I've noticed that nowadays most people who attend Mass receive the Eucharist. It seems like all who are Catholic receive it. I have read that it was way different in the past. People could attend Mass on Sundays and not receive the Eucharist, if I'm correct. Mass obligation actually says nothing about receiving the Eucharist unless I have missunderstood the term participation. Can. 1247 "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass." Is the doctrine nowadays that it is very important (although not an obligation) to receive the Eucharist if you as a Catholic attend or hear Mass?

I am under the impression that a Roman Catholic parish priest must visit the households of his parish on an annual basis. But is this done anymore? I am sure it has been promulgated somewhere and at some time in the past. Can anyone provide any light on this? Thank you.

I'd like to find a list of Catholic Saints who names end in "bert". IF we have a boy, I'd like my next child to be named "...bert" Keith Turner after his uncle Keith and potential saint GKC and I'm looking for the most wondrous Northumbrian names to annoy my wife with daily until she finally gives in (or has the baby and names him John). If a complete list of Saint names, I could grep it for those ending in bert and get my desired list.

I am reading *An exorcist tells his story*, and in it the author discusses a prayer by Pope Leo XIII: > St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen. So the pope here is praying for God to thrust Satan into hell, but why? Wouldn't this demand go against God's will, who in fact allows Satan to roam and have certain influence?

So if the Hail Mary is a prayer and saying the prayer multiple times is **encouraged** in Catholicism, what established reason does the Catholic church give to justify it **not** being a *vain repetition*. > **Matthew 6:7 KJV** But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. I'm looking for an official Catholic response to this accusation. I'm sure they've said something about it.

From what I understand, Biblical Unitarians believe that the pre-incarnational existence of Jesus (as trinitarians propose it) is actually a notional existence in the mind of God. In other words, the Logos was not a person but only the notion in God's mind (sure foreknowledge or idea) of a person. An answer to this related question , "Do Biblical Unitarians teach a current, "notional", glory of Jesus?", indicates that Biblical Unitarians view Jesus, in John 17:5, as asking for the notional glory that he had with the Father prior to his birth to be made into a literal glory. In other words, although Jesus possessed only a notional glory prior to his birth (commensurate with his notional existence in the mind of the Father), Jesus now possesses actual glory (commensurate with his actual existence at the right hand of the Father). However, in John 17:5, Jesus appears to define the glory that he had before, the glory he is asking to be glorified with again (or have actualized, as B.U. might say), as the glory of the Father's own self: > 'And now, glorify me, Thou Father, with Thyself, with the glory that I had before the world was, with Thee; (YLT) There are some translations which render this as "..Father, in Thy presence.." but this appears to be a departure from the text rather than a clarification: >Together with the second person personal pronoun σε (se), meaning you or thee, the reflexive pronoun σεαυτου (seautou), meaning of thyself, or yourself. If Jesus had a notional existence accompanied by a notional glory, and if the notional glory he had was the glory of the Father's own self, wouldn't that mean that the Father's glory was notional? How do Biblical Unitarians view the glory of the Father's own self that Jesus claims he was previously glorified with and that Jesus asked to be returned to him?

1. All men are sinful. 2. If Jesus is not God, he is a man. 3. Thus, if Jesus is a man, he is sinful. 4. Jesus was not sinful. 5. Thus Jesus must be more than a man. Premise 1 is merely an acceptance of Romans 3:23. Premise 2 is what I think the BU position is, but feel free to correct me. Notice that for premise 5 I don’t explicitly state that Jesus is God, but I do state that he must be something more than just a man. So my question for the Biblical Unitarian is this: is my argument flawed, or is Jesus more than a man? If so, what?

The Trinity is 3 persons sharing 1 essence. ***They*** share ***It***. (Where does the "He", "Him", "Me", "My" come from?) Jesus uses plural personified pronouns when referencing himself and his Father. John 14:23 King James Version > 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and ***WE*** will come unto him, and make ***OUR*** abode with him. - ***Therefore, if we are to follow our Master, should Trinitarians use plural personified pronouns to reference multiple persons of the Trinity? For example: "I love God. They are my salvation."*** - ***If not, please explain why we use singular personified pronouns when speaking of 3 persons? If the deity is not a person, why not use singular non personified pronouns?***

I’m not sure how many traditions see him this way but I know it is the case for Roman Catholics, especially Irish ones.

I am looking for the name of a set of records that I listened to as a child in the 80s. My parents bought it for me from Church. I want to say it was 8 records, but may have been 4 and I'm thinking 8 because I had to flip the record over. It was a complete old testament story for kids, with music. It told of the beginning, Noah's Ark, the burning bush, David and Goliath, The first Christmas. I believe it had The little Drummer boy song on it as well. It was narrated by a full cast of characters. It was very well narrated, more like a play. I believe the base color of the album was black and can recall and ark on the cover with many animals. The album cover had several flip pages that the records slid into that was also illustrated well and correlated with the stories. I have googled my eyes out and cannot find it. I would love to start my daughter on it. My parents paid $45 for the set in the mid 80s, so it was quite expensive back then

According to Catholic moral theologians, is it more conducive to the unbaptized's possible salvation to marry (other unbaptized) or remain single?

I consider myself an Orthodox, and I'm from Eastern Europe (Not Russian, nor Ukrainian) and I discovered that we, Orthodox Christians, are very permissive regarding consuming alcohol. Of course, we believe that being a chronic alcoholic is a sin, however even if our official position regarding alcohol is "moderate drinking is fine", sometimes very religious people drink until they pass out (rarely, if you do this every day, then you are an alcoholic). We seem to believe that alcohol is a gift from God, rather than a demon (as other faiths believe). Of course, when someone abuses this gift, it becomes a demon, but we don't believe that drinking until strong drunkenness is bad once in a while. What is the official position of the Catholic Church as a spiritual institution?

According to [Psalms 63:4](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/psalms/63) in the NAB: > For your love is better than life; my lips shall ever praise you! Now, according to the commentary contained therein: *For your love is better than life: only here in the Old Testament is anything prized above life--in this case God’s love.* Does anyone know if this is gloss is true? That is, is there another instance in the Old Testament where something is considered to be *better than life*? Because of some other (questionable) commentary I have seen in the NAB, I am skeptical; and so, I am posing this question. Also, it seems that the words "love" and "mercy" may be interchangeable, as the word "mercy" is used in place of the word "love" in the Douay-Rheims Bible--Psalm 62 (Vulgate numbering).

The KJV translators almost always translated the Tetragrammaton into English as "LORD" (all capital letters). For example, in Deut. 6:4: But, on the rare occasion—**extremely** rare—they chose instead to write "IEHOVAH" instead of "LORD." Now, this question is NOT about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. The question is, why did the KJV translators seemingly break their rule of writing "LORD" for the Tetragrammaton in these instances? For example, in Exo. 6:3: in Psa. 83:18: in Isa. 12:2: in Isa. 26:4:

I was reading the NWT translation just a few moments ago and I notice that throughout all of Genesis chapter 1, God is specifically used 32 times (there are 31 verses in Genesis 1). We do not see the word Jehovah inserted in the NWT translation until verse 4 of Chapter 2. Why is that?

I just finished watching a testimony from a mature Pentecostal woman sharing her personal 'spiritual warfare' experiences, and she recounted a time when the demons would get physical with her and literally leave scratch marks on her skin. She then explained that the demons could do this to her because she had some 'open doors' (spiritually speaking) that she had to close. This is not the first time I come across a testimony where experiences of this sort are reported. For example, with a simple search I found this Quora question [Can a ghost or entity leave marks or scratches on your skin?](https://www.quora.com/Can-a-ghost-or-entity-leave-marks-or-scratches-on-your-skin) with more anecdotes along these lines. **Question**: which denominations believe that demons can physically harm Christians (provided that certain 'doors' are kept 'open')? I'm assuming that Pentecostals probably do (judging by the testimony I just watched). Are there any others? ___ Related: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86308/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80419/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80515/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84082/50422

In 1986 the man who was the public face of the Worldwide Church of God, Herbert W. Armstrong, died. He wrote for its journal, *The Plain Truth*, but thereafter the new leadership saw various errors and decided to change them primarily in then accepting the Trinity doctrine. Many members stuck with Armstrong's teachings. Many others went along with the changes and that group was then called ***Grace Communion International***. It accepted the orthodox Trinity doctrine so was welcomed into the fold of mainstream Christianity. There were other beliefs and practices that changed but **this question is only about stances taken re. the Trinity doctrine**. Since that major split in the Worldwide Church of God from the mid 1990s, **what is the stance re. the Trinity of those groups listed below that rejected the others’ acceptance of the Trinity doctrine** that prompted the initial dissenting group’s stance? ***Did all those others reject the Trinity doctrine, and still reject it*** (if they continue to exist separately, or if they have merged with other groups?) Failing ability to detail the current stance of all those groups re. the Trinity, ***an over-view of a few would suffice.*** The Philadelphia Church of God (Gerald Flurry) The Restored Church of God (David C. Pack) Living Church of God (Roderick C. Meredith) Intercontinental Church of God (Garner Ted Armstrong) United Church of God, an International Association Church of God’s Faithful (Robert G. Ardis) Independent Church of God (Ronald L. Dart) Church of God, an International Community (David Hulme) Christian Biblical Church of God (Fred R. Coulter) The Church of God - PKG (Ronald Weinland) House of Yahweh (Yisrayl Hawkins) God’s Church, Worldwide (David Moore) Church of God, Faithful Flock (Alton Billingsley, a.k.a., Don Billingsley) Church of God, a Worldwide Association

Recently the church I attend has been studying the Apostle Peter’s first letter to various churches in Asia (what is now Turkey). Peter warns the elect of God that they will face trials and tribulations because of their Christian faith (chapter 4). Before Revelation was written, Christians were being persecuted because they refused to acknowledge Caesar as God. The Apostle John also wrote about persecution, and Revelation gives various commendations and warnings to seven named churches. ***The main question has to do with how different denominations view the seven churches. Do they see themselves as being the modern-day churches to which the warnings are given?*** One aspect of my question has to do with Revelation 2:10, addressed to the church in Smyrna: >Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. Various denominations interpret “ten days” differently. Here is an extract from an article I read: >Considering the historical context, the symbolic view suggests that the ten days of tribulation refer to ten persecutions that began with Emperor Nero and ended with Diocletian in the third century. Some scholars exclude Nero and count from Domitian to Julian. The symbolic view sees the churches as representing eras of history, with the church of Smyrna representing an era when these persecutions took place. An alternative symbolic view sees the ten days of tribulation as ten years under Diocletian... From the early church to modern times in places like China, the devil has launched attacks on anyone who remains faithful to Christ (Revelation 12:17). From a spiritual perspective, this explains the constant shift in our culture away from Christian values and the increasing animosity toward biblical Christianity. [Got Questions: "What are the ten days of tribulation in Revelation 2:10?"](https://www.gotquestions.org/ten-days-of-tribulation.html) NOTE: Diocletian ruled between 303 and 313, then the persecution ended under Constantine. ***Are the ten days a literal period of time, to be viewed in the light of past history, or are these ten days symbolic of Christian persecution that is even now ongoing?*** This first question is directed to Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I do not expect JW’s to know about LDS views, or vice-versa. I simply want to compare their interpretations of who/what the seven churches are today, taking into account the specific warning to Smyrna of a time of persecution that would last for “ten days”. Is the number literal, symbolic, or spiritual? Or have those events described in the opening chapters of Revelation taken place in past history? After all, many different Christian denominations exist today in those named locations. If the persecution is still to happen, then which churches claim the prophecies apply only to them? There is no right or wrong answer. This is a denominational survey and will be extended later to include other denominations.

From what I understand, Biblical Unitarians believe that the pre-incarnational existence of Jesus (as trinitarians propose it) is actually a notional existence in the mind of God. In other words, the Logos was not a person but only the notion (sure foreknowledge) of a person. In John 17:5 Jesus says: > And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. It appears that the glory Jesus is asking to be returned to is the glory of the Father's own self. I doubt anyone thinks the Father's glory is notional. Do Biblical Unitarians think Jesus was asking to be glorified notionally just like he was before the world was? If so, is he now glorified only notionally at the right hand of God just like before?

According to Unitarian Christians, the identity of Yahweh is straightforward. Yahweh = the Father = God. Therefore, linguistic usage in the OT is fairly straightforward. Whenever Yahweh ('LORD') is mentioned, it is the Father. For Trinitarians, when Yahweh is used in the OT, what does it mean? Is it God inclusive of the 3 persons of the Trinity? Or does it mean the Father? The Son? Or, like the word 'God' in the New Testament according to Trinitarians, does the meaning of Yahweh in the OT change depending on context?