Today's (12th of September) [list of feasts and saints](https://catholicsaints.info/12-september/) mentions "Gold Ring Mass", but I can not find any information on it. Google perceives this as physical quantity and not as a liturgy and the Bard suggests that this is a special kind of mass that celebrates love and whose celebration requires the priest to wear a gold ring and the readings are from Song of Songs. But such information can be hallucinations of Bard, although I have nothing more about this mass. Is there any information about such mass? Maybe the older or later Missal contains some information?

I once met one guy on Youtube who says he believes that Jesus was so moraly perfect (secular language to say sinless) that He got attention of the Supreme Being (i.e. God) and that this Supreme Being adopted Jesus as His own Son on baptism and filled Him with supernatural power, explaining Jesus's miracles. He also thinks God did raised Jesus from the dead, but this was simply the reward for Jesus's perfectness and Christ's ascension to heaven was simply reward for Jesus to be ascended to the spiritual realm where God resides. That's all he believes. He doesn't think Original Sin is true, he doesn't think Exodus happened (the way it is described in the Bible), he doesn't believe in pre-existence of Christ, not in virgin birth, Atonement of Christ or Second Coming. He thinks that Jesus was mistaken about promises of Second Coming because He confused God with Yahweh He worshipped as a Jew and thought Kingdom will be set with Him as the Messiah. After Resurrection, Christ knew that Yahweh and the Father are not the same God (according to this Christian deist). This deist also considers Gospel of Mark as ONLY reliable, he rejects other three Gospels. He doesn't worship Jesus or pray to Him, he isn't part of any denomination, he is very liberal, he is okay with homosexuality and etc. I wonder, are there any other deists who think Christ historically rose from the dead?

Why do Trinitarians rarely mention the hermeneutical principles which have led them to this belief? What are the hermeneutical principles that support the Trinitarian view? For example Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man" The common Trinitarian interpretation of this verse is that it proves the Old testament taught the Trinity doctrine. Yet it breaks a basic rule of Bible interpretation: "Try to find the original writer's intentions when he wrote the biblical text". From what I have researched, Trinitarians break this rule and several other basic rules of biblical interpretation.

I've been searching for some reference to the "usual" distribution of hours in terms of sleep, prayer, reading, working, etc for Western monasteries but cannot find a good reference online. I've computed a distribution based on [this website](https://christdesert.org/prayer/rule-of-st-benedict/chapter-48-the-daily-manual-labor/) but it's very sketchy. I know things vary by rule (Benedictine vs others), by date (Second Vatican Council shortened the Divine Office), local customs, etc. But any rough measure would be of help. My attempt so far for a normal day (no Sunday, no Feast, ...): - Work: 5 hrs - Reading: 2 hrs - Prayer (Mass + Divine Office): 6 hrs - Rest: 8hrs - Communal time (eating, meetings, etc): 3 hrs Is anyone aware of a more "official breakdown" of this? Or perhaps can compute a better distribution? PD: It's also true that in medieval times an hour wasn't fixed in 60 minutes but varied by the time of the year, a practice inherited from Roman times.

We have in Exodus 20:8-11, the Third Commandment in which the Lord instructs Israel to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. The Commandment is elaborated to explain that just as God had rested after six days of Creation of the world, Israel would also need to rest on the 7th Day. Jesus gave a new definition to rest on the Sabbath by doing the work of compassion. As such, Christians would be obliged to do the work of charity and love towards the neighbor on a Sunday. But in practice, the observance of the Sabbath as a Holy Day is limited to attending the Mass, in so far as many Catholics are concerned. What does the Catholic Church teach about the observance of Sunday as a Holy Day?

'Emergent' is a word I see gets thrown around a lot. Is there any definition to what is and what isn't emergent? - Is it a catch-all for certain points of view? - Are there people out there that actively identify themselves as 'Emergent'? - What are, or what is considered to be the main tenets and/or beliefs of the Emergent Church?

I have heard Christians claim that the zygotes and fetuses that are aborted or miscarried get a free pass to go to heaven. Is this true? I can't find anywhere in the Bible where this is the case. The Bible itself declares that there is only one name under heaven given among men whereby one may be saved and that is Jesus. Is there a possibility that those who are zygotes or fetuses do not have an afterlife?

How did the practice of wishing the sign of peace to each other during Mass start? I only saw this after I moved here to the United States. I don't recall when going to Mass on Sundays back in Brazil, that the priest told us to wish peace to each other right after finishing praying the Our Father. Jesus didn't tell the apostles to do it! He gives us this peace, through the priest. Why do we need to give it to each other at the Mass? It doesn't make sense to me.

We read in 1 Kings 15:5 that King David had obeyed all the Commandments except in the case of Uriah the Hettite, during his lifetime. The circumstances leading to the death of Uriah in battle were meticulously executed by David who had coveted his wife Bathsheba against the 9th Commandment, after having slept with the married lady against the 6th Commandment. On the death of Uriah, David broke the 5th Commandment, by having consciously planned and staged the battle scene (2 Samuel 11). As such, the victims of David's sins were both Uriah and his widow Bathsheba. But the mention only of Uriah in 1 Kings 15, makes one wonder if David, in the capacity of King, was exempt from the 6th and 9th Commandments. **Question**: According to Catholic scholars, does 1 Kings 15:5 suggest that King David was exempt from following some of the Ten Commandments?

According to the Catholic Church, how does the creation and imposition of 1752 canon laws lend to and exemplify the simplicity that is in Christ? I've asked this question and had it closed as 'opinion-based' based on my attempt to ask it within the context of an exposition of "simplicity in Christ". I then attempted an edit to re-open the question by removing the opinion-based content (the exposition I provided). In that edit I supplied a referenced definition of 'simplicity' rather than the exposition I had put together from a wide range of Scriptures. Objection was made to that referenced definition as well. I then deleted the closed, edited, and waiting for review question and attempted to simply ask the title question stripped of any and all additional commentary and received a message that it did not meet the quality standards of the site: A clear title. A reasonable explanation of what your question is. Add as much detail as you can. Any background research you've tried but wasn't enough to solve your problem. Correct use of English spelling and grammar to the best of your ability. Every attempt I have made to edit this question in response to comments so that it can remain open, meet the above requirements, and gather answers has, instead, gathered more and different opposition. I would like to simply ask the following: According to the Catholic Church, how does the creation and imposition of 1752 canon laws lend to and exemplify the simplicity that is in Christ?

While studying the book of Daniel I came across: >Daniel 6:10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went home. And in his upper room, with his windows open toward Jerusalem, he knelt down on his knees three times that day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as was his custom since early days. and since it is necessary that Muslims face mecca when praying I wondered if that was some ritual that all exiles followed or if it was only a custom of Daniel. I checked this question but it does not address my point, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35444/why-did-daniel-feel-the-need-to-pray-towards-jerusalem-even-at-the-cost-of-his Does anyone know the answer to my question or where I might find some guidance on this?

All the Bible I have seen (Catholic and Protestant) have the books in the Bible divided into two groups - Old Testament and New Testament. There is always a dedicated page just before the Book of Genesis with the title *"The Old Testament"* which indicates that the books that follow after this page falls under this category. There is also a dedicated page just before the Gospel of Matthew with the title *"The New Testament"* indicating that the books after this page are categorized as New Testament. I have also seen some Christians holding a small Bible having only the New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs as an addition. I wonder why do we have this division. I'm also perplexed by the use of the terms ***"Old"*** and ***"New"***. I need some historical and theological background to help me understand this division. 1. When did this division happen? 2. Why did they make this division? 3. Does this division bear any significant importance? 4. Can we simply divide the Bible as *"Books written before Christ"* and *"Books written after Christ"*? 5. Was the use of the terms *'Old'* and *'New'* accidental or intentional? 6. Is this division necessary? 7. Is there any Bible that doesn't have this division?

In his book *History and Christianity: A Vigorous, Convincing Presentation of the Evidence for a Historical Jesus* (1965, IVP Press), John Warwick Montgomery says on [page 34](https://archive.org/details/historychristian00mont/page/34/mode/2up) : >Irenaeus had often heard from Polycarp the eyewitness accounts of Jesus received from John and others who had been personally acquainted with Jesus.13 > > --------- > 13See Eusebius, [*H.E.*, V. 20](https://archive.org/details/eusebiusecclesia0000euse_v9k8/page/178/mode/2up?view=theater) . At face value, I found this, combined with Irenaeus' reference to the Gospels, to be the most powerful point in Montgomery's book. However, Polycarp himself does not claim to have known John or others who new Jesus, and his biographer does not mention this either. So we could say that Irenaeus claims a connection to Jesus, but Polycarp does not. Unfortunately, the only other example Montgomery provides is Paul. Are there others who claim a connection to Jesus? (Such as Irenaeus, who studied under Polycarp, who met John, who was a disciple of Jesus)

In Hebrews 8, the author discusses the two covenants God has made. Why the need for two? Surely God knew that the first could not be kept by man. Why didn’t He just start with the covenant of Christ?

The author of Hebrews seems to think Melchizedek has no beginning or end. This is an important part of the argument, since the author is arguing Jesus is part of a higher order of priesthood that does not depend on the Mosaic law and is not subject to human mortality, and that Melchizedek is an example of this higher order. The author seems to think Melchizedek is literally immortal. > Without father or mother or genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God, he remains a priest for all time. - Hebrews 7:3 > In the case of the Levites, mortal men collect the tenth; but in the case of Melchizedek, it is affirmed that he lives on. - Hebrews 7:8 > And this point is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not by a law of succession, but by the power of an indestructible life. > For it is testified: > > “You are a priest forever > in the order of Melchizedek.” - Hebrews 7:15-16 The most straightforward reading of the above verses is that the author thinks Melchizedek is immortal, and that is what makes his priesthood superior to the Levitical priesthood. Furthermore, Jesus is like Melchizedek precisely because he has an indestructible life, which the author backs up with an old testament quote to the same effect. Finally, Jesus' salvific role is tied specifically to being immortal, i.e. like Melchizedek. > But because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore He is able to save completely those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to intercede for them. - Hebrews 7:24-25 In which case, is Melchizedek some kind of immortal human? Is he still alive today? Was he around when Adam and Eve were created?

F. B. Meyer (Frederick Brotherton) published a book named "Tried by fire: Expositions of the First Epistle of Peter". Did he publish expositions of the Second Epistle of Peter? If so, what's the name of the book?

Are there any church fathers or medieval Christian writers who gave their opinion on extraterrestrial lives ?

I think the question title is self-explanatory with this one addition (which I didn't have room for in the title bar): **Of the 1752 Catholic Canon Laws, how many does the average Catholic need to be aware of and obey in order to practice faithfully** *and is that subset of Canons made explicitly clear to them somewhere*?

A brief bit of context (feel free to edit it out if it's not appropriate for the site, but I think it'll help clarify exactly what I'm trying to achieve with this question): I am currently studying the accounts of Paul and Alma in the Bible and Book of Mormon, and was intrigued by the way that their conversion could be viewed, from some perspectives at least, as either "forced" on their recipients, or to be an extra "unfair" blessing that God arbitrarily gave to some ardent unbelievers but not others. Neither lined up with my conception of God, so I am studying common features in both accounts and pondering why God chose to send divine manifestations to these to individuals. With that as context, I am interested in finding more data points to compare to, where God took an actively hostile unbeliever, gave them a divine manifestation of His power before they ever displayed faith in Him (so, not them repenting first and then experiencing a miracle afterwards), and then looking at what happened to that person afterwards (did they convert, did they have a particular mission God had prepared them for, etc). Answers from all denominational perspectives, and from any canonical work or tradition held by a Christian denomination, are welcome.

We know that in the beginning God created everything from nothing. No doubt there. But, these days we often hear something like "Why is that puppy so cute? Because God made it that way." Or something like "Who made that awesome sports car? God did." I'm trying to reconcile the idea that God created all things (initially) vs. God creates all things (currently). I have no doubt that I couldn't build a car without God guiding me and nudging me in the right direction, but does that mean God created it? I guess, to me, it seems like God made the building blocks -- ie dirt, water, atoms, physics, gravity, etc. -- but man actually made things using those building blocks. It would be like saying the guy that invented the microchip is the same guy who invented the iphone. I hope this question makes sense and someone can offer some clarity.