A little more about natural law, the rules and punishment within natural law?

Charles Rice addresses this question more or less in his 50 questions on the Natural Law.  (See q. 35).

I'll try and synthesize it a bit while my new baby forms his or her conscience about whether or not today is a good day to be born. He mentions three reasons why your conscience is subjectively culpable (and, being subjective, not the same as anyone else's by degrees).

Not all consciences are formed according to the "moral obligation to see the truth".
A conscience should always be followed regardless if it came up with the right conclusion.
A doubtful conscience should never be acted upon, but sometimes is.

So, in all those cases you see people acting in ways that are the opposite of how we objectively should act. Ignorance, pride and cowardice can increase the odds of people acting that way. And, to your question, the love of money increases our vulnerability ignorance, pride and cowardice.

Still, stealing is unjust in any circumstance  and violates the 6th commandment in a pretty obvious way. If a person is incapable of acquiring sustenance then they're actively being oppressed any civilization that does that is doomed (mainly according to the Natural Law principle of solidarity).

Pope John Paul II wrote "it is not wrong to want to live better, what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed toward 'having' rather than 'being'".  So we'll never be royalty, oh well.  As my favorite priest said, the best way for a man to make sure he is poor and happy and not greedy is to have a big family, and that is a good that is far more in accord with the natural law than what the average rich man seeks.


How do Catholics support transubstantiation?

On the Meaning of Transubstantial

To me, the prefix "trans" is the key.

Transformation is change of form
Transmutation is change of shape
Transfiguration is change of appearance
Transubstantiation is the change of substance.

While often one will be related to another, it does not follow that there is a co-dependence. So, while it is possible that something will change forms but not substance or shape (ice will change to water to steam and back and, given the right circumstances, that  can all be in the same shape), it is also possible that the substance of a thing can change without a change to the form, shape, or appearance (this is not to discount Eucharistic miracles where both the form and substance of the host changed).

Admittedly, it is difficult to give an example of "change of substance" in nature, because so much of nature is of the same substance. But, there are two things we can use to inform our understanding. First, an example might be found in a piece of paper. A piece of paper, so long as there are no intelligible writings on it, is merely a piece of paper. Once it has intelligible markings, however, it becomes significant. It becomes a letter or a pamphlet or a list. Admittedly, this does have some easily detectable change of form, but the change in significance is far greater than any change in appearance.

The other fact we might use to inform ourselves on the nature of substance is the Creed. Recently, the Catholic Church finally corrected the english translation of the Nicene creed to read, "Consubstantial with the father" (I say finally because for forty odd years it was "one in being", which is a fundamentally incorrect translation of the Latin word, "consubstantialis"). This word implies that we should see the universe as having at least two meta-substances: natural and temporal vs. divine and eternal. It is in this sense that Catholics understand the word, "transubstantial." It is a piece of matter which becomes of the divine substance.

On Justification of the Doctrine

A hint of Scripture

The words of Christ have been debated quite frequently and it is very difficult to say that they must be held as figurative. While I am not willing to enter that debate fully at the moment (that would take quite a bit of time and effort), I will say that it is apparent that communion in the New Testament was something very important (celebrated daily) and that it was very significant (leading to illness if it was mistreated). Both of these strike rather substantial blows against a purely symbolic view of the breaking of the bread.

Theological Archeology

On the other hand, there is ample evidence from the first 1500 years of the Church that it was the universal belief that the eucharist represented a sacramental reality. This is known in two ways:

By "sacramental reality" we do not mean, "an outward and visible sign of an inward invisible grace," but rather that a sacrament is, "a symbol which effects itself." Now I know, that word, "symbol" does become a bit vague, but the phrase is understood (in context) to mean, "something which represents something else bringing about and becoming that which it represents." Therefore baptism is not merely the symbol of washing, but it is washing. Marriage is not simply two symbolizing unity, but it is two becoming unified. Eucharist is not merely a symbol of us receiving Christ, but it is actually the divine meal. This belief of the nature of the sacraments is something which is clearly present from the earliest of days.
Even if that sacramental understanding were missing, there is direct testimony to transubstantiation itself. I know of one eucharistic miracle which predated Constantine. And Ignatius of Antioch (my patron) may not say the word, "transubstantial" directly, but it is harder to say that he did not believe in it than it is to argue that he did (this plus Occam's Razor...).


Who actually were writers of the Gospels?

Our knowledge of who wrote the Gospels comes principally from two sources:

Manuscripts
Patristic writings (early Christian historians)

--
Manuscripts
The manuscript evidence is unanimous.
A title would be found either in the superscript (the top) or the subscript (the bottom) of the manuscript, or both. There are manuscripts where these portions are missing and, as a result, the portion of the manuscript that survives has no title.
Focusing then on intact manuscripts (by which I mean manuscripts with a surviving superscript and/or subscript):

The number of intact Gospel manuscripts without a title: 0
The number of Gospel manuscripts attributed to someone other than
Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John: 0
What % of intact Gospel manuscripts attribute the Gospels to the same
names listed in modern Bibles: 100%

This is overwhelming evidence of authorship. If the authors were unknown, we should see a variety of names cropping up in the manuscript titles--this is exactly what we do not see.
The original audiences would have known who the author was; the idea that the document did not identify its author is speculative, it is supported by 0 manuscript evidence. But the idea that the recipients didn't know who wrote this document (keep in mind some of these recipients were willing to die for what these documents said) is implausible.
For a very deep dive reviewing the evidence on Gospel titles, see the work of Martin Hengel.
The manuscript evidence is 100% consistent in supporting the claim that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
--
Patristic writings
Numerous early Christian historians reported who wrote the Gospels--some of the most important of these historians are Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome.  Among these heavyweight scholars it is extraordinarily rare to find unanimity--they disagree about almost everything. But on this specific topic--who wrote the Gospels--their testimonies are in agreement. All of these scholars (and many more who could be named) reported Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors of the Gospels.
The scholars I’ve named represent multiple generations and tremendous geographic diversity--they cover the breadth of the Mediterranean: Lyons, Alexandria (x2), Carthage, Caesarea, Salamis, and Dalmatia.
Let’s consider very briefly some highlights of the evidence for each of the Gospels:
Matthew
Matthew is far and away the most quoted Gospel in the early church--it was known and trusted from the earliest patristic writings. It is quoted by Ignatius & Polycarp. Eduard Masseux argued effectively that Matthew is also quoted in 1 Clement, given exact correspondence in unusual Greek wording. (see pp. 21-24 here) Matthew is also quoted by the Didache, which may have been written in the 1st century. A passage from Matthew is found in the Epistle of Barnabas; the date of this epistle is uncertain, but Robinson (Redating the New Testament Ch. 10) makes a compelling argument that it was written in the 1st Century.
Matthew is mentioned as an author by name by Papais (~105), and explicitly as the author of the first Gospel by Irenaeus (~180), but it is quoted as a known, accepted, authoritative source as early as the first century--by people who knew the apostles personally.
The absence of any controversy over authorship--not the slightest insinuation even among the enemies of Christianity, is telling evidence that the third-generation Christians did not try to rename the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, the author to whom the first Gospel was attributed by Irenaeus is the same person to whom the Gospel was attributed by the students of the apostles (second-generation Christians like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp)
Mark
Papias of Hieropolis preserved in his history (written ~105) the testimony of a first-generation Christian Elder, indicating that Mark wrote a Gospel based on the preaching of Peter. Clement of Alexandria recorded this information a century later as well. Since Clement provides a number of details not found in any known fragment of Papias (and since Clement was from the Alexandrian church Mark is said to have founded), it is likely that Clement has at least some independent information (For the testimony of Papias, see HE 3.39; for several of the key statements by Clement see HE 2.15 & HE 6.14).
Two very well-informed scholars report that Mark wrote the second Gospel, they corroborate each other, their testimony is sustained by every Patristic writer after them, and there are exactly 0 competing claims.
Why is the Gospel of Mark multiply attested (by early sources) as having been written by such an obscure figure? (this is not the story you’d tell if you were making it up!) Far and away the simplest explanation is that it is true.
Luke
Our earliest surviving source naming Luke as the author appears to be the Muratorian Canon, written approx. AD 170; Irenaeus also names Luke as the author when writing circa AD 180. However, we have much earlier evidence that the Gospel of Luke was written by a disciple of Paul--we just wouldn’t know which one without the 2nd century sources.
Luke-Acts forms a two-part work by the same author. Colin Hemer has masterfully argued that the Book of Acts was written by an eyewitness disciple of Paul circa AD 62 (see here) (see also an excellent summary by Frank Luke on SE-Biblical Hermeneutics here). The author is intimately familiar with the people, time, and places he describes.
We can therefore show deductively that Luke was written by a disciple of Paul:

P1: The book of Acts was written by an eyewitness disciple of Paul
P2: The same author wrote the Gospel of Luke & the book of Acts
C: The Gospel of Luke was written by an eyewitness disciple of Paul

Courtesy of the Muratorian Canon and the writings of Irenaeus (to say nothing of the numerous later sources corroborating the claim), we know which disciple of Paul. But that it was an eyewitness disciple of Paul can be established from first-century sources.
John
Irenaeus of Lyons is arguably our most important external witness to Johannine authorship. He was from the part of the world where John lived in his later years (Irenaeus only moved to Gaul later in life), and was a pupil of Polycarp of Smyrna, who was a disciple of John. Irenaeus is just one link removed from apostolic testimony and, crucially, only one link removed from the author he claims wrote the Gospel of John.
Irenaeus grew up in a world saturated with John’s influence. He studied the works of Papias (another disciple of John). If Irenaeus believed John wrote John, that is enormously important historical evidence.
So did Irenaeus believe John wrote John or was he just saying that to further an agenda?
Irenaeus has often been misrepresented by those who do not appreciate his method of argumentation. Irenaeus argues from premises to conclusions. The premises are things that are generally known, the conclusions are the things he wants to prove. His conclusions could be garbage (I think some of his conclusions are clearly not garbage, but certainly some of his conclusions do appear to be false), but that doesn’t matter for our analysis here. We really don’t care about the process of reasoning Irenaeus used to get from his premises to his conclusions—because his attestation of Johannine authorship is used as a premise!
It may take a minute for the impact of that last statement to sink in. Irenaeus uses John’s authorship of the 4th Gospel as a premise (see Against Heresies Book 3 chapter 1). This means in his day and age (circa 180), John’s authorship of the 4th Gospel was generally known. Irenaeus is tearing apart (no joke, read Against Heresies) his opponents’ beliefs; if he cites an obviously false premise, he leaves himself open to a devastating counter-argument.
That Irenaeus can get away with baldly stating that John wrote John, without having to argue for it, in a world just 1 generation removed from John, indicates that this was a statement that was nearly incontrovertible at that time.
For a quick but scholarly review of the evidence of Johannine authorship, Erik Manning covers both the internal and external evidence.
There is a thread on SE-Biblical Hermeneutics suggesting John could not have written the Gospel of John--my thoughts in counter to that claim are here.
--
Patristic evidence for authorship by Matthew & Mark is early and unanimous
For Luke the evidence for authorship by an eyewitness disciple of Paul is exceptionally strong. That the disciple's name was Luke is well-attested, but not as well as that of Matthew & Mark.
For John, the evidence is almost unanimous, and it comes only one link removed from John himself.
--
Conclusion
The historical evidence is remarkably solid--yet, as many are aware, critical scholarship in the last 2 centuries has rejected most of this evidence. F. David Farnell put it very well:

Could it be that Enlightenment-spawned Historical Criticism has so
systematically ignored the early fathers because they stand as
manifest contradictions to its cherished dogmas?

There are implications to Gospel authorship, and some do not like those implications. But the evidence itself is robust - authorship of the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is very well-attested. Introducing later redactors (for whom we do not have evidence) to explain the authorship of the Gospels usually requires multiplying entities beyond necessity.
I am in the process of producing a video series on Gospel authorship--those interested can find it here. I find that the evidence supports the view that the Gospels were indeed written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.


Yes, the Holy Father does bless rosaries and other items such as medals at the conclusion of Papal Audiences, the Sunday Angelus, and Papal Masses!

The following is taken from The Pontifical North American College:

  At the conclusion of Papal Audiences, the Sunday Angelus, and Papal Masses, the Holy Father gives his Apostolic Blessing. This blessing is for you, your family, your loved ones, and any items for devotional use that you have brought with you to be blessed. Items such as rosaries, crucifixes, holy cards, or medals simply have to be with you to be blessed. The Holy Father has the intention of blessing these articles.

Outside of special papal events such as World Youth Day how can one obtain a rosary or medal blessed by the Pope when one can not be present in Rome?

  So what do you do if you want to get a rosary blessed by the pope but can't get to Rome?  Anything but buy one already blessed.  The best thing to do is talk to a priest or vowed religious you know.  Chances are he/she can connect you with someone who is going to Rome or who is currently studying or working there.  That person can take your item or obtain one there for you, get it blessed by the pope, and get it back to you.  People who travel to Rome are asked to do this all the time.  Another option is contacting one of the reputable gift shops in Rome. A decent store near the Vatican will sell you the item, then take it to the next General Audience and have it blessed for no additional charge. - From the Back of the Church


Can a third party ask for an annulment if neither married person wants it to happen?

Yes, it's possible, but Canon Law provides a specific method:

  The following are qualified to challenge a marriage:

  the spouses;
  the promoter of justice when nullity has already become public, if the convalidation of the marriage is not possible or expedient.

  [CIC]

For a marriage to be challenged, the family must first prove the nullity in public (for example, criminal bigamy, or lack of consent, or prohibted consanguity) which would prove the marriage civilly invalid, and then present the promoter of justice with that evidence for him to petition the Marriage Tribunal for sacramental nullity.

The promoter of justice is "the person appointed in each diocese and in the higher tribunals of the Catholic Church whose responsibility it is to provide for the public good." The relevant tribunal will be able to identify the particular person in its case.


What are the necessary circumstances that qualify a marriage for annulment in the Catholic Church?

Members of the Catholic Church are required to marry in front of a priest (or deacon) (CCC 1630). If one of the parties is Catholic, but there is a serious reason why the marriage should be celebrated in front of a civil servant or a non-Catholic minister, a dispensation can be granted. If no dispensation was granted and the couple did not observe this law — the marriage is considered invalid. Because the nullity of the marriage is clear from the circumstances there is no need for a canonical process to issue a Declaration of Nullity. The correction of this invalidity requires the couple to exchange their consent according to canonical form (commonly called "having the marriage blessed").

Impediments

If one of the parties were prohibited from marrying by a diriment impediment, the marriage is invalid. Because these impediments may not be known at all, the marriage is called a putative marriage if at least one of the parties married in good faith.

Diriment impediments include:

Being too young. The absolute minimum age is 16 for males, 14 for females, but episcopal conferences can set a higher limit

Antecedent and perpetual impotence (not to be confused with sterility)

Being already married

If one party is a Catholic and the other has not been baptized (unless a dispensation is granted)

The man was ordained to holy orders

Either party made a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute

Abduction with the intent of marriage (known as raptus), is an impediment as long as the person remains in the kidnapper's power

Impediment of Crime, bringing about the death of one's own spouse or the spouse of another, with the intention of marriage

Close relationship by blood, called Consanguinity, even if the relationship is only by law

Close relationship by marriage, called Affinity

Some of these laws can be relaxed by a dispensation before the ceremony.

For example, Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII of England received a dispensation from the impediment of affinity (Catherine had previously been married to Henry's brother Arthur, who died). Henry based his request for an annulment on the grounds that the dispensation had been improperly given in that his father, Henry VII, had pressured the Archbishop of Canterbury into granting the dispensation.

The correction of this invalidity after the marriage requires first that the impediment has ceased or has been dispensed, and then a "convalidation" can take place or a sanatio in radice can be granted to make the marriage valid.

Grounds for nullity

A marriage may be declared invalid because at least one of the two parties was not free to consent to the marriage or did not fully commit to the marriage.

Grounds for nullity include:

Simulation of consent; that is, the conscious and positive exclusion at consent by either or both of the contracting parties of one or all of the essential properties or "goods" of marriage: a) exclusivity of the marital relationship; b) the permanence of the marital bond; c) openness to offspring as the natural fruit of marriage (canon 1101§2)

Deliberate deceit about some personal quality that can objectively and gravely perturb conjugal life (canon 1098)

Conditional consent; the condition must concern the past or present (canon 1102)

Force or grave fear imposed on a person to obtain their consent (canon 1103)

A serious lack of the discretion of judgment at consent concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be given (canon 1095 n.2)

Psychic incapacity at consent to undertake the essential obligations of marriage (canon 1095 n.3). According to Canon 1095 a marriage can be declared null only when consent was given in the presence of some grave lack of discretionary judgment regarding the essential rights and obligations of marriage, or of some real incapacity to assume these essential obligations.


Biblical literalness and the speed of light

"God is not controlled by laws of science" I don't know whether you can share this idea with me or not. The truth is, science cannot explain everything. Simple things like dreams, thoughts, feelings and emotions cannot be explained by science. Science can only understand the things that human can see, touch, feel and hear. I don't think the law of science as we have here on earth or this universe will still apply in Heaven. The place where God dwells will surely have a different science. For instance, I don't think the light in heaven will consists of only seven colors, it might have more. I also don't think gravitational force will have any effect on God or heavenly beings while even light can be attracted by gravitational force, according to Einstein. For example, in the movie "The Matrix", everything inside the Matrix was programmed using advance computer languages; the gravity, the taste of food etc. were all designed but it was different from the real world in many ways, it was incomplete. While you can bend the laws of science in the Matrix, it's not the same in the real world.

"God created science"  If we can believe that God created this universe out of nothing, we should also believe that everything, and literally everything in this universe came into existence by the mere words of God. That would include the laws of science which governs this very universe; the speed of light, law of gravity, law of refraction, planetary motions, rotations and revolutions, birth and death of stars, etc...

God said, "Let there be light" and lo and behold, there was light! God created the light with a single sentence from His mouth. Creating the light means creating the very nature of it, it's speed, it's power, the substance through which it can pass, the energy that it carries, its behavior and so on. For instance, when a car is designed, it's speed, it's size, etc. are decided. In the same manner, God designed the speed of light, the speed of sound, the mass of every particles.

"God is bigger than you can imagine" It doesn't matter you believe in Old Earth or Young Earth, the most important thing is how big can you imagine God to be? How powerful do you think God is? How far can you put your faith in God. If the Bible says God created the whole universe within 6 days, do you have a problem in believing it?

  I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?
  (Jeremiah 32:27, NIV)


I looked this up on Google Books - Pugio fidei, page 14.

This section comes from the introduction written by Joseph de Voisin, the editor. It is one of a series of notes that touch on the major points of Jewish law, with the overall aim of equipping the reader (presumed to be a Catholic preacher wanting to convert Jewish people) with an understanding of Jewish tradition and of how the Catholic faith could be best described in relation to it.

The section De consistorio is about the Sanhedrin - principally the "Great Sanhedrin" of 71 judges, deriving from the council instituted by Moses (Numbers 11). It simply describes the nature and procedure of the original Sanhedrin, with reference to Jewish texts such as the Mishneh Torah. The authority of the Sanhedrin to expound and interpret the written and oral Law, and its succession from the days of Moses, is traced forward to the Catholic Church and the Pope in a later section (titled Traditiones legis Christi conformes sunt Antiquae, et legitimae Synagogae traditionibus, p144). The idea is that if you accept the role and succession of the Sanhedrin, then you cannot reject out of hand the similar magisterial authority and apostolic succession of the Church and her Pope. They interpret tradition and execute judgements in the same way, and the Old Testament priesthood prefigures that of the New.

The word "consistory" is used in Catholicism to mean "the ecclesiastical senate in which the Pope, presiding over the whole body of Cardinals, deliberates upon the affairs of the church" (OED), or "the assemblage of the Cardinals in council around the Pope" (letter of Innocent III quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia), or a specific meeting of this body. The Church regularly holds consistories. The most familiar kind is for creating new cardinals - see for example the official information about one in November 2012. Other meetings may be held for private consultation. The earliest known document to relate this body to the assembly of Moses is a constitution of Pope John VIII (872-882), De jure cardinalium 1.

Meanwhile, in the main text by Raymond, he argues (part 2, chapter 4) that the coming of the Messiah is related to the meeting-place of the Sanhedrin, the "Chamber of Hewn Stone" (camera dolata). This is attributed to Jewish tradition regarding Genesis 49:10, "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes". According to this idea, the exile of the Sanhedrin from that chamber (forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple) was linked to their inability to inflict capital punishment, and was a signifier of the coming Messiah. This matches the New Testament account, where Jesus had to be handed over to the Romans for crucifixion, about forty years before the Temple was destroyed.

Reference: Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Reponse. Robert Chazan. University of California Press, 1989. Chapter 7 discusses the Pugio fidei and its Sanhedrin-Messiah connection.

1. "Quippe cum sicut nostram mansuetudinem Moysi, ita et vestram fraternitatem septuaginta seniorum, qui sub eodem causarum negotia dijudicabant, vicissitudinem gerere, certum habeamus." De jure cardinalium, in Migne's Patrologia Latina vol 126, John VIII Epistolae et decreta no. 346.


Does God care about Denominational differences?

What saves a person is God's salvation that He has procured for us through His Son, Jesus Christ, and the faith that trusts in this grace of God (cf. Ephesians 2:1-10).  That is, we have faith that God, in His mercy, has saved us through Jesus Christ who is the resurrection and the life (cf. John 11:25-27).  The "Church" is the body of believers which is therefore united in this faith in Christ.

However, we obviously see in this world that the Church is not visibly united; i.e. there are denominations and differences among these denominations.

I think the Reformation distinction between the "visible" and "invisible" church is helpful here (see http://bookofconcord.org/defense_6_church.php ).  There is one, holy, universal Church spread throughout the whole world and time; this Church is united in Christ, having been redeemed by his blood and brought to faith in him for her salvation.  Since we can not "see" a person's faith, however, this Church is "invisible."  God knows who are His, though.

This "invisible" Church is also an article of faith, because we don't see unity in the Church on earth.  Instead, what we see on earth is the "visible" Church that is often divided, has non-believers in it, and possessed of various faults.  Denominations are an unfortunate result of the fact that we are fallen creatures and remain sinners, even though we have been redeemed and saved by Christ from this sin.

Thus, we of the Church are both saints and sinners at the same time (the Reformation phrase is "simul justus et peccattor").  We are members of the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" that we confess we believe in through the Nicene creed.  Yet, at the same time, sin still intrudes into our relationships with each other in the Church, creating divisions.

When Christ returns, though, all these differences and separations will be undone and we will be truly united.  Adam and Eve's original sin introduced separation between humanity and God, among humanity, and between humanity and creation.  When Christ returns all these fallen relationships will be completely restored, even as they are now partially restored in the Church.  We will then have perfect communion with God, each other, and all creation (cf. Revelation 21:1-5).

So, the question naturally arises: "Why belong to a denomination at all?"  I would answer that if we believe that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Christ, then we tend to congregate with other Christians who we feel best proclaim and teach this Gospel.  This is another reason why there are denominations: we have differences of opinion as to how to best do this.  We all seek to be "orthodox" (i.e. proclaim a "right praise" of God), yet we are not perfect in this life.  So, I am a Lutheran of the LCMS (www.lcms.org), yet I am still united in Christ with Catholics, Methodists, ELCA Lutherans, Baptists, Greek Orthodox, etc...  But, when Christ returns we will all perfectly sing his praises together (cf. Rev. 19:6-8).

A short article about how Martin Luther and John Calvin's thoughts on the "visible" and "invisible" Church derive from St. Augustine's thinking is at:  http://www.augnet.org/?ipageid=2196

A great hymn that speaks to the unity we have in Christ and touches on the "visible" and "invisible" Church is "The Church's One Foundation" (http://www.hymnary.org/hymn/LSB2006/644 )


Who is the most recent saint recognized by both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches?

I believe that the correct answer would be either Abraham of Rostov, who died between 1073 and 1077; or Antony (Anthony) of the Caves, who died in 1073.  Both appear in the list of Catholic saints, and both are venerated in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Abraham is known as Abraham the Wonderworker in the Orthodox Church, where he is remembered on October 29.  His life is described:

  Saint Abramius, Archimandrite of Rostov, in the world Abercius, left
  his parents’ home in his youth and entered upon the path of Christian
  asceticism. Having assumed the monastic schema, Abramius settled at
  Rostov on the shore of Lake Nero. In the Rostov lands there were not
  many pagans, and the saint worked intensely at spreading the true
  Faith.

  Not far from the cell of the saint was a pagan temple, where the
  pagans worshipped a stone idol of Veles (Volos), which caused fright
  among the inhabitants of Rostov. In a miraculous vision the Apostle
  John the Theologian stood before Abramius, and gave him a staff with a
  cross on top, with which the venerable one destroyed the idol. At the
  place of the pagan temple, St Abramius founded a monastery in honor of
  the Theophany and became its head.

  In memory of the miraculous appearance, the holy monk built a church
  named for St John the Theologian. Many of the pagans were persuaded
  and baptized by St Abramius. Particularly great was his influence with
  the children whom he taught the ability to read and write, instructing
  them in the law of God, and tonsured monastics from among them.

  Everyone who came to the monastery was accepted with love. The saint’s
  life was a constant work of prayer and toil for the benefit of the
  brethren: he chopped firewood for the oven, he laundered the monks’
  clothing and carried water for the kitchen. St Abramius reposed in old
  age and was buried in the church of the Theophany.

  His holy relics were uncovered in the time of Great Prince Vsevolod
  (1176-1212). In the year 1551, Tsar Ivan the Terrible, before his
  campaign against Kazan, made the rounds of holy places. At the
  Theophany-Abramiev monastery the monks showed him the staff with which
  St Abramius had destroyed the idol of Veles. The Tsar took the staff
  with him on the campaign, but the cross remained at the monastery. And
  returning again after the subjugation of the Khan, Ivan the Terrible
  gave orders to build a new stone church at the Abramiev monastery in
  honor of the Theophany, with four chapels, and he also supplied it
  with books and icons.

The life of Antony of the Caves is described:

  Saint Anthony of the Kiev Caves was born in the year 983 at Liubech,
  not far from Chernigov, and was named Antipas in Baptism. Possessing
  the fear of God from his youth, he desired to be clothed in the
  monastic schema. When he reached a mature age, he wandered until he
  arrived on Mt. Athos, burning with the desire to emulate the deeds of
  its holy inhabitants. Here he received monastic tonsure, and the young
  monk pleased God in every aspect of his spiritual struggles on the
  path of virtue. He particularly excelled in humility and obedience, so
  that all the monks rejoiced to see his holy life.

  The igumen saw in St Anthony the great future ascetic, and inspired by
  God, he sent him back to his native land, saying, “Anthony, it is time
  for you to guide others in holiness. Return to your own Russian land,
  and be an example for others. May the blessing of the Holy Mountain be
  with you.

  Returning to the land of Rus, Anthony began to make the rounds of the
  monasteries about Kiev, but nowhere did he find that strict life which
  had drawn him to Mt. Athos.

  Through the Providence of God, Anthony came to the hills of Kiev by
  the banks of the River Dniepr. The forested area near the village of
  Berestovo reminded him of his beloved Athos. There he found a cave
  which had been dug out by the Priest Hilarion, who later became
  Metropolitan of Kiev (October 21). Since he liked the spot, Anthony
  prayed with tears, “Lord, let the blessing of Mt. Athos be upon this
  spot, and strengthen me to remain here.” He began to struggle in
  prayer, fasting, vigil and physical labor. Every other day, or every
  third day, he would eat only dry bread and a little water. Sometimes
  he did not eat for a week. People began to come to the ascetic for his
  blessing and counsel, and some decided to remain with the saint.

  Among Anthony’s first disciples was St Nikon (March 23), who tonsured
  St Theodosius of the Caves (May 3) at the monastery in the year 1032.

  The virtuous life of St Anthony illumined the Russian land with the
  beauty of monasticism. St Anthony lovingly received those who yearned
  for the monastic life. After instructing them how to follow Christ, he
  asked St Nikon to tonsure them. When twelve disciples had gathered
  about St Anthony, the brethren dug a large cave and built a church and
  cells for the monks within it.

  After he appointed Abbot Barlaam to guide the brethren, St Anthony
  withdrew from the monastery. He dug a new cave for himself, then hid
  himself within it. There too, monks began to settle around him.
  Afterwards, the saint built a small wooden church in honor of the
  Dormition of the Mother of God over the Far Caves.

  At the insistence of Prince Izyaslav, the igumen Barlaam withdrew to
  the Dimitriev monastery. With the blessing of St Anthony and with the
  general agreement of the brethren, the meek and humble Theodosius was
  chosen as igumen. By this time, the number of brethren had already
  reached a hundred men. The Kiev Great Prince Izyaslav (+ 1078) gave
  the monks the hill on which the large church and cells were built,
  with a palisade all around. Thus, the renowned monastery over the
  caves was established. Describing this, the chronicler remarks that
  while many monasteries were built by emperors and nobles, they could
  not compare with those which are built with holy prayers and tears,
  and by fasting and vigil. Although St Anthony had no gold, he built a
  monastery which became the first spiritual center of Rus.

  For his holiness of life, God glorified St Anthony with the gift of
  clairvoyance and wonderworking. One example of this occurred during
  the construction of the Great Caves church. The Most Holy Theotokos
  Herself stood before him and St Theodosius in the Blachernae church in
  Constantinople, where they had been miraculously transported without
  leaving their own monastery. Actually, two angels appeared in
  Constantinople in their forms (See May 3, the account of the Kiev
  Caves Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos). Having received gold from the
  Mother of God, the saints commissioned master architects, who came
  from Constantinople to the Russian land on the command of the Queen of
  Heaven to build the church at the Monastery of the Caves. During this
  appearance, the Mother of God foretold the impending death of St
  Anthony, which occurred on July 10, 1073.


When thinking about angels the scripture does not provide details of how they followed the Devil's pride in rebellion to God. However the two things it does it impress upon us is that they fell together. In other words God allowed something to test them and this split the good angels from the evil ones accordingly.  As God is omnipotent he is perfectly able to test the will of a creature and then prevent all future tests and temptations ensuring they are forever protected by the measure of godliness that he has filled them with, securing the boundary of their own volition within his boundless glory. This does not mean they are now robots it just means they are protected. It means they only make free choices that are not harmful to themselves, a heavenly freedom from earthly bondage including the tyranny of the Devil, sin and death.

As we turn to humans its all different.   Each human is born from another human, so individual testing could not occur all at once to winnow out the good and the bad. Furthermore due to the fall of mankind in Adam in some sense everyone failed the test in Adam. This means the choice was no longer possible accept under a redemption plan whereby our choice is enabled.

Once in heaven the same reality applies to saints as it does to angels. God is able to protect us from the type of test that fell upon the angels and he can do this forever and ever. This is clearly implied by the fact that saints inherit 'eternal life', not merely the 'potential' of it.


The answer is simple and these fragments all support it:

No - we shouldn't test God. We shouldn't demand revelations, we shouldn't demand signs and miracles, as it is stated in the fragments you are citing.

Yes - we should test revelations. As Saint John the Teologian states:

  Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God (1 John, 4, 1)

All these people you see in Bible "testing God" received some revelation, but were not sure if it is from God, or if they are in some kind of delusion. They don't doubt there is God. They doubt if the revelation is genuine. That's why they put it to the test.


Where can I find Calvin's commentary on the Hebrew Bible in the original Latin?

The Post-Reformation Digital Library is the best place I've found for these sorts of documents.  And, sure enough, a search for "Calvin" and "Genesis" includes the following results:

In Primum Mosis Libru[m], qui Genesis vulgo dicitur, Commentarius Iohannis Calvini, 1554, page 84
Commentarii Ioannis Caluini in quinque libros Mosis, Genesis seorsum reliqui quatuor in formam harmoniae digesti, 2ed, 1573, page 96

The page numbers indicate where, according to the book's internal pagination, the commentary on Genesis 12 begins.


The problem that you run into is John 1 - in which it says of Jesus, that by him all things were made, and there is nothing that was made that He didn't make. This is why the Nicene Creed is so careful to say he was begotten not made. If God the Father made Jesus, then John made a boo-boo.

The incarnation, on the other hand, is merely putting flesh to that which already existed, namely the spirit of Christ in the man Jesus. The physical manifestation is well known to anyone who has watched a science film on conception.

In other words, the spirit is eternal, but the flesh is temporary, and created.

The fun part, however, is that since it is something made, it means that God the Son got to make his own body. (Reminds me of an episode of ST:TNG called The Offspring, in which Lt. Cmdr. Data's daughter gets to choose her form) I find it interesting that He chose to be so normal and plain- but that's who our God is- he wants so desperately to be with us, that he chooses to be just like us.

The debated part of the incarnation is the nature of the Spirit/Soul/whatever of that flesh in relationship to the pre-existant Spirit of God the Son. The relationship of that spirit of God to the flesh of that baby born is the root of most Christological heresies like Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, and Monophysitism.  Here's the "problem" of each:

Apollinarism: Says that the flesh that was created had no mind of its own.  The problem with this idea is that God was never actually a man. In its most extreme form docetism Jesus only appeared to be human, and was in fact, merely a 'phantasm' of the flesh - a solid spirit that had no human substance whatsoever.  That basically denies the incarnation altogether.
Nestorianism: Says that the flesh was just a normal guy whom God the Son indwelt.  In this idea, Jesus was schizophrenic, having two distinct personalities in one body.
Monophysitism: Says that there was only one nature, in that the human nature was so dissolved in the divine that it basically ceased to exist.  Of the "heresies" listed, this is probably the closest to Orthodoxy, but fails insofar as it denies the existence of a human will.

The orthodox position is the so called hypostatic union.  It says that Jesus was fully God and fully man.  (Hey, Jesus is just 200% that's all!) It's a bit tricky, but the basic idea is to ensure that any Christology recognizes that Jesus was fully able to fully be both things to fully accomplish what he was sent to do.


What scriptural support do Latter-day Saints find for their moral agency doctrine?

The LDS church does not teach predestination.

  To Latter-day Saints, the idea of predestination is unscriptural. Not only does it deny what Paul and other prophets taught about agency, but it also limits God’s love to only a select few. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith stated emphatically that “no person is ever predestined to salvation or damnation. Every person has free agency.” Similarly, the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob taught that “one being is as precious in [God’s] sight as the other.” (Jacob 2:21.)

The LDS church teaches about foreordination.

  Foreordination is thus different from predestination. There is no divine compulsion to ensure that a person who is foreordained to a particular calling will fulfill his or her tasks.

So why does the church teach foreordination and not predestination.  Predestination removes from us responsibility and agency.  If a person is predestined to become a minister or sorts, nothing will stop that even if they blatantly disobey God's commands.  One could be foreordained to be a minister and live in a way that is not condusive to that calling and never become a minister.  Agency is central to the doctrine of God.

  Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves. Agency is essential in the plan of salvation. Without agency, we would not be able to learn or progress or follow the Savior. With it, we are “free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil” ( 2 Nephi 2:27).

If you read the last bullet point under sources, that will give you a solid understanding of what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe concerning predestination and foreordination.

Sources

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/12/i-have-a-question?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/agency?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/agency/what-the-church-teaches?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/agency-essential-to-the-plan-of-life?lang=eng&_r=1
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/12/i-have-a-question?lang=eng


Why is baptism by the Holy Spirit called a "baptism"?

Answering my own question. I missed this link given in this answer while reading the answers to the related question. This mostly answers my questions. I'll try to summarize:

What are the roots of this semantical error or false teaching? Where does it come from?

Answer: Quote from the article (emphasis added):

  Generally speaking, it is the charismatic movement that supports the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Do they consider the traditional forms of christian baptism to be baptism by water only?

Answer: Probably yes. I think this might be because many protestant and charismatic movements seem to identify themselves negatively with traditional teachings, other denominations and other forms of worship.

Why do they make such confusing distinctions and call these experiences baptism? Do they consider the traditional baptisms administered by priests (in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; with water and together with the laying on of hands and prayers for the Holy Spirit, etc) invalid or incomplete?

Answer: I think it is unreasonable to debate on this because I find it unlikely that the charismatic movement has formulated teaching on this which is backed by reasonably consistent theology.

See also:

Charismatic movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Baptism with the Holy Spirit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why are the civilly married not allowed confession in the Catholic Church?

You can go to confession but you may not receive absolution

  Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman
  establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and
  which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the
  procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the
  Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

  §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between
  the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

A civil marriage is not a sacramental marriage.  (That is definitional).
However...

  ... a civil marriage would be valid
   1. if neither of the parties is Catholic  (at which point your question is non-applicable)
   2. if at least one of the parties is Catholic and he obtains a dispensation from canonical form (i.e., the provisions of Canon 1108)
    In other words, Canon 1108 applies only to Catholics, and it can be dispensed with on a case-by-case basis.

The above points offered by @AthanasiusofAlex, and accepted.

  Can.  1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted
  before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by
  either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the
  rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the
  exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127,
  §§1-2.

Understanding the sacrament of penance and reconciliation (confession)

Here's the problem with participating in the sacrament of penance and reconciliation while living in sin (in the eyes of the church):

During the process of confession the penitent resolves to avoid sin
and the near occasion of sin.
If the intent is to go home and resume living in sin, then the person
so confessing has just lied to God during the confession.  Catch-22,
just committed another mortal sin.

Getting on to technicalities now ...

  ... if someone comes to confession and resolves to live from then on according to the Gospel (i.e., to live in continence until his marriage irregularity can be resolved), then he can certainly receive absolution. He can receive absolution even if he foresees that he will fall into temptation (but has nevertheless resolved to do the right thing in that moment).

(Credit to @AthanasiusOfAlex)

  VII. The Acts of the Penitent
  CCC 1450 "Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things
  willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice
  complete humility and fruitful satisfaction."

  Contrition
  CCC 1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place.
  Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin
  committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."

Confession doesn't happen in a vacuum.  What is the penitent's intention?

If the person (or the couple) goes to confession, and resolves to no longer live in sin it doesn't end there.  The couple, with some help from the pastor, can work on convalidating their marriage.  During the process of convalidation (getting the marriage recognized as sacramental) the sacrament of penance and reconciliation is typically received as part of the process.

  convalidation. In Roman Catholic canon law, the making of a putative
  marriage valid following the removal of some impediment.  A ceremony in
  which a marriage, such as a civil marriage, is made recognized by the
  church.

By recognized it means that the church recognizes the marriage as being sacramental.

  CCC 1622 "Inasmuch as it is a sacramental action of sanctification, the
  liturgical celebration of marriage . . . must be, per se, valid,
  worthy, and fruitful."  It is therefore appropriate for the bride
  and groom to prepare themselves for the celebration of their marriage
  by receiving the sacrament of penance.

Convalidation covers a wide variety of situations, and is handled on a case by case basis.

  Can.  1160 A marriage which is null because of defect of form must be
  contracted anew in canonical form in order to become valid, without
  prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

A defect of form may be found even if the two in the marriage are committed to each other and otherwise behave as a validly married couple.  (See exception 1 up at the top).  You can't make a general rule about that, as each case is taken on its own merits.  Work with the pastor/local diocese is required.

  CCC 1623 In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the
  spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each
  other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before
  the Church.


In the Hebrew Bible, Jubilee refers to a set of practices around forgiveness of debts and restoration of land. Basically, every 7 years the people were supposed to hold a "sabbath" for the land and rest from farming. Then in the 50th year (the year after the 7th Sabbath/Sabbatical Year), all land ownership was supposed to resort to it's original tribes/clans/families, all debts be forgiven, all slaves set free, and a general year of celebration and festivity observed. This was known as the "Jubilee Year." See Leviticus 25 for a description of how this was supposed to work.

It's not originally a description of heaven, but it's an image a lot of later Biblical writers would use to describe "heaven" or "the kingdom" or "salvation" and other similar concepts. For example, Isaiah 61 talks about the deliverance of the people by God as the "year of the Lord's favor" when the captives are set free, the cities rebuilt, and the people are too busy celebrating to tend their own flocks, which sounds a lot like the Jubilee year. So Jubilee takes on more meaning as an image of what heaven is supposed to be like.


What was the most likely method of crucifixion that was used on Jesus?

That Christ's hands were nailed to the cross is firmly established by Scripture. Following the Resurrection, the Apostle Thomas doubted that Christ was alive:

  So he [Thomas] said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." (John 20:25, NKJV)

When Christ appeared to Thomas, he instructed

  Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing. (John 20:27, NKJV)

While this does not rule out that His arms were also bound, it does require that they were nailed.

The Romans used a variety of different shaped crosses to execute criminals. For example, Seneca the Younger, a contemporary of Christ, wrote

  I see before me crosses not all alike, but differently made by different peoples: some hang a man head downwards, some force a stick upwards through his groin, some stretch out his arms on a forked gibbet. (Moral Essays 6.20)

Josephus, who lived just after Christ, records

  the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses (The Wars of the Jews 5.11.1)

So it seems that they had a variety of choice and applied them as they saw fit. The typical crosses were |-shaped, T-shaped, +-shaped, and X-shaped. Scripture does not clearly state which shape was used, but Christian writings in the first few centuries of the Church already favored either T or + shaped. The Epistle of Barnabas (c AD 90-125) records

  For [the Scripture] saith, “And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household.” What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted—Ten by Ι, and Eight by Η. You have [the initials of the, name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter Τ, he says also, "Three Hundred." He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. (Barnabas 9:7)

In Greek numerals, 300 is written with a tau, resembling the Latin T. The author of Barnabas clearly thought the cross was shaped like the Greek letter tau, T. In Greek, Jesus is IHSOYS -- I and H being the initial letters.

A bit further in the epistle, he writes

  Here again you have an intimation concerning the cross, and Him who should be crucified. Yet again He speaks of this in Moses, when Israel was attacked by strangers. And that He might remind them, when assailed, that it was on account of their sins they were delivered to death, the Spirit speaks to the heart of Moses, that he should make a figure of the cross, and of Him about to suffer thereon; for unless they put their trust in Him, they shall be overcome for ever. Moses therefore placed one weapon above another in the midst of the hill, and standing upon it, so as to be higher than all the people, he stretched forth his hands, and thus again Israel acquired the mastery. (Barnabas 12:2)

Thus Moses, with his arms outstretched is described as a type of Christ on the cross. This suggests a T- or +-shaped cross.

A little later (c AD 150), Justin Martyr wrote

  God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb.  (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XL)

This seems to match with a +-shaped cross.

So it seems that the earliest Christians believed Christ was nailed to a T- or +-shaped cross rather than a |- or X-shaped cross.

If we consider what Matthew recorded,

  And they put up over His head the accusation written against Him: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Matthew 27:37, NKJV)

which seems to rule out a T-shaped cross, the balance of the evidence favors the traditional Christian shape of the cross.


Why did the blood sacrifice in Genesis take place as acceptable to God?

In the Pearl of Great Price in the book of Moses it says:(Moses 5:5-7)

  5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the
  Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for
  an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments
  of the Lord.

  6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam,
  saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said
  unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

  7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the
  sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace
  and truth.

When Adam left the Garden of Eden he was commanded by God to give a sacrifice. We see this is continued on by his sons with the whole Cain and Abel situation. It was meant as a similitude of Christs sacrifice. So when Christ died on the cross that law was fulfilled and it was no longer needed for man to sacrifice living animals though Christ has asked other sacrifices of man.

I don't think there is anything written in Genesis specifically if you look at it chronologically but if you look at the story of Abraham and his son Isaac Genesis talks about sacrifice there. But it doesn't explain anything or imply whether sacrifice had been happening before. It is an interesting story as Abraham was almost sacrificed by his own father and that was the reason he left his homeland, so for him to do the same to his only son was very significant.

It was probably written in other scriptures that have not survived to this time era, which is unfortunate as that would have been interesting.


Mary as the road that we must travel in order to reach God?

According to Pope Francis

Mary is not only the bridge joining us to God; she is more. She is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel in order to reach him.

Pope Francis like Pope St. John Paul II famous "Totus Tuus" originated from the Total Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary written by St. Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort.
The phrase known to Catholic was the phrase, "To Jesus through Mary". More on this can be found in the book True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort.
Other expression instead of the word "road" is "path, ladder of paradise, gate of heaven, etc", the expression was, like in the Franciscan:

"Mary is our path to Jesus Christ"
And St. Lawrence Justinian asks: "How can she be otherwise than full of grace? She has been made the ladder to paradise, the gate of heaven, the most true mediatrix between God and human beings."
St. Bonaventure says Mary is called "the Gate of Heaven because no one can enter that blessed Kingdom without passing through her."

But the most famous one came from St.Louis de Montfort and this is shared also by St. Maximillian Kolbe and other Church Theologians: see below.

To Jesus through Mary, Origins
Q: What is the origin of the expression "To Jesus through Mary"?
A: The origin of "To Jesus through Mary" is generally attributed to Louis Grignion de Montfort in his True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. That is to say that he used the expression most explicitly, and presented devotion to Mary as the most effective means of consecration to Jesus. Therefore, according to Grignion, we ought to entrust ourselves to Mary in imitation of Christ (True Devotion 121, 123, 124). According to Montfort, true devotion "consists in giving oneself entirely to the Blessed Virgin, in order to belong entirely to Jesus Christ through her." (True Devotion, 121) However, the idea of going through Mary to Jesus is much older, and was promoted by such authors as Ildephonse of Toledo (+667), Germanus of Constantinople (+773), John of Damascus (+750), Ambrose Autpert (+781), Fulbert of Chartres (+1028), Odilo of Cluny (+1049), Peter Damian (+1072), Anselm of Lucca (+1086), and Anselm of Canterbury (+1109). Geoffrey of Vendôme (+1132) would say, for example, "...let us hasten to his mother, and through her to the Son Himself." (PL 157, 266A) And Bernard of Clairvaux insists: "...be careful to commit to Mary the little thou desirest to offer, that the Lord may receive it through her hands...." ("De Nat"., in: Bernard's sermons on the Blessed Virgin Mary. Augustine Publ.: Devon, 1987, 101-103). In Odo of Canterbury (+1200) we find a passage which is even closer to the consecrated expression attributed to Montfort. Odo uses these words: "In fact, one goes to Christ through Mary, one goes to the Son through the Mother. By means of the Mother of Mercy one reaches mercy itself." (Testi Mariani, ed. L. Gambero, vol. 3, 490).

How do Catholics explain this in light of John 14:6 (NASB)

Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.

Since, Pope Francis, St.John Paul II and other well known Marian Pope's like Pope Leo XII, Pope St. Paul VI and numerous great Marian Saints like St. Liguori, St. Kolbe, not to mention the well know Church Fathers and Theologians, etc. have embraced and taught the important role of Mary in the salvation of souls. It follows that the Catholic Church affirmed Pope Francis view when he said:

Mary is not only the bridge joining us to God; she is more. She is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel in order to reach him.

If Mary is the "road", it doesn't mean that there's no other road as scriptures teaches us;

The Narrow Gate
13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves - Matthew7:13-15

Pondering deeply this passage, one may ask who or what is the "narrow gate"? Because if one do not know the narrow gate, then it follows as the passage immediately speaks of false prophets, that one is following the false prophets and wolves in sheep clothing and can be deceive.
What is the narrow gate?
We can find the answer to Pope Francis himself, and the explanation of the cited statement saying Mary is the road to God.

Pope Francis: Mary helps Christians enter heaven through the 'narrow gate'
The way to heaven is difficult and the gate to enter small, but Jesus’ mother, Mary, who herself entered through the narrow gate, will help those who ask, Pope Francis said Sunday.
Mary can be invoked under the title “Gate of Heaven,” he explained in his Angelus address Aug. 25.
“She welcomed [Jesus] with all her heart and followed him every day of her life, even when she did not understand, even when a sword pierced her soul.”
The Blessed Virgin Mary is “a gate that exactly follows the form of Jesus: the gate of the heart of Jesus, demanding, but open to all,” he said. “May the Virgin Mary help us in this.”

In closing, "Jesus said I am the Way", and Jesus came down from Heaven to show us the way, it's called the "Way of the Cross". If we follow the path of Jesus Christ in carrying our own cross like Jesus, we also need the accompaniment of a Mother. Like Jesus, we cannot endure the weight of the cross and climb the Calvary without the powerful intercession of a Mother. That's is why, the agonizing Jesus at the Foot of the Cross, commanded all the redeemed with His words and this words was both a command and a gift. Jesus gave us the most precious gift of all, Jesus gave us his Mother who accompanied Him from "womb to tomb".
If we want to enter the narrow gate, and travel the road, the shortest and safest road to the Kingdom of God and not be deceive by false prophets and wolves in sheep clothing. All the redeemed, the People of God including the Christian and Non-Christian, all must heed Jesus command saying,

"Son, behold your Mother..." (John19:26)

If we do not welcome Mary in our home especially in our hearts, then, when the Blessed Virgin Mary knocks at our door, to help us in our Christian journey like St. Elizabeth and St. John the beloved Apostle did, then, we are missing the gifts of the Holy Spirit, because if we hear the voice or greetings of the Theotokos, that's enough for us to be "filled by the Holy Spirit", and proclaim "Jesus is Lord".
All the redeemed must welcome Mary's visitation as She brings salvation to all souls who seek it, because seeing the Face of Mary the Mother of Mercy, we can also see the Face of God, the Mercy of God which is Jesus Christ the Divine Mercy made flesh. And hearing the voice or greetings of Mary, we can experience the sanctifying gifts of the Holy Spirit because Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces, all graces pass thru the Maternal hands of Mary.

By the merits of Jesus, Mary was made the mediatrix of our salvation; not a mediatrix of justice, of course, but of grace and intercession --- as St. Bonaventure expressly calls her: "Mary, the most faithful mediatrix of our salvation."
This necessity goes back to the very will of God Himself, Who had decreed that all the graces He gives human beings should pass through Mary's hands. This is the opinion of St. Bernard --- an opinion which we may now safely call the general opinion of Theologians and Doctors.

More on this teaching coming from the Catholic Church thru the words of the Church Fathers, Saints, Doctor of the Church and Theologians can be found here in this link.


What are the main differences between Reformed Protestant Biblical Theology and Covenant Theology?

Proponents of Biblical Theology do not break away from Covenant Theology, but try to attempt to preserve Covenant Theology from the dangers they see in a trend away from objective truth into subjective experience based theology. Even systematic theology (where most covenant theology has been deposited) can turn into just a set of dogmatic asserted by people who have lost the skill of honestly following the gradual revelation of and unfolding of scripture. Dispensational Theology, along with the charismatic movement, are often seen as regions where lack of objectivity festers. However, let’s remember we are talking about labels now, so whatever we say will not be true for many under each banner.

Before identifying in what sense Biblical Theology does depart from Covenant Theology, let’s set some definitions of the terms. Unlike Covenant Theology which has various founders in the reformation and puritan age, Biblical Theology is recent and has few founders. Therefore let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth:

Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) -

  The specific character of Biblical Theology lies in this, that it discusses both the form and contents of revelation from the point of view of the revealing activity of God Himself. In other words, it deals with revelation in the active sense, as an act of God, and tries to understand and trace and describe this act, so far as this is possible to man and does not elude our finite observation. In Biblical Theology both the form and contents of revelation are considered as parts and products of a divine work. In Systematic Theology these same contents of revelation appear, but not under the aspect of the stages of a divine work; rather as the material for a human work of classifying and systematizing according to logical principles. Biblical Theology applies no other method of grouping and arranging these contents than is given in the divine economy of revelation itself.

  The truth of revelation, if it is to retain its divine and -absolute character at all, must be perfect from the beginning. Biblical Theology deals with it as a product of a supernatural divine activity, and is therefore bound by its own principle to maintain the perfection of revealed truth in all its stages. When, nevertheless, Biblical Theology also undertakes to show how the truth has been gradually set forth in greater fullness and clearness, these two facts can be reconciled in no other way than by assuming that the advance in revelation resembles the organic process, through which out of the perfect germ the perfect plant and flower and fruit are successively produced. (The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline)

So as a method of exegesis, that is what Biblical Theology is. It is trying to find the constant unfolding truth of the Bible as presenting it in its natural history. It has a high objective aim, with due respect for the surrounding history and stage of development of each part of scripture.  Very well, I can’t imagine one covenant theologian who would not applaud the effort.

The difference cannot be attributed to this aim for this goal is not really new wit Biblical Theology. From this standpoint many covenant theologians in the 15-17 centuries held to the Biblical Theological framework. For example Jonathan Edwards wrote a word on redemption history that would be considered very similar to the proposed methods of Biblical Theology. In this work he starts with Adam and traces the gradual revelation of God’s word ‘unfolding as a flower’ and finally pointing to future prophecies to come.

Yet with someone like Edwards we can see the break. Jonathan Edwards held views about the distinction between Law and Grace that does not appeal to the leaders of Biblical Theology. For some strange reason the break is clearly seen at Princeton’s Theological Seminary, from the transition of Charles Hodge, to Geerhardus Vos, to John Murray.  John Murray, if considered a covenant theologian was near the other side of the spectrum as men like Jonathan Edwards, or Hodge, in terms of his view of the distinction between Law and Grace. Jon Murray studied under Vos as is often quoted by proponents of Biblical Theology.

To proceed with an answer to this question then, I will first very briefly show each person’s view of Law and Grace. Good, or bad, Luther holds the opposite extreme of Biblical Theology. John Owen, Jonathan Edwards and Hodge sit around the middle point. John Murray takes the other extreme.  Then I will show that under these ‘wide range’ of views distinguishing Law and Grace among the covenant theologians, Biblical Theology has sprouted as a shoot from the more ‘pro-law’ extremity of that range.  This partly explains why those who are somewhat hybrids of covenant theology, but influenced by dispensational theology, or the charismatic movement, tend to have an unsettling guttural rejection of ‘something’ in Biblical theology that they can’t define.  On the surface all is the same-same, but underneath there is a significantly different view of the Law versus Grace.

Let’s start with John Murray and works backwards to Luther:

John Murray

  The disposition to construe the demand for obedience in the Mosaic economy as having affinity with works rather than grace arises from failure to recognize that the demand for obedience in the Mosaic covenant is principally identical with the same demand under the gospel. When we re-examine the demand for obedience in the Mosaic covenant (cf. Exodus 19:5, 6; 24:7) in the light of the relations of law and grace in the gospel, we shall discover that the complex of ideas is totally alien to a construction in terms of works as opposed to grace. Obedience belongs here no more ‘to the legal sphere of merit’3 than in the new covenant. The New Testament believer is not without law to God but under law to Christ. (Law and Grace, by John Murray)

John Murray here is not advocating justification by works, he clearly believes that you are not justified under the law. This quote only goes to show how he interprets the law, or what it means to be ‘under law’.  He, in-line with Biblical Theology sees such a strong unity with the Mosaic covenant and the Gospel that there is not as much difference between them as first imagined by earlier reformers and covenant theologians.  His view clearly departs from his predecessor at the very same University, Charles Hodge. Hodge clearly includes the Mosaic covenant to be a at least in part a renewal of the covenant of works as opposed to grace. Biblical Theology tends to limit the covenant of works with Adam see the ‘covenant of grace made’, with Abraham, renewed by Moses in the giving of The Law. Ironically they also stress the different tone of each covenant, but never really explain why because all is the same-same from the original goal of the exegesis.

Hodge –

  The law of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the
  covenant of works. A covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect obedience. The phrase is used as a concise and convenient expression of the eternal principles of justice on which God deals with rational creatures, and which underlie all dispensations, the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Christian. Our Lord said to the lawyer who asked what he should do to
  inherit eternal life, “What is written in the law? How readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right, this do and thou shalt live,” Luke 10:26-28. This is the covenant of works. It is an immutable principle that where there is no sin there is no condemnation, and where there is sin there is death. This is all that those who reject the gospel have to fall back upon. It is this principle which is rendered so prominent in the Mosaic economy as to give it its character of law. Viewed under this aspect it is the ministration of condemnation and death. ( Hodge 2 Cor P75)

Notice, ‘in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant of works’. Such a statement would never be made by a leader in the Biblical Theology framework!

Jonathan Edwards –

  Jonathan Edwards also sees the Mosaic covenant as being different from the gospel as it includes the renewal of the covenant of works that has the ministry of death and cursing, leading sinners to Christ as a harsh schoolmaster.

  As the law was given at Mount Sinai, so Christ delivered his evangelical doctrine, (full of blessings, and not curses,) to a multitude on a mountain. Matt. v.— (Jonathan Edwards History of Redemption, P302)

  I think really that the covenant that God made with the children of Israel was the covenant of works. He still held them under that covenant; that is, what is required in that covenant is to them particularly deciphered, and many additional positive commands which answer to the precept concerning the forbidden fruits and God proposes this covenant to them as the condition of his favor, and gives them to understand that none of those promises he had made could be challenged without perfect obedience: but yet gives them to understand so much of his merciful nature and his inclination to pity them and to accept of a propitiation for them, that they, finding that they could not challenge anything from those promises [on the ground] of obedience, trusted only to the mere undeserved mercy of God and were saved by grace, and expected life only of mere mercy.

  We are indeed now under the covenant of works so, that if we are perfectly righteous we can challenge salvation. But herein is the difference betwixt us and them: to us God has plainly declared the impossibility of obtaining life by that covenant, and lets us know that no mortal can be saved but only of mere grace, and lets us know clearly how we are made partakers of that grace. All ever since the fall were equally under the covenant of grace so far, that they were saved by it all alike, but the difference is in the revelation: the covenant of works was most clearly revealed to the Israelites, to us the covenant of grace. The church, which was then in its infant [state], could not bear a revelation of the covenant of grace in plain terms; and so with them the best way to bring them off from their own righteousness was to propose the covenant of works to them, and to renew the promise of life upon those conditions. God did with them as Christ did with the young man that asked what he should do for eternal life: Christ bids him keep the commandments. And in that sense they were under the covenant of works, that it was proposed to them as the condition of life, that they might try.  To us it is not so. The covenant of grace was indeed insinuated to them and proposed under covert, but 'twas to that they were all forced to fly. The promises seem to be so contrived as to give them to see that they can't challenge anything except they perform a perfect obedience, if God will be strict, but yet that he will of his mere mercy accept them into his favor if they perform a sincere obedience proceeding from the true love and fear of him; so that the fruits of faith are proposed instead of faith itself. But by this, none but such as had faith could hope for life; and by God's contrivance of that dispensation they were led not to depend on these as works, but as a disposition to receive, as so many manifestations of repentance and submission; and they depended on them as such only, for life. (Jonathan Edwards. The "Miscellanies". Page P363-363)

  With reference to what has been before spoken of the covenant [No. 2]. Covenant is taken very variously in Scripture, sometimes for a divine promise, sometimes for a divine promise on conditions. But if we speak of the covenant God has made with man stating the condition of eternal life, God never made but one with man to wit, the covenant of works; which never yet was abrogated, but is a covenant stands in full force to all eternity without the failing of one tittle. The covenant of grace is not another covenant made with man upon the abrogation of this, but a covenant made with Christ to fulfill it. And for this end came Christ into the world, to fulfill the law, or covenant of works, for all that receive him....

  To say that the covenant of works did admit of a mediator, is something improper. The covenant of works mentioned nothing about it; (Jonathan Edwards. The "Miscellanies". Page P217)

John Owen –

As usual John Owen teaches with the utmost clarity on the subject:

  By the sanction of the law, we intend the promises and penalties wherewith by God the observation of it and obedience unto it was enforced. This the apostle hath respect unto in sundry places of this Epistle; the principal whereof are reported in the following dissertation.

  To represent this distinctly, we may observe that the law falls under threefold consideration; — first, As it was a repetition and expression of the law of nature, and the covenant of works established thereon; secondly, As it had a new end and design put upon the administration of it, to direct the church unto the use and benefit of the promise given of old to Adam, and renewed unto Abraham four hundred and thirty years before; thirdly, As it was the instrument of the rule and government of the church and people of Israel with respect unto the covenant made with them in and about the land of Canaan. And in this threefold respect it had a threefold sanction. (Owens Works, Volume 17, P654)

Martin Luther –

Martin Luther never prances about with constant distinctions around words, pretending to believe something he does not, he just lays it all out there:

  Who would ever believe that these things could be mixed up so easily? There is no one so stupid that he does not recognize how definite this distinction between Law and grace is. Both the facts and the words require this distinction, for everyone understands that these words “Law” and “grace” are different as to both denotation and connotation.62 Therefore it is a monstrosity, when this distinction stands there so clearly, for the papists and the fanatics to fall into the satanic perversity of confusing the Law and grace and of changing Christ into Moses. This is why I often say that so far as the words are concerned, this doctrine of faith is very easy, and everyone can easily understand the distinction between the Law and grace; but so far as practice, life, and application are concerned, it is the most difficult thing there is. (Luther's Works Vol 26, P143-144)

  Now the first sermon, and doctrine, is the law of God. The second is the gospel. These two sermons are not the same. Therefore we must have a good grasp of the matter in order to know how to differentiate between them. We must know what the law is, and what the gospel is. The law commands and requires us to do certain things. The law is thus
  directed solely to our behaviour and consists in making requirements. For God speaks through the law, saying, “Do this, avoid that, this is what I expect of you.” The gospel, however, does not preach what we are to do or to avoid. It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the law, does the very opposite, and says, “This is what God has done for you; he has let his Son be made flesh for you, has let him be put to death for your sake.” (Luther's Works Vol 35, P162-164)

Conclusion: Biblical Theology is a good discipline that is not opposed to Covenant Theology, however, its leaders identify with only one extreme side of those accepted under the Covenant Theology label. That bias towards 'unifying law and grace' 'more than' many under Covenant Theology, should not be seen as a result of their 'new technique' but as their internal difference of thought and dogma related to their own more narrow systematic theological framework. Having concluded this I am not criticizing Biblical Theology, it is one of several useful things to understand and appreciate the benefits that can be derived from it.


There is comparatively little evidence in the NT for the shape of the object. There is not much etymological help from the Greek words σταυρός or ξύλον, which do not clearly indicate either shape.
Some of the textual hints we do have are:

  But [Thomas] said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25, NIV)

This suggests that there was more than one nail placed through the hands, which is more likely on a cross than on a stake - though I could imagine a nail through each hand, with the hands side by side. But the JWs assert that the plural is referring to two nails, one through both hands and the other through both feet. The Greek reads "ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων", which is "in his hands the imprint of the nails", clearly linking multiple nails to the hands specifically.

  Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE  JEWS. (Matthew 27:37, NIV)

If Jesus were crucified as in the picture, the sign would be obscured by his arms. If it were also placed above his hands, Matthew could have written "Above his hands..." - but he didn't.

  Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. (John 19:17, NIV)

Several different crucifixion methods were used by the Romans, including the traditional cross and the simple vertical stake. But the reference to carrying suggests that Jesus carried the crossbeam or patibulum of his cross - contemporary sources indicated that condemned people could be made to carry their own patibulum, but not the entire cross or stake, and of course a stake has no crossbeam at all. (Now-familiar depictions of Jesus carrying the whole cross come along later.)

It is common ground between Jehovah's Witnesses and the rest of us that for most of Christian history, Christ's crucifixion has almost always been regarded as being on a cross. The problem that the JWs have with it is that they think that the cross is a pagan symbol which was mistakenly (or maliciously) adopted early on in Christian history, as Christian belief and practice departed from its original form. As a restorationist group, they believe that in rejecting the cross shape they are returning to Christianity as it was meant to be. Insistence on the 'torture stake' is not particularly important in itself, but it is a prominent reminder of their distinctiveness, and of the error into which they think others have fallen.


What is the purpose of baptism for sola fide adherents?

Speaking as an adherent of the belief that salvation is by faith alone, and not of works (lest any man should boast - Ephesians 2:8-10):

Baptism is an external symbol of obedience.  It doesn't gain you anything.  It is an outward show and demonstration that symbolizes our death to our old selves, and resurrection into the new life as a Christian.

Consider a secular comparison - graduating from school.  The graduation ceremony does not educate us.  Receiving the diploma does not educate us. Both are a sign that we have completed our education and are moving on to the next step, and both are largely ceremonial and serve as a rite of passage.

To those of us that believe in sola fide believe that (obviously) only the saving grace  of God is responsible for our salvation, and baptism no more saves us than a diploma educates us.

As a side note, for those of us that believe in baptism by immersion, rather than sprinkling, this is a part of why we believe in this form of baptism.  In addition to it being how John the Baptist did it, we also see the going under water as symbolic of Christs death, and coming back out of the water as symbolic of His resurrection.

To those of us who hold my views, baptism is not necessary for salvation.  However, we also realize that there are plenty of opposing views.  It all hinges on whether or not you count baptism as a "work".  I've seen arguments for both sides, and all seem to have merit but for me, personally, and most of the people in my Church it comes down to one verse - Ephesians 2:10, not of works lest any man should boast.  (emphasis mine)

In giving all glory to God, we refuse to try to take any credit for our own salvation.  Even the tiniest hint of pride in the matter is not acceptable to us, and whether baptism is a "work" or not, if we feel that we have contributed to our salvation in obedience, then it is not of God alone, and the glory is not His.

Again, I know there are opposing views, but the question appears to be geared to how those with this particular view see the issue.

I would say that baptism is necessary on some level, though -not as an act of salvation, but as an outward sign that we're really "giving up our cross to follow Him".  If we can't obey such a simple thing, how on earth would we expect to claim that we live for Him?


What are the relationships of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost to the beatitudes and virtues?

From Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s The Three Ages of the Spiritual Life, part I, article IV, "The Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost" (fn. 39), the relationship between the gifts of the Holy Ghost and the beatitudes, based on St. Thomas Aquinas's doctrine:

Gift of Wisdom → Peacemakers (IIa IIae, q.45, a.6): "it gives peace and allows the soul possessing it to give it to others, at times even to the most troubled"
Gift of Understanding → Clean of Heart (q.8, a.7): "those who possess this cleanness of heart begin here on earth, in a certain way, to see God in all that happens to us"
Gift of Knowledge → Mourners (q.9, a.4): "shows us the gravity of sin" (which is the turning to creatures instead of God)
Gift of Counsel → The Merciful (q.52, a.4): "inclines the soul to mercy"
Gift of Piety → The Meek (q.121, a.2): "makes us see in men not rivals, but children of God and our brothers"
Gift of Fortitude → Those Hungering & Thirsting for Justice (q.139, a.2): they "never become discouraged"
Gift of Fear → The Poor in Spirit (q.19, a.12): "they possess the holy fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom"

The relationship of the gifts to the virtues:

See also Benedict Ashley, O.P.'s "The Gifts of the Holy Spirit."


How did the Apostle Matthew died?

We simply do not know for sure. The facts about his death have not been historically proven, beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Of Matthew's subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data. St. Irenæus tells us that Matthew preached the Gospel among the Hebrews, St. Clement of Alexandria claiming that he did this for fifteen years, and Eusebius maintains that, before going into other countries, he gave them his Gospel in the mother tongue. Ancient writers are not as one as to the countries evangelized by Matthew, but almost all mention Ethiopia to the south of the Caspian Sea (not Ethiopia in Africa), and some Persia and the kingdom of the Parthians, Macedonia, and Syria.

  According to Heracleon, who is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Matthew did not die a martyr, but this opinion conflicts with all other ancient testimony. Let us add, however, that the account of his martyrdom in the apocryphal Greek writings entitled "Martyrium S. Matthæi in Ponto" and published by Bonnet, "Acta apostolorum apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1898), is absolutely devoid of historic value. Lipsius holds that this "Martyrium S. Matthæi", which contains traces of Gnosticism, must have been published in the third century.

  There is a disagreement as to the place of St. Matthew's martyrdom and the kind of torture inflicted on him, therefore it is not known whether he was burned, stoned, or beheaded. The Roman Martyrology simply says: "S. Matthæi, qui in Æthiopia prædicans martyrium passus est".

  Various writings that are now considered apocryphal, have been attributed to St. Matthew. In the "Evangelia apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1876), Tischendorf reproduced a Latin document entitled: "De Ortu beatæ Mariæ et infantia Salvatoris", supposedly written in Hebrew by St. Matthew the Evangelist, and translated into Latin by Jerome, the priest. It is an abridged adaptation of the "Protoevangelium" of St. James, which was a Greek apocryphal of the second century. This pseudo-Matthew dates from the middle or the end of the sixth century.

  The Latin Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthew on 21 September, and the Greek Church on 16 November. St. Matthew is represented under the symbol of a winged man, carrying in his hand a lance as a characteristic emblem. - St. Matthew (Catholic Encyclopaedia)


What did the early church believe about the "rapture"?

Thanks to books like Left Behind, the English word rapture often conjures up images of bodies mysteriously disappearing into thin air, followed by several years of severe tribulation, leading up to the final judgment and resurrection.  Such a view is a product of dispensationalism, a relatively new theological framework, and not one that the church fathers espoused.
Does that mean that the church fathers did not believe in a rapture?  On the contrary: they did believe in it, though not in the same sense as the word is commonly understood today.
The word rapture comes from the Latin word raptus, meaning "a carrying off."  This idea is included in non-religious definitions of rapture:

a state or experience of being carried away by overwhelming emotion (MW)

A related Latin word, rapio, is used in the Latin Vulgate's translation of 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up [rapiemur] together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. [ESV]

The rapture, then, is not a concept that suddenly appeared when dispensationalism came along.  The word was used in English and Latin long prior.  However, it was understood differently, so we need to examine what the church fathers wrote regarding this rapio or raptus: a) what is it, b) when does it occur and c) is it secret or visible.
What is the rapture?
Church fathers widely understand the rapture to be a future physical meeting of Christ and Christians in the air.
Origen gives no indication of a hidden meaning in Paul's words in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.  He simply writes that both the dead and alive in Christ will rise:

Those whom we spoke of as dead have special need of the resurrection, since not even those who are alive can be taken up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air before the dead in Christ first rise. (Commentary on John, 20.233)

Rufinus of Aquileia clearly indicates a physical reunion with Christ in the sky:

And do not marvel that the flesh of the saints is to be changed into such a glorious condition at the resurrection as to be caught up to meet God, suspended in the clouds and borne in the air. (Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, 46)

Augustine says that living Christians will "both die and rise again at once while caught up into the air":

And why should it seem to us incredible that that multitude of bodies should be, as it were, sown in the air, and should in the air forthwith revive immortal and incorruptible, when we believe, on the testimony of the same apostle, that the resurrection shall take place in the twinkling of an eye, and that the dust of bodies long dead shall return with incomprehensible facility and swiftness to those members that are now to live endlessly? (City of God, 20.20)

When will the rapture occur?
Church fathers routinely associate the rapture with the physical resurrection of believers following the tribulation, and many see a close connection between the rapture and other eschatological events, such as the final judgment.
Hippolytus, one of the relatively few proponents of a premillennialist view (chiliasm), sees the rapture as following the tribulation and rule of the Antichrist:

These things, then, being to come to pass, beloved, and the one week being divided into two parts, and the abomination of desolation being manifested then, and the two prophets and forerunners of the Lord having finished their course, and the whole world finally approaching the consummation, what remains but the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from heaven, for whom we have looked in hope? (On Christ and Antichrist, 64)

Others connect even more prophecies with the rapture.  For example, Gregory of Nazianzus, using the language of 1 Thessalonians 4:17, writes:

I shall await the voice of the archangel, the last trumpet, the transformation of heaven, the change of earth, the freedom of the elements, the renewal of the universe.  Then shall I see Caesarius himself, no longer in exile, no longer being buried, no longer mourned, no longer pitied, but splendid, glorious, sublime. (Fathers of the Church, v22, p22)

Similarly, Augustine writes that this passage refers to both the taking up of believers as well as the final judgment:

These words of the apostle most distinctly proclaim the future resurrection of the dead, when the Lord Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead. (City of God, 20.20)

Chrysostom and Jerome (quoted below) also connect the rapture with the final judgment.
Will the rapture be secret?
If the rapture corresponds with the defeat of the Antichrist and final judgment, it follows that it will not be secret.  Jerome says the "world shall howl" and "its peoples shall tremble," which is obviously not indicative of secrecy. (Letter 14.11)
Chrysostom uses the analogy of the entrance of a king into a city, arguing that honor is the purpose of this event, thus seeming to emphasize the visible nature of the rapture:

If He is about to descend, on what account shall we be caught up? For the sake of honor. For when a king drives into a city, those who are in honor go out to meet him; but the condemned await the judge within. [...] Seest thou how great is the honor? and as He descends, we go forth to meet Him, and, what is more blessed than all, so we shall be with Him. (Homily on 1 Thessalonians, VIII)

Summary
We must be careful not to impose our modern understanding of rapture on the church fathers: they believed that 1 Thessalonians 4 refers to a rapture in which living Christians will meet Christ in the sky and be transformed.  They saw this visible event as closely associated with at least the end of the tribulation and the defeat of the Antichrist, and often the final judgment itself.
Dispensational ideas like a "secret" rapture and significant gap in time between the rapture and final judgment are not expressed by the church fathers.  If we wish to say that the church fathers "believed in the rapture," we must be very careful to specify that we are using rapture in the traditional sense—a taking up, a carrying off—not the dispensational sense.