I wonder what the precise timeline of the observance of the Passover would look alike. The following chart shows a basic interpretation I have put together as a starting point. I would like to hear your qualified feedback / additions / corrections. Had the Passover consistently been observed during the Intertestamental period? When after 70 AD did the Jews / Christians start again to observe the Passover (in limited form without the temple)?

This quotation attributed to St. Robert Bellarmine: >"It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace." is perhaps, well-known; but I would like to ascertain the context in which it was given---to see if it relates to some sort of a great apostasy, the end times, or something else. Does anyone know the origin of the above quotation so that I may read the context surrounding it? Preferably an online source in French or English; but Latin OK.

The Catholic Catechism (1305) says: > "the confirmed person receives the power to profess faith in Christ publicly and as it were officially (quasi ex officio)." Does this mean that a confirmed person has more privilege to profess their faith in Christ than an unconfirmed person in the eyes of the Church or is it an acknowledgment that the confirmed person will be more apt to profess their faith in Christ (and that the Sacrament of Confirmation is a channel for that grace)? Or something else?

C.S. Lewis knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote *The Chronicles of Narnia*, as many theses, dissertations, and books have shown. He purposefully fused elements from European mythology (like dwarfs, dryads, dragons), Arthurian legends, medieval feudalism, mysticism, as well as Christianity when creating the imaginary world of Narnia. While he did NOT intend to write Narnia as a Christian allegory (such as Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress), he clearly intended the Narnian characters to possess analogous moral agencies with the earth Christians counterparts through the creatures's relationship with Aslan and the Emperor beyond the sea. **Magic in Narnia vs. the Bible, explaining to children** Christian children and adults alike obviously want to read *The Chronicles of Narnia* alongside the Bible. **But how do we reconcile *some* use of magic depicted positively in Narnia with apparent Biblical condemnation of *all* use of the magical arts** (see [Bible verses](https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-magic/)) ? When you read the Bible on some days and Narnia on other days to your kids, the natural questions from intelligent kids, especially whose parents prohibit them to read Harry Potter books are: "But Daddy, why is magic OK in Narnia, but not in the Bible? Why is it OK for me to read Narnia but not Harry Potter? Why is the magician Merlin in *The Story of King Arthur and His Knights* a good guy?" Imagine the Narnia children *themselves* (Peter, Lucy, Edmund, etc.). We presume they are Christians on earth and read the Bible. How would **they** *translate* their experience of Narnian magic: embracing the positive ones into the earthly Christian equivalent but refraining from the negative ones? **Types of magic use, and how C.S. Lewis depict them in the stories** It looks like C.S. Lewis was careful enough while the story is happening on earth to *disapprove* the use of magic: portraying the usage of the magic rings for traffic between Earth and Narnia in *The Last Battle* and the amateur magician uncle's dabbling with magic in *The Magician's Nephew* negatively. Even in Narnia, it is clear that several magicians are portrayed negatively, such as the White Witch in LWW and the hag whom Nikabrik invited in PC. That's not problematic at all. But what about Doctor Cornelius who used a little magic in PC, the magician [Coriakin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriakin) , and even Lucy's reciting the spell to make the Duffers visible again in VDT? After that, Coriakin even used more magic to feast the Narians, generated a map of their travel magically on parchment (which Caspian then hang in Cair Paravel), and even "mended the stern of the Dawn Treader where it had been damaged by the Sea Serpent and loaded her with useful gifts." All those are depicted *positively*. Another issue is how the characters and the narrator seem to be using the word "magic" as though it's a morally neutral descriptive term. "Aslan mentions "Deep magic" in LWW. C.S. Lewis labels the traffic between Earth and Narnia as "magic", Susan's gift as "the great magic horn of Narnia", Lucy's cordial as "magic fluid", preservation of treasure in Prince Caspian as "by some magic in the air", and countless other references. **Problem of translation between Narnia magic and Biblical concepts** Obviously the answer is complicated. We probably need to translate C.S. Lewis use of the word "magic" in positive Narnian context to equally positive concept in real earth and Christianity. When Aslan attributes his resurrection to "Deep Magic" it probably means *miracle*. The operation of Susan's horn is analogous to *prayer*. Lucy's cordial is analogous to [oil of the sick](https://simplycatholic.com/what-are-holy-oils/) , etc. Rather than a case by case conceptual translation, **is there a unifying principle that ties good magic/magician in Narnia to a single concept/principle in earth Christianity and bad magic/magician in Narnia to another?** I'm looking for something relatively simple that a Christian parent can use to explain to a child. An acceptable answer has to provide a single (or a handful) of principles that can translate **every** occurrence of magic in all 7 books, either by good actors or bad actors. Especially when the narrator (C.S. Lewis) depicts the occurrence positively, because C.S. Lewis is Christian, there has to be a Christian explanation that does not violate [the Biblical prohibition on magical practices](https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-magic/) .

Is there a list of specific differences between what Confirmation is and what Baptism is, and why we need both (especially Baptism) in the Catholic Church? From an observer, they seem pretty similar. Anointing, sponsors, lots of things suggesting the Holy Spirit. But there has to be some reason that both continue to exist as separate sacraments, so what are the differences between the two and what does Confirmation do that Baptism doesn't?

St. Francis wrote a “Way of the Cross” and several centuries later St. Alphonsus also wrote one. I have been reading both in parallel, and (in my personal opinion) they are both lovely. What would be the distinguishing features that would lead a church to observe one vs. the other during Lent?

> Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. **Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.”** So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses. **- Numbers 15: 32-36 (NASB)** Why did God order the execution (and a brutal execution, at that) of a person for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Surely what this man did was nothing worse than what Jesus' disciples did when they picked heads of grain on the Sabbath: > And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” > > ... > > Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. **- Mark 2:23-27** Such a harsh punishment doesn't seem necessary if the Sabbath truly was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Also, how does this align with the justice of God? God forbids the punishment of those who beat their slaves: > If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. **- Exodus 21:20-21** ... yet He requires those who pick up sticks on a certain day of the week to be executed in the most unimaginably painful and cruel way. In our 21st century minds, it seems that justice would demand that the punishments for these two crimes be switched. What was God's reason for having such an inverted justice system?

Where can I find an EXHAUSTIVE list of baptismal names in the Greek Orthodox Church; i.e an EXHAUSTIVE list of Names that have been given to a person (the frequency; i.e the number of people given each name are secondary) by the Greek Orthodox Church? There are certainly some ancient Greek names like Alexandros, Leonidas, Aristotelis, Socratis, Hermis, Afroditi, Dimitra, Aris, Paris, Ektoras, Euklidis, Achilleas e.t.c But others like Anaximandros, Anaxagoras, Dias e.t.c are unheard of. At least I know no person named as such.

As Christians we are called to study the works of the Lord (Psalms 111:2), but did any of the Early Church Fathers between 50-800 AD, believe in natural laws theology/law? (i.e. that knowledge or theology is based on observed facts and experiences, apart from divine intervention)

His Eminence Scipione Rebiba is considered as the last bishop most Roman Catholic bishops can trace their episcopal lineages from. Who consecrated Scipione Rebiba? If we don't know, are there at least theories on who did? The *Wikipedia* article on him says: > "However, since it is canon law that there must be at least three bishops present at a consecration, it is possible to bypass Rebiba using the bishops who cooperated with him in his consecrations." Are there any records about who cooperated with him?

In the era of handwritten parish registers, when a diocesan or missionary priest performed a sacramental rite, he wrote it up in a semi-structured form in a record book. Sometimes that priest was the only literate person around, making the parish books essentially internal documents, but some parishioners were literate too. Who was allowed to look at church registers: only priests, anyone the priest saw fit to share it with, or anyone at all that was interested? Did canon law and local practice differ on this point? Modern norms might be different because of the legal concept of privacy , so this question is about the past. I am particularly interested in the policy of Franciscans in the Spanish Empire, but information on how this was addressed elsewhere could be helpful too. I have the specific case of a recently converted godparent who was described in the register as falsely pious ; the remark was presumably not meant for the public. Who did the priest expect would ever be able to read it?

From the preface by the publisher to Rev. Schouppe's *Purgatory Explained by the Lives and Legends of the Saints* : > Our suffrages or offerings for the dead are more agreeable to God than our prayers and good works for the living, for the Poor Souls are closer to God, stand in greater need and cannot help themselves. Is this true? I could not find a quote to back it up in the book.

Simple question: has a healing miracle ever been recorded on camera? I'm open to answers from any Christian groups/denominations.

Regardless of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary acknowledged as dogma by most Christians, which would necessitate a different interpretation of the words "brother" and "sister", who all is referred to in the Bible as Jesus' brother or sister and how many people would that have been, in total, had they all been children of St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary? Does anybody actually claim to be a brother or sister by virtue of being children of either Joseph or Mary?

Simple question. Does anyone know whether hermits such as St. Anthony of the Desert, St. Simeon Stylites, etc. attended Mass on Sundays? I am interested in both examples of those who did and those who did not, if they exist. It is somewhat perplexing that a hermit would deprive himself of the Eucharist for years...

One of the fundamental beliefs of the SDA is the belief in ([Spiritual Gifts and Ministries No 17](https://www.adventist.org/spiritual-gifts-and-ministries/)) but what is intriguing is whenever they list these gifts in their commentaries the gift of tongues is always conspicuous by its absence from the list. The gift of tongues is clearly articulated as one of the gifts of the church in the New Testament Mark 16:17 ESV >17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; Acts 2:4 ESV >4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. 1 Corinthians 12:10 esv > 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. Why does the SDA seem to sideline this gift?

I've noticed here and there the odd practice of inducing an **extreme, seizure-like bodily shaking** in oneself, which seems quite strange to me; it's not at all clear what the purpose is. Some people claim that it may have come from the Quakers, although Pentecostal's do it, and it occurs when the Holy Spirit fills the body . It also seems to be encouraged in some Evangelical circles, as it was explicitly said to be the force of the holy spirit in the movie *Jesus Camp* (2006). ## **What exactly is this practice called, and where did it come from?** I don't recall reading anything about it in the Bible. If you require an example, since I don't know what it's called I'm unable to find videos of it successfully on Google ("christian shaking" doesn't quite work), but what reminded me of it was the [few seconds of this clip](http://youtu.be/bFEoMO0pc7k?t=1m14s) of one of the "Sweet Brown" remixes.

The belief in one having a Guardian Angel is a part of Catholic faith. There are also prayers addressed to the Guardian Angel eg. in preparation of Confession and for protection during one's sleep. Though there are a number of references in the Old Testament and New Testament of angels assisting human beings on specific occasions, the belief on permanent accompaniment of a Guardian Angel to a person, seems to have come up as a later addition. My question therefore is: **Are there any consolidated teachings from the side of Catholic Church on Guardian Angels?**

I was listening to episode 24 of the Catholic Man Show and they said (without citation) that the Catholic Church has condemned naming guardian angels. The reason they gave was because God gave man the authority over created things on Earth (Through Adam in Genesis). So what basis and where did the Catholic Church make this pronouncement. And should we burn our children's videos with a contrary teaching? (i.e. CCC Video - My Secret Friend, A Guardian Angel)

It seems to be the teaching of most Arminians that when people are saved, they are added to the body of corporately predestined people, as opposed to the Calvinistic view that people are personally predestined. Arminians would, for example, point to 1 Peter 2:9, where the elect are in the plural : > But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a > people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who > called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. However, others would point out more individualistic passages, like Romans 9:15–16: > For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, > and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it > is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that > sheweth mercy. **Regardless of whether corporate or individual predestination is correct (or, indeed, whether both be true at once)**, is there an inherent logical or philosophical incompatibility between personal choice (Arminianism) and personal predestination, or are there to the contrary Arminians that hold (what seems to be the generally Calvinistic view) of personal predestination?