Several Christian Bible scholars / theologians, for various reasons, want to interpret the flood in Genesis 6-9 as "not global" (see [various interpretation](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/56054/10672)) . Those who believe there was a **historical but regional/local** flood would also supply various ways to reconcile what the text is saying and the *fact* of that flood, to come up with the **theological message** that remains true for us today. That is, the telling in Genesis 6-9 was meant to be primarily a *theological* story of God's covenant with humanity *regardless* whether the description it provides (as details in the story) was scientifically and historically accurate. *One* of those ways (i.e. *NOT* the only way, see Note below) is to say that the author was using the Ancient Near East *hyperbole* literary technique we see in common use in contemporaneous non-Biblical texts. Examples of 21st century support for this way of interpretation: - John Walton and Tremper Longman in their book [The Lost World of the Flood](https://www.ivpress.com/the-lost-world-of-the-flood) . A summary can be read through [this interview with them about the book](https://biologos.org/articles/the-genesis-flood-through-ancient-eyes-an-interview-with-john-walton-and-tremper-longman) . - Gavin Ortlund in his 2015 blog article [Why a Local Flood?](https://truthunites.org/2015/01/03/why-a-local-flood/) and his recent 2024 *TruthUnites* video episode [Was Noah's Flood Local?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq5tUg4SWzs) But in at least 2 places there is reference to *everyone except 8* who are destroyed: Gen 6:17: > "Understand that I am bringing a flood—floodwaters on the earth **to destroy every creature under heaven with the breath of life in it**. Everything on earth will perish. and in 2 Peter 2:5: > ... and if he didn’t spare the ancient world, but protected **Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others**, when he brought the flood on the world of the ungodly; ... But with the flood being *regional* rather than *global*: - It seems God was *not* telling the truth in Gen 6:17. - The implication that only 8 people were alive in 2 Peter 2:5 would not be true either. - Consequently, we may have a problem with Biblical inerrancy. - The typology that **salvation is *only* for those in Noah's Ark** (as place of safety) may not work either. **How do proponents of Noah's flood as *historical but not-global* where not everyone died, solve the above problem?** ---- **Note**: (thanks to @TheodoreReinJedlicka) 1. Not all local flood proponents may agree with scientific consensus, and still hold to a local flood. 1. Several local flood proponents may not believe the account to be hyperbolic. 1. There is an ontological difference between saying that the flood is a hyperbolic story, versus saying that the story is told using hyperbolic language typical of the ancient world to communicate both historical and spiritual truth. Two very different positions – I don't want scientific consensus and the various ways to tell about the historical local flood to cloud this question. What matters is simply this: not every human died in that historical local flood. A related point is that there is a high probability that the historical local flood didn't affect several pre-historic human settlements far away from the Mediterranean, such as the aboriginal Australia or ancient China. If we find ***ungodly* people in those areas were not killed by God's action in that flood**, would we have a problem? I understand that an answer can be limited to hermeneutical analysis, but when integrating that interpretation to *theology* (this is a question to C.SE rather than to BH.SE) we want to at least address this anthropology / archaeology angle.

According to Wikipedia: > When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body", what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: these "accidents" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, when Jesus made that declaration, the underlying reality (the "substance") of the bread was converted to that of his body. **In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before.** and also > The Catholic Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation So, how can the Eucharist change from bread to body if it is not measurably altered in any way? How is it different from saying that *it doesn't change at all*? Is it an allegory? If not, how does it change *in practical terms*?

If I am not mistaken (but do correct me if I am), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings, i.e. three separate Gods. What Scripture passages do Latter-day Saints use to refute the “three persons in one God” view of trinitarianism?

The following is an overview of the LDS's understanding of the Godhead taken from the following LDS site. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng >"The Church’s first article of faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven. Latter-day Saints view the members of the Godhead in a manner that corresponds in a number of ways with the views of others in the Christian world, but with significant differences. Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being. >"The true doctrine of the Godhead was lost in the apostasy that followed the Savior’s mortal ministry and the deaths of His Apostles. This doctrine began to be restored when 14-year-old Joseph Smith received his First Vision (see Joseph Smith—History 1:17). From the Prophet’s account of the First Vision and from his other teachings, we know that the members of the Godhead are three separate beings. The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)." >"Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father’s divine plan of salvation." Source: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng *** How are these beliefs reconciled with Biblical verses indicating there is only one God or one being of God? Such as: Colossians 1:19 - the "Godhead" (Godhead is defined as "divine nature or essence") dwells bodily in Christ. When Jesus said at John 10:30, "I and the Father we are one" He meant one in nature or essence. It's already a given that they are one in purpose especially after Jesus says the sheep are just as safe in His and the Father's hands at John 10:27-29. Deuteronomy 6:4 - "Hear, O Israel: "The LORD thy God is one LORD." Isaiah 44:6,8 - "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts, I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." Verse 8, "And you are My witnesses, Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I KNOW OF NONE." And the words of Jesus Christ Himself at Mark 10:29, The foremost is "Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord."

It is my understanding that in Catholic Theology the immaculate conception relates to the fact that Mary was born without the blemish of original sin. It is also my understanding that Mary was, through the grace of God, kept from ever committing any personal sin as well. As a Protestant, I have a hard time understanding how these dogmas do not completely negate the need for a savior for not only Mary but every human. If God can save one person from original sin and personal sin without the death of Jesus Christ why not everyone? How does the Catholic atonement theology address this?

>“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Now most women are going to see relationships as transactional, trying to seek the most competent male. "He will rule over you" will make women more picky. It should inspire fear in the once equal with Adam, Eve? Who wants to be ruled by the poor, stupid, bad character male or the mediocre? >“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” Now, most men have to work hard to support a woman and themselves who thinks the relationship is a shortchanged/bad one. If I'm not seeing this correctly, why not?

2 Nephi 2:23 states > And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have > remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no > misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. Often, it is said that Adam and Eve *could* not of had children, based on this verse. But the verse says *would*, not *could*. Are there any other verses or latter day saint doctrine explaining whether or not they *could* have children?

Canon 843 says >Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them. > >§2. Pastors of souls and other members of the Christian faithful, according to their respective ecclesiastical function, have the duty to take care that those who seek the sacraments are prepared to receive them by proper evangelization and catechetical instruction, attentive to the norms issued by competent authority. This seems to me to entail that priests may deny communion to those they know to be improperly disposed. If someone seeks communion at an inappropriate time, or while improperly disposed, or is prohibited by law from receiving communion, then there does not appear to be any requirement for the pastor to give that person communion. Yet, there are those who say that a priest can only deny communion to someone who is in "manifest grave sin." This is a reference to canon 915, which says >Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion. But this canon says the priest *may not* admit such people to communion, not that the priest must admit anyone who does not meet these criteria to communion. If, hypothetically, I walked up to the priest just before Mass, and told him that I had committed some grave sin and had not yet repented of it in Confession, but the sin is private, known only to me and the priest, it seems common sense to me that if I then approach to receive communion during Mass, the priest should deny me. Even if I did not tell him the particulars of the sin, but merely that it was grave or mortal, it seems common sense that he ought to deny communion to me. I would very much like to see the reasoning from a trained canon lawyer as to how the law as written requires priests, especially pastors, to give communion to someone they know is in unrepentant mortal sin as long as the sin isn't publicly manifest. Or, if that is incorrect, are there any canon lawyers who say that the priest in my hypothetical scenario is permitted to refuse someone communion?

What different opinions exist on what the text in Revelation 17:17 refers to? The passage says, according to NKJV > For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of > one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of > God are fulfilled.

One big difference between the Eastern and Western churches is the idea of original sin, Instead of "original sin" the Orthodox Church holds to "ancestral sin" which has been described to me as centering around the idea that nothing God makes is inherently evil. The *OrthodoxWiki* article Original sin says that > "In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's 'inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors' and that this is removed through baptism." The first line of the *Wikipedia* page on Pelagianism states > "Pelagianism is a Christian theological position that holds that the fall did not taint human nature and that humans by divine grace have free will to achieve human perfection." If we are all created good simply with the ability to sin or even a proclivity to sin but are not corrupted by sin then wouldn't it be possible for someone of their own will to not sin? Is that not simply Pelagianism?

My grandparents are devout Catholics in the Midwest. They are fairly involved in their local church, however if they are away they will go to any close church. This much is fine, and I admire them for their faith and dedication. As they were born and raised in small Midwest towns during the 1940s, I believe that their dedication to this has to do with their interpretation of "remember the sabbath day" to mean that they need a church and priest. Where I have concerns is that, last Sunday, the roads were icy enough that they were having trouble safely driving and walking. This is boosted by both of them reaching critical memory issues, and my grandmother not eating enough and relying on a walker. As such, I am concerned for their safety, and want to give them an alternative if the roads are too dangerous for them. Since they are devout, I am looking for something in Catholic doctrine that defines whether or not a priest or physical church is necessary for worship. A preferred or additional verse would include some prioritization of your own health. EDIT: Thank you for the answers! I didn't realize that Mass was a compulsory idea since I come from a Protestant background. I'll see if my grandparent's friends aren't willing to pick them up. God Bless!

I know there are some kinds of prayer that you cannot do while in a state of mortal sin, but then I read somewhere that you can pray for your own salvation, but can you pray for the salvation of another person?

### The three transcendentals and *imago dei* Medieval scholastic theology inherited the notions of [transcendentals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentals) from Greek metaphysics. CCC 41, interpreting [Wis 13:5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Wisdom%2013%3A5&version=NRSVCE) , teaches that our soul has the ability to perceive God through the 3 transcendentals Truth, Goodness and Beauty in created things **by resemblance**, because our soul has *imago dei* stamped on it: > All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator". A [*Reasons to Believe* article](https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/the-3-transcendentals-truth-goodness-beauty) quoted Stephen R. Turley saying that the 3 transcendentals to provide **divine meaning to 3 capacities**: > Truth, goodness, and beauty are cosmic values that communicate divine meaning to the **intellectual**, **moral**, and **aesthetic** capacities of the human soul, which brings a balance in the soul, which, in turn, harmonizes the human person with divine meaning and purpose of the cosmos, which was considered the prerequisite to human flourishing. The same article quoted Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft who connects the 3 transcendentals to **created things**: > When God created, he imbued the cosmos with truth, goodness, and beauty. Philosopher Peter Kreeft says: “Everything that exists is in some way true, good, and beautiful.” and continues to associate the 3 transcendentals to **3 verbs** "know", "desire", and "love": > And humans via the imago Dei (image of God) are able **to *know* the truth, *desire* the good, and *love* the beautiful**. The fall of humankind into sin disordered man’s natural capacities but through the redemption found in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ humans are brought back into a right relationship with God and with these revealed values. ### My question It seems that the last 2 pairings are not technically consistent. Shouldn't it be: 1. ***Know* Truth** by our **reason** (because by **intellectual** activity in our mind we grasp & form concepts and we reason discursively) 2. ***Love* Goodness** by our **will** (because inspired by divine Love we *ACTIVELY resolve* to love others, usually with great effort unless aided by virtues, in the sphere of Christian **morality**, i.e. love = "willing the good of the other") 3. ***Desire* Beauty** by our **passion** (because our **aesthetic** sensibilities is *PASSIVELY drawn* to all things beautiful or by *being led* to them by simply perceiving or immersing ourselves in them with little effort) I am seeking a Catholic answer linking Catholic psychology to Catholic doctrine of God. I hope that CCC, an encyclical, St. Thomas Aquinas, or a post Vatican II theologian says something about it. ### P.S. It seems there are other meanings at play here, such as "love" as attraction ("love" is such a complex multivalent word!) or "good" to mean how we desire created goods (such as wealth, honor, food, sex, etc.) we aim to possess to be happy. I'm simply using that article as a motivating resource to ask this question. It's important for the answer to this question to get those multiple meanings of the words in order, refined within the discipline of Catholic psychology, so we can focus on the right terminologies for the 3 faculties of our soul (covered heavily in St. Thomas's *Summa*) and how they connect to the 3 transcendentals in Catholic theology.

In the Papal Bull, *Sanctissimus Dominus Noster,* of March 13, 1625, Pope Urban VIII instructed Catholics not to venerate the deceased or represent them in the manner of Saints without the sanction of the Catholic Church. I have not located a copy of this letter. I would like to read it, as well as determine what are the penalties on those who violate its dictates. QUESTION: (i) Where may I obtain (preferably online) a copy of the document; and, (ii) What are the penalties imposed for its violation? Thank you.

Were the Philistines Canaanites? The https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Philistine Says that they were: "of or relating to the people of ancient Philistia", not Canaan. >Now the ***Philistines*** gathered together their armies to battle...and Saul and the men of Israel were gathered together...And the ***Philistines*** stood on a mountain on the one side, and Israel stood on a mountain on the other side...And there went out a champion out of the camp of the ***Philistines*** named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span! (1 Samuel 17:1-4) Were the Philistines just another tribe of Canaanites with a history of living in the land of Israel?

This post is a follow-up to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/103903/on-the-papal-bull-sanctissimus-dominus-noster-of-urban-viii On pg. 4 of St. Alphonsus Liguori's [*Glories of Mary*](https://ia801301.us.archive.org/25/items/thegloriesofmary00liguuoft/thegloriesofmary00liguuoft.pdf) , we find, for example, the following "Protest of the Author"--- And, according to the Wikipedia biography of Pope Urban VIII found [*here*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VIII) , we read under "Policy on Private Revelation": In light of Geremia's answer in the aforementioned post, it seems that Wikipedia *may* have been wrong in their citation of the ``papal bull Sanctissimus Dominus Noster of 13 March 1625.'' It has been my observation that a "Protost" such as the one above by St. Alphonsus Liguori is not uncommon---with all professing their obedience to the decrees of Pope Urban VIII regarding the veneration (or representation in the manner of Saints) of individuals whose sanctity has not been officially recognized by the Catholic Church. QUESTION: Can anyone shed some light (with references and/or verifiable examples) of what exactly these "Decrees of Urban VIII" are? Is there a papal bull in which they are contained or where they promulgated in some other fashion? Thank you.

I once heard that so many priests, monks and nuns left their vocations and returned to lay state immediately after Vatican council II ended. Is this true? I also heard that so many convents and monasteries shutdown. I know now that churches across Europe continue to shutdown and Christianity dwindle. But is there any official trustworthy statistics or records for all this? Is there a good reference that talks about these issues? **Update 1:** I found the following SSPX research paper Fruits of Vatican II : But I need more guidance in evaluating it (how valuable it is and what other research exists in this are, especially books treating this matter). **Update 2:** Another resource I found is a blog article by the same title by Patrick Hawkins, a [contributor to One Peter 5](https://onepeterfive.com/author/pfhawkins/) (a website for restoring Catholic Tradition). But again, I am looking for a trustworthy interpretation of this data in the form of a book. **Update 3:** Another is a book list on Second Vatican Council by [Dr. Peter and Julian Kwasniewski](https://bookshop.org/shop/tradition-sanity-list).

During Eucharistic Adoration in Catholic churches, the consecrated host is kept in a [monstrance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrance) on the altar for the faithful to venerate. The design of the monstrance is uniform across the world in that the round enclosure is surrounded 360 degree by sharp projections that look like flames. Or, do they represent the Crown of Thorns, or the rays of divine light? The Image of the [Sacred Heart of Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Heart) also has similar projections. My question is: **Where did the Monstrance of the Catholic churches get its design from?**

Why does the Catholic Church promote the bodies of certain individuals as "incorruptibles" when their bodies have clearly corrupted ? Further, why does the Catholic Church hide the corruption and artificially delay corruption, such as a rubber mask in the case of Padre Pio to hide his decayed head , or storing bodies in environmentally controlled coffins, or injecting with formaldehyde? How is the latter "incorruptible" evidence of anything supernatural, when the natural corruption is either hidden or delayed through very non-supernatural means? For example this Wikipedia list , almost all the "incorruptibles" are described as corrupted and requiring wax to cover up their face and hands. Why does their true state need to be hidden? If they are all corrupted, why does the Catholic Church maintain the appearance of incorruption?

I am look for more insight. I have seen many interpretation of scripture but not one that completely explains what my question is.