Does Hell exist according to Catholicism?

The Catechism answers the questions (as ever!):

  1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

Those who die in a state of mortal sin will go to hell, because of that state.
They will stay in hell for eternity.
There is no second chance: it’s for eternity.
To avoid hell, they should ensure that they do not die in a state of mortal sin.

The difference between mortal and venial sins is also described in the Catechism. The best of way of not dying in sin is not to commit any; but since that is impossible, the Church provides the sacrament of Reconciliation [Confession] so that a penitent soul may be reconciled to God and man. This is the “second chance” which mankind feels is inherently “fair”: you get the second chance before death, while you can do something about your earthly, sacramental, life. Once that life is over you are out of reach of the sacraments.


What are the main differences between Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses?

There are many doctrinal and practical differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I think it will be difficult to arrange a complete and comprehensive list, but below are a collection of differences that immediately come to mind.

Mormons claim to be a restoration of ancient Christianity via divine intervention and angelic visitation. Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be a rediscovery of ancient Christianity through biblical scholarship.
Jehovah's Witnesses hold the use of the correct name of God, Jehovah, to be very important to true worship. Mormons do have beliefs about the correct names of God the Father and Jesus Christ, but do not hold them to the same level of importance as Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, that Adam is Michael the Archangel, and that the true name of God the Father is Elohim. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel, and that the true name of God the Father is Jehovah.
Mormons believe that the Bible contains errors and rely on additional books of scriptures and revelations from modern prophets to interpret it. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible is completely correct and internally consistent and derive all of their doctrine from their interpretation of it.
Mormons believe in a Spirit World between death and resurrection, Jehovah's witnesses believe that after death the self ceases to exist until resurrection.
Mormons call the Lord's Supper the Sacrament, substitute water for wine, and partake of it weekly on Sundays. Jehovah's witnesses call the Lord's Supper the Lord's Evening Meal and allow only a few worthy to partake of it once a year.
Mormon missionaries are largely young men and women called to serve 18 months to 2 years, other than this, most Mormons do not actively preach door to door. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is their responsibility as Christians to witness door to door and hold witnessing as requirement for true membership.


Nicolas was a proselyte of Antioch. Irenaeus [130-202 A.D.] was of the opinion that he was the founder of the Nicolaitans.

  Acts_6:5  And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

The following is extracted from Wikipedia.

  Several of the early church fathers mentioned this group, including Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, stating that deacon Nicolas was the author of the heresy and sect.
  Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses III. xi. 1; I. xxvi. 3 holds that the Gospel of John was written to counter the teachings of Cerinthus, which he holds was spread by the Nicolaitans. But when Irenaeus focuses on them later, he only presents them as the Book of Revelation did, with no explanation how they can be held to have the doctrines of Cerinthius.
  "The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery and to eat things sacrificed to idols."— Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, i. 26, §3

  Hippolytus of Rome shared the opinion that Nicolas became a heresiarch (in Refutation of All Heresies vii. 24).
  In other writings of the early Church, this connection is disputed and the Nicolaitans are said to be "falsely so called" (ψευδώνυμοι). Clement of Alexandria put forward a defense of Nicolas (in Stromata ii. 20, iii. 4) which Eusebius accepts and repeats (in Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 29).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism


What was Brigham Young's teaching regarding Adam being God?

This idea spawns from a number of statements that Brigham Young purportedly made, both in public and in private. For example, he was recorded as having said something like this in the Journal of Discourses, but the LDS Church does not officially accept any of the Journal of Discourses or cite it for doctrine because of erroneous scribing and other things.

Additionally, it is evident that the original, doctrinal meaning of which Brigham was intending to speak, was lost from the time it was received by revelation from God to the time it was transmitted, or transcribed, erroneously.

Immediately upon understanding that many were confused on this teaching or idea, Brigham spoke again on the matter. Here, President Young reports that he inquired of this doctrine to Joseph Smith, his predecessor to the presidency, and, startled by the confusion from his statements, attempts to clear up some misconceptions.

Finally, on 19 Feb 1981, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve named Bruce R. McConkie wrote a letter to Eugene England on this topic, stating,

  "Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our
  spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists
  ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that
  are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young
  also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam
  in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham
  Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which
  Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the
  expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works."

(Note that we must still be careful extrapolating context when the audience was a specific person, not the world in general. It may not necessarily be the official view of the LDS Church.)

Clearly, a human made an error, but never has this doctrine been officially an accepted part of LDS teachings. In fact, today (I know from experience), this idea of "Adam being God" is not tolerated in Church schools or settings at all.

Enemies of the Church (see this page for documentation of this controversial yet accurate term; also see comments) will quickly take a glitch in history and blow it out of proportion, which understandably will cause others to believe that the prophet taught this "for much of his tenure as Prophet of the Church." At this point, I think the mis-understanding is clear.

The Godhead is made up of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who lived, died, and was resurrected, completing the Atonement for mankind. That is the LDS doctrine on that matter, and certainly is the most central and prominent feature of Mormon doctrine.

(I have also used FAIR's Wiki page on this topic as a source here.)


Was Arianism spread using musical jingles?

The source appears to be mostly St. Athanasius, who was a deacon in Alexandria at the time the Arian controversy broke out (and later the bishop of the same see). He writes in his Discourses Against the Arians (Discourse 1, Chapter 1, 4)

  For of the one [i.e., a certain Sotades, who apparently wrote songs] has Arius imitated the dissolute and effeminate tone, in writing Thaliae [The Banquets, songs that Arius wrote so as to be sung at banquets]; on his model; and the other [i.e. the daughter of Herodias] he has rivalled in her dance.

and

  Who, after abandoning the oracles of divine Scripture, call Arius's Thaliae; a new wisdom? And with reason too, for they are announcing a new heresy. And hence a man may marvel, that, whereas many have written many treatises and abundant homilies upon the Old Testament and the New, yet in none of them is a Thalia found; nay nor among the more respectable of the Gentiles, but among those only who sing such strains over their cups, amid cheers and jokes, when men are merry, that the rest may laugh; till this marvellous Arius, taking no grave pattern, and ignorant even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his rival. For what beseemed him more, when he would dance forth against the Saviour, than to throw his wretched words of irreligion into dissolute and loose metres?

So, it seems that Arius composed songs that sailors could easily remember. (It is to be recalled that Alexandria was a major port city.) This seems to be the reason that Arianism spread so quickly, whereas previous heresies had remained largely contained in local areas.


Apparently, protestantism used to gather some heat there in Italy.  However, with the Vatican Council II, relations improved and protestants aren't as persecuted as much.

  That was two decades ago. These days, a more relaxed Vatican and an
  unprecedented influx of immigrants has nudged open the doors of acceptance
  for Protestant Christianity.
  Note #6186 from PCUSA NEWS to PRESBYNEWS

There are a total of about 725,000 protestants in Italy, most of whom are Assemblies of God (400,000).  There are also about 175,000 mainline Protestants, the largest and oldest of which are the Waldensians.

The Waldensian church has roots dating back to the 12th century, but they aligned themselves with Calvinism in the 16th, which transformed the denomination.

There is a fascinating article that I think you might find interesting.


What are the "signs of grief" for which a pastor should be on the look out?

Being stuck in grief is referred to by professionals as "incomplete grief" or "complicated grief."    It is often defined as grief that is not resolving or normalizing within 6 to 12 months after the loss.

Identifying red flags may include:
* A sense of unrelenting disbelief or numbness
* Intensifying anger, rage, irritability, or agitation
* A preoccupation with distressing thoughts about the death event
* Recurrent or growing pangs of painful emotions with intense yearning and longing for the dead loved one
* Difficulty in relationships, including withdrawal or problems with intimacy
* Avoidance of situations and activities that are reminders of the loved one
* Apathy, giving up, feeling that life has no meaning or purpose
* Severe depression with hopelessness

This is an amalgamation of various lists which come up on an internet search for "stuck in grief".

References:
WebMD
Glynis Sherwood Counseling


Yes, he did.

The Romans were experts at this and knew exactly what it took to kill someone and what it took to make that process slow. Crucifixion was designed to drag the act of dying out over a long period of time.

As you note in the John passage, Jesus died more quickly than they expected. The trial and execution had been rushed into an abnormal timeline already, the Sabbath was coming1, there had been an earthquake2 and they had other things they needed to attend to. In order to be sure that the death sentence was carried out without any chance of a criminal being revived after a "mostly dead all day"* experience the soldiers were ordered to break their legs1. This would accelerate the process from long hours and even days to a matter of a few minutes as the victims would suffocate: unable to pull push themselves up to catch a breath of air.

When they came to Jesus they didn't bother because he was already dead.3 Just to be sure they checked with a spear in his side (probably just under his rib-cage piercing a lung) and blood and water came out4. The fact that liquids has begun to separate is a sure medical indication of death.

This whole process fulfilled several prophecies. First of all he was pierced, something that was prophesied about his death5. Secondly not a bone was broken. Crucifixion didn't usually break any bones unless they did the little acceleration trick, which was ordered for him, but it was also prophesied that he would not suffer broken bones6. See also: Did the Romans not breaking Jesus' legs fulfill a prophecy?

Lastly his unexpected early death shows that it was likely not actually the process of crucifixion that killed him, but that even at the very end he willingly surrendered his own life after having born the wrath of his father and completing the course of punishment that he had to endure. Once that was over, he willingly spent his last breath and surrendered his life just as he said he was going to do.

  John 10:17 (ESV)
  For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

* I need to ask on our meta The Princess Bride is an acceptable reference work.

  John 19:31 (ESV)
  Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away

  Matthew 27:54 (ESV)
  When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son1 of God!”

  John 19:33 (ESV)
  But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

  John 19:34 (ESV)
  But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

  Isaiah 53:5 (ESV)
  But he was pierced for our transgressions;
  he was crushed for our iniquities;
  upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
  and with his wounds we are healed.

  John 19:36 (ESV) (This verse in turn quotes Psalms 34:20)
  For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.”


Is "Christ" a title of Jesus, or a name?

"Christ" is from the Greek "christos," which means anointed - it's the same as the Hebrew Messiah. "Christ" as such is solely a title, though it has come to be both a title and a name; you can see it rather clearly in some of Paul's writings. Jesus is not just a christ but is the Christ. It identifies Him, and is therefore a name.


How do JWs reconcile the belief that Satan was cast to earth in 1914 with Job 1:7 and Job 2:2?

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that from the time of his rebellion until 1914 Satan was able to move about in the spiritual realm where Jehovah,Jesus  and the faithful angelic host dwell, and in the realms of the earth.
After being cast out of the heavens Satan and his demon hordes can never again come into Jehovah’s presence.
In an article that discusses what the Bible says about Satan in the June 2013 Awake magazine we read:

Satan is a spirit creature, so he lives in an invisible realm. For a time, Satan was allowed to move about at will where God and the faithful angels reside. (Job 1:6) Now, however, he has been evicted from God’s presence and, along with other wicked spirit creatures, is confined to the vicinity of the earth.—Revelation 12:12.
Does this mean that Satan is limited to one specific place on earth? For example, you may have read that the ancient city of Pergamum was said to be “where Satan is dwelling.” (Revelation 2:13) Actually, that expression alluded to the concentration of satanic worship there. Satan does not call any one physical place on earth home. Instead, the Bible says that “all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth” are his.—Luke 4:5, 6.

So it is not that Satan couldn’t come to the earth before 1914. He could come and go as he pleased. But after 1914 Satan was grounded as it were,passport surrendered,only able to influence affairs pertaining to the earth. The deterioration of world conditions that historians agree began around 1914 like world wars, famines and epidemics like the Spanish influenza are thought to be strong evidence of Satan’s being confined to the vicinity of the earth.


Christ 'made' sin - the Reformed, Protestant view?

It is true that very often Harmartia is used to mean sin or offence in the new testament.  It could be exactly what Paul means in 2 Corinthians 5:21 as well, even though this has caused no small difficulty in understanding down through the centuries for individuals as much as for entire theologies.  There are so many references to Jesus taking away sin, suffering for our sin, condemning sin in the flesh, etc.  To my knowledge this is the only place that looks like it is being said that God made Jesus to BE sin and just that alone should raise some eyebrows...and it has!
But there is another possibility that so nicely harmonizes with the rest of scriptural revelation that it is hard to ignore.  In the Septuagint in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers the Greek harmartia is used over 90 times where the Hebrew text has 'sin offering'.  Since the Septuagint was written 250 years prior to Christ it is entirely possible that the Corinthians were familiar with it.  After all, Paul would usually go first to the synagogue with the gospel and there were certainly Greek speaking Jews in Corinth.  Often, when the New Testament refers back to the Old, it pulls from the Septuagint and this could easily be one of those times.  If so then Paul is saying that "God made him, who knew no sin, to be a sin offering for us" and this takes away all the theological angst.  Below is a part of Adam Clarke's commentary:

For he hath made him to be sin for us - Τον μη γνοντα ἁμαρτιαν, ὑπερ ἡμων ἁμαρτιαν εποιησεν· He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us. The word ἁμαρτια occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i.e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i.e. was innocent; for not to know sin is the same as to be conscious of innocence; so, nil conscire sibi, to be conscious of nothing against one's self, is the same as nulla pallescere culpa, to be unimpeachable.
In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the חטאה chattaah and חטאת chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own.

Also from the Benson Commentary:

For he made him, who knew no sin — A commendation peculiar to Christ; to be sin — Or a sin-offering rather, (as the expression often signifies both in the Old Testament and the New;) for us — Who knew no righteousness, who were inwardly and outwardly nothing but sin, and who must have been consumed by the divine justice, had not this atonement been made for our sins; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him — Might be accounted and constituted righteous by God, or might be invested with that righteousness; 1st, imputed to us; 2d, implanted in us; and, 3d, practised by us; which is, in every sense, the righteousness of God by faith. See note on Romans 10:4; Php 3:9.

Barnes' Notes On the Bible:

For he hath made him to be sin for us - The Greek here is, 'for him who knew no sin, he hath made sin, or a sin-offering for us.' The design of this very important verse is, to urge the strongest possible reason for being reconciled to God...To be sin - The words 'to be' are not in the original. Literally, it is, 'he has made him sin, or a sin-offering' ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν hamartian epoiēsen

Matthew Poole's Commentary:

Our sins were reckoned to him; so as though personally he was no sinner, yet by imputation he was, and God dealt with him as such; for he was made a sacrifice for our sins, a sin offering; so answering the type in the law,


Does the Popes Prophecy of St. Malachy indicate that the end times are imminent?

I also found the prophechies of Saint Malachy to be very interesting.

While it is always quite easy to to make a prophecy sound like the person, the prophecies associated with:

John Paul I - "From the midst of the moon" who only lived just one lunar cycle after his election
John Paul II - "Laboring under the Sun,"  - and indeed, one weighed down by the job
Benedict XVI - "the Greening of the Olive" - and indeed, the Benedictines are associated with the Olive

These things were interesting to me.  Furthermore, the idea of "Petrus Romanus" - Peter the Roman, sounded like an antichirst to me too.

That said, two things should be considered:

Confirmation Bias suggests that humans look for patterns in anything.  Most of the "accuracies" of Malachy are ex post facto justifications.
Malachy himself never said that every Pope would be listed. Just as many Christians see Daniel's "final week" as separated from the 69 previous, so to there is nothing to demand that the successor is clearly Petrus Romanus.

Beyond this, there is an incongruency that is hard to overlook:

  In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit ... Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations: and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the terrible judge will judge his people. The End.

Now, even as an Evangelical whose own confirmation bias sees persecution, the truth is that it would be a stretch to call the persecution of the Church in the West "extreme."  (Indonesia, Nigeria, Iraq, Egypt, China, and countless other places in the emerging world, yes, but not in Rome.)  As such, one should carefully consider this incongruency before leaping to conclusions.

As others have said, eschatology can be problemmatic, especially when pinning down a date so definately.  If Jesus didn't know, there is nothing to suggest that Malachy did either.

That said, the one thing to remember about "the last days" is this, from Romans 13:11:

  Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.

Many, many of Jesus' parables (The Wheat and the Tares, The Foolish Virgins, The Wedding Feast, the Parable of the Vineyard, the Cursing of the Fig Tree, etcera, etcera, etcera) all make the same point: Be Ready! As such, it is just as good to continue with Paul:

  12 The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Live like that, and it doesn't matter who sits on the Papal Throne.

Update:

Just so you know, you aren't alone in being afraid anti-Christ is right around the corner. In Paul's day, the believers in Thessalonica had the same concerns. Paul gently wrote in 2 Thessaloanians 2 that they shouldn't worry:

  Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,1 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that fthe day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and ithe man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,3 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time

In other words, when the time does come, you'll know.


Souls being immortal vs all of existence needing to be continually and actively maintained by God

The New Testament explicitly states that only God is immortal.1 And yet, elsewhere in the New Testament, Christians are said to become immortal.2 Even Jesus told those who believed in him that they would never die.3 How can this be reconciled?

This question is answered in Pseudo-Justin’s Questions and Answers to the Orthodox:

  Ἐρώτησις ξα.
  Eἰ μόνος ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον,  πῶς ἀληθὲς κατ' αὐτὸν τὸ Πάντες μὲν οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα;
  Ἀπόκρισις.
  Μόνος ἔχων τὴν ἀθανασίαν λέγεται ὁ θεός, ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ θελήματος ἄλλου ταύτην ἔχει, καθάπερ οἱ λοιποὶ πάντες ἀθάνατοι,  ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας οὐσίας.
  Question 61.
  If only God is immortal according the apostle, how is it true according to him that “we shall not all sleep”?
  Answer.
  It says God [is he who] “only has immortality” since He has this [immortality] not of His will, as all the rest are immortal, but rather, of His own essence.

Succinctly stated, God alone is inherently immortal, and all the rest who are or shall be immortal are immortal by God’s will since they are granted immortality by Him. Hence, it is written that “the Father has life in Himself.”4 Not so for all others; all others are given eternal life.5

Justin Martyr himself further elaborates the quality of the soul’s immortality in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew:6

  Now, that the soul lives, no one would deny. But if it lives, it lives not as being life, but as partaking of life. But that which partakes of anything is different from that of which it partakes. Now the soul partakes of life, since God wills it to live. Thus, then, it will also not partake [of life] when [God] does not will it to live. For living is not its own characteristic property, as it is God’s.
  ὅτι δὲ ζῇ ψυχή, οὐδεὶς ἀντείποι. εἰ δὲ ζῇ, οὐ ζωὴ οὖσα ζῇ, ἀλλὰ μεταλαμβάνουσα τῆς ζωῆς· ἕτερον δέ τι τὸ μετέχον τινὸς ἐκείνου οὗ μετέχει. ζωῆς δὲ ψυχὴ μετέχει, ἐπεὶ ζῆν αὐτὴν ὁ θεὸς βούλεται. οὕτως ἄρα καὶ οὐ μεθέξει ποτέ, ὅταν αὐτὴν μὴ θέλοι ζῆν. οὐ γὰρ ἴδιον αὐτῆς ἐστι τὸ ζῆν ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ·

In the prior chapter, he wrote,7

  For those things which exist after God, or shall at any time exist, these have a corruptible nature, and are such as may be blotted out and cease to exist. For God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible.
  ὅσα γάρ ἐστι μετὰ τὸν θεὸν ἢ ἔσται ποτέ, ταῦτα φύσιν φθαρτὴν ἔχειν, καὶ οἷά τε ἐξαφανισθῆναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι· μόνος γὰρ ἀγέννητος καὶ ἄφθαρτος ὁ θεὸς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο θεός ἐστι, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ πάντα μετὰ τοῦτον γεννητὰ καὶ φθαρτά.

In summary,

God alone is inherently immortal; God as “life in Himself.”
Everything else is created and not inherently immortal.
To become immortal, God grants (gives) it immortality as He wills.
Two types of immortality: inherent and granted.

Footnotes

1 1 Tim. 6:16: «ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν».
2 1 Cor. 15:53–54
3 John 11:26
4 John 5:26: «ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ»
5 John 10:28: «κἀγὼ ζωὴν αἰώνιον δίδωμι αὐτοῖς»
6 p. 489, Ch. 6
7 p. 488, Ch. 5

References

Justin Martyr. Πρὸς Τρύφωνα Ἰουδαῖον Διάλογος (“Dialogue with Trpho the Jew”). Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Series Græca. Ed. Migne, Jacques Paul. Vol. 6. Petit-Montrouge: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.


How is a 30 days novena to St. Joseph different from a consecration to St. Joseph?

A great question for the Year of St. Joseph.
Conescraton to St. Joseph
Fr. Donald Calloway's book Consecration to St. Joseph essentially is a 33 day Novena ending in a Consecration.  He's the priest who is also wrote 33 Days to Morning Glory, which is an updated version of a the works of St. Louis DeMontfort leading to Total Marian Consecration.
According to the Militia Immaculata Marian Consecration is:

an invocation;
a request that she may deign to accept us as her property;
a supplication that she may deign to make use of us to conquer other souls to her.

Consecration to St. Joseph is in the same vein, except with a special emphasis on St. Joseph qualities which complements his wife The Blessed Virgin Mary.
There are a number of formulations of consecration to St. Joseph in the book, reading the book and doing the 33-day's of spiritual exercises leading up to the consecration makes it all them more understandable to you when you get there.

St. Josephs' Thirty Day Novena
The 30-Day Novena to St. Joseph, which my wife's done an number of times for lots of reasons is a great novena, I think most pious folks consider it an inflatable novena.  But basically it is just 30-days of prayers that reflect on the life and virtues of St. Joseph.
There are some wonderful insights in that book (and Fr. Calloway's book) so I'd recommend doing both this year!

They do have different purposes though, the novena is for a particular purpose (a prayer of petition) and the consecration is for interior conversion (a prayer of supplication).


In Genesis, how did the first language come to be?

By being made in the image of God, God granted man one of his attributes- namely the ability to communicate. As a God in communion and relationship with himself ("let us create man in our image Gen 1.26) the power of speech and language would have been understood to merely be part of that Imago Dei.

Furthermore, the fact that Adam was given the job of naming the animals indicates that God had given Adam the power of speech.

The Paley hypothesis, popular in the 1800s suggested that God created creatures fully adult like, so God creating a speaking Adam would have been perfectly natural.


Don't the questions of Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13 demand an answer of 'None'? So how can Jehovah's Witnesses say that Jesus is the archangel Michael?

Question: Based on Hebrews 1:5 and 13 you ask how Jehovah's Witnesses can say that Jesus is the archangel Michael.  You also ask, what is the distinction between the Son of God and the angels?

In order to find an answer it is necessary to first understand what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe regarding the relationship between Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the archangel Michael.  Here is a brief overview, using only quotations from their own literature:

  New Heavens and New Earth pages 30-31: "It proves Michael the archangel is none other than the only begotten Son of God, now Jesus Christ. The very name Michael means ‘Who is like God?’ and indicates Jehovah God is without like or equal."  [1]

  Your Will be Done on Earth page 316: “Jesus is actually the incarnation of Michael the archangel and resumed the name when he ascended into heaven.” [2]

  What Does the Bible Really Teach pages 218-219: "The Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth...  Since God's Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven - one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus - it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role." [3]

  "Who, though, was the son whom God chose to be born as a perfect human creature? ...He has rightly been called Michael the Archangel.  His life-force having been transferred to Mary's egg cell by Almighty God's power that overshadowed Mary meant that he, Michael, disappeared from heaven.   By human birth from Mary, the Jewish virgin, he was to become a human soul." (God's "Eternal Purpose" Now Triumphing, 1974, pp 137-138)

  What does the Society teach that this "life-force" is?  "The word 'spirit' is translated from the Hebrew word ru'ach, meaning the life-force that animates all living creatures, human and animal. (Ecclesiastes 3:18-22) However, the important difference is that ru'ach is an impersonal force; it does not have a will of its own or retain the personality or any of the characteristics of the deceased individual."  (Mankind's Search for God, 1990, pp 153-154)

In an attempt to find evidence to support the suggestion that Jesus is in a different class than any other angel, I went to the official Jehovah’s Witness web site and searched on angels:

  Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, pages 106-108, Angel Order and Rank: “As with the visible creation, so also in the invisible realm there is order and rank among the angels. The foremost angel, both in power and authority, is Michael, the archangel.”

  The article goes on to mention Seraphs: “Ranking very high among the angels in privileges and honor are the seraphs.”   Cherubs also “hold a special position among the angels.”  “Then there is the great body of angelic messengers who serve as a means of communication between God and man.” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000277?q=angel+order+rank&p=par

No mention of any other class of angel.  Michael the archangel is the most powerful, then there are Seraphs and Cherubs and Gabriel is also mentioned in Scripture as a messenger.   The demons are classified as fallen angels, angels who sinned.  From here I searched on Son of God:

  Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, pages 393-394: “Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return…  [3] Michael is actually the Son of God.” [1]

  “In his prehuman existence Jesus was called “the Word.” (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), “the Word” shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. [1] His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) “The Word of God” (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, “Who Is Like God?” points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.”  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003035?q=Michael+Son+God&p=par

  Watchtower 1 April 2010: Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?   Put simply, the answer is yes ...  In view of the foregoing, what can we conclude? Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Both names—Michael (meaning “Who Is Like God?”) and Jesus (meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation”)—focus attention on his role as the leading advocate of God’s sovereignty. Philippians 2:9 states: “God exalted him [the glorified Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.”  So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence. After his resurrection and return to heaven, Jesus resumed his service as Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010250 [3]

This last quotation offers a clue as to how Jehovah’s Witnesses perceive the status of the glorified Jesus.  As one Jehovah’s Witness put it, “Jesus is stated to have been previously at par with the angels, but now he has been glorified above them. Therefore, he is excluded from the angels.”  I take that to suggest that since the glorified Jesus has now been exalted to a position higher than all the angels then the quotation from Psalm 2:7 isn’t referring to Jesus as an angel because the Son of God has been exalted and glorified and is higher than any of the angels.

The fatal flaw in this argument, however, is that quotes from two Jehovah’s Witness publications say Michael is the Son of God [1] and Jesus was the incarnation of Michael the archangel when he was born of Mary [2].   Since they believe that Jesus was known as Michael the archangel before and after he came to earth [3] then I can only assume that Jesus is still an archangel.  Of course, there is an argument that because the pre-human Jesus was the only spirit creation of Jehovah God, then that makes him special, and different to all the other angels that were created by and through Jesus.  Personally, I don’t go along with that sort of “reasoning” but there may be an article on the subject.

I’ve spent hours trawling through jw.org but can’t find anything that specifically addresses the issue raised by Hebrews 1:1-14.  Perhaps a Jehovah’s Witness will be able to track one down.  For the avoidance of doubt, I am not promoting the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses.


How does the Bible explain the existence of fossils that are millions of years old?

2nd Peter 3:8 KJV reads:

  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with
  the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This is Peter writing to address the questions saying "Where is the Lord?  He said he would return soon!"

Matthew 13:13 KJV reads:

  Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not;
  and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Genesis 1:5 KJV reads (emphasis mine):

  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
  the evening and the morning were the first day.

Every man understands what a day is.  It's possible God revealed this using these words so that even the unlearned (us) could understand the basic ideas of his word throughout the ages.

God speaks in parables and metaphors (thanks, Anthony!) because as mortal beings, we are stuck in our own little frames of reference.  I don't know exactly what it takes to build a planet from nothing, but from what I've learned in my life it would take a lot of matter, a lot of pressure, and a lot of time.

It could very well have taken billions of years, we don't know.  As they say, God works in mysterious ways.


How do Baptists interpret the summoning of Samuel by the medium of Endor?

This question is almost impossible to answer, as stated. As Baptists (by definition) have no unifying system of doctrine, the denomination as a whole has not made any kind of statement about how they deal with particular items, with the notable exception of baptism. That is to say, you'd have to ask each Baptist individual to find out what they believe.

That being said, there are other denominations which believe similarly (that the faithful are immediately united with God upon death) and DO have a unified system of doctrine that you might be able to query.

Some focus on Samuel's words "brought me up" to argue that he was not "coming down from" Heaven, but was "coming up from" Sheol (they argue that Sheol was a common holding place for the general dead and part of Jesus' purpose in "descending into Hell" was to bring the faithful our of Sheol and into Heaven, to bring them into the reward they had anticipated in the longed-for Messiah). Consequently, Samuel wasn't removed from God's presence, but merely from Sheol.

Others (who believe that the faithful have always gone to Heaven) argue that Endor's surprise was because the summoning was genuine, implying that she was a charlatan, and that God performed a unique miracle in this one case. She didn't expect it to work, and was shocked when it did. In which case, there doesn't seem to be any difficulty in claiming that God miraculously a genuine apparition of Samuel to Saul for this one purpose. They focus on Samuel's words "why have you disturbed me" to imply that wherever he was, was a place of peace and rest from which he could be disturbed, which can be said of neither Hell, nor Sheol, nor Purgatory.

There are still others who make a distinction between Abraham's Bosom and Heaven, as well as between Sheol and Hell. They claim that Abraham's Bosom was like a pre-Heaven, and Sheol was like a pre-Hell, and that when Christ died those two passed away and were replaced by Heaven and Hell respectively. I don't understand enough about this idea to say much more, but it is out there.

John Calvin wrote in his commentary that it was Satan who was pretending to be Samuel. I find this difficult to reconcile with the prophetic truth of Samuel's words, so I'm inclined to believe that it was either genuinely Samuel, or it was an angel who Saul mistook for Samuel (note that he never claimed to be Samuel).


Which denomination(s) believe(s) there are many heavens?

LDS theology explains the idea of heaven in terms of kingdoms of glory. The highest celestial kingdom being the place where God resides and the place where the faithful followers of Christ will dwell after the resurrection. LDS description of Heaven


Did Jesus mean that heaven and earth would actually pass away in Matthew 24:25?

Heaven can mean several things:

The abode of God/angels/righteous
The firmament (sky)
State of utmost happiness

These are related concepts, and even in ancient languages, these meanings are conflated.
When heaven and hell are used together, #1 or #3 make the most sense.
When heaven and earth are used together, #2 probably makes the most sense.
So

The sky and the earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

or

The universe will pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

This isn't hypothetical; this event will happen, on the "day of the Lord",

the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up
2 Peter 3:10

Now, maybe God lives in a new place too -- I don't know any reason why that couldn't be true -- but the point isn't that God gets a new house, so much as it is that all creation will pass away, but not God's word.


Why is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception treated differently?

What is so much more superlative about having the requirement to attend Mass abrogated every few years on one day for one feast?
Code of Canon Law which guides Feast Days says the following:

1246 §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The following days must also be observed: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary the Mother of God,  her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, and All Saints.
§2. With the prior approval of the Apostolic See, however, the conference of bishops can suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday.

So the canon law makes it clear that the bishops' council has the authority to suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday. And that is exactly what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops chose to do on December 13, 1991.ref That is, they chose to remove the precept to attend Mass if a holy day of obligation (excluding Nativity) falls on a Saturday or on a Monday.
Why did they choose so? That cannot be answered by us. Only the bishops can. They might have considered the culture, local tradition etc., before deciding so.
It is to be noted that not all Conference of Catholic Bishops chose this. For example in India we do have to attend mass on two consecutive days even if a a solemnity falls on a Saturday or on a Monday.
Why is the Immaculate Conception more important than other Marian Feasts or All Saints Day (or Corpus Christi or Ascension Thursday), which are always transferred to Sundays in my diocese)?
Actually Immaculate Conception is less important than Advent Sunday and that is the reason it is transferred to the next day. But All Saints Day / Corpus Christi / Ascension are more important than Ordinary Sundays and hence the local bishops conference can decide to move them to the next Sunday of the Ordinary Time.
Is it only acceptable to celebrate a Christ/Trinity oriented feast day on a Sunday?
Yes. As the saying goes, "Our Lord's Day is the Lord of All Days". But there are exception to this rule. The ranking of the days according to their priority are:

The Paschal Triduum and Easter Sunday
The solemnities of Nativity of the Lord, the Epiphany, the Ascension, and Pentecost
Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Easter season
Ash Wednesday
Weekdays of Holy Week up to and including Thursday
Days within the Octave of Easter
Other Solemnities
Sundays of the Year

So as per the above list Sundays of Advent have more priority than the the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, hence the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is moved to the next day.
There is an exception to the third item on the list above. That is, if the Solemnities of a particular calendar falls on Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Easter then the local bishop can choose to celebrate them instead of the Sunday. The order of such solemnity are:

The solemnity of the principal patron of the place, city or state
The solemnity of the dedication or anniversary of the dedication of one's own church
The solemnity of the title of one's own church (the mystery or saint to which it is dedicated)
The solemnity of either the title or the founder of a religious institute

For example, if a diocese's patron saint is Mary under the Title of Immaculate Conception (like my diocese), the feast of Immaculate Conception is celebrated on December 08 in that diocese alone when the rest of the Church celebrated the Advent Sunday.
(Just of of curiosity: //festive round of Stabat Mater// Isn't Stabat Mater suppose to be a sorrowful song?? )


Who were the non-gentiles implied in Matthew 6: 32?

A gentile is anyone who is a non-Jew.  That's the standard definition.  So the "non-gentiles" are the Jews.  There's really not much more to it than that.

As for the relevance:  The Jews (Israelites) worshiped the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in contrast with the Gentiles, who sought after other gods.

  Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  For after all these things do the Gentiles seek,.... Or "the nations
  of the world", as in Luke 12:30. The Syriac reads it so here: the
  phrase, "the nations of the world", is used of the Gentiles, in
  distinction from the Israelites, thousands of times in the Jewish
  writings; it would be endless to give instances. These knew not God,
  nor acknowledged his providence; the greater part of them thought,
  that the soul perished with the body; few of them thought, that
  anything remained after death; and they that did, spoke very
  doubtfully of it: wherefore it is no wonder, that such persons should
  greedily seek after, and be anxiously concerned for all these things,
  food, raiment, and riches, and a great plenty of them; since this is
  all the happiness they expect; and imagine, that this is to be
  acquired by their care, thought, diligence, and industry; having no
  regard to a superior being, and his all wise providence: but for the
  Jews, and so Christians, who have a divine revelation, the knowledge
  of God, and his providence, and of a future state after this life, to
  act the same part the Heathens do, is exceedingly unbecoming, absurd,
  and wicked: and besides, such greedy desires, immoderate care, and
  anxious solicitude, are altogether unnecessary;


How do I keep a small-group discussion focused?

Just a few tips...
Never tell someone something when you can have them discover the answer themselves by asking a question.
To lead a group it helps to have a ton of questions written down.  Start with a few easy questions to get the ball rolling and then ask more challenging questions.
When some one answers a question, as another person what they think about that person's answer or "Does anyone disagree with that answer"?  This usually gets the conversation going.

Motivation = Value x expectancy

Why is the topic you are discussing important?


According to Protestants what transpired when Mary was "overshadowed" in Luke 1:35?

According to the Bible:

“What is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20).
The Virgin Mary “was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18).
“God sent His Son, born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4).

That’s what Protestants believe transpired.  We don’t speculate; we just believe what the Bible says.  If the Bible doesn’t provide any additional information, then we don’t need to know.  God, through the Holy Spirit, was responsible for Mary becoming pregnant.  However, I did find an article on the subject that expresses the Protestant view, part of which says this:

From these passages, it is certainly clear that Jesus’ birth was the result of the Holy Spirit working within Mary’s body. The immaterial (the Spirit) and the material (Mary’s womb) were both involved. Mary, of course, could not impregnate herself, and in that sense she was simply a “vessel.” Only God could perform the miracle of the Incarnation.
However, denying a physical connection between Mary and Jesus would imply that Jesus was not truly human. Scripture teaches that Jesus was fully human, with a physical body like ours. This He received from Mary. At the same time, Jesus was fully God, with an eternal, sinless nature (John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 2:14-17.)
Jesus was not born in sin; that is, He had no sin nature (Hebrews 7:26). It would seem that the sin nature is passed down from generation to generation through the father (Romans 5:12, 17, 19). The Virgin Birth circumvented the transmission of the sin nature and allowed the eternal God to become a perfect man.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-birth.html

Jesus, fully human (through being born of a woman) and fully God (through the Holy Spirit).
No doubt you will receive more learned and scholastic answers, but this is the best I could come up with before I shut down my laptop and serve up our evening meal.


Is this about 'sehnsucht'; in which case, can God be Pleasure manifest or is he a being who is full of pleasure?

I believe he is saying that God is a person who is full of happiness and goodness.  Namely Love love for all mankind.

He uses every experienced pleasure as an opportunity to give gratitude and contemplate the majesty of God.  The God of all creation.

As can be seen here:

Adoration says, ‘What
must be the quality of that Being whose far-off and momentary coruscations are like this!’

He continues:

If I could always be what I aim at being, no pleasure would be too ordinary or too usual for
such reception;

I think he is implying that if we could keep that mindset, even the most mundane every day pleasures or experiences can be opportunities to bring us closer to God through adoration which in turn enriches said experiences.

However it's not always easy to keep this mindset, obstacles such as inattention to the wonders around us.  Or choosing to ignore God's role in said experiences.  Lastly Greed Conceit.  Not being grateful. e.g.

that others would condemn as simply 'grey' the sky in which I am delightedly observing such delicacies of pearl and dove and silver.

In Summary:

What sparkling flashes of God’s wit and brilliance—His coruscations—have caused your mind today to
run back up the sunbeam to the sun and given you cause to give thanks and to worship the Lord?

There is a children's hymn which is sung at my church that I think fits nicely with what C.S. Lewis is trying to get across here.

Whenever I hear the song of a bird
Or look at the blue, blue sky,
Whenever I feel the rain on my face
Or the wind as it rushes by,
Whenever I touch a velvet rose
Or walk by our lilac tree,
I'm glad that I live in this beautiful world
Heav'nly Father created for me.

He gave me my eyes that I might see
The color of butterfly wings.
He gave me my ears that I might hear
The magical sound of things.
He gave me my life, my mind, my heart:
I thank him rev'rently
For all his creations, of which I'm a part.
Yes, I know Heav'nly Father loves me.

Link to music

Link to CS Lewis Letter


Is the Creed a prayer? (Catholic mass)

The short answer is no.

While the creed is said at Mass, at the beginning of the rosary and on other occasions, it remains simply a code of Catholic beliefs.

  Term

  CREDO

  Definition

  I believe. A creed or code of beliefs; also applied to any one article of faith. (Etym. Latin credo, I believe.)

St. Thomas Aquinas explains the three conditions that make up a prayer and the creed does not constitute a single condition at all.

  Three conditions are requisite for prayer. First, that the person who prays should approach God Whom he prays: this is signified in the word "prayer," because prayer is "the raising up of one's mind to God." The second is that there should be a petition, and this is signified in the word "intercession." On this case sometimes one asks for something definite, and then some say it is "intercession" properly so called, or we may ask for some thing indefinitely, for instance to be helped by God, or we may simply indicate a fact, as in John 11:3, "Behold, he whom Thou lovest is sick," and then they call it "insinuation." The third condition is the reason for impetrating what we ask for: and this either on the part of God, or on the part of the person who asks. The reason of impetration on the part of God is His sanctity, on account of which we ask to be heard, according to Daniel 9:17-18, "For Thy own sake, incline, O God, Thy ear"; and to this pertains "supplication" [obsecratio] which means a pleading through sacred things, as when we say, "Through Thy nativity, deliver us, O Lord." The reason for impetration on the part of the person who asks is "thanksgiving"; since "through giving thanks for benefits received we merit to receive yet greater benefits," as we say in the collect [Ember Friday in September and Postcommunion of the common of a Confessor Bishop]. Hence a gloss on 1 Timothy 2:1 says that "in the Mass, the consecration is preceded by supplication," in which certain sacred things are called to mind; that "prayers are in the consecration itself," in which especially the mind should be raised up to God; and that "intercessions are in the petitions that follow, and thanksgivings at the end."

  We may notice these four things in several of the Church's collects. Thus in the collect of Trinity Sunday the words, "Almighty eternal God" belong to the offering up of prayer to God; the words, "Who hast given to Thy servants," etc. belong to thanksgiving; the words, "grant, we beseech Thee," belong to intercession; and the words at the end, "Through Our Lord," etc. belong to supplication.

  In the "Conferences of the Fathers" (ix, cap. 11, seqq.) we read: "Supplication is bewailing one's sins; prayer is vowing something to God; intercession is praying for others; thanksgiving is offered by the mind to God in ineffable ecstasy" [adoration]. The first explanation, however, is the better. - Article 17. Whether the parts of prayer are fittingly described as supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings?

Elsewhere St. Thomas in question 84.2 of his Summa, speaks more exactly about adoration as follows:

  Adoration is directed to the reverence of the person adored. Now it is evident from what we have said (God). Hence the adoration whereby we adore God is an act of religion.

There are four basic forms of prayer and the creed is not one of them:

  Prayer of Blessing and Adoration

  In this prayer we express praise and honor to God. We praise God for giving us life, for the wonder and beauty of our world, and for all the many blessings we enjoy. We open ourselves up to praise God for all the wonders of creation. This form of prayer encourages bodily expression, such as standing with arms raised or dancing.

  Prayer of Petition

  This is probably the most familiar prayer form of prayer. We are often taught to ask God for the things we need, but asking and praying for them are not necessarily the same. When we pray our petitions, we are asking God, who loves us very much, for something that we believe is good—for ourselves or for others. By using this form of prayer we are mindful of the needs of others as well as of our own needs. We are aware that God wants us to bring our problems and worries to prayer knowing that he will always hear and answer those prayers. God may answer our prayers in a different way and in a different timeframe than we are seeking but God will always give us what we need.

  Prayers of petition serve to remind us that God expects us to care for one another and for all his creation. We can pray about the ordinary experiences of life— for people who are sick, for someone who needs a job, for help in our school work, for a safe trip. We pray for peace in our families and in our world. We can also express our sorrow and contrition to God in our prayer.

  Prayer of Intercession

  This form of prayer is prayer on behalf of others. This form of prayer can be a source of blessing upon others, the Church, and our world. Because we know that Our Lady and the saints intercede for us before God, the Church encourages us to pray to them for their intercession. Such prayer can bring us great strength and courage and also great peace of mind and heart.

  Prayer of Thanksgiving

  This form of prayer helps us to be grateful for God's many blessings, spiritual and temporal, and helps us to recognize and appreciate all the good things God gives to us. Reserving some time to praise and thank God for his gifts—the gift of life; the gift of our families and friends; the gift of food, clothing, and shelter; and the numerous other gifts we often take for granted—helps us to form a true spirit of gratitude. - Basic Forms of Prayer


According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by saying "Neither this man nor his parents sinned"?

The Catholic Haydock Commentary on this verse says:

  Ver. 3. When Christ says that neither he nor his parents had sinned, we must not understand that he was born without original sin, nor even that he had not committed other sins. For both he and his parents had sinned; but the meaning is, that this blindness was not a penal blindness inflicted in punishment of any sin either himself or his parents had committed; but, as is afterwards subjoined, it was sent him for the manifestation of the glory of God. S. Austin, tract. xliv. in Joan.


In what manner does the Father draw men to Jesus Christ? John 6:44

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” John 6:44

What did Jesus mean by this statement? Most basically what he meant was just what He said.  Unless a person undergoes a new birth they cannot either see or enter the Kingdom of God (John 3) and that new birth is not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God (1 John 1:13).  Fallen humanity, apart from the drawing power of God, does not seek after Christ nor can they or will they come to Him.  Strict Armenians are stonewalled here by this unwavering statement of God's sovereign and necessary involvement in the salvation of men but how to tone down the Calvinists denial of human choice so clearly invited by Jesus in Matthew 11:28-29 among others? "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

If I may I will summarize the remainder of your questions as, How does this drawing work while maintaining both God's sovereignty and human choice?

First I suggest that these are not mutually exclusive.  God sovereignly created human choice in the Garden of Eden and protects this faculty within us even when it most often leads to our demise.   I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live - Dt 30:19  In the next verse choosing life is equated with loving God and obeying Him.  It is His desire for a relationship based upon love that has necessitated our possession of a faculty of choice.

Sin has ruined our prospects for making such a choice.  It is not that the choice to seek after and love the Lord has been removed by God, else the invitations peppered throughout Scripture to "return unto Me" (Zech 1:3, Mal 3:17, Jer 15:19, John 7:37, etc.) would be a cruel joke.  Rather our natural disposition "in Adam" is to reject God's authority to determine good and evil and to take that mantle upon ourselves and thereby "be like God".  There in the garden, while Adam and Eve hid, God sought them out and began questioning them.  He drew them out of hiding...although they possessed the ability to do so they did not come until he called.  "So the Lord God called out to the man, "Where are you?"". Genesis 3:9  The earth then was cursed "for our sake", for our benefit that is, because having rejected God in Paradise we would certainly not seek after Him absent difficulty.  God draws us through the difficulty of life in a cursed creation.

Such is the condition of every person, enslaved by sin (Romans 6:16) and fear of death (Hebrews 2:15) they are unable to please God (Romans 8:8) or to desire to do so "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:7-8
We could come to Christ apart from the Father's drawing us but we don't want to because we understand that it requires submission.  Here it approaches the level of cannot but the prohibition is not from God as the Calvinists suppose.  The inability of the natural man is one of volition:  He will not.

Here lies the explanation of the unbelieving Jews of Acts 13 and all others who hear and refuse to believe:   "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." - John 5:39-40  Natural man wants to obtain life through some measure of intellect or effort and refuses to humbly come and receive.

Jesus said that if/when He was lifted up He would draw all men to Himself (John 12:32) and it is then explicitly stated that he said this in reference to the method of his death.  It is fair to say, then, that the means by which God the Father draws people to come to Jesus is by sending His Son to be lifted up on the cross.  Remembering that Jesus told Nicodemus he must be lifted up just as (in the same way that) Moses lifted up the bronze serpent we see both sovereign drawing, divine provision, and human choice in operation.  In Numbers 21 we are told that those who looked upon the bronze snake lived: apparently some did not look.

But how is the Son of God on the cross "just as" a bronze snake on a pole.  The venemous snakes were sent as judgement and bitten people were dying.  Bronze speaks of judgement (both divine and self) and the bronze image of what was killing them was lifted up so that when they looked at it (with faith) recognizing their culpability and God's justice they could receive His mercy.  Jesus is the Word of God made into flesh (John 1:14) and the Word of God on the cross is an image of what is killing us.  Adam put God's Word to death in himself as the prime guiding principle for life and it is that death that we carry about in our bodies.  The Word of God was lifted up on the cross so that we may recognize our participation in that which is killing us, that we may repent of it, and that we may come to Him in order to have life.

In short, God draws us to Christ by sacrificing Him.  Jesus draws us to Himself by that act of obedience.  The Spirit has come to persuade:  "And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:  concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;  concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;  concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. - John 16:8-11

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.  The gospel is the power of God for the salvation of those who will believe.  The proclamation of the gospel exposes the hearer to the drawing power of God in the crucified Son and those who choose to believe are exposed to the saving power of God in His resurrected life.


What is the context of Chesterton's quote, "When we bind our hearts, we free our hands"?

My thanks to Peter Turner for recommending the book Orthodoxy (Dodd, Mead & Co., 1908) to me some time ago, and therefore making this answer possible. Thanks to Kindle full-text search, I found the following in Orthodoxy chapter 5, The Flag of the World:

Love is not blind; that is the last thing it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.
This at least had come to be my position about all that was called optimism, pessimism, and improvement. Before any cosmic act of reform we must have a cosmic oath of allegiance. A man must be interested in life, then he could be disinterested in his views of it. "My son give me thy heart;" the heart must be fixed on the right thing: the moment we have a fixed heart we have a free hand.

[My emphasis. The quotation "My son give me thy heart" is from Proverbs 23:26. "Thy" is the choice of the Douay-Rheims version, where the KJV has "thine".]
The overall context of the chapter is Chesterton's rejection of the philosophical abstractions of optimism and pessimism: neither of these is sufficiently rooted in the real world.  He argues that we must feel an allegiance to the world in order to be champions for its improvement. The optimist, he says, is likely to declare that it is in no need of improvement; the pessimist, that improvement is not possible: "Can [the ordinary man] hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing?" The comparison with romantic love is that we do not love abstractly - we love particular people for who they are. Regardless of good or bad points about the world, we are invited to see the world as worthy of our interest, and worthy in itself rather than as an exemplar of goodness or badness.
In general, Chesterton finds ideals which are disconnected from real experience to be insincere and futile. This is placed in contrast with the Christian faith, founded on a specific individual who said and did surprising things. He found that while he could not build his life around - for example - the abstract notion of Goodness, he could do so for the specific person of Christ. It is not only a matter of psychological "fit", but a practical one, since Christ does a better job than Abstract Goodness at supplying actual moral guidance. Further, Abstract Goodness cannot love or be loved: Christ can.


Where did the Roman Catholic denomination in India originate, and why are there differences amongst Indian Christians?

If you're talking caste, I'm assuming your talking about the Christian caste in India. Within castes, there are denominational differences, which this answer will discuss.

Legend says that St. Thomas - one of the original 12 apostles -  made it to India in 52 AD.  That's the official origin story of Christianity in India.  The Christians of Nagaland and Assam, on the other hand, tend to come from the missionary efforts of Protestants in the 1800s.  They both originate from the same place and actually don't differ very much on key issues like salvation, the nature of God, and how one should live. Typically, they recognize each other as Christian.

In the intervening 1750 years, the biggest question that divided the two sects of Christians was the question of papal authority. In the 1500s, Martin Luther became the figurehead of what is often called the Protestant Reformation. There was fighting and war between them, too. He railed against corrupt practices of the Roman church that even the Roman Church today agrees were bad. Protestants basically said, there shouldn't be a Pope. Roman Catholics believe in apostolic succession and do.

That's your difference.

Within Catholicism, there are different "orders" of Christians - people like Jesuits, Benedictines, etc... who subscribe to slightly different rules about how one should practice, but these are almost entirely organizational matters, and they all are in theory in submission to the Bishop of Rome.

For a more comprehensive answer on Thomatic Christians, consult this article on Christianity in India. Note, the focus there will be on "Catholics" - which could mean Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Syriac and other Nestorian) or Roman churches. Oriental Orthodox branched off in 451 AD, mostly over Christology. When it comes to philosophically understanding how Jesus was fully God, fully man, these churches all rejected the consensus in the West.

This graphic in particular shows the denominational lineages:

Within Protestantism, there are different groups that also have different interpretations of communion, baptism and other rites - and most importantly they don't submit to any other earthly authority, but again, the differences aren't all that great in the grand scheme of things.


Why would a Spanish Catholic priest disapprove of German Catholic texts for Gloria and Sanctus?

In 2001 the Vatican published Liturgiam Authenticam.

This considered the experience of the Church since the Second Vatican Council encouraged the  celebration of Mass in the vernacular languages of the people,  rather than in Latin.  It expressed the view that some translations into vernacular languages had been too free and were, in parts, adaptions rather than strict translations.

For example,  section 6 includes the following:

  Nevertheless, it has been noted that translations of liturgical texts in various localities stand in need of improvement through correction or through a new draft. The omissions or errors which affect certain existing vernacular translations – especially in the case of certain languages – have impeded the progress of the inculturation that actually should have taken place.

The reference here to "certain languages" is widely taken to include both German and English.

Section Twenty goes on:

  it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.

This emphasises the importance of sticking closely  to the original text. Original does not, here, mean the ancient text, it means the text on which the vernacular translation is supposed to be based, which will be the Latin text of the latest Roman Typical Edition.  It also says some variation in wording, syntax and style is permissible.

So there is a tension about how far or near a translation can legitimately be. This may explain why a Spanish Catholic priest might disapprove of some of the variations allowed in the German Mass.

One reason why the Spanish Mass sticks more closely to the Latin is that Spanish, like Portuguese, Italian and French, is a Romance language, which means it evolved from Latin in the first place. The common structure makes  translation from Latin to Spanish much simpler,  and more precise and natural, than translating Latin to a Germanic language, such as German or English.

A second reason is that Germany has a strong choral tradition. Musical settings of such texts as the Sanctus or Gloria, originally in Latin, can be sung in German but will require the choice of German words to be influenced by the number of syllables etc. needed to fit the music. While this will have been done, presumably, without significantly affecting the meaning, and will anyway have been accepted by Rome, this Spanish priest may feel strongly that such adaptations are essentially corruptions of the Latin.

Thirdly Germany, like England, has large numbers of liturgical Protestants. The Lutheran and Anglican services also have translations of the Sanctus and Gloria and the ecumenical  desire for a common text was perhaps a factor in German.  It was so in English, where Sabaoth was translated "power and might" rather than "hosts" in 1973 but "corrected" in 2011. (Even St Paul did not translate the Hebrew word sabaoth into Greek e.g.Romans 9 29). Linking back to the second point, musical settings originally written for Lutheran worship, and therefore in the German language, may be suitable to Catholic worship (or not, as the view of your Spanish priest may be).

The German Catholic bishops have taken a more robust  line in resisting changes following Liturgiam Authenticam, than the English-speaking bishops did. (See here.) Also here is an article about the refusal of the German and Austrian bishops, in 2018, to change the "lead us not into temptation" line in the Lord's Prayer. The Spanish version is more "do not let us fall into temptation".

So this Spanish priest may well fell that the variations in the German mass are "corrupt and depraved" because they do not as precisely match the Latin as the Spanish ones, and as some German variants, do.

It is also possible that the Spanish priest is constrained to use a particular form of the German Mass. The Spanish Bishops Conference could have decided on an approved German text for use at German-speaking services in Spain. If they have not then the priest could use any version permitted in Germany or Austria etc.

In 2017 Pope Benedict authorised a review of Liturgum Authenticam, and there are suggestions the pendulum may be swinging back towards encouraging national adaptations.


How do the Eastern Orthodox interpret this verse from Psalm 69:3?

In writing about this particular verse in his Exposition on the Psalms, Augustine understands that those who tell us "Well done, Well done" are flatterers, whom he classifies as a different sort of persecutor:

  Two are the kinds of persecutors, revilers and flatterers.  The tongue
  of the flatterer doth more persecute than the hand of the slayer: for
  this also the Scripture hath called a furnace. Truly when the
  Scripture was speaking of persecution, it said, Like gold in a
  furnace it hath proved them (speaking of Martyrs being slain), and
  as the holocaust’s victim it hath received them [Wisdom 3:6]. Hear
  how even the tongue of flatterers is of such sort: The proving, he
  saith, of silver and of gold is fire; but a man is proved by the
  tongue of men praising him [Proverbs 27:21]. That is fire, this also
  is fire: out of both thou oughtest to go forth safe. The censurer hath
  broken thee, thou hast been broken in the furnace like an earthen
  vessel. The Word hath moulded thee, and there hath come the trial of
  tribulation: that which hath been formed, must needs be seasoned; if
  it hath been well moulded, there hath come the fire to strengthen.
  Whence He said in the Passion, Dried up like a potsherd hath been My
  virtue [Psalm 21:15]. For Passion and the furnace of tribulation had
  made Him stronger.…


Why did God want a Tabernacle built by Moses?

To accomplish God's desire to make his abode among his people, [...]. He wanted to walk among them, be their God, and they his people1.

1. cf. Lev 26:11-12 (RSVCE).

Please see also this Moses' intercession [cf. Exod 33:14-16]:

  14 And he said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you
  rest.” 15 And he said to him, “If thy presence will not go with me, do
  not carry us up from here. 16 For how shall it be known that I have
  found favor in thy sight, I and thy people? Is it not in thy going
  with us, so that we are distinct, I and thy people, from all other
  people that are upon the face of the earth?”

Summarizing the reasons that appear:

It was God's wish.
So that God might make his abode among his people, walk with them and be their God, and they his people.
In response to Moses' intercession.
God's continual presence would distinguish his people from all other people.


Has the Catholic Church ever excommunicated someone based on their ideology?

The Church has technically never reversed the decree excommunicating communists.

More

However, it is no longer common practice to excommunicate individuals based on their political beliefs, and even directly after the decree was made, it was rarely enforced. Membership in Communist organizations or holding communist political beliefs is still considered a heterodoxy because it has been explicitly condemned by the Church, but it is no longer considered grounds for excommunication.

By the way, there were bishops who were excommunicated because they cooperated with the communists. You can read more about Chineses bishops.


Any dangers for the usage of sacramentals that are not-yet-blessed-by-a-priest?

I think a priest would tell you that the danger is in not praying it, they're usually pragmatic like that.

Like some sacraments (Confession, Baptism) the intent is perhaps as important the action

  For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

CCC 1259

Always remember that God exists outside of time and your prayers, in communion with the Saints are holy. Also, consider the fact that you could pray the Rosary nearly as easily without the aid of a rosary by counting your fingers and toes.


I'm looking for an obscure version of John 4:32

Using the YouVersion Bible App (which contains approx. 300 versions, although I don't believe these are all English versions) it is possible to do a pretty quick and easy cursory search of a particular verse.  I did so, and although I haven't completed every version, I found the New Living Translation states John 4:32 thusly:

  But Jesus replied I have a kind of food you know nothing about.

Although this is not the quote that you are looking for, to me it puts you on the right track since the NLT is translated from the original text (at least that is what is stated on the web site).

I also found the Bible in Basic English: John 4:32:

  But he said to them, I have food of which you have no knowledge.

I also tried "Google Translate" from the Greek which didn't help at all.  A function of the reliability of Google...which in my opinion and has no place here.

There is another website that has an English/Greek parallel comparison. This shows that the portion of the translation, "to eat," is probably superfluous as Andrew Leach stated.  I would agree.

It would seem to me that the translation you are looking for is probably out there somewhere.  I would ask how long has it been since you last read this passage in the format that you are seeking?  It might be that it is no longer in popular usage.  (Which, of course, might be an assumption that would make one say "that's a cop-out".)

I'm sorry I was unable to find the exact translation for you.


Does the Bible give any rules for music?

I don't think the Bible makes any mention of musical style.  What it does say is to "Make a joyful noise unto the lord" (KJV), Psalm 100.

Modern music of course is usually accompanied by words, and the Bible of course does have much to say about words.  "Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouth" Ephesians 4:29, which could apply any popular music.


At the time of Peter's confession, who knew that Jesus was Messiah?

Other than the Apostles who were present and depending on one's interpretation of what "who" stands for, it seems that at least the demons knew that Jesus was the Messiah.

  Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Messiah. - Luke 4:41

It would also be believed by many that Mary would have known that her Son was the Messiah also.

  26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. -  Luke 1: 26-37.


What is the source of the Martin Luther's quote, "We all carry about in our pockets His very nails?"

The quote comes from Luther's commentary on Galatians, specifically on ch 6, vs 17.
Luther's Works. Volume 27: Lectures on Galatians 1535, Chapters 5-6, Lectures on Galatians 1519, Chapters 1-6

Saint Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1964. Page 407:

  Although “marks”—in Latin this word means signs that are stamped on—may be taken here as referring to the sufferings of Paul, nevertheless—because Paul likes to make use of military allegories and metaphors—he certainly understands them in the sense of the distinctive tokens of the Christian life, which are the crucifixion and subjection of the flesh. In addition, they are the fruits of the spirit. For just as slaves bear the distinctive tokens, the arms, and the colors of their masters, so Paul and every Christian carries in his own body the cross of his lusts and vices—not indeed in the way in which it is customary nowadays to picture on a wall or in paintings and books the distinctive tokens of Christ assembled on a shield. No, every Christian carries this cross in the body—and in my own body, not in someone else’s. What good will it do if you carry even in gold and precious stone, not only the distinctive tokens but also the very nails, yes, the very wounds and blood of Christ, and never express the living image in your body? Moreover, circumcision and the works required by human laws are the marks of Moses and of popes and of Caesars. These alone are looked at now, and they are of such infinite variety that the emperor, together with all his nobles, hardly has so many kinds of distinctive marks."


Why was the Holy Family instructed to flee to Egypt?

There are many Reasons I suppose that the Holy Family went to Egypt, The main being the simple fact that they knew who Jesus was and that an Angel of God directed them to do so.  We can only speculate to the reasons, but here is a fun one.

Jesus was the Fulfillment of Old Testament Promises and the Archetype of Jesus that Moses represents.  Here are a few of those Typological simularities.

Both were hunted by a King/Pharaoh
Both were hidden from that King/Pharoah
Both went to Egypt to save their lives.
Both saved and helped by a woman.

It's quite a long list here is a good link that shows them all: Typology of Moses and Jesus.

There are about  20 examples of how Jesus is the New Moses listed on this site.

Typology is rampant in Scripture, it reveals the Old Testament fulfilled in the New Testament, typology of Mary, the Eucharist, Sacraments, Tribes and Apostles, the information is almost boundless.

Like in his Church, God has a reason for everything he does.


Evidence that Peter alone was made a Bishop by Christ?

St. Robert's opinion that St. Peter consecrated the other Apostles bishops doesn't seem common. For example, D. I. Lanslots, O.S.B., says in his The Primitive Church: The Church in the Days of the Apostles ch. 15:

  Christ directly consecrated His Apostles bishops; they and their successors were to consecrate all others.

The "Apostolic College" Catholic Encyclopedia entry distinguishes "Apostle" and "bishop":

  Although both, bishops and Apostles, are appointed by Divine authority, yet the Apostles received their commission immediately from Christ, whereas the bishops receive theirs but mediately, i.e. through the medium of human authority. The power of order and jurisdiction is the same in the Apostles and in their successors, but, whereas the Apostles receive it from the Divine Founder Himself, the bishops receive it through the channel of other bishops. Immediate commission implies, in the missionary, the power to produce, at first hand, credentials to prove that he is the envoy of God by doing works which God alone can work. Hence the charisma, or gift, of miracles granted to the Apostles, but withheld from the generality of their successors whose mission is sufficiently accredited through their connection with the original Apostolate.


Were the islands/countries discovered by Hispanic explorers named after Mozarabic feast days?

Were islands/countries discovered by Hispanic explorers named after Mozarabic feast days?

The short answer is no.

But that no has to be clarified. It could be yes or no, according to which Rite the person who named the said lands belonged to. Both Rites were in use in Spain at the time of the Spanish colonization of the Americas.

  The name "Mozarabic Rite" is given to the rite used generally in Spain and in what afterwards became Portugal from the earliest times of which we have any information down to the latter part of the eleventh century, and still surviving in the Capilla Muzárabe in Toledo cathedral and in the chapel of San Salvador or Talavera, in the old cathedral of Salamanca. The name is not a good one. It originated in the fact that, after its abolition in Christian Spain, the rite continued to be used by the Christians in the Moorish dominions who were known as Mazárabes or Muzárabes. The form Mostárabes is also found. The derivation of the word is not quite certain, but the best theory seems to be that it is musta’rab, the participle of the tenth form of the verb ’araba, and that it means a naturalized Arab or one who has adopted Arab customs or nationality, an Arabized person. Some, with less probability, have made it a Latin or Spanish compound, Mixto-Arabic. The meanings, which are not far apart, applied entirely to the persons who used the rite in its later period, and not to the rite itself, which has no sign of any Arab influence. The names Gothic, Toledan, Isidorian, have also been applied to the rite—the first referring to its development during the time of the Visigothic kingdom of Spain, the second to the metropolitan city which was its headquarters, and the third to the idea that it owed, if not its existence, at any rate a considerable revision. - Mozarabic Rite (Catholic Encyclopædia)

It should be noted that none of explorers of the 15th or 16th centuries were sent from the Archdiocese of Braga, Portugal. Braga also had it’s own liturgical Rite within the Church.

  The Rite of Braga (or Bragan Rite) is a Catholic liturgical rite associated with the Archdiocese of Braga in Portugal.

  The Rite of Braga belongs to the Roman family of liturgical rites and took shape within the Archdiocese of Braga between the 11th and 13th centuries.[1] The Missal of Mateus, which dates to the second quarter of the twelfth century, is the oldest known source for this Rite. It was more than 200 years old at the time of Pope Pius V's papal bulls Quod a nobis of 9 July 1568 and Quo primum of 14 July 1570. The rite was unaffected by the imposition of the Roman Rite throughout the Latin Church. This was due to the exception made for regions where another rite had been in use for at least two centuries. However, the Roman Rite was increasingly adopted within the archdiocese and non-traditional elements were admitted into celebrations of the archdiocese's rite.

  In the 20th century an attempt was made by Archbishop Manuel Vieira de Matos, with the approval of Pope Pius XI, to expunge these accretions, to revise the texts and to make the rite obligatory within the archdiocese. After the Second Vatican Council the priests of the archdiocese, while authorized to use the Rite of Braga, have in general opted to use the Roman Rite. The Rite of Braga

The Mozarabic Rite, also called the Visigothic Rite or the Hispanic Rite, is a liturgical rite of the Latin Church once used generally in the Iberian Peninsula (Hispania), in what is now Spain and Portugal. Thus we can call it a liturgical variation of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Since the liturgical reform of Pope St. Paul VI, the Mozarabic Rite has almost completely disappeared within Spain. The Mass according to this liturgical Rite can still be found in Spain if one looks hard enough.

Here is the real conundrum with this question. The feast days of the Tridentine Roman Rite and the Mozarabic Rite for the most part followed the same liturgical calendar with a few minor exceptions. In this sense the naming of the lands discovered in the 15th and 16th centuries could be literally named according to either liturgical Rite. It would all depend on which Rite the person who named the islands belonged to. It is sure that both Rites were in use in Spain at the time.

It should be noted the Spain has (and did have) some local feasts not celebrated in other countries and this also applies (and did apply) to both liturgical Rites.

As I have already stated above that the true answer to this question will depend on which Rite the person of authority belonged to. As it happens, both Queen Isabella of Spain and Christopher Columbus were of the Roman Rite.

Christopher Columbus in fact was Italian and that says volumes to this subject matter:

  Christopher Columbus [(before 31 October 1451 – 20 May 1506) was an Italian explorer, navigator, and colonist who completed four voyages across the Atlantic Ocean under the auspices of the Catholic Monarchs of Castile and Aragon. He led the first European expeditions to the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, initiating the permanent European colonization of the Americas. Columbus discovered a viable sailing route to the Americas, a continent that was then unknown to the Old World. While what he thought he had discovered was a route to the Far East, he is credited with the opening of the Americas for conquest and settlement by Europeans. - Christopher Columbus (Wikipedia)

The Catholic Encyclopedia further states that in Queen Isabella’s day the Roman Rite prevailed and that she allowed the Mozarabic Rite to be used within the Spanish Kingdom:

  When Ferdinand and Isabella took Granada in 1492, there were certainly some Mozarabic Christians there, as well as Christian merchants and prisoners from non-Moorish countries, but whether the Mozarabic Rite was used by them does not appear. With the discouragement which began with Alfonso VI came the period of decadence. The civil privileges (fueros) of the Toledo Mozárabes, which, though in 1147 Pope Eugene III had definitely put them under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese, included a certain amount of independence, were confirmed by Alfonso VII in 1118, by Peter in 1350, by Henry II in 1379, and by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1480 (later also by Philip II in 1564, by Charles II in 1699, and by Philip V in 1740). But in spite of this the "Roman Rite prevailed so much that it was introduced even into Mozarabic churches, which only used the old rite for certain special days, and that in a corrupted form from old and imperfectly understood manuscripts This and the dying out of many Mozarabic families gradually brought the rite very low. - Mozarabic Rite (Catholic Encyclopedia)


How is the Trinity compatible with divine simplicity?

The following is a paraphrase of "The Trinity: Divine Simplicity & the Trinity."

The Trinity is not three separate people.  The Trinity (tri-unity) of God is an attribute of His essence.  Therefore, it is in direct alignment with Divine (God) Simplicity (His essence).

When we read in the Bible of the persons of the God-Head (that is Father, Son and Holy Spirit), we learn they each have certain characteristics, but those characteristics do not add to the essence of who God is.


Are Catholics expected to bury amputated body parts in a cemetery?

In a word, no. There is no particular Church teaching regarding what to do with amputated body parts, exported organs, and so forth. Hence, proper medical protocols should be followed (including cremation, especially if that is the safest or least costly option).

It should be observed that body parts and organs that have been removed from a living body are no longer part of that body, and may be disposed of as medical waste.

The Church teaches that a human cadaver (i.e., what remains when a human being has died) should be treated with respect; and Catholics are not to treat the cadaver in such as way as to place in doubt the resurrection of the body. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it,

  The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit (No. 2300).

Note that the Church does not forbid cremation any longer1:

  The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body (No. 2301).2

In any case, the prohibition against cremation applied to whole cadavers, never to exported body parts.

1 The Church did forbid cremation in the past, because it was largely practiced by those who denied the resurrection of the body—indeed frequently in order to ridicule that doctrine.

2 It should be observed that the corruption of the body—by decomposition or by burning—does not pose any particular problem for the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The body, which is fundamentally the “matter” that is “informed” by the soul, will simply be reconstituted. Since the soul is the same, and it is the soul that gives  the body its “form,” the resurrected body is the very same body as before (albeit glorified).


If marriage is not a sacrament, why should Christians care how the civil authorities define it?

If marriage is not a sacrament, then what is it?

At the start of the Church of England wedding service, the minister refers to marriage as having been "instituted by God in the time of man's innocency". Marriage is universal,  and a gift of God to all mankind. Even those who believe marriage can be a sacrament, generally do not believe it is always so.

Luther saw marriage as a civil contract blessed by God. He recommended that ministers pose questions to the couple at the Church door and that they there make their promises. They were then led into the church whereupon the marriage received blessing.

A civil contract is not the same as a private understanding. A contract is enforceable at law, by either of the parties but also sometimes by society at large.

Some Christians object to redefinition of marriage where the redefinition involves a loosening of the ties that bind. An agreement terminable at will by either of the parties is not the kind of civil contract Luther had in mind. The very concept of marriage entailing a civil contract implies that such a contract is legally permitted. In many jurisdictions it is impossible to make a legally binding permanent marriage contract, because the state  will not uphold it. Some Christians believe divorce should not be an option, or should be available only in very restricted circumstances.   This is not necessarily to deny the right of non-Christians to enter into temporary agreements of various kinds if they wish; it is about claiming the right to make  a particular type of contract, whose terms have historically been meant by "marriage".

Another issue is that many Christians believe that the permanent union of a man and a woman is the foundation of human society, and that we need a word for this special relationship. If the word "marriage" comes to mean something wider, then we no longer have  a word referring specifically to this special and particular relationship of husband and wife. This then leads to a reduced understanding of the importance of traditional marriage.

Another way marriage  can be re-defined is to include couples of the same sex. One objection to this is that again it means we no longer have a word for traditional marriage. Another is that the sexual aspects which may be involved are regarded, by some Christians,  as sinful. That is not to say that covenants such as that between David and Jonathan are objectionable.

A concern in some countries is that if marriage between persons of the same sex is allowed, and if discrimination on grounds of sexuality is not allowed, then churches and ministers could be forced to conduct same sex weddings, or sued for not doing. Established churches may be especially vulnerable since refusal of marriage there might in the future be construed as state discrimination, on which laws may be especially strong.

There are Christian and non-Christian views for and against, but the question asks only for Christian views against redefinition.

The statement in the body of the question that Reformation churches generally did not conduct weddings is not correct. Independent denominations usually did not conduct weddings, but they were customarily conducted in the official churches.

To summarise: it is precisely because of the Protestant understanding of marriage as a civil contract, that many Protestants believe that a civil contract, meeting the requirements of Christian marriage, should exist and be available.