Is the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of "the Monarchy of the Father" consistent with the Athanasian creed? Background: this particular question arose from considering the implied ground of the following question: Does the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and Son infringe on the co-equality of the Trinity? The author of the question assumes a Trinitarian position that is consistent with the 'Athanasian creed'*, with a view to ascertaining the legitimacy of Eastern Orthodox (doctrinal) objections to the 'filioque clause'.

My question is: How (if at all) is the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity – which includes the doctrine of 'the Monarchy of the Father' – consistent with the Athanasian creed?  Particularly the following parts:

  So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.

and

  And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.

I'm most interested in an Eastern Orthodox perspective, but would also welcome an explanation of how 'co-equality' is reconcilable to other views of the Trinity that include 'economic subordinationism' or 'relational surbodinationism'.

*Also known as Quicumque vult – I realise that it is not technically a creed (in the sense of being approved by an ecumenical council) and is almost certainly not authored by Athanasius of Alexandria, but it has come to be widely known by this moniker as it is judged to be wholely consistent with his Trinitarian-championing views to the extant of its being regarded – at least in the West – as a touchstone of Trinitarian doctrine.

The official Orthodox answer to this question can be seen most clearly in the answers to two questions in the Revised Catechism:

  094 What difference is there between the Persons of the Holy Trinity?

  God the Father is neither begotten nor proceeds from any other Person, he is the cause, source and principle. This is called the Monarchy of the Father.

  etc.

and

  095 Are the three Hypostases or Persons of the Most Holy Trinity all of equal majesty? Why then does Jesus say “the Father is greater than I?”

  The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit share equal majesty as being the eternal, uncreated Savior and Lord. The Father is true God, the Son equally true God, and the Holy Spirit true God. This ontological or essential equality was expressed by the Church by the expression “homoousion” (of the same essence) to condemn Arianism and affirm that the Son is co-eternal and co-uncreated with the Father. This does not negate different roles or functions:

  Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and hold firm to the traditions as I delivered them to you. But I desire you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

  ‘For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is obvious that this excludes the one who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one (1 Corinthians 15:27-28).

  When the Son says that the “Father is greater than I am,”
  (John 14:28) he is referring to the fact that the Father is the
  cause and origin, as the Holy Fathers interpret this text:

  The Son does not say, “My Father is better than I,” lest we should conceive him to be foreign to his nature, but “greater,” not indeed in greatness nor in time, but because of his generation from the Father himself. (St Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, 1.58)
  Since the Son’s origin (arche) is from the Father, in this respect the Father is greater, as cause and origin. This is why the Lord says, “My Father is greater than I.” Indeed, what else does the word Father signify unless being the cause and origin of that which is begotten of Him? (St Basil, Against Eunomius, 1.25)
  Superior greatness belongs to the cause, equality to the nature.... To say that [the Father] is greater than [the Son] in his humanity is certainly true, but it is not the point here, since it is no wonder that God is greater than man... (St Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration, 30.7)
  If anyones say that the Father is greater in so far as He is the cause of the Son, we will not dispute this. But this, however, does not make the Son to be of a different essence. (St John Chrysostom, Homily, 70)

In summary, the Orthodox position explains the Monarchy of the Father in terms of his superior greatness as 'cause, source and principle', while simultaneously maintaining co-equality amongst the Persons of the Trinity due to their being of the same essence. This, is maintained not to be contradictory to the 'Athanasian creed' which (although not used liturgically in the Orthodox churches) is recognised as sound doctrine (source).

Here is the Symbol of Faith of Orthodox Christians:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man;
And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;
And rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures;
And ascended into the heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;
And shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets;
In One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I Confess one Baptism for the remission of sins.
I look for the Resurrection of the dead,
And the life of the age to come, Amen.

You can see twelve elements of the Orthodox creed. Here is no words about "the Monarchy of the Father"! It's simply to understand that whole created world is the Monarchy of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Trinity of one essence and inseparable, One God.
As the Lord Jesus Christ said (John 16:15):

All things that the Father hath are mine

ADDITION:
The Athanasian creed, if it has words about Filioque, is the heresy and does not belong to the Saint Athanasius of Alexandria! So we never consistent true Orthodox faith with the heretical Filioque even by using some auxiliary constructions like "the Monarchy of the Father".


Are there any Protestant denominations or churches that reject penal substitution? I come from a background in Protestant/Evangelical churches. The trademark salvation message in those churches is that Christ bore the wrath of God for your sins to satisfy his justice that we have offended by our sin; it's basically a teaching of the penal substitution theory woven into a call to repentance. John Piper also seems to declare the theory as gospel in his books.

Since becoming a catechumen in the Eastern Orthodox church I have rejected this theory as an acceptable way to explain salvation. It is my opinion of most Protestant/Evangelical churches that they teach the theory as fact (perhaps less so in for high church Protestants).

Are there any Protestant denominations (or individual churches) that explicitly reject the penal substitution theory, and more generally the idea that Christ's death was needed to "pay" or satisfy God the Father?

For reference, the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox church sometimes uses the ransom theory of atonement to explain Christ's death being a ransom paid to death. However, that is just one teaching that can help a Christian who is meditating on the meaning of His death.

Not all Anglicans have held to Penal Substitution Theory.  For example, the nineteenth to early 20th century Anglican bishop Charles Ellicott did not.  See his commentary on Galatians 3, for example.  The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion does not express Penal Substitutionary Atonement.  So, if you look at some of the continuing Anglican denominations you may find a church that is Protestant but does not hold to Penal Substitution Theory. Some of those continuing denominations are "Anglo-Catholic", so I'm not sure they are actually Protestant.

I am in a denomination called the Federation of Reformed Churches.  I do not hold to Penal Substitution Theory.  I've expressed this in a paper sent to my fellow Presbyters.  None of them attempted to bring any charge against me.  So, there are Reformed Presbyters who can tell the difference between theory and scriptural data and have some appreciation of the history of the doctrine of Christ as our propitiatory sacrifice.

It is interesting to note that Calvin did not write his view on penal substitution theory into either the Geneva Confession of 1536 or the later French Confession.  (There is some question as to whether Calvin wrote those documents or just influenced them.)  Calvin seems to have been more careful of such things than the Lutherans and many of the other Reformed, such as Ursinus.

There have been Reformed believers and are at least some now who do not hold to Penal Substitution Theory. Furthermore, it is not hard to find Arminian teachers who do hold to it.  So I do not think that holding to or not holding to the theory has any direct relationship to one's doctrine of free will.

Early unitarians such as Joseph Priestly and later William Ellery Channing rejected the idea that God punished Jesus in the place of sinners.  They thought rather that God rewarded Jesus with resurrection and ascension and did not punish him.  They reasoned that if Jesus were the only one to die and go to hell, he might have been punished by God for all the sins of everyone else, but that if he rose from death and went to heaven instead, Jesus was not a substitute to go in our places, but rather one we should follow, both his words and his deeds.  They saw Jesus more as an example to follow than a substitute to give them a free ticket to heaven, regardless of what they do.


What does "God is just" mean according to Calvinists? In our world, what we understand about "justice" is not just a verdict between guilty or not guilty, because it also balances the punishment on the severity of the crime.

Here is an illustration:
There are two people who are not elected before the foundation of the world.
The first is a 16 years old kid who was naughty and sometimes disobedient to his parents who then died.
The other one is a 30-year-old man who raped many women and then died.

The question is, does the Bible say that, because God is just, both of them will have the same punishment tormented in the lake of fire eternally? What is the Calvinist position?

You are correct in noting that in Calvinism one's ultimate eschatological end is the result of either God electing one to glory or one to destruction.
However, because Calvinist care about what Scripture teaches, they also hold to the belief that their are varying degrees of punishment (and supposedly varying degrees of glory) rendered individually to each man.
Here are a few obvious passages which strongly suggest gradations of punishment in hell.

[God] will render to every man according to his works. (Romans 2:6)
[This is the conclusion of one of Jesus' parables.] The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:47-48)

One popular Calvinist outlet, Ligonier Ministries, defends this belief with no qualms.

There will be degrees of punishment during the day of wrath. One “trivial” sin makes us guilty of the whole law and liable to eternal torment (James 2:10). Yet some acts are worse than others and deserve harsher punishment (Num. 35:9–29). As bad as Sodom was, her sentence will be lighter on Judgment Day than Bethsaida’s because Sodom never saw Jesus (Matt. 11:20–24). The sinner who never hears of Christ will go to hell, yet his pain will be less intense than those who hear the Gospel each Sunday and refuse to repent.

So then, does the Bible say that, because God is just, both of them will have the same punishment tormented in the lake of fire eternally? The answer is no from a cursory reading of the Bible, and the answer is also no from a normal Calvinistic reading of the Bible.
Though your question seemed to imply that you're wondering what justice means to a Calvinist. I would suggest clarifying exactly what it is that you are asking. For self study on this subject, look into forensic justification and double imputation. Those who fail to have Christ' righteousness imputed to them are left with Adam's sin and their own personal sins left imputed to their own accounts. You ultimately get what's imputed to you, and the more grievous the sin that's imputed to you, the more judgement you receive.
Source: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/degrees-punishment/

Calvinists believe that all who are outside of Christ are condemned under the Covenant of Works. Because God righteously requires perfect perpetual faithful obedience, violators of that law are rightly subjected to punishment. The only hope is to be saved under the Covenant of Grace, where Jesus dies as a substitute and the sinner is saved by faith-union to him through the Holy Spirit.

For the case of reprobates, while all will be condemned, their punishments are not equal. Greater sins carry greater punishments, both presently and eternally. Nevertheless, Calvinists generally have little occasion to talk about this because to die outside of Christ already entails a severe punishment on the grounds of the violated Covenant of Works and the scorning of the savior. The solution for sinners of very heinous crimes is the same as the solution for sinners of less heinous crime: repent and believe in the Lord Jesus, grow in faith and sanctification for your life after that.


What happens to marriage on the New Earth I think I can safely say that humans were designed not to operate as a single solitary person but as part of a unit of two -- both as referenced by Gen 3:16-17 (see mentions of husband and wife in said passages) and ingrained feelings that appear to be a part of every person I know of (near as I can tell anyway...). However, there also seems to be support for there being no marriage after we are resurrected in Matthew 22:30. Can someone clear up my confusion on this topic?

Putting the verse you just cited (Matthew 22:30) back into context will clear up a bit of your confusion. First of all, the question was posed by the Jewish leaders about tedious Jewish customs in an attempt to catch Jesus off guard, as they frequently tried to do. The chapter even goes as far as to specify that they were Sadducees, which did not even believe in the resurrection. Furthermore, Christ's answer that they will not be married nor given in marriage refers to this contrived example (if you look at the KJV translation, it says "they" rather than "people") and not to couples in general. So this verse does not provide much support against marriage after the resurrection.

My experience is that most Christians agree that marriage between husband and wife is ordained by God...at least for this mortal life. The Bible does not say much else about marriage after death, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus among the various denominations as to the state of marriage after death.

Anyone who assumes we will not still be with our spouse after death, Doesn't understand. When God intended a perfect world, He made a Man, and His woman in Paradise with perfect commumion with him...The World was good there. God, Man , and Woman.

As for the verse that explains not marrying during the resurrection, I am sure He meant the title and reproduction.


Who is Augustine arguing against in his Confessions, book 12? In Augustine's Confessions, book XII, chapters xvi–xvii (23–24), he writes about his disagreements with others over the proper interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis 1. Augustine holds that Genesis 1:1 refers to the out-of-time creation of the spiritual realms and a formless "earth," while his opponents argue that "heaven and earth" refer only to the visible creation.
He quotes their views as follows:

They say: 'Although this may be true, yet Moses did not have these two things in mind when by the revelation of the Spirit he said: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth" (Gen. 1:1).  By the word "heaven" he did not mean the spiritual or intellectual creation which continually looks on God's face, nor by the word "earth" did he intend formless matter.'  What then?  They say: 'What that man had in mind was what we say he meant, and this is what he expressed in those words.' [...]
'By the phrase "heaven and earth"', they say, 'Moses meant to signify in general and concise terms the entire visible world, so that thereafter under the successive days he could arrange one by one each category which it pleased the Holy Spirit to list in this way.  The character of the people addressed was rough and carnal, and so he decided to present to them only the visible works of God.' (XII.xvii)

In the Confessions Augustine often argues against the Manicheans, but that's apparently not the case in this section.  The people in view here "honour your holy scripture written by that holy man Moses and agree with us that we should follow its supreme authority" (XII.xvi), and the Manicheans certainly didn't do that.
Do scholars have any idea who these opponents were?  Do their writings survive?

Quoted text here comes from Henry Chadwick's translation of the Confessions.  Other translations are freely available online, such as on CCEL (XII.xvi and XII.xvii).

My translation of Confessions doesn't have chapters in the books so it was a bit hard to find this.  (using Nelson's Royal Classics edition)

I beleive he is referring to other interpreters of the Pentatuech.

  But in the midst of so many truths which occur to the interpreters of these words.

I think this is meant as a hypothetical intepreter.

Later on the part you quoted, St. Augustine refers to a people who pluck words out of a thicket to justify their own ends.

  They see these things and they rejoice in the light of Thy truth to whatever degree they can

To me, as a Catholic in what I belive to be the tradition of St. Augustine, this sounds like a very generic heresy.  (whoops alsmost said St.) G.K. Chesterton always described heretics as people stuck on a particular truth.

The intro to my translation of confessions also says that Augustine went up against Donatists and (full-fledged) Pelegians.  The movie about St. Augustine, Restless Heart also shows his run-ins with the Donatists, who really seemed to have a good hold on what was then the official Church, but they disdained the organizational structure of the Church.

However, it doesn't sound much like Augustine has disdain for these hypothetical interpretations, and in the intro to Chapter Twelve the editor writes:

  He emphasizes the importance of tolerance where there are plural options, and confidence where basic Christian faith is concerned.

So, it would seem as though, Augustine would prefer people to stay "in tge nest" but if they stray and pluck from the thicket (i.e. Sacred Scriptural Truths)

the footnote says that “they" which in my book is translated "one of these men" refers to the "Thicket denizens mentioned above" which he later goes on to point out are 4 distinct viewpoints, making up the notes whuch must be played together, to make up the real song of creation.

For, as Chesterton says,  the Christian when confronted with two seemingly contradictory truths simply takes the two truths with the contradiction and adds it to the deposit of faith.

So these are simply men Augustine uses to illustrate one point about what might later be coined as "senses of scripture".  If he took the time to take any of their suppositions to their logical ends, he'd probably find some new heresy to squash, but that's not the goal of this book.

Augustine was speaking against the ideas of Marcion. According to Marcion, the title God (Yahweh) was given to the Demiurge, who was to be sharply distinguished from the higher Good God (El - See Gen:1:1 and elsewhere). The former was díkaios, severely just, the latter agathós, or loving-kind; the former was the "god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4), the God of the Old Testament, the latter the true God of the New Testament. Christ, though in reality the Son of the Good God, pretended to be the Messiah of the Demiurge, the better to spread the truth concerning His heavenly Father. The true believer in Christ entered into God's kingdom, the unbeliever remained forever the slave of the Demiurge.

El was the creator of everything: the demiurge (Yahweh) was simply the god who fashioned the earth.


Why can't there be another fall? Some disagree on whether a Christian in this life may fall utterly and lose or forfeit eternal life.  However, most Christians do agree that after death, the Christian is eternally secure in heaven (or the new earth).  And this seems to be well supported in Scripture:

John 10:28 (ESV)
28   I give them eternal life, and  they will never perish, and  no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Revelation 21:4 (ESV)
4   He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and  death shall be no more,  neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

So it seems clear that Christians could not be susceptible to another Fall.  My question is, Why?  What is the fundamental reason why Christians would not be susceptible to another Fall or rebellion against God?
Please answer from a Protestant, non-Calvinist perspective.

Possible responses I have considered

There will be no law, and thus no concept of sin

But wouldn't rebellion against God would be considered sin, even apart from a "law"?

After death we no longer have a sin nature, and are thus incapable of sin

But weren't Adam and Eve created without a sin nature, and yet sinned?

Satan will be vanquished, unable to tempt us

But didn't Lucifer rebel without being externally tempted? If we are unable to rebel without a tempter, that implies that we will have less free will than Lucifer and the angels had.

We will be unable to sin, either through lack of free will, or prevention by God

The argument that I usually use and hear for the existence of free will is that God would rather have willful obedience than robotic obedience.  Is God then hedging on this preference for the sake of our eternal souls?

We have already been atoned for by Christ, so if we were to sin, it could not be counted against us

This allows for sin in heaven, which I can't buy.  It contradicts Revelation 21:4 for one thing, and makes heaven imperfect

"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation."  Saved human beings have an old nature and a new nature.  At death, the old nature is removed entirely, and only the new nature remains.  (This is the "glorification" in the salvation trio of justification, sanctification, and glorification.)  You should not think that this new nature is a return to the nature that Adam and Eve had before the Fall.  Whatever that nature was like, it is gone forever.  "Behold, I make all things new."

One other point: angels have another nature altogether, so making comparisons between humans and angels is problematic.  For example, we are told (Hebrews?) that angels don't understand salvation.  They long to look into salvation (so they can understand and worship God better, I suppose), but it escapes them.  We don't know why.  Some hypothesize that they are incapable of repentance, which explains why (apparently) God never redeemed any fallen angels and why (apparently) angels don't fall from time to time.  Once angels choose (goes the theory), they have chosen, and they will never choose otherwise.  It is not a lack of free will; changing their minds is simply not in their nature.

I could give you a long winded explination: But at the end of the day free will can not be removed in heaven, God doesn't work that way.
So all we are left with is, is the text saying sin will not arise again being read properly.

My view is it is simply stating the historical recorded of sins results will make a replay of all this suffering pointless.
So either everyone will resist this path or be dealt with quietly. But no great sin conflict will be allowed to arise and threaten the Holy Empire with civil war again.

This is just my personal opinion for what it is worth.


Why did Stephen have authority to ask God to forgive the sins of his nonbelieving executioners? Consider the following verse related to Stephen's stoning:

Acts 7:60
Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin
against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Clearly a Christian can forgive another person and, in fact, we are commanded to do so. But to wipe that sin off The Lord's books, my understanding is that's something only the individual sinner can do through true repentance via God's grace. The justification occurs between two parties: God and the sinner. The third-party victim of the sin can't act as a mediator.
Jesus proactively canceled others' sins on a number of occasions, most notably at the cross where He said, regarding his executioners, "Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do." But I had assumed that was something that only He could do; He's God, after all. But why was Stephen able to request that God forgive the sin of others? What authority did Stephen have to make that request of God and further, do we as Christians have that same authority?
Example: Let's say a non-believer is caught stealing $50 from you. You grant him forgiveness but he's still guilty of the sin before God. Do you then also have the authority to ask The Lord to forgive him for the theft, despite that he's a non-believer who doesn't fear God, nor feels any need of repentance whatsoever?
This question is being asked from a Protestant evangelical perspective.

If someone trespasses against me, personally, I can dismiss that trespass and require no remuneration, no restitution, no resolution. I can simply dismiss the event and give it no consideration whatsoever.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. [Matthew 6:12 KJV]

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: [Matthew 6:14 KJV]

I require nothing. I dismiss the debt. I am owed nothing at all.
Thus Stephen prays, that what had been done to him, in his humanity, by other humans, should not be given any consideration by God. He asks that God should take no notice of what had been done to him.
What had transpired between those persons and God, himself, of course, is another matter. That is between themselves and their Maker. But as to Stephen, Stephen has requested that, on his behalf, and for his sake, God should not lay it to their account.
No 'authority' is required for this. It is a request, a prayer.
It is not an authoritative demand.
It is a humble request from Stephen to the Lord his God.

I have responded to this question as a lifelong Protestant Evangelical, baptised at the age of sixteen, over fifty years ago, into a professing congregation.

Quite a bit of the gospels consists of scenes composed by the evangelists in order to model behavior for people joining their newly created religion. These people hadn't grown up in a culture where such models existed. More specifically, there is material meant to show people how to behave in the unfortunate event that they become martyrs, so that their martyrdom will be inspirational and will bring credit to the church.
Examples of this sort of thing are Peter's out-of-the-blue and anachronistic confession of faith in  Matthew 16:16, and the last supper (modeling the eucharist, which was invented decades later). Examples specifically modeling proper behavior for martyrs are Jesus's prayer at Gethsemane ("Please remove this cup from me. However, not what I desire, but what you desire."), and Jesus's words on the cross in Luke 23:34:

Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.

Stephen is following this model. Recording his words in Acts brings credit to the church, inspires others, and models the Christian ethic of forgiveness as described in the sermon on the mount.
I think the above is fairly standard, at least among the kind of liberal university professors who write books and articles about the historical Jesus.
In addition, there is the whole question of who has authority to forgive sins, which is discussed in the gospels. In Mark 2, the scribes think, "Why does this man speak blasphemies like that? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Jesus reads their minds and says, "But that you may know that any man has authority on earth to forgive sins" --he said to the paralytic--    "I tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house." This is the WEB translation except that I've rendered son-of-man as "any man," so that it's generic rather than titular. This proposal to render at least some instances of son-of-man as generic is fairly common among scholars, although by no means universal. The likely Aramaic phrase behind son-of-man is actually a phrase that has a lot of possible meanings, but one of them is simply that it's a figure of speech for any human being.
So on this reading, Jesus has established that not only does someone like the paralytic not need to go to the Temple in Jerusalem and pay a lot of money to have his sins forgiven, actually anybody at all can forgive someone's sins -- without even asking permission from God.
You might say that this is crazy, it's anarchy. But Jesus's movement at that point was not an organized church, it was a roving band of hippies. They were all supposed to be building the kingdom of God together as a community, not just waiting for it to come from the sky.


In which Christian denomination(s), do people plan their weddings around the bride's menstrual periods? I am a Russian Orthodox Christian, and I know other Russian Orthodox Christians who consider a woman's menses to be impure. As a woman, this monthly bleeding is not saying that I am evil or bad during that time. I am simply not pure. Here is a good explanation of this.

However, I know we Orthodox Christians plan our weddings around the bride's menstruation cycle, because she should be completely pure at that time.

Do other Christian denominations do this too?

Though I'm not a woman or a confidant of women, I've never heard this spoken of before in Protestant circles. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I don't think this is a typical consideration.

Assigning (religious) impurity to menses would require adherence to the Law of Moses, I think. As a personal matter, there's nothing to prohibit someone from concluding that about herself, but since such a link between impurity and menstruation is ever made in the New Testament, I suspect that most protestants won't ever say that the two are inherently linked.

Most protestant traditions don't focus on religious purity at all, let alone menstruation. First, Gentile Christians aren't required to follow Mosaic law. (Acts 15) Second, because of Grace and Christ's sacrifice, our sins and impurities are cleansed. There's nothing we can do to make ourselves more pure and that includes waiting a couple of days for your cycle to end.


Where did the idea of being "called to preach" come from? The church loves to use the idiom called to preach. It's the idea that (for the purposes of this question) God calls some people to preach or pastor and He doesn't call others. A person might say "...I felt God's call to preach"

I'm not talking about the general call to salvation or that God gives certain gifts to some and not others, but about the specific colloquialism of "...called from God to be/not be a pastor."

Where did this idea come from? 1 Timothy labels it a desire, not a calling.

  1 Timothy 3:1 KJV This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Most every other translation says aspire, not calling. Are these thing synonymous? When did it start being referred to as a calling and not a desire?

Why I ask: A "calling" from God is a highly debated thing, whereas a "desire" is something everyone knows the definition of. Some young believers may be becoming dissuaded from their desire to lead in their local church because they've been incorrectly convinced that they need some fantastical "clouds-parting-in-the-sky" experience from God.

In Latin the word vocare meaning "to call" gave us the English Word "vocation."  A vocation is synonymous with a career (Remember vocational guidance?) in many people's minds, and it betrays the roots why someone feels "called to ministry"  Both Protestants and Catholics would use these terms interchangeably.
Bibically, there is much precedence for this. Because of the terminology, I'm going to use KJV liberally:

1 Corinthians 7:20 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
2 Timothy 1 8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; 9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Likewise, Paul often introduces himself as "called"

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

That said, you are entirely correct in saying that such a "calling" is something to which one can "earnestly aspire."
It is because "calling" has had both senses that it came to be seen as a cooperative effort between God and Man - a gift that one would want to manifest.  In practice, many churches use the terminology of "discerning a call to ministry" because of the confusion.

The most direct verse I have found on this subject is Hebrews 5:4

  And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

In Exodes 28 it describes how Aaron was called. He was chosen out of a crown by Moses the prophet. He did not call himself but was chosen by God.

A short answer but I feel it is pretty direct. If anybody can dispute it let me know.


Why are the offenses against Blessed Virgin Mary are called blasphemies instead of sin? There are five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

  Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.
  Blasphemies against Her Perpetual Virginity.
  Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognize Her as the Mother of men.
  The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother.
  The offenses of those who outrage Her directly in Her holy images.

Top 5 Sins Against the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Why are the offenses against Blessed Virgin Mary are called blasphemies instead of sin?

Looking for Catholic Foundational Teaching and explanation on blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Because blasphemy can relate to that which is very sacred to God also, as it is written:

  Revelation 13:6 (DRB) And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Cf. Jude 1:8, 10.

Catholic Foundational Teaching acknowledging Mary as "All-Holy" therefore an offense on the Blessed Virgin Mary is really and certainly classified as blasphemy.

  493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
  "Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."

  721 Mary, the all-holy ever-virgin Mother of God, is the masterwork of the mission of the Son and the Spirit in the fullness of time. For the first time in the plan of salvation and because his Spirit had prepared her, the Father found the dwelling place where his Son and his Spirit could dwell among men. In this sense the Church's Tradition has often read the most beautiful texts on wisdom in relation to Mary.101 Mary is acclaimed and represented in the liturgy as the "Seat of Wisdom."

  2030 It is in the Church, in communion with all the baptized, that the Christian fulfills his vocation. From the Church he receives the Word of God containing the teachings of "the law of Christ."72 From the Church he receives the grace of the sacraments that sustains him on the "way." From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary; he discerns it in the authentic witness of those who live it; he discovers it in the spiritual tradition and long history of the saints who have gone before him and whom the liturgy celebrates in the rhythms of the sanctoral cycle.

Therefore, based on the Catholic Church Teaching and Doctrines the Blessed Virgin Mary is "All-Holy" by virtue of God's singular priveleges and graces bestowed on Mother Mary for Her Mission in the Church as the Mother of the Redeemer and also the Mother of all the Redeemed.

With regards to the 5 five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary as revealed to Sis.Lucia, this sin are not only blasphemy but described to as "unforgivable sin". This five offenses or five grave sins to the Theotokos cannot be forgiven by the Justice of God and requires reparation.Sis.Lucia describes why Mary reveals this five blasphemy in order for all the souls who committed this type of offenses rendered by God as the "unforgivable sin" can be appease and atone.

  In 1929, in the apparition of Tuy which is the final fulfillment of Fatima, Our Lady will conclude the extraordinary manifestation of the Holy Trinity with these striking words: "So many are the souls which the justice of God condemns for sins committed against Me that I come to ask for Reparation. Sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray." These words are so strong that several translators took the liberty of diluting their meaning.

See, this five grave offenses are not only blasphemous but it is the "unforgivable sins".

  "A little act of Reparation" to save the greatest sinners. Yes, Our Lady affirms sadly, many souls are lost because of their scorn, their blasphemies against Her . . . Thus, giving us the example of loving our enemies, She Herself intervenes, because She alone can still save these monsters of pride and ingratitude who have revolted against Her. As "Mother of Mercy and Mother of Pardon," as we sing in the Salve Mater, She intercedes for us before Her Son: may the filial devotion of faithful souls, and the Communions of Reparation offered on the Five First Saturdays to console Her outraged Heart, be accepted by Him in Reparation for the crimes of sinners. Our Lady prays that He deign to accept this "little devotion," and take into account this "little act of Reparation" to Her Immaculate Heart, and deign to grant pardon in spite of everything, to the ingrates and blasphemers, all the poor souls who have had the audacity to offend Her------She, His Most Holy Mother! The Fatima Crusader

The five revealed offenses to the Blessed Virgin Mary the "Mother of Mercy and Mother of Pardon" is unforgivable because Mary instead of punishing the souls who committed this sins simply "cried tears even tears of blood" in many of the approved Marian Apparitions.

The "cries of tears even tears of blood of the Theotokos" for all the souls condemned by the Justice of God moved the Sacred Heart of Jesus.The words of Jesus reveals to Sis,Lucia the following in order to console Her Mother's Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart.

  "(Words of Jesus) See, My daughter, the motive for which the Immaculate Heart of Mary inspired Me to ask for this little Reparation, and in consideration of it, to move My mercy to pardon souls who have had the misfortune of offending Her. As for you, always seek by your prayers and sacrifices to move My mercy to pity for these poor souls."

Explanation on the Sins against the Holy Spirit:

  "The sin against the Holy Spirit." Here we have one of the principal themes of the Message of Fatima: since God has decided to manifest more and more His great design of love, which is to grant all graces to men through the mediation of the Immaculate Virgin, it seems that their refusal to submit with docility to what God wills is the fault which most gravely wounds His Heart, and for which He no longer finds in Himself any inclination to pardon. This sin seems unforgivable, because for Our Savior there is no crime more unpardonable than to despise His Most Holy Mother, and "to outrage Her Immaculate Heart, which is the Sanctuary of the Holy Spirit. This is committing "the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven in this world or in the next." The Fatima Crusader

The Justice of God condemned this sins because it is a direct offense to the Most Holy Trinity.
Mary is the chosen daughter of God whom God chooses in eternity to be dwelling place of the Logos and the Holy Spirit.

  721 Mary, the all-holy ever-virgin Mother of God, is the masterwork of the mission of the Son and the Spirit in the fullness of time. For the first time in the plan of salvation and because his Spirit had prepared her, the Father found the "dwelling place" where his Son and his Spirit could dwell among men. In this sense the Church's Tradition has often read the most beautiful texts on wisdom in relation to Mary.101 Mary is acclaimed and represented in the liturgy as the "Seat of Wisdom."

  In her, the "wonders of God" that the Spirit was to fulfill in Christ and the Church began to be manifested:

As the Book of Kings stated "the Highest Heavens cannot contain God whom She carried in Her Womb".

Panagia (Greek: Παναγία, fem. of panágios, pan- + hágios, the All-Holy; pronounced Greek pronunciation: [panaˈʝia]) in Medieval and Modern Greek, also transliterated Panayia or Panaghia, is one of the titles of Mary, the mother of Jesus, used especially in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity.

The Wondrous Icon of Panagia Prodromitissa

Theological Support that the five offenses listed above against Mary is the "unforgivable sin".

Mary is acknowlege by Church Tradition as the Mother of Mercy and in Fatima Apparition Her direct and urgent message is repentance "Penance,Penance,Penance."

When a christian not only reject the calling of the Mother of Mercy the instruments used by God to call on all the Redeemed to repentance but instead commits any of the five grievious offenses. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defined it as the "unforgivable sin".

  1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit the instruments of God in calling all people to repentance as seen in the Fatima Apparition. Rejecting Mary the Mother of Mercy is rejecting the Holy Spirit actions thru Her Maternal Mediation imploring all souls to seek repentance.


How old is the doctrine of a sinless Mary? What are the oldest known writings that state that Mary was without sin?

The earliest Christian writings outside the bible are from what are called the Church Fathers, from around the middle of the second century onwards for a few hundred years.

On the Immaculate Conception explicitly, the earliest would appear to be Hippolytus and Origen:

  He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

  This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Origen, Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Earlier writers hint at the doctrine, by comparing Mary to Eve, who was created without the stain of sin:

  [Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

  Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, "Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Iranaeus, Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

There are further, later comments where I found those but those are the earliest cited. These four are the earliest of the Fathers.

How old is the doctrine of a sinless Mary?  Nothing before the 2nd century AD on it.  It was never known by the bible writers, otherwise they would have put it in the scriptures as those confused church fathers did in their writings in the 2nd century.  I often find it ironic that the supposed successors of St. Peter's chair all claim that Mary is sinless while the supposed first Pope never even mentions her name in his Epistles.  Hmmmmm.


How does Absalom's death foreshadow Christ? Absalom dies on a tree (2 Samuel 18). He's rebelled against his father, David, and taken the throne. He'd rallied all Israel to his side. David has fled, but he's sent in his army and they've totally crushed Absalom. Absalom is fleeing into the forest when he gets caught, hangs on the tree, and eventually gets speared to death by Joab (the leader of David's army). Reminds me of Jesus's death on a cross.

After hearing of Absalom's death, David is sad. really sad. So sad he can't even rejoice that he's gotten his kingdom back.

Is there any Christological significance to this scenario? What about David? Does he play a metaphorical role?

IMHO, Christians find way too many "types of Christ" in the Old Testament.

Sure, there are some similarities between the death of Absalom and the death of Christ. But they're pretty strained.

Yes, both of their deaths involved a tree and a spear. Both were called "son of David".

But there are huge differences. Like: Absalom was guilty; Jesus was innocent. Absalom ran from death; Jesus faced death voluntarily. Absalom worked against his father; Jesus was working with his father. Etc etc.

I'm sure you could find parallels to Jesus death comparable to those you list in the deaths of lots of people throughout history. I'm sure I could find a criminal who was executed by hanging, who was a carpenter, and whose father was named "David". Would that make him a type of Christ?

Even in those cases where the parallels are really relevant, I'm not sure what the point is. So there are some analogies between the death of X and the death of Jesus. Interesting, perhaps, but so what? What does this prove?

The 3 darts to the heart and the 3 nails of the cross
Jesus also road upon a mule on his way to being hung on a tree
crown of thorns are similar to Absalom's hair being caught in the tree branches
Absalom was without blemish as the Lamb of God was without blemish
Absalom was a firstborn as Jesus was a Firstborn
Absalom, like Jesus, spoke gently to the people as opposed to the harshness of the
pharisees


What exactly was the purpose of the Council of Nicea? I heard recently in a bible study class on "How we got the Bible", that the Council of Nicea is not actually responsible for the compilation of the complete, canon biblical texts. I had always thought that the Council of Nicea had been responsible for this. So, my question is: what exactly was the purpose of the Council of Nicea?

Although many are of the opinion that the Council of Nicea was called to prep Christianity to become the official state religion, this is not accurate. This hypothesis does not fit with what we know about the mindset of the people of that time or Constantine. It should be remembered that Constantine was not yet a baptized Christian in 325 AD (the year the council was held); rather, his mother was. Although he took a great interest in the church (and would continue to do so with greater fervor as he grew older), Constantine was not baptized or fully accepted into the church until shortly before his repose.

The Edict of Milan also did not simply give freedom to Christians: it gave freedom to all religions. So, while Christianity certainly enjoyed the favor of the court, it did not become an official state religion, especially not to the exclusion of other religions. Even the Arian group that was cut off from the church existed peacefully in the empire for another several centuries.

Constantine also did not control the council, despite popular rhetoric to the contrary. In fact, everything we know about the council indicates the exact opposite. We have no official acts from the council, but we do have writings of many of the bishops and other clergy that attended it. Eusebius of Caesarea (not to be confused with Eusebius of Nicomedia) says that Constantine did not speak or understand Greek (the language used at the council) very well, so Bishop Hosios of Spain translated into Latin for him when he (Constantine) could find time to attend the council. It is estimated that the council took place over several months, and an emperor simply wouldn't have time to attend them all.

Further evidence that Constantine did not control the council is its result. It was precisely Constantine's best friends that were condemned by the council. I have in mind here in particular Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia (Eusebius later repented, was received by into the church, and went on to be the one to baptize Constantine).

As for the canon of scripture, it was necessary to establish at the beginning of the council which books were valid for argumentation. The question of authenticity was put to the Alexandrian party, as Alexandria was the center of learning in the world. The person generally credited as the lead researcher on the project is Athanasios the Great, whom I believe was a deacon at the time (if memory serves me). The selection of books was not, as Dan Brown might lead you to believe, done in either a conspiratorial or haphazard manner. The selections were quite reasonable, thoughtful, and well researched.

However, the selection of these books was not formally codified until the Second Oecumenical Council (381 AD). Part of the reason for this—and this is a major point missed by the majority of modern scholars—was the preference for and devotion to tradition on the part of the early church. Just as today, we argue over "what the Bible says," the early church argued over what had been handed down from the apostles and their successors. Oral tradition was considered sacred and the key to understanding the writings of any apostle or early church author. "Hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word or our epistle," wrote the Apostle Paul. The early church believed this deeply and followed it closely. All councils, whether local, regional, or oecumenical, were considered valid only in so far as they did not deviate from the sacred tradition handed down. Nearly all arguments made at these early councils hung on whether a thing had been passed down from bishop to bishop or not.

The main arguments at the First Oecumenical Council centered precisely around oral tradition. This is very important to understand. The First Oecumenical Council DID NOT FORMULATE NEW THEOLOGY. The very idea of "formulating" new theology is a very western idea and didn't even appear in the west as a concept until much later. The early church fathers abhorred and shunned the very idea of innovation.

Then what did the council do? The council introduced new terminology to more accurately express what had already been handed down. All of the bishops but 5 agreed on what had been handed down, though it took them quite a while to decide on whether or not to use the term "homoousion" (as opposed to the Arians' preference for "homiousion"). They tip-toed around this term because it had been used in a heretical way by Paul of Samosata some years earlier.

Constantine certainly did want to see the church rid of divisions—don't get me wrong. But I hope you will consider reading PRIMARY sources on this topic rather than the opinions that are currently trending and regurgitating among modern christians.

The council of Carthage AD 397 is where the leaders of the church finally affirmed what we know today as our New Testament Bible.  Google wrongly states it was the council of Trent. The council of Trent was where what we now call the Catholic church came together to discuss the damage that the Protestant Reformation did to the Catholic church at which time they agreed to add some of the books of the apocrifa (sp?) into the Catholic Bible.


Is it permitted for a priest say a Mass of Pope Pius V for new saints while employing the prayers taken from the Mass of Paul VI? Is it permissible for a priest say a Mass in the Extraordinary Form for new saints (canonized after 1962) while employing the prayers (Opening Prayer or Collect, Prayer over the Offerings and the Prayer after Communion) taken from the Mass of Paul VI?

It would be so awesome to go to Mass in the Extraordinary Form using the Mass propers of some of the newer saints like St. Maximilian Kolbe.

Is it permissible for a priest say a Mass in the Extraordinary Form for new saints (canonized after 1962) while employing the prayers or the orations (of the Opening Prayer or Collect, Prayer over the Offerings and the Prayer after Communion) taken from the Mass of Paul VI?

The short answer is yes.

Permission was given by Ecclesia Dei in 1993.

The “Common” in #4 is the ones as taken from the Mass of Pope Pius V. This has been the practice of the Benedictine monasteries of Fontgombault, Randol, Triors, Gaussian, Clear Creek (USA) and Saint-Paul de Wisques. Both Cardinal Paul Augustin Mayer and Mgr. Pearl have visited the Abbey of Fontgombault in the 1990s.

Further more Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger visited the Abbey of Fontgombault in July 2001 and said the following while there:

  For the future, we ought to think—it seems to me—in terms of enriching the Missal of 1962 by introducing some new saints; there are now some important figures among the saints—I am thinking, for example, of Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, the martyrs of Spain, the martyrs of the Ukraine, and so many others—but I am also thinking of that little Bakhita in the Sudan, who came from slavery and came to freedom in her faith in the Lord; there are many really lovely figures whom we all need. Thus, opening up the calendar of the old Missal to new saints, making a well thought-out choice of these, that seems to me something that would be appropriate at present and would not have any destructive effect on the fabric of the liturgy. We might also think about the Prefaces, which also come from the storehouse of wealth in the Church Fathers, for Advent, for example, and then others; why not insert those Prefaces into the old Missal?

  Thus, with great sensitivity and by showing a great deal of understanding for people's fears and preoccupations, maintaining contact with their leaders, we should be able to understand that this Missal is also a Missal of the Church and under the authority of the Church, that it is not an object preserved from the past, but a living reality within the Church, very much respected in its particular identity and for its historical stature, but also considered as something that is living and not as a dead thing, a relic of the past. The whole liturgy of the Church is always a living thing, a reality that is found above us and is not subject to our decisions and our arbitrary intentions. - Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger: Proceedings of the July 2001 Fontgombault Liturgical Conference

The Pontifical Commision Ecclesia Dei's 2011 instruction Universæ Ecclesiæ says

  In antiquo Missali recentiores sancti et aliquae ex novis praefationibus inseri possunt immo debent, secundum quod quam primum statutum erit.

Translation from this Latin-English version:

  New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.


When did Mary and Joseph learn that they were never supposed to have marital relations, according to Roman Catholic doctrine? Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, even after marrying Joseph.  It would seem that Joseph and Mary, at their betrothal, had likely expected to have, and anticipated having marital relations with each other in marriage.

So, according to Roman Catholic teaching, when and how did Mary and Joseph learn that marital relations would be denied them?  Did they just never desire that, or did they specifically have to battle the temptation?  It admittedly seems strange to me that this would be withheld from them.

Is it even right to say they were not supposed to have marital relations?  Or should it be said that they never even desired that?

For many the miracle of the Virgin Birth is one thing, but lifelong abstinence from sexuality is impossible to accept. The lives of monastics and ascetics around the world and throughout history attest to the fact that it is possible. Sexual purity is only one of many challenges set for these spiritual warriors, and for many, perhaps most of them, it is not the greatest.

Mary’s Vow of virginity was before the Annunciation:

Two important facts are depicted in this verse. First, already at this moment:

  Mary is a virgin betrothed to Joseph, meaning that she is at the first stage of Jewish marriage. She is truly married to Joseph but not yet living with him, for she has not arrived at the second stage of marriage known as the "coming together," when husband and wife typically would begin to live in the same house and consummate the marriage.

  Second, Mary has been told by Gabriel that at some time in the future she will bear a son who will be the royal Son of David, the Messiah-King. Notice the future tense: "You will conceive in your womb and bear a son" (Lk. 1:31, emphasis added). So far, Gabriel gives no indication that the conception will take place right now or in the immediate future. In fact, the timetable is quite open-ended. Without giving any time specification, the angel simply informs Mary that she will conceive this child at some time in the future.

  In this light, Mary’s question seems rather peculiar: ... If Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph in the near future, the answer to her question should be obvious. While she does not right now have the power to conceive a child (since she doesn’t yet "know" man sexually), if Mary intends to know Joseph after the coming together, then she evidently will be able to have a child at that point. Therefore, if Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph, her question ... simply does not make sense. (source)

This view has been held by theologians such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure and even Martin Luther.

Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:

  It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

Luther also wrote on February 2, 1546 that Mary was "a virgin before the conception and birth, she remained a virgin also at the birth and after it."

Calvin also upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, who wrote:

  I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

Zwingly wrote in January of 1528: "I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize Mary as ever virgin and holy."

Reason for the belief that Mary was virgin after the birth of Jesus:

Pope St. Siricius said that God the Father reserved the womb of the Blessed Mother solely for his only-begotten Son. St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas assigned a spiritual meaning to Ezekiel 44:2:

  "Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." (Ezekiel 44:2).

Mary is the gate, and Jesus was the only one to enter it. This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin. The place where the saviour of this world was nourished was not to be used by any one else.:-- Base source.

Further reading here and this source:

  To say that they had sexual relation after birth of Jesus, Son of God, is to suggest something else that is greatly implausible...: that neither Mary nor her protector, Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh. ... Mary became the vessel for the Lord of Glory Himself, and bore in the flesh Him whom heaven and earth cannot contain. Would this not have been grounds to consider her life, including her body, as consecrated to God and God alone?

Then Why Would Mary Marry?:

A variety of accounts have been offered:

  Perhaps since remaining a single woman was not as socially feasible in the ancient world of Judaism as it is today, marriage would have provided economic stability and social protection for Mary.

  Perhaps the marriage was arranged.

  Perhaps marriage would free Mary from other men seeking her hand in marriage and thus protect her vow.

  Perhaps God led Mary to marriage because in His providence, He wanted to protect her reputation for the future when she would conceive by the Holy Spirit. (source)

John Paul II wrote the following in a 1996 papal document:

  We can wonder why she would accept betrothal, since she had the intention of remaining a virgin forever . . . It may be presumed that at the time of their betrothal there was an understanding between Joseph and Mary about the plan to live as a virgin. Moreover, the Holy Spirit, who had inspired Mary to choose virginity in view of the mystery of the Incarnation and who wanted the latter to come about in a family setting suited to the child’s growth, was quite able to instill in Joseph the ideal of virginity as well.

If Mary had told Joseph of her vow of virginity (as surely she must have), then we are led to conclude that, since Joseph agreed to marry her, he too must have made a vow of perpetual continence (i.e. to refrain from all sexual relations even within marriage).

  Surely his wife's miraculous conception and birthgiving (confirmed by the angel in dream-visions) and the sight of God incarnate in the face of the child Christ would have been enough to convince him that his marriage was set apart from the norm. Within Mary's very body had dwelt the second Person of the Trinity. If touching the ark of the covenant had cost Uzzah his life, and if even the scrolls containing the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were venerated, certainly Joseph, man of God that he was, would neither have dared nor desired to approach Mary, the chosen of Israel, the throne of God, to request his "conjugal rights"!  (source)

Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.

Indeed, to suggest (a) that the tradition about her perpetual virginity could have been introduced after apostolic times, (b) that this tradition would have gone little noticed by a Church in the throes of questioning everything about what it believed in the first millennium, (c) that such a novel tradition should be considered inconsequential enough to pass without discussion before it became universally proclaimed, and (d) that such a tradition should have no discernible literary or geographical origin and yet be universally accepted from very early in the Church's history, is to form a very unlikely hypothesis.

Set Apart to God

To argue against Mary's perpetual virginity is to suggest something else that is greatly implausible, not to say unthinkable: that neither Mary nor her protector, Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh. Leaving aside for a moment the complete uniqueness of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, recall that it was the practice for devout Jews in the ancient world to refrain from sexual activity following any great manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

Source: goarcch.org


While on the cross, was Jesus abandoned by every human? There are numerous Christians hymns and references in Christian literature that Jesus was "forsaken by all mankind, yet to be in Heaven' enthroned", etc.
In essence, there is this powerful image of Christ hanging crucified on the cross bearing the sins of all mankind, totally abandoned. (cf. Mark 15:34)
The Gospels, however, at least the Gospel of John, presents the apostle John and Mary the mother of Jesus present at the crucifixion (cf. John 19:26–27), showing somehow that not every human betrayed or forsaken Christ.
Are the Christian hymns a simple exaggeration to make a point, or was Jesus indeed literary forsaken by all humans? If so, how are we to interpret the passages cited in John's Gospel?

He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - John 1:10-12

The hymn writers are employing literary devices intended, not to exaggerate Christ's suffering (for we cannot even truly imagine the anguish of that lonely cry "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!"), but to pointedly draw our self serving attentions to it for His glory and for our edification.

It was alone the Savior prayed  In dark Gethsemane;
Alone He drained the bitter cup   And suffered there for me.
Alone, alone, He bore it all alone; He gave Himself to save His own,
He suffered,
bled and died alone, alone.
It was alone the Savior stood   In Pilate’s judgment hall; Alone the
crown of thorns He wore,   Forsaken thus by all.
Alone upon the cross He hung   That others He might save; Forsaken
then by God and man.   Alone, His life He gave.
Can you reject such matchless love?   Can you His claim disown? Come,
give your all in gratitude,   Nor leave Him thus alone.

It Was Alone The Savior Prayed - Benjamin H. Price 1914

Luke 23 (KJV):

39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying,
If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear
God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds:
but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy
kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou
be with me in paradise.

Clearly this was one human who believed in Jesus and not "abandoned" him, even under the direst of circumstances.


How can an all powerful supreme being be either good or evil? In order to be Omnipotent, or all knowing, as well as Omnipresent and all powerful wouldn't a supreme being have to be so far removed from concepts of "Good" and "Evil"?  Those are just terms and ideas that Man created, therefore how can something that is literally the sum total of everything be one or the other?

If you're asking for an answer from a Christian perspective, which implies that you will accept, for the purposes of the answer, the presuppositions inherent in a "Christian answer" such as that God is who the Bible claims he is...

You're making a false assumption in the question.  Good or evil are not concepts that man made up and applied to God.  Good and evil are concepts defined by God, and understood by us, his creation.  As the Creator of the universe, it is He who defines what anything is.  He created things as he saw fit, and if He says something is this, or something is that, it is so.

We, as His creations merely understand, through the senses and ability to reason that he created in us, or through his revealed word to us.

Therefore God defines what good and evil is.  Being God, it makes sense that "Good" is defined as according to His word,in line with His character, and as revealed to us by Him.

It is only from an atheistic mindset that one could claim that "good and evil are traits we made up and applied to God".  The ability to say that cannot exist without the presupposition that God is imaginary, and a creation of man.  From the Christan perspective, this is exactly the opposite of the truth.

im proud as a being that you have asked such an obvious yet considered complicated question.

and heres my influence (power), good and evil or the moral perspective, is a human perspective. and not a gods perspective. which humans just tell each other that this is so when there only seeing it from one side of the coin if you like, infact for a god to say otherwise would merely be looking at it from the otherside, but god doesnt say this.. we do. we interpret thus from the live (spelling of evil backwards hmmmm?). god is neither heads nor tails to me.. he is heads, tails, and the coin itself which is both physical and non phsyical which is considered to be singular but when you put it under a microscope has many different parts to it, the alpha and omega, the unmoving, mover.

therefore god is neither good nor evil because hes neither physical or meta physical he is both.

good and evil is just a human perspective on concepts like up and down, left and right, small and big. in order to understand small there must be a big and one must have experienced what big is first before using the reference small.
im not calling your answer or even question right, because right gives the prospect that what others are saying is wrong?? it just a case of what you believe serves you.

for me it doesnt work to say that the 'supreme/all' being is a vengeful and jealous being, if our aim through religion is to understand our connection to one another and bring divine joy. its not a case of what we think or believe god to be, its more a case of what we think and believe ourselves to be.
thanks for your time :)


How did Cain kill Abel? Genesis 4:8

  Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.”* When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

* [4:8] Let us go out in the field: to avoid detection. The verse presumes a sizeable population which Genesis does not otherwise explain.

My question is how did Cain kill Abel? I was wondering if there is a commonly accepted method of murder, or if a religion, such as Catholicism, has a tradition about how he was killed.

I have read that he used a rock. I think the more believable guess is a spear. (Based off of the meaning of the name Cain.)

In the canon of scripture the answer is not stated, but in the book of Jasher it is. I suppose most would not consider it doctrine since it is not in the current Bible, but in the book of Jasher it states:

  And Cain hastened and rose up, and took the iron part of his ploughing instrument, with which he suddenly smote his brother and he slew him, and Cain spilt the blood of his brother Abel upon the earth, and the blood of Abel streamed upon the earth before the flock. (Jasher 1:25)

This is the only reference I have found that may actually mean something besides just guessing at it.

Genisis 3:15 is the first prophesy of Jesus the seed of the woman,as Abels sacrifce the first born of the floks was acceptable to the Lord (blood sacrifce anagalory to Jesus Christ on the cross Gen 4:4) the humanity of Jesus Christ would be in Abels line,the murder of Abel was satans first attempet to courpet the human line of Jesus.As Abel killed lambs probaley with a knife,it's reasionabel to say Cain used Abels sarcifical knife to murder him.


Why are there differences in events within the Gospels? Why does the gospel of Matthew claim that it was Mary Magdalene who annointed Jesus's feet with oil and Luke claim it was an unnamed woman?

In the Luke account of Jesus being anointed, a woman is recorded as being 'a sinner' and she is unnamed. In the Matthew account of Jesus being anointed, a woman is identified as Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

Examination of these two accounts shows that it is impossible to prove that they are the same incident. The details are so worded that one cannot say, categorically, that these are not two accounts of different events.

Thus the unnamed 'sinner' cannot be identified. Whoever she is or is not, it cannot be proven.

All we know of this unidentified woman is that she anointed Jesus prior to his sufferings, death and burial.

In so doing, she was successful, anointing Jesus beforehand, for the women who went to the tomb with spices, after his decease, were not able to administer them, for Jesus was risen from the dead by the time they got there.

The four gospels are clearly demonstrating different aspects of Jesus Christ and his ministry on earth. The details supplied in the four aspect-accounts are selected with an overall purpose in mind. Different events, sometimes not in consecutive order of occurrence, are gathered together and presented in juxtaposition in order to convey a particular aspect of the Person and Ministry of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

EDIT:  My answer here follows the lead of the question, which does not question whether there are differences in the gospels, but it asks "WHY" there are differences.  In other words, any answer to this question must already accept the premise that differences exist.

Therefore, if you take issue with my statement that there are differences, and my examples to validate it, then you need to move on to a different question and not engage in this one.  If you accept the premise and want to read a potential explanation for it, then read on.

There are a number of differences and contradictions between the gospels.  Let's not pretend there aren't.

To tell or not to tell

  Matthew 28:8
  8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

  Mark 16:8
  8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

To staff, or not to staff

  Mark 6:8-9
  8 These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9 Wear sandals but
  not an extra shirt.

  Luke 9:3
  3 He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt.

And my personal favourite...

To hang, or not to hang...

According to Matthew, Judas returned the money to the chief priests, who then used the money to purchase the "Field of Blood". Matthew also says that Judas hanged himself and that the reason the field is called "Field of Blood" is because it's used as a burial place for foreigners.

  Matthew 27:5-8
  5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests picked up the coins and
  said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it
  is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the
  potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has
  been called the Field of Blood to this day.

That's not what Paul said. According to Paul Judas never returned the money but instead bought a field with it where he died by falling, not by hanging. He also says this is the reason it's called "Field of Blood".

  Acts 1:18-19
  18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his
  intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so
  they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of
  Blood.)

The reason we see differences between the gospels is because the gospels were written by men, not by God.  Yes, these men were filled with the spirit (that is the life of God) but that doesn't mean they had perfect memories, nor does it mean that God possessed their bodies when they wrote.  Simply put, there are mistakes in their writings.


Is It Possible for a Penitent to Bypass a Refusal of Absolution and If So How? Sometimes priests will explicitly refuse to give absolution to the penitent, is it possible to bypass the refusal of a specific priest and be forgiven of the sins another way when this happens? Whether it is by ordinary or extraordinary means. I would like to hear of all methods, if any.

In the extremely unlikely event that a priest denied me absolution and gave no reason for the denial, I'd confess to a different priest.

But normally, a priest who denies absolution would also tell the penitent why --- perhaps the penitent isn't really contrite ("I'm sorry I stole that money, but I'm going to keep it.") or clearly hasn't done an adequate examination of conscience. In that situation, the penitent should go and remove the reasons for the denial (e.g., return the stolen money) and then confess again (to the same priest or a different one).

Your sins are also forgiven, even before confession, if you have perfect contrition for them, which means contrition based on love of God (not fear, not shame, etc.) but perfect contrition must include the intention to go to confession when possible, i.e., to use the means that God has prescribed for obtaining forgiveness.

So the bottom line is that, to circumvent a refusal of absolution, you should remove the cause of the refusal and then go to confession again to obtain absolution.

The question is kind of vague.

Canon 980 tells us the priest cannot refuse absolution if certain of the penitent's disposition:

  If the confessor is in no doubt about the penitent’s disposition and
  the penitent asks for absolution, it is not to be denied or delayed.

If the priest provides no information as to the impediment, it would seem he is doing an injustice to the penitent and the penitent should ask for the reasons.