Is there an authoritative resource that spells out the differences and similarities of most major denominations? Background

Out of pure curiosity, I wanted to know if, somewhere, there is an authoritative chart of core beliefs/tenets held in common, and opposing beliefs, of the largest (by professed believer count) Christian denominations. I am not sure if this is the best forum to ask this in.  If so let me know and preferably point me to a better forum.  However, this was the first forum that came to mind for me. My intention is that of fact finding and research.

Question

Is there a resource that accurately and succinctly describes the differences and similarities between the majority of Christian denominations?  Note: Unless it is significant, I am not asking about the granularity of different rites

I have two approaches in mind, really, because I don't know the intention of your question (i.e. finding the best denomination for yourself, or fact-finding for some kind of research project).

The only resource I can point at for a reliable baseline on teaching/doctrine is the Bible. "By this all will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves". This is how Jesus pointed out what identifies his true followers in John 13:35. That implies there are also un-true followers, warned against in Matthew 7:13-23. Unity in teaching and thinking is also referred to as important aspect of true discipleship (1 Corinthians 1:10, 1 Timothy 2:8, 2 Timothy 2:23,24). Because I learned to look at the Bible for answers, I'm not really involving myself in all the beliefs that vary in interpretation, because that might be a lifetime spent - or wasted. As far as I am concerned, there is only one biblical truth that takes personal time and effort (study) to find.

As far as my understanding of different denominations goes, the numbers I heard have varied to as much as thousands. On this page you find some list, but first glance already tells me it's somewhat outdated. It does, however, provide links to potentially useful resources, such as Wikipedia.

Significant to consider is the statement that more than 2 new denominations are formed each day. In addition to that, beliefs within professed denominations such as, say, Catholicism, can vary greatly. Then, is number of registrations a reliable figure in this case, if a large part does not even share the beliefs associated with the denomination? Relating to the previous approach, the question is asked wether or not all the denominations can actually be classed as Christian. According to the Bible as referred to above, they cannot.


What do protestants who believe our old bodies will be resurrected think that will look like? Some Protestants believe that in the "resurrection" we will receive new bodies.

Other Protestants believe that in the resurrection, our old bodies will literally rise up out of the ground for us to live in once more. The basis seems to be that Jesus rose from the dead and retained His crucifixion wounds, and then ate fish, as He normally would have before His death. Also, I am told that the word "resurrection" in Greek literally means "to rise up out of the grave." Then there are those who came out of the tombs immediately following the crucifixion. My question is for those Protestants that hold this view.

Basically, what I'm wondering is, what exactly do you believe is being "raised up," and in what condition?

Do 3-year-olds still appear to be 3 years old and 115-year-olds 115 years old?
Do we also retain our wounds? What about an amputee, or a toothless bald person?
What would happen to someone who was blown up in a bomb explosion, or cremated?

To clarify, I am not looking for answers that discredit this view. I am looking for an explanation from the perspective that rather than receiving new bodies, our old bodies are literally raised from the grave.

This long passage may be sufficient to answer the question.

  1 Corinthians 15:35-54 (NIV)

  But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of
  body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to
  life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that
  will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.
  But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed
  he gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: People have one
  kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
  There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but
  the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of
  the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor,
  the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in
  splendor.

  So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is
  sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in
  dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised
  in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

  If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it
  is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last
  Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but
  the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the
  dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly
  man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so
  also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the
  image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the
  heavenly man.

  I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot
  inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the
  imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep,
  but we will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye,
  at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be
  raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable
  must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with
  immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the
  imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is
  written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

Many protestant preachers say that our body will be reconstructed from the remains of our body from the grave or where ever it is. The one that was blown up in a bomb explosion will also be recollected and rebuild from ashes. But it will be transformed to a heavenly body. That is what exactly this passage is talking about. The heavenly body will not look the same like the old one. A person who was born without legs will have two perfect legs. A blind person will no longer be blind and the deaf person will hear too.

I heard from many protestant preachers that the reason why Jesus still has the scars on his body is to keep it as a remembrance that Jesus suffered and died for us. The scars were left there intentionally on purpose.


According to Catholicism, how did Clement of Rome become a Pope? We know Clement from the New Testament scripture, but Clement has not written anything about him being a Pope. I have never heard of any other early church fathers who says he was. How does the Catholic Church make this claim?

According to Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Catholic History, He was either the successor of Cletus (aka St. Antecletus) or according to to St. Jerome and Tertullian was the immediate successor of St. Peter (and was consecrated by him).

... as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter
Tertullian - Against Heresies, Chapter 32

Jerome says

Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says "With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life," the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle.
St. Jerome - On Illustrious Men

So there was a discrepancy even back then - it could have seemed to Greeks that he was the Bishop of Rome, when there were actually two between.
Origen thought he was the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philemon 4:3.
His most famous epistle, the letter to Corinth is from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth.  Might make sense for the Bishop of Rome to write a letter like that.  St. Paul didn't write letters from "The Church at X" to "The Church at Y".


How do married clergy (preachers) in Protestant denominations support their family? In Roman Catholicism the clergy is predominantly celibate and hence there is no pressure of sustaining a family.

What exactly is the system in a Protestant clergy? Are they employed in a gainful job, in addition to being involved in preaching? If so, how do they make time for God as well as for family? How do they sustain their family?

There's no singular answer to this question, and you'd likely see tons of different situations depending on the pastor and his church.

At my church, the pastor is full-time, and his salary is paid out of a portion of the tithes given to the church.  However, in some situations, pastors must find another job in order to pay the bills, typically because they're working in a smaller church where the tithes are not large enough to support him.  I've known pastors who are in this situation as well.  They'll work a factory job or something low-key and low-demand so that they can support themselves as they typically treat their clergy role as their "primary" job, even though it doesn't pay well enough to support a family.

Some protestant churches, however, are also set up in denominations, where the salary is paid by the denomination, and tithe money typically rolls into the denomination and not directly into the church.   It just depends on the situation.

Each church is different.

As for balancing time, again, just like any job, some have effective time management, and some don't.  My brother is a pastor, and he manages his time with his family by simply carving out time that is devoted to the family, and regularly blocking that time out so that he can properly perform his role as father and husband.  Other pastors may not have the same time management skills, and may indeed neglect their families to serve a "higher call".  This is an unfortunate fact that happens all too often (hence the stereotype of the "Pastor's Kid", who ends up being a wild child, largely due to his father's neglect).

Ultimately, the married clergyman would have the same approach to supporting his family as the unmarried clergyman would.  He would have to trust God to meet his needs, as well as the needs of his family if he has one.


Interpretation of Genesis 15 - 17 I am studying the Abrahamic covenant and I have two questions after reading Genesis 15-17.

1) In Genesis 15, God establishes the covenant with Abram.  It is an unconditional covenant and because of the fact that only God himself walked through the pieces of the carcass, the full burden of fulfilling the covenant rested on God, not on Abram.  Abram did not have to do anything to merit the benefits of the covenant, correct?  Why then does God in Genesis 17 require that Abram circumcise himself and all the members of his household in order to receive the benefits of the covenant?

2) If it is established the the promise of the covenant would be fulfilled through Isaac, why does Abraham circumcise Ishmael at the end of Genesis 17?  Wouldn't that signify that Ishmael was part of the covenant?

It is true, as you say, that God covenants with Abram (later called Abraham) and does not ask anything as part of the covenant making. However if you read verse 6, you will find that Abram had already "given" God something -- his trust.

Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty. (Gen 15:6 NET)

Most versions say the LORD "counted it to him as righteousness."

It is my understanding that whenever anyone believes in God and puts his or her complete trust in God's message, God responds with promises of eternal fellowship. God didn't need to ask Abram to do specific things or to respond to later requests; it was already in Abram's heart to seek God's will as mentor and ruler. When Abram later did what God asked him to, it was not with any thought of getting a benefit for doing so; it was because he knew God asked for something that would be good for Abram in the long run and would enhance his relationship with God.

Ishmael was a member of Abram's household, and considered part of the covenant, although God told Abraham that the most important part would be fulfilled through his later son, Isaac. There was no guarantee that every descendant of Abraham would have numerous descendants, just that Abraham himself would. Abraham pleaded with God that Ishmael would also have blessings, and indeed Ishmael's descendants were numerous. Having an ancestor in the covenant was no guarantee of having the full benefit of the covenant. Each person had to choose whether he or she would also put full trust in God as Abraham had done.


Who has the power to annul marriages in the Catholic Church? Do Catholic priests with the faculty of performing marriage also get to perform annulments, or does that need referral to the bishop?

An annulment, strictly speaking, is not "performed", and this is a very common misuse of terminology. There is not a marriage that is made null, but a judgment is issued that the relationship in question was never a marriage. This judgment is typically called "a writ of nullity".

There is a quite complicated procedure to go through to obtain a writ of nullity for a marriage. This procedure is dealt with primarily in canons 1671–1707 of the Code of Canon Law. In 2015, Pope Francis, who as pope is the Supreme Legislator of the Church, issued a letter titled "Mitis Iudex" ("The Gentle Judge") updating some of these canons in an effort to make it easier to obtain a decree of nullity, particularly when the nullity of the relationship is obvious or where the load of cases is heavy. What it amounts to is this:

In keeping with Vatican II's emphasis on the bishop as the primary shepherd of the diocese, the bishop is recognized as the primary judge of such cases. (Canon 1673 section 1, as amended by "Mitis Iudex")
He may exercise his power either on his own, or through a panel of judges (Canon 1673 section 3)
If both spouses agree that the relationship is not a valid marriage, and there are circumstances which make this obvious, the bishop has power to execute a briefer annulment process and make the declaration on his own (Canons 1683–87)
Otherwise, the case is referred to a tribunal of three judges, led by a member of the clergy (Canon 1673 section 3). This tribunal is constituted by the judicial vicar, a legal official appointed by the bishop. This tribunal will be the agency that hands down a writ of nullity.
Before this letter was issued, a judgment by a tribunal that the relationship was not a marriage would be automatically appealed to a second tribunal. This made the process significantly longer, without necessarily changing the final judgment. An appeal from the first tribunal's decision can still be made, but is no longer made automatically. The appeal will be made to the metropolitan archbishop, unless the decision was made by the tribunal of the metropolitan archdiocese, in which case the appeal will be to the Roman Rota. In theory, of course, a final appeal could be made to the Pope.

All canon law citations refer to the updated canon law found in the body of "Mitis Iudex". Similar updates were made to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches by a letter issued at the same time as "Mitis Iudex" and titled "Mitis et misericors Iesus".


What is the biblical basis for the belief that God likes or feels affection toward us? To some people, and even to Christians at times, it seems difficult to believe that the all-powerful Creator of the Cosmos likes or feels affection for humans personally. This was the topic of a recent question addressed to the Catholic perspective. I would specifically like to ask: what is the biblical basis for the belief that God's love for people includes a genuine individual affection?

John 3:16:

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 8:16-17:

  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

There are also many, many instances of angelic messengers and servants of God being sent to serve, protect, and teach people, identified as individuals, and not just as groups or important leaders. See Genesis 31; 1 Kings 17; and Daniel 3 for a few.

Aside from the examples above, the New Testament is also replete with examples of God's love for us as His children. The recorded miracles performed by Jesus Christ were almost always done for individuals of apparently little or no great fame or reputation. The Messiah, sent to save all mankind, frequently spent His precious, limited time ministering to individuals.

Your question is specifically about the Bible, but I'd also like to add that the Book of Mormon has many plain, beautiful examples and explanations of the love of God. 2 Nephi 2-4, Enos 1, and Mosiah 27 contain a few of my favorites.


Did Jesus ascend to Heaven twice? While studying the book of John I came to:

  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17, KJV)

Jesus would not allow Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection until he had ascended to God the father, and in:

  Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27, KJV)

Because he tells Thomas to stick his hand into his side, does it indicate that he had already ascended to God the father in Heaven?

Then in Luke we have the account of him ascending into Heaven as he was blessing the disciples.

Are there any other passages which might help answer my question?

The Gospels, Matthew and Luke, are based off of the gospel of Mark and the gospel of John is based independently on its own source.

The Savior said He was not to be touched until He has ascended to God. Perhaps He was to present Himself Resurrected to His Father. As far as we can tell by His conversation with the disciples versus His conversation with Mary, this had occurred by the time he was with the disciples.

Also, I believe it is implied in Acts that the Savior visited people after that ascension after Mary saw him. So yes, he had ascended before the time they saw His final ascension in the first chapter of Acts.

Edit:

Places where the Savior shows up after resurrection (not comprehensive):

Matthew 28:9-10 (held him by the feet),
Matthew 28:16-20,
Mark 16:12 =? Luke 24:13-33,
Mark 16:14 =? Luke 24:36-49 =? John 20:26-29,
John 20:19-23,
John 21,

Acts 1:3
Acts 7:55
Acts 9:5
Acts 9:10
Acts 9:27
Acts 10:40
Acts 13:31
Acts 18:9
Acts 22:18
Acts 23:11
Acts 26:16

1 Cor. 15:6


Is the Number of The Beast 666 OR 616? The actual Number of The Beast is only mentioned in Revelation 13:18;  In the Greek manuscripts, the  number is rendered  as χξϛ  or "six hundred and sixty-six".

In 2005 Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum revealed the discovery of the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 which gave The Beast's number as 616 χιϛ.

What is the more common belief between the two? What are some examples of Churches that belief in 666 and some in 616? Are there other interpretations this question does not consider?

The Scripture actually reads:

  Revelation 13:18 KJV  Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.

This in turn refers back to:

  Revelation 13:1 NKJV  Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name.

George Moorish in his Bible dictionary says:

  Besides the ordinary use of this word — such as distinguishing all animals from man, Exodus 9:10; Psalms 36:6; and as specifying quadrupeds from fowls and creeping things, Genesis 8:19 — the word is used symbolically for:

b. Great worldly powers, cheyva, qhrion, having different characters according to the symbolic creature specified, but signifying in each case the absence of all moral connection with God: used by Daniel for the four great kingdoms, Daniel 7:3-23; and in Revelation 13:1 to Revelation 20:10 for the revived Roman empire and for the Antichrist.

Taking a look back at Daniel chapter 7 we find a description of his vision of a similar beast:

  Daniel 7:7 NKJV  "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.

Taken together many have concluded that This refers to a resurgent Roman Empire, and that Revelation 13:18 refers to the succession of rulers.

Others have concluded it refers to the Roman Catholic church and the Papacy.

Even others have taken:

  Daniel 7:4 NKJV  The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings. I watched till its wings were plucked off; and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man's heart was given to it.

To mean that it is a completely new World order which will rise up out of the sea of humanity.

So in answer to your question the number itself, which is the number of his name, and not the number of the beast is no consequence until we know what that name is. The name itself is unknown as far as Scripture is concerned, The book of the Revelation is purposely vague in that it is a revelation of the future; and some if not most of the book is yet to be revealed, and the reason for giving it to the Apostle John may well have been to warn us that we should be ever vigilant.

The fact that there are contradictory references as to what that number actually is; is further evidence God is more interested in our being constantly vigilant that what the details of the Scripture are.

If we look at the opening of chapter 13 verse 18 we find that it says let he who has understanding do the calculation, and who fits that requirement?


Is there a group of Christians that believes that Jesus was resurrected metaphorically rather than physically? Is there a group of Christians or confession that believes that Jesus was resurrected metaphorically rather than physically?

Sometimes I encountered with opinions that Jesus was resurrected in the minds of Christians and that the Church is the everlasting and immortal Christ's body. I do not know whether such beliefs actually endorsed by the Church though.

Are there any Christian beliefs about the resurrection that would parallel these cases among non-Christian beliefs?

The ancient pagan Proto-Indo-Europeans believed that true immortality is possible only by means of imperishable fame, so if there are poets who sing fame to you, you become immortal in a sense.
In more recent times the Communists often claimed that Lenin was eternally alive because he lived in their hearts (an idea which could be borrowed from a particular understanding of Christianity).

Update

From the former version of the answer by Caleb, this quote from Peter may indicate that he was one of the people who believed that the resurrection was spiritual as opposed to physical death:

  1 Peter 3:18 (ESV) 18  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the
  righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being
  put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit

The rule is "no", but like every rule there are exceptions. So "yes".

It should be stressed that such views are not mainstream, majority or orthodox in any way. However there are groups that claim to be Christian and hold to a metaphorical view of Christ's resurrection. Likewise, there are groups who claim to be Christian but don't even believe that Christ existed or believe that he wasn't the Christ (God incarnate) or all sorts of other claims. Again, these are not representative of Christian theology but they do exist in the sphere of people who claim to be Christian.

The most obvious early example would be the Gnostics. Wile Gnosticism pre-dated Christianity, it was syncratistic and embraced pieces of other belief systems. It was not uncommon for Gnostic groups after the first century to claim to be Christian while dening the physical resurrection1 and other core Christian beliefs.

  For the Gnostic any resurrection of the dead was excluded from the outset; the flesh or the substance is destined to perish. 'There is no resurrection of the flesh, but only of the soul', say the so-called Archonites, a late Gnostic group in Palestine. -- Kurt Rudolph2

In fact, most Christian creedal statements starting very early on specifically include a note about the resurrection specifically to counter Gnostic and other belief systems that denied this:

  [...] He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, [...] -- The Nicene Creed

In modern times, similar views enjoy wide circulation, esp on the internet among all sorts of backgrounds including those with more modern culture than historic knowledge, heterodox Christians, new-age movements, and even atheists. However popular, the view tends to be vague having no concrete name or identifiable following. The concept of a metaphorical resurrection and ongoing appreciation for a long dead good-moral-teacher* are rather assimilated into some other world view and the whole thing is stamped as "Christian" in the sense that it incorporates some terminology and history from Christianity without subscribing to its primary doctrines.

The most obvious exception to this modern trend is the Jehovah Witnesses -- a well established sect with organized concrete beliefs that include a metaphorical view of Christ's resurrection. Their belief about the atonement of Christ requires that he stay physically dead: otherwise the work he accomplished in death would be un-done. While orthodox Christian belief has Christ being physically raised from the dead by the power of the Spirit, JW belief says that he was raised as a Spirit while his body stayed in the grave.

One other major group that bears mentioning because they make their stand on Christ's resurrection being metaphorical would be Baha'i Faith. They do not pretend to be Christian but do co-opt quite a lot of terminology and claim to have the proper interpretation/context3 that makes sense out of some other Christian beliefs. If you want an article showing where they are coming from, try How to understand the inner (batin) and outer (zahir) meanings of the Resurrection of Christ in order to successfully prospect and teach Evangelical Christians and other Bible-believers the Baha'i Faith.

Once you finish with that chaff, go back to Scripture and have a look at some solid ground. Here is Peter's (eyewitness) testimony:

  Acts 2:29-32 (ESV)
  29  “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30  Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31  he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32  This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

Check out The Treatise on the Resurrection for an early source describing Gnostic beliefs on teh resurrection. It's confusing because he claims that resurrection is not an illusion but real, but you need to understand that in context with Gnostic belief that the physical world is just at illusion that we must escape to enter the real. The article draws a one to one parallel between Jesus resurrection and ours, this resurrection being an escape from the physical into a different reality.
Gnosis (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), p. 190.
http://bahai-library.com/uhj_resurrection_bible

* Gag


Context for Paul and Solomon's usage of "heap burning coals on his head." Romans 12:20 - "On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
Proverbs 25:22 - "In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you."

Do these two verses have the same contextual meaning or are Paul and the author of Proverbs saying different things?  And what might the meaning be given their context?

It seems that the issue here may be due to differing metaphorical purposes of burning coals.

Coals can be used to burn and harm, but they can also be used to resharpen and temper as in a forge.

From looking at the context of the verse from Paul, it would seem that his usage of the quote would have the latter purpose of to temper or reforge.  Earlier he says:

  Romans 12:9 - "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good"

I should think that doing good to one's enemies for the mere purpose of actually doing them harm later wouldn't be very "sincere."

The author of Proverb's contextual meaning on this verse seems to be more likely the former (harm) than the latter (tempering).  This is from his earlier verse:

  Proverbs 25:15 - "Through patience a ruler can be persuaded, and a gentle tongue can break a bone."

"Breaking bone" seems to have more in common with doing damage to one's enemies than bringing them into a state of righteousness.  In addition, the verse in Proverbs has the the part, "and the LORD will reward you." added on where Paul does not.  This statement of contrast with the burning coals again makes me think that he was meaning the coals would undermine or harm one's enemies.  Though, it is entirely possible that the two authors could have been saying the same thing.


What is achieved by baptism in Eastern Orthodoxy (compared with Catholicism) In Catholicism, a big part of baptism is the idea that it washes away original sin. As I understand things Eastern Orthodoxy denies original sin, so I'm wondering what the significance of baptism is for an Eastern Orthodox. I've read in passing that there is some idea called "ancestral sin" which is analogous to the Catholic concept of "original sin": Does baptism wash this sin away?

My understanding is that ancestral sin is different from original sin in that ancestral sin teaches we have received a physiology, psychology, and environment that is deeply damaged by sin and therefore bound by it at birth, through no fault of our own, and have a great inclination towards it; whereas the West and Reformed theology specifically likes to emphasize how guilty we are and how justly we deserve punishment, even for the sins we didn't commit. So the basic problem that the church is trying to solve is different in each place. In Orthodoxy the human is sick and in Catholic and Protestant teaching the human is guilty. In both teachings baptism gives us a remission of sins, but it is understood differently, because it is solving different problems.

This is probably the general explanation that you will hear from most any Orthodox apologist (the sick vs. guilty comparison), but that is not to say that each theology doesn't overlap. There are certainly teachings of guilt and healing in each tradition. However, I think you question betrays a common Western question about Orthodoxy: namely that if salvation isn't understood within a legal construct of guilt and payment then how can any of it make sense.

In other words, yes, baptism (and the mysteries/sacraments in general) wash away sin, but it is not the legal condemnation of God that is being done away with. We didn't need to fulfill, or have fulfilled for us, some part of God's law to satisfy any sort of justice. It is our own soul and body that is being transformed by the Holy Spirit to enable communion.


Does God intend to replace the fallen angels with humans? Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, says (@3:19ff. of this video) that humans were created to replace the fallen angels. Is this an official teaching of Catholic Church?

Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich also mentions this in her writings; however, they are private revelations.

My question here is related to this question, but from a Catholic perspective.

At 3:19ff. of the video you linked, it sounds like Fr. Ripperger is speaking of what St. Thomas Aquinas discusses in his Summa Theologica I q. 108 a. 8, "Whether men are taken up into the angelic orders?" Here's part of that article:

On the contrary, The Lord says of the saints that, "they will be as the angels of God" (Mt. 22:30).
I answer that, As above explained (a. 4 & 7), the orders of the angels are distinguished according to the conditions of nature and according to the gifts of grace. Considered only as regards the grade of nature, men can in no way be assumed into the angelic orders; for the natural distinction will always remain. In view of this distinction, some asserted that men can in no way be transferred to an equality with the angels; but this is erroneous, contradicting as it does the promise of Christ saying that the children of the resurrection will be equal to the angels in heaven (Lk. 20:36). For whatever belongs to nature is the material part of an order; whilst that which perfects is from grace which depends on the liberality of God, and not on the order of nature. Therefore by the gift of grace men can merit glory in such a degree as to be equal to the angels, in each of the angelic grades; and this implies that men are taken up into the orders of the angels. Some, however, say that not all who are saved are assumed into the angelic orders, but only virgins or the perfect; and that the other will constitute their own order, as it were, corresponding to the whole society of the angels. But this is against what Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xii, 9), that "there will not be two societies of men and angels, but only one; because the beatitude of all is to cleave to God alone."


What is the Catholic understanding of 'age' in Scripture and in its Tradition? New Testament scriptural passages with 'age':

  Matthew 12:31-33
  (RSVCE)
  31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,
  but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And
  whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but
  whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in
  this age or in the age to come.

  Mark 10:29-31
  (RSVCE)
  29 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left
  house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands,
  for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold
  now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and
  children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come
  eternal life. 31 But many that are first will be last, and the last
  first.”

  Similarly, Luke 18:29-31
  (RSVCE).

  1 Corinthians 10:10-12
  (RSVCE)
  10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the
  Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they
  were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages
  has come. 12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take
  heed lest he fall.

  Ephesians 1:20-22
  (RSVCE)
  20 which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead
  and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far
  above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every
  name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is
  to come; 22 and he has put all things under his feet and has made
  him the head over all things for the church,

  Hebrews 6:4-6
  (RSVCE)
  4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have
  once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have
  become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of
  the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then
  commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own
  account and hold him up to contempt.

In the Nicene Creed recited at Mass in the US there is born of the Father before all ages vs. eternally begotten of the Father cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church - Credo Chart. Does this mean that there was eternity, the Beginning, and then there is a succession of ages?

In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, a line in Eucharistic Prayer III is now you never cease to gather a people to yourself while previously it was from age to age you gather a people to yourself perhaps suggesting that the latter conveyed a meaning that it wasn't meant to convey.

And finally, here is a mention of age by Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser in this context:

  He also wrote a remarkable work on the last book of the New Testament,
  the Revelation or the Apocalypse, which today is still held in high
  regard by Roman Catholics. He interpreted the book of the Apocalypse
  as follows: The seven stars and the seven candlesticks seen by St John
  signify seven periods of the history of the Church, from its foundation to its consummation at the final judgment. To these periods
  correspond the seven churches of Asia Minor, the seven days of the
  Mosaic record of creation, the seven ages before Christ, and the
  seven gifts of the Holy Ghost. Since, he claimed, all life is
  developed in seven stages, so God has fixed seven periods for
  regeneration.

Lactantius

"Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. . . . Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day [Ps. 90:4]’" (Divine Institutes 7:14 [A.D. 307]).

What is the Catholic understanding of 'age' in Scripture and in its Tradition?

The word "saeculum" is the Latin word used for "age" in many Catholic writings, and in the Scripture passages that you mention in your question. This word is defined as "a generation; the spirit of the age , the times; a hundred years, a century, an age" by  this Latin dictionary.

According to etymonline.com (and others), the English word "secular" derives from the Latin word "saeculum" by an interesting path. "Saecularis" is a Latin adjective that means "pretaining to an age." This contrast was used by medieval writers to refer to the present age, or to the general doings of the world, and from this distinction arises the modern sense of "secular" meaning "non-religious." (Also, the "secular priesthood," is the body priests who live in the world, as opposed to in monasteries, that is, to diocesan rather than order priests.) The sense of "age" (= "saeculum") referring to the present world, or the present created order (that is, the world before the Last Day), is contrasted with the "age to come" (Latin "venturum saeculum") as in the Latin Nicene creed, "vitam venturi saeculi," which means, "the life of the world to come" or "life of the age to come."

The quotation from Matthew 12 and from Mark 10 use "age" in this sense, to contrast the present order of creation with that which will exist after Christ comes again.

The quotation from 1 Corinthians shows us a slightly different sense. In ancient culture, there was a sense of repetition or succession of ages ("saecula", plural). Paul is alluding to the fact that the ages will no longer succeed one after another, but rather once Christ has returned all things will be completed, and the transient succession of "saecula" will end. (In some cases, a "saeculum" is the duration of a particular political arrangement, and in some cases it is a period of 100 years. The Romans celebrated "Ludi saeculares" roughly every 100 years, though Augustus Caesar caused them to be celebrated so that they might mark his inauguration of a new period of Roman government and show a continuation of an ancient tradition.)

The quotation from Ephesians shows that the name of Jesus is supreme, both in the current, transient created order and in the "age to come," that is, in the perfected order that will arise after Christ returns. This sense, the contrast of "now" against "after Second Coming," is the same sense as found in your quotations from the Evangelists.

As an aside, I would also note that although it is not reflected in the English translation, "Glory to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever, world without end," the use of "saeculum" occurs in the Latin version of this prayer, where we see "et in saecula saeculorum," literally, "into the ages of ages," rather than "world without end." A similar expression of "into the age of an age" or "into the ages of ages" is found in the doxology in many Psalms, and in the hymn of Daniel and his companions in the furnace.

Regarding the Nicene Creed, the phrase "born of the Father before all ages," (Latin: "ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula") indicates that Christ's existence precedes the existence of every successive period of creation, including this present age (Latin "hoc saeculum"). This is the same sense of "saecula" (plural) found in 1 Corinthians as discussed above.

In summary, there are two related senses of "age" in this tradition. "This age" or "the present age" (usually singular, Latin "hoc saeculum") contrasted with the "age to come," (Latin "saeculum venturum"), and meaning simply the current order of creation before Christ returns. The second sense, "ages," usually plural, refers to successive periods of creation, usually looking at times past before the author wrote, as when Paul speaks of the "end of the ages" meaning roughly "the cessation of the quasi-cyclical rise and fall of nations, passage of seasons, etc., and their replacement with whatever God has prepared in the age to come."

I don't know enough to comment on the numerical interpretation of Revelation. I hesitate to point to any literal correspondence between the Revelation of St. John and real world events, historical or predicted, but that is only my opinion, and is really a caution born of ignorance.

You may be right that the change from "from age to age" to "you never cease" is meant to avoid accidentally using this sense of age. Another goal of the recent translation was to follow the Latin more closely, and the Latin in this case reads simply "et populum tibi congregare non desinis" literally "you do not cease to gather a people for yourself."

I hope I've answered your question adequately. I answer from the perspective of what the word "age" in Latin means, and, as a Latin teacher, I am much more confident of the Latin than of any theological implications I may accidentally have made.


Biblical basis for Heaven *not* being a physical place? In Rev. 12 Satan is cast "down" out of heaven.
When the Lord blesses the bread which feeds 5000, He looks "up" into
heaven.
When Stephen is stoned, he also looks "up".
After resurrection, Jesus is physically lifted up into the clouds.

Yet, despite all these references, I don't think heaven can be a physical place (e.g. outerspace, or somewhere near Jupiter).

What is the biblical basis for heaven not being a physical place?

Jn 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world . . . this realm"

Heb 9:11,24 Heaven is not of this creation

1 Cor 15:5051,44 Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.


Are there any denominations that teach a Hell that is not a place? To be more specific (and also more broad), are there any major groups within Christianity that consider Hell not to be a specific place, but rather a specific state of being?

I expect the list to be short, so this shouldn't be a bad list question.

This seemingly simple question is going to require a relatively complex answer.

A good place to start is this Wikipedia article. As it shows, there is Christian disagreement on whether Hell is primarily a state, or primarily a place, and that disagreement is not necessarily along denominational lines. Even those that describe Hell as a place may consider that language symbolic: Pope John Paul II stated on 28 July 1999 that, in speaking of hell as a place, the Bible uses "a symbolic language", which "must be correctly interpreted … Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy.

Most Evangelical Protestants, asked to define Hell, would usually say "Hell is separation from God", rather than define it as a place where torture and pain occur: eternal separation from God is sufficiently painful that no other punishment is necessary, and the language of fire and brimstone is simply a picture of that pain (an atheist would of course contend that separation from God is no punishment at all). Billy Graham defines Hell in that way in his seminal evangelical book Peace with God.

Although the definition of Hell is separation, that does not necessarily imply that Hell is not also a place. For separation to be real there must be no interaction, and it is therefore implict that those separated from God (and others who have chosen to be with him) are in 'a different place' in some sense. However for mainstream Christians the 'being in a different place' is secondary.

There are significant numbers of Christians who would disagree with this view - even some that literally believe Hell is at the centre of the earth - but since they frequently do not divide along denominational lines, any attempt to produce the list the question asks for is doomed to failure.

A good introductory read (which should itself be taken as allegory rather than a theological treatise) is C.S. Lewis The Great Divorce. A simple Google search will also turn up all sorts of views on Hell and its nature.

You should also read the answers to this question.


Was the mode of execution for Jesus required to be crucifixion? Did Jesus need to die on a cross or were there alternative endings?  Would being stabbed with a sword or if he died during the beatings have been good enough?

Specifically, are there prophecies held by various denominations that require the Jesus' method of execution specifically to be crucifixion, or was it simply enough that Jesus die in some fashion?

No Direct Theological Significance

Theologically speaking, crucifixion had no theological significance in itself.  Jesus had to die for sins, and God, in His omniscience, foresaw the manner in which this would happen.  Then He inspired prophets to predict that kind of death centuries before it happened.

However, it did, perhaps, have some symbolism.

The Tree of Life

In the Garden of Eden, there were two trees--the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.  Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and sin entered into the world.

We don't know what happened to the tree of life, though.  Presumably, if they had eaten of it, they would have lived forever in their separation from God.

Four thousand years later, though, another tree is introduced--the Cross of Christ.  Jesus takes our curse by being "hung on a tree".  In essence, then, the Cross is the new Tree of Life.  Anyone who receives what hung on that tree receives life.

Interestingly enough, if you take fruit from a tree and remove the seeds, then you bury the seeds, then new life comes.  Jesus was taken down from Calvary's tree, buried, and then came forth with new life.

Conclusion

So, crucifixion was not theologically necessary per se.  However, it does fulfill prophecies that God gave us, knowing how Jesus would die.  It also seems to be symbolic.


What should be a Christian attitude to the Church of Satan? I've been recently watching documentary on LaVey Church of Satan and, I caught myself in a feeling that I actually envy a bit as those people were evidently having good and harmless fun and anyway had a good and understanding company.

What should be the right Christian attitude to The Church of Satan (I'm not talking of any other schools of satanism just of The Church of Satan). Should it be regarded as a crazy old-fashioned curiosity or should it be condemned?

Paul's sentiments towards the nation of Israel give us a good model.

  Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they
  may be saved. Romans 10:1 ESV

Our desire and prayer to God for the Church of Satan should be that they may be saved.  According to the Scriptures, they are living a lie, they are deceived, and they are blind to the reality.  People can certainly have "good times", but we were created to know God.

  In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
  unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
  glory of Christ, who is the image of God.  2 Corinthians 4:4 ESV

If we were temporal beings, then temporal pleasures would be our highest goal.  But we are not temporal beings.  Since we are beings with immortal souls, if all we ever experience are temporal pleasures, we should be pitied.  We were created to know God eternally and experience the eternal pleasures of that relationship.

  You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is
  fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.
  Psalm 16:11 ESV

Hell will be no party or place of pleasure.  That's part of the deceit.  So, we should have great compassion and concern for those in the Church of Satan, despite any perception that they have good times or harmless fun.


According to Biblical Unitarians, is it theoretically possible for God to incarnate as a human and live a holy and humble life? For Biblical Unitarians, and from a theoretical standpoint, can God make use of His omnipotence and free will to take on human form and teach us by way of example what it is to live a holy and humble life, from birth to death? According to Biblical Unitarians, is this something possible for God, or is it beyond His capabilities?

My guess is there is no single answer on this for all Biblical Unitarians, but given what I understand of Biblical Unitarianism, the answer is probably:
No. "God is Spirit." (John 4:24) 'Omnipotence' is a word with a classical theological development that isn't found in the Bible, although the word 'pantokrator' which means 'all-ruling' or 'all-mighty' is. God is the Creator (Genesis 1:1). As such, He could create a human who in turn could teach us by way of example what it is to live a holy and humble life - and that is exactly what He did.

"[The incarnation] appears to mean that the divine Maker became one of
His own creatures, which is a prima facie contradiction in
theological terms. [...] Such an assertion, considered abstractly
against the background of Old Testament monotheism, might seem
blasphemous or nonsensical— as indeed, orthodox Judaism has always
held it to be." Jesus Christ: Incarnated or Created?

and

"Jesus makes clear reference to two distinct categories in John 3:6
when he says that the “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit
gives birth to spirit.” Jesus clearly declared God to be “spirit”
(John 4:24). Note that he did not say, “I am spirit,” or “God is
flesh” or even “The Father is spirit.” By thus placing “God” in the
category of “spirit,” when he himself is clearly a man of flesh and
blood, Jesus effectively excluded any possibility that he was God. If
God, being spirit, can incarnate Himself as a man, then the clear
scriptural distinction between flesh and spirit disintegrates. But God
the Creator, who is spirit, can create flesh, as He did in Genesis 1."

Furthermore

Athanasius [a bishop of Alexandria who spearheaded what became the
orthodox Trinitarian position] says that God can do anything He
chooses to do, and that He chose to turn Himself into a man for the
sake of our salvation. Jesus Christ is not one of God’s creatures, he
insists, but God Himself, incarnated in human form. These sound like
clear statements, but, actually, they are hopelessly confused.
Can God do anything He chooses to do? Of course—except those things
that are inconsistent with being God. Can He choose to be evil or
ignorant? Could He be the Devil—or nothing at all?
Perfection cannot be improved upon or changed. He is not a pantheistic
“god” who dwells in everything. He is holy, meaning that He stands
apart from and above His creation, yet is intimately involved with it.
Therefore, God cannot alter His essential nature, which by definition
is perfect, and perfection cannot be improved upon. But even if He
could, in doing so He would, by definition, no longer be “God.”

To think God Himself could incarnate is to get caught up in a category error. It is like asking "Could God not be loving?" God is love (1 John 4:8). Or "Could God be unjust?" A core attribute of God is justice. 'Omnipotence' does not mean God can defy his own nature.


How do demotions work in the Catholic Church? All other controversial materials aside, as I read this article about Raymond Burke, I'm curious about this line, and this line only (emphasis mine):

  Burke, who was recently demoted from the Vatican’s highest court to a
  ceremonial philanthropic post, also pointed to the introduction of
  altar girls for why fewer men are joining the priesthood.

I'm just curious, how do such demotions work?  Are they unilateral decisions from the Pope?  Is there some other established methodology for determining status in the Church?

In this particular case the word demotion is misleading. Better word would be transfer.  It might be seen as a demotion for an outsider, but in reality it is not. He is still a Cardinal and a Bishop. You have to separate the Catholic Church's spiritual hierarchy from its functional hierarchy. Within functional hierarchy, heading the roman curia is to help the pope in his work. A cardinal has to do what the pope wants him to do. Every Cardinal vow obedience to the pope. They know that such a thing can happen.

Are they unilateral decisions from the Pope?

Theoretically it is an unilateral decisions of the Pope. But practically it is done by the pope after consulting other Cardinals and bishops.

Is there some other established methodology for determining status in the Church?

By status if you mean becoming a Priest, Bishop, Cardinal or a Pope, then yes, there is. This video gives you a rough outline of that procedure. Remember Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark on the soul, Hence once a priest always a priest (Even in Hell).


Sponsors of converts to Catholicism A conversion presumably severs the spiritual ties with one's baptismal godparents. I am reading about a convert from Russian Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism, who apparently converted around age 20 and was confirmed around age 50. The confirmation, his only surviving sacramental record, names a godfather that he could not possibly have met until he was an adult.

In a comment, curiousdannii reveals that the term of art is "sponsor" (thanks!). Do converts to Catholicism always have exactly one sponsor? Does sponsorship differ from godparenthood? When do they get the sponsor?

All Christians, and on occasion others, can baptize others if necessary according to Catholic tradition - see Code of Canon Law §861.2. Godparents are not needed for baptism if not available - see CCL 872. CCL 892 says: "As far as possible the person to be confirmed is to have a sponsor." It seems clear that the dispensability of sponsors extends to conversion, but I do not have a source for this yet. Nevertheless, if someone wants to become a Catholic and was baptized in a Christian manner I claim that a sponsor is recommended but the Bishop or his representative priest may dispense with the sponsor if necessary; the justification for this is that the person who wants to become catholic may be in danger, and a sponsor is not available. Orthodox Christians are confirmed right after baptism, and so Catholic bishops should in my opinion respect the orthodox confirmation and not impose another one; update: according to the following BBC-link which validates my statement on orthodox confirmation, the Catholic church does not "confirm converts from the orthodox churches": http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/ritesrituals/confirmation_1.shtml


Were humans created before the animals? (Catholic perspective) In Genesis 2:18-19, it is mentioned that God created man first and then the animals so the man can't be alone and he can name them.

  The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now the LORD God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

But in Genesis 1:25-26, it is mentioned that God created animals and THEN man.

  God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. THEN God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (emphasis added)

So according to the Catholic Church, were humans created before or after animals?

Read on to Genesis 2 : 20-23 and you will understand that Gen 2:18 is in fact setting the stage for narrating the creation of Eve, the perfect life-companion for Adam. The interlude of Adam's `screening' of the animals and birds to look for a companion , is only meant to reinforce the design of Creation meant for mankind.


What are some sources of March, 25th being the date of the creation of the world, or of the creation of Adam and Eve, or of their disobedience? As per title, I read -- in a very uninformed way -- of these traditions, among many others, in regards to March, 25th:

  A) it would be the date of the creation of the world

  B) it would be the date of the creation of Adam and Eve

  C) it would be the date of the original sin

"A" seems to me, that it conflates with the other ones. That prompted me to look more carefully into this. That's why I'm asking what did people use to say, possibly when and where, to get a better idea.

To get a better understanding of this, one must realize that in the Middle Ages people more willingly accepted tradition as being true. Pious traditions or legends were told from time immemorial were simply believed.

It seems that the number one source of your pious legends comes from the Golden Legend by Blessed Jacobus de Voragine (1230-1298).

  Blessed Jacobus de Varagine or Voragine (Italian: Giacomo da Varazze, Jacopo da Varazze; c. 1230 – July 13 or July 16, 1298) was an Italian chronicler and archbishop of Genoa. He was the author, or more accurately the compiler, of Legenda Aurea, the Golden Legend, a collection of the legendary lives of the greater saints of the medieval church that was one of the most popular religious works of the Middle Ages. - Wikipedia

March 25 according to the Golden Legend is rich in symbolism:

  According to this legend, the Creation of Adam, the Fall of Adam, the murder of Abel, Melchisedech's offering of bread and wine, Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac, the Annunciation to Mary and Conception of Christ, the decapitation of John the Baptist, the Crucifixion of Christ, James' killing and Peter's escape all occurred on March 25th. - Davidlol

Please feel free to peruse the entire Golden Legend when and if you have the time to do so from the Medieval Sourcebook: The Golden Legend (Aurea Legenda)
Compiled by Jacobus de Voragine, 1275 Englished by William Caxton, 1483.

Some “Historical” Dates in Medieval Liturgical Calendars from England may be of interest to you even though some of these dates are not the same, but are relatively close. For example, the Creation of Adam was on March 23.

  He also notes the dating of the creation to 25 March as well:

  The symbolism attached to the Julian date of the spring equinox was not limited to the Passion or Resurrection of Jesus. The Alexandrian monk Annianos, for instance, dated the creation of the world and the incarnation (or conception) of Christ on 25 March as well. The vernal equinox was associated with the creation as early as the third century, but opinions differed on the day of the week of the creation on which 25 March had to be placed: some preferred the first day (Sunday), when God separated light from darkness, others decided in favour of the fourth day (Wednesday), on which God created the so-called luminaries, i.e., the sun, the moon and the stars. ...

  The idea that Jesus was born (or conceived) and crucified on the same calendar day, and thus lived a perfect number of years, is first attested in the Easter table of Hippolytus of Rome (AD 222). - “Historical” Dates in Medieval Liturgical Calendars


Did Emanuel Swedenborg posit a hard distinction between the head and heart? I was reading the article Do Atheists Go to Heaven? by Swedenborgian minister and scholar Lee Woofenden, in which he says:

Psalm 14 and its variation in Psalm 53 start out:

Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God."

Not "in their heads," but "in their hearts." Saying in your head that there is no God, as your average present-day atheist does, is very different from saying in your heart that there is no God.

This had me curious. "Head knowledge vs. heart knowledge" is a common distinction to make in modern theological discourse, but I figured it was mostly 1) colloquial, and 2) modern. But given the application that a Swedenborgian scholar gives to the concept, I wondered if Swedenborg himself wrote about the distinction. Did he?

Head and heart, or love and wisdom, are fundamental to God and the universe

According to the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), the universe and everything in it is quite literally created from and built around the interplay between what is colloquially known as "head and heart," or between love and wisdom, in the more abstract language that Swedenborg commonly uses.

This is the subject of Swedenborg's great philosophical and cosmological work Divine Love and Wisdom, originally published in Latin, Amsterdam, 1763.

In this book, Swedenborg traces the creation of the universe to a divine "marriage" of love and wisdom in God. In God, Swedenborg says, love and wisdom are perfectly balanced. And though they can be distinguished conceptually in our minds, they are in fact inseparable from one another, and always operate together as one.

From this "divine marriage" flows all the power, or action, of God—and of course, all the words, or teachings, of God, which are part of God's power flowing out. This power and truth of God flowing out is known biblically as "the Holy Spirit."

So according to Swedenborg, God consists of:

Love
Wisdom
Action

In Swedenborg's theology, these three are the "Trinity" in the one Divine Person of God, when the Trinity is viewed in abstract terms.

So in their origin in God, "head" and "heart" are, in Swedenborg's words, "distinguishably one" (see Divine Love and Wisdom #14, in which Swedenborg uses the name "the Divine-Human One" for God).

Love is the reality, the substance, and the soul of God.
Wisdom is the manifestation, the form, and the body of God.

So in God, there is no "hard distinction" between head and heart in the sense that they are somehow radically separate. In fact, they can occur only together with one another, even if we are able to distinguish them conceptually for purposes of analysis. God's "head knowledge" is precisely the same as God's "heart knowledge."

Because the entire created universe comes from God and is an expression of God, this "distinguishable oneness" of love and wisdom, or substance and form, exists throughout the created universe as well, including in human beings, where it is especially manifested in our will and understanding, once again colloquially known as "heart" and "head."

In humans, head and heart can and do become distinguished and separated

Unlike anywhere else in the universe, however, in humans head and heart can seem to be disjointed and separate from one another. In Divine Love and Wisdom #39, Swedenborg writes:

  Even though love and wisdom seem to be two separate things in us [humans], essentially they are distinguishably one. This is because the quality of our love determines the quality of our wisdom and the quality of our wisdom the quality of our love. Any wisdom that is not united to our love seems like wisdom, but it is not; and any love that is not united to our wisdom seems like wisdom's love even though it is not. Each gets its essence and its life from the other in mutual fashion.

  The reason the wisdom and love within us seem to be two separate things is that our ability to understand can be raised into heaven's light, while our ability to love cannot, except to the extent that we act according to our understanding. So any trace of apparent wisdom that is not united to our love for wisdom relapses into the love with which it is united. This may not be a love for wisdom, and may even be a love for insanity. We are perfectly capable of knowing, from our wisdom, that we ought to do one thing or another, and then of not doing it because we have no love for it.

In short, unlike other animals, we humans are capable of dividing our head from our heart by understanding things that we do not love. In Swedenborg's words, our understanding can be raised into heaven's light even when we do not love what the light of heavenly truth is telling our minds. This is why, as Swedenborg says in the quotation just above, "we are perfectly capable of knowing, from our wisdom, that we ought to do one thing or another, and then of not doing it because we have no love for it."

Eventually, Swedenborg says, our mind will relapse back to the level of our heart. If we persistently do not love and do what our higher understanding instructs us to do, we will revert back to our lower desires—and this will determine our character, whatever mask of outward civility and morality we may put on in public.

However, our ability to see and understand things that are higher, better, and more spiritual than what our sin-prone heart desires, and what our lower self therefore thinks, gives us the ability to be reborn, or regenerated, and thus saved from our fallen and sinful state.

Without this capability to separate head from heart, there would be no check on our sinful desires. We would rush into every kind of evil action with nothing to stop us, since our head would give full assent and assistance to whatever our heart desired.

Before the Flood, humans had no ability to separate head from heart

This, Swedenborg says, was the state of humankind before the Great Flood narrated in Genesis 6-9. By that time, all of humanity except for Noah and his immediate family are described in this way:

  The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. . . . Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. (Genesis 6:5, 11-12)

Swedenborg interprets this as speaking symbolically about a thoroughly corrupt culture of ancient humans, whose beliefs were completely falsified by the evil in their hearts. He says in Secrets of Heaven #560:

  In specific regard to the people of the church before the Flood, they conceived appalling delusions as time passed. The goodness and truth that belong to faith they merged so thoroughly with their foul desires that almost no trace of either was left to them. When they reached this point, they virtually suffocated themselves.

As he explains in more detail in subsequent sections, the people of the various human cultures that existed before the Flood were unable to separate their mind from their heart, or their faith from their desires. Their evil desires caused their beliefs to become utterly false and corrupt as they used their falsified "faith" to justify the wicked and depraved actions that flowed from their evil and sinful hearts. Because of this, they snuffed out all of their spiritual life—a process that is symbolized by the Flood that killed all living beings on earth except those in the ark.

At the time of the Flood, God made a separation between the human head and heart for the sake of our salvation

In order to make it possible for fallen, sin-prone humans to be spiritually reborn, and thus saved, God then brought about a radical change in the human mind and spirit. This change is symbolized by the ark, and in particular by one highly significant detail of the ark's construction:

  So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. (Genesis 6:14, italics added)

In explaining the meaning of the rooms in the ark, Swedenborg says:

  The people of this church had to reform. The side of a person called the intellect had to reform first, before it was possible for the other side, referred to as the will, to do the same. So the present passage tells how the contents of the will were separated from those of the intellect and how they were concealed and stored away, so to speak, in order to block off any stimulus to the will. Had the appetites of the will been stirred up, it would have destroyed people. . . .

  These two sides, the intellect and will, are as clearly distinguished in us as they could possibly be. (Secrets of Heaven #641, italics added)

In short, at the time of the Flood, God made a distinction and even a separation between the human will and understanding, or head and heart, in order to make it possible for us to be spiritually reformed and reborn. From that point onward our intellect would be able to take the lead, learn what is right and wrong, and impose it upon our will, thus reforming our will, which is our true heart, reality, and character as human beings.

We seem to do this reformation on our own, but in fact it is the Lord God working from within, giving us a new heart, or will, that pairs with the enlightened part of our intellect (which also comes from God) in order to correct our old will, or heart. This process is symbolized in these words from the Prophets:

  I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. (Ezekiel 36:25-27)

In Swedenborg's interpretation of this passage (see, for example, Apocalypse Explained #587:14; True Christianity #143, #601), the "clean water" is divine truth revealed by God to our thinking mind, and the "new heart" is the new will that God puts in us—a heart filled with love for God and for our fellow human beings—in place of our old, corrupt and greedy "heart of stone."

This process takes place throughout our lifetime on earth for those of us who are being spiritually reborn, or regenerated.

While this process is taking place, we humans have the ability to think one thing and desire another, so that there is a separation between our head and our heart. We can "think" one thing with our heart, and "think" another with our head.

However, when this process is complete, our head and our heart, or our will and our understanding, will once again become united, so that our thoughts and beliefs are fully one with our motives and desires. If this reuniting of head and heart does not take place for us on earth, it will take place in the spiritual world after death, before we find our permanent home in either heaven or hell.

Summary of "head knowledge" vs. "heart knowledge" in various states of human sinfulness and spiritual rebirth, according to Swedenborg's theology

In our unregenerate, sinful state while living here on earth:

"The thoughts of our head" are what we have been taught by parents, teachers, ministers, and so on based on the Bible and on principles of civil morality.
"The thoughts of our heart" are the fallacious and false ideas that we grasp onto in order to justify and support our selfish and greedy desires.

As long as we are in an unregenerate (sinful) state, these two are often at odds with one another.
In our regenerating state while living here on earth:

Our "head knowledge" is what we've been taught by various teachers, both religious and secular, some of which may actually be faulty and false.
Our "heart knowledge" is what we sense to be true in our heart, and actually live by, whatever faulty ideas we may have in our head (such as doctrinal errors or atheism).

In our regenerated, or reborn, state, especially after death when we are living in our permanent home in heaven, there is no distinction between our "head knowledge" and our "heart knowledge." Our head and our heart are in perfect agreement.
In the eternally damned state of those who, while on earth, chose selfishness and greed over love and kindness, head and heart will also perfectly agree—only the heart will be filled with evil desires, and the head will be filled with falsity and illusion that supports and justifies the heart's evil desires.

Sample passages in which Swedenborg distinguishes between what today we would call "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge"

In this passage, Swedenborg speaks of the "perception," or heart-based knowledge, of the earliest people on earth, represented by Adam and Eve before the Fall:

  People today have no idea what perception is. It is an inner feeling for whether a thing is true and good—a feeling that can come only from the Lord—which was very familiar to the people of the earliest church. The sensation is so clear for angels that it gives them awareness and recognition of truth and goodness, of what comes from the Lord and what from themselves. In addition, it enables them to detect the character of anyone they meet simply from that person's manner of approach or from a single one of his or her ideas.

  Spiritual people [defined elsewhere as intellect-oriented people] have no perception, although they have conscience. People who are lifeless [meaning in a sinful, unregenerate state] do not even have conscience, and many do not know what conscience is, much less perception. (Arcana Coelestia #104, italics added)

Following up on the above description of the earliest people on earth, in this passage Swedenborg talks about how the early human culture represented by "Cain" in Genesis 4 began to separate the head from the heart—a situation that still exists in humans today:

  This shows the nature of the earliest church and of its religious thought. Modern times, in which faith comes first, are completely different; but through faith the Lord endows us with charity, and then charity takes highest importance. It follows that religious teachings were falsified in earliest times when people declared their faith and in the process separated faith from love. Those who falsified the religion in this way, dividing faith from love (that is, championing faith alone), were at that time called Cain. To do as they did was scandalous to the earliest people. (Arcana Coelestia #337, italics added)

In other words, the people represented by Cain abandoned the "perception," or "inner feeling for whether a thing is true and good," that their ancestors had enjoyed (which we today would call "heart knowledge"), and instead used their intellect to develop beliefs in their heads, separated from the love in their hearts. However, these intellectually developed beliefs ("head knowledge," in today's language) were actually based on an already corrupted heart, represented by Cain's evil desires and resulting actions against his brother Abel.

In this passage (from an older translation), Swedenborg speaks of a person understanding "truths of faith" (meaning religious beliefs), and then accepting them in the heart:

  Conscience in a member of the Church is formed by the truths of faith received from the Word, or from religious teachings drawn from the Word, according to his acceptance of them in his heart. For when a person has a knowledge of the truths of faith and understands them in his own particular way, and then wills and does them, conscience takes shape in him. Acceptance in the heart is acceptance in the will, for a person's will is what is called the heart. (Arcana Coelestia #9113, italics added)

Many more passages could be quoted, but these should be enough to show that Swedenborg did, indeed, identify and distinguish between what we today would call "heart knowledge" and "head knowledge."

For further explanation of these points:

For more on the separation of head and heart symbolically pictured by the ark and its rooms, see my article, "Noah's Ark: A Sea Change in the Human Mind."

For more on the reuniting of head and heart after death, see my article, "What Happens To Us When We Die?" especially the section titled, "Our Second Stage After Death: The Stage of Inward Life."

For more on the application of all of this to "the thoughts of our head" vs. "the thoughts of our heart," and on how we actually go about applying the spiritual knowledge in our head to reforming our fallen and sin-prone heart, see:

Do Atheists Go to Heaven? (linked in the question above)
Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?
What does Jesus Mean when He Says we Must be Born Again?


Did Genesis 2 occur all in one day? A comment to this answer prompted this question. Was Adam created, naming the animals, and married in one day, or did these events take place in a larger time span?

Short answer: A literal reading of the text would indicate that yes, Adam was created, named the animal, and married all in one day.

Gen 1:1-2:6 gives an overview of the creation of the world. Gen 2:7-25 then goes back and gives additional detail about the creation of Adam and Eve. (There's nothing odd about this, it's a common enough literary technique: first give an overview, then go back and give details about the part you're most interested in.)

Gen 1:26-27 says that God created humans on the sixth day. It specifically says male and female. Gen 2:7 describes the creation of Adam and 2:21-22 describes the creation of Eve. So the plain reading is that 2:7, 2:22, and everything in between therefore happenned on one day.

I don't see any difficulty in supposing that Adam and Eve were both created and married to each other in one day. It's not like they had a lot of choice about potential marriage partners.

Perhaps you struggle with how Adam could have named all the animals in one day? That depends how many animals he named. You often hear how there are millions of species in the world. But the vast majority of those are microscopic, most of the rest are insects or arachnids, and a hefty percentage are sea creatures. The text says Adam named cattle, birds and "every beast of the field". There's no mention of Adam naming fish, insects, or microscopic creatures. If you just count mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians, there are about 30,000 species. Genesis does not spell out how broad or narrow the categories where that he named, and species is pretty narrow. Like did Adam name "dogs" (in whatever language he spoke, of course, not English), or did he name every individual breed? Or for that matter did he just give a name to the broader family that includes dogs, wolves, etc? Realistically, Adam probably named a few thousand animals, maybe as little as a few hundred. If he just went down the line and said, "Okay, I'll call that a 'dog', that's a 'cat', that's a 'moose' ..." etc. he could have named each one in a second or two. At 3 seconds per animal he could name 20 per minute, 1200 per hour, 9600 in an 8-hour working day. Okay, I doubt he kept up a rapid-fire pace of naming for 8 straight hours, but he could have named several thousand animals in a day.

If you want to take the story symbolically or allegorically, then the whole question becomes moot. If it's all just a symbolic story and none of it really happenned, then it's meaningless to talk about how long it took.


Where do dead in Christ rise from if they're with Jesus? In Revelation and 1 Thessalonians we read that the dead in Christ rise first. This makes sense if you do not believe that the dead are already in heaven, but very many Christians believe that the righteous dead are with Christ already at this point, usually upon their death.

So if the dead are already with Jesus where are the dead in Christ rising from?

So if the dead are already with Jesus where are the dead in Christ rising from?

Those who died in faith in the Old Testament are to be raised at the second coming of Christ.

  Daniel 12:2  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth
  shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and
  everlasting contempt.

  Hebrews 11:40  God having provided some better thing for us, that they
  without us should not be made perfect.

  Revelation 20:6  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first
  resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall
  be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand
  years.

Those who become Christians after Christ get their new life right away.

  John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
  and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
  not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Because Christians have this new life in Christ while we are still alive, when the body dies, it remains here on earth, but the soul is with Jesus.

  2 Corinthians 5:8  We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be
  absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

This is how when Jesus returns for the rapture and brings with him the souls of dead Christians so that they are reunited with their resurrection bodies and we who are alive will be joined with them in bodies that are changed rather than resurrected.

  1 Thessalonians 4:14-17  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose
  again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are
  alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them
  which are asleep.   For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven
  with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of
  God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:   Then we which are
  alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds,
  to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

  1 Corinthians 15:51-52  Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all
  sleep, but we shall all be changed,   In a moment, in the twinkling of
  an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead
  shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.


Did Saint Patrick actually explain the Trinity using a shamrock? The shamrock is a pretty bad analogy for the Trinity. In fact, it's somewhat of a heretical explanation if one puts much emphasis on it. It's partialism:

St. Patrick's Bad Analogies (YouTube)

So, that in itself is good evidence that St. Patrick wouldn't (or shouldn't) have used the shamrock to teach the Trinity. And Wikipedia provides some evidence that he didn't:

  The first written mention of the link does not appear until 1681, in
  the account of Thomas Dineley, an English traveller to Ireland.
  Dineley writes: The 17th day of March yeerly is St Patricks, an
  immoveable feast, when ye Irish of all stations and condicions were
  crosses in their hatts, some of pinns, some of green ribbon, and the
  vulgar superstitiously wear shamroges, 3 leav'd grass, which they
  likewise eat (they say) to cause a sweet breath.

It goes on:

  There is nothing
  in Dineley's account of the legend of St. Patrick using the shamrock
  to teach the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and this story does not
  appear in writing anywhere until a 1726 work by the botanist Caleb
  Threlkeld. Threlkeld identifies the shamrock as White Field Clover
  (Trifolium pratense album ) and comments rather acerbically on the
  custom of wearing the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day

So, what do we have stronger evidence for? Did St. Patrick actually use the shamrock as an analogy to teach the Trinity?

If so, do we know what sort of emphasis or seriousness he placed on the analogy?

As far as we know, he did not use this analogy. It does not appear in the extant writings attributed to him, nor in early hagiographies. There are several places in these documents where a shamrock metaphor wouldn't go completely amiss, and yet it doesn't seem to appear anywhere.

In the Confession attributed to Patrick, he talks a lot about how he is a simple unlearned person, who has nevertheless managed to convert a large number of people. That might suggest use of easily-understandable metaphors rather than very precise theological statements. On the other hand, there are biographies that say he studied under Saints Germanus of Auxerre and Martin of Tours, received large numbers of books from Pope Celestine I, and so forth, suggesting that he might have understated his level of education. His reported speech is generally quite direct and Biblical - more of a "repent, ye sinners" flavour than any kind of gentle analogy.

Given the complete lack of reference until the eighteenth century, it  seems more likely that the explanation was associated with him long after he actually lived, than that it was somehow preserved in tradition for the whole time, without appearing in any of the many written sources about this popular saint.

I'll now give some examples of shamrocks not appearing. There is a fifth-century poem or hymn attributed to him, called the Lorica of St. Patrick (Luireach Phadraig) or Deer's Cry (Faeth Fiada), which invokes the Trinity but does not use an analogy. The ninth century hagiography known as the Tripartite Life (Bethu Phátraic) recounts an episode where Patrick converts the two daughters of Lóegaire mac Néill, saying in response to their question about what kind of God he worships:

  St. Patrick, full of the Holy Spirit, responded, "Our God is the God of all, the God of heaven and earth, the God of the seas and rivers, the God of the sun and moon, and all the other planets; the God of the high hills and low valleys; God over heaven, in heaven, and under heaven; and He has a mansion, that is, heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them. He inspireth all things. He quickeneth all things. He enkindleth all things. He giveth light to the sun, and to the moon. He created fountains in the dry land, and placed dry islands in the sea, and stars to minister to the greater lights. He hath a Son, coeternal and coequal with Himself; and the Son is not younger than the Father, nor is the Father older than the Son. And the Holy Ghost breatheth in them. And the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not divided. I desire, moreover, to unite you to the Son of the heavenly king, for ye are daughters of an earthly king."  1

This would be the perfect time to mention the shamrock, but it does not appear. The same goes for the seventh-century Life by Muirchú moccu Machtheni, and the other sources. It is frequently mentioned that people in Ireland did not generally know about or believe in  the Trinity before Patrick, and that he baptized people in the name of the Trinity, but there is no record of him using any metaphor for it, shamrock or otherwise, when he baptized or taught.

Tertullian's work Against Praxeas (Adversus Praxeam) uses a plant metaphor for the Trinity (chapter 8). Here, he says that the three persons of the Trinity are like the root, trunk, and fruit of the tree. This has something of a similar character to the shamrock metaphor, though the three parts for Tertullian have distinct roles2, and the clover leaves are all the same. It is possible that Patrick had some exposure to this idea, or independently reinvented it. But there is absolutely no evidence.

1. From the translation by James O'Leary, 1874. Original Latin and Irish text is on lines 1124-1138 of Kathleen Mulchrone's 1939 edition.
2. Partialism!? Modalism?! Perhaps. Metaphors are hard.


Why Do Moses' Laws About Slavery and Punishment Not Align with the Teachings of Jesus? In Exodus 21, God is telling Moses what the laws should be concerning slaves and servants among the Israelites.  If this is the same God who made all of mankind in His own image, then why would he abet slavery in this way among his own people?

This is also the chapter that says punishment should be administered on an "eye for eye" basis (v23-26).  Why would God instruct Moses to introduce this law and yet come to earth later on as Jesus and teach that we should always forgive others when they sin against us?

Basically, it just seems that the law concerning the Israelites, despite being given to Moses directly from God, is not in the same spirit as the messages that Jesus gives in the new testament.  Is this God of ours really never-changing?  If so, then why do we have this apparent double standard?

The letters of Paul tell us that the law was given to show us that we do not measure up. It is impossible to live a God pleasing life by works. So failing was an expected part of the laws. So things would exist that were humane, and God gave guidelines on how to go about all this.

Even more, we live in a fallen world, and God gives us means to survive in a doomed world.

Like God never intended poverty. Yet he gave laws on how to treat poor people: let them work themselves. Don't hand out, but let some crop stand in the edges of the field and do not glean what fell to the ground.

In the new testament God made it possible to please Him - He has done that in the OT too, granted, as you find the principle saved by faith in the OT too. Or just look at what David did: ask for forgiveness and trust the Lord. Jesus fulfilled the law, he did both parts of the covenant: give the rules and fulfill them.

And still Jesus did not address slavery. Paul even told slaves to honor and obey their masters. God new that following the ten commandments or the commands and example of Jesus, led by the Holy Spirit, would lead to a God pleasing lifestyle with His saints.

God gives us opportunity to follow Him and change (back) into His image, while giving us guidelines and rules to go about it in the meantime.


Is an adulterous priest still a priest? If a long-married priest is divorced on grounds of adultery, and in fact had been having affairs throughout the marriage, can he still be allowed to minister as a priest?

The short answer to the question in the title is “yes,” a priest is a priest forever, and no amount of sinful behavior on his part can change that.

However, a Latin-rite priest who is married (save in a very limited number of converts from Anglicanism) would presumably have received an indult to leave the clerical state and a dispensation from the impediment to marry (see below).

Hence, such a priest would not be allowed to minister as a priest, save for giving confession in danger of death.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) explains,

  As in the case of Baptism and Confirmation this share in Christ’s office is granted once for all. The sacrament of Holy Orders, like the other two, confers an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily (No. 1582, emphasis in original).

What this means is that a person who has validly (i.e., really) received one of the degrees of Holy Orders—diaconate, priesthood, or episcopate—cannot possibly lose that degree for any reason whatsoever. Neither the Church nor the deacon, priest, or bishop himself has the ability to remove effects of ordination. However, as the Catechism explains,

  It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently (No. 1582, my emphasis).

In the case described by the O.P., presumably the priest in question is either in an irregular situation—that is, he attempted an invalid marriage while still in the clerical state (see Code of Canon Law 1087)—or else he received both a laicization and a dispensation from Canon 1087 in order to marry someone.

In either case, he is still, so to speak, ontologically a priest, no matter how immoral his behavior is. Depending on what the Church has done in his case, he may or may not be juridically in the lay state.

(But the fact that priest who, having received the necessary indult to leave the clerical state and the dispensation from the impediment to marriage, then commits adultery, does not affect his canonical status. He remains, juridically, in the lay state thanks to the indult—however distasteful and immoral are his actions after the fact.)

Note that, in the Eastern Churches, married men can be ordained priests (although they cannot marry after their ordination). There is also a small number of married Latin-rite priests that are converts from Anglicanism, as I mentioned. In such a case, adultery on the part of a priest would certainly be grounds for disciplinary action, although the law does not specify that laicization is necessarily the penalty.


Does the Bible condone bribery? Proverbs 21:14 (NLT)
  "A secret gift calms anger; a bribe under the table pacifies fury."

Reading this scripture it would seem to indicate that the Bible supports (at the very least some form of) bribery. Is that really the case?

Proverbs is wisdom literature, and that category seeks to describe things as they are, not necessarily what they should be.

Ecclesiastes 7:15-16, for example, says:

  In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:
   the righteous perishing in their righteousness,
      and the wicked living long in their wickedness.
    Do not be overrighteous,
      neither be overwise—
      why destroy yourself?

Exodus 23:8 is clear that bribery is bad:

    Exodus 23:8 (ESV)

  8     And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right.

Proverbs 15:27 says as much as well:

  Whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household,
      but he who hates bribes will live.

And Proverbs 17:23 says don't do it:

  23 The wicked accepts a bribe in secret[a]
      to pervert the ways of justice.

Even Jesus notes the unfairness in life saying in Matthew 5:45,

  He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous

The easiest way to reconcile all of this is to say that this verse is descriptive rather than prescriptive.