In the Nicene Creed we say while referring to the Church, that it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. In the Apostles' Creed, however, the wording is "Holy Catholic Church." Both the Creeds were formulated before the different denominations would come into being. While the Nicene Creed, by the phrase Catholic, expresses the Universality of the Church, irrespective of the various denominations it now comprises of, the Apostles' Creed does not appear to be doing so. Instead of saying "Holy and Catholic" (i.e. Universal) Church, it appears to tell about the (Roman) Catholic Church which is Holy. This could have been a result of weak translation. Agreed that many versions in English do away with capital letters 'H' and 'C' to imply that the words 'holy' and 'catholic' are not proper nouns. But keep in mind that very few other languages use capital letters. Hence the confusion. My question therefore is: **Has the Catholic Church ever made an attempt to reconcile the attributes of the Universal Church as mentioned in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds?**

When writing, we may abbreviate "Saint" as *St.* or *S.* (in olden times). "Blessed" as *Bl.* But how, in English, may one abbreviate "Servant of God"? In particular, I would like to make reference to *Servant of God John A. Hardon, S.J.* in something I am writing by shortening "Servant of God" to something that uses two or three letters. Is there a proper way to do this?

Nations have guardian angels ; but, according to Catholicism, can an entire nation be possessed by a demon? Catholic perspective on this question

Do Catholics believe baptism is necessary for salvation? According to Catholicism, would an unbaptized Protestant go to Heaven?

In the third chapter of Daniel, 3 Jewish men get thrown into a fiery furnace. The King who had them thrown in looks and sees a fourth person walking around with them in the fire. This fourth person is identified by the polytheistic King as looking *like unto a son of the gods*: > He answered and hath said, 'Lo, I am seeing four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like to a son of the gods.' - Daniel 3:25 (YLT) The men who were thrown into the fire had previously claimed faith that God, if he so chose, could rescue them from the fire: > Lo, it is; our God whom we are serving, is able to deliver us from a > burning fiery furnace; and from thy hand, O king - Daniel 3:17 (YLT) It is likely that this confidence was built in part upon a direct promise from God issued in Isaiah 43: > And now, thus said Jehovah, Thy Creator, O Jacob, and thy Fashioner, O Israel, Be not afraid, for I have redeemed thee, I have called on thy name—thou art Mine. When thou passest into waters, I am with thee, And into floods, they do not overflow thee, When thou goest into fire, thou art not burnt, And a flame doth not burn against thee. - v. 1-2 The promise is that in the fire they are not burnt because "I am with thee". Jehovah uses a first person singular pronoun. Later in Isaiah 43 Jehovah makes it clear that He alone is Savior: > I—I am Jehovah, And besides Me there is no saviour. - v.11 I understand the notion of proxy, and that God could still be considered the only Savior even though sending a Savior who is not Himself, but the promise in Isaiah is that God Himself with be with them in water, flood, and fire. Whom do Biblical Unitarians say is seen by Nebuchadnezzar in the fiery furnace with the three Jews?

In the Bible Hell is always referred to in physical, concrete terms. Descriptions include a lake of fire and brimstone, a weeping and gnashing of teeth, darkness, and physical pain. The rich man in the parable has a tongue, a finger, and overall a whole body. Mainstream Christianity has always put forth this view. Here I will be discounting viewpoints which have softer versions of Hell, like the view that Hell does not last forever. I am confused on this. The Bible lists Hell as a physical place, where people have a physical body and a physical pain. And yet, - Hell being physical energy and matter, with the fire being presumably much hotter than regular fire, would likely be detected due to the amount of heat and radiation it gives off, - People in Hell have bodies. But the bodies do not burn up, and in evangelical circles the pain lasts for ever and ever, day and night, with no rest. Therefore, the body must either be regenerating rapidly, or is indestructible. - People who are cremated have no body to resurrect. This means either God will make new bodies, or the soul in Hell has no body. If the soul in Hell has no body, then it cannot feel physical pain, because souls are spiritual. - Hell was created for the devil and his demons (fallen angels). They do not have bodies, they are all spirit. So if Hell was for them, it would need no physical components. - If Hell is infinite physical pain, like Mainstream Christianity shows, then there must be an infinitely hot and large Hell. But if Hell is physical, then infinite heat and size/mass means infinite gravity, which means that if Hell is physical at all and can interact with physical things (like a body or pain receptors) then the whole world would have collapsed into a black hole. And yet, - Most Christian interpretations of Hell include extreme and vast physical pain, the fire is usually like Earth fire, but it is much hotter and much more painful. - Most Christian views of Hell include eternality, which means that the pain goes on forever. - The Bible is interpreted literally, unless there is a logical contradiction (God does not contradict Himself) - The Christian Hell up until recently (ancient, Medieval, and 1900s) was mainly physical, with fire and brimstone sermons being common (like Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God). With all of this in mind, is Hell a physical place? If Hell is a physical place, then the view that Hell is physical pain holds. But if Hell is not a physical place, then there can be pain but not physical pain. If Hell is a physical place, then it would seem to have many physical contradictions; it would not be physical per the usual definition of the word. If Hell is not a physical place, then most of the historical view of Christianity is inaccurate. This is a contradiction. Is Hell a physical place of infinite physical pain, and if it is, how does Mainstream Christianity account for the inconsistencies with physical nature of things?

When were Aaron's budded rod and the golden jar of manna still with the ark? When Solomon built his temple the only thing in the ark was the stone tablets. But if the Philistines took them, how would the Philistines able to open the ark if you died touching it?

We read in the book *Complete Bible History: From the Creation of the World Down to the Death of the Apostles*, page 16: > When Noe awoke, and heard what had taken place, he cursed Ham in the person of his son Chanaan who, it is thought, had shared in his father's sin, declaring that he should be the servant of servants to his brethren.... > But Sem and Japheth he blessed. Filled with the spirit of God, he [Noe] announced that from the race of Sem should spring the Redeemer, saying "Blessed be the Lord God of Sem, be Chanaan his servant." > To Japheth he said, ``May God enlarge Japheth and may he dwell in the tents of Sem.'' This meant that the children of Japheth were to be blessed in listening to the heavenly doctrine which was to come into the world through the family of Sem. The above paragraphs are found here: https://ia800200.us.archive.org/16/items/CompleteBibleHistory1891/CompleteBibleHistory1891.pdf QUESTION: Can anyone explain how from the above paragraphs it may be inferred that the promised Redeemer should "spring" from the race of Shem? Thank you.

This question is mainly to the evangelical Christians and Bible believing Christians, who believe that God doesn't change and His nature is Love. The Old Testament is filled with accounts that describe how God poured out His wrath on people, including His chosen people, the Israelites. However, when we read the New Testament particularly the life, teachings and message of the Lord Jesus Christ we don't see the outpouring of God's wrath on people. Instead, we read about God's grace, mercy, and love. How do we square these two seemingly opposite manifestations of God's nature?

I'd like to know if according to the Catholic teaching I can pray for the past events that didn't happen? For example: If a woman miscarried a child which means the child wasn't baptized and at that moment woman didn't know it was necessary for the child to be baptized in order to get in heaven. And now after some time she gained the knowledge and ask the angel in a prayer go back in time and perform the prayer of baptism over the baby. Or when some relative dies and after 5 years I gain the knowledge that the person might be in purgatory and maybe I should pray for the person. Can I offer all of my prayers I've done since and pointed them to the moment when the relative died? Will that be added to that soul to the moment of her death or only to the current moment? Is this something we can do according to the catholic theology? Or we can only pray for the present situations and is everything bound to the present moment only? I know this can be difficult to research but maybe someone can find something within the tradition.

Concerning the Nicene Creed, is Jesus equal to God the Father? If so I am a little confused because in Mark 10:18 >And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. Also, if I recall the Holy Spirit comes down from the Father in Heaven during the baptism of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit descending on him as a dove in Matthew 3:13–17, Mark 1:9–11, and Luke 3:21–23. The temptation of Jesus, in Matthew 4:1 the Holy Spirit led Jesus to the desert to be tempted. The Spirit casts out demons in Exorcising the blind and mute man miracle but The Nicene Creed also says 'I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. In many instances, Jesus prayed to God the Father for the ability to perform miracles, asking his Father God in Heaven for a miracle. However, Jesus “breathed on them [the fearful disciples locked in the room] and said to them: 'Receive the Holy Spirit'” (Jn 20:22). Jesus gives the Spirit to the disciples after he “hands over the Spirit” to the women and the beloved disciple at the foot of the cross (Jn 19:30)

Are couples who are not married in the Catholic Church, but are married civilly, really not allowed to serve in their parish? What I mean by "serve" is to act as a head of a particular parish organization or even as a lector. Kindly give me the exact law on this.

I once saw online that there is a Catholic classification or special private ceremony for women who are chaste and do not engage in any form of sex. This is for women who are not nuns or sisters. Is there such a thing?

A prenuptial agreement typically outlines what happens in the event a marriage ends in divorce or some other dissolution of the marriage. This at first appears to be at odds with the idea of a Catholic marriage being two people vowing to be married "till death do us part" (i.e. they are still married even if they are civilly divorced). Is a prenuptial agreement permitted for a Catholic marriage? I'm particularly wondering if a prenuptial agreement would be used as grounds for annulment, since it might suggest that they weren't serious about their marriage vows.

Catholics and several Protestant denominations (and maybe even Orthodox churches) practice Infant Baptism, while many other Protestant denominations do not. This question addressed the argument *for* Infant Baptism. So, what is the argument *against* it? That is, "**Why is Infant Baptism considered** to be invalid by many denominations?

I am reading Ivan Illich's 1987 essay "Hospitality and Pain" (freely available to consult here ) which concerns the Western conception of pain and the body. Illich claims, on page 13, that, after the first millennium, a transvaluation of the Incarnation and the Passion occurred in the West. He suggests that the earliest artistic depiction of the crucifixion emerges in the Rabbula Gospels and draws attention to the way Jesus is depicted as bloodless and with eyes open. > All the Gospel details are depicted: The two thieves, the soldiers throwing dice for the cloak, Longinus with the lance, Mary the mother and John the beloved apostle, the mourning women, the sun and moon hiding their faces. But the figure of Jesus is a symbolic iconogram rather than a picture. Unlike the naked thieves, he is veiled in the long mantle (columbium). The breast wound shows that his body is dead. But his open eyes and the halo around his head reveal the glory of divinity ever present in this body. The work is a Christological statement of the Council of Chalcedon: There are no signs suggesting torture or pain. > > In the first millennium, Christians do not focus on the bodily pains suffered by Christ in his passion. Certainly one reason for this is the fact that they had no term fitting the word field of modern English pain. Pain directly denotes an ache in the body, and only obliquely emotion or feelings. The Greek words, lype, algos and nosos directly mean a state of the soul. And the Old Testament, one long story of woes and miseries in which Israel comes to recognize the hand of the living God, simply has no one word that directly refers to the body in pain. Illich then briefly traces a history of the portrayals of Christ on the cross, describing how, in the 7th and 8th centuries, Jesus is typically veiled in a colobium sindonis , "sometimes reminiscent of the vestments of a priest or king." A century later, Illich claims, Jesus is now undressed down to the loincloth; from the 9th until the 11th centuries, the naked body is found in art, but not commonly. A break occurs in the 12th century - Illich claims the body is now "even more important than the cross." (page 15) > But then, within Hildegard's generation, the iconogram of the Savior gives way to the realistic representation of a tortured man. As far as excruciating pain can be pictured, it is shown above every altar during the late Middle Ages. Once more the history of the perceived body, and the history of bodily pain, together pass a watershed. Just imagine the crucifixion of the Isenheim altar, painted by Grünewald, which I mentioned earlier. The limbs of Jesus are gangrenous, contorted, discolored - like those of the dying patients, to whom the indescribable light that infuses the painting speaks of themystery of salvation through pain. In conversation with David Cayley in 1988 (see transcript here ) Illich makes reference to these same ideas and summarises his point on how compassion, as a lived experience, becomes possible only at that historical moment when pain has been disembedded from the huge and varied matrix of suffering in which it had been diffused: > In 1100, the crucified Christ, who is one of the most important representations which are left to us of what people thought about the flesh, is still very much the Christ of the first millennium. The first 300 years of Christianity knew absolutely no crucifix. From then on, until the 11th century essentially, he who is on the cross is dressed up as a priest, is a person alive, crowned by the sun. Even if his heart is pierced and the blood flows out, you can see that he’s a fully alive person. It’s an icon, an ideogram. It is not a body which is represented. In the 9th century, slowly the clothes of the priest, the king, the columbium, as they call it, disappears from the body and he is represented in his nakedness, but still as a live body with eyes which look at you, even if his heart is opened. By the end of the 12th century, his head is inclined--he’s a dead man. His body is shown tortured. Physical pain is represented as acutely as you can possibly represent it. No wonder twenty years later, Francis will go and begin to kiss the wounds of lepers. No wonder Francis of Assisi will feel a new feeling for which there was no real word nor importance, even in Christianity, compassion so strong that the suffering with the suffering Christ will express itself written on his hands and feet as stigmata, and the epidemic of stigmata will appear all over central Europe. Illich is a reputable historian but I have tried looking for depictions of the Crucifixion from before the 12th century and had a very difficult time finding any examples. In one word: is there any significant truth to his thesis that Christ on the cross was depicted initially robed and "alive" and then a sharp break happened around the 12th century, with Jesus now seen as a pained, hurt body?

How does the Catholic Church view Penal Substitutionary Atonement (as formulated within the Reformed tradition)? A comment on [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/59135/if-god-already-paid-for-my-sins-by-crucifixion-why-should-i-repent-now) , states that PSA 'has been declared doctrinal heresy'. Is that accurate? I am familliar with the development of the theory and that it is not consistent with the Satisfaction Theory of Anslem and Aquinas, but I am not aware of it ever being offically denounced. Was it? If so, when? If not, is it implicitly heretical because it contradicts a particular dogma? Or perhaps it is not heretical, but still wrong?

We see Jesus describing in Matthew 12:43-45, how an unclean spirit returns to dwell in a person whom it had quit before wandering in the dry land. Jesus adds that the state of the man concerned, becomes more miserable in that he now hosts more powerful unclean spirits. That implies that there are degrees of possession by the evil spirit - from mild to the extremely dangerous. In deed, we see the different victims of possession whom Jesus would later heal, behaving in widely different manner from case to case. Now, one can easily imagine a world in which God dwells, but which is also dwelt in by evil spirits. Can the phenomenon apply to individuals also? My question, in sum, is as follows: **Is it possible for both God and an unclean spirit to dwell in the same human being at the same time?** Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

The source for my question is found at the Jehovah Witnesses own web site: [The Watchtower](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005681) : > His Origin Was From Early Times: "Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone." It then asks a rhetorical question: > Who was his first creation? They say: > The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as "the beginning of the creation by God." (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation." Source: Watchtower 2005 9/15 pp. 4-7: Who Is Jesus Christ? From the NASB it says at John 1:1, > "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the > Word was God." According to the context the "Word/Logos" is identified as Jesus Christ. John 1:1-14. > He was in the beginning with God and He was God. If you're with somebody your a distinct person from that somebody. Moreover, there is only one beginning. John's "beginning" is referring to the Genesis 1:1 beginning. At the Genesis 1:1 beginning it states, "In the beginning God created. So the Genesis "beginning" is telling us WHAT HAPPENED "in the beginning." At John 1:1, "in the beginning" the emphasis in on WHO EXISTED "in the beginning." And verses like John 1:3, "All things came into being by Him, and apart (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being. Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:10 and even Revelation 3:14 backs up John 1:1. At Revelation 3:14 Jesus is the "arche/beginning" or the source and origin of the beginning of time and space. We get our English word "architect" from the Greek word, "arche." The following confirms what was stated and if more information is needed, that can be suppied as well: [John 1](https://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/john/1.htm) .

A rough estimate of the time will do. To refer to mortal sins, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* uses *peccatum mortale* ([CCC 1856-1857](https://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s1c1a8_lt.htm#ARTICULUS%208%C2%A0%20PECCATUM)) , as does Saint Thomas Aquinas ([ST II-I Q88](http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_IIa/Q88) cf. [New Advent](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2088.htm)) . However, the Code of Canon Law refers to *peccati gravis* ([Can 916](https://canonlaw.ninja/?v=sbs&nums=916)) . These are translated mortal sin and grave sin, respectively. In my experience, many people will make a distinction between grave sin, which is a sin of grave matter, and mortal sin, which is a sin of grave matter carried out with full knowledge and intention. But St. Thomas says in the same question cited above, article 6: >Nevertheless a sin which is generically mortal, can become venial by reason of the imperfection of the act, because then it does not completely fulfil the conditions of a moral act, since it is not a deliberate, but a sudden act, as is evident from what we have said above (Article 2). This happens by a kind of subtraction, namely, of deliberate reason. And since a moral act takes its species from deliberate reason, the result is that by such a subtraction the species of the act is destroyed. This seems to me to indicate that he thought mortal sin just referred to any sin which constituted grave matter, and that those sins could be made venial instead of mortal because of a lack of knowledge or intention, any circumstance which provides "subtraction... of deliberate reason." Because of this, I'm suspicious of the term "***peccatum gravis***,” or "grave sin." I suspect it is a modernist invention meant to muddy the waters on sin and confuse the faithful into thinking that they can generally still be saved when in habitual mortal sin. This is verified when I hear anecdotes about priests telling penitents that they may receive communion prior to confession of "grave sins" because those sins are habitual, and thus not really *mortal* sins. Of course, even this advice appears to contradict the plain words of canon law, which appears to me as even further evidence that this distinction was introduced in order to confuse. Does any pre-modern orthodox theologian, especially a Doctor of the Church, use the term "***peccatum gravis***?" And do they use it in this manner?