Pope Paul VI wrote in his 1974 Apostolic Exhortation [*Marialis Cultus*](https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19740202_marialis-cultus.html) (paragraph 54): > But there is no doubt that, after the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, the high point which family prayer can reach, the Rosary should be considered as one of the best and most efficacious prayers in common that the Christian family is invited to recite. ... Does this mean that he thought that the Rosary is more important than the daily examen?

According to Catholicism, is divine chastisement due especially to the sins of priests?

We read in Jn 8: 6-8 (NRSVCE), of how an adulterous woman is brought before Jesus so that she could be judged by him: > This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, **as though he heard them not.** So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. Going back, we see that Jesus was teaching in the temple courts when that happened : > At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them... In the KJV version, it is clear why Jesus writes first time on the ground , that is to feign ignorance of the question put to him. But he resumes writing on the ground (Jn 8:8)after giving the verdict . But, humanly speaking, how could he be sure of the behavior of the Pharisees whom he himself had called `hard-hearted '(Mtt 19: 8 )? They could have all proclaimed themselves as free from sin and pelted stones at the woman, couldn't they ? My question therefore, is: According to Catholic Scholars, why did Jesus write on the ground for a second time while the crowd with the adulterous woman was standing before him ?

Many Bible editions include related verse cross references, which is *separate* from the translator's footnotes, such as this edition of the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) Bible (see [excerpt here](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product_slideshow?sku=948685&actual_sku=948685&slide=3) for example). In that CSB edition, the related verse cross references placed between the two columns while the translator footnotes are on the bottom: But some CSB editions only include the translator's footnotes, such as the CSB Single-Column Wide-Margin edition (see [excerpt here](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product_slideshow?sku=742855&actual_sku=742855&slide=3)) . There is [an answer for a similar question for NIV](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/63804/10672) . Do the CSB Bibles which include verse cross reference uses the same system as the NIV, or a different system? If different, **which scholars developed the CSB cross reference feature**?

What are some examples of canonized saints either 1. educating or disciplining women over insubordination in church matters where a priest or bishop would be expected to be in charge or 2. not tolerating disrespect to the clerical offices?

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and **the Word was God** According to John 1:1, "The Word is god". We all know that the Bible is the word of God; therefore, is John 1:1 is telling us that the Bible is God? [Note: Please supply authentic and scholarly explanations from Protestant Christians]

Consider the following quote of St. Peter Julian Eymard: > An age prospers or dwindles in proportion to its devotion to the Holy Eucharist. This is the measure of its spiritual life and its faith, of its charity and its virtue. QUESTION: Are there other Catholic Saints who have expressed similar thoughts regarding the connection between the rise and fall of a people and the devotion (or respect) they pay to the Holy Eucharist? If so, who are they and what did they say regarding the aforesaid connection? All Saints, I am quite sure, have had a devotion to the Holy Eucharist; I am interested only in those who have verbalized a connection similar to the one given above by St. Peter Julian Eymard.

I remember this sect from the news, but I forgot the term. Does anyone know what I mean? Aniconism isn't the answer (because I know this noun already) but also because this faction allows their apostles to take selfies and portraits **strictly on a necessary basis** like to fulfill banking, government, and travel requirements. They can take selfies for applying for a bank account, credit card, driver's license, and passports. Their worshipers can use, but are forbidden to take selfies or portraits on, social media like Instagram. They can upload pictures of anything besides their own faces.

Did anyone keep the sandals of Jesus that He had worn during His Mission on earth, after His crucifixion ? Is there any Christian group, in any part of the world, that venerates the sandals of Jesus, on the lines of veneration that is given to the Milk Grotto of Bethlehem ?

Jesus did not have a sin nature and he never sinned during His life. For the wages of sin is death. Since He never sinned he should not have to die...on the cross He laid down His life...He did die but His death was not required therefore it paid for our sins. The question is was Jesus mortal? We know that the wages of sin is death. We also know Jesus never sinned. Having only one human parent might allow for Jesus not having a sin nature and not being mortal. He said no one takes My life from Me...to me this hints at immortality. Physical death is the separation of spirit and body. He said into Your hands I commend My Spirit...He willingly gave up something that was not required...because He was not mortal. Because he was immortal and still died makes His death specially efficacious. His physical death alone paid for our sins. Payment for our sins does not require separation (spiritual death) between God the Father and Jesus.

For example, in entry **(150)** of her *Diary*, St. Faustina relates the following from a mystical conversation she had with St. Therese of Lisieux: > "Dear sweet Therese, tell me, shall I go to heaven?" And she answered, "Yes, you will go to heaven, Sister." "And will I be a saint?" To which she replied, "Yes, you will be a saint." "But, little Therese, shall I be a saint as you are, raised to the altar?" And she answered, "Yes, you will be a saint just as I am, but you must trust in the Lord Jesus." In the Catholic Church, what exactly is meant by the term "raised to the altar"? Does it mean *canonization* by the Pope? Are those declared *Blessed* (also) *raised to the altar*?

I am looking for a Bible gathering commentaries of the Church Fathers verse by verse. Is there such a book or website?

I've heard it claimed that St. Thomas Aquinas desired to obtain a manuscript of a biblical commentary (by St. John Chrysostom?) more than he desired to posses an entire kingdom. What is the source of this story?

Martin Luther's letter to Jerome Weller on his guilt consciousness >Whenever the devil worries you with these thoughts, seek the company of men at once, or drink somewhat more liberally, jest and play some jolly prank, or do anything exhilarating. Occasionally a person must drink somewhat more liberally, engage in plays, and jests, or even commit some little sin from hatred and contempt of the devil, so as to leave him no room for raising scruples in our conscience about the most trifling matters. For when we are overanxious and careful for fear that we may be doing wrong in any matter, we shall be conquered. > >Accordingly, **if the devil should say to you: By all means, do not drink! you must tell him: Just because you forbid it**, I shall drink, and that, liberally. In this manner you must always do the contrary of what Satan forbids. When I drink my wine unmixed, prattle with the greatest unconcern, eat more frequently, do you think that I have any other reason for doing these things than to scorn and spite the devil who has attempted to spite and scorn me? **Would God I could commit some real brave sin to ridicule the devil, that he might see that I acknowledge no sin and am not conscious of having committed any.** > >We must put the whole law entirely out of our eyes and hearts,–we, I say, whom the devil thus assails and torments. Whenever the devil charges us with our sins and pronounces us guilty of death and hell, we ought to say to him: I admit that I deserve death and hell; what, then, will happen to me? Why, you will be eternally damned! By no means; for I know One who has suffered and made satisfaction for me. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Where He abides, there will I also abide. > >This translation comes from a 1917 book on Catholic criticism of Luther by W.H.T. Dau Also, > If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner. (Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82) Regardless of the degree of sin mentioned (drinking, jesting, prattling/idle talk etc), did Luther believe that conviction of sin and guilt consciousness comes from Satan, not God? If yes, what could be the source of such teachings, such as Augustin? Does according to Luther, Satan commands against drinking? Did he write more such supposed commands by Satan? You may include some Biblical and Catholic Church perspective for context, it will be helpful. Guilt consciousness: the state of being aware of one's guilt.

God knows, before even creating Earth, which people would choose Him on Earth and eventually go to Heaven. Therefore, God could just create these people and choose not to create the people who will go to Hell. Furthermore, because God is all-powerful, He could instantly implant all the spiritual growth, experiences, knowledge, etc. that these people would have gotten on Earth into their minds in Heaven - making the need for the experience/journey we go through on Earth unnecessary. Therefore, why would God create Earth as a "testing phase" for humans to grow, learn, and choose Him, when He can already have Heaven now with free humans that will love and serve Him? He could bypass all the suffering and evil in the world by doing this and achieve the same end result - a Heaven where all the people, of their own free will, love Him, serve Him, and share in His beautiful creation.

In Contemporary English Version we see at Matt 27:17 : > So when the crowd came together, Pilate asked them, “Which prisoner do you want me to set free? Do you want Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah? Not many versions of the Bible give us the idea that the first name of Barabbas (literally,son of the father) was Jesus. My question is: What does the Catholic tradition say about the first name of Barabbas whom Pilate let off from the prison?

I actually find the *Roman Catechism* much more interesting to read than the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* (CCC) we have nowadays. The CCC is actually less easy to read than the *Roman Catechism* for me. The CCC was not written for people like me. It even frustrates me at time. The Roman Catechism does not frustrate me. What status does the *Roman Catechism* have nowadays? Should we read it?

This is a bit of a weird one. **Is it possible for a priest to bless data/a computer program?** I ask because I'm considering writing a simple app for use by the faithful, and I like the idea of the app itself being blessed. It becomes even weirder when you think about downloads; **are the copies blessed?** I'd be especially interested if anyone can provide a Thomistic framework for this. Either way, this seems a like a fun intellectual exercise, and I'm curious what people think. Thanks!

Does the Catholic Church have a formal definition of the Mass? I have read about the Mass but never found a definition. It could be that the term Mass is hard to define.

Vatican II appears to me to have been a schizophrenic episode in the life of the Church. With the psychosis still going on and getting more intense with Pope Francis. It’s as though there was a Spirit of Vatican I that has been replaced with a Spirit of Vatican II. Or as though the latter council was a counter catechism to the former. It’s extremely hard to interpret Vatican II and what came after it with a hermeneutic of continuity. I would love examples of this being done with the most controversial of the passages in that council’s documents. I have been looking at a lot of Sedevacantist material, especially that of Most Holy Family Monastery, and what it says seems to make a lot of sense. All they seem to do really is take the infallible statements of the Popes and Ecumenical Councils seriously, as well as that of the Magisterium. And there have certainly been more than two ex-cathedra statements from the popes, contrary to popular opinion. Long before Vatican II, both Communists and Freemasons openly declared their intention to set one of their own on the throne of Saint Peter. They were once very powerful forces in society, and probably still remain very influential today. Prophecies abound about a Great Apostasy that’s supposed to take place. And the Third Secret of Fatima was supposed to be revealed no later than 1960. Something just doesn’t add up, or rather, something does seem to add up, or at least appears to. I don’t believe anyone of good will can read the writings of the Church before Vatican II, compare them with that council and the writings after, and say everything is fine and dandy. Therefore my question is to those who recognize that there is at least a major crisis in the Church, why is sedevacantism false?