On the topic of unborn/infants dying without being baptized, could one argue that, as those babies would not go to hell but instead to heaven, it is an act of mercy or justice to abort babies to "guarantee" a spot in heaven?

In the Latin tradition, we have what is called Prayer before Meal: >Benedic, Domine, nos et haec tua dona quae de tua largitate sumus sumpturi, per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. > >Bless us, O Lord, and these Thy gifts which we are about to receive from Thy bounty, through Christ, Our Lord. Amen. I say this prayer as a person who is not a priest or a deacon. My understanding is that I can also bless objects, people, or food but that it will not be the same thing as if they did it. What does the Church say about the difference between me saying Prayer before Meal and a priest or deacon doing it?

The National Library of Sweden has a rare manuscript by the name [Codex Gigas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Gigas) . It is a compilation of texts including those of both Old and New Testaments, a medical book, chants etc. One curious thing about the book is that it has, towards the end, a full-page illustration of the devil! The manuscript is said to have been made by a Benedictine monk of Bohemia in the 13th century. There are some legends that are not in good taste, concerning the creation of the manuscript. One would like to know what the take of Catholic Church is, on the realities and stories involving Codex Gigas.

I attend the Ordinary form of the Mass. In it the entrance hymn is sung more often than the Gregorian introitus. I've been thinking about the reasons for this. In the Extraordinary form we find no entrance hymns, I think. But the entrance hymn seems to fit the Ordinary form very well. It really does, although I have even been to Requiem Masses in the Ordinary form in which the Gregorian introitus was sung. It *also* worked very well. Personally, I found that Gregorian chant works very well in the OF. Therefore, I don't know why in the Ordinary form people often choose the entrance hymn rather than the introitus in the OF. **What has been the argument for the entrance hymn in the Church? What does the Church officially say about this?**

The Protoevangelium, which can be found in Genesis 3:15, holds significant value in Christian theology as it serves as God's initial proclamation and a prophetic utterance. The concept of Redemption in its early stages is thought to cover important elements of the Plan of Salvation, such as the understanding of election and its scope. By examining Protoevangelium, we can better understand the initial notions and beliefs linked with the election and its significance in God's plan of salvation. The Scripture verse provides a key starting point to comprehend the all-encompassing concept of election and its relation to the coming of the Messiah in the scheme of salvation. **Text:** > "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (ESV)

I am currently investigating Catholic/Protestant theological differences. In trying to understand arguments about the immaculate conception of Mary, I began reading St. Thomas Aquinas, when I stumbled across something unusual. In [*Summa Theologica*, Part 3, Question 7, Article 1](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#article1) , Aquinas addresses the issue of Mary's sanctification before birth. Aquinas references St. Augustine, supposedly in a work on Mary's Assumption: >I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. **But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this;** so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. My question is this: **Did St. Augustine write a tractate on the Assumption of Mary?** I am aware that the Assumption is generally considered a late belief (and the earliest explicit quote I could find is from Epiphanius in 350AD, although it is debated). I imagine if a father as prominent as St. Augustine wrote a whole tractate on the belief, that would be a major piece of evidence. Is it perhaps a lost work of his, or maybe a medieval forgery that Aquinas thought was real? Any information would be appreciated.

The First Reading and the Gospel Reading of Roman Catholic Holy Mass for October 8th have a parable each on the vineyard. The first one is Isaiah 5:1-7 which speaks of wild grapes that grew on good vines. In the second one from Matthew 31:33-43, Jesus speaks of the unfaithful caretakers who go to the extent of killing the son of the master. The settings of the parable from Matthew are the same as those of Isaiah. But the climaxes are different. Jesus gives a twist by including himself as a character of the parable, which was not there in Isaiah. Are there any comparative studies involving the parables of the vineyard, as presented in Isaiah and Matthew? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

I’m looking for critiques or rebuttal to the ecclesiology concept presented in this book: [One Assembly: Rethinking the Multisite and Multiservice Church Models (9Marks)](https://a.co/d/9VKLwfk) .

When someone believes on Jesus Christ how does Jesus sinless perfect righteousness is transferred to the believer and the believer's sin transferred to Jesus? Like what is the theory or doctrine that explains this in detail. And how is Jesus who was one man also God but one man imputes his righteousness for more than one sinner? For example if you have debt of $100 and I have $100 and I take your debt and you take my $100??

The word theophany is a combination of two Greek words, meaning God and appearance. A theophany is an appearance of God. More precisely, it is a visible appearance of God. According to Jesus at John 5:37, "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any tinm, not seen His form." Also at John 6:46, "Not that any manb hath seen the Father, except he who is from God, he hath seen the Father." This raises the following question from Genesis 17:1-3, "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him. I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless, vs2, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will greatly multiply your exceedingly." Vs3, "And Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying," I'm going to parapharse the rest. At vs4-6, God changed Abram's name to Abraham. God also stated He will multiply his descedanants and a King will come forth from his seed. Finally, God said this covenant will be an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his descendants. The reason this is a physical appearance of God to Abraham is from Genesis 17:22, "And when He/God finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham." So how do Unitarians explain "Biblically" the physical appearance of God to Abraham?

In the Old Testament, God reveals himself numerous times to the prophets in physical forms (Genesis 18:1-2, Exodus 24:9, Numbers 12:8, Isaiah 6:1). But according to scripture, God is omnipresent, meaning he is already present everywhere (Jeremiah 23:24, Psalm 139:7). So what does it really mean for God to be physically present in a specific place if God is already present there?

I have heard that Jesus fulfills the three Jewish "offices" of Prophet, Priest, and King. What is significant about this, and how specifically does or did Jesus fulfill those offices?

In contrast to the previous pro-Homoian emperor Valens, “it was soon clear that Theodosius would pursue a pro-Nicene line.” (LA, 251) In February 380 - only one year after he was declared Augustus and already a year before the ‘ecumenical’ council of Constantinople - Theodosius issued an edict saying: > “We (all citizens) shall believe in the single deity of the Father, the Son and the > Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy > Trinity.” (LA, 251) As soon as “Theodosius had entered Constantinople in November 380," he exiled the Homoian bishop Demophilus and “accepted Gregory Nazianzen as de facto bishop.” (LA, 253) Gregory Nazianzen was one of the three Cappadocians. “It was … the first session of the council (of Constantinople in 381) that formally recognized him (Gregory as bishop of Constantinople).” (LA, 253) “Suddenly, Meletius (the presiding officer) died and Gregory Nazianzen became president of the council.” (LA, 254) However, “in the council itself Gregory seems to have quickly made himself unpopular.” (LA, 254) “At some point he seems also to have lost the support of Theodosius. Gregory offered his resignation … and it was accepted. In Gregory's place Nectarius, an unbaptized civil official in Constantinople, was chosen.” (LA, 255) Later, Gregory Nazianzen claimed “that at the council the pure Nicene faith was adulterated in the name of compromise.” In what respect did Nazianzen think “the pure Nicene faith was adulterated” in the creed formulated at that council? All references are to the book - Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004, by Lewis Ayres, Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are known as the ["Four Evangelists"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Evangelists) because they are believed to have written the four canonical Gospels. The word "evangelist" means a messenger of good news, but is usually used by Christians to refer to those who preach the Gospel to the lost. While it's easy to understand why it is also used for the Gospels' authors, as these books are messages of the good news, it does have a different sense. While we think of evangelists as people whose primary ministry was the direct preaching of the Gospel, this was not necessarily the case with the Gospel authors. This question is a simple one: when in church history was the title "Evangelist" first applied to the Gospel authors for their role in writing the Gospel texts? If it is not known who first called them evangelists, then what is the earliest clear mention of them with this title?

I have always had issues with the Bible and thought about God but my life is in shambles and everyone keeps telling me to just believe. So I am coming to get help and understand. When looking into Christ, I have seen that his birthday was set for December 25th. But yet when reading the Bible it says that they follow the star of Bethlehem which this star is not present in the sky until June 26th. Please I want to believe but I need solid proof that this isn't just something people hold onto and this stuff is real and not fake.

Gaining eternal life through faith in the Lord is the longing of many Christians. But is it true that we can attain the way of eternal life by accepting the Lord’s salvation, repenting and confessing our sins to Him? What is the difference between the way of repentance and the way of eternal life?

In viewing and scanning theological literature and commentaries of the past centuries, the four disciples who wrote the Gospels were called "evangelists", the "Four Evangelists". Why were they given this appellation then but not now? Did it have more significance than just "authors" or "disciples then"? Why not the "Four Disciples"? And why do we not see this emphasis or usage of this word to describe them, in very modern Study Bibles and commentaries? Has there been a shift in theology and practice toward "Pastoral Ministry" or "Academic Theology" in recent times? {Additional research in "When was the 'Evangelist' title first applied to the Gospel authors?" *and* "What are the 'gospels' in the Gospels?" }

This post is somewhat related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/97211/on-the-end-of-the-patristic-era-as-considered-by-the-catholic-church The First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church was the Council of Nicea in 325. Did any of the Fathers of the Church (say, from the Apostolic Fathers up to St. John Damascene in the 8th century) have anything to say about the authority of Ecumenical Councils? If so, what? Did any Church Fathers deny the authority of such councils?

>Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment ... and that was counted to him for **righteousness unto all generations for evermore**. [Psalm 106:30,31 KJV.] > >Phinehas hath turned my wrath away ... wherefore .. I give unto him a covenant of peace and he shall have it **and his seed** after him, the covenant of an **everlasting priesthood**. [Numbers 25:11-13, KJV ] The covenant here expressed regards righteousness and is promised to the seed of Phinehas (not as of many seeds - see Galatians 3:16 - but of one) everlastingly. Now, Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron. And Mary, the mother of Jesus, was Elizabeth's close relative (Luke 1:5 and 36) not by marriage but by blood (Luke 1:35-40). Therefore Mary was of the tribe of Levi by birth. Only by marriage was she of the tribe of Judah, not by birth or blood. Nor could **any man** descended (naturally, by any means) from Jeconiah onwards ascend the throne for : >Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for **no man of his seed** shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. [Jeremiah 22:30, KJV.] The curse on Jeconiah was impossible to overcome, by any natural means or by any devious manipulation of the royal rights. It was finished. Humanity was prevented from ascending the throne, for ever. But then a 'woman compassed a man' and a man married that woman. And that changed everything. Yet that humanity formed within Mary did have a connection ... to Phinehas and to a promise of an everlasting Priesthood. The significance of this seems to have escaped Protestants, as far as I can tell, despite the fact that it is immensely important regarding the matter of justification by faith, the accounting of the righteousness of God to the faith of them that believe in Jesus Christ. My supposition is that Protestants, rejecting the worship of Mary, have nevertheless neglected to consider her contribution and have overlooked the importance of her genealogy 1 in regard to the promises made to Phinehas and inherited by Jesus, through Mary. (Just as promises were made to David, the king, and were inherited by Jesus, through - adoption by - Joseph.) **Is this so, that this has been neglected ?** Or is it the case that some Protestants have noticed the significance of these two highly important passages in Psalm 106 and Numbers 25 and have recognized the significance of what is inherited through Phinehas and Mary, as we see so much inherited through David and Joseph ? And, if so, where is this recognition documented ? ----------------------------- 1 Just for background interest I add the following : With considerable similarity to the tripled repeat of fourteen generations - the royal line - from Abraham to Christ through Judah (see Matthew 1:1-15) it can be shown that there is a tripled repeat of twelve generations (the significant number of covenant) from Aaron to Christ through Phinehas and Mary. [The genealogy in Luke is sometimes claimed to be Mary's genealogy but it is clearly not so by its content. Luke's list is not the *royal line* (the throne often not passing by direct heritage) but is the *natural line* of begetting.] Data in Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles gives the following : Twelve generations from Aaron to the days of David: Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Ahimaaz Twelve generations from David to the Babylonian captivity: Ahimaaz, Azariah, Johanna, Azariah, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Shallum, Hilkiah, Azariah, Seraiah, Ezra Twelve generations from Captivity until Christ: Ezra, Jeshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Jonathan, Jaddua, [G8 G9 G10] Mary, Jesus called Christ. G8 is either Levi or Eleazar G9 is either Melchi or Matthan G10 is Joachim G8, G9 and G10 are not recorded in scripture but recorded in Doctrina Jacobi and by Tiberias and by John of Damascus. Any further information on this genealogy would be welcome either publicly or privately.

We read in Exodus 4:22 that the people Israel are God's firstborn son: > "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My > son, My firstborn. (NASB) So now, how can Jesus be the firstborn Son of God, let alone the only Son? Several of the "prophecies" about Jesus mentioned in the Gospels refer to what is in fact a statement about Israel the past and present. For example Matthew describes the family of Jesus leaving Egypt and says: > "He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what > had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I > CALLED MY SON."" - Matthew 2:15 (NASB) The Prophet referred to in Mathew 2:15 is Hosea, who says: > When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. > 2 The more they called them, the more they went from them; they kept > sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols." - Hosea 11:1–2 > (NASB) The problem I have with such interpretations of Jesus' actions as fulfilments of propecy are that they were 1) about Israel 2) statements about the past rather than predictions and 3) the behavior being described is hardly matching the character and actions of Jesus in the gospels. How do Christians reconcile the logic of Jesus being God's firstborn son or even the only son, with the actual words of God in the Old Testament about the nation of Israel? I don't mean metaphorically, but what is the actual reality? How are the later verses in the Gospels interpreted? On the one hand they seem as "additional" interpretations of the "original" verses about Israel, but read "in the light of the Gospel". But that can't negate the original meaning, can it? In reality, which is it?