This relates to a discussion on another Question (which I won't link because I don't want to draw attention to the OP). The following is all hypothetical. (I, personally, am not Roman Catholic, nor do I have any plans of becoming so.) Let's say I engage in some practice which I believe to be beneficial to my health. (The specific practice is irrelevant.) Let's say, also, that the RCC forbids this practice. However, I believe that my health is more important than adhering to Catholic teaching, so I continue the practice in genuine belief that doing so is critical to my health and longevity. Could I be excommunicated for this? Does it make a difference if I was already Catholic, vs. if I converted with the intention of ignoring the RCC prohibition to refrain from this practice?

> As in the case of Baptism and Confirmation this share in Christ's office is granted once for all. the sacrament of Holy Orders, like the other two, confers an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1582) A 1954 Time magazine article citing Rev. Daniel A. Poling estimated that, in the decade prior, as many as 4 million Catholics converted to Protestantism. This is from a 2015 Pew research article on "faith switching": > One-in-five people who were raised Catholic now say they have no religious affiliation, while 10% identify with evangelical denominations, 5% with mainline denominations and smaller numbers with other faiths. My question is: What is the Catholic view of those very many (multiple millions) of Baptized and Confirmed Roman Catholics who have later (in adult life) had the experience of being saved in the evangelical sense? ________________________________________________________________________ Definition: Evangelicals believe that salvation is a personal and transformative experience that involves a "born-again" encounter with Jesus Christ. This experience is considered a passage from spiritual death to spiritual life. It encompasses all the abiding and immediate effects (albeit some of the language is different) that are supposed to have been conferred in Catholic Baptism and Confirmation, especially the immediate results (copied from this question ), such as: Abiding Effects Baptism: Incorporates us into Christ and his Church Baptism: Capacity to receive other sacraments Baptism: God's life, the life of the Holy Spirit Confirmation: Configuration to Christ's priesthood Confirmation: seals our souls like armor so that we can be knights in combat for Christ Immediate Results Baptism: Forgiveness of sin Baptism: Bestowal of Sanctifying Grace Baptism: Infusion of the Supernatural Virtues Baptism: Infusion of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit Baptism: Conferral of Actual Graces Confirmation: Grace of mature, Christian witness Confirmation: Grace of spiritual soldiery

I am interested in the numbers of members in the LDS Church in France, Poland, and Russia between 1935-1945. Would anyone know what the amounts would be, or where it can be obtained from?

I drink animal blood strictly for health reasons. As far as I am concerned, it is integral to being **extremely healthy**, and not just moderately more healthy than normal. I'm not particularly interested in debating the merits of that perspective here. What I am interested in is how that affects my Catholic Faith. Some have mentioned that there is a reaffirmed prohibition on the consumption of blood in Catholicism: > Acts 15:20 "abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood." But the reading of that being literal seems to miss the mark. It seems to be more about the ritualistic or symbolic blood or Cannibalism, rather than say "Korean Blood Sausage" or "Blood Pudding" or drinking that from a freshly butchered animal. I am not sure if I am prepared to put my personal health below Catholic teaching. If they forced me to be a vegetarian for example, I simply would not convert, or rather I would convert with every intention to break that hypothetical commandment every day. So for Catholics, what are the relevant technicalities to my dilemna here? If I were to become a Catholic, and then subsequently consumed animal blood for health reasons, would I then have to go to confession? Could I be excommunicated from the church for doing so insolong as my genuine belief was that this was for my health and longevity? Obviously there is blood in a rare steak; but I have not heard that the consumption of this as being a problem in Catholicism. Has this been ruled against officially or included as part of their catechism in any particular context?

In chapter 4 of the Book of Genesis, Cain is written to have killed his brother Abel out of jealousy over the difference in their offerings to God. Cain was bestowed the role of a tiller of the ground, while Abel was a keeper of sheep. *"In the course of time, Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell."* At this time in the creation story, there were only about four people on earth who did also not have a bible or societal customs for sacrifice or any sort of offerings. Adam and Eve were also aware that they had to make sacrifices for the sake of God, but why? God is never mentioned to have instructed them to make offerings to him (which doesn't make very much sense to me anyway), but they still do. Was it something already instinctual in them as people? Is it an inherent human desire to make sacrifices to God?

As a Christian, how should I understand the book of Esther? Meaning, what does it tell me, and what should I take from it to make me a better Christians, or even not to make me a better Christian what should I take from it? Does the book of Esther itself give any direction that would help Christians? Or maybe, as quoted from this answer? >Anyway, Esther is in the Christian Bible because it is in the Jewish Bible. Why would the Jews include it in their Bible? Chiefly because it tells the story for one of their feasts, that of Purim. Purim is a joyous festival in which they act out the story of Esther by reading through the book of Esther.

The difference between a person like me who **knows** that God exists and a person who **believes** that God exists is personal experience. For example I have experienced events in my life where mystical beings have spied on me and taken information to a remote human being in control of those beings. I applied my reasoning and logic proved that the only way someone in the US can know what I am doing in Israel is through divination or necromancy, and that otherwise a normal person wouldn't. This is how I arrived at the knowledge that mystical beings indeed exist and are able to do things normal humans wouldn't be able to. > Editor's note: Assume the reasoning above is valid for the sake of answering the question. The Bible says that without faith we do not please God *Hebrew 11:6* >And without faith it is impossible to please God," meaning that in order to be pleasing to God, one must have faith in Him Does that mean a person who **knows** instead of **believes** is in violation of that verse?

I see a lot of pseudo-Scriptural mysticism on the subject of the identities of angels and devils, men and God. I say mysticism not to dismiss attempted explanations categorically, but because the Scriptures do not seem to say explicitly that men and angels, God and man, and even man and devils are not (or were not once) of the same kin. Yet it is common to see whole theologies that rely on some kind of eternal genetic or pseudo-genetic distinction between God and man, and angels and man, which naturally gives rise to complex soteriologies and speculations such as that otherworldly creatures or fallen angels have interbred with humans , giving rise to giants and so on, despite no such genetic distinction being apparently drawn in the Biblical text; only the use of different, possibly synonymous terms in different places. Does any such distinction exist, or are the terms not synonymous in terms of origin, heritage, kind or type? There are some notable cultural distinctions of caricature. We see descriptions of angels as having wings , but it is not clear whether these are literal or figurative. I am not sure where horns for devils come from, apart from John's descriptions of the beasts of worldly and Satanic power. There are depictions such as Isaiah's vision of the Lord on His throne surrounded by seraphs, and it is not always immediately clear to the reader whether such depictions are to be taken as metaphorical or actual beings as to their attributes (having six wings, etc.). What is the Scriptural evidence delineating God(s), angels, men and devils as to their original identity and genetics or one-time kinship, if any? Or do the Scriptures demonstrate any kind of genetic relation between them, so to speak? Are "classes" of beings to be understood as eternal barriers, or acquirable statuses of the creature? This is related to the questions https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38693/origin-of-the-idea-that-demons-and-fallen-angels-are-the-same-thing , and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4530/46886 , but is intended to be more general and comprehensive in scope across these classes of beings. What denominations have teachings on this subject specifying the relationships among these types of beings, and what Scriptural citations do they use to corroborate their views? Were these four types of beings originally all one type of being? What is the end of man in relation to these classes?

It looks as if salvation was originally meant for the Jews, at least that is what I can infer from the parable of the wedding banquet, that God sent Jesus to the Jews first and if they accepted him as the promised Messiah then , salvation and sonship would be theirs and theirs alone, but if they refused then God would spread the good news to the gentiles and this can be seen where God sends invitations to houses beyond the house of Israel. *Mathew 22:1-14* >Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’ 5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless.13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Could this in addition to Jesus' response to the gentile woman, that you cannot take food belonging to a child and give it to a dog, mean that salvation was originally meant for the House of Israel and that the world received an invitation because the Jews rejected him.

Since we know that Yeshua was born during the time of Herod, and Herod died shortly after the lunar eclipse on January 10th, 1 BC, we can use this as a reference point for the birth and death of Yeshua. In Matthew 12:40, Yeshua mentions being in the grave for "three days and three nights," just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish. Celebrating from Friday to Sunday does not fulfill this timeframe. Yeshua, adhering to Torah, would have begun his ministry at the age of 30, around 31 AD. He was crucified the next Passover. Why follow a timeline known to be incorrect? The death of Christ aligns with Passover, allowing us to accurately date and celebrate His sacrifice on Passover each year. In 31 AD, Passover fell on a Wednesday, and Yeshua was crucified that day. He rose early on Saturday morning (the Sabbath), fulfilling the "three days and three nights" prophecy. The Council of Laodicea shifted the focus away from the Sabbath, a commandment unrelated to the "New" Covenant but still a commandment. Dismissing one of the Ten Commandments makes little sense. Avoiding shared observances with Jews is not a valid reason. Celebrating with symbols like bunnies and eggs, or Christmas trees, mixes pagan traditions with Christian observances, deviating from the Word of God and adhering to human traditions instead of scripture. Both Christmas and Easter are man-made holidays. According to Genesis 1, a new day begins at sunset, a principle that should remain unchanged as God's Law is eternal. --- The question is why is the tradition of Easter "Friday to Sunday" when passover is on a wednesday?

Last year when I visited a Benedictine monastery, I noticed that all the monks were bowing during the first part of the Glory Be during their Hours. What is the history and significance of this? Should lay-people bow too, (or only if the Spirit moves them)? Is it just a Benedictine thing?

Our local Church (Eastern Europe) has tradition to recite the following Litany (GPT translation in English): > Litany of Supplication – Holy God Holy God, Holy Mighty God, Holy > Eternal God, have mercy on us! From plague, famine, war, and fire, > deliver us, O Lord and God! From an evil and sudden death, save us, O > Lord and God! Govern and sustain Your holy Church, we beseech You, O > Lord and God! Grant us the grace of true repentance, we beseech You, O > Lord and God! Strengthen and sustain us in Your holy service, we > beseech You, O Lord and God! Protect and bless our homeland, we > beseech You, O Lord and God! Grant and sustain the fruits of the > earth, we beseech You, O Lord and God! We, sinners, beseech You, > merciful God, hear us, O Lord and God! Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, have mercy > on us! Mary, Mary, Mother of God, pray to God for us! It is recited very rarely, the last time it was done - during the gravest hours of Covid pandemic. I wanted to ask - what is the English and Latin translation it? Judging from the words, it can be one of the most solemn prayer (rite) of extreme strength. So - maybe there are the official texts and indications for it? p.s. Less than 2 hours ago Biden authorized the long range strikes to Russia. There has been very clear plans what will be done in response to them. So, the supplications can be only thing that is left.

I've been studying the topic of Open Theism in comparison to other perspectives on God's sovereignty, omniscience, and man's free will. As I understand it, on a scale spanning from full on deterministic fatalism to fully libertarian freedom, Hyper-Calvinism is on one extreme end and Pelagianism is on the other extreme. Since Calvinism allows for a form of free will, it is obviously not deterministic fatalism, but it's obviously close by. Also, as I understand it, Augustinianism is very similar to Calvinism (or, rather, vice versa since the former came first chronologically), and Semi-Pelagianism is approximately halfway between Augustinianism and Pelagianism. My question, therefore, is two-fold: 1. Does the above scale provide an accurate structure from which to understand the perspectives listed above? 2. Where does Arminianism, Molinism, and Open Theism fall in comparison to the things listed above? In particular I've heard people effectively say that Arminianism is halfway between Calvinism and Semi-Pelagianism. Is that true, or is it closer to one than the other? I've also heard people describe Molinism as a variant of Arminianism. If true does it shift it towards Calvinism or away from it? Finally, it seems like Open Theism and Pelagianism are similar in that they exclusively focus in on either the nature of God or nature of man in ways fundamentally contrary to Scripture, and make vague statements on the nature of man or God. Ultimately, I'm trying to get a big-picture overview of all these things and how they relate to one another, so if part of all of my understanding above is way off base, I'd appreciate an explanation of where I went off the rails, and how you would explain the relationship between all these things.

Do you know for sure you are going to Heaven. https://marymargretsamerica.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-christ-child_69.html

I am wondering how long John the Baptist had been preaching before Jesus started his public ministry. Had John been preaching for a few weeks, a few months, or for a few years before Jesus came to see him and to be baptized by John in the River Jordan?

In [this short background information](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/book-of-mormon) of The Book of Mormon, we learn that Moroni was the son of the American prophet Mormon, who must have died as a human being. But then the article said: > Latter-day Saints believe that it was to this hillside, today called the Hill Cumorah, near Palmyra, New York, that **Moroni returned in 1823 as an angel to lead the teenage boy Joseph Smith to the hidden plates**. Joseph Smith later founded The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In mainstream Christianity, a human being will be given a glorified body after the general resurrection, retaining his/her bodily nature, never becoming an angel who is always 100% spirit. Before general resurrection, for denominations that believe in the conscious intermediate state, the souls of those who passed away would NOT have a body and God would not have permitted these body-less souls to appear to the living. God would have sent an angel instead who has always been spiritual, only that God would give this angel a temporary bodily appearance so humans can see this angel. **How does human being Moroni re-appearing as an angel explained by LDS in light of the normal progression of the human being's journey after death?** 1. Was Moroni's human nature changed into an angel? 1. Was the term "angel" to describe Moroni not precise, i.e. it was Moroni in his glorified body (like Jesus after resurrection) appearing to Joseph Smith as like an angel? 1. Or was it a special act of God that Moroni's consciousness (which God maintains prior to his eventual resurrection along with everyone else) was given a temporary angelic nature for the purpose of his mission in 1823? That once that mission was completed God change him back into a non-resurrected human being after his mission? Pardon my ignorance: - I know very little of the LDS "anthropology" of post-mortem nature of human being and of how LDS understand the angelic nature. For example, do we become angels? What IS an angel; is an angel 100% spiritual like what mainstream Christianity teaches? - And I don't know the "standard timeline" either (i.e. whether a human being is resurrected right after dying rather than waiting along with the rest of humanity). My question is primarily about whether the Moroni's case is unique or typical when compared to the normal progression of a human being's life after death.

It's only in the King James and the New King James, but why is Jesus' name in all caps? > And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: > for he shall save his people from their sins.**Matthew 1:21** > > And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, > and shalt call his name JESUS. **Luke 1:31** It isn't like this anywhere else in the Bible. The word in the Greek is the same as in other instances of the name. Why? And why only in the KJV?

I understand that the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is the most translated book in the world. It seems that giving the Word of God to all the world is considered part of the Great Commission. Since the LDS church holds the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God, just like the Bible, what is the current total number of languages into which it has been translated. I would also be interested in statistics for the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants.

I am wondering what people mean by God having omnibenevolence. I see it having a couple meanings; one being God loves all, which I agree with. Another one is if God is all good, which obviously He is. He created the morality and is above it. He decides what is good and what is bad. Or people good mean He is infinitely kind. Kindness according to the oxford dictionary is > "the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate." I would argue that God is not infinitely kind, otherwise there would be no hell. or perhaps people mean something completely different. What's the general consensus? edit: i probably just don't understand something

2000 years ago, written works were extremely valuable. It's not like every Jewish family had their own "family scroll" that they read to their children every night. It's doubtful even that every Rabbi had their own scroll. Before the printing press, it's known that Christian Monks would spend countless hours copying the pages of the bible by hand, and that those Bibles were often chained to a table in a church and locked shut when not being read. How were scrolls reproduced? Who kept them? And how did a common person obtain access to them in Christ's time? One final question: Did Christ own a physical copy of the scriptures?