How best for a Christian to explore the ethics of a Covid-19 vaccine that might use farmed cell-lines from aborted foetuses? I looked through the CMF website at their Briefing paper When demand outstrips supply: A Christian view of the ethics of healthcare resource allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic:

“The British Medical Association (BMA) has recently produced guidance
around the ethical issues presented by the COVID-19pandemic.8 NICE has
also produced a rapid guideline for adult critical care during the
pandemic, which includes guidance for decision-making around
escalation. 9 In addition, the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) has
issued guidance, in conjunction with other stakeholders such as the
General Medical Council, the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine, the
Intensive Care Society, royal colleges and faculties.10 As Christian
doctors, we must consider how we can respond to the ethical challenges
posed. Here we will attempt to consider some of the issues involved,
and how to think about them biblically, using Beauchamp and Childress’
widely recognised four pillars of medical ethics11 as a framework.”

However, it must be too soon for a briefing paper on whether any of the current seven Covid-19 vaccinations produced have utilised cell-lines from aborted foetuses. The matter of demand for vaccines was not included.  Then I looked at a tagged blog, posted 20 November 2020, which sounded promising, COVID-19 vaccines: the wider ethical questions for Christians. Alas, no mention was made of the ethical issue I wish to explore.
Some success came via a contact working professionally in the realms of Christian ethics. He sent a pdf of an article written by a colleague of his in a Catholic journal, Anscombe Bioethics Centre – Friends’ Newsletter, Summer 2020, Issue 47. (His link to the pdf will not open when I copy it.)
Dr Helen Watt, Senior Research Fellow of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, wrote the article, pp 9-12.

“… Vaccines are normally, though not always,4 produced in living
cells. While they can be generated (as with some COVID-19 vaccines in
the making) in cells derived from ethically uncontentious sources such
as insects,5 tobacco plants,6 and hamster ovaries,7 they can also be
produced in cell-lines made from tissue derived from an aborted unborn
child. One such cell-line used in COVID-19 vaccine research (including
a project of the University of Oxford8 ) is the HEK 293 cell-line
modified from tissue taken from the kidney of an unborn child aborted
probably in 1972, while another is the PER C6 cell-line from the
retinal tissue of an 18-week baby aborted in 1985.”

I wish to know both ethical considerations involved and how to identify which Covid-19 vaccinations might have such ethically questionable ‘ingredients’. I will not go to popular media outlets for this as a huge amount of disinformation is being bandied around. This question is addressed to Christians who have ethical compunctions against any use of aborted foetuses, which transcends denomination. I note this  related question indicates deep concern but I seek to know how to find out if that's being used with some vaccines.
Edit:  this question become more important since the Church has now made a statement regarding the newest vaccine from Johnson and Johnson.  See this

This is a matter of conscience, quite clearly.
I well know how these matters may be viewed by the ungodly as I was disciplined in a certain company many years ago (final written warning on the first instance of its occurrence) because of this very issue arising, suddenly, without my being prepared to meet it and I reacted in a way which was unacceptable to the management.
However in this case I wonder if the words of Paul are not relevant :

... asking no question for conscience sake: [1 Corinthians 10:25 KJV]

In the situation the apostle speaks of, one wishes food and wishes to buy it in a market but its origin is unknown. It could have been previously offered to an idol and one would not want to partake of that, but that is only one of a variety of possibilities.
Paul advises not to delve into origins for the sake of conscience. He advises to accept what is being traded at face value and not to make the enquiry.
In our current situation, what is being offered to us is not - principally, in a way of being an absolute necessity of its development and function - fundamentally dependent on the issue that has been here raised.
Certain cell lines have been incorporated into general medical research. A prime example is that of Henrietta Lacks' (1920-1951) cancer cells which became the HeLa line of cells and have been enormously productive, medically speaking, and her memory is now being properly recognised.
It may be that other cells, which in the past have been taken from a source that I would prefer they had not been, have been incorporated into the various research lines which are part of an established data base of genetics.
But as far as I know, the origin of those cell lines is not a fundamental necessity to the development of the product. The cells could have been from anywhere.
The efficacy of the product is not dependent on that issue for its success, is what I am emphasising.
To me, in this particular case, I feel it not necessary for me to make elaborate enquiries in order to free my conscience from any burden. I am content with the words of the apostle, in this instance.
When I was offered treatment by a dentist to strengthen the bone in my jaw, it was he who mentioned that 'donor' tissue (from a cadaver) could be used and I declined and he said he could use proprietary collagen instead.
Once I was injected and no longer aware of my surroundings, he could, for the sake of his own convenience, have used cadaver tissue in my jaw. But I do not feel the necessity to further interrogate him and to demand that he prove to me what he did or did not do. I stated my conscience and I have left it at that.
Looking back with hindsight, I could probably have avoided a final written warning over the matter of a supposed 'abortion' being the source of a sample I was testing, and looking back, it now becomes clear that someone knew my sensitivity and was merely trying to provoke me over it. But I later took voluntary redundancy and got a very generous termination package (thank you to all concerned) and I now reap the reward of a useful pension from the company.
I hope that this helps in the present situation.

I am a Licentiate of the Royal Society of Chemistry (1978) and was given further private training in Molecular Biochemistry when I worked in the Pharmaceutical Industry making products which incorporated radioactive isotopes (for medical research purposes and for cancer treatment).

Undoubtedly the mark of the beast as I’ve heard many of my fellow Christian friends refer to them. There is another aspect also that seemed to be skipped over aside from the aborted fetal tissue(as if that wasn’t bad enough already). These are RNA vaccines, extremely aggressive, and experimental. NONE are currently FDA approved, so at least know that you are indeed part of an experiment if you take one of these. What is it something like 60,000 adverse effects and counting? The only other RNA vaccine that I am currently aware of is the Polio Vaccine and that took many, many years to create and test. These all came out in just over a month or 2. Aside from the fact that they are experimental and dangerous and not even proven to work(the Surgeon General has publicly said they do not stop the spread nor are they guaranteed to keep you from getting it)- well, the situation also brings up many moral and philosophical issues- for example- we were made in the image of God; if you alter your very DNA, are you still of that image? If not what happens when you die? these are the questions you must be prepared to ask yourself along with most importantly doing your due diligence if this is something you decide you want to go through with.


How do opponents of penal substitutionary atonement theory handle Isaiah 53? How do opponents of the penal substitution theory of atonement handle Isaiah 53?
This seems to describe penal substitution quite well:

53:4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:4-6, NIV)

Well I am an opponent of penal substitution and can give an answer that I believe is within the bounds of Eastern Orthodox tradition.

Note the part where the verse says: "yet we considered him punished by God". This phrase implies that it is wrong to consider him punished by God, which is explicitly what penal substitution teaches in the reformed tradition. He voluntarily took our pain; God was not punishing him because he needed some satisfaction. The iniquity was laid upon to accomplish the purpose of transforming man, not of fulfilling some need God had.

Notice that it says "by his wounds we are healed", and not "by his wounds God is satisfied". I personally think this is a very strong argument against substitution theories, because it only talks about Christ's work as healing us, not satisfying God.

My favorite quote to illustrate a more historical perspective of the atonement (as already done by myself here: What is the difference between "ransom theory" and "penal substitution"?) is from Gregory Nazianzus:

  But if the price is offered to the Father, I ask first of all, how? For it was not the Father who held us captive. Why then should be blood of His only begotten Son please the Father, who would not even receive Isaac when he was offered as a whole burnt offering by Abraham, but replaced the human sacrifice with a ram? Is it not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice not because he demanded it or because He felt any need for it, but on account of economy: because man must be sanctified by the humanity of God, and God Himself must deliver us by overcoming the tyrant through His own power

I think the most damaging versions of substitutionary atonement are those that claim Christ's righteousness is a substitute for our own. I think a correct way to explain it is that Christ descended and "took our place" so that we might rise and take his. I think a deeper understanding of "taking our place" lies in understanding it as communion and not as replacement.

To end on a quote that may offend my Protestant brothers and sisters: St. Athanasius of Alexandria once said

  "The Son of God became man, that we might become god"

(https://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis), notice how this view doesn't really fit with a substitutionary view, because we are to actually become like Christ, not just accept his righteousness as a substitution.

Because Isaiah 53:5 does not point towards a penalty from Father period let alone a wrathful one, the word interpreted wrongly as punishment in certain versions due to there paraphrasing influenced by there presupposition toward PSA actually means by definition to discipline, correct,instruct Musar #4148.
And Gods discipline and scourging intended for ligitmate children He loves, delights in and recieves as His own (Heb 12:4-11)is separate from His wrathful punishment which is reserved for His enemies who are appointed to die under wrath as wicked (Nahum 1:2)
Yeshua was not treated by Father as a literal or as if a sinner for He learned obedience by what He suffered(Heb 2:10;5:8-9) even such obedience on the tree(philip 2:8) for our sins.
The same suffering we undergo as participants in Yeshua as we are being sanctified.
Through Gods permissive will and Yeshua volunteering of his foreknowledge and predetermined plan, He allowed himself for our sins to be treated by certain men as if an defiant sinner to be cursed of men on the tree so that through such suffering, Yeshua could learn righteous obedience being tested by Father as an faithful high priest who could sympathize with our weaknesses and to become the pioneer of our salvation through the Spirit to present Himself to Father as an unblemished sacrificial ransom by his innocent shed blood  to atone and redeem(from the enslavement of sin and spiritual death), saving us from under divine wrath by participating in Yeshua by Faith that through His Son God can make the ungodly , just before Him.
Under Gods Soveriegn control, certain men and angels(satan Gen 3:15)were decreed to be instruments to bring about Yeshua's obedience as mortal to present Himself through the Spirit to Father unblemished but Father had no personal involvement in betraying Yeshua over to sinners to be killed. .


Why did early Christians in Acts still go to the Jewish temple every day? In the Acts of the Apostles we find that the early believers were every day visiting the temple and afterwards meeting in each others homes.

  Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47, NIV)

If the Old ceremonial ways of the Old Testament were finished at the death of Christ (or as other conjecture after Pentecost) why did the church still attend temple gatherings?  Was it because they were not fully aware of the full implication of the New Covenant and may have even offered sacrifices? Was it because they just wanted to get together and evangelize their brethren? Was it some mishmash of both reasons plus possibly more?  What was going on in their heads?

In Acts 2:1, it is written,

  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all together with one accord (ὁμοθυμαδὸν).

  καὶ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ἦσαν ἅπαντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό

We see that the first Christians were all together with one accord in the Temple at the time they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4).

Being Pentecost, "there were, dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5), for Pentecost was one of three annual feasts during which men were required to pilgrimmage to the Temple in Jerusalem in order to appear before YHVH (Exo. 23:14-17).

The apostles desired to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with their brothers (cp. Acts 2:14-41).

And, in Acts 2:46, it is written,

  And they, continuing daily with one accord (ὁμοθυμαδὸν) in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to house, ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart.

So, they continued to remain in the Temple, not all day, but rather, during the morning and evening prayers (our 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.) where a gathering of Jews would always be. This crowd may not have been as large as the one at Pentecost (which only lasted one day), but the apostles took advantage of any opportunity to share the Gospel with as many of their brothers as possible. We even see this with Paul who would rush to Jerusalem for a feast in order to share the Gospel (cp. Acts 18:21).

There were not Christians/crestianus; they were mostly Jews (some Gentiles, but mostly Jews) who just as Yeshua (Jesus) did continued to go to Temple and attend synagogue every Shabbat to hear Torah, Acts 15:20-21.


Does Christianity claim itself to be the final revelation from God? Does Christianity claim to be the last true religion that will ever exist, or does it admit the possibility of being supplanted by a new revelation, like Judaism was with Christianity?

Christianity1 doesn't make claims about itself but rather makes claims about Jesus. And those claims are based on the Bible, which records Jesus' own words. So what does Jesus say about being supplanted by a new revelation? He was asked exactly this question - here is His answer:

When the men came to Jesus, they said, ‘John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”’
At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, illnesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind.  So he replied to the messengers, ‘Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.  Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.’

Luke 7:20-23
Furthermore, in another place He specifically says that there is no other way to God than through Him:

Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 14:6
So He's the First Revelation and The Last. As Peter said2, "There is no one else."
1 And here you'd have to specify which flavour of Christianity you're talking about.
2 My paraphrase.

Revelation is the revealed christian life being lived out in a person
The Book of Revelation Chap 21  22  shows this is the fullness of all Revelation
there is no more


Did God create Jesus' soul? This is one of a series of questions I have regarding the Christian notion of the Trinity.  Assuming Jesus soul was created, and that Jesus has a free will of his own, then any God-like attributes Jesus possesses would be the gifts given by a Father to a dutiful Son.  If Jesus soul was not created, then presumably "Jesus" would just be another name for "God", being one and the same identically.  Presumably.  Is there a consistent Trinitarian view on this, or are opinions widely varied?

This was a controversy in the early 1800s and provoked William Huntington to write one of the most spiritual books I ever read (outside of scripture) 'The Soul of Christ' wherein he states :

... divinity is not made, nor created ; much less created out of earth (p5)

where Huntington counters the error of a 'divine soul' saying that no such thing exists and that it is a contradiction in terms.

... if Christ hath not a human soul, every scripture which declares him to be man is absolutely false.

God is the 'Father of spirits' (Heb 12:9). His [Christ's] body was made of the woman's substance. his soul was made by God. His flesh was of the virgin, his human spirit of the Almighty.

Huntington further quotes Jesus himself, saying,

Now is my soul troubled [John 12:27 KJV]

My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death ... [Matt 26:38 KJV]

WH also quotes from the prophets and the prophetic psalms :

thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [Psalm 16:10 KJV]

When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin [Isaiah 53:12 KJV]

I recommend the whole of this very short book, twenty-eight pages. But I have no link, as yet to it. If I find one, I will add it, in due course.

The answer is No.
In order to explain this more completely in a way that makes sense, we have to look at the creation of man in Genesis by God. It says that mankind was created in the image of God? Does this mean that we look like God, have the same facial features, hair color, body style? No, because there are thousands of different features of races across the planet, from fair skinned Skandanavians to Africans and Asians.
We are made in God's image in that mankind is also a tri-une being. 3 in 1. The trinity is one of the most complex concepts to explain in all of Christianity. Every analogy falls short, but here are some that can help.  Travis is one guy, but he is a Husband, a Father and a Son, all at the same time.  Another example is how we have H20 - and it exists in three forms, liquid, ice and vapor, but all still the same element.
Mankind has body, soul and spirit.  The Greek word for soul is "Psyche" where we get Psychology - and is the mind, will and emotions- which make up our personality. This is the same part that animals have. The Spirit is the immortal part, and this Spirit is the part that makes us unique from animals - the part that has a conscience and is accountable for sin, and which lives forever, either in Heaven or Hell.
The Trinity is God the Father, God the son- Jesus and God the Holy Spirit, and it is eternal. Each member of the trinity existed forever and was not created. Jesus was not created by God, nor was the Holy Spirit. The deity of Christ is one of the core- foundational truths of Trinitarian Christianity, and one of the defining points that sets us  apart from denominations like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness which teach that Jesus was created. He is not eternal.
Jesus was fully God and fully man - so yes, he had a soul, or distinct personality, and sense of humor, separate from his brothers, and he is spirit - but the Holy Spirit and Jesus co-existed with God from eternity past- they were not created, nor was their personality, when Jesus was born.
John chapter 1 says "In the beginning was the word- [Logos], and the word was with God, and the word was God."  Jesus is the Logos, the living word.
"All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was light, and the light was the light of men."


Who were the Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices? The passage from the Gospel of Luke 13 has a very curious beginning. We hear about an episode involving Pontius Pilate that is not recounted in any of the other Gospels. It says Pontius Pilate had mingled the blood of some Galileans with their sacrifices. (Luke 13:1-5).

  Luke 13:1-5

  New International Version (NIV)

  13 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the
  Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus
  answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than
  all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you,
  no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those
  eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think
  they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I
  tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
  ’”

Who were the galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices?

There's some historical/tradition information? Any clue?

There is no  Scripture which I can find which sheds any light on this. However, there are several commentaries which do give an explanation. However, we have no way of knowing where they found their information. I have quoted them here for your consideration:

Barnes:

  Whose blood Pilate had mingled ... — That is, while they were sacrificing at Jerusalem, Pilate came suddenly upon them and killed them, and “their” blood was mingled with the blood of the animals that they were slaying for sacrifice.

Clark

  Whose blood Pilate had mingled — This piece of history is not recorded (as far as I can find) by Josephus: however, he states that the Galileans were the most seditious people in the land: they belonged properly to Herod’s jurisdiction; but, as they kept the great feasts at Jerusalem, they probably, by their tumultuous behavior at some one of them, gave Pilate, who was a mortal enemy to Herod, a pretext to fall upon and slay many of them; and thus, perhaps, sacrifice the people to the resentment he had against the prince. Archelaus is represented by Josephus as sending his soldiers into the temple, and slaying 3000 men while they were employed in offering sacrifices.

Guzik

  The Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices: We don’t have a record in secular history about the specific incident mentioned here. But there is a similar incident before the ministry of Jesus, Pilate wanted to build an aqueduct from the Pools of Solomon to the city of Jerusalem. To pay for it, he demanded money from the temple treasury, money that had been dedicated to God — and this outraged the people. When the Jews sent a delegation to beg for their money back, Pilate sent into the crowd soldiers dressed as common people, and at a certain signal they took out daggers and attacked the people  asking for the money.

  This doesn’t seem to be the same incident mentioned here, but it shows how completely consistent it was with the character of Pilate to slaughter some Galilean Jews on their way to sacrifice to the Lord in Jerusalem.

This is one of the most curious details in the life and ministry of Christ Jesus: ‘mingled the Galilean blood....’ This incident could have something to do with a tale I heard or read about that could explain why Pilate gave up Jesus so easily to Phar/Sad demands to crucify Jesus.
The narrative goes like this: Pilate was involved in an assasination attempt to over throw the Caesar. The Pharisees and Saducees knew all the details and Pontus Pilate’s complicity -
The Caesar was Pilate’s father- in- law - if that’s true, he could’ve moved up the food chain from governor to ruler of the Roman Empire- but obviously the Almighty had a different plan for Pilate- Pilate killed himself a few years later ... or maybe months later


Reasons many Christians not reading the Bible both OT and NT? As you can see from my 'autobiography' I am not particularly denominationaly religious but interested. I have read the whole Hebrew Bible all the way through twice and the whole four Canonical gospels all the way through four times. Imagine my surprise when I read that in his 1996 book, I Was Wrong, televangelist Jim Baker admitted that the first time he actually read the Bible all the way through was while he was in prison! Similarly, a Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. Details (www.pewforum.org).

I ask: what do you think are the reasons for many Christians not reading the Bible both OT and NT?

There are likely scores of words which could summarize why many Christians do not read both Testaments with equal dedication and seriousness. They are lazy, indifferent, distracted, worldly, unspiritual, fleshly, uncommitted, ignorant, unschooled, illiterate (biblically), misinformed, spiritually nearsighted, infantile (milk drinkers, spiritually speaking), confused, and on and on.
Perhaps most significant in my opinion is a general lack of appreciation among Christians for the grand sweep of salvation history, from beginning to end. Scripture is, after all, one book, and while the Old Covenant in many ways looks forward to the fulfillment of its many shadows, types, and prophecies (both veiled and unveiled), the New Covenant, though different in many ways from the Old, is exactly that: NEW. The Old Covenant is filled with shadows and symbols; in the New Covenant the substance is Christ, the fulfillment and embodiment of the shadows and symbols. As Jesus said on the night he was betrayed,

"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood" (Luke 22:20).

By implication, Jesus was saying that the blood of the old covenant has been superseded by the new: the very lifeblood of God's Lamb, Jesus.
If many Christians were to read my last few paragraphs, I suggest there would puzzled expressions on the faces of more than a few readers! According to Sue Bohlin, the author of the "Bible Literacy Quiz,"

"Along with an alarming drop in basic literacy and cultural literacy in the United States, researcher George Gallup has discovered that born-again Christians are woefully ignorant of some very basic, very important Bible teachings. According to Gallup, less than half of the born-again community can list five of the Ten Commandments."

I suppose we could blame our lack of biblical savvy on the failure of preachers and teachers, generally, to preach from the Old Testament on a regular and systematic basis. I have a feeling, however, that many congregants would rebel against such preaching if only because they have prejudged the New Testament to be a kinder, gentler testament, and the Old Testament to be a bit too bloody, violent, and incomprehensible.
The primary reason for our lack of biblical savvy is perhaps very simple, and that is we are a generation of Christians who are simply not in love with God's Word. There are too many distractions and entertaining alternatives to Bible reading. According to a new Barna study, however, there is an encouraging trend among Millennial Christians regarding their high view of Scripture. According to summit.org:

The new Barna study, conducted in partnership with the American Bible Society and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, represents one of the largest studies ever conducted on a single generation’s view of the Bible. Three significant trends emerged. And if properly understood, they may inform churches’ efforts to reach, win, baptize, catechize, and disciple America’s newest adults.
The first insight? Practicing Christian millennials maintain a high view of Scripture. As Barna reports, of those young adults who identify as Christians, attend church at least once a month, and who describe their faith as “very important,” 96 percent say the Bible contains everything necessary to know in order to live a meaningful life. The same proportion say the Bible is the “inspired word of God,” and a plurality (46 percent) say they believe Scripture “should be taken literally, word for word.”
Additionally, researchers asked practicing religious millennials where the Bible ranked in their personal hierarchy of moral authority and truth. Of the 71 percent of respondents who said they believe in absolute truth, more named the Bible as their number one source of truth over any other, including church, pastors, and parents.

In light of this encouraging sign, leaders in churches across this country need to channel the respect Millennials have for the authority of God's word into a deeper knowledge of and appreciation for that word, particularly regarding the unity and affinity between the Old- and New Testaments, and why they both play a significant role in shaping our understanding of the Judeo-Christian faith.
Not that there is anything especially remarkable about the Christian denomination with which I am a member, but a leader within my denomination devised a program for Bible reading which has local churches in my denomination (and perhaps other denominations as well, I hope) reading through the Bible in about two years. It's called "91 Weeks with Jesus.". About 1800 members of my local church have signed up for this project, and I'm one of them. Though I've read the Bible from cover to cover a number of times, I am excited to be a part of this commendable effort to instill a love for God's word in the hearts of believers. Only good things can come of it. Of that I am sure.

Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has at times discouraged or even effectively forbidden the laity from reading the Bible. The Tridentine Index of Prohibited Books, published by the Catholic Church in 1564, prohibited the reading of the Bible in vernacular (local) languages without the permission of the local bishop. The Roman Index of Prohibited Books, published by Pope Clement VIII in 1596, contained even more stringent prohibitions on Bible-reading. This was likely a reaction to the publication of unapproved translations of the Bible by Protestant Reformers, which translations were seen as likely to lead the laity astray doctrinally.

Even in the more relaxed atmosphere of today, Catholics tend to read the Bible less than Protestants. The idea is that they will hear the Scriptures read in church, and explained to them by the priests. Many Protestants similarly leave the Bible-reading and Bible-explaining to their pastors at church.

When Christians do read the Bible, they are much more likely to read the New Testament than the Old Testament. One of the main reasons for this is the idea that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law (see, for example, Matthew 5:17; Luke 24:44; Romans 10:4), together with Paul's statement in Romans 3:28 that we are justified by faith apart from the works prescribed by the Law (meaning the Torah, or more loosely the Old Testament as a whole). Since Christians generally think of themselves as no longer being under the Law, they often do not think it is important to read the Old Testament.

Also, many Christians find the Old Testament to be too brutal, or too tedious, for their tastes.

Beyond that, like other people, Christians are busy. Many of them just "never get around to" reading the Bible. Maybe if,  like Jim Bakker, more of them went to prison where they had lots of time on their hands, there would be greater readership of the Bible! :-)


Why are Mormon Temples Ceremonies kept secret from non-Mormons? Even though only priests were allowed into the Temple in the Old Testament, all of the ceremonies and furnishings were described in great detail in the Old Testament for anyone, Jew or Gentile alike, to read and understand.

However the details of Mormon Temple Ceremonies are kept secret, and, in fact, non-Mormons are prevented from even entering Mormon Temples. The LDS website says

  You can talk about what the interior of the temple looks like, and you can freely share the feelings you have in the temple. However, temple covenants and ordinances, including the words used, are too sacred to be discussed in detail outside the temple. By avoiding discussion of these sacred things outside the temple, we protect them from mocking, ridicule, or disrespect. Do not be casual when talking about your experiences in the temple. (lds.org)

What is the reason for keep the ceremonies secret? Why are they considered 'too sacred'?

There seems to be two questions here.  First, "why are LDS temple ceremonies kept secret, seeing as how Old Testament temple ceremonies were not?"

The simple answer is that the Old Testament temples operated under the Law of Moses and were administered by the Levitical priesthood, whereas modern temples operate under the Law of the Gospel and are administered by the Melchizedek priesthood, which necessarily means that things will work differently.  (See Hebrews chapter 7, particularly verse 12.)  Therefore, it's unreasonable to expect that the Old Testament temple ceremonies--many of which had to do with matters of blood sacrifice and similar rituals of the Law of Moses, which were fulfilled in Christ--should be perpetuated in modern temples.

Second, the slightly broader question, "why are LDS temple ceremonies kept secret at all?"

The answer to this is somewhat subtle, and some people will probably find it unsatisfying, but the Church does not hold them to be secret at all, but rather it considers them sacred.

The value of a secret is exclusivity.  The less people who know about a secret, the greater the power it confers upon those who know it.  Throughout history, people have been known to go to great lengths to keep secrets, up to and including committing murder to prevent (or retaliate for) the sharing of a secret.

By contrast, the Latter-Day Saints do not see the temple ceremonies as something secret and exclusive at all, but rather as something that is highly sacred.  The church has spent a great deal of effort, time and money in both building temples throughout the world, and sending missionaries to teach people the Gospel, with the explicit intended goal of bringing them to the temple.  This is the exact opposite of a secret: it is something that the Latter-Day Saints put a great deal of work into sharing as broadly as possible!

But because these matters are viewed as sacred and highly spiritual, that sharing is done within strict boundaries: only people with a certain degree of spiritual preparation are allowed to participate.  This is quite in harmony with Paul's teaching on the Lord's Supper:

  1 Corinthians 11:27-29

  27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the
  Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

  28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread,
  and drink of that cup.

  29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
  damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

As the purpose of the temple ceremonies is to help people along the path to salvation, and not to help condemn them, the church requires that certain standards of preparation and worthiness be met before participating in these sacred ceremonies.

I think there's a much simpler answer. If you read the old or new testament and read about the temple you will find that only certain individuals were allowed in those buildings.

Just think of how secret the items in the Ark of the Covenant were, The stuff inside of it was so secret the penalty for even touching the box that held the items was instant death!


What is the Biblical basis for multiple judgments after death? I recently heard a talk on the notion of "multiple judgments"; the idea is one is initially judged simply on the fact of their salvation - did that person put their life in Christ's hands and accept Him as savior. If yes, that person is accepted into Heaven. If no, that person is cast off.

Then, I heard of more judgments after this - essentially, being judged on what one "accomplished" based on what they had available. This seems to contradict the idea in Ephesians 2:8 of faith saving someone, not works:

  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

There may have been more judgments that I heard, but I was so perplexed by this and didn't recall anything else.

My question is: Besides the initial judgement of salvation, what is the Biblical basis for multiple judgments, and are those judgments based on "merit" or "good works"?

It sounds like you're referring to the White Throne Judgment and the Bema Seat Judgment, which are typically believed to be different judgments by Evangelical Protestants.

The White Throne Judgment is described in Revelation 20:11-15.  This, to the traditions that believe in the two judgments, is the judgment that everyone faces, where you are judged to be innocent or guilty; whether you will be cast into the eternal lake of fire, or accepted into Heaven.

  Revelation 11-15: (KJV) 11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled
  away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead,
  small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and
  another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were
  judged out of those things which were written in the books, according
  to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and
  death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were
  judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were
  cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever
  was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of
  fire.

The Bema Seat Judgment, on the other hand, is believed to be the judgment of rewards to those who are saved, who have in essence, "made it through" the White Throne judgment.  It's based on several scriptures scattered throughout the Bible.

There's an article that describes it here, with Scripture references.  The page has a copyright notice, so I won't copy sections of it, rather a short summary follows:

Several passages in Scripture indicate that we will receive rewards for faithful service.
 - 1 Thessalonians 2:19-20
 - Revelation 22:12
 - Romans 14:10-11
 - 1 Corinthians 3:11-15
 - 2 Corinthians. 5:9-10
 - 1 John 2:28
 - Revelation 3:11-12

Both Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:9 reference a "judgment seat", which is a translation of the Greek word "Bema".  There are arguments from some circles that this term has connotations of rewards coming to athletes competing for a prize.  The article I referenced above states it this way.  Others argue that these explanations are extra-Biblical and contradictory.

Whether or not there are separate judgments is something that's been debated for centuries.  I won't put my own personal beliefs here, as they are flavored heavily by the doctrines I've been immersed in.

However, I will say that from an evangelical protestant perspective, the doctrine  of two separate judgments does reconcile otherwise contradictory passages.

First, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone apart from works would indicate that our good works do absolutely nothing to earn us salvation. (The White Throne Judgment)
Second, we are told in various places in Scripture that we will be judged by our works, and will be rewarded.  If the core doctrine of salvation by faith alone, apart from works is true, then these judgments and rewards must be something other than salvation.

There is the promise of crowns in Heaven (Rev. 3:11, Matt. 6:2, Rev. 4:4)
There is the promise of Heavenly treasure (Matt. 6:20, 1 Pet. 1:4)
There are promises of Responsibility, Authority, and inheritance of God's possessions. (Matt. 19:28; 24:45-47; 25:21, 23; Lk. 19:17-19; 22:29-30; Rev. 2:26).

As to whether the doctrine of two judgments is Biblical depends on the definition of "Biblical".  Scripture does not come out and state directly that there are two judgments, so in that regard, it might be considered "extra-Biblical".  On the other hand, there is a bit of Biblical support for the doctrine.  In that regards, it's as Biblical as the doctrine of the Trinity, and other doctrines not explicitly stated in Scripture.

It is very biblical that the Bride of Christ will be judged differently.  Perhaps dissecting this scripture in a plain format would help you to understand.

  And I saw thrones and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them (Revelation 20:4, NKJV)

This verse is talking about the those that were raptured pre-tribulation (i.e. the Bride of Christ). They had already been judged at this time because the Bible says that he would judge every man.  However, at this time we are judges, just as Jesus promised and Paul spoke about.

How do I know that it is not the sinners?  Well, they don't get the chance to judge.
How do I know it's not those who were in the tribulation? The Bible says further in verse 4 "Then I saw the souls who were beheaded" .

So, who are the judges? If it is not those that were in the tribulation and if it is not those that are sinners, who is it? It is us, the Bride of Christ.


What did Jesus mean by 'take up your cross and follow me'? What exactly did Jesus mean when He said, “Take up your cross and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23).

Does it mean we should carry our burdens in life, or what?

What Jesus means is to crucify our "old man" ie. our flesh. Paul talks about this.

  That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
  Eph 4:22 (KJV)

We are to crucify (put off) the old man.

To take up your cross and follow Jesus was a command to do exactly that. Had he been obeyed, there would have been twelve (or at least eleven (minus Judas)) more crosses on the hill that day. Ultimately, they did not obey...they abandoned him rather than be crucified with him.

To take it out of its context and apply it to modern America, absent of persecution, it loses the power of it. When Jesus said this, there was not a single person who heard him say it that did not know what a cross was or why it was used. There was nothing figurative or allegorical about the statement. They were very familiar with it exactly as it was said!

For application for today, if someone ever comes to you and demands that you deny Christ or die...then you need to "deny yourself, take up your cross and follow him," even to the death. If you are not willing to do this, if you would rather deny him and save your life, then you are not worthy of him (his words not mine).

Ultimately, the disciples were not worthy of him, and, in their unregenerated state, could not be his followers. Thankfully, after his death and subsequent resurrection, they were converted and became, "Christians" and stood up publically to proclaim that which previously they had been afraid to do.  At that point, after conversion, they did indeed take up their cross and follow him...and almost all of them died for it (remember their conversation about who was worthy to sit next to him on the throne? He asked them, "are you able to be baptized with the baptism that I am to be baptized with?" referring to his death. They said yes, but they proved that they were not.

The references of Paul telling a Christian to put off the old man, if you look at the context, are all past tense (as something that has already happened). The Ephesians 4:22 verse is often taken out of its context to say it is something we need to do. But it reads like this, beginning 4:20:

"But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: (20-21)"

What did they learn as truth? We don't have to wonder Verses 22-24 tell us, they say:

That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

It is past tense language. This is not an admonition to do anything, it is a reminder of what has already been done. He goes on in the passage to talk about the fact that we have the power to live a certain way based on the fact that the old man is dead already.


According to Catholicism, who is the Wisdom being described in Proverbs 8:22–36? Proverbs 8:22–36 states the following:

  22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,before his deeds of old;

  23 I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be.

  24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth, when there were no springs overflowing with water;

  25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,

  26 before he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth.

  27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

  28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,

  29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

  30 Then I was constantly at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,

  31 rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.

  32 “Now then, my children, listen to me; blessed are those who keep my ways.

  33 Listen to my instruction and be wise; do not disregard it.

  34 Blessed are those who listen to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at my doorway.

  35 For those who find me find life and receive favor from the LORD.

  36 But those who fail to find me harm themselves; all who hate me love death.”

My question is, who is the Wisdom described here? It seems that God created this being and it was present with Him before creation time began?

I'm looking for a Catholic perspective.

Catholic theologians have consistently identified "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 as the Christ.  For example, we find a recent example in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:

The personification of Wisdom in the OT prepares for the revelation of the Trinity in the NT.  In particular, this theme reaches its full development when Jesus is revealed as the eternal Son of God.  Not only is Christ the incarnation of God's wisdom (1 Cor 1:24), but he was present with God before the foundation of the world. (commentary on 8:22–31)

And again:

The passage is a prophecy of the Incarnation, meaning the Lord Jesus was created of the Virgin for the purpose of redeeming the works of the Father.  Thus, the flesh of Christ is for the sake of created things, yet his divinity existed before them. (commentary on 8:22)

This understanding goes back to the early church.  Justin Martyr connects Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22–24 to Christ in his Dialogue with Trypho, 129, and the Apostolic Constitutions connects the creation of wisdom with the incarnation of Christ:

Thou hast also appointed festivals for the rejoicing of our souls, that we might come into the remembrance of that wisdom which was created by Thee; how He submitted to be made of a woman on our account (7.2.36)

Ambrose is pretty unequivocal:

Hereby we are brought to understand that the prophecy of the Incarnation, The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works, (Proverbs 8:22) means that the Lord Jesus was created of the Virgin for the redeeming of the Father's works. Truly, we cannot doubt that this is spoken of the mystery of the Incarnation. (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 3.7.46)

This text was a key battleground in the Arian controversy, so we find Athanasius repeatedly making the connection between Wisdom and Christ:

For nothing new was created in woman, save the Lord's body, born of the Virgin Mary without intercourse, as also it says in the Proverbs in the person of Jesus: 'The Lord created me, a beginning of His ways for His works' (Proverbs 8:22). (Statement of Faith 3.4)

Bede writes in his commentary on Proverbs:

In another translation, this passage begins, "The Lord created me at the beginning of his ways in his works." The fathers understand this saying to be about the Lord's incarnation. (1.8.22–30 (Latin only))

We can also point to the implicit connection made between Proverbs 8 and Christ in Aquinas, Summa, First Part, 46.1.
Returning to the 20th century, we find a helpful collection/summary of this tradition in Haydock's commentary:

Some explain this [Proverbs 8:1] of the light which is communicated to men; but the Fathers apply it to Jesus Christ, some of the expressions regarding his divinity, and others his human nature. [...]
As Christ was with God, equal to him in eternity.  Jo. i.  Sept. "created," which many of the Fathers explain of the word incarnate, (see Corn. a Lapide.  Bossuet) or he hath "placed me," (S. Athan. iii. con. Arian.  Euseb.) a pattern of all virtues. [...]
Wisdom, or Jesus Christ, is our salvation, happiness, and life. (Commentary on Proverbs 8)

Thus we see that, in addition to other ancient and modern thinkers, some of the most respected theologians in Catholicism (Ambrose, Athanasius, Bede, and Aquinas are all Doctors of the Church), considered "Wisdom" of Proverbs 8:22ff. as referring to Christ.

According to Catholicism, who is the Wisdom being described in Proverbs 8:22–36?

Three question need to be answered first to better clarity;

Is Wisdom created? YES!, if Wisdom is created it is not Jesus nor the Holy Spirit.
Is Wisdom a a created Spirit? Yes!, it is the spirit that sits on God Throne as Solomon described in his prayer.
Is the spirit of created Wisdom comes as a form of Anointing?Yes, St.Montfort teaches that Wisdom is the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Answer

The most direct way of linking the Wisdom to Mary is the title Mother of the Eucharist, Why? Proverbs9:1-6 describes the Wisdom had prepared a house or a Church with a strong foundation of Seven Columns/Pillars and calling everyone to celebrate a Feast and eat the meat and wine that had been prepare at the table for them to have life.

This passages confirmed Mary as the type of a strong Church that the Holy Spirit has prepared and from Her united with he Holy Spirit had prepared what Jesus later on teaches as the "Holy Eucharist" that will give eternal life to all. John Gospel John6:53-55

  Wisdom has built her house,
  she has set up her seven columns;

  she has dressed her meat, mixed her wine, yes, she has spread her table.

  She has sent out her maidens; she calls from the heights out over the city: “Let whoever is simple turn in here; To the one who lacks understanding,

  she says, Come, eat of my food, and drink of the wine I have mixed!

  Forsake foolishness that you may live; advance in the way of understanding.”

Now, let us connect the wordings of Wisdom9:1-6 to St.Louis De Monfort teaching;

  she has dressed her meat, mixed her wine, yes, she has spread her table...and she says, Come, eat of my food, and drink of the wine I have mixed! Does this words pre-figured the Holy Eucharist that the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit had prepared and sanctified? And where does the Holy Eucharist comes from? It comes from the Blessed Virgin Mary's Pure & Immaculate Flesh.

St.Montfort describes this with this words;

  Together with the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary produced the greatest thing that was or  ever will be: a God-Man.https://sdbvnew.weebly.com/totus-tuus.html

This articles titled "Mary and the Eucharist" reflected on Mary in comparison to the monstrance that hold the Holy Eucharist as the Pure Womb of Mary.

  On this day, I was presented with a monstrance I had never seen before. It opened up for me the mystery of Mary symbolically and visually in a way I had never experienced. The monstrance was an Image of Our Lady and the Divine Host was positioned within her womb. The message was profound. The Jesus who is truly present in the Holy Eucharist is the same Jesus who lived in the womb of that Holy Virgin for nine months.

  Jesus told the disciples, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you" (John 6:53 ff). We who receive the bread of angels, who have been invited to the Eucharistic Feast, now have His Divine life within us. We spiritually bring Christ into a world waiting to be reborn. We are called to become living monstrances, repositories of the Bread of life for others. Mary is the model who shows us the way.

https://www.catholic.org/mary/maryeu.php

How about the Seven Columns, what does it pertains?

  In summary, we might say that the seven pillars of wisdom are (1) counsel, (2) knowledge, (3) understanding, (4) might or strength, (5) power or authority, (6) riches and (7) honor. These are seven characteristics of wisdom.

  Proverbs 8:14, "Counsel is mine and sound the wisdom"

  Proverbs 8:12, "Wisdom dwells with prudence and finds out knowledge."

  Proverbs 8:14B, "I am understanding, power is mine."

  Proverbs 8:18, "Riches and honor are with me."

  Proverbs 14:24, "The crown of the wise is their riches."

  Proverbs 15:23, "The reverential fear of YHWH is the instruction of wisdom. And before honor is humility."

The Seven Columns or Seven Pillars correspond to the Sevenfold Gifts of the Holy Spirit. The succeeding verse in Proverbs9:1-6 speaks of "she has dressed her meat, mixed her wine, yes, she has spread her table" is a pre-figurement of the Holy Eucharist prepared by the Holy Spirit together with the Lady Wisdom as Wisdom is personified as a Woman.

Looking at the numerous verses pointing to Mary and the Eucharist and the Sevenfold Gifts or graces that the Holy Eucharist gives to every believers who will accept the invitation of the Wisdom. And this Wisdom as Proverbs8:22 had described as;

  22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,before his deeds of old;

  23 I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be.

To understand this phrase, Sis.Ingga had a very powerful talks narrated beautifully St.Faustina's revelation;

  "Mercy is the flower of Love, in Love it is conceived and in deeds it is revealed".

  Sr. Inga Kvassayová speaks about "God's Greatest Desire" on January 22, 2016.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob6cs21Xlm0

How can this simple phrase reveals the identification of the Wisdom and mystery behind Proverbs8:22-23?

The Wisdom in Proverbs8:22 is a "Created Spirit" that sits on God's Throne as Solomon stated in his prayer in the Book of Wisdom; "give me Wisdom that sits on God's Throne"

This takes a deep meditation on how God immediately created a soul at the moment of conception as Catholic Church teaches in CCC366.

The question is, when God the Father and the Begotten Son conceived a Love for the chosen Woman in eternity before the creation time begins, what is immediately produced or created? It cannot be a soul as soul not glorified cannot enter the Glorious Presence of God in eternity.What God immediately produced or created is a "spirit" the "Spirit of Created Wisdom" that God decreed to be the Anointing of Mary's soul as the Created Immaculate Conception.

Two names given by God the Father in Heaven the Holy Name of Jesus & Mary. Jesus anointing was the Holy Spirit while Mary's anointing is the "spirit of Created Wisdom". The "spirit of Created Wisdom" is the spirit who witness God's creation in the beginning and knows the Divine Plan of God from alpha to omega.

As the meaning of Mary signifies Her God given mission;

  Richard of St. Laurence states "there is not such powerful help in any name, nor is there any other name given to men, after that of Jesus, from which so much salvation is poured forth upon men as from the name of Mary." He continues, "that the devout invocation of this sweet and holy name leads to the acquisition of superabundant graces in this life, and a very high degree of glory in the next."http://www.themostholyrosary.com/appendix8.htm

This reflections is clearly seen in the teaching of St.Maximillian Kolbe when he attributed the Holy Spirit as the Uncreated Immaculate Conception and Mary as the Created Immaculate Conception. (p.50-64 St.Kolbe's teaching on the Fr.Gaitley book 33 Days to Morning Glory.)


How did Peter recognize Elijah and Moses? Matthew 17:3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah,
  talking with Jesus.

  4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you
  wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one
  for Elijah.”

I am wondering how Peter recognized that the men were Elijah and Moses?

Photographs and portraits didn't exist back in those days. If they did, Peter being a fisherman wouldn't have been to school to see them.

And I doubt Moses and Elijah began their conversation by saying - "Hello Jesus, I am Elijah and this is my buddy Moses."

So how would Peter know it was Elijah standing there?

Short Answer: We don't know.

Some possibilities:

There was some sort of heavenly announcement, similar to the voice of the Father at Jesus' baptism (reference)
Jesus explained it to them, as He was accustomed to having to do for them.  (Keep in mind that there is a lot of stuff that wasn't recorded in Scripture!) (reference)
They recognized it by divine illumination, similar to Peter's recognition of who Jesus really was (reference)
Prior to Peter referencing them by name, it says (in verse 3) that Jesus was talking with them.  Perhaps Jesus called them by name and Peter overheard.

My money is on the last one, since that's the only one that draws clues from the passage itself, but as I said, we really don't know for sure.

Mostly I agree with Jas 3.1. Let me add that Elijah did have a rather distinctive appearance -- see 2 King 1:8. That wouldn't be enough for a positive identification, but it would be a clue. Life if you saw someone wearing a red cape and blue tights with a big "S" on his chest, you might well say, "Are you supposed to be Superman?"

It's possible that they had other physical descriptions that gave them a clue.

Peter wasn't an educated man but he would have been taught from scripture in the synagogues.


Why did the slave girl at the gate stop Peter but not John? At the time when Jesus' trial was to commence before the High priest, John readily went inside the courtyard because he knew the high priest well, whereas Peter was relatively unknown in the place. Yet Peter was stopped at the gate and John was not.

  John 18:15-17 Simon Peter and another disciple followed them as they brought Jesus to Annas. (Now the other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, and he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard.) But Simon Peter was left standing outside by the door. So the other disciple who was acquainted with the high priest came out and spoke to the slave girl who watched the door, and brought Peter inside. The girl who was the doorkeeper said to Peter, “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” He replied, “I am not.”

The fact that the slave girl allowed John inside and not Peter is a bit puzzling. If John was well known to the High priest, then how is that they did not know that he was Jesus' disciple? What could be the rational reason, that they allowed John inside and not Peter?

Bible tells that as soon as Jesus was arrested, all His disciples fled and went into hiding. So there was this possibility that whoever known to be close to Jesus would be arrested or tried like Jesus.

Matt. 26:56 But this has happened so that the scriptures of the prophets would be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

So there could be two possibilities. First: Peter was reluctant to enter inside lest he might be recognised by the people to be disciple of Jesus and land in trouble just like Jesus. Second: Peter was stopped because he was an unknown person trying to enter into a sensitive area.
In case of the “other disciple”: Like the Beloved Disciple, this other disciple is unnamed, closely associated with Peter and characterized as having special knowledge, wanted Peter to come inside to witness the trial of Jesus. Note that John says that this other disciple “knew the high priest and went into the courtyard with Jesus” indicating that in the courtyard this other disciple was not known to be a close disciple of Jesus or else he would have been in the same danger as other disciples.
Gill's commentary says:

If this Apostle is thought to be  John, because he frequently speaks of himself in Gospel of John, then he is supposed to be known to the high priest, by carrying fish to his house, and selling it to him; so Nonnus says, he was known from his fishing trade and it is not probable that he was known, or could be known by the high priest, so as to have any intimacy with him; nor is it likely that he, being a Galilaean, would venture in; he was discoverable by his speech, and would have been in equal danger with Peter.
Or possibility is that this desciple was some other disciples of Christ, who had not openly professed him; one of the chief rulers that believed in him, but, for fear of the Pharisees, had not confessed him; or it may be Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, or the man at whose house Christ had eaten the passover. In the Syriac version he is called one of the other disciples; not of the twelve, but others.

Adam Clarke in his commentary on the bible states that:

For this “another disciple”, there are many conjectures who this disciple was: Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Nonnus, Lyra, Erasmus, Piscator, and others, say it was John.

Clarke however further says that:

“It is true John frequently mentions himself in the third person; but then he has always, whom Jesus loved, as in Joh 13:23; Joh 19:26; Joh 21:7, Joh 21:20, except in John 19:35, where he has plainly pointed out himself as writer of this Gospel. So in this instance verse, he has mentioned no circumstance by which that disciple may be known to be John.

Conclusion: So Peter was stopped either because he was an unknown person entering the sensitive area or Peter was reluctant to go inside courtyard out of fear that he might be recognised, yet his love for his master brought him till the gate.
Whereas the other disciple, if he is John the apostle, was either not known in the courtyard to be close disciple of Jesus as Gill,s commentary suggest or he was brave enough to face any danger unlike Peter or this other disciple was not from the twelve apostles.

The disciple in John 18:16 is Andrew not John.  People from early times until now have played fast-and-loose with tradition.

The context of all the Gospels are a context for this.  First Andrew was a follower of John the Baptist, then Jesus the Messiah.  He is known by the High Priest Caiaphas, for ill or good, because of the context- John the Baptist.

Andrew was always close to Peter which is why Peter speaks to him so often, i.e. at the supper in John, 13, as he lay on Jesus' breast, etc.  Also, John.21:24- "… what about him."  Peter's brother.


How does the Catholic church distinguish between the human soul and spirit? I see questions about the creation of the human soul, and the soul's "infusion" into the body. But the Bible considers a human being to "have" three parts or concepts: spirit, soul, and body. How does the Catholic church regard the relationship between these three concepts?

In the bible we read that God breathed "the breath of life" into Adam, and he "became" a living soul. Elsewhere we read that at death a human's spirit "returns to God, who gave it", and Paul says that the human spirit is "dead" until regeneration takes place.

A good answer will reference official Catholic teaching on the meaning of the bible passages and the nature of (tri-partite?) humans as spirit, body, and soul. If there is no official position on some point, the view of church teachers is requested.

Bible Passages from WEB (World English Bible) -- emphasis and [] mine

  (Gen 2:7 [WEB])
  Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath [spirit?] of life; and man became a living soul.

  (Eccl 12:7 [WEB])
  and the dust [body] returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

  (Rom 8:10 [WEB])
  If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness. [spirit was dead, but now lives?]

Regarding "spirit", the New Catholic Encyclopedia states:

  For those of the Christian tradition, spirit is always personal and subjective, and all other
  manifestations of spirit can be reduced to their source in
  the person. Within this tradition, the radical and essential
  manifestation of spirit has been variously singled out as:
  creative activity, self-consciousness, interiority or subjectivity, intelligence, reason, knowledge of universals,
  love, freedom, and communication (dialogue). These are
  activities by which the presence of spirit may be known,
  and they furnish a clue to the nature of spirit in itself as
  a form of subsistent being.

  Christian thought also recognizes three main kinds
  of spirit: (1) the human soul, incomplete in its mode of
  subsisting and extrinsically dependent on the body; (2)
  pure finite spirit, i.e., the angel, perfectly subsisting and
  independent of matter; and (3) Absolute Spirit, or God,
  infinite, utterly pure, and fully actual being (subsistent
  existence) without any limitation. Man’s primary apprehension of these forms of spirit is gained through self-
  knowledge. The spiritual being most proportionate to his
  way of knowing is his own soul, manifesting its nature
  through activities that are immediately present to his consciousness. His knowledge of other spiritual realities is
  in turn based on such knowledge (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, C. gent. 3.46).

So, human beings, because have body, and the soul is the form of the body (e.g. here), have souls. The soul is the spirit.

Angels, it seems, have no soul because have no body. In effect, the encyclopedia states regarding angels:

  The Church has defined as dogma that besides the visible world God also created
  a kingdom of invisible spirits, called angels, and that He
  created them before the creation of the world (Lateran Council IV, 1215, ch. 1, H. Denzinger Enchiridion symbolorum [Freiburg 1963] 800; repeated at Vatican Council I, 1870, ibid. 3002; cf., earlier, the Nicene Creed of 25, ibid. )

Same seems to apply to God. Being immaterial, It has spirit, but no soul.

PS: unless the dogma that the soul is the form of the body refers to human souls only, it might be possible for angels to have another form of soul. I haven't found a definitive teaching on this.

The best example is Mary's Magnificat

And Mary said:

  “My soul magnifies or glorifies the Lord
      and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,...(Luke1:46-47)

Mary's humanity of living a prayerful life of humility,charity,poverty & obedience "magnifies" the image & likeness of God imprinted on every created soul.

  " And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.."(Genesis1:26)

and by stating that Her "spirit" are the one praising or rejoicing and not the soul is fulfilling the Father's command;

  John 4:24 King James Version (KJV)
  24 "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

To answer your additional question on the Catholic Teaching on the body,soul and spirit.

Catholic Church teaches that the soul is the form of the body and therefore the life of the human person is composed of body & soul at the moment of conception.

  365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

The Catholic Church does not teaches that when God breathe into Adam nostrils, God breathe in a soul to Adam, as it will contradict it's teaching on CCC366 that soul is "immediately created at the moment of conception" and stated that the unity of soul and body is profound.

When God created the body of Adam it will be wise to consider that the soul was immediately created too to give the body of Adam a human formed and it will harmonized the definition stated in CCC365.

When God breathe into Adam nostrils, God breathe in Divine Life or Sanctifying Grace to give Adam the ability to commune and established friendship with God.

We can validate this understanding when Adam & Eve fall as they had suffered death of their soul by losing the sanctifying grace and friendship with God.

The Catholic Church teaches that thru the Sacraments of Baptism "sanctifying grace" will be pour in to the soul to cleanse it of original sin as a gift and thru Sacraments of Baptism and become adoptive sons of the Father. The relationship to God is restored back and the soul thru sanctifying grace can commune again to God.

In closing, going back to Adam when God created him before breathing in to his nostril the Divine Life/ Sanctiying Grace was already compose of body & soul. But a soul who had no sanctifying grace is not a Living Soul as "sanctification" is the one who gives life to the soul.

  CCC1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

  CCC1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48

So, the one infused to our soul is the "sanctifying grace" to make us participates in the life of God and it is an aid for us to live and embraced a Trinitarian Life like Mary revealed in the Mystery of the Annunciation.

The Blessed Virgin Mary at the Annunciation, received first the Will of the Father and the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" Her and only then the Logos is formed in Her Most Pure Womb.

So, Mary is the first to embraced the Trinitarian Life, as a "beloved daughter of the Abba Father" the "beloved Mother of Jesus Christ" and lastly the "beloved Spouse of the Holy Spirit."

In parallel conclusion the Breathing of Life is synonymous to Jesus Breathing in the Holy Spirit to the Apostles after His resurrection.

  "When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit."(John20:22)

So, in reality the spirit that comes from God as a gift brings life to the soul. The spirit animates the soul and the soul animates the body. And in the end when we die our soul will face the judgment of God and the spirit/sanctifying grace that God poured into us thru Sacraments of Baptism will return back to God. If we follow what Jesus teaches in the Gospel our soul will be glorified but if we follow the ways of wickedness our soul will go to hell. Fortunately, the Catholic Church teaches purgatory as only few able to enters the narrow path of perfection like the Saints & Martyrs.
Since nothing defiled shall enter the Kingdom of God, we as Catholic believe that our imperfection or venial sins not mortal sins will be cleanse in purgatory and the cleansing of our soul will be aided by the prayers & supplications of all the people praying for us.


Jesus' Brothers (Matthew 12:46) What exactly did Matthew mean when he is talking about Jesus' brothers in Matthew 12:46? From Matthew 12:49, its clear that he didn't mean Jesus' disciples as his brothers. So who are the Jesus' brothers mentioned there?

In Protestant Christianity, it is understood that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus, but not after.

  24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord
  commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had
  given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.  Matthew 1:24-25
  ESV

After the birth of Jesus, then, Joseph and Mary were like any other married couple and would have likely had other children.

Paul refers to someone named "James" whom he refers to as "the Lord's brother".

  But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.  Galatians 1:19 ESV

Later in Matthew, Jesus arrives in Nazareth, and he is rejected there because that is where he grew up, and people refused to believe he was anything special.  They specifically say that we know his father (who was actually only his stepfather), his mother Mary, and four named brothers.

  Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And
  are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things? Matthew 13:55-56 ESV

So, Jesus appears to have had four brothers, namely James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.  It also indicates that Jesus had sisters, but it does not give a specific number.

The "brothers" mentioned in that context could be referencing to his cousin brothers. The word "brothers" in the Gospels is ambiguous. The Bible does not explicitly state that Jesus had brothers(in the absolute sense).


When did the word "Catholic" become a proper noun? After reading "At what point did the Roman See start self-identifying as the Catholic Church?" on this site I enjoyed a bit of research into the etymology and meaning of the word "Catholic," and as part of that research read both the article "Yeast," by Jesuit Walter Ong and "'Catholic' Doesn't Mean What You Think It Does" by Daniel Horan.  It has led me to a question.

The word "Catholic" appears to have originally been an adjective, describing the nature of the Kingdom of God on the earth.  I noted its use by Ignatius of Antioch, but though it's easy to assume he only used it as an adjective, it's difficult to discern whether his use was specifically that of an adjective or if the church had already adopted the term as a proper noun.

When, at least for practical purposes, did the word come to be used as a proper noun, identifying any one or more specific organizations?

I've been watching this question for a few days now and decided that today I would hazard a Wikipedia-fueled attempt at finding a plausible answer. Here goes...

The word "Catholic" in reference to a specific organization seemed to be originally used to distinguish the Church of God from the churches of heretics. The earliest form of this use I found was from the Catechetical Lectures of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, which he delivered around 350 A.D. He says:

  But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly Acts 19:14), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to you now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church; that you may avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which you were regenerated.

Now, the use of the word "catholic" here can still technically be translated as "universal" given that the churches he referenced followed heretical teachings and are suggested in this passage to not have been regarded as true organizations with the mission of following Christ. However, the word is still making a clear distinction between two groups here.

Another instance of the word "Catholic" being used in a distinguishing fashion is in the Edict of Thessalonica, published during the reign of Emperor Theodosius I:

  We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches.

Here is probably the most blatant use of "Catholic" as a proper noun per se, as the word "title" is specifically used to define a "Catholic Christian."

In conclusion, it seems that the word "Catholic" was originally used as a proper noun to distinguish the original Church from heretical sects. Technically, I as a Protestant am a heretic in the Catholic understanding, so such a usage is still accurate in that sense and conveys similar meaning.

Catechetical Lecture from New Advent

Edict of Thessalonica translation

As far as I can tell, the noun "Catholic" (as opposed to the adjective) has never been used in English to refer to a particular organization.  As a noun, "Catholic" has always referred to a person belonging to a church that claims to be or is identified as Catholic (most commonly, but not necessarily, the Roman Catholic Church).

The earliest citation for this form appearing in the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary dates to around 1425.  It appears in the ninth book of Andrew of Wyntoun's Ðe orygynale cronykil of Scotland:

  He was a constant Catholike All Lollard he hatyt and Heretike.

Of course, the word "Catholic" entered English through other languages (ultimately Greek, but via Latin and French).  Some form of it may have been used as a noun in the sense you describe in those languages, or in other languages that borrowed it before English did.


How did the "dubia cardinals" accuse and respond to Pope Francis's «Amoris Lætitia»? How did the "dubia cardinals" accuse and respond to Pope Francis's Amoris Lætitia?

In September 2016, four cardinals, with the support of many other clerics, questioned the orthodoxy of Francis's document on marriage and the family, Amoris Lætitia, in the form of five dubia ("doubts"):

  It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio ["in a marital way"]?
  After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
  After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
  After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
  After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

(my emphases)

Briefly, they question if Francis supports

Communion for adulterous couples?
moral relativism?
living in sin?
there not being intrinsically evil acts?(e.g., homosexual acts, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, etc.)
private interpretation of moral norms?

After years of Francis refusing to address these dubia, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and four bishops issued the Declaration of the Truths relating to some of the most common Errors in the Life of the Church of our Time on May 31, 2019, which reiterates Catholic teaching on the

Fundamentals of Faith (#1-2)
Creed (#3-11)
Law of God (#12-29)
Sacraments (#30-40)

in 40 brief points (cf. their accompanying explanatory note).

For example, the Declaration of the Truths says, in response to dubia number

37. By virtue of the will of Christ and the unchangeable Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who are in a public state of objectively grave sin, and sacramental absolution may not be given to those who express their unwillingness to conform to Divine law, even if their unwillingness pertains only to a single grave matter (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 4; Pope John Paul II, Message to the Major Penitentiary Cardinal William W.  Baum, on March 22, 1996).
12. A justified person has the sufficient strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the Divine law, since all of the commandments of God are possible for the justified. God’s grace, when it justifies the sinner, does of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin (see Council of Trent, sess. 6, Decree on Justification, c. 11; c. 13).
22. Anyone, husband or wife, who has obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom he or she is validly married, and has contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of his legitimate spouse, and who lives in a marital way with the civil partner, and who chooses to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of the act and with full consent of the will to that act, is in a state of mortal sin and therefore can not receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity. Therefore, these Christians, unless they are living as “brother and sister,” cannot receive Holy Communion (see John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).
15. “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God, which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium vitae, 62).  There are moral principles and moral truths contained in Divine revelation and in the natural law which include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid certain kinds of action, inasmuch as these kinds of action are always gravely unlawful on account of their object. Hence, the opinion is wrong that says that a good intention or a good consequence is or can ever be sufficient to justify the commission of such kinds of action (see Council of Trent, sess. 6 de iustificatione, c. 15; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17; Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 80).
20. By natural and Divine law no human being may voluntarily and without sin exercise his sexual powers outside of a valid marriage. It is, therefore, contrary to Holy Scripture and Tradition to affirm that conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God, although one or both persons is sacramentally married to another person (see 1 Cor 7: 11; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).

(my emphases)

Since all these truths are interconnected, read the full document for a complete explanation.

The How did the “dubia cardinals” accuse and respond to Pope Francis's «Amoris Lætitia»?
The Dubia Cardinals accused Pope Francis of heterodoxy and by this accusation they committed an error in ignoring the 2000 years Apostolic Tradition of the Church which stated the Church united to the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot err.

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Pope Francis seems to ignore the Dubia Cardinals letter hand-delivered by Cardinal Caffara seeking clarifications and his silence prompted the Dubia to published their letter in June 2017 publicly, only one month only after.
This kind of respond acted by the Dubia publishing their letter publicly was a violation of the simple evangelical guidelines in Donum Veritatis. A similar nature of clarification letter was filed at CDF by the group of priest and theologians headed by a well-known former leader of SSPX Bishop Fellay to petition him to answer accusation of spreading heresy. This petition was exposed to have an evil intent of destroying the dignity of Pope Francis as the petitioner failed to follow the evangelical guidelines of Donum Veritatis.
Pope Francis silence and seems ignoring the letter of the Dubia Cardinals prompted a response from Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and four bishops to issued the Declaration of the Truths relating to some of the most common Errors in the Life of the Church of our Time on May 31, 2019 that has no merit in the Church.
No Cardinals or Bishops separated from the Vicar of Christ can interpret,declare and proclaim the truth as Truth upheld by the Church unless the Supreme Pontiff bind & loose it. CCC85-CCC95 is good reference on Church Magisterium Authority.
All Cardinals, Bishops, priest and theologians has no canonical power and teaching authority apart from the Vicar of Christ.
Also, all the Dubia Cardinals, Dissenting Bishops and priest can be deceive by satan to commit or fall into heresy but not the Pope. The Pope is the Supreme Legislator, Interpreter and Guarantor of Faith. And the most important thing is the Pope is protected by Jesus Christ powerful promised of protection in Luk22:32 which none of the Dubia Cardinals have.

Luke 22:32 New International Version (NIV)
32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Pope Francis did respond but indirectly to the Dubia Cardinals by uphelding the Buenos Aires Bishops interpretation on Amoris Laetetia and clearly stated that there are no other interpretations.
Supplement answer to address the Five Dubia Arguments.
Stephen Walford answers all the five dubia arguments in detail and had proven that Amoris Laetetia orthodoxy and it boils down to a change in "sacramental discipline" in receiving the Holy Communion.

Open Letter to the Four Dubia Cardinals
“I humbly ask you to reconsider your positions. We shall not fuel the fire of dissent”. An Appeal to Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra, and Meisner after their new letter to Pope Francis. - Open Letter to the Four Dubia Cardinals

The Dubia Cardinals repond or action publishing their letter seeking clarifications without the approval of the CDF and Holy See has violated the evangelical guidelines of Donum Veritatis that all dissent must be discuss in "camera caritatis". No less than the former Prefect of CDF Cardinal Muller in 2017 reminded the Dubia Cardinals not to make public their dissent.
The Cardinal Müller: "Amoris Laetitia is clear in the doctrine, the dubia are of no use":

He reminded his colleague that any "correction" must "take place in camera caritatis". So not publicly. An appropriate warning, Müller himself explained: "The cardinals have the right to write a letter to the Pope. I was amazed because this became public, forcing the Pope to say yes or no. I don't like this. It is damaging for the Church to discuss these things publicly ".

Il card. Müller: «Amoris Laetitia è chiara nella dottrina, i dubia non servono» (Italian version only)