What does St. Paul mean by 'will'?

Romans 7:18 (DRB)
For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not.

This is essentially a theological discussion on concupiscence (or, that which prevents the fallen sinner from doing what he ought, because of the inclinations of the flesh).
Its essence is: what I want/intend/purpose/ought to do, I cannot do, because of my fallen nature.

Wisdom 9:15 (DRB)
For the corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down the mind that museth upon many things.

What St. Paul is here digging deeper into, Jesus mentions in passing to His Apostles:

Matthew 26:41 (DRB)
Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak.

The teaching is that what is willed is 'thwarted' by the fallen human nature (simply called 'the flesh' in Biblical terminology).

Galatians 5:17 (DRB)
For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would.

Does this verse present a similar point of view as that of Rudolf Steiner?
No, St. Paul does not teach that 'outer freedom is attained by permeating our deeds with moral imagination,' (Steiner's view) but only "by the Spirit, [putting] to death the deeds of the flesh" (Romans 8:13—i.e. he does teach it's possible to overcome concupiscence by the Holy Spirit, not the unaided fallen flesh).
Or would this verse of Paul be closer to other forms of (in)comptabilism?
This passage has nothing to do with his will being free or not free, or anything of the sort. This is about the flesh warring against the spirit. We do not say that one is not free because another free agent is thwarting their actions. Freedom to will and other freedom doesn't necessitate the freedom to be able to accompish all that is willed—which is what St. Paul is here discussing.


Is there an official Catholic position against Halloween?

No, there isn't.

How did Halloween originate?

Believe it or not, Halloween is of Christian origin.1

By 741 there was a feast in the Church celebrating all the martyrs and saints in heaven. By 840 it was known by the title "Feast of All Saints". Pope Sixtus IV in 1484 established November 1 as a holyday of obligation and gave it both a vigil (known today as "All Hallows' Eve" or "Hallowe'en") and an eight-day period or octave to celebrate the feast. By 1955, the octave of All Saints was removed.

In England, saints or holy people are called "hallowed", hence the name "All Hallow's Day" or "Hallowmas". The evening, or "e'en" before the feast became popularly known as "All Hallows' Eve," or even shorter, "Hallowe'en."2

1. cf. Should Catholics Celebrate Halloween?; HALLOWEEN: ITS ORIGINS AND CELEBRATION | EWTN; Halloween or Samhain? | Catholic Answers; and 2. below that stand in contrast to the article linked in OP as regards the origins of Halloween.
2. Liturgical year: October: History of All Hallows' Eve | Catholic Culture. (The reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article to understand the feastday's customs in England, some of which can be seen in the current celebration of Halloween).

How a pious custom turned into what we see now with no reference to the religious aspect is what can be said as well of celebrations like Christmas, where in China, for example, it is purely secular and commercial. (Of course one need not go as far as China).

Should Catholics pay attention to what the Pope says about Halloween if he said it?

Of course because he is Papa, Father. I haven't seen any official statement on the matter but given that we are called to escape the corruption of this world, we always ought to be vigilant as regards corrupting influences. The danger of the occult cannot be underestimated or overemphasized.

Endnote

Does the Catholic Church celebrate Halloween?

No she doesn't!

cf. USCCB > Calendar > Roman Liturgical Calendar: October 31, 2014 was Friday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time, November 1, 2014 Solemnity of All Saints, and November 2, 2014 The Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed (All Souls).

Halloween doesn't feature.

Interesting reads:

Afraid to Celebrate Halloween? Don't Worry, It's Very Christian, Fr. Augustine Thompson | aleteia.
Halloween | Wikipedia.


Are we unaware of something that God foresaw in appointing Paul as apostle?

One possible explanation that God might have done this could be:

There would be no meaning and no purpose fulfilled by Jesus dying on cross, if the events in New Testament are not LINKED to the Old Testament.  And who will be in a better position to link these two Testaments, than a learned Jews Scripture Scholar, that was St Paul. St. Paul was in the best and ideal position to know and understand clearly the Plan that God had since the fall of the first men.

So possibly, it was God’s divine plan to mould St. Paul into what he was before his conversion and impart in him, the  in depth knowledge of Jewish Scripture and then convert him so forcibly and not through the preaching from disciples of Jesus but by His own power by striking him down when he was travelling to prosecute more of Christians population.

Whatever that he has written in the New testament would not have been possible for any other disciples of Jesus and  there would have been no clear understanding about the purpose of Jesus coming in such a manner and dying a kind of death despised very much at that period of time.

Jesus disciples were master in the message taught to them by Jesus but were lacking in  in-depth knowledge of Jewish scripture as they were just ordinary people prior to hearing the message from Jesus. So it was like a double edged sword-- Paul with a thorough knowledge of Old Testament and  Jesus’ original disciples with thorough knowledge of message from Jesus.

So God’s plans are truly marvellous and at time we are unable to understand them and only start to understand them as the time passes.

PS: I have provided an answer to my own question but some body can improve this answer or post another  answer.


I think this answer from the Judaism site sums it up:

  7 is the length of time for a natural cycle to transpire, often ending
  with holiness/sanctification of some sort (the pattern set by
  creation)

7 is special because it was set down by God as the natural cycle in creation.

In the same question above is this answer about other numbers:

It mentions the numbers:

  1, (2?), 4, (5?), (6?), 7, 8, 10, 12, 40, and 70 all have
  significance.

See that answer for full details of their importance.

Also important is the number 50 for Jubilee (from this answer):

  Toward the end of the book of Leviticus the 7 day measure that is most
  familiarly the Sabbath is unrolled across years to be the sabbatical
  year, and across decades to be the Jubilee. The Jubilee is the 50th
  year - the crown of the 7th 7.


If Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil, how can we say they sinned (according to Roman Catholicism)?

Your question appears to ignore some important facts that need to be taken into account.

Evil existed before Adam and Eve ate from the Tree.

Rev 12:7  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

The act of eating the fruit was not the beginning of evil that it seems that would
appear to be the rebellion of Lucifer in Heaven and the war that resulted from it.

Sin in all of it's forms actually boils down to disobedience of God.

Therefore we can accurately say that Adam and Eve sinned in the sight of God.

I must disagree with your concept that they and their posterity are being punished for having the knowledge of good and evil.

They and we are held guilty of choosing evil over good and thus disobeying God,
Without the knowledge of good and Evil such a choice would not be available.

Your example of the child taking something that is not his is a prime example of my point.
Both fault and punishment would be contingent on whether or not the child knew that taking the object was wrong. Most assuredly we would not punish a baby for taking a rattle from another baby, but we would not hesitate to punish a teenager who stole a CD from a store.
This Godly precept is the basis for all of our laws in the United States, that being that at a particular point in one's life they are aware that their actions are wrong.
We might rightly say that the command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the first law given to man by God.

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.

This command also includes the punishment for disobedience.
You may say that the Serpent beguiled Eve and that should somehow mitigate the severity of he disobedience, but we need also remember that Adam was not, and willfully disobeyed God.
That fact is also our downfall in that we willfully choose evil whether it be embracing the wiles of the world, or rejection of salvation. We each have the ability to either choose an eternity with God, or an eternity in the lake of fire.


As an Eastern Orthodox, I've never heard this line of reasoning.

Instead, what is usually discussed is the difference between primacy and supremacy.  In the Orthodox view, among all the bishops, there were five who were regarded as preeminent based on the importance of their sees.  These were:

Rome
Constantinople
Alexandria
Antioch
Jerusalem

The Orthodox recognized Rome as "first among equals", that is, as the preeminent bishop among the five great sees, and among all bishops everywhere.  In disputes, Orthodox would from time to time appeal to Rome.

However, the Orthodox reject the idea that the bishop of Rome is on a level above or superior to other bishops.  All bishops are the successors of the apostles.  There's no reason to suppose that the bishop of Rome has an office that is different in kind from the office of bishop held by all the other bishops.

The significance of Rome is not the Petrine founding of the church there, but simply the fact that it was the capital city of the Roman Empire.  In 381, Constantinople received the second place of honor after Rome, not due to any apostolic heritage, but because it was the second most important city after Rome.


This question might be more suitable for Hermeneutics. But, at the same time it has some important theological value.

There is a wiki page for this verse alone.

I am not expert in hermeneutics but I believe that this verse is equivalent to this verse.

  1 Peter 1:16 (NIV) for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

One of the most important mission of Jesus while He was on earth was to make us realize that we cannot meet the standard of God in our pursuit of holiness and perfection. Jesus pointed out that violating even one law means to violate the whole commandments. Even the sinful things we contemplate in our hearts without actually doing it is equivalent to committing it in real.

Jesus wanted to make us understand that we cannot meet the standard of God and that we need Jesus himself to set things right by pouring out His blood as a perpetual sacrifice to God. We do not need to achieve perfection but we need forgiveness.

Therefore, we need Jesus Christ in order to be counted as perfect in the eyes of God.

  Hebrews 5:8-9 (NIV) Son though he was, he learned obedience from what
  he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal
  salvation for all who obey him

  Hebrews 10:10  (NIV) And by that will, we
  have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ
  once for all.


Has "angels walking among men" been invoked to solve theological problems?

You may not agree with me, but your question conflates a number of issues we need to unpack and reframe.  If you bear with me I will try to explain why and perhaps in the process provide an answer to your question.

If I infer correctly from the paragraph that follows your question (in bold print), you are wondering if any Christian thinkers have ever used Hebrews 13:2 to provide at least a partial answer to the theological problem called theodicy.  My answer, simply, is no.  Let me explain.

If a theodicy is an explanation for how a holy, just, and loving God could allow sin and suffering to exist in the world He created, then we somehow, it is thought, need to come up with a way to reconcile these two seemingly and intuitively irreconcilable notions in an intellectually satisfying way.  On the one hand, God is holy, just, and loving.  This is a given in traditional Christian theology.

On the other hand, there is a great deal of sin and suffering in the world, and the scriptures do not seem to sugarcoat this fact (e.g., not just Romans 3:23, but the entire book of Job!).  How, then, can we square the one with the other, if at all?

The specific "theological problem" you cite is "suffering from hunger and torture," both of which (i.e., hunger and torture) are evident in the world today.   You need not have seen those commercials for Christian charities on television that feature African babies with bloated stomachs to know that suffering caused by hunger is very real indeed.  Furthermore, a quick perusal of a newspaper makes it eminently clear that torture is part and parcel of repressive regimes and conflicting ideologies throughout the world.  Or read Richard Wurmbrand's Tortured for Christ.  [By the way, when is the last time you prayed for the persecuted church in China, North Korea, Egypt, or Sudan?]

How, then, do we reconcile--if indeed it is possible--the one with the other?

First, no Christian thinker or theologian of whom I am aware ever used Hebrews 13:2 as a basis for an intellectually satisfying theodicy.  The writer of Hebrews 13:2 was likely thinking of Abraham and his encounter with the three men, one of whom was YHWH.  During this encounter, YHWH told Abraham that his wife Sarah, who was well beyond the age of childbearing, would give birth to a son, the son of promise (see Genesis 18).

While we cannot say for certain the two men who accompanied YHWH were angels, Abraham nevertheless entertained two strangers (and YHWH) and showed them hospitality by having their feet washed and by providing them a meal, complete with veal parmesan!

The primary interpretation of Hebrews 13:2, then, is that as Christians, we should be hospitable (literally, "lovers of strangers"), because strangers could in fact be angels sent by God.  One application of the verse is to the situation James described in James 2:1-9, in which believers show partiality in their assembly to a stranger who is evidently rich but give short shrift to a stranger who is evidently poor.  To show partiality based on appearances alone is a failure of the royal law, as James puts it, which is to love one's neighbor as oneself (vv.8,9).

Hebrews 13:2, then, is not relevant to the existence of suffering caused by hunger and torture.  While I do not even remotely suggest I have an intellectually satisfying answer to the problem of suffering, I do suggest that we can find at least a hint of a theodicy in Romans 8:28, where we read

  "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."

Clearly, this verse does not say all things are good.  By implication, however, it does say that all things, both good and bad, work together for good.  Paul also said in Ephesians 1:11 that God

  "works all things after the counsel of His will . . . to the praise of His glory."

While verses such as these are tremendously comforting to believers, since their application is to "those who love God," they are also, I suggest, of significance to lost and suffering humanity to whom believers are commissioned to reach out in the "sacrificial service of worship."  It is natural and even understandable to curse the darkness; it is super-natural, however, to light a candle in the darkness, if in doing so we bring relief in the name of Christ to those who are suffering.

God does not need for us His children to come to His defense.  He has broad shoulders and thick skin.  We do need, however, to do two things:  1.) we need to own up to our own contribution to the suffering in the world through our own sinful actions or inactions (see James 2:10); and 2.) we need to light a candle by going into all the world, preaching the gospel, making disciples, baptizing, and teaching all peoples even to the remotest part of the earth that God loves them and that we love them too (Ma 28:18-20; Mk 15:15,16; Acts 1:8).

There is no complete, intellectually satisfying theodicy.  Frankly, I am not completely satisfied with my "defense" of God as laid out above.  Job tried unsuccessfully to get a satisfying answer from God as to why God allowed him (whom God described as blameless and upright) to suffer (Job 1:8).  God told him simply, in the form of two rhetorical questions,

  "'Will you really [attempt to] annul My judgment?  Will you [dare to] condemn Me that you may be justified?'" (40:8).

Over and over again, I come back to Isaiah 55:8,9, which says

  "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD.  'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.'"

In conclusion, when Christians are faced with seemingly unanswerable questions, God is not annoyed with us when we attempt to wrestle with the issues and use the Scripture, discussion, and prayer to guide us in answering those questions.  At some point, however, when faced with an unsatisfying answer, we must simply bow to God in humble recognition of His flawless character, on the one hand, and our imperfect, incomplete, and often self-serving, self-justifying criticisms of Him, on the other.

Did He allow sin and suffering to enter the universe?  Yes.  Is He therefore to blame for sin and suffering?  No.  He may have allowed evil to come into existence, but each of us has perpetuated that evil by being sinners. Furthermore, each of us needs to bear his or her share of blame for the suffering in the world, especially if and when we fail to light our candles in the presence of the darkness.


During the first and second centuries the Romans threw Christians and non-Christians alike to wild animals, including wild dogs.  They did not distinguish between Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity although it is true that for a short time Christians and Jews alike were granted the same dispensation from Emperor-worship.  I found this information in ‘The History of Christianity’, Lion, 1977 pages 70 to 72:

"As long as the church was regarded simply as a Jewish sect, it was tolerated by the Roman authorities. For its first thirty years Christianity, like Judaism, enjoyed protection by Roman law. Partly for this reason Paul emhasized the benefits of good government. But once Judaism and Christianity began to diverge, Christians lost the special privileges given to Jews.
Jews were specially exempted from taking part in the cult of emperor-worship. Christians also sought this exemption, since they recognized only one God and served one Lord, Jesus Christ. But when the church became largely composed of Gentiles, it was no longer possible to shelter under the wing of Judaism. Christians refused to offer a pinch of incense on an altar to the divine Emperor - an act which most intelligent people considered to be merely symbolic - and this was interpreted as unpatriotic. In this way the official Roman attitude towards Christianity became less and less favourable.
Adherents of the new religion were subjected to a series of persecutions. These began with brief and apparently localized persecution in Rome under Nero in July 64. According to Tactitus, a Roman historian writing fifty years later, Nero tried to shift the blame on to the Christians after a rumour arose that he had started a fire which destroyed much of the city of Rome. The scale and length of these persecutions seem to have become exaggerated. But Revelation, the final book of the Bible, gives evidence of the persecution of Christians in the province of Asia under the Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96). Domitian took the title 'Master and god', and insisted that people took the official oath, "By the genius of the Emperor". Such claims could not be accepted by Jews or Christians.
Letters have survived between the Emperor Trajan and Pliny the Younger (governor of Bithynia AD 111-113) which makes it clear that by their time profession of Christianity could be a capital offence."

And this partial quote, from "The Early Church" by Henry Chadwick, pages 26-27:

"Under Domitian (81-96) the situation seems again to have become grave. Except for Caligula and Nero the emperors had traditionally discouraged over-enthusiastic subjects from offering them divine honours. Domitian took the opposite view, styling himself 'Master and God', and inclined to suspect of treachery those who looked askance at his cult. The customary oath 'by the genius of the emperor' became officially obligatory. There is good evidence that this created a crisis for the Jews. It is probable (though not quite certain) that the Church was no less embarrassed. According to the third-century historian Dio, several eminent Romans with Jewish sympathies were accused of 'atheism', and on this charge action was taken against Titus Flavius Clemens, consul in 95, and his wife Domitilla. Fourth century Christian tradition counted Domitilla a Christian, and perhaps the phrase 'atheism and Jewish sympathies' is Dio's polite circumlocution for Christianity. The Revelation of St John, with its denunciations of idolatrous, persecuting Rome as the scarlet woman drunk with the blood of saints, may reflect the tension in the churches of Asia Minor at this time."

Revelation, the final book of the Bible, gives evidence of the persecution of Christians in the province of Asia under the Emperor Domitian (81-96 A.D.). Domitian took the title 'Master and god', and insisted that people took the official oath, "By the genius of the Emperor". Such claims could not be accepted by either Jews or Christians.
Letters have survived between the Emperor Trajan and Pliny the Younger (governor of Bithynia 111-113 A.D.) which makes it clear that by their time profession of Christianity could be a capital offence.   Emperor Trajan had Ignatius of Antioch thrown to the wild beasts in the Circus Maximus in Rome:

“We command that Ignatius, who affirms that he carries about within him Him that was crucified, be bound by soldiers, and carried to the great [city] Rome, there to be devoured by the beasts, for the gratification of the people.” He was then taken to Rome to the Circus Maximus to be thrown to the beasts.  Ignatius wrote a letter before the Romans killed him: “I am the wheat of God and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.”  Source: https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=677

McClintock & Strong Biblical Cyclopedia (online) gives detailed information on the various Roman Emperors who persecuted Christians.  In the year 95, under the rule of Domitian, 40,000 Christians were supposed to have suffered Martyrdom.  http://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/P/persecutions-of-christians.html
If there is any evidence of contention between Jewish and Gentile Christians based on the persecution they suffered at the hands of Roman Emperors, I would like to see it.  This is not something I’ve heard before.


Is interpreting Noah's flood as a civilization-wide event compatible with Roman Catholicism?

The Catechism divides Scripture, according to intent of the writers, in the following ways:

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.

The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".

The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

As to the specific intention of the story of the flood, and thus the mode of interpretation under which the story would fall, like most other accounts of specific descriptions and verses in the bible, there is no 'official' doctrine regarding such matters. What is ascertained is that in any case the stories and the details as they were intended to be are true in such capacities. This means that in any one of the previous ways one wishes to interpret the flood story, it must in any way be true, rather than partially true or false.
Much of the beginnings of Genesis have been traditionally allegorically interpreted. To name only one example, St. Augustine thought of the 'light' that God made and divided from the 'darkness' could be meaningfully interpreted as the creation of angels. The allegorical approach to Genesis has the benefit of avoiding some problems that come with the more literal interpretations seen in many Protestant groups (which invariably leads to conflict between what appear to be inherent contradictions, and contradictions in science). But what is more important is that this approach also seems to garner greater meaning. Instead of being concerned with the literalness of whether God created the stars before 'light' or 'light' before the stars, we can focus more so on the meaning of these events, not simply as events in themselves but as potential symbols or phrases that carry greater theological weight. At the same time, the nature of the interpretation in such matters is existentially neutral to the fact of its existence. So whether or not the flood truly occurred, as in a sequence of events, need not deter our understanding of the story's meaning in an allegorical interpretation. This applies to all modes of interpretation. The Church is clear however that there are specific cases (the New Testament for example) in which our mode of interpretation must necessarily include the literalness of the specific events described. This also applies to the monogenism present in the Adam and Eve story, where the Church states it is necessary to recognize all human life essentially originates in its nature in two persons, who were created with original justice but who fell into sin, and who thereafter transposed such a fallen nature to mankind.
Thus, to answer more specifically the question, as to whether or not your specific understanding of the flood is aligned with the Catholic Church's stance on the story is somewhat of an arbitrary desire (though by no means unwarranted). The answer is that there isn't necessarily an answer. At most we can state that your interpretation must not deny the essential truth of the story, which is that God is both merciful and just, and enacts both essences in the deprived and sinful state of humanity. Furthermore, your interpretation must not deny that God speaks and breathes in His human creation through a covenant language, in which He is perfectly loving and just. These are the essential and primary purposes for which the story has been written, and as such it is these details that must not be left to individual interpretation, lest the perfect spiritual wisdom of Scripture be tainted by individual failures. In any such case of interpreting Scripture, the essential meaning and primary purpose of such Scriptures must be referred to the Church's Apostolic ministry for greater wisdom and authority, be such wisdom found in the present members or members of the past (there is a reason St. Augustine is so popular, and it's not due only to his cool name). And it is under canon law and the living Spirit that such ministers must be guided into wisdom.


Does transubstantiation occur when the Eucharist is received by one barred from sacraments?

The Bible itself implies that the occurrence of the act of transubstantion is independent of the worthiness of the recipient.
In 1 Cor. 11:27, it is written,

27 Wherefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
ΚΖʹ ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου ἀναξίως ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου NA28

If a man was unworthy, then why would he be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if transubstantiation did not occur on account of his unworthiness? Yet, he is guilty for the very fact that what he consumed and drank was the very body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ despite unworthily receiving it.
Furthermore, if he only consumed mere bread and wine, why would he be guilty of anything? Unworthy individuals eat bread and drink wine all the time, e.g. unbelieving Jews. Did the apostle Paul really intend to say that all unbelieving Jews are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord for eating bread and drinking wine on, say, the Sabbath? I hardly think that was his point. He was directing his comments to those that participated in the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Communion because that bread and that wine that is received during the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, unlike common bread and wine that is received by others, elsewhere.


Do the acts of the flesh reveal false Christians?

Simple answer -

You are reading too much into it.

  Romans 7:19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I
  do not want to do--this I keep on doing.

Paul couldn't possibly have meant that Christians could never commit acts of flesh when he himself admits doing the same.

The principle of interpretation you are using is called letterism, and I wouldn't put my money into it.


Eating sour grapes and transmitting sin over generations

I actually don't read that as a paradox.  The sin of the parents have consequences that carry over further than just their own generation.  Additionally,  Jeremiah 32:18 ("you repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them") doesn't mean that the guilt is being transferred, but rather repaid.

I don't see in the passages that you quote where every person will die for his own sin -- in fact, that goes against my understanding of the Old Testament, where they were required to make sacrifices instead (at least the people of Israel).  The potential paradox that I see stems from the last passage (Ex 20:5-6), where God "punishes children for the sin of the parents [...] but show[s] love to a thousand generations of those who love [Him]."   However, it really isn't a paradox, because it's quite possible to punish (read consequences), while still showing love (and indeed blessings as well).

I find family analogies to be particularly applicable in situations regarding God (He's our Father in Heaven, after all...).  An example of this situation would be the loving father (earthly) that had to punish his children for their disobedience.  He might use the rod, or take away privileges, but still loves his children.  In fact, even while taking away certain privileges for the disobedience in this example, he could still reward current good deeds with other rewards.


Difference between Augustinianism and Calvinism

Augustinianism is not nearly as specific as 5-points, Dordt Calvinism. For instance, I don't know of anyplace where Augustine specifically addresses limited atonement.

The largest difference is that Augustine held to single predestination (God chooses the elect, but does not actively reprobate anyone - he simply "passes over" them), while Calvin held to double predestination (God choose the elect to salvation, and the reprobate to damnation).

update

Here are some specific quotes of Augustine's, as they relate to some of the points of Calvinism:

Unconditional Election

On The Predestination of the Saints, ch. 11

  Therefore the election obtained what it obtained gratuitously; there
  preceded none of those things which they might first give, and it
  should be given to them again. He saved them for nothing. But to the
  rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in
  recompense.

On The Predestination of the Saints, ch. 16

  Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God’s
  gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to
  resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some,
  while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought
  not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone
  into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even
  if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for
  finding fault with God.

Irresistable Grace

Enchuridion ch. 25

  Furthermore, who would be so impiously foolish as to say that God
  cannot turn the evil wills of men—as he willeth, when he willeth, and
  where he willeth—toward the good? But, when he acteth, he acteth
  through mercy; when he doth not act, it is through justice. For, "he
  hath mercy on whom he willeth; and whom he willeth, he hardeneth."

On The Predestination of the Saints, Ch. 13

  This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by
  the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for
  the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart.

Perseverence of the Saints

On The Predestination of the Saints, ch. 33

  For all who are teachable of God come to the Son because they have
  heard and learned from the Father through the Son, who most clearly
  says, “Every one who has heard of the Father, and has learned, cometh
  unto me.” But of such as these none perishes,
  because “of all that the Father hath given Him, He will lose
  none.” Whoever, therefore, is of these does
  not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these.

Single vs. Double Predestination
Look at the quotes under "unconditional election" above. Augustine speaks passively about the non-elect. God witholds the grace of election, but is not actively reprobating. Contrast this with Calvin on reprobation:

Institutes III.xxii.11:

  At last, he concludes that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy,
  and whom he will he hardeneth (Rom. 9:18). You see how he refers both
  to the mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason
  for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases
  him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his
  will.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


What is the Little Office of Our Lady in connection to the Scapular Devotion?

The Brown Scapular devotion is one thing, and the Little Office of Our Lady another. To practise the Brown Scapular devotion, and benefit from Our Lady's magnificent promise, one must be enrolled in the Scapular by a priest and persevere in wearing it. On this website you will see the difference between the Scapular promise and the Sabbatine Privilege. It is with regard to the latter that the condition of praying the Little Office comes in as one of several possibilities, including abstaining from meat on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays.

By far the most common way to gain the Sabbatine Privilege, however, is to have that condition commuted (changed) to praying the Holy Rosary daily - that is to say, the five decades we all should pray daily anyhow - by your confessor. So I hope that you will now become enrolled in the Brown Scapular without worrying about taking on the added burden of the Little Office.

God bless you, a Catholic Priest.


Why didn't God the Father answer Joseph Smith's questions directly?

Because the the Father gave the world His Son (Isa. 9:6, John 3:16).

It is the doctrine of Christ (3 Nephi 11):

  35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I
  bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth
  in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me,
  for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

  36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will
  bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and
  the Holy Ghost are one.

The Father is glorified in the Son (John 14:13, 3 Nephi 9:15, D&C 76:43). Selecting 3 Nephi 9:15 here:

  15 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.

The Father is the second witness to that of the Holy Ghost of the divine sonship of Christ, and by two or three witnesses shall every word be established (Matthew 18:16).
The principle in the Priesthood of delegating responsibility may be part of the reason as well. The Father does this several times, including committing judgment to His Son (John 5:22):

  22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son

In almost every case in LDS theology, God the Father introduces His Son, who is our Mediator and Advocate to the Father.


John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood - Translation of Greek Phrase

και is simply a conjunction and the context dictates how it can best be translated into English to best convey its sense. While it can simply be translated as 'and' in both places, the OP is correct in noting that typically καὶ...καὶ implies some sort of emphasis (and...or, both...and, on one hand...on the other, as well...as, not only...but also, etc.). The specific emphasis must be determined from the context. BDAG (f) defines:

καί … καί both … and, not only … , but also (Synes., Dreams 10 p. 141b καὶ ἀπιστεῖν ἔξεστι καὶ πιστεύειν.—B-D-F §444, 3; Rob. 1182; Mlt-Turner 335) connecting single expressions Mt 10:28; Mk 4:41; Ro 11:33; Phil 2:13; 4:12. κ. ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ. ἐν μεγάλῳ Ac 26:29. κ. ἅπαξ κ. δίς (s. ἅπαξ 1) Phil 4:16; 1 Th 2:18. Connecting whole clauses or sentences: Mk 9:13; J 7:28; 9:37; 12:28; 1 Cor 1:22. Introducing contrasts: although … yet (Anthol. VII, 676 Δοῦλος Ἐπίκτητος γενόμην καὶ σῶμʼ ἀνάπηρος καὶ πενίην ῏Ιρος καὶ φίλος ἀθανάτοις ‘I was Epictetus, a slave; crippled in body and an Iros [a beggar in Hom., Od.] in poverty, but dear to the Immortals’) J 15:24; Ac 23:3. καὶ … κ. οὐ Lk 5:36; J 6:36. καὶ οὐ … καί 17:25; κ. … κ. now … now Mk 9:22. On τὲ … καί s. τέ 2c. Somet. w. ἤ q.v. 1aβ.—HCadbury, Superfluous καί in the Lord’s Prayer (i.e. Mt 6:12) and Elsewhere: Munera Studiosa (=WHatch Festschr.) ’46.

Smyth's Greek Grammar (2877) indicates that καὶ...καὶ places emphasis on each element separately, which seems to fits with the OP's proposed translation of "both...and", however Stephens' translation also conveys the same idea effectively in my opinion.
Two alternate translations render it like so:

"...but these frequently save the soul when it is afflicted and ready to perish..." (Cowper, 1866, p. 68, read on archive.org).
"...but these have often saved the sick soul that is about to die..." (Moxon, 1907, p. 67 read on archive.org).

The contrast in the context of the passage is between natural parents vs. spiritual priests/fathers and their ability to

prevent their children from dying
repel disease

In contrast from natural parents, spiritual priests/fathers often saved the soul that

is about to die
is sick

While the order is reversed in the clause in question, I believe the direct comparison is clear between these two abilities between natural parents and spiritual priests/fathers, and any translation that makes such a contrast clear is sufficient.

Paraphrasing (with significant interpretive license), this might look like the following:

God has bestowed a greater power upon priests than that of our natural parents. And the two differ as much as the present and the future life. Our natural parents bring us into this life, but [priests] into [the life] to come. And [our natural parents] are unable to prevent their offspring from dying, or to repel the assaults of disease; but [priests] have often saved sick [people] as well as [people who were] about to die....


According to the Catholic Church, does purgatory have a symbol?

No, there is no definite symbol for purgatory. There is nothing that when you look at it, you will think "that means purgatory".

The "fish" IXOYE is one of the many symbols of Jesus, as is the "Chi Rho" symbol: ☧, ⳩

The cross is a symbol of Christianity: ✝

But there is nothing of the sort for purgatory. But there is also no definite Christian symbol for hell, or for heaven. Sometimes, cleansing "Holy Fire" is used in art in conjunction with purgatory, but this is not exactly a symbol in the relevant sense. Keep in mind also that, to take one prominent example, it is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church that purgatory is a place: it might only be a process of cleansing. For that reason, a symbol might be even harder to come by.


Spirit attachments would be spirits that attach themselves to a human life.  This was evidently more common or at least more identifiable during Jesus incarnation as reflected in the following gospel accounts:

  Matthew 8:16 When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick

  Matthew 10:1 And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease.

  Mark 3:11 And the unclean spirits, whenever they saw Him, fell down before Him and cried out, saying, “You are the Son of God.”

The following scripture provides insight into so called “spirit attachment” and how they work.

  Matthew 12:43-45  “When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. “Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. “Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.”

  Mark 5:13 And at once Jesus gave them permission. Then the unclean spirits went out and entered the swine (there were about two thousand); and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and drowned in the sea.

  Luke 8:2 and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons

Notice these spirits seek residence or a host; evidently their wills can be exerted upon God’s creation more easily through a host.  Hosts are anything from Mary Magdalene to swine.

Biblical behavioral modification comes through authority; Christ has supreme authority within this realm and His authority can be extended to His disciples.
Predominantly spirit manifestations are identifiable through the host’s behavior, but there are indications within the above verses that physical infirmities can also exist.

Since the abolition of superstition few attempt to reconcile the influence or even the viability of spiritual influences within our daily life.  Certainly Paul was not unaware of spiritual activity as proven in his Ephesians 6:11-13 warning:

  Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Today, Christians have to negotiate between “realities”.  Christians believe in a “spirit” reality and that the “spirit reality” impacts our daily lives.  To deny this is to deny that the Holy Spirit is real and capable of influencing our daily lives toward God’s will.  Modern Christians also have the benefit of understanding neurological and circumstantial behavioral influences as well.  Faith, hope, peace and joy are real human encounters that generally cannot be dismissed through empirical observation.  Love of course is the most difficult reality to understand merely from this physical perspective.
The whole armor of God consists of: the shield of faith, which is always employed in the love of God.  When we trust God’s love the enemy of God stands condemned, for that is exactly what He failed to do.  We are to put on the helmet of salvation and carry the sword of the Spirit, which is Christ, made manifest.  This is revealed in the early verses of John, “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God…all things that have been created were created by Him…and the World became flesh and dwelt amongst us…
The waist must be girded by “truth” upon which the breastplate of righteousness rests.  Our feet should be prepared to bring the gospel of peace.

Finally in Ephesians 6:1

  praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints


Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that there are other Apostles?

The word "apostle" simply means "someone who has been appointed to deliver a message". The word "disciple" means "follower" or "student". English-speaking people today rarely use the word "apostle" other than to refer to "Jesus's Twelve Apostles", but it's common to talk about people today as "disciples", or to call followers of any religious leader his "disciples".

So "the twelve apostles" or "the twelve disciples" were a specific group particularly close to Jesus, but they were not the only people who followed Jesus or to whom he assigned jobs. Luke 10:1 says "After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go." As Jesus gave these people a specific assignment, they were in the strictest sense "apostles".

So not just Orthodox but also Catholics and Protestants believe there were other apostles and disciples besides "the Twelve".


Are there any modern churches that subscribe to the Donatist heresy?

Depending on how strictly you define Donatism (sacraments and their efficacy aren't a "given" for most modern movements), it could be argued that many historical movements have been (and are) Donatist when they create a class of Christians who are superior to others and denounce others as non-believers because they are not as devoted. Some have argued that the Anabaptist movement was Donatist, and others have argued that various hyper-conservative movements within denominations or within other movements are Donatist. This can be as subtle as making a distinction between "Spirit-filled" and "nominal" believers, or by other class distinctions whereby one group is repudiated as being inferior because they are less dedicated or do not share the same experiences as the "superior" group.

I'm glad that the apostles didn't adopt that approach, because we'd only be able to read the gospel of John if that were the case ;)


How do Bible Literalists deal with trees older than the flood?

If it is a scientific certainty that a tree create one and only one ring per year, then this would be problematic.  However, as you can read on Wikipedia, this is not always the case:

  Alternating poor and favorable conditions, such as mid summer
  droughts, can result in several rings forming in a given year.  Wikipedia

So, it would only take conditions to produce two rings in less than 1 out of 9 years to make up for the "missing" 500 years.  So, the 4,844 rings (not years) appears to be within a reasonable variation to place the actual germination of the tree to be just after the flood.


What do Evangelical Christians consider "the traditions" to be in 1 Thessalonians 2:15?

At the time Paul wrote his first letter to the Thessalonian believers, the canon of Scripture was incomplete. Its completion came decades after Paul's death and the death of many of the eyewitnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus (e.g., Peter, James, and John, Jesus' "inner circle" of disciples). Until the completion of the canon, then, what the apostles taught other believers through both the spoken and written word became the tradition to which the early believers were to hew.

Once the apostles began to write under the influence of the Holy Spirit, I imagine believers almost immediately began copying what the apostles had written. Those who could read and write would use those writings to teach other believers who perhaps could not read or write. Either way, by oral and/or written communication the early church clung to (and then propagated) what they believed to be the accurate and reliable teaching of the apostles. I imagine some of the copies of "Scripture" became pretty dog-eared very quickly as they passed from person to person and perhaps from local churches to other local churches.

It almost goes without saying that the Holy Spirit was active in the whole process of communicating God's word, first through the apostles, and then through the apostles' converts, some of who became elders in local churches and passed the apostles' teaching on to faithful men and women who would teach others. Paul said to Timothy:

  "The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2 NASB Updated).

And so it went. Generation after generation entrusted to faithful men what they had heard (and later, read) in the presence of first-hand witnesses initially, and then second-hand witnesses later on. Without the aid of the Holy Spirit and the gifts he bestowed on the early Christians, however, that faithful passing on of the traditions based on the apostles' teaching would never have happened.

  "And . . . [Jesus] gave [to the church] some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-13).

Just a few short decades after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, Christians had spread the glad tidings (like good Evangelicals!) far and wide, throughout Judea and Samaria and to the uttermost parts of the then-world, in obedience to their Lord's command to go and make disciples of all people groups.

Today, there are as many traditions among Christians as there are denominations, including those Christians who actually believe they are non-denominational! Despite the multiplicity of traditions, however, the vast majority of true Christians, despite their denomination loyalties, find common ground and agreement in a handful of non-negotiable doctrines and teachings found in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. A short list of them would include at least the following:

the deity of Jesus Christ, who alone is and ever shall be the image of the invisible God, sharing all the attributes of both the Father and the Spirit
the virgin birth of Jesus, the "seed of the woman," and his sinless life
the sacrificial and substitutionary death of our Lord, the Lamb of God, on behalf of a world of sinners
the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, his ascension to the Father's right hand in glory, and his coming again for his bride, the holy catholic church
salvation by God's grace through faith alone, which begins with personal regeneration by the Holy Spirit and culminates with the resurrection of the body and eternal life in the presence of God and the holy angels in a kingdom without end

I have undoubtedly omitted--unintentionally for the most part--some crucial doctrines and teachings. One in particular concerns the nature and purpose of the holy Scriptures. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of true Christians believe the Bible was supernaturally inspired by the Holy Spirit, and in its entirety is sufficient for all matters of both faith and practice.

Granted, how various Christian groups interpret the Scriptures is a nettlesome issue, especially for those whose minds are made up. One of the marks of spiritual maturity, however, is the ability to agree to disagree agreeably with those who "rightly divide the word of truth" just a little bit differently than we do, particularly on what could be called "grey issues" or issues of lesser importance than the non-negotiable ones I've listed above. A very short list of these could include

water baptism, particularly when, where, how, why, and by whom
the Lord's Supper (aka communion, the Eucharist, breaking of bread), particularly when, where, how, why, and by whom
the number of sacraments and their relative significance
church polity, or governance, whether of a single, independent church or an entire denomination composed of thousands of local assemblies of Christians worldwide
behaviors which are sometimes proscribed by a given church or churches but which are not explicitly dealt with in Scripture, behaviors which could potentially be stumbling blocks to a "weaker" Christian, but could also be engaged in by "stronger" Christians who have the freedom of conscience before the Lord to do so

In conclusion, tradition plays an important part in the ongoing life of the local church. Determining what traditions should be kept and guarded and what traditions should be replaced when they outwear their usefulness is seldom an easy task and balancing act. To avoid unnecessary schisms, perhaps all Christians, at least once a day for the rest of their lives should recite those famous words from a 17th century tract on Christian unity written by Rupertus Meldenius during the Thirty Years War:

  "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."


Why did Jesus weep when Lazarus's friends agreed to show him his body?

Jesus felt compassion for the friends of Lazarus.

  John 11:4 (NASB)
  But when Jesus heard this, He said, “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it.”

Jesus deliberately waited two extra days after Lazarus’s sisters sent for him.
Why? Presumably because he knew what that he was going to raise Lazarus from the dead. So why did he weep?

Sometimes, when my children are crying because they're in pain, I know in my mind that they're not hurt very badly. That doesn't completely take away the compassionate pain I feel for them. I love them, and (some of) their pain becomes my pain. When they are hurt badly, my pain increases all the more, even if I'm confident that they will get better.

  John 11:33-35 (NASB)
  When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled, and said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to Him, “Lord, come and see.” Jesus wept.

It make more sense to understand this as saying that he felt compassion for these people, even friends of his, who were very sad about the death of Lazarus.


Drawing of a Christian helping his own assailant

There are likely many drawings of similar content, but I suspect by far the most famous one is this drawing of Dirk Willems, which was published in the book Martyrs Mirror in 1685.

It illustrates the true story of Dirk Willems who had escaped from prison (where he was being persecuted for his faith), but when his persuer broke through some thin ice, Dirk turned around to rescue his persuer, only to be taken back into custody then killed for his faith in 1569.


What kind of food is Jesus referring to at Luke 22:16?

St. Bede writes (as quoted in St. Thomas Aquinas's Golden Chain commentary on Luke 22, lesson 4):

  Thus then was our Lord the approver of the legal Passover; and as He taught that it related to the figure of His own dispensation, He forbids it henceforth to be represented in the flesh.* Therefore He adds, "For I say to you, I will not any more eat thereof; until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God". That is, I will no more celebrate the Mosaic Passover, until, being spiritually* understood, it is fulfilled in the Church. For the Church is the kingdom of God; as in Luke [17:21], "The kingdom of God is within you." Again, the ancient Passover, which He desired to bring to an end, is also alluded to in what follows; "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take you, &c." For this gave He thanks, that the old things were about to pass away, and all things to become new.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, sermon 151 on Luke 22:7-16:

  "But I will not eat of this Passover until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." And in this again Christ utters a profound and mysterious truth, of which He Himself, however, reveals to us the meaning. For it is His custom to give the name of "the kingdom of heaven" to justification by faith, to the cleansing that is by holy baptism and the participation of the Holy Spirit, and to the offering of spiritual service, now rendered possible by the entering in of the gospel laws. But these things are the means of our being made partakers of the promises, and of our reigning together with Christ: and therefore He says, "I will no more draw near to such a Passover as this," one namely that consisted in the typical eating,*—for a lamb of the flock was slain to be the type of the true Lamb,—"until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God:" that is, until the time has appeared in which the kingdom of heaven is preached. For this is fulfilled in us, who honor the worship that is superior to the law, even the true Passover; nor is it a lamb of the flock which sanctifies those who are in Christ, but Himself rather, being made a holy sacrifice for us, by the offering of bloodless oblations, and the mystical giving of thanks, in which we are blessed and quickened with life. For He became for us "the living bread that came down from heaven, and gives life to the world:" by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.

*Thus, it's a spiritual food.cf. Jn. 4:34: "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me"


Where is the italicization in the King James translation of the Bible from and what does it mean?

The italics indicate a word that is implied in the Hebrew or Greek. Although some people describe these as "added" words, that is not really a useful way of thinking of them. Yes, there is often ambiguity in what is implied, but there's just as much ambiguity in the explicit words. Every Bible translation accounts for these implied words, but most do not put them in italics, because that is just how translation works.

An example of implied meaning in English is when we talk about "the rich" and "the poor". We understand that those mean "the rich people" and "the poor people". There would be many languages where translating those phrases would necessitate explicitly stating that it is people we're talking about.


Does the Evangelical Lutheran church see Mormons as Christian?

The Lutheran denomination, "The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America", which is just one of many bodies using the word "Evangelical" in its name (and it should be noted that there are denominations, mainly in Europe, which adhere to the teachings of Martin Luther which do not include that word in their name) publishes a document available for free download at download.elca.org under the title "Do Lutherans re-baptize former Mormons who are joining the congregation", in which it is noted that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity—that there is one God comprised of three independent, but inseparable and coequal persons—is considered by Lutherans to be a fundamental, essential tenet of the Christian faith, so that one cannot reject the doctrine of the Trinity and be Christian. By contrast, Mormons are said in the document not to accept the doctrine of the Trinity, as they hold that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, are three separate entities. On that ground (probably among others), the ELCA, in common with most other "Evangelical Lutherans", would deny that Mormons are Christian.


What is the Biblical basis for requiring someone to have faithful children to become an elder?

For pastorship, it depends on the doctrine.

As for an Elder, this is what Titus 1:6 NIV says

  An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children
  believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient

I can recall an Elder loosing his sword/title because his teen daughter had an incident at a house party. He was very sad. He ended up droping out of the church.

The point is how can an elder take care of his church when he cannot take care of his own family.


What is the difference between being blessed and being happy?

The root senses of the words

As you have noticed, English has changed a lot since the first translations were made.  Now, the original meaning of 'blessed', according to the etymology, is 'consecrated', but it started to pick up a second meaning—over time it started to sound like more like the word 'bliss', and so, following on the idea of being consecrated, the idea of blissfulness or happiness was added to it. (This is explained at dictionary.com.  For another example of how unrelated words can influence each other's senses, compare how the word 'niggardly' came to be politically incorrect.)

It may also be instructive to look at the meaning of 'happy' in the past.  The word 'happy' comes from the word 'hap', meaning what happens by chance. The words 'mishap' and 'happen' itself are related; the former is a bad chance occurrence, and the latter is what just happens to occur.  The root meaning of 'happy' thus is what we might describe as 'lucky' or 'fortunate'—as the familiar saying goes, "happiness is based on happenstance".

While we do not strongly associate the idea of good luck with 'happy' today, the association was stronger in the past, so the translators of the time may have preferred not to use it here, though people who wrote dictionaries would use it to specify when they said 'blessed' that they mean this sense.

Which sense is actually meant?

We can find out by looking at the original language.  While English uses 'bless' for both the idea of consecration and the idea of happiness, Greek has two different words: εὐλογέω (eulogeō) is to bless as in to consecrate, and μακάριος (macarios) is happy.

In the original Greek of the beatitudes, 'μακάριος' is used. So indeed the sense of happiness is intended here; Jesus is talking about the future happiness of people who are not traditionally considered to be happy, not the future consecration of people who are not traditionally considered to be consecrated.

(In Latin likewise there are two different words -- benedico is to bless as in to consecrate, and beatus is happy.  It is from the latter that we get the name 'beatitudes'.)

But 'happy' is different from 'blessed' somehow

Now, as you say, you "don't believe that happy and blessed do coalesce, at least not on earth".  You have reason to say this, but this is less about the meaning of the words and more about their associations.  The idea of 'blessed' happiness is strongly tied to the religious idea whose name it shares and so we tend to use the word only in religious contexts or with religious feeling -- and because we make it a religious idea, we tend to think about it more and realize that real happiness is not of or in this world.

Because 'happy' has no such religious association, we tend to use it more lightly and don't think of it in such a way.  But the idea is still in the word; one may see it when we are talking about happiness in a philosophical but non-religious way, as when we speak of the saying of Solon, "call no man happy till he is dead"—the original Greek for the 'happy' here is also of the same root as μακάριος.

So why change 'blessed' to 'happy' in the translation?

It's true that 'blessed' already has more of the connotations that one would want in this text.  But, especially for those not raised to religious terminology, the word is kind of obscure — and without use in a variety of contexts, it's hard for people to learn what a word means; the meaning tends to get muddled.  By updating 'blessed' to 'happy'—which we can do now that 'happy' no longer means 'lucky'—we at once make the original idea more accessible, and hopefully stimulate in the word 'happy' the kind of thinking about happiness we have already done when using the word 'blessed'.


Can a priest give a Mass in American Sign Language (ASL)? What does he do when he is supposed to lift up the Eucharist while speaking in ASL?

Yes, a priest can give a mass in American Sign Language (ASL)

Fr. Edward McNamara wrote an extensive article for the organization ZENIT about the validity of sign language at mass, specifically using sign language during the consecration and not vocally pronouncing the words.

Sign language is certainly permitted for the liturgy

First, Fr. McNamara first answers the general question of whether or not sign language can be used in liturgy, and he cites Notitiae, the official magazine of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

  Whether the language that is called « gestural » (sign-language) can be employed in the celebration of the liturgy for the deaf?

  In the affirmative. For it is the only system by which the deaf can truly actively participate in the sacred liturgy. As a matter of fact, to certain Conferences of Bishops that asked, the Most Blessed Father recently (14 Dec. 1965) kindly granted that the language that is called « gestural » can be employed in the celebration of the liturgy for the deaf, whenever a pastoral reason suggests it, in all the parts which are said in the vernacular language. The celebration can be ordered like this:

  The readings are conveyed to the congregation through signs.
  With respect to participation in the other parts which regard the people:

  a) what is pronounced by the celebrant alone, he himself at the same time pronounces the words and likewise conveys them by gestures; the people respond with gestures;
  b) in the parts which are to be said together by the celebrant and the people, e.g., the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus-Benedictus, the Agnus Dei, etc., the faithful follow the signs of the celebrant through gestures.

  —Notitiae 2 (1966): 30-31 no. 95

There does not appear to be an official statement explicitly addressing validity during consecration, but consensus among canonists is that it is valid

  However, it does not answer our reader’s precise question regarding validity, and, although there have been some good theological reflections on this topic and some serious canonical studies, I have been unable to find a definitive official declaration that would close the debate.

  Renowned canonist Dr. Edward Peters has published several studies on this topic and proposes a positive conclusion with respect to the sacramental validity of sign language. There are other theological studies which reach similar conclusions from the dogmatic standpoint. Unfortunately, most of these studies do not appear to be available online.

The Dr. Edward Peters he mentions maintains "A Bibliography of Deaf Catholic Sources and Studies", which include some of his own works that I believe Fr. McNamara is referencing.

What other evidence is there that this is permitted?

Fr. McNamara states that dioceses in the United States have dedicated Deaf Ministries that celebrate mass in American Sign Language, and defers to their authority in being able to do so. Beyond that, he gives several reasons that he concurs with Dr. Edward Peters' opinion:

Deaf priests have been ordained since 1977, and some of them are unable to verbally speak

I personally reached out to the coordinator of the Deaf Ministry in the Archdiocese of Baltimore about this question, and he cited this point as one of the pieces of evidence that it was valid:

  For your information, there are more than 10 Deaf men who have been ordained priests. In fact, one was ordained by St. John Paul II himself. I am not a canon lawyer and cannot address all of the fine details related to canon law. However, I think we would have to assume that priests would not be ordained if it was known that they would be unable to celebrate the Mass.

Indeed, if the Pope himself has ordained a deaf priest, it's hard to argue that it's invalid to do so.

Various forms of sign language are considered true languagess

This argument declares that sign language is essentially a vernacular language. Fr. McNamara explains:

  A second argument stems from the nature of sign language as a true language. Although obviously connected to the language of the country where the person lives, sign language is not just a paraphrase of the local spoken tongue but a true language with its own grammar, structure, and syntax. Many thousands of people use it as their ordinary means of communication and are capable of expressing the full range of human intercourse.

Assertions against giving the mass nonverbally appear to be exhortations against “verbum mentis”

Expanding on this point, Fr. McNamara writes:

  It is true that traditional sacramental theology required vocalization for the sacramental form. This was one reason why deafness, along with many other physical impairments, was considered as an impediment to ordination. This would be the position found in most theological manuals.

  However, the closest we can come to an official pronouncement that vocalization is essential to validity is an assertion of Pope Pius XII who, with remarkable foresight, affirms the necessity for a concelebrant to speak the words of consecration.

  However, in this case, the Pope was asserting the invalidity of the “verbum mentis,” the simple mental or interior repetition of the sacramental form with no exterior sign. Thus a celebration by a priest who does not open his mouth but only reads interiorly the prayers would be invalid.

  This is not the case of the use of sign language which is not “verbum mentis.” In this case, the deaf priest is truly pronouncing the words of consecration, even though he is using visible and not audible words.

There is no official translation of the Latin Missal into sign language

Due to sign language being a relatively recent invention, and there not being a standardized way to write it down in print, an official translation has not been developed. However, he contrasts using unofficial translations with a priest paraphrasing prayers (something that is forbidden).

  Even though the use of sign language is approved, there is still no official translation of the Latin Missal into sign language. Since sign language is such a recent phenomenon in the liturgy it will probably require some years to develop some of the more technical vocabulary and incorporate it into worship. A formal missal is probably even further away as there is not yet a fully standardized method for writing sign language, even if such a book is deemed necessary at all.

  Since sign language is a different language it cannot be compared to the situation of a priest who commits the abuse of paraphrasing the official prayers. A possible, albeit admittedly unsatisfactory, analogy for simultaneous speaking and signing would be the situation of observing a papal Mass on television in which the commentator reads the prayers from the English missal while the Holy Father is celebrating in Italian.

So how does the priest raise lift up the Eucharist while performing the mass in sign language?

In this video of an ASL mass, the priest holds up the Eucharist and says the words one-handed if able to.

When needing to hold both the Body and Blood, it appears that he says the the words before elevating it (you will notice that he changes the page of the liturgy book afterwards).

It seems like there is an alternative method if there is more than one priest. This mass (described in a news article here) involved the celebrant (i.e. primary priest) signing the words while the other priest elevated the Body and Blood.

I imagine that most other sign language masses are performed in this way, although given how these are relatively new, I imagine that this might be formally clarified in the future.


The suffering caused by the physical cross and by the soldiers was only a tiny portion of Christ's suffering.  His suffering and death was vicarious, meaning, he suffered in our place, Christ died for our sins.  God poured out upon His Son the wrath that was due to us.  The wrath of God against sin is very great.  Sinners will spend an eternity in Hell for the sins of just one life.  Even one sin is enough to condemn to hell forever.  How much then must be the punishment of Christ who bore the torment for all the sins of his people?

  The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all, (Isaiah 53:6).

He was made a curse for us, (Galatians 3:13).

The punishment, then, was incomparably the worst punishment anyone has ever endured, and if he had not been God as well as a man He would not have been able to endure it.

When He was suffering on the cross there was darkness for the space of three hours.  The intimation is that even if we had been there as a bystander we would not have been able to see the depth of his suffering.  It would have been pointless to stand and watch him suffer because you would not have been able to see it: so God gave a curtain of darkness to demonstrate the pointlessness of trying to see all his suffering.

His sufferings of mind are described in Psalm 69, which is clearly associated with the cross in verse 21, "in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink".


Was the Book of the Law (Torah) ever kept inside the Ark of the Covenant?

The rabbis debate the meaning of the verse in Bava Batra 14b. מִצַּד is a rare combination, but it certainly means "beside" in Jos. 3:16, Jos. 12:9, Ruth 2:14, 1 Sam. 20:25. I see no instances where it can unequivocally be asserted to mean "in," "inside," or "within." Had Moshe intended to say that it was placed "inside" the Ark, why wouldn't he have written ב or בקרב instead?

For example, using the same verb that is found in Deut. 31:26 (a conjugation of the verb שׂוּם, meaning "to put" or "to place"), Isaiah writes (Isa. 63:11),

  ...Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within him?

The prophet uses the prepositional phrase בְּקִרְבּוֹ (bekirbo). The context makes it clear that God puts or places His Holy Spirit inside an individual.

Another example is Deut. 10:2 where we find, again, the same verb, but this time, Moshe uses the prepositional prefix ב.

  And I will write on the tables the words that were on the first tables which you broke, and you shall put them in the Ark.

Here, God commands Moshe to put the tables (which have the Ten Commandments written upon them) in the Ark, which is translated from the Hebrew phrase בָּאָרוֹן (ba'aron).

So, the tablets are placed בָּאָרוֹן, "in the Ark." Why not write the same for the Torah scroll if indeed it was located "in the Ark"? There's simply nothing which explicitly confirms that it was indeed located in the Ark. Again, the prepositional phrase מִצַּד is never used in a context meaning "inside" or "in."


How do Protestants explain the incorruptibility of Catholic and Orthodox saints?

Though it's difficult to speak for Protestants as a whole, my experience with them is that they place no significance on incorruptibility, and as a rule, they are suspect of relics possessing special properties. Nobody will deny evidence that an undecomposed dead body is in an unusual state, but I doubt that many of them will claim that such a state is definitely an act of divine intervention because of the person whose body it is. It might be safe to say that Protestants are much less mystical than Roman Catholic and Orthodox groups.


Why isn't Lent observed across all traditions?

The practice of Lent is hardly unique to the Catholic church. It pre-dates the major church schisms. The practice today involves somewhat different implementations in different traditions. Some are much more developed than others, but the general idea is the same.
It is impossible to draw up a list of traditions which do or do not participate, because individual church adherence varies widely inside traditions. A good example I know of off hand is Presbyterian churches -- some of which practice it with as much pomp and detail as some of their Catholic counter parts, others let the season go by entirely unmarked.
I think a more useful question to answer is not the who but the why of non-participation. In my experience I see two main reasons for not participating.

Some level of ignorance or indifference.
Many churches simply don't believe the seasons is mandated in Scripture in such a way that it should be made into a big deal in the life of the church. Others might play along because they don't see any harm, but also don't take it very seriously. Some quite honestly might have just assumed that the practice belonged to some tradition other than their own and never bothered to learn anything about it.

Reasoned objection.
Some churches do not participate on the basis that the practice isn't well rooted in the early church and only became an organized practice several hundred years in. A common direction for this argument to take is argue that the practice originated from a pagan set of rituals (possibly ancient Babylonian), elements of which got folded into Christianity during the time when the Roman empire officially made Christianity the state religion. While some traditions don't have an issue per se with re-purposed rituals, others feel strongly that these are pollutants on "pure" Christian practice.

As a general trend, I think it's safe to say the practice of Lent is roughly parallel to the degree to which churches emphasis liturgy and a liturgical calendar. On the other hand, cults (particularly restorationist ones who believe that not just one or more branches but the entire Christian religion lost it's way after Jesus) tend to be the most emphatic non-practitioners of Lent. In-between you have a vast array of half baked practice and objection.


Catholic Marriage to an Infertile spouse

Roman Catholic Canon Law explicitly covers this.

1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.
§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098.
1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

Thus sterility does not invalidate a marriage, although impotence does. If one partner deceives the other into believing that children are possible when they are not, the marriage is invalid on the grounds of the deception, not the sterility.
Canon 1084 | Canon 1098


Who are the two witnesses in the book of Revelation?

I believe that they are literal men. With that in mind, there are two different schools of thought that I have come across on whom these men could be:

These are just two "normal" men who have been called out (like the 144,000 witnesses in Rev. 7:1-9) to perform signs to the unbelievers during the Tribulation.
These are two men that have lived before on earth, and are sent back by God for this special mission. The three most often mentioned are:

Elijah - A great and powerful prophet from the Kingdom period of Israel. He called down fire from Heaven, as do these two witnesses (cf. 2 Kings 1:10, Rev. 11:5). There was a great drought during part of his ministry, similar to the two witnesses in Revelation (cf. 1 Kings 17:1, Rev.11:6). He also appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Moses (Mat. 17:1-9), after which Christ stated that he would come back to the earth before the end (Mat.17:11). Last, he was taken up to heaven without dying (2 Kings 2:11); some believe this was so he could come back to earth in the last days.
Moses - Also a great prophet who did many miracles. Against the Egyptians he caused water to turn to blood, along with many other plagues, similar to the two witnesses in Revelation (cf. Ex. 7:20, Rev.11:6). Also, apparently God sent Michael the Archangel to take Moses' body after he died, possibly to preserve it for this future mission (Jude 9). He also appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Elijah.
Enoch - A mysterious prophet that we know very little about. Enoch, like Elijah, never died (Ge. 5:24), this being taken by some to indicate that he and Elijah will someday return.

Summary: We don't know who they are, but they could be two future prophets, or two prophets from the past God has sent back.


Why do people die but angels do not, but both have sinned?

Angels and humans are not of same essence.

Humans are composed of physical bodies and immortal spirits.Humans experience human death.Human death is separation of  body and spirit.

  James 2:26 (NIV)

  As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is
  dead.

On the other hand, angels are just immortal spirits without physical bodies.

  Hebrews 1:7 (NIV)

  In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels spirits, and
  his servants flames of fire."

The death that Adam and Eve experience could only be physical death (first death) and the second death ( in Gehenna i.e. Hell).

In the second death, both sinners and the devils would experience the same kind of death.

Note that the second death ( in hell) if second death for humans and first death for angels.

  Revelation

  20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the
  second death.

  20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire
  and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be
  tormented day and night for ever and ever.


In the Latin Catholic Church, would clerics administer the last rites if the sick person's illness is contagious and deadly?

In short, the answer is “yes,” if that is at all possible.

By “last rites” is usually meant the administration of the Sacraments to the dying: namely, the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession), the Annointing of the Sick, and the Eucharist, commonly called the Viaticum (the “food for the journey”). (Evidently, Reconciliation and the Eucharist are given only if the patient is conscious and still capable of receiving food or drink.) Have a look at http://www.ibreviary.com/m2/preghiere.php?tipo=Rito&id=229&b=1 for a short form of these rites.

In reality, none of these sacraments poses a significant risk to the priest who administers them, no more than it does for the doctors and nurses who take care of the patients.

In an extreme case, such as with Ebola, the priest would be expected to take the same precautions as the doctors and nurses (such as full body suits, disinfection, and so on).

Note that only the Annointing of the Sick actually involves bodily contact—it entails an annointing of the hands and forehead—and it could be done with appropriate protection, such as gloves, if that were necessary. (See the Code of Canon Law 1000§2. Confession involves no bodily contact at all, and the Eucharist could be given to the patient with gloves, using an instrument, or in a receptacle that could be purified and sterlized afterwards. Any gloves or other clothing that come in contact with the sacred oil or the Eucharist would have to be disposed of reverently, most likely by burning.)


What is the significance of priest breaking the bread (Host) in a Catholic mass?

The meaning of the fraction of bread is, that Christ is 'distributing himself' to the Faithful. As the prayer in Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom states

  The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided. He is forever eaten yet is never consumed, but He sanctifies those who partake of Him.

Also, dropping the part of the Host into the Chalice is a sign of Resurrection - the reunion of Blood and Body, of Body and Soul.

There is no specific meaning to the shape of breaking in Catholic churches. The priests typically break the host roughly in half and then break a small particle off one of the halves. (In Orthodox churches and Eastern Catholic tradition, the host is a cube, a quarter of which into the chalice).


How do superiors in a convent deal with the religious who are selective in the choice of food?

Generally speaking religious superiors let the cooks choose what they desire to serve as long as it follows what is written down in the constitutions of a particular Religious Order.

The rules for the various Religious Orders vary considerable.

For example, the Carthusians fast year round and never eat meat. They do however drink wine once and awhile I personally know a Carthusian at the Grande Chartreuse located in the Chartreuse Mountains, north of the city of Grenoble, in the commune of Saint-Pierre-de-Chartreuse (Isère), France.

Having been a Internal Benedictine Oblate for many years, I can say this all surety, that with 21 different Benedictine Congregations and a few independent Benedictine Monasteries subject directly to Rome, there are at least 21 different interpretations to the Rule of St. Benedict worldwide, concerning what Benedictines eat and in what proportions are permitted. Once again the cooks simply follow what the norms of the that particular Congregation. On feast days, those preparing the meals, occasionally will ask a superior if it would be permitted to buy some more expensive foods for a particular liturgical Feast. For example, Salmon on Friday that happens to be a Feast Day.

Some Religious Houses will also eat traditional foods stuffs that are linked to specific feasts. For example I know some religious institutions that will eat lamb on Easter Sunday or Holy Innocents' Pabulum for novices on the Feast of the Holy Innocents. I could go on and on, but this suffices as an example.

Here is an example of some liturgical blessing for Easter foods.

Most Religious Orders generally have two many courses, served sometimes with some form of salad and often ended with some form of dessert, such as fruit or something simple.. Some serve wine at their meals, while others have tea or coffee. Some simply have only water!

Many religious will often abstain from some type of food stuff, but there is generally a reason for it. Some can not eat of one dish, because of some physical ailment. Many religious will not drink wine, when it is served! No one questions another’s motives, because under normal circumstances the superior is aware of the dispositions of the members of his or her community. It also happens, the some religious in the community will be privately fasting with the permission of the superior. Religious are taught not to be too curious in this domain and simply accept what is placed before them. In some monasteries, one is obliged not to make any personal reflections about how they liked or disliked a particular meal. To do so would be a fault of chapter (of faults).

I know of no religious superior that would insist that one would be obliged to drink coffee, tea of wine at mealtime. Many will simply opt to drink water.

So many of us, are in awe of what truly passes behind the walls of a monastery or convent. That is the way they prefer it to remain. They live a life impregnated with mystery.


From a Christian perspective, without God there is nothing.  Scripture tells us that God continually sustains everything. Without God's sustaining power, all creation would cease.

  Colossians 1:15-17 (ESV)
  15  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

This tells us that without God, there is no evil, nor good. Without God, there is nothing at all.

Addressing whether man can do good without God:

Man is capable of doing good things, but only because we were created by God with the capacity to do so. He has "written the Law on our hearts", and given is a conscience.

Based on that, the answer to your question - can man do good without God - is "no". Even if God took a vacation, our ability to do good is still a result of Him creating us with the capacity to do so. Even if He took a vacation, any goodness in us would still be due to Him.

As a side note, people can be good without religion, but not without God, as noted in a comment on my answer here.


Concerning the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults

The Canadian and American Rites of Christian Initiation differ because it is basically permitted by Rome.

  ADAPTATIONS BY THE CONFERENCES OF BISHOPS IN THE USE OF THE ROMAN RITUAL

  In addition to the adaptations envisioned in Christian Initiation, General Introduction (nos.30-33), the rite of Christian initiation of adults allows for other adaptations that will be decided by the conference of bishops.
  Each conference of bishops has discretionary power to make the following decisions:
  to establish for the precatechumenate, where it seems advisable, some way of receiving inquirers who are interested in the catechumenate (see no. 39);
  to insert into the rite of acceptance into the order of catechumens a first exorcism
  and a renunciation of false worship, in regions where paganism is widespread (see nos.
  69-72);
  to decide that in the same rite the tracing of the sign of the cross upon the forehead (nos. 54-55) be replaced by making that sign in front of the forehead, in regions where the act of touching may not seem proper;
  to decide that in the same rite candidates receive a new name in regions where it is the practice of non-Christian religions to give a new name to initiates immediately (no. 73);
  to allow within the same rite, according to local customs, additional rites that symbolize reception into the community (no. 74);
  to establish during the period of the catechumenate, in addition to the usual rites
  (nos. 81-97), ‘rites of passage’: for example, early celebration of the presentations (nos. 144-150, 165-171), the ephphetha rite (nos. 184-186), the catechumens’ recitation of the Creed (nos. 180-183), or even an anointing of the catechumens (nos. 98-102);
  to decide on the omission of the anointing with the oil of catechumens (no. 218) or
  its transferral to the preparation rites for Holy Saturday (nos. 190-194) or its use during
  the period of the catechumen ate as a kind of ‘rite of passage’ (nos. 98-100);
  to make more specific and detailed the formularies of renunciation for the rite of acceptance into the order of catechumens (nos. 70-72) and for the celebration of baptism (no. 217).

  Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults

Individuals bishops are also allowed to make further adaptions if deemed fitting.

Further insight can be obtained in this Vatican document: INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CATECHESIS ADULT CATECHESIS IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY SOME PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES.


Alexander Helios disappearance-Scriptural Nephites?

No, the Nephites arrived in America around 600 B.C., long before Alexander Helios' days, with a much smaller group, on a single ship, and without their worldly treasures.

The Nephites are considered Jewish, not Egyptian, except for a remnant of their written language which was reformed from the Egyptian.


Origin and details of -10 to +10 model of becoming a Christian

It is the Engel Scale. Originally it went from -8 "Awareness of supreme being, no knowledge of Gospel" to +5 "Stewardship" but now it is often shown as going from -10 to +10 (see eg Bill Hybel's Just Walk Across The Room).

A quick Google search will reveal multiple variations, see eg this YWAM variant: