texts: Was Saint Augustine a Calvinist on divine foreknowledge?

texts:
It is my understanding that Calvinism conflates God's passive will with His active will—i.e., the fact that He knows something will occur due to His divine foreknowledge and allows said thing to occur is taken to mean that He actively wills said thing. It also seems to me that it mostly goes beyond Saint Augustine's own teachings on predestination and free will.

However, Oxford theologian J.N.D. Kelly writes the following on Augustine in Early Christian Doctrines XIII.7:

  God's choice of those to whom grace is to be given in no way depends on His foreknowledge of their future merits, for whatever good deeds they will do will themselves be the fruit of grace. In so far as His foreknowledge is involved, what He foreknows is what He Himself is going to do. [emphasis mine]

At the end of the second sentence, a footnote references Augustine's De dono perseverantiae 35, 47, and 48; De praedestinatione sanctorum 19; and Epistula 149 to Paulinus, 20.

I am having a hard time seeing how these writings could not lend support to Calvinism's equating of God's foreknowledge with active predestination. Is it possible to reconcile them with the Catholicism that claims Augustine as one of its greatest saints?


texts:
The above image shows Pope John Paul II sitting on a chair with an inverted cross on it. According to tradition, the inverted cross symbolizes Saint Peter.

Was Pope John Paul II the only pope who used the inverted cross publicly?


texts: How is Sabbath a metaphor of Jesus Christ?

texts:
Matthew 11:28 (NIV) “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened,
  and I will give you rest.

  Matthew 12:8 (NIV) For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

From these verses, some preachers say that Jesus Christ is now our Sabbath spiritually and we no longer have to observe the Sabbath Day, the day is no longer important.

How exactly is this explained?


texts: Epiphanius: where does he describe Indians as the descendants of Abraham and Keturah?

texts:
The Austrian Carmelite Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo in his book "Darstellung der Brahmanisch-Indischen Götterlehre, Religionsgebräuche und bürgerliche Verfassung" (1797) states that Epiphanius was the first writer to link the Brahmins of India with the children of Abraham and his concubine Keturah (Genesis 25:1-4; 1 Chronicles 1:32-33), an identification later appearing in the Zohar (13th century), Guillaime Postel (16th century), and Manasseh ben Israel (17th century) (as well as Newton, Voltaire and others).

I have been unable to locate his source in Epiphanius' (or in other patristic) writings. Does anyone know where Epiphanius says this?


texts: Catholic remembrance services for a death elsewhere?

texts:
If a person dies and is given a Catholic funeral and service, but that person has a lot of family in a location that was too far away to attend the service, is there an official Roman Catholic service that can be held as a sort of "satellite funeral" for those who were unable to attend the actual service but wish to remember the person religiously? If not, what would usually be done in this situation?
I hope that made sense; I was struggling a bit with the wording.


texts: When scripture quotes a non-biblical source, without any opposition of the source, does it imply any endorsement?

texts:
In addition to alluding to various Jewish proverbs, sayings, and parables, sometimes the Bible seems to directly quote Greek philosophers (Acts 17:28), Jewish oral traditions (Jude 9, 12) or possibly even  pseudepigraphal works .

Under a biblical framework that holds to the infallibility of the Protestant Bible how are we to approach those extra biblical sources being quoted?  Does the scriptures reference of them pass on some kind of dignity or validity to them, or is a extra biblical reference in the scripture neutral not to have higher esteem than it otherwise would have? Or would each case have to be considered on its own and if so, under what guidelines?


texts: What is the name of the belief that each of us is guilty for the sins of our neighbors?

texts:
What is the name of for the doctrine that each of us is individually guilty of all sin; that our own spiritual failures and lack of love are the cause of our neighbor's shortcomings?

I do not mean the belief that we are each guilty of every different kind of sin despite not having personally committed many of them or the Catholic belief that, through the reproduction of the human race, we have all 'inherited' guilt.

For example, Elder Zossima in The Brothers Karamazov says

  "But when he knows that he is not only worse than all those in the
  world, but is also guilty before all people, on behalf of all and for
  all, for all human sins, the world's and each person's, only then will
  the goal of our unity be achieved. [...] Only then will our hearts be
  moved to a love that is infinite, universal, and knows no satiety."

Orthodoxwiki.org describes St. Paisos the Hagiorite as having

  dwelt deeply on the thought that his own spiritual failures and lack
  of love were the cause of his neighbor's shortcomings, as well as of
  the world's ills.

Here is another quote from Elder Zossima who is reported to be speaking the words which Dostoevsky heard from the mouth of St. Ambrose of Optina.

  Because we have come here and shut ourselves within these walls, we
  are no holier than those that are outside, but on the contrary, from
  the very fact of coming here, each of us has confessed to himself that
  he is worse than others, than all men on earth.... And the longer the
  monk lives in his seclusion, the more keenly he must recognize that.
  Else he would have had no reason to come here. When he realizes that
  he is not only worse than others, but that he is responsible to all
  men for all and everything, for all human sins, national and
  individual, only then the aim of our seclusion is attained. For know,
  dear ones, that every one of us is undoubtedly responsible for all men
  -- and everything on earth, not merely through the general sinfulness of creation, but each one personally for all mankind and every
  individual man. This knowledge is the crown of life for the monk and
  for every man. For monks are not a special sort of men, but only what
  all men ought to be.

I believe this is a uniquely Orthodox notion and I do not know the name for it. It is not total depravity. I do not have any examples of homilies expounding this topic. I suspect this is because I do not know its name or how to search for it.


texts: According to the the Catholic Church is ASMR an illicit form of self-stimulation?

texts:
I was looking through my daughter's Internet history and found that she was watching something called ASMR on youtube.  My wife and I watched these things and we were totally enthralled listening to someone cut soap with a knife.
And if you're like me last night, wondering what an ASMR is:

Autonomous sensory meridian response, sometimes auto sensory meridian response, is a tingling sensation that typically begins on the scalp and moves down the back of the neck and upper spine. A pleasant form of paresthesia, it has been compared with auditory-tactile synesthesia and may overlap with frisson
ASMR - Wiki

I know that certain forms of self-medication including mesmerization and hypnotism could be considered illicit by some Catholic books for examinations of conscience (i.e. handbook of prayers) under the 5th and 8th commandments.
Can the same principles that apply to that apply to this?   Is ASMR any worse because it's something that is apparently scientifically designed to produce some sort of a calming response, as opposed to something that is not scientifically designed, like a recording of rain, crickets chirping or whatnot?


texts: Did Judas have the free will (in the libertarian sense) to not have betrayed Jesus, and if so, what would've happened had he chosen not to?

texts:
Did Judas have libertarian free will? If so, what would've happened to the salvation plan had he chosen not to betray Jesus? Would there have been no crucifixion, and therefore, no atonement, no forgiveness of sins, no salvation? On the other hand, if the betrayal was a 100% guaranteed thing, with Judas having no actual possibility whatsoever of not betraying Jesus, would that mean that Judas had no real free will, and if that's the case, then how can he be held accountable for his actions?
I would like to know if there are philosophical explanations published by reputable Christian sources addressing this complex dilemma.


texts: When is earliest mention of the Church tradition that Jesus was born in a cave?

texts:
The birth of Jesus as recounted by Luke says that:

  7 And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place
  for them in the inn. Cf. Luke 2:7.

How did it come to be known in Church Tradition that Jesus was born in a cave, and when is earliest mention of this tradition?


texts:
What is the meaning of the word holy from a Christian viewpoint?
I observed that the term is used for

the gods, especially the Holy God (Father) and Holy Ghost;
persons, such as the holy apostles, Holy St. Florian, etc.;
buildings like churches;
organisations (the holy church);
relics and fetishes, such as the Holy Coat of Trier;
cities, such as the holy city (this title is used for both Rome and Jerusalem).

Since holiness is nothing which can be identified with a scientific instrument, what is it? Is it just an attribute, awarded by a higher priest, which you then believe in? But what is it? Do you have to believe, that it can, for example, have healing effects? Does it just mean that you have to treat something with extra respect?
This is what I found in an encyclopedia:

Heilig, von Heil, also soviel wie in seiner Vollkommenheit nicht nur noch unverletzt, sondern auch unverletzlich, unantastbar, dann soviel wie schlechthin gut, sittlich vollkommen, makellos. Seine Wurzeln hat dieser Begriff teils im römischen Kultus, wo er das dem gemeinen Gebrauch Entzogene, höhern Zwecken Gewidmete (sacer, sanctus), teils im Alttestamentlichen, wo der Ausdruck (kadosch), von Gott ausgesagt, dessen Unterschiedenheit von allem Irdischen, seine Unvergleichlichkeit und Erhabenheit, von Irdischem ausgesagt, dessen Zugehörigkeit zu Gott, Gottgeweihtheit bedeutet. Vgl. Baudissin, Studien zur Religionsgeschichte, Bd. 2 (Leipz. 1878); Issel, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Neuen Testament (Leiden 1887).
Meyers Großes Konversationslexikon.

For those of you who don’t speak German, I’ll try a translation:

Holy, from ‘intact, complete’, not only undamaged, but invulnerable, untouchable, but also completely good, ethical and morally perfect. The roots of the term reach to the Roman cult, where it means “taken away from common usage”, used for higher purpose (sacer, sanctus), partly in the Old Testament, where the term (kadosch), spoken of God, means his difference from anything terrestrial, his uncomparabliness and loftiness, and means “belonging to God” or antlared (? maybe not. -else: holiness, which is tautological. - remark by me, u.u.). Vgl. Baudissin, Studien zur Religionsgeschichte, Bd. 2 (Leipz. 1878); Issel, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Neuen Testament (Leiden 1887).

Maybe we can agree that a building can’t be morally good. Nor can bones, or cities, or weekdays.
Isn’t it fetishism to pray to dead objects made by men, to bones without spirit and clothes?
Or is holiness something like bacteria, which spread from God to a Saint, from the Saint to his clothes, from the clothes to a prayer? Is there evidence in the new Testament that touching such things is helpful, is something you should do?


texts: Are their any Christian denominations that reject the teachings of Paul?

texts:
I am a Yeshua following zealot. I love the Lord as much as life itself as it is granted through the Father's word which is our savior himself. I am pretty well educated in Bible/church history and am always seeking more knowledge. Through prayerful guidance through the word I found that the spirit of the Pauline writings didn't sit well with the spirit of the other texts and gospels, to me at least it seems because somehow Paul has been elevated beyond everyone else in Christianity it seem.

So my question is this, do any Christian denominations teach the word without the books attributed to Paul?


texts: Does God intend or call some people to live alone forever in their life?

texts:
No. I am not talking about taking the sacrament of priesthood or brotherhood or being a nun who is called to live a holy life only for Christ.

I mean if a man tries hard to find a partner but it seems he is always failing in his life to find a partner so, in that case, is that man called by God to live alone forever as long as he lives, spend time praying to God and serve the people of the society by good, generous, loving, caring, and honest deeds? Is not taking the sacrament of marriage a sin even when it's not his choice?

I could be wrong but I saw statistics that about 0.99999% of people around the world would never have a relationship. So this question.


texts: Is Mary omniscient (by participation, not by nature)?

texts:
I'm mainly interested in an Orthodox or Catholic response. Although any protestant denomination which has a high Mariology is welcome to answer (eg Anglocatholics, high church Lutherans). If your denomination teaches that Mary "was just an ordinary women" then this question isn't for you: please don't bother answering.

Mary is seen as the supreme and perfect example of theosis (to use an Orthodox term). She is said to have maximum justification, maximum sanctification, maximum glorification. She experiences the beatific vision to the maximal extent possible for a created human being. She is as full of God's grace as it is possible to be. Fr Sergius Bulgakov once said that to look at Mary is to look at the Holy Spirit, for she is the most perfect and direct manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit, almost like a second incarnation (but don't worry, he didn't actually go that far and call her a second incarnation).

It is common Catholic teaching that Mary is "Mediatrix of all graces", which means that all the gifts of God to us also pass through her. My understanding of this doctrine is that Mary is up in heaven constantly praying for us, and that her will is so perfectly aligned with the will of Christ that she only prays for things which God desires, and therefore every one of her prayers is directly answered. Therefore, every single grace that God sends to us is also associated with a prayer from Mary, as she is always praying for God's will to be done exactly as it actually gets done.

Part of theosis is that you become God by participation in the divine nature, while remaining human in essence. Presumably by becoming God by participation you also adopt some of the divine attributes. It seems to me that Mary would share in God's omniscience because she is perfectly divinized and able to pray continuously for exactly those things and everything which God himself desires ("all Graces"). But to do this it would seem that she needs to know everything that God knows, so that she can pray accordingly (otherwise it would be possible for her to pray in a way which is not in accord with God's will due to her ignorance and therefore she would be imperfect and not the mediatrix of all graces)

Does all this mean that Mary participates in God's omniscience?


texts: How many New Testament manuscripts do we really have?

texts:
How does the Bible size up with other books from the ancient world?

Is it really true that the New and Old Testament is the book from the ancient world that has the largest amounmt of extant manuscripts?

Into how many ancient languages has the Bible been translated?

And finally, if we did not have all the manuscript evidence some believe we could still get the gist of the New Testament from early church correspondence. If this is true how does this improve or maintain the general case for an historically accurate New Testament?


texts: What does the Bible say about Capital Punishment?

texts: Some Christians are for and some are against capital punishment. However what does the Bible have to say about it?


texts: In Catholicism since when did willfully violating Sunday Mass obligation become mortal sin?

texts:
In the history of the Catholic Church, what led to the classification of willfully violating Sunday Mass obligation to be mortal sin?  I'm looking for the origin of canon law, council document, encyclical, etc.  Approximate date and the "who" is important for the answer.  Better yet, the historical circumstances and the reasoning leading to that classification.

Sunday Mass obligation is obviously derived from one of the Ten Commandments: keep the Sabbath day holy.  My question is instead about the Catholic Church formalization / institutionalization of the obligation with the attendant penalty of mortal sin.


texts: Why do many churches use grape juice in communion?

texts:
Some Baptists and many other evangelicals use grape juice in communion. Is this explained on any catechism (or systematic theology available online) ?

Does the reason for not using wine have to do with keeping oneself pure or the moral problems with alcohol?


texts: Has there ever been a successful Catholic Christian rock or pop band since the Singing Nun?

texts:
I'd say a successful band is one that sticks together for 10 years or so and has one of those TLA or first-name awards or a top-40 hit or is actually played on the radio.  I'm not into the music scene, but I noticed a discrepancy when checking out Pandora for Christmas tunes and finding an LDS station, but no specifically Catholic tunes.

Has there ever been a successful Catholic group or artist singing music you'd hear on your local Christian rock station?  Not just an artist in any genre who happens to be Catholic or an artist who was successful, converted to Catholicism and started appealing to a niche crowd (i.e. John Michael Talbot), but an artist or group like the Newsboys or Toby Mac.

I think this is an objectively answerable question, there's a wiki page for Roman Catholic Musicians but it is lacking both John Michael Talbot and The Singing Nun.

I edited the question to say, since the Singing Nun since Sister Smile would be an example of a "success" in the music business at least, but I've already got her record and I don't need another.


texts: Would the Christians Luke was writing for know who Phanuel was?

texts:
I'm sure there are many more names in the New Testament that no one would know, but this one strikes me as very odd.

The prophetess Anna is described in pretty good detail, for the Bible at least, but she doesn't do anything.  She is described as:

  the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.

Does his name give any credence to her story or her prophecy?


texts: Is a priest permitted to resign from his position? By this I mean, can he voluntarily choose to stop serving as a priest, and no longer be under the restrictions of a priest (e.g. that they cannot marry)?


texts: When did "tithing" come to mean "giving 10% of your gross income to the Church"?

texts:
I know the word "tithe" has "tenth" built into it, and so some Christians assume that every usage of the word "tithe" in Scripture is referring to "giving 10% of your gross income to the church."  But I also know that "tithes" in the Old Testament did not refer to this at all.

They only "tithed" on food (livestock and crops); they had money (i.e. "income"), but the "tithes" did not apply to that.
The food went to the Levites, Priests, and needy people - none of whom had land of their own by which they could feed themselves.
"Tithes" were not required of everyone - only those who raised livestock or grew crops.  For example, carpenters weren't required to tithe, nor were the Priests and needy people.

Clearly these things have application today; I am not challenging the idea of providing for ministers and needy people with cheerfulness and generosity.

My question is: When did the Church begin to understand "tithing" as "giving 10% of your gross income to the Church"?  Clearly this is not what it meant in the Old Testament, and I don't see anything in the New Testament to indicate that the term was redefined by Jesus or the Apostles.

To clarify, I am not asking whether this is a good interpretation (or application, for that matter).  I am also not looking for unsupported claims about how "it has always been understood this way, even by Jesus and the Apostles."  My question is about Church History; please support your claim with references to historical records.


texts: What is meant by "Calvinistic Work Ethic"?

texts: How does this compare, if applicable, with protestant work ethic?


texts: Do Catholics have a "profession of faith" in Jesus Christ before baptism?

texts: I was looking through one of the older catechism books and I seem to recall it mentioning that a profession of faith in Jesus generally precedes a baptism.  Is this true?


texts: In Mormon theology, why didn't John the Baptist baptize Joseph Smith?

texts:
In May 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery went into the woods to pray because of some questions they had about baptism. As recorded by Joseph Smith, they were visited by John the Baptist, who gave them the Aaronic Priesthood. The Aaronic Priesthood included the authority to baptize.

John then directed them to baptize each other. First, Joseph baptized Oliver, then, Oliver baptized Joseph. This is an unusual arrangement because baptism generally precedes receiving the priesthood, and usually the baptizer has already been baptized.

As I understand it, in order to perform a priesthood ordinance it is necessary to have a physical body (this is why baptisms for the dead are performed by the living by proxy). As a resurrected being, John the Baptist had a physical body – evidenced by the fact that he laid his hands on their heads when he gave them the Aaronic Priesthood. So, he should have been able to baptize them as well.

My question is this: Why didn't John baptize Joseph and Oliver, or at least Joseph, and then give him/them the priesthood? It seems that this would better establish the order of baptism first, then receiving the priesthood. Is it something to do with the nature of resurrected beings? Or, is there something specific Joseph and Oliver needed to learn?

Joseph Smith's account is recorded in Joseph Smith—History.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief in generational curses?

texts: I've been watching testimonies of people who claim to have been involved in deliverances and spiritual warfare, and the concept of generational curse is brought up quite often. It's even taught as a doctrine in certain churches (e.g. see this Hungry Generation's sermon). In simple words, a generational curse basically means that some ancestor messed up (e.g. by dabbling into witchcraft, by practicing the occult, by doing some terrible sin, etc.) and, thus, gave to the dark side a legal right to influence them and their descendants in some manner, until the right gets eventually revoked (if ever) by someone down the lineage. What is the biblical basis for this belief?


texts: How do Calvinists explain Calvin's use of Baruch?

texts:
In his commentary of 1 Corinthians,  Calvin seems to use Baruch to explain verse 20 of chapter 10,

  It is certain from the Prophet Baruch, (4:7,) that those things that are sacrificed to idols are sacrificed to devils (Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 96:5.) In that passage in the writings of the Prophet, the Greek translation, which was at that time in common use, has δαιμόνια — demons, and this is its common use in Scripture. How much more likely is it then, that Paul borrowed what he says from the Prophet, to express the enormity of the evil, than that, speaking after the manner of the heathen, he extenuated what he was desirous to hold up to utter execration!

Here I seem to see Calvin confirming the prophetic office of Baruch. Confirming the prophetic authorship of the book of Baruch. And confirming the apostle Paul's use of Baruch.

How would a Calvinist today explain his words?


texts: What does the Bible teach about domestic discipline?

texts:
Specifically when it comes to a parent disciplining their children or husband disciplining his wife - it seems there has been a lot of talk about both and I'm curious what different denominations and the Bible has to say on the topic.

Is corporal punishment/discipline ever OK?
Is corporal punishment/discipline from a parent to a child OK?
Is corporal punishment/discipline between a husband and his wife OK?


texts: From where does the doctrine that there is no time in heaven originate?

texts:
I'm quite familiar with the fact that God himself is outside of time, this is very easy to  show through scripture.

However it seems to be an increasingly popular conception that there is no time in heaven as well. For example, in this answer about saints.  (Probably not the best example, but readily available.)

I'm quite certain that time works differently there as we have many examples from scripture where future and past events in heaven are participated in. But a lot of people are explaining it in a way that makes man eternal (not just living forever but, existing eternally as God does in every time frame). I have also heard some Mormons say they were always taught man will become eternal too (don't know if this is official, just what I have heard some say).

This seems to me to create a problem with the fact that Satan was supposed to have been cast out of heaven, but by necessity is still in heaven if there is, in fact, no time. Even if we dismiss the depictions in scripture of time passing in heaven as metaphorical, in order to help us understand certain things.

How widespread is this doctrine and where did it originate? Does any whole tradition hold this view, or is it simply a failure of individuals to communicate their meaning?


texts: What is the current relevance of Arianism?

texts: Is there an active sect by this name? Are there any particular Christian denominations which might be described as 'Arian'?


texts: What does Matthew 19:8 teach us about the law given by Moses?

texts:
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [Matthew 19:8 KJV]

I recently read this passage while studying ANE Code vs Biblical law.  In the past I've always focused on the topic of marriage, but it donned on me that Jesus' words may have significant insight into the integrity of the law that Moses gave, not to mention the binding nature of Moses' words if he was in fact operating under his delegated authority.

There's a few directions to take this conversation so I'll keep it focused on the law for now.  Was the command Moses gave a compromise?  Jesus said Moses allowed it, but it wasn't that way from the beginning.  That sounds like a compromise.

If this command is a compromise and this command is considered law within the covenant, does this mean parts of the law are made up of compromises that don't reflect God's heart?

This leads me back to my original question, what does Matthew 19:8 teach us about the laws given by Moses?


texts: What was Jesus trying to convey in the parables of the mustard seed and yeast?

texts: What message did Jesus Christ tried to give by comparing the Kingdom Of God(Isn't that Heaven?) with the mustard seed and yeast?


texts: What is significant about the title of "Son of David" that was attributed to Jesus?

texts:
The Book of Matthew begins by identifying Jesus with the title of "Son of David":

  The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.  Matthew 1:1 NAS

At one time, two blind men call Jesus by the same title:

  As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!”  Matthew 9:27 NAS

Later, Jesus' identity as the Son of David becomes a point of contention:

  But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became indignant.  Matthew 21:15 NAS

So, what is the significance of the title "Son of David" being attributed to Jesus?


texts: How do Methodists understand the Apostle's Creed?

texts:
In Methodist churches, I usually see the following:

  I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting. Amen.

What do "holy catholic church" and "communion of saints" actually refer to?  Also, regarding the phrase "I believe in the Holy Spirit", what is the view on that? Shouldn't our belief be in Jesus Christ?


texts: Did Adam and Eve ever practice animal sacrifice?

texts:
Genesis 8:20 (NIV) Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking
  some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt
  offerings on it.

Noah sacrificed burnt offerings. What about Adam and Eve? Did they ever perform animal sacrifice?


texts: What are the Biblical arguments against man having an immortal soul separate from the body?

texts:
Belief in an immortal soul seems quite common in Christianity although some denominations do not seem to believe in this.

What specific scriptures, and scriptural arguments, are used by those that do not believe in humans having an immortal soul separate from the body?

Update: this is not a duplicate of this other question because this one is specifically asking for support for the opposite viewpoint. Additionally the other question has only answers which support the idea that humans do have a soul. If this has to be scoped to a particular denomination, I choose Jehovah's Witnesses.


texts: How does Pope Benedict XVI reconcile conscience and authority?

texts:
A recent talk by Father Bob Pierson 1 quoted Joseph Ratzinger (as he then was, now Pope Benedict XVI) as saying that the individual conscience must overrule ecclesiastical authority. I was intrigued by Pierson's claim and looked up the original source, which is an early commentary2  on Gaudium et spes, specifically its Article 16. I've put the section quoted by Pierson in italics.

  For Newman, conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the Church principle. Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will.

I am finding the final sentence quite difficult to parse. It seems like he is saying that genuine ecclesiastical obedience does accept a controlling role for conscience. But then it sounds like one can simultaneously disobey and "genuinely obey", which is odd. Elsewhere in the text, Ratzinger speaks about natural law and the Golden Rule as standards to diagnose and reshape the "erroneous conscience", and it surprised me that he doesn't also mention the Church there. Overall, I think I am missing something basic which would help me to understand what he means in the passage above.

So: What relationship between conscience and Church authority does the Pope actually envisage?

I'm looking for answers that draw on his other writings, up to the present day - in particular, sources that illuminate what he personally thinks, as opposed to those which are primarily about what the Church as a whole accepts.

1. Video and transcript here; I'm linking to Daily Kos because they're the only site I can find which provides a text transcript, not because I endorse Pierson, Kos, etc. The original talk was on homosexual civil marriage, but this question is emphatically not; I'm not asking whether he's right or wrong, just using his quotation to ask a different question.
2. Monograph by Joseph Ratzinger collected in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, volume 5, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (Herder and Herder, 1969). Translated by W. J. O'Hara from Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, Dokumente und Kommentare (1968). The quoted text starts on page 134.


texts: How do devils know what God permits in their doings? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
Exorcists often say demons can do many supernatural things. For example, transform/move possessed objects and so on. But they say only if God permits them to do so.

From what I know the devils are in total separation from God so how can they communicate with him? Is there any teaching of the Catholic Church on what kind of communication the devils have with God? How do they know what will God permit?


texts: Why and when did allegorical interpretations of Scripture lose their appeal?

texts:
Gregory of Nyssa's book The Life of Moses is, if nothing else, a very interesting read. He goes through Moses' account in Exodus and ascribes spiritual meanings to every little detail, although it is doubtful that any of them would pass muster in a pulpit today.
Augustine would also do allegorical interpretations, such as the following:

“Thus as great and brilliant a scholar as Augustine offers the following interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan:
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho = Adam
Jerusalem = the heavenly city of peace from which Adam fell
Jericho = the moon, and thereby signifies Adam’s mortality
Thieves = the devil and his angels
Stripped him = namely of his immortality
Beat him = by persuading him to sin
And left him half-dead = as a man he lives, but he died spiritually, therefore he is half-dead
The priest and the Levite = the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament
The Samaritan = is said to mean ‘Guardian,’ and therefore means Christ himself
Bound his wounds = means binding therestraint of sin
Oil = comfort of Good hope
Wine = exhortation to work with a fervent spirit
Beast = the flesh of Christ’s incarnation
Inn = the church
The morrow = after the Resurrection
Two-pence = promise of this life and the life to come
Innkeeper = Paul

The above interpretation, however, is a requote from Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart's classic and authoritative book How to Read the Bible for all its Worth, as an example of how modern interpretation is NOT to be done.  They are right, of course, because allegory really isn't testable in the end.
My question is this - how did the vast majority of modern Christians come to realize that allegory was not the best hermeneutical principle for reading Scripture?  Historically, when did the shift occur, what triggered it, and how did Chalcedonian Christianity come to realize this was not the way to read the Bible?
Along these lines, are there any major strains of Christianity that would accept this? (My guess would be that if anyone still does this, it would be the Eastern Orthodox, but I'd need confirmation)


texts: What is the basis of the Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that Jesus died on a Stake instead of a Cross?

texts: I understand that the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus died on a Stake (a vertical pole) instead of a Cross.    What is the basis—biblical or other—for this belief?  Does history and archaeology show that the Roman form of crucifixion used just a vertical pole instead of a cross?  Was this unique to Jesus' death alone?


texts: Did Rome prefer that Catholic clergy not work for national governments?

texts:
What has been the Catholic Church's position about its clergy taking jobs serving national governments? I have two examples, from the History question "Which Catholic priests were given diplomatic missions?":

Cardinal Wolsey
Canon Fernández de San Vicente

I want to understand whether Rome and its representatives approved of these men's government appointments, looked the other way, or opposed them.


texts: Is there a Catholic bishop with jurisdiction over space?

texts:
Background information: An Ordinary, in Catholicism, is a bishop who holds "Ordinary" jurisdiction over a specific territory. He is usually known as the "Bishop of [Place Name]" and holds general authority (though ultimately subject to the Pope) for making rules within his territory, adjudicating cases, ordaining priests, and performing other management functions.

In this answer on Space Exploration.SE, @Ángel spoke about the possibility of a Roman Catholic marriage in space. He spoke about the general requirement of obtaining the permission of applicable Ordinary(ies) for holding a marriage in a place other than where the couple live.

That leads me to the following question: Does Catholicism have any concept of an Ordinary having jurisdiction over outer space, or any part of space? Is there a Bishop of the Great Red Spot straining his eyes with a telescope from an observatory in Rome looking for souls to shepherd out of the storm? If there is no bishop with ordinary jurisdiction in space, is there a process for determining who holds canonical jurisdiction over an event that happens in space or a soul who resides there? Do the Ordinaries having jurisdiction over spaceports hold extended jurisdiction over any spacecraft that launches from them and any crew and passengers therein? Do all space missions fall directly under the immediate and sole jurisdiction of the Pope himself?


texts: Is it permissible for a Catholic to pray the Salat?

texts:
I'm thinking of visiting a mosque on Wednesday. I've done this before a couple of years ago and it was a very valuable experience. The last time I visited I joined in the Salat and thought it was a great way to pray.

I've since wondered whether it is actually ok to pray the Salat. I don't think there is anything heretical about the movements; I find them quite beautiful and I believe that they are worshipping the true God. However I have reservations about the fact that the Salat is prayed towards the Kaabah in Mecca.

If it was prayed towards a tabernacle, a Eucharistic host, liturgical east, or no particular direction at all then I wouldn't have any problems with it. But because it is prayed towards a stone box in Saudi Arabia I worry that the whole thing might be a form of idolatry.

What is the Catholic view of this situation? Two main questions:

Is it permissible to pray the Salat while facing Mecca?
Is it permissible to pray the Salat while facing a Eucharistic host, a tabernacle, liturgical east, or nowhere in particular?

Note that for the purposes of this question I'm considering Allah and Yahweh to be the same God, as per dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium and the CCC paragraph 841. Any answer which disagrees is out of scope and will be downvoted


texts: According to Methodism, is it possible to live without sinning?

texts:
I don't trust the idea of original sin being inherited. However, that does raise another question: If children are innocent before they are able to differentiate between good and evil, is it possible that one can remain sinless until they die?

How do Methodists deal with this?


texts: Do Mormons consider participating in game shows to be gambling?

texts:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are opposed to gambling. From their official website:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is opposed to gambling, including lotteries sponsored by governments. Church leaders have encouraged Church members to join with others in opposing the legalization and government sponsorship of any form of gambling.
Gambling is motivated by a desire to get something for nothing. This desire is spiritually destructive. It leads participants away from the Savior's teachings of love and service and toward the selfishness of the adversary. It undermines the virtues of work and thrift and the desire to give honest effort in all we do.

This answer also states that the LDS Church will not accept monetary donations earned from gambling (although unfortunately that part is unsourced).
Is participating in a game show considered gambling? Does it matter if it is a trivia show, like Jeopardy!, or one with a great deal of random chance, like Deal or No Deal?
This question is inspired by Ken Jennings, who had a 75 game winning streak on Jeopardy! in 2004, and professes to be Mormon.
Related: What is the baptist view on "gambling" in scenarios like "Jeopardy!"?


texts: Does the Bible prescribe any rules for who may attend and "join" a Catholic church?

texts:
What are the "rules" of a Catholic church? I wanted to start attending Church a few years ago (I wasn't brought up in a religious family - but I was baptized) and the lady at the Church basically told me that I cannot join the Church. Actually, I didn't even really know what she meant by "join the church".

Are there rules in the Bible that say anything about who can attend a Church and "join" it?


texts: What is LDS teaching about how Bible verses came to be in the Book of Mormon?

texts:
The Book of Mormon contains many verses from the Bible, either repeated in whole or in part. For a believing Latter-day Saint, this could be the result of at least two separate processes: (1) these verses were revealed as-is to Joseph Smith, without any reference to a Bible, or (2) a Bible was used when writing these portions of the Book of Mormon, with alterations inspired as the verses were copied.

I doubt the LDS Church has an official position on this, but have any church leaders or scholars ever commented on which of these seems most plausible?

*A previous version of this question had a title that did not match the question, I apologize for this.


texts:
While reading on Wikipedia I got to thinking why the church uses Latin as a language.

  According to the canonical Gospels, Jesus was arrested and tried by
  the Sanhedrin, and then sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged,
  and finally crucified by the Romans. 1

Why would the church adopt a language that was used by Pilate and the Roman soldiers?

This has been boggling my mind for a while now. Is there any reason beyond being the most widespread language of the time for its use?

My question is Why did the Catholic Church adopt the use of Latin, the language of the crucifiers of Jesus?

If rewording is necessary feel free to edit as long as the format is the same. If this question is bad and can be fixed, help me out.


texts: What is the basis for "Church Shopping"?

texts:
"Church shopping" is when church goers move about from church to church to find one they like, sometimes willing to travel great distances or spend many months visiting dozens of churches. It certainly seems much more common to Christians that prefer less ecumenical churches, such as non-denominational, baptists, etc.

What is the biblical basis for this practice (according to those who believe there is one)? Are there any examples you can draw from in scripture which would suggest, for example, not being fed, as a reason for going from one Church to another?


texts: What is the significance of the three distinct aspects of the temptation of Eve in the garden?

texts:
Genesis 3 indicates that there were three distinct aspects of the temptation of Eve:

  So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was
  a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one
  wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her
  husband who was with her, and he ate.  Genesis 3:6 ESV

Jesus was also tempted in three ways in Matthew 4:

  Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted
  by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was
  hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of
  God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." But he answered,
  "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
  that comes from the mouth of God.'"  Then the devil took him to the
  holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him,
  "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,
  "'He will command his angels concerning you,' and "'On their hands
  they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'"
  Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord
  your God to the test.'" Again, the devil took him to a very high
  mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
  And he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down
  and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is
  written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you
  serve.'" Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were
  ministering to him.  Matthew 4:1-11 ESV

Additionally, Jeremiah 9:23-24 speaks of three different things of which men must not boast:

  Thus says the LORD: "Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not
  the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his
  riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and
  knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice,
  and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight,
  declares the LORD."  Jeremiah 9:23-24 ESV

1 John 2:15-17 also speaks of three things not to love in the world:

  Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves
  the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in
  the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and
  pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world.
  And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever
  does the will of God abides forever.  1 John 2:15-17 ESV

Finally, in the parable of the sower, there are three things that choke the word and make it unfruitful:

  but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the
  desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves
  unfruitful.  Mark 4:19 ESV

So, each of these identifies three things.  I've wondered if they are all speaking of the same three things, perhaps 1) What I have, 2) What I do, and 3) Who I am.

Is there any historical perspective from church history or any modern commentaries on these three specific aspects of temptation or sin?


texts: Why does Paul pay special attention to the sexually immoral in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11?

texts:
1 Corinthians 5:9-11 states that

  I have written you in my letter no to associate with sexually immoral people -- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

Why are the sexually immoral singled out as those with whom the Corinthians should not associate? I don't see any reason why such sin should be considered better or worse than any other. Thank you.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, how do you perform an examination of conscience?

texts: When preparing for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we are instructed to perform an examination of conscience.  How exactly are we supposed to go about doing this?  I am looking for a thorough, sourced, pragmatic, and detailed answer focused on the spiritual actions of the penitent in sequential order.


texts: According to Catholicism, are we deserving or worthy of God's love in any way?

texts:
We are just dust in this infinite universe. We are sinners. We do crimes against humanity.

God even sent his only begotten son for us to look over the vineyard. We scourged Him, judged Him and crucified Him.

We harm each other, we hurt each other and God still sends his graces and mana from heaven and endows us with His blessings.

Are we worthy of His love? If no then why does God love us so much and place us above everything after everything we put Him through?


texts: What is the significance of the angelic visitation of the shepherds after the birth of Jesus Christ?

texts:
In his gospel, Luke records the visitation of the angels to shepherds immediately after the birth of Jesus Christ.

  And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping
  watch over their flock by night. 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared
  to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were
  filled with great fear. 10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for
  behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the
  people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a
  Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

  12 And this will be a sign for you:
  you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a
  manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the
  heavenly host praising God and saying, 14 “Glory to God in the highest,
      and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!  Luke 2:8-14 ESV

This event is very well popular, indeed.  Yet, why was it so significant that angels appeared to shepherds?  Why were they the only ones to receive such a profound message?  Why not farmers or carpenters or tax collectors or... fishermen (like Zebedee)?

God made a specific choice to proclaim this message to shepherds.  So, why is that?


texts:
Reading The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, I came across at least two accounts of the Fathers lying to or deceiving people

  10 . Once a provincial judge heard of Abba Moses and went  to Scete to see
  him. They told the old man that he was on his  way, and he rose up to
  flee into a marsh. The judge and his  train met him, and asked: "Tell
  me, old man, where is the cell  of Abba Moses?" And the old man said:
  "Why do you want to  see him? He is a fool and a heretic."
  The judge came to the church, and said to the clergy: "I  heard of
  Abba Moses and came to see him- But an old man on  his way to Egypt
  met me, and I asked him where was the cell  of Abba Moses. And he
  said: 'Why are you looking for him? He  is a fool and a heretic.* "
  And the clergy were distressed and  said: "What sort of person was
  your old man who told you this  about the holy man?" And they said:
  "He was an old man, tall  and dark, wearing the oldest possible
  clothes.'* And the clergy  said: "That was Abba Moses. And he told you
  this about him-  self because he did not want you to see him." And the
  judge  went away much edified.

  17 . A magistrate came to see Abba Simon one day. When he heard  of it, he
  put on his apron and went out to attend to a palm-tree.  When the
  visitors arrived they called out to him, 'Old man, where  is the
  anchorite?' He replied, 'There is no anchorite here.' Hearing  these
  words, they went away again.

Source: THE SAYINGS OF THE FATHERS, PART VIII in "The Library Of Christian Classics Volume XII. Western Asceticism" by Owen Chadwick, 1958

Having read many other anecdotes about the Desert Fathers and knowing how much they valued eremitic lifestyle and detachment from the world I take the behavior of these two abbas as an attempt to avoid being bothered by unexpected and random visitors lest they disturb their seclusion and peace of mind.

Abba Moses (the protagonist of the first anecdote above) is recorded as saying

  10 . "A man who avoids men is like a ripe grape. A man who companies with men is like a sour grape"

Source: ibid, Part II

Various sources, for example gotquestions.org, assert that lying is regarded as a sinful act.

So I would guess that by being deliberately untruthful these Fathers not only acted presumably unethically and sinfully, they also acted against the ethos of Jesus's teachings expressed in such saying as

  If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to
  the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to
  borrow from you.

Mt 5:41-42

In the quoted stories the visitors were going to ask for advice and borrow some wisdom, which they were denied under false pretenses, although in the first case the visitor is said to have still derived benefit from witnessing the abba's humbleness, which nevertheless could have been a byproduct and not the original intent.

My question thus is whether and how these Fathers' deceptive behavior could be justified from the Christian doctrine point of view, either Catholic or Greek Orthodox denomination?

Obviously the purpose of these anecdotes was and is to serve as
examples of good Christian ascetic conduct and so recording these two
particular ones their authors must've not viewed the conduct of the
abbas as either deceitful or as a morally reproachable deceit (if
deceit can be morally neutral or even positive) possibly knowing a good excuse for it.


texts: Why would God create beings with the capacity to sin?

texts:
Life on earth is filled with the horrible effects of sin.  Why did God create mankind with the capacity to sin?  Was there a higher purpose in this or was there a specific reason for it?

I'm specifically looking for an answer based on biblical teaching as interpreted in the Protestant tradition.


texts:
The Bible describes some people as being created or formed, in Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:7,22:

  1:27 God created mankind in his image;
  in the image of God he created them;
  male and female* he created them.

  2:7 then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

  2:22 The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman. When he brought her to the man,

But usually people are conceived through intercourse, as mentioned in Genesis 4:1:

  1 The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, saying, “I have produced a male child with the help of the LORD.”

Were either of these the case with Jesus? In what way was Jesus conceived?


texts: The right to read a Catholic church's sacramental register

texts:
In the era of handwritten parish registers, when a diocesan or missionary priest performed a sacramental rite, he wrote it up in a semi-structured form in a record book. Sometimes that priest was the only literate person around, making the parish books essentially internal documents, but some parishioners were literate too. Who was allowed to look at church registers: only priests, anyone the priest saw fit to share it with, or anyone at all that was interested? Did canon law and local practice differ on this point?

Modern norms might be different because of the legal concept of privacy, so this question is about the past. I am particularly interested in the policy of Franciscans in the Spanish Empire, but information on how this was addressed elsewhere could be helpful too. I have the specific case of a recently converted godparent who was described in the register as falsely pious; the remark was presumably not meant for the public. Who did the priest expect would ever be able to read it?


texts: St. Albans Psalter - history of manuscripts used to translate the Psalms

texts:
Recently I had cause to do research into the St. Albans Psalter.  My task was to ascertain if the Latin translation of the Psalms was biblical and to establish which manuscripts formed the basis for this particular Psalter when it was later translated into English.  I found an interesting Wikipedia article on the history of the St. Albans Psalter but there was no information about the original manuscripts used in the translation of the Psalms.  Here is a partial quote:

The St Albans Psalter, also known as the Albani Psalter or the Psalter of Christina of Markyate, is an English illuminated manuscript, one of several psalters known to have been created at or for St Albans Abbey in the 12th century.  It is widely considered to be one of the most important examples of English Romanesque book production; it is of almost unprecedented lavishness of decoration, with over forty full-page miniatures, and contains a number of iconographic innovations that would endure throughout the Middle Ages. It also contains the earliest surviving example of French literature, the Chanson de St Alexis or Vie de St Alexis, and it was probably commissioned by an identifiable man and owned by an identifiable woman. - St. Albans Psalter (Wikipedia)

The only Psalter I am familiar with is the metrical Scottish Psalter, the 1650 version (based on the King James Bible) as approved by the Church of Scotland.  It contains only the Psalms and, in the Free Church of Scotland, there is no musical accompaniment.
Obviously, the Psalms were originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Latin and the St. Albans Psalter was written in Latin.  Later, it was translated into English.  But which English Bible translation was used?  I understand that the English version of this Psalter is still used today.  My interest is focused on the translation of the Psalms in the St. Albans Psalter from Latin into English.
I would like (if possible) to track the history of the manuscripts used that led up to the English translation of the Psalms in the St. Albans Psalter.  This question is open to Catholics and Anglicans in particular and to Bible scholars in general.


texts: Was the transition from establishment to voluntary church support made with "little difficulty" in the US?

texts:
In A History of American Christianity, Chapter 16, Leonard Bacon writes:

  The transition from establishment to the voluntary system for the support of churches was made not without some difficulty, but with surprisingly little.

Is this true? I thought that the transition ran into many difficulties and oppositions?


texts: What is the biblical basis for a one world religion in the end times?

texts:
I was just reading about eschatology and somebody was stating that this verse suggests that there will be a one world religion, a false religion:

  Revelation 17:1–18 (ESV)

  1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said
  to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who
  is seated on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth have
  committed sexual immorality ...

Where is support for this concept found in other scriptures?


texts: What was the general opinion of the Early Church Fathers concerning the giants/nephilims?

texts:
What was the general opinion of the Early Church Fathers concerning the giants/nephilims, described in the following verses?

Genesis 6:4
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also
after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were
of old, men of renown.
Numbers 13:33
33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which
come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and
so we were in their sight.
Deuteronomy 9:1–3
1 Hear, O Israel: Thou art to pass over Jordan this
day, to go in to possess nations greater and mightier than thyself,
cities great and fenced up to heaven,
2 A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou
knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the
children of Anak!
3 Understand therefore this day, that the Lord thy God is he which
goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and
he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them
out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord hath said unto thee.


texts: Do any denominations have official doctrine regarding humans on other planets?

texts:
The recent discovery of an Earth-like planet caused me to wonder: do any Christian denominations have official doctrine regarding humans on other planets? If so, what is the doctrine?

Related: Does the Bible make any allusions to life on other planets?


texts: Why did Jesus ask his disciples to collect the fragments of bread in baskets?

texts:
Why did Jesus asked his disciples to collect the fragments of bread in baskets?

As per scripture Jesus ask is disciples to collect only the bread fragments only,
but not the bones or flesh of the fish....


texts: How many practicing Canon Lawyers are there in the USA, and the world?

texts:
To me, it seems Canon Lawyers are hard to come by. In fact, I've never met one and 19 out of 20 times I see the phrase "canon lawyer" it is usually in the form "I am not one".

It seems becoming a Canon Lawyer is probably one of the largest educational undertakings in existence. That would explain their scarcity. However, with such a vital role in the Church's governance, how available are they really to the dioceses that need them? What about the laity? It seems like you can hire them, which I did not expect when I first looked into this, and their prices are about what you'd expect for a lawyer. But are there currently enough Canon Lawyers to effectively serve the Church in the USA? What about the rest of the world?

The question title asks for a number, but you're not going to get the green check mark that easily. I'm looking for some analysis on their distribution and if that is enough to be effective. Your own opinion on if that is enough is not really what I'm looking for.

I just want to highlight a great resource on what exactly a Canon Lawyer is and what they do and don't do: canonlaw.info.


texts: Why didn't Adam and Eve die when they ate the fruit?

texts:
God gave Adam and Eve the following command, followed by a cause

  Genesis 2:17-  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
  shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
  shalt surely die.  KJV

Even so, they ate and still lived a long life, not dying in the same day

  Genesis 5:5-  And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and
  thirty years: and he died.  KJV

Is it as simple as "day" referring to a different period of time than it refers to today?


texts: What can be deduced from the Gospel of John about prayer?

texts: I´m looking for resources for a seminar paper about prayer in the Gospel of John. Unlike other gospels, it does not use the words proseuche or proseuchomai. It contains no explicit instructions on prayer (like Matthew 6 does). But the Jesus of John does pray and also seems to refer to prayers of the disciples (like in John 14:13). I do not look for resources on the contents of prayers of Jesus, there are plenty of those. I am interested in the notion and understanding of prayer in the Johannine tradition, in how prayer can be understood based on the Gospel of John. If any resources on that come to your mind, I would be grateful for suggestions. Thanks!


texts: What does the Bible teach/say about luck?

texts: Is there such a thing, do we have a measure of randomness and ability to shape our own destinies or ultimately are all things predestined.


texts: Did Paul read aloud his letters to the Corinthians? To the Philippians? Other books?

texts:
I'd like to know if there's evidence that Paul presented his letters (e.g., Corinthians, Philippians, etc.) in the manner of spoken sermons to people of various churches, or if his letters were written and only quietly read.

I'm asking because I think it would alter my experience of reading the text, as so far I have simply read it as a thoughtfully written letter, not while imagining a crowd before this one guy speaking.


texts: If "the Kingdom of God comes not with observation", how can it be "taken by violence"?

texts:
Matthew 11:12 (KJV):

  And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Similarly, in Luke 16:16:

  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Whereas Luke 17:20 reads:

  And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

How can it be 'taken' as Matthew 11/Luke 16 suggests in light of what Luke 17:20 says?


texts: In 1 Corinthians 1, who were Crispus and Gaius?

texts:
1 Corinthians 1:14

  14  I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;


texts: According to Catholicism, does purgatory refer to a place or state? Has it ever been described as a place and then later a state, or vice-versa?


texts: Minimum age of marriage in the Catholic Church through the ages

texts:
I was watching a fictional series situated in XV century France, where a girl (princess) aged 8 married a +18 years old man (prince), through the Catholic Church. I wonder whether that was actually possible.

It seems in the "Middle Ages" (unclear what exactly which years this is to represent) the minimum "legal" (Church?) age for marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys (e.g. see here and here). Currently, according to Canon Law, it's 14 and 16 respectively (e.g. see here).

I've been searching for the evolution of this regulation, but haven't found much more than the above. A Wikipedia article about the history of marriage in the Catholic Church has no further information. Anyone know more about this?


texts: What language(s) was Christ likely to have spoken during his mortal ministry?

texts:
1st-century Palestine was a relatively small area, surrounded by other countries, and part of the Roman Empire, which influenced commerce, government, and other areas of society. Jerusalem was a major destination for pilgrims during Jewish feasts, with people coming from all over to celebrate. Jesus spent a lot of time teaching and interacting with people during his ministry.

Before his ministry, he spent time in Egypt. Growing up, he may have accompanied Joseph when traveling to trade and sell craftsman or carpenter wares. Jesus was familiar with the Hebrew scriptures, but his followers recorded his teachings in Greek and Aramaic. In these varied situations, what are the languages that Jesus may have spoken?

(The question What language did Jesus speak? is related, but seems to be focused more on what his main language was (for example, with his family). I'm wondering more broadly what languages he would have studied or used to communicate beyond his "mother tongue.")


texts: Why aren't the books of the Bible in chronological order?

texts: Don't we have a good idea of when each was written? Wouldn't it make more sense?


texts: Why do some translations render Genesis 3:8 with "the voice of the Lord" while others don't? Is it a reference to Jesus?

texts:
Genesis 3:8, depending on the translation, says one of two things with regards to what Adam and Eve heard:

They heard "the voice of the Lord" walking in the garden

or

The sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden.

It seems that in example one, the translations are intending to mean that the actual voice of the Lord God was walking in the garden, that is, had feet. In the second group, it seems they are stating simply that the Lord could be heard walking in the garden. Two very distinct interpretations.

KJV

  “And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in
  the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the
  presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.”

Word English Bible

  They heard the voice of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool
  of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence
  of Yahweh God among the trees of the garden.

Now, compare that to:

NIV

  Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was
  walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the
  LORD God among the trees of the garden.

ESV

  And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the
  cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the
  presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

Is it possible that some translations are referencing the Memra of the Lord (as seen in the Aramaic Targum)? http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm
The Memra is known as the voice of the Lord, the glory of the Lord, the Angel of the Lord, etc. Some, in fact, connect the Memra with Jesus Christ. Jesus, of course, being called the logos or the word of God.

So, are there any traditions, commentaries, church fathers, etc., that hold that, specifically, the individual walking in the garden in Genesis 3:8 was Jesus and not God the Father?


texts: Was the cave of Abraham in Shechem or Hebron?

texts:
Genesis 23:17–20 says:

  So Ephron’s field in Machpelah near Mamre—both the field and the cave in it, and all the trees within the borders of the field—was deeded to Abraham as his property in the presence of all the Hittites who had come to the gate of the city. Afterward Abraham buried his wife Sarah in the cave in the field of Machpelah near Mamre (which is at Hebron) in the land of Canaan. So the field and the cave in it were deeded to Abraham by the Hittites as a burial site. (NIV)

Acts 7:15–16 says:

  Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our ancestors died.
  Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that
  Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum
  of money. (NIV)

You may say that Jacob was simply buried in a different burial site. However, Genesis 50:12–14 clearly states otherwise:

  So Jacob’s sons did as their father commanded. They carried his
  body to the land of Canaan and buried it in the cave in the field of
  Machpelah near Mamre. Abraham had bought this cave and field from
  Ephron the Hittite to use as a burial place. After Joseph buried
  his father, he returned to Egypt, along with his brothers and everyone
  who had gone with him to bury his father. (NCV)

It seems that both the location and the seller is off between the books. How can these passages be reconciled?


texts:
I have a multi-part question.

Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest?

Genesis, Chapter 4 tells us about Cain and Abel.
Genesis, Chapter 5 tells us about Seth and "other sons and daughters".

I highly doubt that our species began with many acts of incest (not just for religious/legal/moral reasons but biological reasons as well), so how did humanity continue?

As a Christian, am I obliged to accept one of the following?

Adam and Eve's progeny mated with descendants from another lineage that the Bible (through no apparent malice) failed to describe.
The story of Adam and Eve is just that - A story. It is a story that was passed down by way of oral tradition. It was never meant to describe actual historical events.


texts: According to Catholicism must we all suffer in life?

texts:
In the Catholic Church there is a certain mystic aspect regarding to the suffering of Jesus Christ in which often faithful who go trough sufferings, especially for the faith, see their suffering as somehow joining to that of Christ.
Very often Matthew 16:24-26 is cited here.
Must we all suffer in life?


texts: Is there a denomination/sect of Christianity that believes that Jesus was the son of an angel?

texts:
Rabbi Yosef Massas (1892–1974) writes in responsa Mayim Chaim vol. 2 (Yoreh Deah §108:2) that he spoke to a Christian (possibly Catholic) priest who claimed that they only worship the One God and that when they say that Jesus was a son of Elohim this means "angel" not "God". Accordingly, this sect believed that Jesus was a son of an angel, not son of God.

Does anybody know of a Christian denomination/sect which fits this description?

(Rabbi Massas lived in Morocco and in Algeria if that helps)


texts: Acts 11:26 regarding the word Christian?

texts:
Referring to Acts 11:26: Did the people (unbelievers) of Antioch call the "Believers" Christian, or did the Believers start calling themselves Christian first in Antioch?

Here is what I mean: Acts 11:26 The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.
Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
I have this feeling in the tone of these two verses that the word "Christian" was more of a mockery since it came from unbelievers, like we have "goody-two-shoes", especially the way Agrippa said it to Paul, I could almost hear the rest of Agrippa's audience laughing at this!?
And 1 Peter 4:16 "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter." sort of supports my argument!?

It seems that this mock-name Christian was getting around, and the disciples were resenting it, so 1 Peter 4:16 tells them not to be ashamed (for they mocked our Lord also) but that they should glorify God in this matter!?
Your thoughts fellow Believers?


texts: "καὶ στρατείας κλῆσις" - Cyril, Procatechesis, §1

texts:
In Procatechesis, §1, Cyril was talking about events that had occurred before a Christian was baptized.

He wrote,

  Ὀνοματογραφία τέως ὑμῖν γέγονε, καὶ στρατείας κλῆσις· καὶ νυμφαγωγίας λαμπάδες, καὶ οὐρανίου πολιτείας ἐπιθυμία, καὶ πρόθεσις ἀγαθὴ, καὶ ἐλπὶς ἐπακολουθοῦσα·

My translation:

  Hereto, there has been an inscription of your names, and a στρατείας κλῆσις, and torches of a bridal procession, and a desire of a heavenly citizenship, and a good purpose, and an attending hope.

My question is about the στρατείας κλῆσις. The Greek word κλῆσις means "call" (i.e., calling; cp. Rom. 11:29). Philip Schaff described the phrase "as a call to military service."

What event in the life of a Christian does this describe? When does this call to "military service" occur? Do any of the NT authors describe it?


texts: When/why did the [N]RSV become a "Catholic" Bible instead of a "Protestant" Bible?

texts:
The Methodist church my aunt grew up in back in the 50s and 60s relied almost exlcusively on the RSV, and she continued to use it until her death a few years ago as her preferred translation.

However, when going through Christian bookstores (or just Christian sections of bookstores) today, I see the RSV (and NRSV) group with the NAB and other "Catholic" Bibles.

When/why did this occur (at least in the US)?

Are there aspects of the RSV/NRSV considered less ideal to Protestants now that were not as widely known/cared about half a century ago?


texts: What does Catholicism teach about 'The Massacre of the Innocents'?

texts:
Matthew 2:16 says:

  When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.

Wikipedia says that "[The Massacre of the Innocents] is understood as the fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy. And while I can appreciate that this event is inextricably linked to Jesus' birth, I feel like it has its own significance.

My Question:

How are Catholics taught to respond if they observe infanticide, genocide, or a mass killing in their own lives, when it appears like the event might be fulfillment of prophecy?
Are they taught to simply mourn the dead? Or are they taught to organize and respond in some way?


texts: What is the source and context of this St. Bernard of Clairvaux quote?

texts:
The quote

  What we love we shall grow to resemble.

seems remarkably popular. Although it is attributed to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, it doesn't look like anyone who uses it knows which one of his works it came from or what the exact context of it is.

Can someone who is familiar with his work specify where it comes from?


texts: Are there any secular historical references to the natural phenomena that occurred at the crucifixion and resurrection?

texts:
The Scriptures record that there was three hours of darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus.  This is a pretty significant meteorological event.  Furthermore, the morning of Jesus' resurrection, the Scriptures indicate that there was an earthquake.  Additionally, when Jesus died, the curtain of the Temple was apparently torn in two.

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.  Matthew 27:45 ESV
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split.  Matthew 27:51 ESV

I don't know if there are historical records of any earthquakes, eclipses, or such things in any of antiquity.  Yet, I am indeed curious to know if there are, and, if so, if there are any secular historical records that could match up to these events that surrounded the death of resurrection of Christ.


texts: Into what eschatological category do the teachings of the Catholic Church fit?

texts: I don’t think I’ve heard much from Catholics on the topic. It seems that they would be removed from the dispensational-premillennialism hysteria, but haven’t heard many speak on it one way or another.


texts: Were any Biblical prophecies understood before they were fulfilled?

texts:
In a recent discussion on this site, someone told me that the nature of Biblical Prophecy is such that it cannot be understood prior to its fulfillment; that this is essentially the point of a prophecy: to be understood only after the fact.

This was a new concept to me, and now I'm curious:

Are there any examples of Biblical prophecies which were understood (by anyone) before they were fulfilled?


texts: What is the context of the "unequally yoked" passage?

texts:
2 Corinthians 6:14 is the well known "unequally yoked" passage. While the common interpretation is that it is about marriage, the heading translators added in NIV is "Warning against Idolatry", and there was nothing about marriage.

Was it ever discussed what sort of event or situation that Corinthian church was in that inspired Paul to write such a passage?
What other interpretations exist of the "unequally yoked" passage that Bible scholars have proposed?
How did the idea that this verse refers to marriage come from, given that marriage was not mentioned in 2 Corinthians chapter 5, 6 or 7?


texts: What does it mean / how do you know / how would you explain "God is working" or "God is at work"?

texts:
Usually this phrase may come up during testimonies or used at church.

How would you explain it to someone who asks "How do you know it was God at work?" (usually an unbeliever)

Suppose someone has gone through major changes after accepting Christ. The saved person might say "God has been working" in their testimony. Another might ask "How do you know it was God at work? How do you know that person didn't make those changes on his/her own will?"

What passages might you include?

(If too subjective, leave a comment and the question can be deleted)


texts: What is the difference between Joshua 15:14-19 and Judges 1:12-15

texts:
Joshua is retold during his life, whereas Judges is told post burial, after his death (Judges 1:1).
However, we see the story repeat itself where Caleb offers his daughter in exchange for conquering land.
Can someone explain, is this a duplicate, or what is happening here?


texts: Is St. Adalbert venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy?

texts:
Is Saint Adalbert of Prague venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy? He's listed in this calendar so I understand he's considered an Orthodox saint, but is there a veneration in the Eastern rite? Is there a non-negligible private veneration? Have there been any public acts of veneration by Orthodox bishops?

I'm asking this out of curiosity -- he's one of the patron saints of my country, with a huge veneration in the local Roman Catholic church. I just started wondering if there was any in Eastern Orthodoxy, since his martyrdom took place shortly before the schism.


texts: Why was God so upset with Moses for striking the rock the second time in the desert?

texts:
In Exodus, God commands Moses to strike a rock, and promises to make water flow in the desert for the people.

  Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you
  shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people
  will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.
  (Exodus 17:6 ESV)

Later on, God tells Moses to speak to a rock, promising to make water flow in the desert again.  However, Moses strikes the rock again instead of speaking to it.  Because of just this one thing, God tells Moses that he will no longer be permitted bring the people into the Promised Land.

  “Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your
  brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water.
  So you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to
  the congregation and their cattle.” 9 And Moses took the staff from
  before the Lord, as he commanded him. 10 Then Moses and Aaron gathered
  the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, “Hear now,
  you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” 11 And
  Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice,
  and water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their
  livestock. 12 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did
  not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of
  Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land
  that I have given them.” (Numbers 20:8-12 ESV, emphasis added)

Why was the punishment so harsh for what seems like a small infraction?  Was there something greater or more symbolic going on here?


texts: Who said "he would be called a Nazarene"?

texts:
Matthew 2:23 NIV

  and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

From what research I have done, it does not seem that any of the prophets who are recorded in the old testament said this, or anything similar. Even the apocrypha does not seem to make reference to this prophecy.

Even more troubling, is Matthew saying the prophets, plural, have predicted this, making it even more vexing that it is not written in anywhere in the canon today. What was Matthew referencing here?


texts: How does Ravi Zacharias reconcile prayer with free will?

texts:
I have been struggling with a question about prayer and free will.  For background, please watch this 6 minute youtube clip where Ravi Zacharias answers a question about free will. The question asked was "why doesn't God intervene and prevent people from committing bad things?" His answer is basically if God interferes then there is no free will and with no free will there is no love. I fully agree and understand the answer given by Ravi.

My question is "When we pray for others, how does God work in their lives and still respect their free will?"  The way I see it, the answer can go two ways:

Maybe God uses his sovereignty and breaks the law of free will and works in their lives. If that is so, then we are not really free.
Or, God works in their lives some how maintaining their free will. If that is the case then why is prayer required as God can still work in everybody's lives and make every person good but still maintain free will.

I'm not fully satisfied by either option.  How does Ravi Zacharias answer this conundrum?


texts: What is the difference between God and the Spirit of God?

texts:
There are passages that appear to establish an identity between God and his Spirit:

24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” [John 4:24, ESV]

17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. [2 Corinthians 3:17-18, ESV]

However, other passages appear to make a distinction between the two, as if God and his Spirit were different beings. The passage that is most clear in this regard, in my opinion, is 1 Corinthians 2:10-13:

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. [1 Corinthians 2:10-13, ESV]

So, on the one hand, God is Spirit, but on the other hand, God has a Spirit. Does this mean that God is Spirit and has a Spirit simultaneously? Is there any difference between God and his Spirit? How can we make sense of all this?


texts: Is receiving the Holy Spirit the completion of Salvation?

texts:
In Luke Chapter 11:1 through 13, Jesus exhorts us seek righteousness through persistence.

  Luke 11:9 and 10  And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

and in verse 13 he seems to indicate that when God gives us the Holy Spirit that is the fulfillment of that quest:

  Luke 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

We have the further example of Pentecost which appears to bolster this concept.

  Acts 1:4 through 8 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?  And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

In the above verses Jesus charges the disciples not to go into the world to preach the Gospel until they have received holy Spirit. And in the following verses we have the fulfillment of Jesus promice

  Acts 2:1 through 4  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The question that arises in my mind is whether this receiving of the Holy Spirit was only applicable, those early converts or is that applicable to all converts?


texts: Under What Conditions Can a Priest Validly Refuse to Absolve Sins?

texts: Absolution can be withheld, I was wondering under what conditions such an action can be considered to be valid(not licit or illicit), if any are needed at all. Furthermore I want to know if a priest can validly absolve the sins of someone who has been refused absolution from another priest validly.


texts: Can an indulgence be applied to a deceased non-Catholic Christian?

texts:
The Manual of Indulgences published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops states that

The faithful can obtain a partial or plenary indulgences for themselves, or they can apply them to the dead by way of suffrage.

As far as I know, the Catholic Church acknowledges that deceased non-Catholic Christians can go to Purgatory (e.g. this post mentions that Anne Catherine Emmerich had visions of Protestants in Purgatory) so in theory such non-Catholic Christians would be eligible to have indulgences applied to them. Indeed, the Manual of Indulgences describes indulgences as a remission of temporal punishment for sins for a "properly disposed member of the Christian faithful" (as opposed to only the Catholic faithful):

An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment for sins, whose guilt is forgiven, which a properly disposed member of the Christian faithful obtains under certain and clearly defined conditions through the intervention of the Church, which, as the minister of Redemption, dispenses and applies authoritatively the treasury of the expiatory works of Christ and the saints.

However, the description of an indulgence indicates that it is the Church which dispenses and applies indulgences, so it seems possible that the Church might choose to withhold the dispensing and application of indulgences to certain souls in Purgatory (e.g. Protestants who might have been anti-Catholic in life). Moreover, it's not clear what is considered a "properly disposed member" of the Christian faithful -- perhaps non-Catholic Christians might not be considered "properly disposed" and thus not eligible to have indulgences applied to them.1
Has the Catholic Church explained whether or not indulgences can be obtained for non-Catholic Christians in Purgatory? If so, are there any limitations (e.g. perhaps only souls from certain denominations are eligible, similar to how only Christians of certain denominations are permitted to receive Communion)?

1I suspect the meaning of "properly disposed" refers to the norm that

§1. In order to be capable of gaining indulgences one must be baptized, not excommunicated, and in the state of grace at least at the completion of the prescribed works.
§2. To gain an indulgence, one must have at least the general intention of doing so and must carry out the enjoined works at the stated time and in due fashion, according to the sense of the grant.

However, since I don't see a definition of exactly what "properly disposed" means I can't rule out the possibility that one must be Catholic to be "properly disposed".


texts: How was slavery in the U.S. justified by Christianity?

texts:
President Barack Obama recently stated that many atrocities were done in the name of Christ.  He went on to say that Slavery in the United States was also justified by Christianity.

Since he did not cite any Scripture, in his statement; I have searched the Gospels for any words of Jesus, which could be construed to support slavery; and have found none.

If Slavery was so justified as being defended in the name of Christ, I cannot find it.

Can anyone assist me in understanding the President's assertion?


texts: Tree of Life in the Book of Mormon a common Near Eastern motif?

texts:
In 1 Nephi 8, in the Book of Mormon, the prophet Lehi has a dream/vision in which he sees a Tree of Life. This dream is retold to his family. His son, Nephi, was particularly interested and desired to know not only if what his father said/saw was true, but what the interpretation of the "Tree of Life" was. In chapter 11, the interpretation is revealed -- it is symbolic of the love of God. Also, the fruit of the tree is symbolic of eternal life.

Elder Jeffrey R . Holland (modern apostle) taught that the tree of life is a symbol of Jesus Christ. He said: “The images of Christ and the tree [are] inextricably linked. … At the very outset of the Book of Mormon, … Christ is portrayed as the source of eternal life and joy, the living evidence of divine love, and the means whereby God will fulfill his covenant with the house of Israel and indeed the entire family of man, returning them all to their eternal promises” (Christ and the New Covenant [1997], 160, 162).

Anyway, is the Tree of Life antidote common in other Near Eastern mythologies?


texts: What is an overview of the main interpretations of "day" in Genesis 1?

texts:
In the Creation account in Genesis 1 (and 2), God's work of Creation is famously split into 7 "days". For example, the first "day" occurs in verse 5:

  Genesis 1:5 (NLT)
  God called the light "day" and the darkness "night."

  And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

I have seen claims that "day" refers to a literal 24-hour period, which is supported by the fact that the same Hebrew word is used for both occurrences of "day" in that verse. I have also seen claims that "day" just refers to some long period of time, which is in agreement with scientific evidence. Hence, my question is:

Considering context and wording, what are the main interpretations of "day" in Genesis 1?


texts: How does a Roman Catholic reconcile a preference for purely procreative sex with the Song of Solomon?

texts:
Premise #1: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that sex is for procreation

Peter Turner has an excellent answer to the question on Onan. In it, he suggests that Onan really was misusing sex, and that angers God.

When I also consider priestly celibacy and the general nature of Roman teaching on contraception, masturbation, and other regulations around sex, it seems like the Roman church really wants to suggest that the beauty of sex is when it furthers the end of "being fruitful and multiply"ing.  I'm probably not doing it justice, but it seems like procreation is the point of sex.

Now, my question then, could be mis-read as antagonstic, but its not.  I really do want to understand how these go together.  Here's my conundrum -

Premise #2: The canonical Song of Solomon celebrates the passion of sex

The Song of Solomon clearly celebrates a sexual relationship between a man and a woman who dearly love each other.  I know that some have historically tried to say that the Song of Solomon is Christ's love for his church, but I can't buy that with verses like these:

  SOS 5:3 I have taken off my robe— must I put it on again?
  I have washed my feet— must I soil them again?
  4 My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him.
  5 I arose to open for my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh,
  my fingers with flowing myrrh, on the handles of the bolt.

I find it very hard to read that and not think that is physical. (We're all grownups here, right?)

The book goes on to warn us not to "arouse or awaken love, until it so desires, because love is as strong as death." (Its a common refrain).  Clearly here the focus is on that passion.

But, that passion is seemingly celebrated, and not necessarily because of the kids that result. It may be dangerous, like fire, but the two lovers aren't saying its a bad thing at all.

Question: How do these fit together?

So, the question in all sincerity is this - How do Romans read the Song of Solomon?  How is it reconciled with the seeming Papal preference for purely procreative reproduction?

Or, am I misreading Catholics here - maybe they're not nearly as stuffy as people make them out to be? The Puritans were no prudes either, and it would be nice to understand if a Roman could endorse "the joy of (marital) sex."


texts: According to Lutherans, is it 13 or 14 or 15 Nissan when Luke 22:8 happen?

texts:
Luke 22

  (7)Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb
  had to be sacrificed.  (8)Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go
  and make preparations for us to eat the Passover."

From the info of verse 7, so when Jesus say "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover" I guess it happen in the time where the Jewish people either are preparing a lamb to be sacrificed (sacrificed in the same day) or even maybe some of the Jews are already sacrificing the lamb when Jesus say that.

Assuming my guessing is correct, the question is :
What date that event happen ?
13 Nissan ? 14 Nissan ? or 15 Nissan ?

The Catholic opinion is sought here.

The Reformed opinion is sought here


texts: Was knowledge of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton a component of the "deposit of faith" entrusted to the apostles and their successors?

texts:
According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the Lord Jesus Christ entrusted and delivered the faith (i.e., the depositum fidei) to his apostles whom later entrusted and delivered it to their successors, and so forth.

According to Catholics,

Was the knowledge of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton a component of the "deposit of faith" entrusted to the apostles and their successors?
If so, what is the correct pronunciation?
If not, why was the name of God (i.e., the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton) not entrusted to the apostles and their successors?


texts: What is the ultimate goal of a human according to Bible?

texts:
Bible contains several aspects. The best among them for humans is the guidance for conduct. It also instructs a way to live with honesty.
I'm confused about the ultimate goal of living a life according to the Bible. Is it reaching heaven or reaching God or unifying with god?  I'm interested to know whether the Bible explicitly says anyone among the three (I mentioned)  as ultimate.
Else if the Bible explicitly mentions any other one as the ultimate goal, please mention it.


texts: What is the difference between the Gospel and the Holy Bible?

texts: Probably my question here is trivial, but I'm interested to know the difference between the Gospel and the Holy Bible. Also, does anyone have the original version of it (I mean the original version which was supplied by Jesus Christ, peace be upon him)?


texts: Did Moses worship Egyptian gods while living in the palace?

texts:
When and how did Moses first learn about the true
God? Did the princess teach him about Egyptian gods or the God of Israel?


texts: Did medieval European monasticism provide a release from certain societal pressures?

texts:
I seem to recall a science fiction/fantasy author (possibly Marion Zimmer Bradley in the context of her Darkover series) stating that monasticism provided a means of relieving social pressures by giving an honorable place for misfits to function. (In some ways similar to modern military service in some countries, though modern military service seems to have increasingly emphasized an apprenticeship aspect, trading a term of service for training. There may also be similarities in how universities provide something of a haven for misfits.)

Obviously, reducing the division of an estate and removing potential rivals for a title would have practical benefits, but I am more interested in the misfit aspect.

Did medieval monasticism help keep misfits from being a burden (if unproductive) or nuisance (if disruptive) to society while also allowing misfits to be somewhat true to themselves and pursue a valued occupation?