According to Pope Boniface VIII's bull *Unam sanctam * (1302), > Indeed, at the time of the flood there was one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, **made complete in one cubit** [*Una nempe fuit diluvii tempore arca Noe, unam Ecclesiam praefigurans, quae **in uno cubito consummata***] (Denzinger-Hünermann 870) What does it mean that the arc was "made complete in one cubit"?

According to **Matthew** *(chapter 21)* the prophecy of **Zechariah 9:9** is fulfilled in Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. This makes Jesus the King of Zion: Matthew 21:1-5 >**1** And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two > disciples, **2** Saying unto them, Go into the village over against > you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: > loose them, and bring them unto me. **3** And if any man say ought > unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he > will send them. **4** All this was done, that it might be fulfilled > which was spoken by the prophet, saying, **5** Tell *ye* the daughter > of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an > ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. Zechariah 9:9 >Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. So according to the prophecy of **Zechariah** (and the gospels of **Matthew** and John), those who recognize their King and Savior "arriving, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." are identified as the "**daughter of Zion**". To my knowledge, Christians are the only peoples holding this belief, wouldn't that make Christians the "daughter of Zion"?

This may not be the best source to quote, but The Guardian's November 11, 2023 [Trans people can be baptised in church and be godparents, says Vatican (Vatican office adds there must be no ‘situations in which there is a risk of generating a public scandal’)](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/09/trans-people-can-be-baptised-in-church-and-be-godparents-says-vatican) contains the following: >The Vatican’s doctrinal office has said that transgender people can under certain circumstances be baptised in the Catholic church and serve as godparents in a statement that has been hailed as a “major step for trans inclusion”. > >In a document approved last month by Pope Francis and [published on Wednesday](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_20231031-documento-mons-negri.pdf) , the office noted that a transgender person, “even if they have undergone hormone therapy and sex-reassignment surgery, can receive baptism under the conditions as other faithful”. > >The decision came with a caveat. Such baptisms were possible, it said, **“if there are no situations in which there is a risk of generating a public scandal or confusion among the faithful”.** The link is to a document written in Italian which I can't read, so I'm relying on the English explanation in the article. The realities of being a pope in the 21st century puts one (at least in my opinion) between a rock and a hard place - and at least superficially this seems like an impossible compromise. It looks like the Pope is saying that some folks can receive the sacrament of baptism unless it would cause confusion for the faithful. This seems to me at least, to put a priest between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, an individual seeks (or their guardians seek for them) baptism, which for many Christians is a necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) condition for salvation. A priest would likely want to help provide it. On the other hand, it looks like the priest must also calculate if performing the sacrament would cause substantial confusion to other faithful Catholics, at which point it must be withheld and not performed. But here I'm asking if this is the first time that Catholic priests have been asked to essentially do a public survey or evaluation of the community's views before deciding whether or not to baptise an individual. **Question:** Is this the first time that "community standards" or similar criteria will factor into the decision of whether an individual can receive a Catholic baptism?

Why is intellectual work not considered servile work prohibited by the 3rd Commandment on Sundays and feast days? Doesn't the soul need rest just as much as the body those days? St. Thomas, defending the necessity of recreation , said "weariness of the soul must needs be remedied by resting the soul"; intellectual work can be physically exhausting ; and the *Primitive Constitutions of the Order of Friars Preachers* (c. 1228) prohibits writing manuscripts on Sundays and feast days. Why has servile work come to mean solely heavy manual (bodily) labor?

There are so many different Bibles available in the market today. They have a plethora of features unavailable just a few year ago. There's a whole gamut of things to choose from that dear Grandmother never dreamed would be featured! So what facts should be sought out and considered before investing in a personal Bible? {This is not asking for "the best translation" since that involves academic propensities and opinions that may apply to only certain believers.}

I am a life-long Catholic. At almost all of the Catholic Churches I have attended over the years, the priests there have given sermons based on various Biblical passages/parables which have always been in line with the official teachings and dogmas of the Catholic Church. This is one particular priest, however, at one of the local Catholic Churches in my area who has for many years made it a point to often give his own take/interpretation on Biblical passages/parables. One of the favorite things he likes to say at the beginning of his sermons is, "I know what all of you have heard preached about this particular Biblical passage/parable since you were a little kid, but now I want all of you to consider this about it...". He then goes on to explain how the official/traditional Catholic teaching about a particular Biblical passage/parable has either been wrong or misinterpreted, and then explains what his take/his interpretation on the Biblical passage/parable is and why we should accept it. I personally consider this priest's many 'alternate' takes/interpretations on Biblical passages/parables to be cases of heresy and I am seriously thinking of contacting the local bishop in my area to request that he appoint someone to start investigating this priest for possible cases of heresy. I am wondering however if it is my religious duty to first confront him about it face-to-face, or if I have a religious duty to report it to the bishop, or if I have a religious duty to first form a church prayer group which will pray to Jesus each day asking Him to enlighten this priest’s mind to the heresy he has likely been committing. Our group could then wait and see if he starts to preach sermons that are in line with the official teachings and dogmas of the Catholic Church. Do Catholics have a religious duty to report possible cases of heresy committed by a priest to their local bishop?

In order to have a well-rounded understanding of the arguments for and against a historical resurrection of Jesus, what would be a comprehensive list of must-read scholarly books defending its historicity and scholarly books denying it? To get us started, here are some books I'm aware of: For: - The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus ([link](https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308)) - The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus ([link](https://www.amazon.com/Fate-Apostles-Examining-Martyrdom-Followers/dp/1472465202)) - Evidence for the Resurrection ([link](https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Resurrection-Josh-McDowell/dp/0830751378/)) - The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus ([link](https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/)) Against: - On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt ([link](https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason-Doubt/dp/1909697494/)) - Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior ([link](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00Z71VJJS/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i5)) Both for and against: - Resurrection: Faith or Fact?: A Scholars' Debate Between a Skeptic and a Christian ([link](https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Scholars-Between-Skeptic-Christian/dp/1634311744)) Are there other relevant books worth keeping in mind?

Suppose a non-believer is open to the possibility that God and the things of the Spirit might exist, but acknowledges that for them subjectively God appears to be *hidden* and thus feels unable to perceive and understand spiritual matters, fitting the description of *spiritual blindness*. If a non-believer in such a state is proactively interested in opening their "spiritual sight", so to speak, and overcome their *spiritual blindness*, what would they need to do to accomplish that goal, from a Christian perspective on the issue? I ask this as a follow-up to my last question, *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97717/61679* . Regarding the definition of *spiritual blindness*, I'm borrowing the definition from GotQuestions.org: > To be spiritually blind is not to see Christ, and not to see Christ is not to see God (Colossians 1:15-16; 2 Corinthians 4:6). Spiritual blindness is a grievous condition experienced by those who do not believe in God, Jesus Christ, and His Word (Romans 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:12). Those who reject Christ are the lost (John 6:68-69). Being spiritually blind, they are perishing (2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Revelation 3:17). They choose not to accept the teachings of Christ and His authority in their lives (Matthew 28:18). They are blind to the manifestations of God as revealed throughout His Word and Jesus Christ (John 1:1; Acts 28:26-27). They are described as those who “do not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). > > https://www.gotquestions.org/spiritual-blindness.html

Our new pastor is spearheading a 40-hours devotion in our pastorate, we've never done one of these before. What does the ideal 40-hours devotion look like and how can the laity make it the most spiritually beneficial and explain it to people who may not be used to things adoration and meditative prayer.

How do Catholics decide which saints to pray to? I am somewhat familiar with the concept of patron saints; my understanding is that Catholics are encouraged to pray to particular saints based on their location, occupation, or activities. The categories seem to be quite broad, however, so one person would have several patron saints. For example, Maximilian Kolbe is the patron saint of, among other groups, amateur radio operators. I am an amateur radio operator; if I were Catholic, would I pray to Kolbe only for prayers related to amateur radio, or could I pray to him for anything, because I am an amateur radio operator? If the former, what would the qualifications be for a prayer to be related to amateur radio? If I'm falling from a ham radio antenna tower and praying for protection, would that qualify?

After reading the answers to the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97715/61679 , I am intrigued by the observation that not all Christians report 'spiritual experiences' with God, or at least not with much regularity. For example, the author of this [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/97760/61679) attests to only *rarely* having had experiences of this kind: > I became a Christian in August 1979. Since then, **I have rarely 'experienced' anything 'spiritual' in the sense you seem to mean**. For example, only this afternoon, visiting a Christian friend, we concluded with a time of open prayer in her house. At the end she said, "Oh, I really felt the presence of the Lord in the room as we prayed. It gave me the shivers" (in a nice way). I said, **"Well, I didn't sense anything, but - then - I rarely do! I can walk into a room of people where (they say) you could cut the air with a knife, but I'm oblivious to all of that."** She added that God gives people different gifts, and that somewhat explains the difference between us. She is sensitive to things I am not. Similarly, this other [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/97721/61679) states: > **Not every individual, neurotypical or not, feels metaphysical elements** > **to any appreciable degree while living out their faith in Jesus** > **Christ**. The Holy Spirit of God, which indwells those who have > received Christ Jesus and believe on his name, operates thus: > > > The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so > is every one that is born of the Spirit. - John 3:8 > > **Some are enabled by the Spirit to live out a very practical,** > **'non-mystical' life of faith wherein the fruit of the Spirit (love,** > **joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness** > **and self-control) is manifest apart from any notable "spiritual** > **experience".** Often it is others who are more aware of a special > quality within such a one than that one herself. In contrast, [Tanya Luhrmann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Luhrmann) conducted an ethnographic study of American Evangelical Christians that she details in her book [*When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God*](https://www.amazon.com/When-God-Talks-Back-Understanding/dp/0307277275) : > A bold approach to understanding the American evangelical experience > from an anthropological and psychological perspective by one of the > country's most prominent anthropologists. Through a series of > intimate, illuminating interviews with various members of the > Vineyard, an evangelical church with hundreds of congregations across > the country, Tanya Luhrmann leaps into the heart of evangelical faith. > Combined with scientific research that studies the effect that > intensely practiced prayer can have on the mind, When God Talks Back > examines **how normal, sensible people—from college students to** > **accountants to housewives, all functioning perfectly well within our** > **society—can attest to having the signs and wonders of the supernatural** > **become as quotidian and as ordinary as laundry**. Astute, sensitive, and > extraordinarily measured in its approach to the interface between > science and religion, Luhrmann's book is sure to generate as much > conversation as it will praise. Is there a theory within Christianity that explains this striking diversity in 'spiritual experiences' (or lack thereof) among Christians? --- Note: I have been told in the comments that this question can lead to highly polarized answers. Considering this, I would like to receive answers written in an objective, neutral tone presenting an overview of the main theories in dispute, in an attempt to cover the main views in this contentious topic (which I've been told has a high overlap with the cessationism/continuationism debate).

[It is in the news](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/15/church-of-england-backs-plans-for-blessings-of-same-sex-weddings) that the Church of England is conducting standalone services to bless the weddings of same-sex couples. These are described as trials/experimental. I know nothing about how such things are done in the theological world, but I know a little about how clinical trials are prepared in the biomedical world. When doing clinical trials in the UK for example there is a [whole convoluted procedure that one must go through](https://www.ct-toolkit.ac.uk/routemap/) , some of the important points that must be documented and approved before the trial is authorised: - What is the objective of the study - What data will be collected - How that data will meet the objective of the study - What magnitude of effect is expected - How likely the study is to demonstrate the effect given the true magnitude of effect Is this sort of information published about this sort of study? Do we know precisely what question they are trying to answer, how the trial will do that and what the chance of getting a conclusive result is given various underlying realities?

Sometimes people use the term "hearing Mass". For example, it is used in the [Six Precepts of the Church](https://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Numeri/SexPrae.html) where it is a translation of the Latin "*Missam audire*": > 1. To hear Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation and to refrain from servile work. > > 1. Diebus Dominicis ceterisque festis de praecepto Missam audire et ab operibus servilibus vacare. What does the term "hearing Mass" mean? What about deaf people who cannot hear? Perhaps "hearing" could be a problematic translation?

I am an autistic person who has been searching in faith and religion for some kind of positivism in my life surrounded by problems not important now. So, I've debated with the religious leaders in the church, and as I expected none of them could answer me directly about how I can feel the Holy Spirit in me, feel touched by God, or be moved by it. Since childhood, I questioned it many times, prayed during the hardest times and I always felt the same as before, for me nothing changed and I can't feel the metaphysical elements that neurotypicals usually have so, I couldn't find any explanations about it. Please if you know about it, tell me. Note: I need to ask this question, I was recommended by the other forum to make this type of question here, so I warn the readers: My question doesn't have multiple interpretations, it's very clear on its purpose. Although I know it can make many neurotypicals uncomfortable, it is my right to make it, please respect it.

When the "bell, book, and candle " ritual was still used by the Catholic church, was it used in all *ferendae sententiae* excommunications?

What are some common church fathers cited as believers in dispensational premillennialism?

I'm seeking insights into the distinctive features of Eastern Orthodox spirituality. For those familiar with this tradition, could you provide information on specific aspects that characterize the spiritual experience within Eastern Orthodoxy? This might include elements of communal worship, personal devotional practices, mystical traditions, iconography, or any other aspects that contribute to the unique spiritual identity of Eastern Orthodoxy. Please share knowledge and references to authoritative sources that discuss practices and teachings within the Eastern Orthodox tradition.

Is Saint Doubting Thomas the Patron Saint of any of the following: 1. Rational Theology 2. Science 3. Skepticism (religious [atheism] and others) *Deus Magnus Est*

St. Maria Goretti was stabbed several times for her refusal to consent to sin against purity; Alessandro Serenelli, her "would-be rapist" (ch. 25 of *Modern Saints: Their Lives and Faces* vol. 1 ), was trying to seduce her. Certainly it is heroic that she would rather die than to consent to sin, but how is she a martyr? I thought martyrs had to die *in odium fidei* (because of hatred of the Faith).

At Matt 3: 11 we see John the Baptist speaking of Jesus: “I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. " I wish to know if Baptism by the Holy Spirit and Baptism by Fire are two different things, given that the Holy Spirit himself would later appear in the form of fire at Pentacost (Acts 2:3) . How does the Catholic Church interpret the statement of the Baptist ?