I have researched [various translations](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html) of 1 Clement 30:5 and would be thankful if anyone could expound what is meant by: > *Blessed is the offspring of a woman that liveth but a short time. Be not thou abundant in words.* -- [J.B. Lightfoot translation](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html) Alternate translation: > -- doth he that is born of woman and liveth but for a short time think himself to be blessed? Be not abundant in speech. -- [Charles Hoole translation](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html)

What form did Satan assume when tempting Christ? Or were these temptations strictly coming to Jesus through Satanic-driven thoughts?

> **Genesis 21:4 (NIV)** When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham > circumcised him, as God commanded him. Starting with Abraham, the Israelite men were circumcised, and boys at the eighth day after birth. It was commanded again in the desert through Moses: > **Leviticus 12:3 (NIV)** On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. But the children born in the desert were not circumcised: > **Joshua 5:5 (NIV)** All the people that came out had been circumcised, > but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from > Egypt had not. How is this possible? Did they disobey God and not circumcise their children in the desert?

Pretty much in the title. I was listening to a sermon where the incarnation had some significant parallels with Moses’ departure from Midian- namely, someone stepping out from comfort and paradise to live amongst God’s people and rescue them. I can’t seem to find any writings or material that address this - is it a commonly agreed upon concept?

I would like to know the source (a book, I presume) that speaks about Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich's "Prophecy of the two popes.'' Every online site that I recall, which speaks about it, has plenty to say but gives no actual source. See, for example, the articles "[Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich Prophecy on The Two Popes](https://v-catholic.com/signs-of-our-times/blessed-anne-catherine-emmerich-prophecy-on-the-two-popes/) " or "[Anne Catherine Emmerich and the Two Popes](https://onepeterfive.com/anne-catherine-emmerich-and-the-two-popes/) ". I thought, perhaps, that I might find it in "[The Life And Revelations Of Anne Catherine Emmerich](https://ia800608.us.archive.org/16/items/TheLifeAndRevelationsOfAnneCatherineEmmerichComplete/TheLifeAndRevelationsOfAnneCatherineEmmerich.pdf) ". But a search of "two popes" or "heretics of every kind" brings up nothing. Does anyone know what the source of the "Two Popes" prophecy is, and if so, where I might find it?

For anyone who adheres to an understanding that the soul is mortal. What does "spirit" and "mind" refere to in Philippians 1:27 (NET): > [...] I should hear that you are standing firm in *one spirit*, with *one* > *mind*, by contending side by side for the faith of the gospel,

[Father Chris Alar](https://marian.org/marians/meet/chris-alar) a Marian father who does a great job of promoting Divine Mercy devotion mentioned on the [US Grace Force podcast](https://open.spotify.com/episode/5WwNwbQkmF3ozcBGO4EKMe?si=7e54346347fa4c19) that the Missals saying "2nd Sunday of Easter or Divine Mercy Sunday" was a mistranslation, that there's not an option and that everyone is supposed to celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday. That the "or" that we've seen in recent missals should be translated "namely". Are there any other instances of feast days (especially Feasts celebrating God) that are optional? Do they use the same wording, are there any other feasts that use the word "or" which are not optional?

The James Webb telescope has produced images of galaxies at the limits of observation far beyond anything yet seen in the heavens. It was expected that galaxies in this region would be 'simple', 'undeveloped', unformed' and much smaller than those observed closer to us. The reason for this expectation was the theory that these galaxies would have been the first to be created if, indeed, all creation began from a single point, and if all creation flowed out from that point, developing (over a very long time) as the 'universe' (that is to say, space itself) 'expanded'. What is now observed, appears to contradict that theory. There, at the very limits of what can be observed, have been discovered mature, large, fully formed galaxies, apparently identical to all other galaxies. The more logical explanation of what is actually being now observed would be a creation that was created with an 'apparent age'. Just as Adam was created as a mature man, just as trees were created already with fruit within themselves, so the heavens were created (the James Webb seems to be telling us) as a complete apparatus, already fully formed. What is the response, thus far, from 'old earth creationists' ? --------------------------------------- "contradicts our current understanding of the universe." Phys.org Astronomy "their existence could upend current theories of cosmology." The Guardian "distant galaxies that should not exist" Space.com "conflict with 99% of models representing early galaxies in the universe," CNN ------------------------------------------------ Update 14/04/23 >The James Webb Space Telescope keeps finding galaxies that shouldn’t exist, a scientist has warned. >Six of the earliest and most massive galaxies that Nasa’s breakthrough telescope has seen so far appear to be bigger and more mature than they should be given where they are in the universe, researchers have warned. >The new findings build on previous research where scientists reported that **despite coming from the very beginnings of the universe, the galaxies were as mature as our own Milky Way.** MSN.com James Webb Telescope

My question is essentially identical to the one in the Reddit post "[Simony and wedding fees](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAPriest/comments/dkl955/simony_and_wedding_fees/) ", which has yielded no satisfactory answer. Essentially, how are wedding fees charged by a church not an example of simony? I am of course excluding fees for unnecessary parts of the sacrament like a choir, photographers, etc. It seems that in researching this question, the most common answer I come across is along the lines of "the fee isn't for the sacrament itself, but rather for the space, time, etc." However, these fees are still inexorably linked to the sacrament, and ultimately must be paid to receive the sacrament. If a church were to offer a standard free Sacrament of Reconciliation, but confessors were required to pay a "confessional upkeep fee" in order to have their confession heard, I think people would consider this a clear case of simony. Another answer I hear goes "If a couple were truly unable to pay the fee, they could talk to the priest and have it waived. So the fee is really like an optional donation, similar to the collection basket being passed around at mass." Again, however, I believe that this is a different scenario. There is no concept of needing to donate to the collection at mass to receive communion. A person not able to make a contribution to the collection does not have to take their case up with the priest to receive communion. The act of receiving communion, and the act of making a contribution to the collection, are completely distinct events. The OP of the Reddit link has expressed these and other arguments much more fleshed out, so I recommend his question for reference. An example of the fees I am referring to can be found on page 11 of the St. Patrick Cathedral General Wedding Instructions/Guidelines in NY. Roman Catholic answers please.

This is a question for those who see Christian anthropology of one part (Monism). The belief that human soul is not immortal and that man is a *unity*, that is, not a *duality* of *soul-body*, or a *trichotomy* of *spirit-soul-body*, but holistic, one part. The first part of my question is, how do you understand – in light of man not being dualistic and such – references to *soul* and *spirit* in the Bible, in general (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, NIV)? > May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. > May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming > of our Lord Jesus Christ. What is a soul? What is a spirit? And finally, if humans beings are completely dead after death, how are references to "sleep" (i.e. death) understood in the Bible? For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:14 (NIV): > For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that > God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him If the person is dead, how can we talk about him as sleeping? Or consider Psalm 16:10 (NIV): > because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you > let your faithful one see decay. Same question applies, how can a dead person be abandoned in a realm? I understand this is to be taken metaphorically somehow. But, in essence, if a person ceases to exist.

Particularly, "Lead all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy" implies a belief that everyone will eventually be saved. After all, who is more in need of God's mercy than someone who dies in a state of mortal sin?

How did the Christians get the idea to create monasteries? As far as I know, monasteries, monks and nuns did not exist in the religion Jesus was born into and he did not ask, he did not even talk about founding monasteries. And then, how did the Christians get this idea? Was it adopted from the previous, Roman religion? Or maybe it was inspired from Budhism?

So The Bible in The Book of Genesis describes that Adam and Eve were created as *immortal*,But this *immortal* is not equal to the Godly *immortal* as its tied to a law, if Adam and Eve break the law of God then they lose all rights to access this *immortality*. Proof that Adam and Eve were immortal prior to the fall. **Genesis 2:17** > but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die The verse above means that as long as Adam and Eve avoided the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the were never going to die. It can also be noted that this *immortality* needs the *Tree of Life* for perpetuation. God seals access to the *Tree of Life* to prevent Adam and Eve from eating of it to leave forever as sinners. Check out the verse below for more details. **Genesis 3:22** >And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. In order to protect the tree above then a flaming sword that turns in all directions was placed at the East of the garden after Adam and Eve are sent out. It could also be that the devil was jealous of Adam's and Eve immortality and lied to them so that they would lose it. But also this was part of the plan as Abraham sacrificing Isaac was a foreshadowing of God sacrificing the Christ for the sins of the whole world. So did Jesus come to restore the immortality that Adam and Eve lost? Is this immortality the same as that the enjoyed in the garden? Will Jesus allow the saints to eat from the tree of life?

We read in Mtt 10:24-25 (NIV): The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. It is clear that Jesus is not referring to the accumulation of worldly knowledge as a parameter of greatness when he compares the student with the teacher. With abundant sources of knowledge outside the school/college, an excellent student can outplay the teacher in so far as worldly knowledge is concerned. My question therefore is: What were the parameters set by Jesus to measure greatness of a student vis-a-vis the teacher as in Mt 10:24-25? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

Since the saints are said to be in the grave, if someone has answered that their spirits are in communion with Christ and interceding, then there would be no importance of the resurrection of bodies. Wouldn't this invalidate the need for the bodily resurrection?

**Unique Catholic (liturgical or otherwise) Feasts of local Churches?** I would like to gather information on local unique feasts that exist or have at one time existed within the Catholic Church either at a parish, diocesan or national level. For example the Catholic Church in Malta celebrates the Feast of the Shipwreck of St. Paul each year on February 10th. > This coming Wednesday 10th February, Malta will be celebrating the feast of St. Paul’s Shipwreck. Although usually celebrated with particular fervour in Valletta, it is a public holiday across the whole country, for this feast has for centuries held a special significance for the Maltese people. > > According to the Acts of the Apostles, in the year 60 AD, St. Paul was on a ship headed to Rome, where he was to face trial. At one point during the voyage, the ship was caught in a violent storm, which eventually led to the vessel foundering off the Maltese coast. St. Paul and everyone else aboard made it to shore safely, where they were welcomed and looked after by the locals. St. Paul remained here for three months, during which time it was claimed that he performed a number of miracles, but most importantly, he was also credited with introducing Christianity to Malta, and to have converted the local people. > > This, at least, is what tradition claims. Some academics are more sceptical; for starters, the earliest archaeological evidence of Christianity in Malta has been dated to the 4th century AD, several hundred years after the shipwreck. One also has to bear in mind that following the Arab conquest in 870 AD, Islam would have become the dominant faith here for quite some time, before Malta was eventually re-Christianised. It was then, perhaps, in an attempt to emphasise Malta’s Christian roots while encouraging a breaking off from Islam, that some stories associated with St. Paul’s visit started to gain popularity. His cult grew and was strengthened even more with the arrival of the Knights of St. John, who found the perfect opportunity to win over the locals by championing their patron saint, not to mention that being in possession of a number of Pauline sanctuaries would also have increased their own prestige. Thus, with time, many Pauline legends sprung up. - 7 Legends linked to St. Paul’s Shipwreck For the sake of clarity I am interested in both liturgical and/or piously recognized local traditions of non-liturgical feasts by the local Ordinary of the diocese in question. If possible please include the date of celebrating the Feast and any pertinent information or sources attached to it.

There are a variety of terms used in the Catholic Church to refer to particular statements or beliefs. Here are a number of some such terms: * Dogma * Doctrine * Infallible statement * Infallible papal teaching * Statement made *ex cathedra* * Definitively proposed doctrine * Authoritative statement Are any of these the same? Are all infallible statements papal teachings? Are all doctrines dogmas? What exactly are the differences between these?

**Does the Catholic Church consider all encyclicals infallible?** > Although the term "encyclical" originally simply meant a circulating letter, it acquired a more specific meaning within the context of the Catholic Church. In 1740, Pope Benedict XIV wrote a letter titled *Ubi primum*, which is generally regarded as the first encyclical. The term is now used almost exclusively for a kind of letter sent out by the pope. > > For the modern Roman Catholic Church, a papal encyclical is a specific category of papal document, a kind of pastoral letter concerning Catholic doctrine, sent by the pope and usually addressed especially to patriarchs, primates, archbishops and bishops who are in communion with the Holy See. The form of the address can vary widely and may concern bishops in a particular area, or designate a wider audience. Papal encyclicals usually take the form of a papal brief because of their more personal nature as opposed to the formal papal bull. They are usually written in Latin, and like most papal documents the title of the encyclical is usually taken from its first few words (its incipit). - [Encyclical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical)

My father dodged the Vietnam War and we later found his whereabouts to be in New Zealand. My mother tried to get an annulment but was denied. She divorced for abandonment and said she was excommunicated. She must have told me this 50 times as it hurt her tremendously. She "secretly" attended and remained personally devout. Her second marriage was to a Protestant so I don't know if that played a part. My sister-in-law doesn't believe what my mom told me and thinks you can only get excommunicated if you committed a horrendous crime in a sane mind. Back in 1967, I think the Church was more cut & dry / strict, when it came to divorce. I know my mom had 'shopped' many other religions to appease her spiritually and for the need of community, to no avail. She was Catholic and there was nothing else! Please clarify this for me.

I was singing "Were you there..." to myself while planting potatoes yesterday evening after the Good Friday service, I got to the stone being rolled away and I couldn't help but think there were a lot more verses to this song when I was a kid and it just kept going on and on forever. Is there a complete list of verses (perhaps in multiple hymnals and by different authors) to the verses of "Were you there when they Crucified my Lord"?