Do Catholics psychologists have a moral obligation to treat homosexuality as a perversion? I was reading today about the Governor of New Jersey acting to ban "Gay Conversion Therapy", and wanted to know if this is just one more thing that Catholics would have a moral obligation to oppose.

The Catechism is clear in its stance, but vague in what it requires that people do when it says that the act is intrinsically disordered, but unjust discrimination is to be avoided.

So, to boil it down, is what the media calls Gay Conversion Therapy tantamount to unjust discrimination or is it a corporal work of mercy?

According to a statement made by The Catholic Medical Association in November of 2000, gay conversion therapy is considered a corporeal work of mercy.

This statement clearly points out that Catholic therapists are obligated to encourage chastity in all situations. The Church has always taught (and will always teach) that chaste behavior is required for spiritual health and well-being.

  It should be pointed out that Catholics cannot support forms of
  therapy which encourage the patients to replace one form of sexual sin
  with another. (Schwartz 1984) Some therapists, for example, do not
  consider a patient "cured" until he can comfortably engage in sexual
  activity with the other sex, even if the patient is not married.
  (Masters 1979) Others encouraged patients to masturbate using
  other-sex imagery. (Blitch 1972; Conrad 1976)  Catholic therapists
  working with Catholic individuals should feel free to use the wealth
  of Catholic spirituality in this healing process. Those with father
  wounds can be encouraged to develop their relationship with God as a
  loving father. Those who were rejected or ridiculed by peers as
  youngsters can meditate upon the Jesus as brother, friend, and
  protector. Those who feel unmothered can turn to Mary for comfort.
  (Homosexuality and Hope, part I, sect. 5-6)

As you pointed out, the CCC is clear about the chastity of those afflicted with same-sex attraction:

  Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of
  self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of
  disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can
  and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
  (CCC 2359)

The Church, as well as the CMA, teaches that anyone with any type of sexual disorder (i.e. masturbation, adultery, homosexuality etc.) should be approached with nondiscriminatory therapeutic charity.  Where ever mercy is needed, the Body of Christ should be there.

  The teachings of the Catholic Church on sexual morality are explicitly
  clear and do not allow exceptions. Catholics have a right to know the
  truth and those working with or for Catholic institutions have an
  obligation to clearly enunciate that truth.  Catholics must, of
  course, reach out to individuals experiencing same-sex attraction, to
  those actively involved in homosexual acts, and particularly to those
  suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, with love, hope, and the
  authentic, uncompromised message of freedom from sin through Jesus
  Christ. (Homosexuality and Hope, part I, sect. 5-6)

History has shown that whenever the Church makes a counter-cultural stand to defend her morals, she is always met with opposition.  This sometimes puts a heavy burden on those providing medical and psychological treatment. Nevertheless, the Church stays true to the Law of Christ, which is the Law of Merciful Love.  Catholic physicians and therapists are obligated to do the same.

  While any attempt to teach the sinfulness of illicit homosexual
  behavior may be greeted with accusations of 'homophobia', the reality
  is that Christ calls all to chastity in keeping with the particular
  state of life. The desire of the Church to help all live chastely is
  not a blanket condemnation of any who find chastity difficult but
  rather the compassionate response of a Church seeking to imitate
  Christ, the Good Shepherd.
  (Ibid.)

Do Catholics psychologists have a moral obligation to treat homosexuality as a perversion?

Yes for it is written

  Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?
  Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male
  prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers,
  robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is
  what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified,
  you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the
  Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NRSV Catholic Edition

And

  So you, mortal, I have made a sentinel for the house of Israel;
  whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning
  from me. If I say to the wicked, “O wicked ones, you shall surely
  die,” and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from their ways,
  the wicked shall die in their iniquity, but their blood I will require
  at your hand.  But if you warn the wicked to turn from their ways, and
  they do not turn from their ways, the wicked shall die in their
  iniquity, but you will have saved your life.

  Now you, mortal, say to the house of Israel, Thus you have said: “Our
  transgressions and our sins weigh upon us, and we waste away because
  of them; how then can we live?”  Say to them, As I live, says the Lord
  God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the
  wicked turn from their ways and live; turn back, turn back from your
  evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel? - Ezekiel 33:7-11
  NRSV Catholic Edition

If we love people, and we saw that they were in danger of losing out on heaven, we would naturally want to turn them to Jesus that they may be saved.


Is there a historical reason why the liturgical colour purple eventually replaced black to symbolize penance? Is there a historical reason why the liturgical colour purple eventually replaced black to symbolize penance?

This question does not have its' answer in the difference between the two forms of the Latin Rite as both rites employed the liturgical colour purple during the penitential season of Lent!

  In the twelfth century, Pope Innocent III was the first to specify the colours of the vestments that were to be used for the Roman Rite; almost certainly this reflected prevailing custom in Rome, not an invention on his part. Although a separate subject from this article, it is well to remember that it was only towards the end of the 1st Millenium that the question of vestment colour became a significant one.Black was designated for penitential and funeral liturgies, but violaceus was indicated as a  substitute for black. Pope Innocent’s treatise De sacro altaris mysterio (Book I, chapter 65, which was written before his election as pope in 1198) seems to be the first indication that violaceus had come to be regarded as a penitential colour for the Roman Rite.

  If the Royal Purple colour which emerged in Late Antiquity Europe as a substitute for Tyrian Purple incorporated what Innocent III refers to as violaceus how did it come to be regarded as a colour of Penance rather than Status? -  The Saint Bede Studio

Even the Lyon Rite chose to employ "Ashen" coloured vestment during Lent and not purple unless ash coloured vestments could not be obtained.

  "Ash" colored vestments are utilized from Ash Wednesday until the Mass of the Lord's Supper exclusive. Where Ash is not available violet is used. And black comes out of the sacristy for Masses of the Dead and Good Friday. A parish could survive on only three or four sets of vestments. - The Rad Trad

Can any historical reason be found as to how or why the liturgical colour purple eventually replaced the traditional black as a symbol of penance within the Catholic Church?

Is there a historical reason why the liturgical colour purple eventually replaced black to symbolize penance?
Having dived into this question for some time now, I would like to simply postulate a possible response to this solution. At lest until another can come up with a more precise answer.
No historical reason seems to be able to be found at the present moment.
Is it not possible that the cause of this color change was due to how historical black dyes faded into other colors such as purple?
First a little background on the colors involved.
It could be noted that priests who celebrate Mass in the Ambrosian Rite (Rite of Milan) wear black vestments during Lent. Pope Paul VI was the Archbishop of Milan before being elected as Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church in 1963.

The liturgical color for Lenten feriae is that of strict penance: black.
In fact, according to the Ambrosian tradition, black is not only the colour of mourning (and, as such, used for requiem Masses), but also the true color of penance and fast: in this sense it is used at least since the XII century not only for Lenten ferial days but also for the Minor Litanies, that in the Ambrosian Rite occur after the Ascension. - Liturgical Colors for Lent in the Ambrosian Tradition

Here are the colors others than black that are of interest in either the liturgy or colors worn by Catholic prelates.

In the twelfth century, Pope Innocent III was the first to specify the colors of the vestments that were to be used for the Roman Rite; almost certainly this reflected prevailing custom in Rome, not an invention on his part. Although a separate subject from this article, it is well to remember that it was only towards the end of the 1st Millenium that the question of vestment color became a significant one. Black was designated for penitential and funeral liturgies, but violaceus was indicated as a  substitute for black. Pope Innocent’s treatise De sacro altaris mysterio (Book I, chapter 65, which was written before his election as pope in 1198) seems to be the first indication that violaceus had come to be regarded as a penitential color for the Roman Rite.
Whilst I suggest that it is an error to interpret Innocent’s violaceus as intending only the color violet as we recognize it today, it should also be noted that his treatise in a separate section (Chapter 32) discusses the use of the Mosaic colors (cf Exodus 28:5) scarlet, flax-gold, blue and purple, the latter which Innocent describes as signifying the authority and royal dignity of a bishop. In short, purpura still had the connotation of prestige in the time of Innocent III (quite distinct from a penitential use).
It is likely that at this time (12th century) Tyrian or Imperial purple was still being used in Rome, but it had become the colour used exclusively by the Pope and by nobility. So, when Innocent used the word violaceus, instead of purpura, it would seem very unlikely that he was recommending that violaceus-colored vestments were to be dyed from the expensive process for producing Tyrian purple. That expensive process would be unaffordable and unavailable to Western clergy. Rather, it would seem likely that Innocent’s violaceus was intended as Royal purple , a colour produced from the less expensive non-Murex dyes. It should be carefully noted that these less expensive dyeing processes could produce a violet-coloured dye or an amethyst (or fuchsia) purple coloured dye. But they were colours not so dark as Tyrian purple. I would suggest, therefore, that Innocent’s use of the word violaceus has nothing to do with an attempt to make a distinction (as some scholars have suggested) between the colors we recognize as violet and purple. - The Liturgical Color violaceus in the Roman Rite: Part One and Part Two

These lengthy articles show well that both the colors violet and purple were definitely colors of status. The purple that was reserved for bishops and Monsignori is actually fuchsia or amethyst. Pliny described Tyrian Purple as being the color of clotted blood and thus closer to the scarlet color of cardinals.
We can go on and on, but we seemingly can not find out how purple became associated with penance, remorse or mourning and eventually replaced black as a liturgical color.
Thus in conclusion, I would like to put forth that it may have been due to the fact that black dyes were notorious for fading.
Although somewhat mysterious as to why violet replaced black as a penitential color for Lent. One possible reason for this is that it may have come into liturgical usage due to how black fabrics faded:

Fugitive dyes are unstable. Made from pigments that are not light or color fast, they can fade even if they are well taken care of. One of the most famous examples is this black mourning dress worn by Queen Victoria on the day of her accession to the throne:

Queen Victoria’s Privy Council Dress, circa 1837

That’s a black dress?!
Well, not anymore, but it was.
Originally, this dress was a deep, shimmering black, but the fugitive dye has aged poorly. Black dyes have been historically notorious for fading, usually to this rusty brown. Some black dyes also fade to blue or even purple, depending on the dye used. - Dying Dyes: What You See Isn’t Always What Was

Could it not simply be that parish churches in past centuries could not afford new vestments and continued to use their black vestments, even after they lost their black coloring and faded purple or some shade of purple thereof?

I guess more in a historical sense, it is harder to make purple dye than it is black and therefore more expensive. You would wear, your purple outfit because it is the most expensive thing you have. You would be honoring God by showing him that he is worth wearing an expensive garment.

Think of it like, a man wearing a nice suit at a wedding. You want everyone to know you are dedicated.


Should Catholic christians be obligated to use in vitro fertilisation? If not, why not? I've been talking with friends about different methods of contraception and the relationship of the Catholic church towards them. If I understand correctly, most widespread means of contraception (birth control pills, condoms etc.) are not acceptable as they contradict God's will (e.g. see Genesis 9:7).
However does this mean that one should try to have children by all means? If not, why not? Would Catholics be obligated to use Viagra, if it aided them to conceive a child? Wouldn't it be a moral obligation to use more invasive methods as in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection?

I think it boils down to the question, if God wants man to reproduce (as much as they can?) or if that should only happen with the available means without medical help. However then any medical help that prevents one from dying during childhood is artifically helping you to reproduce.

We merely had an amusing conversation about the topic and thought this was a funny provocative question to ask a Catholic. However I am seriously interested in an answer as I had not come across this question before and I'd be interested how it would be approached by someone with more insight.

This question was split in two and the striked-out part has been moved to: What is the Catholic Church's attitude to the use of Viagra in marriage?

tl;dr> The Church opposes in vitro fertilisation, but not because it is humanity playing at being God.

The first port of call in determining what the Catholic Church teaches is always the Catechism. If question can be answered by fundamental principles, the answer is likely to be found there. So: first it's necessary to examine the fundamental principles.
The Catechism states

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39
1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

Even though the creation of life is good, it cannot justify a sinful method.
Is in vitro fertilisation a sin?

1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. the Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

Is in vitro fertilisation contrary to the eternal law?
Eternal law is “the source — in God — of all law”. It finds its expression in what is called moral law.

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

In vitro fertilisation is obviously an intervention designed to overcome what is seen to be a defect — the inability to conceive naturally. But this condition is part of God's plan.

1936 On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth.41 The "talents" are not distributed equally.42
1937 These differences belong to God's plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular "talents" share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures:

I distribute the virtues quite diversely; I do not give all of them to each person, but some to one, some to others.... I shall give principally charity to one; justice to another; humility to this one, a living faith to that one.... and so I have given many gifts and graces, both spiritual and temporal, with such diversity that I have not given everything to one single person, so that you may be constrained to practice charity towards one another.... I have willed that one should need another and that all should be my ministers in distributing the graces and gifts they have received from me.43

The ability to create life in vitro may also be seen as a talent not given to everyone, to be shared with those who need it.
So: both infertility and the ability to counter it appear to be God-given. The one is the result of Original Sin whereby imperfection entered the world, and which it is part of the human condition to bear. The other may be given for temporal alleviation prior to eternal bliss where there shall be neither tears nor cryingA; or it too is sinful because it counters God's plan.
Well done for reading this far; unfortunately in vitro fertilisation appears to fall between two fundamental principles.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has recognised this dichotomy in an Instruction:

These interventions are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life.
From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence ... modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time ... to find its place and to be in a position to act.25

The artificial creation of life is not inherently wrong. But

Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of a specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ETB, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with God for giving life to a new person".50

The way in which artificial fertilisation and the methods associated with in vitro creation of life can be and are inherently wrong. The expression of sperm is generally outside the conjugal act and “is another sign of this dissociation [between the unitive act of love and the act of procreation]: even when it is done for the purpose of procreation, the act remains deprived of its unitive meaning: ‘It lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love”’.54”
A procedure included in most implementations of IVF is the disposal of surplus embryos. That is, once life is created in the zygote with the fertilisation, any which are “not required” are destroyed.

... every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.

To destroy life is repugnant to the Church.
All the while it is impossible to unite the methods of IVF with conjugal union,

... in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remain opposed from the moral point of view to homologous in vitro fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.

25 CDF Declaration on Procured Abortion, 12-13: AAS 66 (1974) 738.
39 Cf Matt 6:24
41 Cf Gaudium et Spes 29 # 2.
42 Cf Matt 25:14–30; Luke 19:27
43 S Catherine of Siena, Dial. I, 7.
50 Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. 14: AAS 74 (1982) 96.
54 CDF Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual ethics, 9: AAS 68 (1976) 86: Gaudium et Spes, 51. Cf. Decree of the Holy Office, 2 August 1929: AAS 21 (1929) 490; Pope Pius XII, Discourse to those taking part in the 26th Congress of the Italian Society of Urology, 8 October 1953: AAS 45 (1953) 678.
121 S Augustine, Contra Faustum 22: PL 42, 418; S Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II, 71, 6
127 Gal 5:19-21 CE; Rom 1:28-32; 1 Cor 9-10; Eph 5:3-5; Col 3:5-8; 1 Tim 9-10; 2 Tim 2-5.
A Cf Rev 21:4
B Homologous (between husband and wife) in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer

I'm not a Catholic and by no means an expert, but my understanding is that the Catholic argument against artificial means of conceiving is the same as the argument against euthenasia: that it's tantamount to "playing God."  Matters of life and death are in God's hands; the Catholic position is that we aren't supposed to take them into our own hands.
Donum vitae II,4.

(55) The doctor is at the service of persons and of human procreation. He does not have the authority to dispose of them or to decide their fate.
A medical intervention respects the dignity of persons when it seeks to assist the conjugal act either in order to facilitate its performance or in order to enable it to achieve its objective once it has been normally performed",(56) On the other hand, it sometimes happens that a medical procedure technologically replaces the conjugal act in order to obtain a procreation which is neither its result nor its fruit. In this case the medical act is not, as it should be, at the service of conjugal union but rather appropriates to itself the procreative function and thus contradicts the dignity and the inalienable rights of the spouses and of the child to be born.


What was the problem at Babel? In the Genesis account of the tower of Babel a bunch of guys got together to build a really tall tower somewhere in the desert. God gets wind of the affair but it doesn't sit well:

  Genesis 11:5–6 (ESV)
  And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

So what does He do? He scrambles all their language as a punishment and their plans are foiled.

What was the problem with building a tall tower? Are modern skyscrapers a problem for God? Should the guys in the Burj Khalifa be worried?

The problem was not with the building, but with the intent of the builders, as shown in verse 4:

  They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

This is in direct opposition to what God had just commanded Noah a few years before (Genesis  9:7):

  As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.

The people in their journeyings found a place they liked, and decided to quit following God, and rather settle where they were comfortable. On top of this, they displayed the hubris to build a tower to "reach heaven" - ie, to find God on their own, rather than through His intended means.

God's judgement was not upon the tower, per se, but on the people. Nowhere else in scripture can I think of a place where towers are forbidden or condemned (indeed, almost all ancient city states had towers for protection - and Jesus references a tower that collapsed onto some people in Siloam in a neutral fashion).

The "problem at Babel" was pride, arrogance, and an unwillingness to follow God's command to replenish the earth after the flood.

Babel was the Hebrew name for Babylon which means "gate of god." But It was similar to the Hebrew word balal which meant to confound or confuse.

  8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
  Genesis 11:8-9 NIV

If everyone works together to accomplish something it would obviously work,  according to the Lord.  In this case it wasn't to his  glory but to theirs. The people of Babel thought they didn't need the Lord to get to heaven and since God knows their intentions,  he caused a confusion among them by changing their language.
What would then happen is for all work to be stopped and for all to go their own way. The fear from not understanding anything anyone says would then cause all to flee and to know that it is a sign from God.

  And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. (Genesis 11:6, ESV

To me this also proves that God is against Universalism. For  all to be united as a whole for a purpose that does not serve God but man's system and ideas would be sin. A parallel of this would be mystery Babylon in revelation.  A system built as a blasphemy against God and is destroyed.

  The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come
  Revelation 17:8 NIV


Where do those who say Noah's flood was an actual event say the water went? According to those who say Noah's flood was an actual global event, Where did the flood waters go when they subsided?  Myself and others have researched this and could not answer it honestly and completely. We have thought that it went to the middle of the earth but there is only metal according to research.

Creationists who believe the flood was a real global event say the water is still here, in the earth's oceans.

The oceans are much deeper than the mountains of earth are high, and they cover a much greater proportion of the earth's surface. Some have estimated that if the earth's surface was flattened the oceans' waters would cover the land to a depth of 2.7km.

Creationists see passages like Psalm 104:5-9 as teaching that during the flood there was significant tectonic activity, as the mountains rose and valleys sank, giving us the continents we see today, and 'hiding' the flood waters in the oceans.

  Ps 104:5 He established the earth on its foundations;
  it will never be shaken.
  6 You covered it with the deep
  as if it were a garment;
  the water stood above the mountains.
  7 At your rebuke the water fled;
  at the sound of your thunder they hurried away—
  8 mountains rose and valleys sank—
  to the place you established for them.
  9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
  they will never cover the earth again.

Passages like these are ambiguous, and could be read as referring either to the original creation of land in Genesis 1:9-10, or to the aftermath of Noah's flood. In the case of Psalm 104 I think verse 9 does indicate that, at least by the end of this stanza, it is referring to the flood, for it speaks of God's promise not to flood the earth again, a promise that God had not made before the flood. I think the creation-flood ambiguity is deliberate - the story of Noah is a story of re-creation: a new earth, a new set of life (preserved on the ark), and a new family to repopulate the earth.

The bible flood story is so much corroborated with other myths of a flood that it can be interpreted secularly as involving water coming down on earth.

The most likely thing to have happened is that atmospheric water began condensating due to a cosmic event that caused heavy raining. No rainbow prior to the flood means no condensation of steam in the atmosphere. Ionizing radiation or dust from space much have been lower to allow such a high level of steam in the atmosphere.

The resulting water must thus have ended up in the oceans or in ice mass. Increase in ice can be assumed since the volume of the atmosphere decreased as a result of being depleted of steam. Smaller atmosphere leads to lower pressure and thus colder climate, in accordance with the adiabatic lapse rate in the atmosphere.

I suggest asking in a physics forum to assess if the water ended up in oceans or ice.

The statement of God not to flood Earth again is not a promise. It is a consequence commentary that Earth cannot be flooded again. Water would then have to return to the atmosphere which it cannot do.

This question is much more a physics question than a Christianity question, although the Christian website Answers in Genesis has lot of investigations of various kinds on the flood event. Please also check there.


How does the Catholic Magisterium advise the married laity to defend the institution of marriage? Does the Catholic Church have any practical advice for its adherents on ways to exemplify the ideal she sets of marriage between one man and one woman?

Barring any specific discussion of same-sex relationships, what does the Church want us married folks to do as witnesses of Christ's love?

The Magisterium has offered a number of guidelines for how to live the institution of marriage, so as to make it truly life-giving, and indeed a source holiness for married couples. The best “defence” of marriage is the witness of couples who have lived out their vocation in accord with God’s plan for them.

The universal call to holiness

The Church’s recent Magisterium (since Vatican II) has emphasized that all people are called to holiness, not only those who have been called a clerical or consecrated vocation:

  Thus it is evident to everyone, that all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity; by this holiness as such a more human manner of living is promoted in this earthly society (Lumen Gentium 40).

Married couples are no exception: the Sacrament of Matrimony is their particular path to holiness:

  Furthermore, married couples and Christian parents should follow their own proper path (to holiness) by faithful love. They should sustain one another in grace throughout the entire length of their lives. They should embue their offspring, lovingly welcomed as God’s gift, with Christian doctrine and the evangelical virtues (Lumen Gentium 41)

In other words, the grace received in matrimony is the source of their holiness, and it is fundamentally that grace, and the holiness produced by that grace—not something particular that the couples need to do—that will provide the witness that the Church asks.

The fundamentals in holiness of life

The principle “task” of married couples, therefore, is to live holy lives, and in order to do that, couples must first of all place no obstacle to living holy lives: they must, in other words, obey what the natural law tells them is necessary for a happy marriage.

First of all, the fundamental characteristics of marriage must be respected: marriage is by nature indissoluble (it cannot be ended at the discretion of the spouses), exclusive (it can only be with one spouse at a time), faithful (one cannot permit extramarital affairs), and fruitful (children are always to be welcomed). (See Familiaris Consortio, Part 3, chapter I.)

It must be specified nowadays that true marriage can only be contracted between one man and one woman, always considering the sex that they have “originally” had since birth.

The controversy over who is elegible for marriage is only one of the challenges to marriage today. There is also the relative ease with which couples can obtain civil divorce—which can easily lead couples to think that marriage is inherently transitory, not permanent—and the strong temptation to use contraception as a means to limit childbirth.

(We should note that the Catholic Church does not prohibit limiting childbirth for legitimate reasons; she merely says that actions that destroy or forcibly impede our bodies’ ability to procreate—e.g., using hormonal contraceptives or condoms, and obtaining tubal ligations or vasectomies—is immoral, because it tends to undermine both the unity of the spouses and, evidently, their God-given call to bring forth children. See Humanae Vitae, especially numbers 14-15. It is also worth noting that modern gynecology provides excellent and highly reliable alternatives to oral contraceptives, when regulating birth is necessary. See, for example, http://www.creightonmodel.com/.)

It is also important for couples to realize that they are making a very serious and permanent commitment to one another. Even if something should go wrong—either through illness, or even when one spouse is not faithful—the couple have an obligation to regard themselves as married. Separation and civil divorce can be tolerated when the situation warrants it (and when there is grave danger to one of the spouses or to the children, it might even be obligatory); however, “remarriage” is never a legitimate option, unless there is a way to prove in the external forum that the first marriage was, in fact, not a marriage at all. (See Familiaris Consortio 83.)

The first and most fundamental step, therefore, to being faithful witnesses to married love is to follow the Commandments and the natural law regarding matrimony. Nowadays, simply being faithful to the basics of morality constitutes a heroic witness, and for this a married couple can count on the grace that they receive in the Sacrament of Matrimony.

How to grow in holiness

Living a happly and faithful marriage, however, does not reduce to fulfilling the minimum requirements.

Part Three of Familiaris Consortio gives a number of suggestions in which couples can grow in holiness. Among others,

Married couples participate in a unique way in the creative power of God. The Church encourages couples to take part generously in the gift that God has given them to bring new human beings into the world. It is a common misconception that the Church wants couples to have as many children as physically possible. That is not the case: rather, they should take into account their means and abilities. However, the Church does encourage couples—without obliging them—to be generous, not miserly, since such generosity will bring about happiness and fulfillment. (See Familiaris Consortio 28.)
Married couples have an invaluable role in educating their children. In fact, parents (not the state) are the primary educators of their children, and the institutions that exist for that purpose are meant to be at the service of parents. (Schools and governments that usurp parents’ rights to educate their children, especially as regards sensitive matters such as sexuality, commit a most grave injustice.) It is, moreover, parents who first bring their children in contact with the Church and the Sacraments. (See Familiaris Consortio 36-40.)
Strong, stable families are the bedrock of society. Espcially since there is so much upheaval today, Catholic couples are called to be examples of fidelity, and thus offset some of the ills that plague society today. (See Familiaris Consortio 44.)
The family is an image of the Church (See Eph. 5:32), and moreover, the Church’s efforts to evangelize begin with the family. (See Familiaris Consortio 50 and 52.) For example, family members can help each other to come to the Faith, or to a fuller practice of the Faith, and some familes may even feel called to dedicate themselves full time to missionary apostolate, although this will not, of course, be the norm for most families. (See Familiaris Consortio 50 and 54.)
The Sacrament of Matrimony finds its fulfillment in prayer and the Sacraments, particularly in the Eucharist. Families draw their strength from prayer and participation in the liturgy. (See Familiaris Consortio 56-62.)

TL;DR

All Catholics are called to live holy lives, and married persons will find the source of that holiness in the Sacrament of Matrimony. In order not to place an obstacle to that holiness, at the least they need to obey what the natural law tells us about marriage: in particular, that it is the union of one man and one woman, that it is indissoluble and exclusive, that it entails fidelity, and that it must be open to procreation. This is, as it were, the minimum requirement for a happy and fulfilling marriage. Just living marriage faithfully is a powerful and even heroic witness. This, together with actively participating in the life of the Church as a family, constitutes the best “defence” of marriage that Catholics can offer.

As a strong proponent of same-sex marriage, this might sound weird or difficult to believe at first, but I think I understand what you're asking here. I know several people who have (or have had) difficulties accepting equal marriage rights, in particular because they looked at those marriages from a religious perspective.

I respect your viewpoint. I don't agree with it, but I respect it and I don't hold it against you, because that's just what it is: it's your viewpoint. It's based on who you are, what you believe in and what you feel is right and what is not. However, a gouvernament is not a religious institution. To guarantee freedom of religion, it has to -by definition- ignore all religious arguments for or against any problem (problem meaning a social reality in need of change, or legislation). The main Abrahamic religions seem to all oppose same-sex marriage, but some cultures don't.
For a legislator to be able to guarantee all people the same freedoms and obligations, it can't accept religous arguments. That should be self evident.

However, on a human level, I do get why people such as yourself find it difficult to accept same-sex marriage, but as I previously tried to explain, the type of marriage we're talking about is a legal marriage. It's people expressing their commitment towards each other in accordance to a man-made law. No law can ever require you to find this a good thing, just as no law can force me to get angry at you for seeing things differently.

I guess what I'm  trying to say here is that, as a Catholic, the best way forward would be to say that you understand why the Supreme Court really had no choice to rule any other way than the way it did. I'm not sure what/where, but I believe there's even something in the Bible about accepting the rules of the land where you live. In the US there's a Church-State separation after all. At the same time, it's perfectly OK for you to say that you don't agree with the ruling, on a personal level. Again: you're guaranteed freedom of speech and beliefs, which implies freedom of though.
You needn't look at this ruling as man-made laws rewriting the bible. I know that the Bible does not condone same-sex marriage, so when two men or women get married, it can't be a "Biblical marriage", it's a legal marriage. One that you, as a citizen must recognize. But it's not a marriage that the Catholic church recognizes at the moment.

Bottom line is, as a citizen, you'll have to tolerate same-sex marriage. As a Catholic, very little has changed. From a religious viewpoint, the marriages don't conform to the basic, scriptural, criteria.
Just find a way to make that distinction, maybe that can help you explain your position to outsiders.

After that, your question of "spreading the joy of traditional marriage" is actually part of your task as a Catholic of witnessing. Seeing as marriage is one of the 7 sacraments, it most definitely is normal for you to bring it up when witnessing.


so few churches acknowledge singles in light of 1 Corinthians 7: 6-9 is this an oversight? In the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.,) we really don't see Matthew & Rose, Mark & Betty, Luke & Beatrice, John & Sally, etc.

Why do churches put so much emphasis on couples, inferring that singles who have chosen celibacy really don't have a place (of course unless they are teen or twenties)?

I gave my life to Jesus at 16, and now am 61, and chose a path of singleness, according to the ability God gave me. I am confused because there seems to be such heavy emphasis on couples (nothing wrong with couples; I had extra-terrific parents for example). However, it is hurtful to feel like singles are the "low end of the totem pole"in Christian service and responsibility.

My parents had two girls (one married, and one single...me).

Do pastors cater to couple images because they presume tithing is higher? Is there cultural etiquette persuading the church more than templates of the New Testament church?

Churches/Pastors should never discriminate or cater to any specific group. This is especially true with a group that appears to be elevated in the heart of God.

The Bible speaks of a group, yes those that Paul identifies with:

  1 Corinthians 7:7,8 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I

How amazing that this group would be shunned as less significant.  It does not appear that this was always so.

  Isaiah 56:4,5 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off

Jesus speaks to this same group:

  Matthew 19:11,12 …he said unto them, "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb”.

Who are the eunuchs spoken of by Isaiah? Are they those to whom it is given, those born to live a celibate life?  Are they those like Paul, unencumbered by a physical marriage, wholly united to Christ?

This group should be elevated, set apart, and sought out for their insight into the things of God.

We are in an age where "herd mentality" is very strong and unfortunately a celibate life in an age of hyper-sexuality is not likely going to be understood.  Rest-assured, your Heavenly Father esteems those so born.

To many "innocent" eyes will be blinded by the Light of liberty when it is ultimately revealed. Both in this age and the age to come with greater and greater celebration and fearful self-reflection. The mirror that is the Word. Will accurately reveal Christ in anyone who looks "into" it. They wont see... gender divisions as "real" differences but as utilitarian in order and wholly unreliable at understanding its own spirit inhabitant and others. lol

When?

One by one. I think I am last. Would love to add to a real converts experience. My own has proven to only open more vistas than one lifetime...possibly fix and discover. His words are lively and in the light of new understanding, the old "devotions" speak anew to me. So some are touched and some read with a hunger to experience and it drives them from their country. He awaits all who dare to seek. He quenches all thirsty from wanton desire. He satisfies all living beings with himself. Sustaining them without bread or water but with His will. His will to be light is what causes light to continue unhindered. His will to subject another element to vanity in hope of this greater reward for his only begotten is righteous and those elements have declared as much.

Let his people go... they will find him on the Way. :)


How do Catholics support transubstantiation? As I understand it, the doctrine of transubstantiation maintains that bread and wine literally* become the body and blood of Christ... yet it is impossible to detect this. That is, they do not materially change, so we don't and can't notice, nor can we scientifically show any change.

I'm curious: how do Catholics support this view? Especially considering Jesus' statements that the bread and wine were His body and blood could easily be taken as symbolic.

*In the literal sense of "literally".

On the Meaning of Transubstantial

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

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

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

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

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

On Justification of the Doctrine

A hint of Scripture

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

Theological Archeology

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

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

Your question calls for a PhD thesis, not a quick comment. That said, the word literally does not mean physically. Transubstantiation describes a metaphysical reality, not a physical reality. Jesus Christ is truly present under the form of eucharistic bread and wine. The physical reality of the elements never changes from bread and wine, but the metaphysical reality (the significance) of the elements does change. The church has consistently taught this interpretation of the scriptures since before the scriptures were written. We support this view because it is the only view consistent with apostolic teaching. The apostles came to their conclusions from what Jesus said, the occasions He said it, His actions on those occasions, the miracles He accomplished, the sufferings and death He endured, His resurrection and ascension. There really isn't any wiggle room for a merely symbolic interpretation.


Was tithing 10% required or encouraged by the early church? I cannot find in the New Testament an obligation on Christians to tithe 10% of their income. Instead I read that it is up the individual to decide:

  2 Corinthians 9:7 (NIV1984)
  Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Is there a church tradition established by the early church to encourage everyone to tithe 10%?  What was the early church's view on tithing?

The word tithe itself comes from the Old English teogoþa, meaning "tenth" - so technically, tithing is the giving of a tenth by definition. But of course that's not what you're asking!

The idea of giving a tenth comes from the Old Testament:

Leviticus 27:30-33 (MSG):

  "A tenth of the land's produce, whether grain from the ground or fruit
  from the trees, is God's. It is holy to God. If a man buys back any of
  the tenth he has given, he must add twenty percent to it. A tenth of
  the entire herd and flock, every tenth animal that passes under the
  shepherd's rod, is holy to God. He is not permitted to pick out the
  good from the bad or make a substitution. If he dishonestly makes a
  substitution, both animals, the original and the substitute, become
  the possession of the Sanctuary and cannot be redeemed."

Deuteronomy 14:22-29:

  Make an offering of ten percent, a tithe, of all the produce
  which grows in your fields year after year. Bring this into the
  Presence of God, your God, at the place he designates for worship and
  there eat the tithe from your grain, wine, and oil and the firstborn
  from your herds and flocks. In this way you will learn to live in deep
  reverence before God, your God, as long as you live. But if the place
  God, your God, designates for worship is too far away and you can't
  carry your tithe that far, God, your God, will still bless you:
  exchange your tithe for money and take the money to the place God,
  your God, has chosen to be worshiped. Use the money to buy anything
  you want: cattle, sheep, wine, or beer—anything that looks good to
  you. You and your family can then feast in the Presence of God, your
  God, and have a good time.

  Meanwhile, don't forget to take good care of the Levites who live
  in your towns; they won't get any property or inheritance of their own
  as you will.

  At the end of every third year, gather the tithe from all your
  produce of that year and put it aside in storage. Keep it in reserve
  for the Levite who won't get any property or inheritance as you will,
  and for the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow who live in your
  neighborhood. That way they'll have plenty to eat and God, your God,
  will bless you in all your work.

But, as you rightly say, in the New Testament we are instructed to give what we can, or to give whatever we feel is the right amount. Working out what that right amount is, is of course different for each person and therefore many have sought guidance on what the correct amount should be.

The passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy don't just give an instruction but give some reasoning too; by giving ten per cent of everything in worship to God, we still have enough left over to live comfortably on.

When we look at Jesus' teaching on giving, he calls us to give much more than 10 per cent:

Matthew 19:21 (MSG)

  "If you want to give it all you've got," Jesus replied, "go sell your
  possessions; give everything to the poor. All your wealth will then be
  in heaven. Then come follow me."

Mark 12:40-42 (MSG)

  Sitting across from the offering box, he was observing how the crowd
  tossed money in for the collection. Many of the rich were making large
  contributions. One poor widow came up and put in two small coins—a
  measly two cents. Jesus called his disciples over and said, "The truth
  is that this poor widow gave more to the collection than all the
  others put together. All the others gave what they'll never miss; she
  gave extravagantly what she couldn't afford—she gave her all."

On that basis, we might view ten per cent as the minimum we should be giving. The church I attend (a "New Church") teaches that we should give what we feel is the right amount, 2 Corinthians 9:7 indicates - but as a guideline 10% should be a starting point. (My church also practices what it preaches - 30% of income is given away to other projects and charities).

Is simple impossible that the original church established by Jesus and Apostles have requested Tithing to it's members.
Why?
Very Simple.

The Levites Where a Life and in exercise of their functions under the law of Moses in those early days!

So asking for tithing will have been to violate their rights. The original members were also Jews.

This is why the church only asked for donations. But the real missionaries like Paul, worked with their own hands to provide for himself.
Remember the one in Salarie, do not worry about the sheep but their salary.


Can dogma ever be modified, and how does this relate to papal infallibility? I have two questions related to the concept of dogma in the Catholic church. I appreciate any guidance. Also, references would be helpful.

Is there any point in the history of the Roman Catholic Church where the actions of the Pope and or the magisterium undermine the dogma of papal infallibility (i.e. instances which contradict the teaching of the papal infallibility)?
Can a dogma develop? That is, can a certain dogma be established, and be modified afterwards? If so, has this happened before in the Roman Catholic Church?

First, some much-needed background. The pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra. Ex cathedra is not a linguistic formula, it is simply a way to recognize those times when the pope gives a teaching that is correct and will remain correct forever. Ecumenical councils are another organ of infallibility, but we can talk about just the pope without missing anything important to this question. The pope does not always speak ex cathedra, so papal infallibility isn't called into question over every statement the pope makes. Only those statements about faith and morals would even qualify.

Some people think that when the pope speaks in this way, he is to be seen as creating something, like an artist adding paint to a canvas. That is not what the pope does. Imagine instead an unchanging mural set into a rock. Parts of it are obscured by debris, and other parts are splashed with paint. Some people are performing restoration. Others try to paint on top of paint. The pope, as pope, does not get involved with any of this. The pope does not paint. Instead, he sits down on a chair that's set apart, and, guided by the Holy Spirit, points to the exposed surface of this mural that is (and remains) immaculate, free of all human machination and accumulated grime. If his hand were covered in blood it would still, by the Holy Spirit, point up to truth. If millions of people surrounded him and raised their hands up in disarray, it would be his hand that Catholics would know to look for. His hand is guided by the Holy Spirit and directed at the Word. He sits upon the seat of Saint Peter. Catholics try to raise our hands to point to the same place.

I hope the above is not too metaphorical, but it is difficult to convey what role the pope and magisterium play in Catholicism by just saying that the pope is never wrong and that doctrines never change.

In case things are still not clear, here are some short answers to your questions:

No pope has ever infallibly proclaimed that he is fallible.
No pope has ever denounced an infallible teaching.
Nor has one infallible statement ever been set against another one.
Nor has any pope ever made a doctrinal error when speaking in this way:

  The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous. (The Catholic Encyclopedia on Infallibility)

Dogma is not developed and adjusted and fitted over time.
Infallible statements are made when confusion begins to arise on a certain clear matter.
Doctrines cannot be changed:

  No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors. Since revealed truth cannot change, and since the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change. (From "Catholic Answers")

Of course, a person might disagree with the Pope, or with Ecumenical Councils, or with the Catholic Encyclopedia, or with the idea of papal infallibility, or even with the idea of there being anything to point to. That would be another hand being raised; we can only pray that all our hands will eventually point up to the same place. This site is not set up for argument, though: if you'd like to know if some particular ex cathedra declaration of the pope has been proven incorrect according to some standard, you would need to ask another question about the particular case.

Dogmas are definitions for the laity, not to be interpreted, and they are directly provided by the Holy Spirit.  Logically speaking, if you needed someone to interpret the Dogma for you, then the Pope would not have the final word, the final word would be left with whoever was appointed to interpret the Dogmas, and only the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, so that line of thinking makes no sense, and it has been condemned.

  Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3,
  1907, #22: “The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not
  truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of
  religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared
  for itself.”‐ Condemned

  Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3,
  1907, #54: “The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as
  pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but
  interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which
  have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the
  Gospel.”‐ Condemned

The actions of the post Vatican II papal claimants undermine this following Dogma:

  Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441,ex cathedra:
     “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, alms giving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia
      productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church

Almost no one claiming to be Catholic currently believes this Dogma.

Antipope John XXIII (the second one) made peace with the so called Eastern Orthodox, John Paul II made peace with the Lutherans and the protestants signing "Joint Declarations of the Faith" he prayed with the Dalai Lama making peace with the Buddhists.  He didn't hold the Assisi Prayer meeting to tell them all to convert to Catholicism, he just prayed with them and said they were all great and every religion is great, and the Catholic laity got the memo.  They didn't even notice when Benedict XVI praised Martin Luther, and referred to Gaudium Et Spes as a "Counter Syllabus" to Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors"

  Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is
  desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II
  document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in
  conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions)
  it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter
  syllabus...

All attempts to convert the Jews to Catholicism have been completely abandoned stated openly by the USCCB, this decision is lauded by the Anti Defamation League, in fact, all attempts to convert anyone have been completely abandoned by the hierarchy, even though some of laity haven't figured that out yet.

Vatican II is a new religion and a complete departure from Catholicism.

The scandals and heresies of John 23.

Teachings on Popes and Heresy

  The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
  himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
  because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

  St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano
  Pontifice, II, 30:  "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically
  (per se) ceases to be pope and  head, just as he ceases automatically
  to be a Christian and a member of the Church.  Wherefore, he can be
  judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all  the
  ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all
  jurisdiction."  St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
  "This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way
  be Pope, as  Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this
  is that he cannot be head of  what he is not a member; now he who is
  not a Christian is not a member of the  Church, and a manifest heretic
  is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St.  Cyprian (lib. 4,
  epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib.
  De  great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others;
  therefore the  manifest heretic cannot be Pope." St. Francis De Sales
  (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp.
  305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls
  ipso facto from  his dignity and out of the Church..." St. Antoninus
  (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he
  would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence,
  separated  from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as
  long as it remains  separated, be head of the same body from which it
  was cut off. A pope who would be  separated from the Church by heresy,
  therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to  be head of the
  Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since  he
  is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."
  (Summa  Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man
from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.


Why don't creationists teach a literal firmament anymore? People don't seem to believe in the firmament as a literal barrier of water up in the sky that collapsed at Noah's flood. I want to say they don't believe in the firmament anymore, but I am doubtful most creationists did. Why? Is it because it is too fantastical?

The problem is that such a notion seems to correlate with Genesis and seems to make a lot of other considerations more swallowable, such as the feasibility of centuries old lifespan, adequate conditions to sustain large animal life (dinosaurs, etc), and adequate water for a sudden flood. The only "scientific" model I've heard, coming from Dr Carl Baugh, asserts that waters from the deep under the earth came up and cracked open the firmament; his model is the only creation model that solves so many fundamental problems for creationism I am literally, truly perplexed as to how his model has been seemingly abandoned by the creationist community. I know of no direct arguments against this sort of firmament, except only alternative interpretations of its mention in Genesis. What am I missing?

--

It is the "canopy theory", I believe, that I had in mind in posting the question. My own only exposure to this was from a presentation by Dr Carl Baugh and by reading his old book, Panorama of Creation. I have had difficulty finding anyone endorsing his model, and his model is the only one that answers several questions. My frustration comes out of watching modern depictions via illustrations, 3D graphics, and simulated film artwork, attempting to use fine detail to tell what Genesis earth was like but not filling in these gaps. Blue skies, clouds, rainbows, all post-Noah, all completely against Baugh's model. Does it matter? In an age when modern illustrations like Hollywood are referenced in dialogue with apologetics and truth seekers, yes, I believe so.

People don't seem to believe in the firmament as a literal barrier of
  water up in the sky that collapsed at Noah's flood.

The answer to this is amazingly simple.

Many Young-Earth Creationists believe that there was a layer of water of some form (ice, water, other possibilities) in the upper atmosphere, or in space, surrounding the earth AND Young-Earth Creationists believe that there is a Firmament.

However, almost none believe that the Firmament is a solid layer of water because YEC-ers have a hyper-literal understanding of the Genesis account.  And...

It's impossible to get the idea that the firmament is a solid layer of water from the Genesis account.

That's the answer.  Here's the explanation:

From Genesis 1 (KJV)

  6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
  and let it divide the waters from the waters.

  7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under
  the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it
  was so.

  8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning
  were the second day.

Jumping down to verse 20:

  20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
  creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
  open firmament of heaven.

The Firmament is the place between the waters - it divides the waters above from below.  It's not a solid layer of water, it's the space between the waters.  It's where the birds fly.  It'd be a bit hard for birds to fly in a solid layer.

So, again, the reason Young Earth Creationists don't teach that the firmament is a solid layer of water is that YEC-ers are very literal in the interpretation of Genesis (by definition) and there's absolutely no way to get the idea that the firmament is a solid layer of water from the text.

The idea, however, that the layer of water (in whatever form it took) was part of the source of water for the flood (along with the fountains of the deep) is pretty common among Young-Earth creationists, however, and is taught widely.

Details on the nature of the waters vary. Some say clouds or water vapors.  Others think a layer of ice in the upper atmosphere or in space. There's not much agreement on what form it took, but it is widely believed to have existed in some form.

Many (perhaps most or all) creationists don't believe in a physical barrier or firmament because they don't believe the texts of the Bible were actually trying to communicate that. They believe that although those texts were originally meant to be understood as describing reality and as accurate records of history, they used figurative language in those descriptions. They believe that when the cosmology of Genesis is described as having a 'firmament' it is being used figuratively to describe how God structured the universe, rather than indicating that there is a real physical barrier.

In general, the genre of a text and the presence or absence of figurative language, neither requires nor prohibits the text from describing historical events. Consider Psalm 106 which tells the history of the Israelite nation through song, and the parables which though told like any other story, are clearly not intended to be understood as history. This article from Creation.com describes the general principles creationists use when interpreting Genesis:

Should Genesis be taken literally?

Additionally, this article looks at the Hebrew work translated 'firmament', and suggests that it was never even meant to be thought of as solid, and that that idea was tacked on later.

Is the raqiya‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome?


Why does God have a chosen people? Christians as well as Jews believe that God made the Israelites as his "Chosen People."

Why does God need a Chosen People at all?

The Scripture isn't clear on why, but here are a few suggestions that make sense to me.

Choosing a specific people allowed God to demonstrate His power through all of the military battles, and possibly most dramatically via the release if His people from Egypt.
Choosing a specific people demonstrates His sovereignty - The fact that He can choose Whom he pleases to accomplish great things.
It demonstrates what He values.  He chose the descendants of Abraham because Abraham had faith, and obeyed Him, even to the risk of losing his beloved son.
Choosing one nation allows God to show clearly, through a well-documented, historically verifiable history, His hand moving to guide a nation.  Summing up the history of His people, you can learn a great deal about God and his relationship to man that may not have been as apparent if He had scattered his miracles among the many nations.

He chose a nation and gave them special privileged and assistance
They chose to reject Him and go after other gods
He withdrew His blessing and allowed judgement to come on even those that He chose initially because of their rejection
He forgave them and healed them when the repented of their sin.

There is a biblical explanation for God's chosen people in the Book of Deuteronomy, especially if we go back to the earliest manuscript versions of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, available to us in earlier Septuagint and Dead Sea texts. Paul Sanders (Provenance of Deuteronomy Thirty-two, pages 154-160) says scholars now generally assume that the traditional Masoretic Text is the result of adaptation of the older reading for theological reasons.

Deuteronomy  tells us that each of the gods received a nation as his portion. Yahweh received Jacob, or Israel, as his portion: his chosen people.

First, the MT says, along with most Christian Bibles:

  Deuteronomy 32:8-9: When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. (KJV)

Some earlier LXX manuscripts, supported by the two Qumran texts, say "according to the sons of God":

  Deuteronomy 32:8-9: When the Most High gave the nations as possessions, when he separated the sons of man, he established the areas of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. However the portion of Yahweh is his people; Jacob is his inherited share. (Provenance of Deuteronomy Thirty-two)

According to what appears to be the earliest reading of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the Most High God gave Yahweh God the Israelites as his chosen people.


Does Christianity have any connections to the Hinduism? Islam and Christianity has same roots and also some names in Bible can also be heard in Quran.

What about Christianity connection with Hinduism?

Because so many pastors claiming that connection exists, but in evil way.

Example: Hindu goddesses are considered as Satans etc.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Christians believe and teach that any other gods are false gods set up by and for Satan himself. This is the reason why a pastor may speak against Shiva, Vishnu etc. As such Christianity has no theological ties as Hinduism is polytheistic while Christianity is not.

That Hindu goddesses are satanic is sheer nonsense.
Hinduism is the only classical civilisation to survive in modern times. The Babylonian, the Egyptian, the Greek and the Roman did not survive. To my mind, it's startling that those who study classics leave this civilisation to one side, whereas one might think, that this is a living and breathing example of what they study, would make it of immediate interest. But then again, that's probably as Plato already suggested, Hellenic Eurocentrism for you...
For example, Lakhsmi, being the goddess of wealth and wisdom, is akin to that of the muses, and in particular, Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom and the patron goddess of Ancient Athens; she does have a darker kin, Kali, the goddess of wrath and destruction; but then again, we have the Greek goddess Artemis; who, in her Roman aspect, is Diana, was also a huntress.
When faced with the theology of monotheism, polytheism began to go adrift and finally began to be absorbed into Christianity and Islam in various ways. For example, Christmas, or Christs Mass, was originally a pagan custom - hence all the 'pagan' feasting, when the actual religious ceremony, is rather solemn, and sublime for that.
Hinduism has many philosophies, but one predominant amongst it, is Vedantism, which again speaks of a unitary divine reality, which the gods, and the goddesses, and this world, is simply a manifestation. Hence, in a way, it is monotheistic.
The European and Indic languages are related and are said to be of the Indo-Aryan family. Aryan, here, meaning from Iran, that is Persia. Given all this, it would be of no surprise to find that much in common in our religious thinking. I mean by 'our' from India, the Middle East, and Europe, that is in the Eurasian landmass.
For example, going by language,  Devi, refers to the mother goddess in Hinduism; its etymologically root dev-, means a shining one, and is cognate to the Greek dios, 'divine', and to Zeus, and to Deus in Latin.
It's also notable that in old Zoroastrian, in their religious scriptures, the Gathas, mention the daevas; they are the gods to be rejected because they promote chaos and disorder.


In Catholicism, what are some examples of views considered opinio tolerata? In Roman Catholic theology, opinio tolerata (tolerated opinion) refers to beliefs that are considered unlikely to be true, but are nonetheless tolerated by the Church. What are some examples of beliefs that are opinio tolerata? I have heard it suggested that belief in the Limbo of Infants is a contemporary example, but I'm not sure if that is true. In any case, even if that is true, I would be interested in other examples also.

Before going into some examples of some tolerated opinions in Catholic theology, it would be beneficial to understand a few terms first.

What is a tolerated opinion in the eyes of Catholic doctrine?

  In Catholic theology, opinio tolerata refers to pious beliefs with a low degree of theological certainty, but which are tolerated by the magisterium of the Catholic Church. These are ranked less certain than sententia probabilis and hold the least degree of certainty in the hierarchy of dogmatic teachings for Catholics. - Opinio tolerate (Wikipedia).

What are pious beliefs, or as some call them popular beliefs?

Did the Annunciation and Good Friday coincide?
Some Catholics believe that Mary did not see death when she was taken up to heaven. In the Apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. However, Pope Pius XII deliberately left open the question of whether Mary died before her Assumption.
Catholics are free to believe that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces since this too is at the present moment an undefined dogma in the Catholic Church.
Some Believe that Jesus was crucified  near the tomb of Adam at Calvary.
Before 1854, when Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus, some Catholics were of the opinion that Mary was conceived without sin, while others doubted this privilege as being given to Mary. Once this decree was promulgated on December 8, 1854, Catholics must believe that the Immaculate Conception is dogma.
Some of the faithful honor Mary with the title of Co-Redemptrix and as of the present moment it has not been defined as Catholic dogma. Catholics are permitted to hold this opinion. Pope Benedict XVI was not in favor of the dogmatization of this subject.

These are just a few of the many piously held opinions of some of the Catholic faithful.

One example would be that of Limbo. Regarded less in this century then in the past, there are refrences to the state of Limbo  from the early fathers and the idea has not been completely abolished.  I might suggest also the age of the earth itself, Catholics are free to beleive as many Young Earth Creationist do,
 that the earth is only 7000 years old ish.  Regardless of what God has revealed to us about the true age of his creation through science.  So the Idea, which most regard as non-sence is a tolerated opinion as it has no bearing on the faith or teachings of the Church.


Are there any Christian denominations that believe in sex and marriage in the afterlife? After an interesting set of articles put forward in  the chatroom,  I'm curious to know if any christian denominations have said a marriage can continue in heaven, and if the conjugal act continues in heaven.

PS. I find the topic interesting but I am one of the Christians that believe marriage and sexual feelings vanish after death.

The LDS Church teaches that while not all marriages are eternal (see Luke 20:34-35), but that a marriage which is sealed is, and will continue in heaven. Additionally parents that are sealed to their children will still play a parental role in the afterlife.

As for what marriage will be like in the next life, we do not know, but some sources suggest that those in the celestial kingdom will be able to keep having children forever (if this process is the same or different is similarly up to speculation).

Don't think so. However, if you are among those who believe in the resurrection hope, being brought back to life in similar fashion such as Lazarus or Jairus' daughter, people will continue to resume God's original plan, that is, to populate the earth, as seen mentioned in The Book of Genesis.


What is an overview of teachings of Messianic Jewish Christians regarding circumcision? Statements like the following are common from Messianic Synagogues. This one comes from Beth Messiah in Sarasota, Florida:

  At Beth Messiah, we are Messianic Jews and non-Jews who believe Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew) is the Messiah, live a Jewish lifestyle, raise our children to be Jewish, and worship the God of Israel in a Jewish manner.  Messianic Judaism is a movement of people from all walks of life who believe that Yeshua is the promised Messiah and the Savior for Israel and the world. Messianic Jews have not stopped being Jewish. On the contrary we have continued to remain strongly Jewish in our identity and lifestyle, and in our belief that Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah and the fulfillment of true Biblical Judaism.

According to the standards of this site these congregations may be considered Christian. In maintaining their Jewish culture and lifestyle, a major historical aspect of which is circumcision, I am curious as to what these congregations teach regarding circumcision, specifically circumcision according to Torah law, in the light of Paul's warning in Galatians 5:1-6:

  It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

I wonder if some of these congregations circumcise their children in Torah observance. What is an overview of their doctrines regarding circumcision?

Since the author of the question is seeking a general overview and not the view of specific congregations--I will offer an answer similar to Michael16, which is not itself wrong, but does lack specificity.

Right now there are two major branches of official Messianic Judaism. Those branches are the MJAA and the UMJC.  The former being the body which started first and the later, a breakaway movement, and as such the UMJC is more stringent in their observance, if only in their own view.

A google search of UMJC and Circumcision yields the following link: https://www.google.com/search?q=UMJC+circumcision

The first result (in my search) then becomes immediately relevant: Is Judaism Jewish? Early on (in the third paragraph of said document) the author, one Dr. Mark Kinzer, speaks of the same proof text Michael16 did: 1 Corinthians 7:18, 19. Kinzer states:

  "but keeping the commandments of God." Paul acknowledges with these words that the Torah commands Jews to be circumcised and to keep the mitzvot given to Israel, but expects non-Jews to keep only those commandments given to all human beings. Thus, what matters is not being Jewish or non-Jewish, but obeying those Divine commandments that apply to us.

Since the site bares the markings of the UMJC we can take this as an official position and not one individual congregation.

Next we come to the more lax MJAA.

Putting the terms, MJAA IAMCS Circumcision into a google search bar yielding the following results: https://www.google.com/search?q=MJAA+IAMCS+Circumcision

It should be noted that the results for the second search performed is far fewer than the first for the very reason that the MJAA has a less concrete positon on the matter than does the UMJC.

Quoting from a document among the results:

  The main Jewish life cycle events include circumcision, bar/bat mitzvah, wedding, and death and each of these events have their own set of liturgy and ritual. The first two are pertinent to this  study. In obedience to God’s command to Abraham, Jewish males are circumcised on the  eighth day as a physical sign of the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 17:11-12. (Messianic Jewish Liturgical Practices, by Elizabeth Ames, p. 10)

The only other relevant quote comes from Rabbi Jim Appel, a messianic Rabbi from New York whose congregation Shema Yisrael belongs to  the IAMCS.  This becomes relevant because when understanding his quote and how the IAMCS works, he would not be a member of that organization if his beliefs did not match theirs.  (The IAMCS is the governing body of the MJAA.)

A substitute document is Competing Trends In Messianic Judaism: The Debate Over Evangelicalism, which cites congregation Beth Yeshua as a forerunner for the MJAA position (though certainly progressive in its implementation). This article may be the best fit for your desire for an overview of Messianic Judaism as a whole as it does, like I have here done, break the movement into its two constituent bodies.

The overview of Messianic Judaism or Messianic Christianity about circumcision can be understood from their statement of beliefs that you quoted. Circumcision is an essential part of being Jewish or a Jewish lifestyle, so is the observance of kosher diet. Their practice of continuation of the Jewish practices does not violate Paul's instructions to the Gentile new believers of Galatians as he also instructed that circumcision or non-circumcision doesn't matter but only keeping of the commandments. The instructions to Galatians against circumcision therefore apply against mandatory observance of it as an essential practice for salvation. Thus if the Messianic believers wants to continue Jewish traditions and lifestyle as a non-mandatory cultural significance then it is permissible by Paul.

  (1 Corinthians 7:17-20) 17 Only let each person lead the life that the
  Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my
  rule in all the churches. 18 Was anyone at the time of his call
  already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of
  circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let
  him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for
  anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20
  Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.


Why did Mormons stop practicing polygamy? I know that early in the formation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, polygamy was common.  It's my understanding that it was an everlasting command from God to Joseph Smith.

Doctrine & Covenants 132

  4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

If the covenant is everlasting, why did the Mormons stop practicing polygamy?

If you look further through the chapter, every place where the words "everlasting covenant" are used, it's speaking of marriage in general, and not specifically of plural marriage.  The idea is that marriage itself is an everlasting covenant, not "until death do you part," but for all eternity.

As for why the practice of plural marriage was discontinued, an explanation can be found here, given directly by Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of the Church, under whose leadership the practice was ended.

The first part is a formal announcement to the world that the Mormons are done with polygamy; the second part, given some time later, was an explanation for church members of the rationale behind it.  He explains that the Lord revealed to him that political opposition would end up driving the church underground and cause the temples to be closed by force.  This would put an end to the work therein, which the LDS regard as sacred and of great importance.  Also, it would have forced an end to the practice of plural marriage as understood by the LDS anyway, as plural marriages were required to be performed in the temple.  In order to preserve the rest of the work, which the Lord saw as more important than continuing the practice of plural marriage, he instructed the church to stop practicing plural marriage and comply with the laws of the land.

The manifesto was only implemented initially to a limited extent. It was a statement by the church that the church would no longer practice plural marriage. However, plural marriages actually weren't under the jurisdiction of the church to start with. It wasn't until 1852 that this practice became general knowledge to the members of the church when Brigham Young and Orson Pratt introduced it at a special general conference. This was because all things in the church are to be performed by common consent. (D&C 26:2) It was unanimously accepted as a valid principle at that conference. So, just as the early priesthood leaders didn't need this to be something accepted by the church before 1852, they didn't have any need for it to continue in the church after 1890 either.

You could say it was a bit of a ruse to try and appease the government without actually being fully divested of it. Many priesthood leaders continued to utilize the priesthood organization and power to continue living according to the fullness of the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, which of necessity includes the plurality of wives.

This needed to be preserved because the priesthood's ability to continue to qualify to receive the higher level of ministration of "thus saith the Lord" oracles from the Father and the Son was at stake. The level of ministration a priesthood or church body qualifies to receive depends upon what set of laws they are living in accordance to. (D&C 88:21-22; 76:77,86-88) If you do not keep the fullness of the Father's Celestial Law then you are unworthy of His presence and shall not receive of His ministration.

This is why prior to the Manifesto there was a separate priesthood body established ahead of time with a president and 6 councilors. This is based upon the organization called the School of the Prophets that was called to order as such in D&C 88:127-141 and D&C 90:7-15. This priesthood body was presided over by the person who was the Lord's Anointed who received the oracles, which are the "thus saith the Lord" level of revelations.

It is this organization of priesthood that is separate from the church that is at the root of the claims of Mormon Fundamentalists to have the authority to continue to perform plural marriages, among other things. Some called this organization the Council of Friends because those who enter into the School do so by the covenant of friendship and brotherhood as fellow "Sons of God". (D&C 88:133)

This organization created by John Taylor had a president and 6 councilors just as the earlier School of the Prophets did. It appears likely that this same organization was also called the Church of the Firstborn, but that needs further proof that I am not currently prepared to present. The important thing is to understand that there were bodies of authority separate from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that were not subject to the church's authority.

One of the foremost factors that led to the Manifesto was the evidence that the vast majority of Mormons were personally opposed to plural marriage. This became clear when various versions of proposals for a state constitution for Utah were being drafted and voted upon. It was noted that plural marriage was a significantly negative feature to an approximate ratio of 13,000 opposed to 500 in favor. I'll dig out the cite for this later. I think it was mentioned in one of Lynn Bishop's books or Allred's book called "A Leaf in Review". It's been many years since I read those so my memory is a bit fuzzy.

Now, to address your question in relation to the warning given that those who do not abide the Covenant cannot enter into the Father's Glory:
The evidence for this being the case is clear. Even when plural marriage was still being practiced during the mid 1800's there were other laws of the Father that were not being fully implemented either. The Saints struggled and tried to practice the Celestial economic laws but failed over and over. It was recognized that the Saints would have to be patient and wait for the due time of the Lord to bring about what scripture calls the redemption of Zion. (D&C 105:9-13)

So, the unfortunate reality is that we as a church are still under a level of condemnation. (D&C 85:54-58) This was affirmed as recent as 1986/1988 by Ezra Taft Benson who was the President of the Church at the time.

  Benson, Ezra T Oct Conf. 1988, Nov ENSIGN, p. 6 par. 10:

  Moses never entered the promised land. Joseph Smith never saw Zion
  redeemed. Some of us may not live long enough to see the day when the
  Book of Mormon floods the earth and when the Lord lifts His condemnation.
  (See D&C 84:54--58.) But, God willing, I intend to spend
  all my remaining days in that glorious effort. In the name of Jesus
  Christ, amen.

So, the truth is, we are yet awaiting the time that Zion shall be redeemed. We are in a state of damnation just as that passage warns. Celestial "thus saith the Lord" ministration has ceased and there won't be anymore received until the Saints finally come around to realizing the Father meant every single word He said. We are under condemnation because we have taken lightly that which we have been given. (D&C 90:3-5)

We must come to a point where we implement the full economic, social and educational systems that the Father instructed us to do per the "former commandments". If the Lord reveals light and truth and a people reject and turn away from it and take it lightly, then they are indeed under condemnation and shall eventually have taken from them all light and truth. (D&C 93:39; 60:2-3)

This is because they have one of two choices. They can hold and maintain integrity to what was given and press for repentance to that standard or they can turn to their pride and self-righteousness and twist everything into a mess trying to rationalize the avoidance of it. For example, they believe that breaking off a piece of the New and Everlasting Covenant is not actually breaking the New and Everlasting Covenant.

Unfortunately, this means that instead of looking forward to a period of great salvation and triumph when the calamities come, the Saints shall actually be unprepared and fully subject to the scourge and judgment that is coming if they do not repent in time. And, if we are slow to hearken to the words of the Father to heed this and other warnings, He shall be slow to hearken to our cries when we are driven into circumstances to humble us of our pride and self-righteous drunkenness so that at least some few of us can participate in Zion's redemption. (D&C 133:63-70)