As a generalization to the question posed in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/62450/is-the-catholic-declaration-of-an-extra-biblical-saint-infallible , and in hope of obtaining, perhaps, more definitive answers from a Catholic perspective, I ask: Are Catholic canonizations infallible?

God is the cause of all things, and the creator of all things. God is eternal, never ending and timeless, with no beginning or end. Him and all of his attributes are eternal and never ending. This might help you understand this question. Do you understand eternality in the abstract sense, do you have any abstraction that allows you to understand eternality? To put it, eternality here means never ending , however its the timeless eternality, something with no beginning and no end, God has no beginning and no end, if something has no beginning you can't apply seconds to it to count how long its existed because that doesn't apply to it. Unfortunately I've argued with lots of really dumb people, so I'm just going to say right now that the fact I'm showing a seeming contradiction is showing that I am starting to feel God isn't real, because him being the first cause seems to violate the law of non contradiction. This post is showing a contradiction in the existence of a first cause, meaning maybe its not possible for it to exist. You might not get this immediately so look at the second paragraph and read again, for now just read this:can you get this: a first cause is eternal, meaning it is timeless, never ending. You can't apply seconds to it if it is eternal, all of its processes are eternal, its process of causation is also eternal,, all of its processes are eternal, and its process of causation is eternal, thus since its causation process doesn't end, it will continue to cause forever and ever, being eternal in the timeless sense, without a beginning and end. Now, I say this: if a first causes causation doesn't end, it will continue to cause and cause the exact same thing as its causation of that thing doesn't end, however, this means that the law of identity would be violated, because how can there be two of the same thing , if it continues to cause that thing then that would mean there are two things that are the same, but everything is equal to itself, it would go agains't the law of identity, so how do we overcome this contradiction? I thought of something like,non beings don't have properties, and this is important because of the fact that we can say that our abstract understanding is wrong, but then I thought of this: maybe we can't define the being abstractly since its trancendent, and other things but it seems i need help from smeone else on this. Mind you, an inherent aspect of a first cause is its ability to cause, and its actual act of causing is also never ending, inherent here means it exists as a permanent aspect of it, because we know causation is an aspect of the first cause that is inherent to it, as if it wasn't permanent it would mean it had an aspect that was added to it, which is impossible because is eternal and timeless and can't change. So its causation being an inherent aspect of it is also eternal, and the process, non timely process which takes place in causing it is also never ending. There we go

Coffins for the burial of Christians are traditionally made either in a hexagonal form with tapering at the shoulder point, or in a rectangular shape with proportionate length and width. But, Christians of Ghana are known to be using unconventional shapes of coffins, ranging from those of aeroplane, birds and animals to fruits and flowers. Now, the hexagonal shape reminds us of the Cross, and may actually owe its origin to the Cross. The rectangular shape is good from practical points of view. But, why the shape of aeroplane and animals? Is it meant to reinforce the idea that a Christian burial is a celebration? My question in sum is: **What do the unconventional shapes of coffins used in Christian burial in some countries signify?**

In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus famously says: Matthew 6:12 NMB > And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. This seems to be a *law* thing, as it means "unless you forgive, you will not be forgiven". How is it then, that Lutherans (or other Evangelical/Protestant Churches) understand this in a *Gospel* sense, where this becomes a promise telling us "forgive because you too have been forgiven", as Luther says in the Small Catechism .

In John 5:24 (NET) Jesus says (emphasis added): > I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes > the one who sent me has eternal life *and will not be condemned*, but > has crossed over from death to life. Jesus says the one who believes will not be condemned. Is this about past sins only? Is it about all of ones's sins? Or is it about something else? Thanks!

The Anglican Church came from the Roman Catholic Church about the same time as the Reformation was starting, but that doesn't answer how they are different on a practical level. How is the Anglican Church different from the Catholic Church in practice? What doctine(s) distinguish them as a separate denomination from Catholicism?

I am trying to determine what language the letters around Christ's head in the Mandylion Icon are written in and what they are equivalent to in English. I think in the Icon above, they are ancient Greek and say "I AM", but can't seem to verify this. Thanks in advance.. God Bless.

Titular question seems to say it all. And not sure how I could expand any further. But does this have any name? What is the origin or significance of it? Christian traditions having incense to burn is a new thing to me. I always thought it was only a Hindu and Buddhist practice.

According to Heb. 11:1-5 (D-R): > Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. Does the Bible offer what may be considered to be a definition of *faith* elsewhere in either the New Testament or the Old Testament?

According to Wiki: >The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. The historical period in which they worked became known as the Patristic Era and spans approximately from the late 1st to mid-8th centuries Luke 10:16: > He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. *(Douay-Rheims)* Can anyone provide some commentary that (specifically) Church Fathers have made on Luke 10:16?

Again the titular question says everything that I want to ask. I’ve been able to understand to an extent the main differences between the Catholic and Protestant orientations and gather that Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism are more mutually similar than either is to Protestantism. But how do Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy mainly differ?

I’m interested mainly in values and philosophical differences in terms of the general worldviews and broader views on life, but welcome any answer that may be offered.

I was having a discussion with a friend and he made the claim: > The Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants. This seemed half-true to me, but I thought the origins were more based in the interests of Henry the VIII and having an English National church distinct from the Continental Church. My understanding is that the Constitutional documents are meant to be 'inclusive' but I wouldn't have described them as a 'middle ground'. My question is: **Is it fair to say that the Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants?**

So pentecostalism has a lot of its doctrine around personal experience with the Holy Spirit, like speaking in tongues, hearing the Spirit's voice and so on... I want to find a theological course/book/piece of media that explains those things from the Bible perspective, but I want a very well organized basis, like a theological foundation for it. Because whenever I try looking into it, either the material is very vague about the sources or is very personal-experience relied... Is there any course like that?

Can priests be on capital punishment juries, or is this interdicted as an irregularity by canon law?

According to Catholic theologians, is every lawfully-constituted civil authority divinely-instituted like the Church (Mt. 16:18-19 )? Pope Leo XIII, in his 1881 encyclical on the origin of civil power, *Diuturnum * §8, says that "political power […] comes from God"; cf. Romans 13:1-5 .

I want to begin to understand my new identity in Christ (how he sees me; how I should see myself) and understand what it means to be free from sin. I have lived my whole life as a slave to sin, I want to learn to think and act like the free man that I have become because of Christ. Where should I start? Any recommendations on passages of scripture that discuss this? I have done small word studies before but I have no idea how to even start this study. Any advice will be appreciated. I am a 25 year old male.

It's not hard to understand why the New Testament might resonate more strongly for the cultivation of relics than the Old Testament over the centuries of the Church's history. To name a few: - The Holy Grail - The Spear of Destiny - The Stone of Unction (once resided in Ephesus) - The True Cross - The Holy Girdle (and other Marian relics) - Bones of the Saints Many of these New Testament relics hold clear theological and soteriological significance. With regard to why early Christian institutions (Byzantine Church, Roman Church, as well as quasi-autonomous monasteries) have not devoted resources to the acquisition of Old Testament relics, I can think of two major factors: - Preservation bias (the Old Testament happened a long time ago) - Less straight-forward interpretation [This](https://www.routledge.com/Studies-on-the-Cult-of-Relics-in-Byzantium-up-to-1204/Wortley/p/book/9780754668473) scholarly work lays out some of the thinking behind the acquisition of relics in Byzantium, how they were collected and what divine influence they were expected to provide. The focus is clearly on Passion relics and virtually nothing on relics from the Pre-monarchistic period or Post-exilic period that bookends the Old Testament. The closest thing I was able to find was featured in a different monograph from Brill Publishing, titled [The Paintings of the Pre-Islamic Kaaba](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1523357) . Here the author highlights that the Kaaba once housed ram horns believed to originally have belonged to the ram that Abraham sacrificed in place of Isaac. While the time period is concurrent with Christian relic acquisitions, it's an Islamic view on the sanctity of an Old Testament relic. Moreover, I have not encountered any Christian institution that had an expressed interest in acquiring the ram horns of Abraham's sacrifice.

Question

Taking the general direction of my above research, what evidence do we have for the existence of Old Testament relics that were sought after by the early Church(es)? Not including the Ark of the Covenant, which is rather ubiquitous.

I am trying to find out how to navigate the bible as a big book, and so I was wondering how the content of the book is organized? - Only parts have titles, while chapters and sections don't. If all of them are titled, by looking at the table of content would help me grasp the gist of the big book. Has anyone tried to name the chapters and sections, or write synopsis for them? I'd be interested to read such high level summaries. - Is it correct that most of the book are stories, and principles are only a small part (in parts such as Psalms, and Proverbs)? Does it rely on readers to figure principles out from the stories?

Other Christian religions (e.g. Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, et al.) leave access to the altar open for their congregations. Is there a special theological reason the the different approach by the Greek Orthodox churches? Or is it a cultural tradition to separate it from the Western church religions?