Pending Vatican approval, my diocese is moving the Cathedral to a neighboring parish. The Cathedral Parish was St. Raphael, the new Parish is St. Bernards. Now, nothing against St. Bernard, but he's not exactly an archangel. So what I'm wondering is, is it the norm to rename the parish a Cathedral moves to (in this case, rename St. Bernard's parish St. Raphael's parish) or is it normal to leave St. Bernard alone and re-dedicate the diocese? Also, since this is the only church in the parish, would it also be normal to rename the church building itself?

Mark 13:32 says: >"**No one** knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but **only the Father**." Jesus here is apparently saying the Holy Spirit doesn't know something. How do Trinitarians, who hold the Holy Spirit as a co-equal person of the Godhead, understand this verse?

As far as I understand it, the concept of having parishes and parish churches means that regions are divided up geographically, that each region will have a church that is specifically dedicated to that region, and that everybody in that region is expected/required to be a part of that local church. I know that there is a huge variety when it comes to implementation. What I would like to know is what modern traditions fully embrace this concept to the point of enforcing it on some level. Are there any traditions that would refuse to let members cross parish lines to attend another church? Do any others with perhaps a less hard line rule have specific doctrines encouraging this but define exceptions where it might not be required?

Among the many schools and traditions, what core teachings are shared by all Catholics?

I would like to be able to list the parish priests who have been canonized in the Catholic Church. However, at present, I only have two names: (1) St. John Vianney, and (2) St. Ivo of Kermartin. Are there any others (parish priests never made bishops or higher) recognized as Saints in the Catholic Church? Does anyone know of an exhaustive list, or is the above it?

The following question has been motivated by the post https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94736/what-teachings-do-all-catholic-schools-share I recall having read something many years ago specifying that parents have the responsibility to provide their children with a Catholic education (i.e., enroll them in a Catholic school for years ago, home school was not legally an option); and, if for some reason they were not able to, and were intending to send them to a public school, a special dispensation needed to be obtained from their bishop. As far as I can recollect, the above is the gist of what I read; though, I have often tried to find this again in writing and have been unable to. Question: **Does anyone know if such a promulgation has ever been made? Since it refers to *all* Catholic parents, I imagine that what I had read was referring to something included in a papal decree.**

I’m Catholic, and have been since birth. I attend parish of St. Francis in Bakersfield, California. I have noticed recently, that all Catholic Churches, for the most part are named after a Saint, i.e. Saint Francis, Saint Phillip, Saint Anne, Saint Stephen etc. I’ve always wondered, how to they pick which Saint? Is their a list of names to choose from or are they just chosen at random?

>**Feminist Philosophy of Religion:** Feminist philosophy of religion is a recent development within Western philosophy that poses feminist questions about religious texts, traditions, and practices, often with the aim of critiquing, redefining, or reconstructing the entire field in light of gender studies... And because it is feminist, it must promote the elimination of gender inequality and take into account the multiplicity of human bodies, desires, and differences that are mapped onto the site of religion. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-religion/ >**Christian feminism** is an aspect of feminist theology which seeks to advance and understand the equality of men and women morally, socially, spiritually, and in leadership from a Christian perspective... These theologians believe that God does not discriminate on the basis of biologically determined characteristics, such as sex and race. Their major issues include the ordination of women, male dominance in Christian marriage, recognition of equal spiritual and moral abilities, reproductive rights, and the search for a feminine or gender-transcendent divine... The term ***Christian egalitarianism*** is sometimes preferred by those advocating gender equality and equity among Christians who do not wish to associate themselves with the feminist movement. Women apologists have become more visible in Christian academia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theology#Christianity ***What is the Biblical basis for accepting Feminist Theology with regard to the following topic:*** Replacing male pronouns for God with gender-neutral terms: Feminist theology often criticizes the use of male pronouns for God; referring to God as “He,” “Him,” or “Father” degrades the status of women. The alternative is to refer to God only using gender-neutral terms such as the Divine or to balance the offending terms with female equivalents such as She, Her, and Mother. **Linked:** https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/81300/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-rejecting-feminist-christian-theology-which-says

We're undergoing a big flip in the diocese of Madison and almost all the that were churches canonical parishes before are becoming part of a bigger grouping of churches within an expanded parish boundary. There's lots of hubbub about what we're going to name the new parish, but I don't know that anybody in the parish itself has much of a say over such things. Are they decided by committee, from above, by popular opinion, by tradition (do we just keep the name of the central parish church) or what?

>We must always say as well that God was born of Mary. From this accepted answer . God is spirit and invisible and his face cannot be seen lest we die. Yet apparently it's OK for God to dwell within Mary for 9 months and then pass from her body without Mary disintegrating. So do creedal followers have to *redesign God* so Mary doesn't spontaneously combust when God is within her? Or is the idea that 'God was born' of Mary without merit? **Did Mary birth God or is there another way to explain it?** _________ This seemed relevant though quite confused. (same question, different answer) >The human nature (body, soul) of Jesus is not God, Jesus, the Person (the Son, intrinsic to the Divine Nature), to Whom that human nature belongs, is God. Not His human nature: else He would not be human; human natures are not divine. Jesus Christ is truly a "man" (1 Tim 2:5) as well as He is God.

Since Jesus could *create* living organs (eyes, legs, whole bodied such as that of Lazarus, etc.) and even bring food into existence, in a split moment of time, do these feats demand accepting the short six days of Creation listed in Genesis 1 as FIAT CREATION, and not representing billions of years? Is this what the verses say? In response to God's (Jesus's) command did objects only have "To be" rather than "To become" during the creation week? It only took Jesus a nanosecond to speak and then produce healings, create fresh flesh (to the lepers) or reconstitute a decomposed body. - Be clean - Mt. 8:3 - Stretch out your hand - Mk. 2:5 - Receive your sight - Lu. 18:42 - Lazarus, come forth! - John 11:43 - Young man, I say to you, 'Get up' - Lu. 7:14 - He drove out spirits with a word - Mt. 8:16 - Just say the word and my servant will be healed. - Mt.8:8 Since it is the same Person in the first century as at Creation (John 1:1-4), do the bible verses in the N.T. and the O.T. demand a real week of time as we know it? Is this one of the major reasons Christian Young Earth Creationists accept a short time (not billions of years) for their interpretation of Genesis 1? Would they reason that it is stretched out to a 7 day week to give the man He was about to create an example of a salubrious work week? [Even though God (Jesus) could have done everything in a split second (or whatever a "second" is called in the frame of Eternity). Perhaps a note from the astronomer, Hugh Ross, would provide insight: according to modern astronomy, the mass of the universe (elements) were all created in one hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second! This is the conclusion of modern science, not a concoction of theologians.

For example: Do the anathema issued by the Council of Trent regarding the canon of the scripture applies to the Church Fathers who believed in different canons in the early church before the Council of Trent happens? > The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully > assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic > Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, > errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in > the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in > the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first > promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by > His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving > truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and > discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten > traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ > himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, > have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; > (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives > and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the > books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is > the author of both –as also the said traditions, as well those > appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by > Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the > Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet > that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a > doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are > received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old > Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, > Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of > Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second > which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical > Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, > Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, > Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor > prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, > Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the > Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four > Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the > Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles > of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, > (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the > Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, > to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John > the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and > the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as > sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as > they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are > contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and > deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. > Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the > said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of > faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will > mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the > Church. > > -Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures

Arius wrote that the Son was “begotten ***timelessly*** by the Father … before aeons … begotten ***timelessly*** before everything” (Letter to Alexander – See RPC Hanson, The Search, page 8). But Alexander of Alexandria stated that Arius also wrote that “there was a time when he did not exist” (RPC Hanson, The Search, page 16). Did Arius contradict himself? How could there be time before the Son existed if he was “begotten timelessly before everything?”

**Celebrating Jesus' ministry after 2,000 years?** Not expecting an answer immediately from any one denomination, but I would be more than curious to know if any Christian denomination(s) have started to make plans to celebrate Christ's three years of public ministry. It matters not to me in which way or manner they are doing any festivities. I am more interested to see if is this being brought forth by the various Christian communities, like Lent prepares us for Easter so to speak. > Using astronomical data, Humphreys and Waddington have calculated that there are only two dates during this decade that a Friday Passover could be celebrated on Nissan 14—either April 7, AD 30 or April 3, AD 33. - Death of Jesus Most scholars believe for different reasons, that Jesus died in the spring of either 30 AD or 33 AD. Astronomy narrows the possibilities to 27 AD, 30 AD, 33 AD or 34 AD. [How long was Jesus's ministry?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14763/how-long-was-jesuss-ministry) It was 3.5 years of duration. Taking this into consideration in my question, if any Church group were to accept the 27 AD possibility, what would they do in order to commemorate Jesus' three year public ministry prior to the 2000 anniversary of Passion, Death and Resurrection: 2024-2027. I realized this question is posed early, but I would like to be able to commemorate Christ's three years of public ministry in some way or other in spirit and truth! Any input would be greatly appreciated as to what preparations are being done in this domain. Any input from any denomination would be welcome. Walking in the footprints of the Master!

What were the doctrinal differences that caused the split of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Church in 1054?

This answer to a question asking about the relationship between LDS and Catholicism contains the following as one of 3 main doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Catholicism: > belief that the fall of humanity in Eden was a positive event because it made mortal life possible (as opposed to the Catholic and Protestant view that humanity is tainted with original sin that requires Christ’s redemption) According to LDS why would God send his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and to condemn sin in the flesh if the entrance of sin into the flesh was a positive event making mortality possible? The implication seems to be that God actually wanted Adam to sin and then He condemns that which He positively willed to occur.

So being a Christian on the internet, I’ve encountered alot of things being said about the Bible. Like how there are many contradictions and that it supports horrible things like slavery and God is evil in the Bible. I didn’t really make it such a big issue but recently, I have encountered the claim that the Bible is actually in favour of pedophilia which was initially surprising since I have never heard that claim ever but of course, there were some verses to back it up. Here is a post on Reddit talking about it https://www.reddit.com/r/exchristian/comments/umtnja/the_bible_supports_pedophilia_but_condemns/ (This was the post where I initially saw the claim) So back to the question. Does the Bible actually support Pedophilia? Or is it just a misunderstanding of verses? This is my first question on StackExchange so I might not have given out the most information out there. Edit: Someone has asked for some relevant verses so I will list the verses that I've seen mentioned below: Exodus 21:7-10 Numbers 31:1-18 Deuteronomy 20:10-14 Judges 21:7-11 Judges 21:20-23

A common practice in ancient Israel was to incorporate god's name when naming a son. Two of Saul's sons have interesting names: Merib-baal and Eshbaal (A later redactor changed the names to Mephiboshet and Ishboshet to hide the fact that their names contain the word baal.) That being said, what motivated Saul, a worshiper of Yahweh, to incorporate Baal into his sons' names? Why did Saul's sons' name do not contain "yah", instead of "baal"?

We read in Deut 5:9-10 : > ..for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. We see the Lord restricting the punishment for disobeying His Commandments to the third and the fourth generation of the defaulter, but expanding the scope of reward for obeying them to a thousand generations ! We do not see any cross-reference to the above verses, in the New Testament. Of course, Jesus reminds his people of the generosity of God the father when he says: > Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.” (Lk 6:37) And Jesus goes beyond the Ten Commandments when he says: > A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (Jn 13:34) . My question therefore, is: Why is there no cross-reference to Deut 5:9-10 on the loving nature of God the Father , in the New Testament ?

John says that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Why not "Word is God" - in present tense (because the scriptures are still valid)? It looks like that Word was God initially, but it got changed afterwards and now we cannot say Word is God. When did this change happen? What are reasons responsible for this change? How certain are we that this translation is correct and we are not having the past tense verb "was" due to mistranslation?