and in the East, St. John Damascene (d. about 754). It is frequently said that St. Bernard (d. 1153) was the last of the Fathers, and Migne's "Patrologia Latina" extends to Innocent III, halting only on the verge of the thirteenth century, while his "Patrologia Graeca" goes as far as the Council of Florence (1438-9). These limits are evidently too wide, It will be best to consider that the great merit of St. Bernard as a writer lies in his resemblance in style and matter to the greatest among the Fathers, in spite of the difference of period. St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) and the Venerable Bede (d. 735) are to be classed among the Fathers, but they may be said to have been born out of due time, as St. Theodore the Studite was in the East.
Classification of patristic writings
In order to get a good view of the patristic period, the Fathers may be divided in various ways. One favourite method is by periods; the Ante-Nicene Fathers till 325; the Great Fathers of the fourth century and half the fifth (325-451); and the later Fathers. A more obvious division is into Easterns and Westerns, and the Easterns will comprise writers in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic. A convenient division into smaller groups will be by periods, nationalities and character of writings; for in the East and West there were many races, and some of the ecclesiastical writers are apologists, some preachers, some historians, some commentators, and so forth.
A. After (1) the Apostolic Fathers come in the second century (2) the Greek apologists, followed by (3) the Western apologists somewhat later, (4) the Gnostic and Marcionite heretics with their apocryphal Scriptures, and (5) the Catholic replies to them.
B. The third century gives us (1) the Alexandrian writers of the catechetical school, (2) the writers of Asia Minor and (3) Palestine, and the first Western writers, (4) at Rome, Hippolytus (in Greek), and Novatian, (5) the great African writers, and a few others.
C. The fourth century opens with (1) the apologetic and the historical works of Eusebius of Caesarea, with whom we may class St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Epiphanius, (2) the Alexandrian writers Athanasius, Didymus, and others, (3) the Cappadocians, (4) the Antiochenes, (5) the Syriac writers. In the West we have (6) the opponents of Arianism, (7) the Italians, including Jerome, (8) the Africans, and (9) the Spanish and Gallic writers.
D. The fifth century gives us (1) the Nestorian controversy, (2) the Eutychian controversy, including the Western St. Leo; (3) the historians. In the West (4) the school of Lérins, (5) the letters of the popes.
E. The sixth century and the seventh give us less important names and they must be grouped in a more mechanical way.

Wikipedia explains the Church Fathers as follows:

The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. The historical period of the Patristic Era spans approximately the late 1st to mid 8th centuries, with a flourishing during the 4th and 5th centuries, when Christianity was in the process of establishing itself as the state church of the Roman Empire.
In traditional dogmatic theology, authors considered Church Fathers are treated as authoritative, and a somewhat restrictive definition is used. The academic field of patristics, the study of the Church Fathers, has extended the scope of the term, and there is no definitive list.
Great Fathers
In the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church traditions there are four Fathers each who are called the "Great Church Fathers". In the Catholic Church, they are collectively called the "Eight Doctors of the Church",
Western Church
Ambrose (A.D. 340–397)
Jerome (347–420)
Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
Pope Gregory I (540–604)
Eastern Church
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 or 298 – 373)
Gregory of Nazianzus (329 – c. 390)
Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 – 379)
John Chrysostom (347–407)
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, three of them (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom) are honored as the "Three Holy Hierarchs".
Apostolic Fathers
The Apostolic Fathers were Christian theologians who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, who are believed to have personally known some of the Twelve Apostles, or to have been significantly influenced by them. Their writings, though popular in Early Christianity, were ultimately not included in the canon of the New Testament once it reached its final form. Many of the writings derive from the same time period and geographical location as other works of early Christian literature that did come to be part of the New Testament, and some of the writings found among the Apostolic Fathers' seem to have been just as highly regarded as some of the writings that became the New Testament. The first three, Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, are considered the chief ones.
Patristics
The study of the Church Fathers is known as patristics.
Works of fathers in early Christianity, prior to Nicene Christianity, were translated into English in a 19th-century collection Ante-Nicene Fathers. Those of the First Council of Nicaea and continuing through the Second Council of Nicea (787) are collected in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.


Did Jesus definitely say he was a man? Did Jesus definitely say he was a man? From recall, He is said to be both God and man. Was it definitely not an invention of Christianity?

I'm asking because I'm not sure I believe He was omni-benevolent if He was a man. That is just because I am a man, and do not think I would want very many bad things that have happened in the world to happen, if I were omni-benevolent. I cannot, obviously, speak for God, or Him.

Jesus, as recorded by John, became flesh (John 1:14).  There could not be a plainer statement.  But John continues to regularly demonstrate Jesus’ humanity:

Attended social functions (John 2:1-11)
Became angry & passionate (John 2:12-25)
Nicodemus saw Him as a man (John 3:1-21)
Tired, hungry & thirsty (John 4:1-42)
Jesus referred to Himself as a man (John 8:40)
Jewish leaders definitely saw Jesus as a man (John 10:33)
Wept with human passion (John 11:1-57)
Prays for divine strength (John 17)
Feels pain and bleeds (John 18:12ff)
Pilate said, "Behold the Man" (John 19:5)
Called, “The Son of Man” (John 1:51, 3:13, 5:27, 6:27, 53, 62, 8:28, 9:35, 12:23, 34, 13:31)
Dies (John 19:17-42), etc, etc.

In fact, the doctrine of Jesus’ humanity is so important that anyone who denies it is called antichrist! 1 John 4:3, 2 John 7.


What is the Biblical basis for the idea that creation will applaud the damnation of a sinner? Paul Washer has often said this. For example:

  From heaven’s perspective, those who break God’s Law are vile and worthy of all loathing. They are a wretched lot, justly exposed to divine vengeance, and rightly devoted to eternal destruction. It is not an exaggeration to say that the last thing that the accursed sinner should and will hear when he takes his first step into hell is all of creation standing to its feet and applauding God because He has rid the earth of him. Such is the vileness of those who break God’s law, and such is the disdain of the holy towards the unholy. (Paul Washer, "The Cross of Christ," HeartCry Magazine)

Now, although this quote sounds logical, I can't find biblical support for it. The closest I can find is:

  And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
  Revelation 14:11

  And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia. And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
  Revelation 19:1-6

Neither verse directly supports Washer's quote.

Sometimes we may be quick to judge another brother, not knowing exactly what they mean, so I will not argue for or against this quote, but I will show a way that it is not true, and a way that it could be true.

In contrast, if it is implied that God, or the saints, rejoice in the destruction of sinners, that cannot be true.

  Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
  Ezekiel 18:23 (NIV)

In support, if it is merely implied that creation is nature and has been put into bondage by the sin of Adam and groans to have sinners and sin to be taken out of it, this is a personification of nature that seems to be supported by the Bible and may be true.

  For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope  that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
  Romans 8:20-22 (NIV)


Defending your honor against a superior who accuses you falsely Does the Bible say that an individual has an obligation to defend themselves in court (or in the court of public opinion) against an individual who you believe has some authority over you (like a wife who takes Corinthians literally, or a religious or military superior)?

Many of the saints have gone down in history for not defending themselves in big things, like St. Gerard, and in little things, like St. Therese. Moreover, Jesus says that you are blessed when accused falsely because of Him.  Are you still blessed when accused falsely and you offer up your hardship for Him?

I'd like answers from a Biblical perspective, but if there are examples from the lives of the saints or just Natural Law and common sense, I'd appreciate that too. But I'm not looking for personal pastoral advice, just help to find the information that I can use to help someone else think through things more clearly.

I know of no commandment in Scripture to not defend yourself when falsely accused.  The Apostle Paul used the privilege of his Roman citizenship to his benefit after he had been beaten, and by doing so incurred the apologies of the authorities.

  But when it was day, the magistrates sent the police, saying, "Let
  those men go." And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying,
  "The magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore come out now and
  go in peace." But Paul said to them, "They have beaten us publicly,
  uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into
  prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come
  themselves and take us out." The police reported these words to the
  magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were
  Roman citizens. So they came and apologized to them. And they took
  them out and asked them to leave the city.  Acts 16:35-39 ESV

In Acts 7, Stephen also gave a great defense of his own behavior prior to his being stoned.

Jesus is really the only One who needed to give no defense to be like a sheep before its shearers (Isaiah 53).

It should be distinguished that there is a difference from being falsely accused and being falsely accused for the name of Jesus.  The former can happen to anyone, while the second one is persecution.  So, just merely being falsely accused does not rise to the level of being blessed unless it is specifically because of our identity as Christians.

Peter points out another important distinction in his letter.  If we are punished for doing something wrong, the fact that we are Christians doesn't mean we are being persecuted.  Rather, we are just being punished as anyone would.

  For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you
  endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is
  a gracious thing in the sight of God.  1 Peter 2:19 ESV

So, there doesn't seem to be any explicit blessing for those who do not defend themselves under a false accusation.  The blessing is in being falsely accused because of one's identity as a Christian, and it only applies for false accusations--not justified ones.


What is the source of this quote from St. Augustine? In a sermon many years ago a priest (now dead) quoted a phrase from St Augustine :

  God was drawn down from heaven by the weight of his love.

I realise that this is a translation from Latin & translations vary, but Augustine's Latin corpus presents an enormous task to check. I have searched in translations of The City of God, the Confessions, the Enchiridion and other works but have never come across anything resembling this phrase. Does anyone know where it is to be, or might be, found ?

The problem with references to church fathers is that they get paraphrased from time to time. Sometimes you will just have to look in Augustine for similar terminology and see if you can find the concept alluded to.

That being said this seems the closest citation I've encountered to how you worded it, in Augustine's Marriage and Virginity from the Works of Saint Augustine (Vol. 9 Part 1):

  You will not be going to the one who did not dare to raise his eyes to heaven because of the burden of his sinfulness, but to the one who came down from heaven under the weight of his love

Or an alternate rendering:

  Thou shall not go unto him, who dared not by reason of the burden of unrighteousness to lift up his eyes to heaven, but unto Him, Who by the weight of charity came down from heaven

You may see the text here.

In general it seems that Augustine in several of his writings associates love with weight:

  For the specific gravity of bodies is, as it were, their love, whether
  they are carried downwards by their weight, or upwards by their
  levity. For the body is borne by its gravity, as the spirit by love,
  wherever it is borne.
  (City of God 11.28)

There is also a prolonged quote in his book Confessions book 13 chapter 9 where at one point he talks about being carried upward to God by such a weight:

  My weight is my love. By it I am carried wherever I am carried. By thy gift, we are enkindled and are carried upward. We burn inwardly and move forward. We ascend thy ladder which is in our heart, and we sing a canticle of degrees...

An attempt to explain this Augustinian concept of weight in simple terms may be found here. For a scholarly source perhaps see "‘Pondus meum amor meus’: The Weight-Metaphor in St. Augustine’s Early Philosophy" which I saw cited in footnotes in a few scholarly works that turned up from searches.

I hope this is what you were looking for.


Where did the idea of deacon's benches come from and what are they for? A friend of mine is a few months from ordination to the permanent deaconate, I thought it'd be a fun project for the my Timberwolf troop to make him a Deacon's Bench.  But is that something deacon's typically have or is the whole idea of a deacon's bench just a wide bench that a couple of deacons can sit on in the sanctuary of a church during Mass (or do deacons often have butts that wide?)? And hence, kind of a pointless things to give a deacon.

Also, is it a more properly called a deacons' bench?

Pintrest link
 for people who might want to look at some wide benches.

Where did the idea of deacon's benches come from and what are they for?

To start with the idea of a deacon’s bench is a somewhat modern terminology for a specific type of bench. In fact the first known usage of this phrase dates back to about 1922. Thus it cannot be claimed as a tradition in any stretch of the imagination, ecclesiastical or secular.

By definition a deacon’s bench is defined as follows:

  A kind of bench whose hinged seat is also the lid of an enclosed storage compartment. - Source

Thus an example of a properly defined deacon’s bench can be seen below.

Antique Deacon’s Bench

The terminology of a deacon’s bench in English is somewhat misleading to me. I have seen such types of ecclesiastical furniture in both traditional Catholic churches and in chapter houses of traditional Benedictine monks in France. The term alludes me as to what they actually called in French. In France these are basically ecclesiastical storage pieces of furniture and no one actually sits on them, as they are generally placed in a corner. I guess some clerics or atlas servers could in theory use them for sitting during some liturgical function.

These benches are in actuality not designed for the exclusive usage of deacon’s in the Catholic Church, but are for storing the books required for the service of the altar or chapter house. Just as deacons are ordained for the service of the altar and aiding the priest in celebrating the Divine Mysteries at the altar.

Deacon benches in the actual church would store the missal, the lectionary and the breviary. In monastic chapter houses, the deacon’s bench would contain the Martyrology, and the Rule of St. Benedict, as well as other books pertaining to the monastic customs and the declarations (and norms) of the particular Congregation in question.

In other words, the deacon’s bench contain all the books necessary for any and all liturgical functions in either the church, cathedral or chapter. It is of no consequence if their is actually an ordained deacon in residence or not.

The term now seems to mean a variety of different types of benches in English and are of no ecclesiastical usage whatsoever.

Addendum:

The French term for the style of bench is called a Banc-coffre d'église.

More information may be gleaned here.

A bishop’s chair (cathèdre) in French is quite similar but has actual seating space for the bishop only. The bishop’s chair actually serves two purposes: it seats the bishop and stores his personal liturgical books.

Cathèdre pontificale du palais des papes d'Avignon


"Hell's Best Kept Secret" from a Calvinist Perspective The Hell's Best Secret teaching is very popular, and is making an impact on Churches and Christians, crossing denominational borders, and having  an influence on Christian movies, television, and radio.

But, just because it's popular, and having an impact, does not mean that it's necessarily true, or even doctrinally supportable.  There are plenty of detractors, and those that simply don't agree with the premise, the teaching, or Ray Comfort himself.

I suspect that the teaching is not supportable from the perspective of Calvinism, because inherent in the teaching is the assumption that sinners have a choice in whether to come to Christ.  Otherwise, what would be the point in talking about an "incorrect motive" for drawing sinners to Christ?

However, not being a Calvinist myself, I'm not sure.  Sometimes my understanding is slightly (or way) off.  I'm curious as to whether or not my assumption is correct, and if so, if someone can provide a review of the teaching from a Calvinist perspective.  I'd be curious to see a high-level reaction along with an analysis of how the teaching agrees with, or conflicts with, each of the five points of Calvinism.

Note, this is not a "refute this" question.  I'm not going for "Is the teaching true?".  Likewise, I'm not looking for other criticisms, such as whether or not this teaches Lordship Salvation, or other critiques, unless if is relevant to the application of Calvinism.  Those would be separate questions.  I'm specifically looking for the application of a specific doctrinal view to a specific teaching.

To be honest, I'm more hoping to increase my understanding of Calvinism and applying it, than the truth or error of this teaching.

This sort of teaching actually doesn't conflict with Calvinism. Ray Comfort's emphasis on the law and the penalty of sin as an evangelistic tool is not new to him; it has been employed by Calvinists for centuries.  For example, Charles Spurgeon:

I say you have deprived the gospel of its ablest auxiliary when you have set aside the law. You have taken away from it the schoolmaster that is to bring men to Christ. No, it must stand, and stand in all its terrors, to drive men away from self-righteousness and constrain them to fly to Christ. They will never accept grace till they tremble before a just and holy law; therefore the law serves a most necessary and blessed purpose, and it must not be removed from its place.1

John MacArthur similarly teaches that teaching of the law must precede teaching grace:

Grace means nothing to a person who does not know he is sinful and that such sinfulness means he is separated from God and damned.  It is therefore pointless to preach grace until the impossible demands of the law and the reality of guilt before God are preached.2

The Parable of the Sower
This may seem counter-intuitive.  To Calvinists, who believe in Unconditional Election, why would it matter how the Gospel is preached to sinners?  Won't the elect be saved regardless?  George Whitefield sheds some light on this subject:

But you may as well expect a crop of corn on unploughed ground, as a crop of grace, until the soul is convinced of its being undone without a Saviour.  That is the reason we have so many mushroom converts, so many persons that are always happy! happy! happy! and never were miserable.  Why? Because their stony ground is not ploughed up; they have not got a conviction of the law; they are stony-ground hearers.3

Whitefield, of course, is referring to the Parable of the Sower, which describes four types of people: the unresponsive, the impulsive, the preoccupied, and the well-prepared.  A more extensive treatment of this passage from a Calvinist perspective is available, but for now, we notice that Whitefield is arguing that many of the "converts" he sees, because they never understood the law, are actually not Christians: the seed fell on rocky soil, and so it did not grow.
Other Calvinists draw similar lessons from this parable.  The people whose hearts are like rocky soil have emotions that are "superficial, not based on deep-seated convictions," according to Hendriksen.4  Calvin writes that "their hearts are not so properly and thoroughly subdued, as to have the softness necessary for their continued nourishment."5
Calvinism therefore has no objection to "plowing the soil" and preaching the law prior to preaching grace.  The condition of the sinner's heart when he expresses faith matters.
But what about election?
It's true that there is mystery in the doctrine of election.  But just because we don't fully understand how evangelism and election work together does not mean, to Calvinists, that it is acceptable to preach an incomplete Gospel or not preach at all.  Even accepting that our faulty methods will not keep anyone out of heaven, there are two very good reasons to preach the law to those with "rocky" hearts:

Some, being taught the law, would reject Christianity rather than be falsely converted.  This is preferable to having a false hope of salvation (cf. Revelation 3:15–17; Matthew 7:21–23).
Others, being taught the law, will have their hearts softened and will be truly converted.  Without the teaching of the law, God's plan might have been that they be converted later in life.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: given that we do not know who the elect are or when they will come to Christ, it is the evangelist's responsibility to preach the Gospel faithfully (Matthew 28:18–20).  Many Calvinists since the Reformation have regarded the teaching of the law as a critical component of such a faithful Gospel witness.
Summary
Ray Comfort's emphasis on the law, far from contradicting Calvinism, aligns nicely with it.  Faith in the certainty of God's election does not give the Calvinist an excuse to fail to faithfully preach the Gospel, and many Calvinists find the law to be an essential part of it.

References:

"The Perpetuity of the Law of God," May 21, 1882.  (Google Books)
Galatians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary, page 93.
"The Gospel, A Dying Saint's Triumph," in The Revived Puritan, 422.
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 561.
Calvin, Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Volume 2.

Note: All emphasis in quotes has been added


What action would Christian ethics guide this missionary to do? Please pardon my english if you find any incongruent usage of words, grammar. A first posting by a non-english speaker

I understand that hypothetical questions are usually missing all the relevant surrounding conditions, making them inappropriate to solicit answers.

Nonetheless, I would like to put a real world decision problem on the table hoping that Christian ethic theories would help choosing an action for the following question.

  A missionary who has a mission of enlightening arrives at a primitive tribe in a jungle. The tribe has a custom of offering one of its chief's wives to its visitor and declining it is considered a great shame to the chief and the offered one.

What action would Christian ethic theories recommend the missionary to do and why?

What lines of the bible or Christian ethical philosophies can help the missionary decide whether to accept the offer?

Firstly, the situation is not entirely hypothetical - these circumstances have occurred in reality before with varying outcomes and a more generalized case involving similar issues is something that is actually on the radar of missionary trainers and supporters (cf. this on-line article).

The Biblical issues that I see at play in a situation like this are:

Contextualisation - the Biblical models for this principal are the incarnation of Christ (cf. Philippians 2:1-11) and the missiological methodology of the Apostle Paul (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Close observation of this principle will encourage the missionary to adopt as much of the tribe's culture that can possibly be harmonized with the following two points.
The Biblical framework of marriage (cf. Matthew 19:3-12, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 3:2, 2 Corinthians 6:14-15) - In summary, it is good to be married (it is also good to be single, so each one should determine what is the best state for them), but marriage is for life and should be with only one 'equally yoked' partner.
Personal Conviction (cf. Romans 14:5,23) - A Christian is not an ethical automaton: principles are not legal requirements, and a missionary should only attempt enacting those principles which he can willingly and in faith embrace without reservation.

The relative importance of these principles and how they would play out in a real-world scenario would not only vary from denomination to denomination, but almost certainly from individual to individual - to attempt anything more perscriptive would be a pharisaical extreme.


When will believers of Christ get punished? I just found out about the Judgment seat of Christ.
And from what I'm understanding, this is not the place where God metes out punishment for God's children.
Well, when will that time come?

Can anyone provide information or answers?

I've google everything I possibly can,,  still haven't ran across the answer.. I know It must come after the Judgment seat of Christ.. But when?
Right after?

That's the whole point of Christianity: We don't get punished!

The most fundamental distinctive of Christianity is this (from 2 Corinthians 5:21):

  For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.

We believe that when Jesus was killed, he was killed for our sins:

  But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed.

Long story short - God already punished Christians - through Jesus.  That is the "Good News" of grace.


Do Catholics really believe in contemporary miracles? I know beatification requires a miracle. And, I keep reading statements like this,

  "On 19 December 2009, John Paul II was proclaimed venerable by his successor Pope Benedict XVI and was beatified on 1 May 2011 after the Congregation for the Causes of Saints attributed one miracle to him, the healing of a French nun from Parkinson's disease."

I don't mean to be denigrating to the adherents, but is there any research on what percentage of Catholics believe the pope actually healed a French nun from Parkinson's disease?

And, on Mother Theresa,

  "In 2002, the Vatican recognised as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, after the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor."

I suppose I can understand praying to a Saint, and even believing in miracles -- but, what percentage of Catholics believe in these very contemporary ones?

all quotes from Wikipedia articles.

From the wikipedia on Religion in the United States:

  A late 2009 online Harris poll of 2,303 U.S. adults (18 and older)[59]
  found that "82% of adult Americans believe in God", the same number as
  in two earlier polls in 2005 and 2007. Another 9% said they did not
  believe in God, and 9% said that they were not sure. It further
  concluded, "Large majorities also believe in miracles (76%), heaven
  (75%), that Jesus is God or the Son of God (73%), in angels (72%), the
  survival of the soul after death (71%), and in the resurrection of
  Jesus (70%). Less than half (45%) of adults believe in Darwin's theory
  of evolution but this is more than the 40% who believe in
  creationism..... Many people consider themselves Christians without
  necessarily believing in some of the key beliefs of Christianity.
  However, this is not true of born-again Christians. In addition to
  their religious beliefs, large minorities of adults, including many
  Christians, have "pagan" or pre-Christian beliefs such as a belief in
  ghosts, astrology, witches and reincarnation.... Because the sample is
  based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive
  panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated."

And from the actual poll, which was conducted at the end of 2009.

To = Total
Ca = Catholic
Pr = Protestant
Jw = Jewish
BA = Born-AgainChristian
                                                    To Ca Pr Jw BA
                                                    %  %  %  %  %
God                                                 82 94 92 79 97
=> Miracles <=                                   => 76 81 87 63 95 <=
Heaven                                              75 86 90 48 97
Jesus is God or the Son of God                      73 90 91  6 97
Angels                                              72 83 88 36 95
Survival of the soul after death                    71 82 85 37 91
The resurrection of Jesus Christ                    70 87 88  5 97
Hell                                                61 70 73 21 89
The Virgin birth (Jesus born of Mary)               61 74 79  5 92
The Devil                                           60 69 77  7 89
Darwin’s theory of evolution                        45 51 32 80 16
Ghosts                                              42 44 33 10 37
Creationism                                         40 37 56 20 68
UFOs                                                32 32 26 20 25
Astrology                                           26 26 20 19 21
Witches                                             23 22 23  8 27
Reincarnation – that you were once another person   20 19 13 18 14

So, the answer, if America is any representation of the whole, is 81% of Catholic [in America] believe in miracles.

Having not investigated the polling methods, I can't speak with any authority as to whether the numbers are accurate. Now can I say by what criteria the pollsters categorized people as Catholic and believing in miracles. My suspicion is that they were direct questions. And for what it's worth, most folks who I would say used to be Catholic would probably self-identify as Catholic.


How would miaphysites approach the question of monothelitism versus dyothelitism? I realize that monothelitism arose in the context of Chalcedonian dyophysitism, and that non-Chalcedonians have not been forced to deal with the distinction of monothelitism versus dyothelitism historically.

According to this answer the heresy of monothelitism according to the Catholic church may essentially be attributed to making our Lord Jesus only appear human, in effect similar to monophysitism.

I only recently started to learn about the history of the church, and lack formal education in the matter, but I wonder if dyothelitism does not risk becoming similar to Nestorianism. Simply put "two wills" sounds to me like it necessitates two separate persons. The Catholic church clearly disagrees, since they do not consider themselves Nestorian (note that this question is not about why the Catholic church disagrees).

On the other hand miaphysites have traditionally considered Chalcedonian dyophysitism as Nestorian heresy. According to this answer and what I have been able to find elswhere, the difference between dyophysitism and miaphysitism is however smaller than one may initially be led to believe, lying mainly in how the full humanity and full divinity of our Lord should be considered.

Would miaphysites consider dyothelitism an expression of Nestorian heresy in dyophysitism, when confronted with the question in theory? Since, to my knowledge, no corresponding issue has been raised within miaphysitism, I suppose there is an (oriental) orthodox view. It seems reasonable to me that since in Christ the divine and the man exist unseparably without blending, diluting, or diminishing; there should be one will that is an expression of this perfect union. Is this correct according to miaphysites?

Miaphysitism is very similar to the Hypostatic Union.

  Miaphysitism (sometimes called henophysitism) is the Christology of
  the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Miaphysitism holds that in the one
  person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one
  "nature" ("physis"), the two being united without separation,
  without confusion, and without alteration. (Source)

The term miaphysic is best understood as ''one united nature'' i.e. two natures united in Jesus Christ and thus, it is different from monophysitism (''one nature'' not two natures in Jesus Christ).

  Contrariwise, the Chalcedonians saw the Oriental Orthodox as tending
  towards Eutychian Monophysitism. However, the Oriental Orthodox
  persistently specified that they have never believed in the doctrines
  of Eutyches, that they have always affirmed that Christ's humanity is
  consubstantial with our own, and they thus prefer the term Miaphysite
  to be referred to as, a reference to Cyrillian Christology, which used
  the phrase "μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη", "mía phýsis toû
  theoû lógou sesarkōménē". The term miaphysic means one united
  nature as opposed to one singular nature (monophysites). Thus the
  Miaphysite position maintains that although the nature of Christ is
  from two, it may only be referred to as one in its incarnate state
  because the natures always act in unity.

  In recent times,leaders from the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental
  Orthodox churches have signed joint statements in an attempt to work
  towards reunification. Likewise the leaders of the Assyrian Church of
  the East, which venerates Nestorius and Theodore, have in recent times
  signed a joint agreement with leaders of the Roman Catholic Church
  acknowledging that their historical differences were over terminology rather than the actual intended meaning.(Source)

In my research, myaphisitism is indeed compatible with the dyothelitism of Chalcedon.

  The identity of the original human being was known by name. God named
  the first human beings , the male and female, with a singular name
  'Adam'. Scholars say that the name 'Adam' applied to Eve in Genesis
  5:2 was a designation of her equality with the male in human nature as
  stated in Genesis 2:23 where the male said that the female was the
  flesh of his flesh and the bones of his bones. In this case, God was
  treating human beings, male and female, as one.

  The union of the divine nature and human nature in a singularly named person called 'Jesus' was similar to the spirit being united with flesh
  which was called singularly as soul (cf. Genesis 2:7).

  Consciousness existed in the mind. In Jesus, the human mind and the
  divine mind were one i.e. in unity/united. This meant that in Him
  was united minds or one consciousness. This one consciousness  had two
  distinct divisions in which similar but not identical to the Perichoresis of the Trinity, the divine part had full access to the human part whilst the human part had varying access to the divine part -- from limited access
  during his ministry before the crucifixion to full access post-Easter.

  If the divine mind and human mind were two consciousness in Jesus, it
  would mean two separate persons (Nestorianism) which would be akin to
  Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) wherein there existed ''split
  identities'' (www.webmd.com) in which there was multiple names for
  each person existing in one body. This was not the case in Jesus
  Christ. (Jesus Christ: one person with two minds based on biblical
  Anthropology and the Perichoresis of the Trinity, R. Brown, 2020)


What is the basis for the idea that marriage requires a ceremony? Adam and Eve were never shown to have had a marriage ceremony, yet God commanded them to multiply.

What is the basis for the idea that God requires a ceremony to be performed for marriage, rather than being a spiritual commitment made by the husband and wife?

The basis for a marriage ceremony is the elevation that it grants the parties. In Paul's day, for example, only the elite could actually "marry" in the sense we have today.  Sarah Ruden writes:

But for the polytheistic ancients, marriage was not as straightforward a matter. Slaves could not be legally married as free people were, but many had long-term unions that got some recognition, and raised their children together. Freedmen on average must have had less formal setups than the freeborn, since many of these setups started in slavery. In Latin the same slang, “tent-mate” and “shacking up” (literally, “tenting together”), could apply. For aristocratic Romans, the nobility’s separate legal history, along with large dowries, and ceremonies no one else went through, set their marriages apart. Even the Latin words for marriage, husband, and wife are not completely the same across different levels of privilege: uxor, for example, for “wife,” applies mainly to the upper classes; conjunx, on the other hand, can mean a wife, fiancée, concubine, or even animal’s mate, so of course it applies all over the place.

She continues by saying that marriage, as you define it, was more of an agreement than a ceremony.  She writes:

What is more, the ordinary type of Roman marriage was legally defined by consent to be married, which made getting a divorce easy for either party: a husband or wife had only to make known the wish not to be married anymore; and divorce, it appears, was common during the empire. A stricter type of marriage was available, but it was unpopular. This, then, was the array of committed sexual unions allowed among the Greeks and Romans.

Against this basis, she argues that for Paul, it was an elevation of the status of the individual that marriage would be "held in high esteem by all"

In 1 Corinthians 7 (see my discussion of Christian marriage in chapter 4 ) Paul lays down the law for Christians and gives his rationales— partly because, I think, existing laws and customs were too loose, yet nobody in this world had thought much about them.
Ruden, Sarah (2010-02-10). Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time (Kindle Locations 355-367). The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.


Whether beatific vision gives us univocal knowledge of God? Here on this world, we can have only analogous (analogy of proper proportionality) knowledge of God. When someone attains the beatific vision, does he have univocal knowledge of God? If not, is knowledge attained in beatific vision analogous also? Please explain your answer.

Beatific Vision

is direct knowledge of God

The Beatific Vision is not analogical knowledge but immediate (i.e., "with no intermediary") knowledge; it's direct, intuitive, non-discursive knowledge.

Pope Benedict XII's 1334 edict Benedictus Deus "On the Beatific Vision of God" says the blessed

  see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence.

  vident divinam essentiam visione intuitiva et etiam faciali, nulla mediante creatura in ratione obiecti visi se habente, sed divina essentia immediate se nude, clare et aperte eis ostendente, quodque sic videntes eadem divina essentia perfruuntur

However, this does not mean it is exhaustive, all-comprehensive knowledge of God. Only the Persons of the Holy Trinity know themselves exhaustively/infinitely. See St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles III q. 55 "That the created intellect does not comprehend the divine substance".

requires light of glory (lumen gloriæ)

The Council of Vienne (Denz. 475) condemned the proposition:

  That any intellectual nature in its own self is naturally blessed, and that the soul does not need the light of glory raising it to see God and to enjoy Him beatifically.

  Quod quaelibet intellectualis natura in se ipsa naturaliter est beata, quodque anima non indiget lumine gloriae, ipsam elevante ad Deum videndum et eo beate fruendum.

Thus, we cannot attain the Beatific Vision with our own natural human reason.

In SCG III, St. Thomas shows that "human felicity does not consist in the knowledge of God gained through demonstration" (q. 39) and even that "Human felicity does not consist in the knowledge of God which is through faith" (q. 40)!

A good overview of all this is ch. 29, "The Sublimity of the Beatific Vision," of Life Everlasting by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. He mentions analogical knowledge in ¶2, § "This Vision Is Intuitive and Immediate":

  By its clarity this vision is distinguished from the obscure knowledge which we have of God, either by reason or by faith. By its intuitive and immediate character it is immeasurably superior to all knowledge that is discursive and analogical, which does not reach God except by using His effects as principle. This intuitive vision is higher than all abstraction, all reasoning, and all analogy. It is immediate intuition of the supreme reality of the living God. Hence it surpasses by far all vision, even the intellectual visions which the great mystics receive here on earth, because these visions remain within the order of faith and do not give intrinsic evidence of the Trinity. The beatific vision, on the contrary, does give this evidence, showing that God, if He were not triune, would not be God.


On what basis do Evangelical apologists argue that Muhammad committed sin? Muhammad claimed to be a Prophet of God, even God's last Prophet.  As such his life should have been godly.
There is not much of his life revealed in the Quran.  What is spoken of sometimes needs one of the reliable hadith to explain what is being talked about in the Quran. For Muhammad's life it is necessary to go to the hadith.  The most reliable hadith are gathered in the Kutub al-Sittah sometimes called the Sihah al-Sittah, which includes the Sahih Bukhari, the Sahih Muslim, the Sunan al-Sughra and the Sunan Abu Dawood.  The most reliable is considered to be the Sahih Bukhari (which is available online in English).
My question is "On what basis do Evangelical apologists argue that Muhammad committed sin?"

Question: On what basis do Evangelical apologists argue that Muhammad committed sin?
Romans 5:12 tells us that through Adam sin entered the world, and so death was passed on to all men because “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).  King David understood his sinful nature: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm51:5).  Christians acknowledge that we are all natural born sinners and the Bible confirms this: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).  That would include Muhammad.  The only sinless person was Christ Jesus: “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth” (1 Peter 2:22). That is the biblical and Christian understanding of sin – we ALL sin, and there is no exception.
The difference between the Christian understanding of sin and the Muslim understanding of sin is significant.  Christians believe that sinners have broken God’s law (1 John 3:4); sinners are slaves to sin (John 8:34); they face the judgment of God (Jude 1:14–15); they are on the road to death and destruction (Ezekiel 18:20; James 1:5). The ONLY solution to sin is to place our faith in what God, through Christ Jesus, has done – He laid down his life to pay the price of sin, then was raised from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of God.
Muslims do not believe this.  They deny that Jesus died and was resurrected.  They do not believe in original sin or that every person since Adam has inherited sin.

In Islam, a sin is any act of disobedience against the commands of Allah, which may entail punishment in the Hereafter.  In contrast, a good deed (if done sincerely and accepted by the Almighty Allah) will entail reward in the Hereafter.  The crucial piece is that sins vs. good deeds are weighed, and the human being is judged on the difference; that determines where you end up.  Sin is not a state of being (no "Original Sin").  Sin is an action that you commit.  Sins can be committed accidentally, although you are not held accountable for them in that case.  You can think of committing sins, but you are only held accountable for actions, not thoughts. https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/351/what-is-the-muslim-definition-of-sin

Muslims believe they can atone for their own sins by good works.  If they comply with the Five Pillars of Islam and perform more good deeds than bad deeds, then Allah may be merciful and they will not go to hell.  With regard to Muhammad, I posted a question on the Islam site and received this answer:

The theological Islamic position is that prophets can not commit sins.  What is attributed to e.g. Noah, Abraham, Moses عليه السلام etc. are not actual sins - rather excusable or lawful matters over which they repent out of their extreme piety and because of holding themselves more strictly accountable in view of their status and relationship with Allah.

47:19 does not mention a sin of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and if you look at its exegesis there are various explanations on whether it is addressed to the Prophet or an ummati, and in which of their possible meanings the words غفر (forgive) and ذنب (sin) are used.

Regarding the incidents over which the prophets repented: One is not necessarily attributed to all prophets, and Jesus عليه السلام is among those prophets regarding whom nothing of the sort is mentioned in the Quran. Although from hadith it may be construed that he is concerned over people committing shirk using him.

The following answer is in response to another question on the Islam site regarding Jesus/Isa being without sin.  This makes reference to the Hadiths (traditions):  https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/215/was-the-prophet-sinless/52867#52867
I hope this will help readers to understand the theological differences that separate the Christian view of sin, repentance, forgiveness and salvation from the Muslim view.   Muslims might believe that Muhammad never sinned, but their view of sin differs from the biblical view of sin.  Only Christ Jesus was without sin.  He died so that we might live:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21).

P.S. There is a religious movement that attempts to merge Islam and Christianity.  It is known as ‘Chrislam’:

While it is undeniable that there are many similarities between Christianity and Islam (and Judaism, for that matter), Chrislam ultimately fails because Christianity and Islam are diametrically opposed on the most important of issues – the identity of Jesus Christ. True Christianity declares Jesus to be God incarnate. For Christians, the deity of Christ is a non-negotiable, for without His deity, Jesus’ death on the cross would not have been sufficient to be the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2).

Islam adamantly rejects the deity of Christ. The Qur’an declares the idea that Jesus is God to be blasphemy (5:17). Belief in the deity of Christ is considered shirk (“polytheism”) to Muslims. Further, Islam denies the death of Christ on the cross (4:157–158). The most crucial doctrine of the Christian faith is rejected in Islam.  Source:  https://www.gotquestions.org/Chrislam.html


Does intercession of the saints presuppose that saints are omniscient? If we ask a saint to intercede for us, are we not presupposing that the saint is omniscient enough to read our thoughts and to hear our prayers? Doesn't the act of prayer to a saint then contain an implicit confession that the saint is omniscient?

See St. Thomas Aquinas answer to the question "Whether separated souls know that takes place on earth?" (Summa Theologica I q. 89 a. 8), who writes that St. Gregory the Great's opinion "seems to be the more probable one", namely

  that the souls of the blessed who see God do know all that passes here [on earth]. For they are equal to the angels, of whom Augustine says that they know what happens among those living on earth.

Viz., since the angels know what happens on earth, and the souls who behold the beatific vision are like angels, then it seems that those souls also know what happens on earth, which would include intercessory prayers.


Do the Catholic Church ex cathedra pronouncements about necessity of Catholicism to be saved still apply? I think the following was spoken Ex Cathedra:

  “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches
  that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only
  pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share
  in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was
  prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are
  joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this
  ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can
  profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone
  can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings,
  their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian
  soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one,
  even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved,
  unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic
  Church.” (Council of Florence--Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate
  Domino, 1441.)

So as far as 600 years ago, this was considered an infallible statement by Catholics, correct?

Here is another one from 700 years ago:

  “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one,
  holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and
  simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor
  remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim
  to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation
  are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam
  Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302)

Why then today do Catholics seem to change their mind about it?

There is indeed confusion about what Pope Francis meant about atheists.

This answer on Stack Exchange states that there are other ways outside of the sacraments and union with the Catholic Church to get to heaven.

To be fair, it does contradict paragraphs 1257-1261 of the Catholic Catechism.

So how does the Catholic Church regard these Ex Cathedra pronouncements which were clearly aimed at people trying to break away? Now that we have Protestantism, they seem to have mellowed a bit. But I would like to get a more in depth answer that explains

How Ex Cathedra statements seem to be disregarded
How Catholics actually squared these statements in the first place with the teachings in the Cathechism that seem to teach the exact opposite

When a Pope is Infallible
The First Vatican Council's Pastor Æternus said, under Pope Pius IX's authority, regarding papal infallibility:

…we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the
Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in
discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by
virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine
regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the
divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of
that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his
Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or
morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are
irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.

Thus, the following critera must hold for a pope's statement to be ex cathedra:
He must:

speak for the whole Church,
invoke all his authority,
intend to definitively define dogma, and
speak regarding the faith and/or morals.

Particular Examples
For example, Pope Eugene IV did meet all these criteria in Cantate Domino (1442):

speaks for the whole Church: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches…"
invokes all his authority: The document is an authoritative papal bull.
intend to definitively define dogma: In this case, he is not defining anything new; he's only relaying what has been said before him (like in Unam Sanctam of 1302) regarding the necessity of the Church for salvation.
speak regarding the faith and/or morals: Yes. In this case, he speaks of both.

A similar analysis can be made for Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam (1302):

speaks for the whole Church: Bulls are addressed to the whole Church.
invokes all his authority: The document is an authoritative papal bull.
intend to definitively define dogma: "…we declare, we proclaim, we define…"
speak regarding the faith and/or morals: Yes. He speaks about what is necessary for salvation, which pertains to the faith.

Francis's statements do not meet these criteria.

speaks for the whole Church: This is unclear. Was he giving the homily only for those present in the Wednesday audience, or the whole Church? Certainly, modern media is able to make everything coming out of a pope's mouth sound like he's speaking for the whole Church.
invokes all his authority: Francis nowhere uses solemn language like, for example, Pope Pius XII used to declare the dogma of the Assumption of Mary into heaven in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950):

For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication
again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of
Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special
affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal
King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase
of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and
exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus
Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own
authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely
revealed dogma:
that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul
into heavenly glory.
3. intend to definitively define dogma: Homilies have never been used to define dogma, nor did he express his intent to define dogma.
4. speak regarding the faith and/or morals: Yes, he was speaking about redemption.

Also, John Paul II's Catechism of the Catholic Church is fallible because it contradicts previous Church teaching on some points. See this for an in-depth analysis.

Whether a Pope Making Erroneous or Heretical Statements is Compatible with the Church's Sanctity
The 4 marks of the Church are:

unity
sanctity
Catholic (universality)
apostolic

The first mark, unity, does not just mean a unity of the members of the Church today. It means there must be a continuity in the Church's teachings and dogma from the time Christ founded the Church until today.
The second mark of the Church, its sanctity, means the Church cannot teach error or lead one into error.
What about when a bishop does teach error or heresy? For example, Pope Honorius I is thought to have taught the monothelite heresy (that Christ only has one will) in a private letter (see this for the controversy), and St. Frances de Sales, in his The Catholic Controversy, considered the possibility that he was a formal heretic and, since heretics are outside the Church, thus also an anti-pope. It's worth quoting the beginning of The Catholic Controversy (pp. 305 f.), the chapter on "how ministers have violated their authority", which teaching influenced the First Vatican Council's definition on papal authority quoted above:

Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except
when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the
Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private
opinions, as did John XXII.; or be altogether a heretic as perhaps
Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso
facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must
either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his
Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did : Let another take his
bishopric. [Acts 1] When he errs in his private opinion he must be
instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so
far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life
concerning his opinion, that he died whilst he was making the
examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith,
as his successor [Pope Benedict XII] declared in the Extravagantes
which begins Benedictus
Deus. But when
he is clothed with the pontifical garments, I mean when he teaches the
whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then
there is nothing but doctrine and truth. And in fact everything a king
says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king
and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or
of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law
for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form.

Also, the following passage from St. Vincent Lerins's The Commonitory is worth quoting in full, too; it gives the rules for how to deal with a bishop or priest teaching error or heresy: stick to tradition.

Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold
that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that
is truly and properly Catholic, as the very force and meaning of the
word shows, which comprehends everything almost universally. And we
shall observe this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.
We shall follow universality if we confess that one Faith to be true
which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if
we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is plain that
our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent if in antiquity itself
we eagerly follow the definitions and beliefs of all, or certainly
nearly all, priests and doctors alike.
What, then, will the Catholic Christian do if any part of the Church
has cut itself off from the communion of the Universal Faith? What
surely but prefer the soundness of the whole body to a pestilent and
corrupt member?
What if some novel contagion seek to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to
antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.
What if in antiquity itself error be detected on the part of two or
three men, or perhaps of a city, or even of a province? Then he will
look to it that he prefer the decrees of an ancient General Council,
if such there be, to the rashness and ignorance of a few.
But what if some error spring up concerning which nothing of this kind
is to be found? Then he must take pains to find out and compare the
opinions of the ancients, provided, of course, that such remained in
the communion and faith of the One Catholic Church, although they
lived in different times and places, conspicuous and approved
teachers; and whatever he shall find to have been held, written and
taught, not by one or two only, but by all equally and with one
consent, openly, frequently and persistently, that he must understand
is to be believed by himself also without the slightest hesitation.

The Sedevacantist vs. Sedeplenist Debate in the Church Today
Sedevacantists (from the Latin sede vacante = "vacant chair") are Catholics who believe currently there is no pope. They generally consider John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis all anti-popes. They argue that since these men have proclaimed error and heresy in an official manner, they, as St. Francis de Sales said, ipso facto fall out of the Church. (St. Robert Bellarmine, doctor of the Church and "Master of Controversies," says the same.) What is no longer part of the body of the Church cannot be its head; thus, they are not real popes.
Sedeplenists argue that they are true popes. Although they sometimes agree these pope claimants teach error and heresy, sedeplenists do not consider them formal heretics because they judge them as lacking pertinacity in proclaiming error and heresy or as being invincibly ignorant. They say only a future pope or council can depose someone who could be an anti-pope.
There is also the material pope thesis, which essentially says these pope claimants are more like kings than popes.

The Church's Theological Notes or Qualifications
Listed below are the so-called theological notes and their associated censures from the table in Sixtus Cartechini, S.J.'s 1951 work De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (On the Value of the Theological Notes), which confessors have used when dealing with erudite penitents. (It's also available in Italian translation.) The theological notes are a way of classifying the proximity of a theological proposition to revelation. (For a good history of the development of these notes, see The development of the theological censures after the Council of Trent: (1563-1709) by John Cahill, O.P.)
There is only room for "reasonable interpretative variation" in the lowest of the notes (#9 and #10). As Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis:

Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are
disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field;
but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to
discussion [e.g., the Immaculate Conception], no longer now admit of
discussion.

For the Immaculate Conception, the discussion ceased when Bl. Pope Pius IX defined it dogma in Ineffabilis Deus (1852).

Theological note: Dogma.
Equivalent terms: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et Catholica.
Explanation: A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.
Examples: The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy
Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.
Remarks: A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn definition of pope or council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed, to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its long-standing liturgical and practical use and commendation.
Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith
Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita
Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.
Remarks: It is a dogma that the Church's infallibility extends to truths in this sphere, so one who denies them denies implicitly a dogma or Divine faith.
Theological Note: Truth of Divine faith.
Equivalent term: De fide divina.
Explanation: A truth revealed by God but not certainly proposed as such by the Church.
Example: Christ claimed from the beginning of His public life to be the Messias.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in faith).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, but no loss of Church membership. May incur a canonical penalty.
Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
Theological Note: Theologically certain.
Equivalent term: Dogmatic fact; theological conclusion.
Explanation: A truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain.
Example: Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in theology).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin against faith.
Theological Note: Catholic doctrine.
Equivalent term: Catholic teaching.
Explanation: A truth authentically taught by the Ordinary Magisterium but not as revealed or intimately connected with revelation.
Example: Invalidity of Anglican Orders; validity of Baptism conferred by heretic or Jews.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
Remarks: The expression Catholic doctrine is sometimes applied to truths of a higher order also, but never of a lower one. In some cases the appropriate censure may be graver than "temerarious".
Theological Note: Certain.
Equivalent term: Common; theologically certain.
Explanation: A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.
Example: The true and strict causality of the sacraments.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Usually, mortal sin of temerity.
Remarks: Proportionately grave reason can sometimes justify an individual who has carefully studied the evidence in dissenting from such a proposition; since it is not completely impossible for all the theological schools to err on such a matter, although it would be highly unusual and contrary to an extremely weighty presumption.
Theological Note: Safe.
Explanation: Affirmed in doctrinal decrees of Roman Congregations.
Example: That Christ will not reign visibly on earth for a thousand years after Antichrist.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Unsafe/temerarious.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin of disobedience and perhaps imprudence.
Remarks: Exterior assent is absolutely required and interior assent is normally required, since, though not infallible, the Congregations possess true doctrinal authority and the protective guidance of the Holy Ghost.
Theological Note: Very common/commoner.
Explanation: The most solidly founded or best attested theological opinion on a disputed subject.
Example: Antichrist will be of the tribe of Dan.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: None.
Effects of denial: None.
Remarks: Very common or commoner opinions can be mistaken and there is no obligation to follow them though prudence inclines us to favour them as a general policy. It should be noted that an opinion which is "very common" is less well established than one which is "common" which implies moral unanimity of theological schools.
Theological Note: Probable.
Explanation: A theological opinion which is well founded either on the grounds of its intrinsic coherence or the extrinsic weight of authority favouring it.
Example: Judas received Holy Communion at the Last Supper. Judas did not receive Holy Communion at the Last Supper.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: None.
Effects of denial: None.
Remarks: The better founded of two conflicting opinions is referred to as more probable; but Catholics are free to prefer some other opinion for any good reason.


What did Jesus mean by saying "the works of God might be displayed" in the man born blind? John 9:1–3
As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples
asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was
born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or
his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."

The line

It was not that this man sinned, or his parents

corrects the incorrect premise of Jesus' disciples, but what is meant by

the works of God might be displayed in him?

Is it that since he's blind, people ought to be sympathetic and such sympathy is the work of God?

Commentators tend to take two views: that the works of God refer to 1) Jesus healing the man or 2) God's working throughout the man's life.  Your suggestion fits nicely into the second option.

Representatives of the first view include John Gill:

  That is, that Christ might have an opportunity of working a miracle in the cure of him (source)

Adam Clarke similarly focuses on the current event of the healing and salvation of the man:

  [The blindness] shall now become the instrument of salvation to his soul, edification to others, and glory to God. (source)

Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between several types of afflictions, two of which being to "encourage virtue" and "manifest the divine glory." He thus sees them as distinct, and sees this passage as an example of the latter, via the healing of the blind man. (source, §1302 ff.)

Representatives of the second view include Albert Barnes, calling attention to providence acting throughout his life:

  By the works of God, here, is evidently intended the miraculous power which God would put forth to heal the man, or rather, perhaps, the whole that happened to him in the course of divine providence first his blindness, as an act of his providence, and then his healing him, as an act of mercy and power. (source)

But John Calvin clearly points to the man's blindness in itself as being a way for God to teach others:

  He does not, say a single work, but uses the plural number, works; for, so long as he was blind, there was exhibited in him a proof of the severity of God, from which others might learn to fear and to humble themselves. It was afterwards followed by the benefit of his cure and deliverance, in which the astonishing goodness of God was strikingly displayed. (source)

Though he does not specifically mention your idea of it encouraging sympathy in others, that concept fits nicely with this understanding of God's work in the blind man.


What is the evidence that Thomas Aquinas was assassinated? Reading the Wikipedia article on Thomas Aquinas, I stumbled on something rather peculiar.  Apparently he fell ill and died at the age of 49 on his way to the Second Council of Lyon, where he had been summoned by the pope to participate in an effort to reunite the Western and Eastern churches.

Maybe I'm a bit jaded, but it seemed fishy to me that a preeminent scholar "just so happened" to die on his way to such an important event.  I was thus pleased to note that the great Dante had similar misgivings: he wrote in the Divine Comedy that:

  Charles came to Italy, and for amends / A victim made of Conradin, and then
  / Thrust Thomas back to heaven, for amends. (Purgatorio, 20.67–69)

"Charles" here is apparently Charles I of Naples.  Wikipedia cites a historian who disputes Dante's speculations, but I'm not giving up so easily.

What is the evidence, if any, that Aquinas was assassinated?

A recent biographer of St. Thomas, Jean-Pierre Torrell, says in Saint Thomas Aquinas. Volume I, The Person and His Work (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2005), p. 294:

  The rumor must have circulated rather widely; the chronicler Giovanni Villani and Dante Alighieri himself echo it. It seems that all the historians are in agreement today in discarding this rumor as without serious foundation.