I'm not Catholic, but I want to know the opinion and how Catholics who study the Word of God understand and interpret this passage of Genesis 6:1-4 that talks about a humanoid race of giants and if they went or can go to Purgatory. Purgatory is said to be a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in "the grace of God," are not wholly exempt from venial faults, or have not fully paid the due satisfaction for their transgressions. Do Nephilim have or had a chance to repent? Are they children of angels or mere mortal humans?

**The Old Testament identifies YHWH as "our Father", the Creator.** Is this ***"Father"***- the first person of the Trinity, God the Father? **Is he YHWH, the God of Israel?** Malachi 2:10 >Have we not all ***one Father***? Has not ***one God*** created us? Why do we deal treacherously with one another By profaning the covenant of the fathers? Isaiah 64:8 >But now, O **YHWH**, You are our ***Father***; We are the clay, and You our potter; And all we are the work of Your hand. Isaiah 63:16 >Doubtless You are our ***Father***, Though Abraham was ignorant of us, And Israel does not acknowledge us. **You, O *YHWH*, are our *Father***; Our Redeemer from Everlasting is Your name. Deuteronomy 32:6 >Do you thus deal with **YHWH**, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your ***Father***, who bought you? Has He not made you and established you? John 8:41 >Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; ***we have one Father—God***.” Jesus declares his Father to be the same God as the Jews, YHWH. John 8:54 >Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is ***My Father*** who honors Me, of whom you say that **He is your God**." Paul appears to feel the same way. 2 Timothy 1:3 >I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, **as my forefathers did**, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day, Ephesians 4:6 >one God and **Father** of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

In the famous [Fatima prayer](http://www.fatimacentennial.com/fatima-prayers) we say "My Jesus". The Decade prayer: > "O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy. Amen." But in the Lord's prayer we say "Our Father". It seems that we should use **my** when talking to Jesus but **our** when talking to the Father. Why do we say "my Jesus" and then "our Father"?

Luke 19:1-10 relates Zacchaeus’s transformative encounter with Jesus, which had the chief tax collector almost instantly promising to give half of his possessions to the poor, and paying back four-fold anyone he had cheated. In a sermon about that yesterday, it was said that often the last thing to be converted is a man’s wallet, but with Zacchaeus, it was the first thing to be converted! Given his wealthy status, what might half of his goods amount to, in cash term value, and roughly how much money could he have committed himself to repay to those he had cheated? Can this find a basis in traditional taxation systems of the Roman Empire back then? I'm assuming Zacchaeus, the 'chief' tax officer, was in charge of a group of other tax agents who had to give him their collections so that he pay Rome the annual amount it demanded, leaving the rest as his wages, so the more dishonest he was, the richer he would become.

In the Catechism ((http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2559.htm)) we find: >"Prayer is the raising of one's mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God." I think this quote is from John Damascene. Does the Church say that humans have two parts, i.e. mind and heart?

An academic Theologian recommended to me the *Jerusalem Bible* as the one with the greatest amount of scholarly references. I purchased the "Reader's Edition" with the Dali illustrations (second-hand) and I managed to get all the way through. In its preface, it says that a lot of the commentary in the original French translation had been truncated for this English version. From the Internet Archives I got a copy of the above title (ISBN 2204060631), and I am really impressed by the amount of background information that contains. Alas! my French isn't as fluent as it needs to be for effortless reading of such a dense text, so I was wondering if any of you knew about an edition of the full-blown text (specifically for the scholarly commentary, as I have the core text in English already) in one of the languages I find easier to digest.

This question is related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/79563/how-did-ussher-determine-that-the-world-began-on-sunday-evening-october-23-40 From a Christian perspective (i.e., beginning with the premise that the human race is approximately 6,000 years old)---has anyone come across an estimate (with underlying justifications) for the number of souls that have thus far existed on earth? Of course, such can only be an educated guess based on a mathematical model with certain underlying assumptions. In fact, I recently looked over an article published in 1996 by the MAA entitled "How Many People Have Ever Lived"---but the model used therein was merely an exponential growth model which is clearly erroneous as it gives no consideration to the carrying capacity of the earth. One need not be a mathematician to answer this question, as I would be very happy with a good reference or two pointing me to appropriate literature. Perhaps some astute Christian considered this problem centuries ago? Does anyone know of one? To recapitulate: QUESTION: How many souls have ever lived? Who has considered the problem (not from a standpoint of strict exponential population growth) from a Christian perspective; and where may I find the literature? Thank you.

According to Catholics, can those who have died in this world and gone to be with God/Christ (i.e. those who were saved) interact with this world in any fashion? Answers should, if possible, include their scriptural basis. See also https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/93013 .

> 1 Corinthians 1:2 "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:" So, if Paul teach to call the name of Jesus Christ, how do Unitarians understand this verse, while only praying and calling upon the father?

Is there an online edition or English translation of: - Hildebrand, Dietrich von. “Die Bedeutung von Mann und Frau füreinander ausserhalb der Ehe.” In *Zeitliches Im Lichte Des Ewigen *, 143–44. Regensburg, 1932. ? It was cited in *Pastoral Psychology in Practice* by Willibald Demal, OSB, ch. 8 "The Psychology of Celibacy" .

According to Dante, in his Divine Comedy (Inferno), the fall of Satan caused a geological upheaval. The Devil fell on his head in the Southern Hemisphere, causing the lands to the south to rise to the north and to the south to form the Mountain of Purgatory. Dante also said that the fall of Satan formed Hell in the center of the Earth. The Gap Theory is a vision that tries to interconnect the great eras of the geological column of evolution with the biblical timeline, inserting the 14 billion years and the long prehistoric periods. Furthermore, Gap theorists mostly believe that the fall of Satan and his fallen angels to Earth wiped out the dinosaurs (about 65 million years ago - Cretaceous Period). Only after that period did God "recreate" the Earth in 6 literal days (about 6,000 years ago). My question is whether the Bible really teaches that Satan fell from Heaven in this catastrophic way to Earth, whether the "fall" just means that he fell from his position in Heaven, or is it both alternatives.

Does water with ice cubes in it count as ordinary water, or is it different enough (because ice is not the same form as water) to count as breaking the eucharistic fast? For clarification, this scenario is focused on the 1hr eucharistic fast before mass.

According to the [Sanctuaire d'Ars webpage](https://www.arsnet.org/Catherine-Lassagne.html) , Catherine Lassagne recorded her many recollections of St. John Vianney in a small book entitled, "Mémoire sur Monsieur Vianney". It was subsequently revived a couple of times--the last being in 1867, eight years after the death of the Curé of Ars. In the above link, she is referred to as the first biographer of the Saint. QUESTION: I have long sought the availability of this book online (an archived edition) but without success. Does anyone know if such a PDF exists online that one may access? I have tried various titles, such as *Petit mémoire*, which is how Msgr. Trochu refers to the book in his popular biography of the Saint, The Curé of Ars, currently published by TAN Books. *Note:* I am looking for an accessible online version of the book. There is a paperback "Au Quotidien", which may be the same book with a different title---but I am not interested in that one. Rather, I wish to find a photocopy of an unedited (unabridged) original.

I am having serious problems interpreting this passage from Genesis involving the Garden of Eden. According to Genesis 2:8-17, where the creation of the Garden is described, it seems to say that the Garden of Eden was created on the sixth day, but Genesis 1:9-13 says that it was only on the third day that God created the plants and grasses on earth - wouldn't that also include Eden with the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Is Genesis 2:8-17 just a "recap" of Genesis 1:9-13?

What I know from history books is that Semi-Arians held to the neutral theological position of *homoiousians* against both strict *homoousians* and *anomoeans*. However, I found a very scant knowledge about their theology and these are what I want to know: 1. Do Semi-Arians teach that the Son is eternal or not? 2. Do Semi-Arians teach that the Son is a creature? 3. What do they believe about the Holy Spirit?

In the New Testament, the Greek word monogenēs (μονογενής) appears 9 times and is translated as only or only begotten every time. 4 times it is used to describe the solitary physical descendant of a human being (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, and Hebrews 11:17). The other 5 times it is used to describe Jesus as the only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, and 1 John 4:9). The emphasis appears consistent each time: That which is begotten is of the same nature as that which begat it. In Luke's Gospel (3:38) the lineage of Jesus is traced back to Adam, the Son of God. Since we know from Genesis that Adam was formed by God from the dust of the Earth and that Adam was of a different nature than God who formed him, and since there does not appear to be any record in Scripture of a begotten child that is different in nature from it's begetting parent, we have what appears to be a critical distinction between a begotten son and a created son. > “We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, > but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the > father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you > beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets > human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs > which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of > a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a > dam, a man makes a wireless set – or he may make something more like > himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough > carver he may make a statue which is very like man indeed. But, of > course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot > breathe or think. It is not alive. > > Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just > as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what > man makes is not man. That is why men are not Son's of God in the > sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they > are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or > pictures of God.” - C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity) Begetting is the father's role . A child is born of it's mother and begotten of it's father. Both impart the essential nature of it's parent. In this way Jesus was human being (through Mary the mother) and Divine being (through God the Father). Unlike an elephant and an ostrich, which cannot produce offspring because the essential natures are incompatible, humanity (Mary) and Spirit (God) are compatible. If the son of God was created by God then he certainly was not Divine, but if he was begotten of God then he certainly was. My question is: Do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize this distinction between the only begotten Son of God and a created son? If not, how do they explain the consistent use of the term and, if so, how can they then affirm that Jesus was God's first creation since he is so clearly portrayed as begotten not made which then makes him of the same nature as God?

The *Civil Constitution of the Clergy* was a law passed during the French Revolution which attempted to make subordinate the Catholic Church in France to the French government. Among other things, it required that Catholic priests and bishops be elected locally (which included non-Catholics) in an attempt to abolish the authority of the Pope to appoint clergy in France. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Constitution_of_the_Clergy , *The Pope condemned those who took the oath and went as far as saying that they were absolutely separated from the church.* citation , but no page(s) indicated. QUESTION: Where (papal encyclical, I presume) may I find Pope Pius VI's aforementioned condemnation of those clergy who took the oath required by the *Civic Constitution of the Clergy?*

The [*Manual of Indulgences* published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops](https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Indulgences-Conference-Catholic-Bishops-ebook/dp/B007TLEMEI/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1552929107&sr=8-1) states that > The faithful can obtain a partial or plenary indulgences for themselves, or they can apply them to the dead by way of suffrage. As far as I know, the Catholic Church acknowledges that deceased non-Catholic Christians can go to Purgatory (e.g. [this post](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/56279/14775) mentions that Anne Catherine Emmerich had visions of Protestants in Purgatory) so in theory such non-Catholic Christians would be eligible to have indulgences applied to them. Indeed, the *Manual of Indulgences* describes indulgences as a remission of temporal punishment for sins for a "properly disposed member of the *Christian* faithful" (as opposed to only the *Catholic* faithful): > An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment for sins, whose guilt is forgiven, which a properly disposed member of the Christian faithful obtains under certain and clearly defined conditions through the intervention of the Church, which, as the minister of Redemption, dispenses and applies authoritatively the treasury of the expiatory works of Christ and the saints. However, the description of an indulgence indicates that it is the Church which dispenses and applies indulgences, so it seems possible that the Church might choose to withhold the dispensing and application of indulgences to certain souls in Purgatory (e.g. Protestants who might have been anti-Catholic in life). Moreover, it's not clear what is considered a "properly disposed member" of the Christian faithful -- perhaps non-Catholic Christians might not be considered "properly disposed" and thus not eligible to have indulgences applied to them.1 **Has the Catholic Church explained whether or not indulgences can be obtained for non-Catholic Christians in Purgatory? If so, are there any limitations (e.g. perhaps only souls from certain denominations are eligible, similar to how [only Christians of certain denominations are permitted to receive Communion](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/33530/14775))?** ---- 1I suspect the meaning of "properly disposed" refers to the norm that > §1. In order to be capable of gaining indulgences one must be baptized, not excommunicated, and in the state of grace at least at the completion of the prescribed works. > > §2. To gain an indulgence, one must have at least the general intention of doing so and must carry out the enjoined works at the stated time and in due fashion, according to the sense of the grant. However, since I don't see a definition of exactly what "properly disposed" means I can't rule out the possibility that one must be Catholic to be "properly disposed".

Are there any theologians (Doctors or Fathers of the Church) who thought that, regardless whether Adam had sinned , Christ still would have incarnated, primarily to reveal the doctrine of the Trinity?

According to , at least one Christian church thinks Acts 20:28 in the Lamsa translation supports thier non-trinitarian viewpoint. Many translations use "church of God" and suggest God's blood purchased our salvation, whereas the Lamsa translation says [emphasis mine]: >Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of **Christ** which he has purchased with **his** blood. What do evangelical leaders and scholars think about the Lamsa translation? Does it appear to contradict their doctrines?