Jesus was raised as a Jew in a Jewish culture. All Jewish male children, starting at age 5, were taught the Torah and were required to memorized parts of Torah, along with how to read and write. After a period of time, after the boys were familiar with the core essentials of Judaism, some of the boys would be recognized as superior in intelligence and they would continue in study, with the idea that they would become a rabbi, a teacher of Scripture. The other boys would be released to return home and learn the trade of their fathers. According to Scripture, we know that Jesus was an exceptional student and had a superior understanding of Scripture, Lk 2:40,50 and Lk 2 46-47. Since there was no "New Testament" at that time, everything Jesus knew and taught came straight from the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, we see that God only loved the Jews and any Gentile that became a proselyte. There is not one verse in the Old Testament that states that God loves/loved all people. Beyond that, the Old Testament also teaches that there are certain types of people that God hates: - Psalm 5:5-6: The foolish will not stand in thy sight. You hate all workers of iniquity. You will destroy liars, He will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. - Psalm 11:5-6: The Lord tests the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence His soul hates. Upon the wicked He will rain snares, fire and brimstone. A horrible tempest will be their portion... - Proverbs 6:16-19: the proud, liars, murderers, those who devise wicked plans, those who are quick to do evil, false witnesses and those that gossip (with the intent of causing chaos or spreading lies.) Jesus did not come and proclaim "new teaching.": - John 17:6: "...My doctrine is not mine, but he that sent me." - John 8:28: "I do nothing of myself, but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things." - John 12:50: "...Whatever I speak is what the Father said unto me." - John 7:28 "...I have not come in my own authority or will..." Since Jesus only taught from the Old Testament, God never changes and there is no Old Testament teaching that God loves all people, is it even remotely possible that Jesus would introduce a completely new and strange teaching that contradicts what God clearly laid out in the Old Testament?

I was thinking about YHWH today and realized an early name for God might have been the sound of breathing as God breathed life into us, then imagined how you might write that and realized YHWH, if pronounced, is an onomatopoeia of the sound you make when you breath. If I was tasked with writing the word for the sound of breath, in English, it would likely come out something like 'heehoo' or something similar—perhaps with the Hebrew alphabet 'YHWH' (יהוה) is a more probable attempt. Is it possible that YHWH could be the full name intended, and it on purpose has no vowels; or is there strong evidence that it is an actual word, not an onomatopoeia, and vowels were omitted for some other purpose (I think I was told that once). Curious to learn more! Edit: I asked this about 5 years ago, since then this idea has apparently gained a lot of movement to the point where this thread is getting activity again. I also noticed Jesus' name (Yeshua) can be pronounced this same way YH•WH can be pronounced as breath—but with a “SH” noise added in the middle. YH•SH•WH

Are the notions of [theosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)) and [spiritual gifts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_gift) privileges that only saintly monks immersed in ascetic lifestyles can attain? Is there hope for the ordinary person, amidst the distractions and pressures of modern life, to attain them as well? I ask this question impressed by the examples of saints such as [Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyrios_of_Kafsokalyvia) , of whom books have been written, including e.g. [*Elder Porphyrios Testimonies and Experiences*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/9606890236) : > *"Elder, where can we find the solution to our problems?"* > > *"Only holiness will solve your problems."* > > The realm of the sacred and the transcendent, as expressed by that > child of God and true man, Elder Porphyrios, belongs to the category > of the unbelievable. It can however become believable because, «sin > does not prevail where grace abounds”. Elder Porphyrios was a person > filled with grace, a bearer of the power of the Holy Spirit, a child > of the Kingdom, a genuine and true tree of paradise. > > Whoever wishes to speak about the inner spiritual life of a saint, > must be a saint himself. We, the writers of this book, are not saints. > We are confined to what we saw and what we heard. We are amongst those > many others, who, as St. Luke the Evangelist says, have “taken in hand > to set in order a narrative.” We are not trying, with our poor and > futile speech, to describe the life of a contemporary saint, but > rather we are falteringly trying to express our joy in having met a > saint; our joy that Christ lives yesterday, today and forever; our joy > that holiness is not a thing of the past, that grace can be felt next > to us, that our hands touched a “little father” who really lived the > expression “I no longer live, for Christ lives in me.” > > Until the Lord reveals the servant who was Elder Porphyrios’ > eye-witness, who observed him throughout his life and in all his works > and will write about his life accurately and fully, we are forgiven. > For we have only seen “in part.” We describe, write about and speak of > the miraculous things that God did for us through His servant, > Porphyrios. One of the reviewers of the book said: > His life was a Jesus Christ's life. He was living the Theosis, loving without limits and expectation above all Jesus Christ and all humans. He was there 24/7 for all those who everyday were waiting to receive his blessings his advice and his healing power through the Holy Spirit. He used to tell me, I love all people and they love me, after that I gently bring them to Jesus Christ. A Wonderful book with a lot of little stories from people who met him and learned or were helped by him. Another example is [Saint Paisios of Mount Athos](https://www.amazon.com/dp/9608976456) : > Saint Paisios of Mount Athos (1994) is perhaps the greatest and most revered Elder of the Orthodox Church of our time. Even though he lived the monastic life in obscurity on the Holy Mountain of Athos in northern Greece, he became a shining light for thousands of faithful who flocked to see him. His life, miracles, and teachings continue to touch the hearts of people throughout the world to this day. Unquestionably, this present biography (written by his spiritual disciple Elder Isaac), which is the most authoritative account of his life, will inspire readers forevermore. Given the challenges of a modern lifestyle, is there any hope for the average busy or distracted individual, who lacks access to full-time dedication to a monastic life, to even dream of reaching this level of holiness and spirituality? **Note**: All denominations that believe in theosis and spiritual gifts are in scope.

> ***Theosis*** ([Ancient Greek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_language "Ancient Greek language"): θέωσις), or **deification** (deification may also refer to *[apotheosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis "Apotheosis")*, lit. "making divine"), is a transformative process whose aim is likeness to or union with [God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God "God"), as taught by the [Eastern Catholic Churches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches "Eastern Catholic Churches") and the [Eastern Orthodox Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church "Eastern Orthodox Church"); the same concept is also found in the [Latin Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Church "Latin Church") of the [Catholic Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church "Catholic Church"), where it is termed "[divinization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian) "Divinization (Christian)")". As a process of transformation, *theosis* is brought about by the effects of *[catharsis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis "Catharsis")* (purification of mind and body) and *[theoria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoria#Eastern_Orthodox_Catholic_and_Byzantine_Catholic_Churches "Theoria")* ('illumination' with the 'vision' of God). According to [Eastern Christian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Christianity "Eastern Christianity") teachings, *theosis* is very much the purpose of human life. It is considered achievable only through synergy (or cooperation) of human activity and God's uncreated energies (or operations).[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBartos1999253Kapsanis2006-1) According to Metropolitan [Hierotheos (Vlachos)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierotheos_(Vlachos) "Hierotheos (Vlachos)"), the primacy of *theosis* in [Eastern Orthodox Christian theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Christian_theology "Eastern Orthodox Christian theology") is directly related to the fact that Byzantine theology (as historically conceived by its principal exponents) is based to a greater extent than [Latin Catholic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Church "Latin Church") [theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_theology "Catholic theology") on the direct spiritual insights of the saints or [mystics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism "Mysticism") of the church rather than the often seen more as [rational thought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_thought "Rational thought") tradition of the West.[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlachos1994-2) Byzantine Christians consider that "no one who does not follow the path of union with God can be a theologian"[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)#cite_note-FOOTNOTELossky200239-3) in the proper sense. Thus theology in Byzantine Christianity is not treated primarily as an academic pursuit. Instead it is based on applied revelation (see [gnosiology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosiology "Gnosiology")), and the primary validation of a theologian is understood to be a holy and ascetical life rather than intellectual training or academic credentials (see [scholasticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism "Scholasticism")).[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlachos1994-2) > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology) What is the biblical basis for *Theosis*?

This revelation was given to Prophet Joseph Smith in 1831 and can be found here in [Doctrine and Covenants 1:30](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1?lang=eng) . I ask this question because the entire body of Mormonism, 100% of its "scriptural" content (apart from its borrowings from the Bible) is fully and exclusively traceable to and or dependent upon exactly and only one source: the claims of one man - Joseph Smith. He is the single, sole source of the Mormon "revelation," why should we believe him? Why do Mormons believe him?

GK Chesterton (famous Catholic apologist) writes in his popular book Orthodoxy: > Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist. GK Chesterton seems to be saying that Jesus was an atheist, at least for a moment. Is this actually orthodox, i.e. consistent with what most Christians thought in most times and places? Before reading Orthodoxy I'd never heard of such an idea.

It is said that there are more Anglicans attending Sunday morning services in Nigeria alone than in all the United Kingdom. Recently the archbishop of Lagos has effectively excommunicated the archbishop of Canterbury for gross heresy; other communions such as Baptists, Methodists and even Roman Catholics have been seeing similar patterns in different stages. Philip Jenkins thinks this is but the beginning of a new cycle according to a pattern that repeats itself again and again since the early days of the church. The question is, while we have influential examples in Global South bishops and preachers, how influential are them in the Old World and North America?

The Apostles' Creed says of Jesus : "...was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead..." If Jesus descended into Hell while his body lay dead and buried, he did so in spirit. So, what rose again from the dead on the third day, was his body. My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, why does the Apostles'Creed not mention that Jesus rose again in body ?

I suppose this question is a bit twofold: I'm wondering what Churches the Apostles are historically held to have founded, and in what places; and I'm also wondering who are the men historically held to have succeeded the Apostles as the leaders of these churches, before and after the Apostles' deaths? Do we have any contemporary record of this succession? Are any of the successors Church Fathers? Ultimately I'm interested in looking further into what, if anything, remains of the teaching of these early successors, and what their respective particular Churches express in common of the faith, or on which elements they lay special stress. Thank you for your help! Dan

Question: If you do not believe the Holy Spirit is a person, then what is it? The Bible includes over 100 verses that mention the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God or just the Spirit. Here are four examples: Genesis 1:1-2 NIV: > In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth > was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and > the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. John 14:26 NIV: > But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my > name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I > have said to you. Matthew 12:32 NIV: > Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but > anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either > in this age or in the age to come. John 16:7-15 NIV: > But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all > the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he > hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me > because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to > you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the > Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

I have done an extensive amount of research and study on texts such as 1 Corinthians 15:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:3, which seem to communicate a submission of the son to the Father after His incarnation. I'm aware that eternal submission or eternal subordination is not a historically orthodox Christian doctrine and is considered heresy by many. But please help me make sense of these texts in relation to the topic. Is the son eternally submitting? If yes, how so if the submission is yielding to the will of another and the will is a property of nature/being? If no, how do I then think through these texts which seem to communicate an eternal submission of the Son well after the incarnation?

"One substance" means that Father and Son are one single substance. That is known as numerical sameness. But if homoousios in the Nicene Creed is translated as "same substance," it means that Father and Son are two distinct substances that are the same qualitatively. That is known as generic sameness. For a further discussion, see Homoousion in the Nicene Creed . The current question is based on the Wikipedia article on the Cappadocian fathers and on the book - Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004, by Lewis Ayres; a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom. All LA-references are to his book. My question is, did the Cappadocians teach numeric or generic sameness? This question is important because the Cappadocians are said to have given us the Trinity doctrine: > “In some accounts Basil (of Caesarea - the first and main Cappadocian) is the architect of the pro-Nicene triumph:” > He “develops an account of the distinctions between persons and > essence of such power that the final victory of pro-Nicene theology > under the Emperor Theodosius is inevitable.” (LA, 187) This question is also important because, in the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Nicene Creed uses the term homoousios to say that the Father and Son are one single substance. But that would be unlikely if the Cappadocians taught two distinct substances. The Wikipedia article states that the Cappadocians in their writings "made extensive use of the (now orthodox) formula **one substance** (ousia) in three persons (hypostases)". "One substance" implies numeric sameness; one and the same substance. However, if I read what the Cappadocians wrote, as quoted in that article and by Lewis Ayres, it does not sound to me as if they taught numerical sameness: > Firstly, Basil did not base his theology on the Nicene Creed. He began > his theological life as a Homoiousian, meaning 'similar in substance'. > Homoiousians believed, in other words, in two distinct substances: > > - “It has been traditional to speak of Basil as initially a Homoiousian.” (LA, 188) > - He has a “preference for Homoiousian-sounding language.” (LA, 189) > - “Throughout Contra Eunomium 1–2 Basil continues to speak of essential ‘likeness’, and does not yet treat the language of Nicaea as > a fundamental point of departure for his theology.” (LA, 204) Secondly, Basil said that the Son is "identical in substance and power" to the Father. (LA, 207) I assume “identical” here means two distinct substances and powers that are the same: > “In Basil, the Father's sharing of his being involves the generation > of one identical in substance and power.” (LA, 207) Thirdly, one might argue that the views above were Basil's early views and later changed. However: > “Basil himself eventually adopted” the principle that “homoousios > implying the very picture of coordinate realities (equal in rank, > quality, or significance) ... while a robust conception of the Father > as source would protect against unacceptable consequences,” namely, > that there are “three equal principles in the universe.“ (LA, 207) > Again, Basil taught two or three distinct substances. Fourthly, Basil used humans as examples to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son. For example: - “Basil's possible use of an analogy between the three divine ‘persons’ and three human persons.” (LA, 207) - “Basil discusses the individuation of Peter and Paul as analogous to the individuation of Father and Son.” (LA, 207) - Basil assumed “that human persons are particularly appropriate examples” of “the nature of an individual divine person” (LA, 207-8) In other words, the Cappadocians said that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same substance but different hypostases **just like humans**. Fifthly, Basil describes Father as Son as if they have two distinct minds: - “At On the Holy Spirit 16.38 Basil … speaks of the Father choosing to work through the Son—not needing to. Similarly, the Son chooses to work through the Spirit, but does not need to.” (LA, 208) If the Cappadians did not teach numerical sameness of substance, then the 325 creed most certainly also did not. My further question is then also, if the Cappadocians taught generic sameness, who gave us the Trinity doctrine in which the Father, Son and Spirit are one single substance? Was that a later development?

Whilst reading through various articles on Christmas, I was struck by how the focus seems to be mainly on eating, drinking, giving presents and having a jolly good time. Then I found a partial quote which gladdened my heart, but I can't trace the source although it is dated around the start of the 20th century. It focuses on Mary and Joseph trying to find a place to lodge. They are turned away by many people but one humble shepherd invites them into his hovel. This is what he offers the weary travelers: >I offer you my heart; my soul is poor and bare of virtues, the traws of so many imperfections will prick you and make you weep - but oh, my Lord, what can you expect? This little is all I have. I am touched by your poverty, I am moved to tears, but I havw nothing betterto offer you. >Jesus, honour my soul with your presence, adorn it with your graces. Burn this straw and change it into a soft couch for your most holy body. >Jesus, I am here waiting for your coming. Wicked men have driven you out, and the wind is like ice. I am a poor man, but I will warm you as well as I can. At least e pleased that I wish to welcome you warmly, to love you and sacrifice myself for you. Oh, but that more people would adopt this frame of mind at this time of year! Anyway, I am hoping someone can give me the source of this partial quote written some 123 years ago. It would also be nice if contributors could add any similar Christmas thoughts - something to uplift us. I do so hope this is allowed on CSE?

Not all Christians hold to the view of Biblical inerrancy. For example, whenever there are alleged inconsistencies or alleged scientific errors in the Bible, they consider that the verses in question don't give the exact events. How are those views justified in the Bible? What verses do opponents of Biblical inerrancy cite to support their views and contradict the idea that the Bible is inerrant?

If I'm from a Catholic Diocese that has a bishop who is its ordinary bishop, we're sort of a member under the wing of a neighboring archdiocese with an archbishop (this makes sense). But the archdiocese is adjacent to another archdiocese whose head is a cardinal. Does this cardinal have some power/jurisdiction/authority over the archdiocese/diocese I am a member of?

I’ve been asked a question by a Muslim that’s kind of stumped me. They asked me something along the lines of “if Jesus is God, how could he have been God if He died on the cross while God is supposed to be immortal?” He used verses such as: > Which he will display at the proper time— he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, **who alone has immortality**, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. - 1 Timothy 6:15-16 I’m aware that death is merely a separation of body and soul. But, if to be immortal is to never be subject to such an event, how is Jesus God if He was evidently mortal during His earthly ministry? How can you be both mortal and immortal at the same time? I’m struggling to get around the idea that this isn’t an inherent contradiction.

I was putting together a confirmation class for this week and was a little surprised to learn that your confirmation saint has to be the same sex as yourself. At least that's what the [religious hippie says]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v04xKawMas&t=117s) What is the reason for that? And is that something from canon law or just tradition?

I am presently persuaded that the concept of *Christian mysticism* finds its foundation in both Scripture and the rich tapestry of tradition and personal experiences among believers. In my understanding, Christian mysticism refers to the (potential) capacity of Christians to actively and earnestly seek a deeply experiential, transformative, and supernatural knowledge of as well as a profound connection, communication and relationship with God. It often involves contemplative practices, prayer, and seeking a direct experience of the divine. I previously asked two questions elaborating on these points: *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98040/61679* and *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98050/61679* . However, I've noticed that some Christians cringe at the idea of *Christian mysticism*, so I would like to give those Christians an opportunity to make their case. What is a biblical case *against* Christian mysticism? --- Other attempts at providing a definition: > Christian mysticism refers to the development of mystical practices and theory within Christianity. It has often been connected to mystical theology, especially in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. Mysticism is a religious tendency and desire of the human soul towards an intimate union with the Divinity, or a system growing out of such a tendency and desire. As a philosophical system, Mysticism considers as the end of philosophy the direct union of the human soul with the Divinity through contemplation and love, and attempts to determine the processes and the means of realizing this end. > > Source: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/tags/mysticism/info > Christian Mysticism has a long and honourable tradition. You can read > the histories of many holy Christian mystics. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism) will give > you a good starting point. Meditation is only one aspect. For a > working definition, try: ""that part, or element, or Christian belief > and practice that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, > and the effect of [...] a direct and transformative presence of [the > Christian] God" (Bernard McGinn). In effect mystics are those who make > real and experience for themselves things that many Christians take as > theoretical or abstract - e.g. the presence of God, union with God, > the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. > > Source: [Is Christian mysticism an oxymoron or is it a legitimate path for a Christian?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2819/61679) ---- Another attempt: > Christian mysticism is the tradition of mystical practices and > mystical theology within Christianity which "concerns the preparation > [of the person] for, the consciousness of, and the effect of [...] a > direct and transformative presence of God" or Divine love. Until the > sixth century the practice of what is now called mysticism was > referred to by the term contemplatio, c.q. theoria, from contemplatio > (Latin; Greek θεωρία, theoria), "looking at", "gazing at", "being > aware of" God or the Divine. Christianity took up the use of both the > Greek (theoria) and Latin (contemplatio, contemplation) terminology to > describe various forms of prayer and the process of coming to know > God. > > Contemplative practices range from simple prayerful meditation of Holy > Scripture (i.e. Lectio Divina) to contemplation on the presence of > God, resulting in theosis (spiritual union with God) and ecstatic > visions of the soul's mystical union with God. Three stages are > discerned in contemplative practice, namely catharsis (purification), > contemplation proper, and the vision of God. > > Contemplative practices have a prominent place in the Eastern > Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, and have gained a renewed interest > in western Christianity. > >

Etymology

> > **Theoria** > > The Greek theoria (θεωρία) meant "contemplation, speculation, > a looking at, things looked at", from theorein (θεωρεῖν) "to consider, > speculate, look at", from theoros (θεωρός) "spectator", from thea > (θέα) "a view" + horan (ὁρᾶν) "to see". It expressed the state of > being a spectator. Both Greek θεωρία and Latin contemplatio primarily > meant looking at things, whether with the eyes or with the mind. > > According to William Johnston, until the sixth century the practice of > what is now called mysticism was referred to by the term contemplatio, > c.q. theoria. According to Johnston, "[b]oth contemplation and > mysticism speak of the eye of love which is looking at, gazing at, > aware of divine realities." > > Several scholars have demonstrated similarities between the Greek idea > of theoria and the Indian idea of darśana (darshan), including Ian > Rutherford and Gregory Grieve. > > **Mysticism** > > "Mysticism" is derived from the Greek μύω, meaning "to conceal," and > its derivative μυστικός, mystikos, meaning "an initiate." In the > Hellenistic world, a "mystikos" was an initiate of a mystery religion. > "Mystical" referred to secret religious rituals and use of the word > lacked any direct references to the transcendental. > > In early Christianity the term mystikos referred to three dimensions, > which soon became intertwined, namely the biblical, the liturgical and > the spiritual or contemplative. The biblical dimension refers to > "hidden" or allegorical interpretations of Scriptures. The liturgical > dimension refers to the liturgical mystery of the Eucharist, the > presence of Christ at the Eucharist. The third dimension is the > contemplative or experiential knowledge of God. > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism

Today is December 8---the Feast of the Immaculate Conception---a Holy Day of obligation. Last night, I went to what was advertised (in the bulletin) as a 7pm *Vigil Mass.* However, the readings were those for December 7 and the homily had nothing to do with the Immaculate Conception. The only thing that was mentioned to that regard was at the beginning of Mass when the priest said that because the Mass started on or after 4pm, it would fulfill the Holy Day obligation. I believe that the priest is in error. I believe that: - (1) a Vigil Mass for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception must occur on or after 4pm the day before, - (2) that the readings will be *the same* as those for the actual Holy Day, and - (3) that (1) and (2) apply to all holy days of obligation in the Catholic Church. Can someone either confirm this or provide evidence to the contrary? Thank you.

The plain Cross is perhaps the most frequently used symbol on the earth. One can see a distinct pattern in the dimensions of the horizontal and vertical beams of the Cross . Many years ago, I heard that the ideal ratio of the length of the vertical arm and each of the horizontal arms measured from the junction is 2:3. To elaborate, if the vertical arm above the junction is two feet long, each of the horizontal arms should be of three feet. One is not sure if a proportion is fixed for the vertical beam running downwards from the junction. The question is :Is there a standard ratio fixed for the dimensions of arms of the plain Cross ? If there is one, does it have a historical backdrop, or is it just a matter of aesthetic considerations ? PS: a typical example of aesthetic considerations is the dimensions of National Flags. The Indian National Flag has the prescribed ratio of 2:3 for width and length. The American Flag has 1:1.9 .The ratio is determined by the features of the flag and the prospects of the best look.