I read CS Lewis say that the Beatification is an "infinite good" and, hence, "infinitely outweighs the negations" (the stuff we shall leave behind here). He also argued, in Letters to Malcolm, that we shall not experience time as an infinite present because we are finite creatures and, therefore, can only experience what suits our humanity. Being that we are finite, does that mean when he (or other writers) talk of 'infinite joy' they mean it metaphorically rather than literally? In Weight of Glory, Lewis also refers to it as 'transfinite'.

At Matthew 17:3-4 > "Suddenly Moses and Elijah appeared before them, talking with Jesus. > 4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If You > wish, I will put up three shelters - one for You, one for Moses, and > one for Elijah.”" How do advocates of soul sleep explain the appearance of Moses and Elijah - why weren't they asleep?

I'm a Catholic who also attends Eastern Orthodox services, mainly Greek. One of the most bizarre differences between Catholics and Orthodox is that the Orthodox service regularly reminds everyone that they're Orthodox. However, in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, both in the "original" Greek, and the translated English, regularly mentions that "we pray for all pious and Orthodox Christians". This liturgy was written some time around the year 400 A.D., at which point the Church was relatively unified compared to today. At least Constantinople and Rome were together. So I think that the inclusion of the word "Orthodox" is unlikely to be original. Furthermore, I noticed that in the ROCOR service which is a "translation" of the Roman Mass, they again added the word "Orthodox", which seems *highly unlikely* to be within the original text. As a Catholic, I was taught in childhood that yes, Christianity has broken up into different sects, but that doesn't make us any better. The Orthodox seem to have taken the exact opposite approach, as the sect-consciousness is *much stronger* there than among Catholics or Protestants. The addition of "Orthodox" may seem trivial, but the Orthodox make a big deal about being the original unchanged church, which seems to be very doubtful to me. I've asked an Orthodox priest about the addition of this word, but he doesn't know, and seemed bothered by the question, honestly. I was very surprised. Why/when/who added the "Orthodox" to the service?

The following is taken from the body of a recently asked question asking how many in the New Testament are called or actually claim to be the brother or sister of Jesus Christ. It is not scoped for Catholic answers only but it is asked by a Catholic and from a Catholic perspective: > 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" It appears by this statement as though Roman Catholics, **by necessity**, assign interpretations to words in Scripture based upon Dogmatic statements made from Rome rather than their plain biblical usage. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary was dogmatized in 553 in Constantinople but it had been talked about within the church since it's possible earliest witness in the apocryphal Protogospel of James (circa 150). The Assumption of Mary, however, wasn't dogmatized until 1950 and, arguably has no biblical attestation. I don't know if there are any specific words in Scripture whose meanings, by necessity, must be interpreted differently due to accepting the dogma of Mary's Assumption but theoretically it is possible. Do Roman Catholics, by necessity, assign meanings to words in the Bible based upon dogmatic statements made hundreds and even thousands of years after the Apostles were finished writing Scripture? Is this really how Roman Catholics interpret Scripture?

Exodus 20:8-11 says > Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 **Six days you shall labor** > and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD > your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son > or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the > foreigner within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the > heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the > seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and > set it apart as holy. Similarly, Deuteronomy 5:12-14 says > Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has > commanded you. 13 **Six days you shall labor** and do all your work, 14 but > the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must > not do any work Have any Christian theologians or denominations held that a 5 or 4 day work week, unlike the 6 day work week apparently proscribed in Exodus and Deuteronomy by God, is unscriptural and should therefore be replaced with a 6 day work week by Christians?

The quintessential part of the Hail Mary prayer is certainly the first two sentences coming straight from the Gospel of Luke and as I understand it, the second petition part was a later composition tacked on the end to round out the prayer. Are there any alternatives for the second part that might be just as good, just to mix it up a little?

Besides Jesus, is there any other figure in the Bible that would claim that some of the prophecies in the Scriptures were about him?

Origen of Alexandria 184-253 taught that the relationship between the Father and the Son was one of an ‘eternal begetting’ but Arius 256-336 argued that ‘the Logos had a beginning and that the Son, therefore, was not eternal, the Logos being the highest of the Created Order‘ (quoted from Wikipedia). There is contention about the position of Lucian of Antioch 240-312 but little doubt that his pupil Eusebius of Nicomedia UNK - 337 followed Arius’ theology. An answer to a question posed by Peter Turner lists current denominations who appear to follow this teaching or have views that appear to be similar, but it is the original response of Arius, or Eusebius, which interests me, regarding what, to me, is an insurmountable obstacle to their claims. ---------------------------------------------------- In Hebrews 7:3, the writer states that Melchisedec is portrayed as having no ‘beginning of days’. The translation ‘*made* like unto the Son of God’ is incorrect, the word ἀφομοιόω, *aphomoiow*, being used (not ποιέω, *poieo*, the word meaning ‘make’ or ‘do) which denotes (see Thayer ) the ‘rendering of a likeness‘, or (BDAG) ‘becoming like‘, or (Liddel&Scott) ‘likened or portrayed like’. The only time the word is used in scripture, it cannot be suggested that this is an act of creation and cannot be suggested that ‘Melchisedec is made in the way the Son of God is made’. The words simply do not convey that meaning. Rather, the opposite, for Melchisedec is a ‘likeness’ a ‘representation’ and one of the features of that representative likeness is this : that the Genesis narrative states no past history. He has no genealogy in scripture. He appears to have no origin, no parentage, no . . . . beginning of days. And the writer applies this feature of Melchisedec to Jesus Christ. Clearly the likeness is not a likeness of his earthly path, the ‘days of his flesh’, for we know that Gabriel announced, to the virgin, the event of her becoming great with child. And we know the angelic host appeared and glorified God when the babe was born and placed in swaddling clothes in a manger. Did we have accurate historical records we could exactly place the time of his birth to the very hour, so this cannot be the meaning of the writer to the Hebrews. The representative likeness of a feature of having ‘no beginning of days’ must relate to the Son of God’s existence before coming into the world ; before being ‘manifest in flesh’, 1 Timothy 3:16 (TR/KJV). If no ‘beginning of days’ then no possibility of calling this one ‘created’. For if there be anything other than God himself in existence, time must have begun and days (of whatever shape or form) can be counted. He was - before there was such a thing as 'a day'. In the beginning . . . was the Logos. He was there, when it all began, John 1:1. This same truth is expressed by John the apostle who writes (I John 1:2) of ‘the life, the eternal’ (see the literal Greek, for example Young’s Literal Translation) which was ‘with the Father‘ and was - then - ‘manifested'. Again, whether one suggests ‘everlasting’ as a translation of αἰών, *aion* Strong 165 or the more usual rendering ‘eternal’, makes no difference. Looking backward in time, ‘everlasting’ sees no beginning. Thus ‘the life the eternal’ being ‘with the Father’ (and there being nothing else in view) then that life must be the life of the Son : prior to manifestation. And this life had no beginning, whether one understands that ‘eternity’ is another thing altogether than ‘time’ or whether one views the past as ‘everlasting’. How did Arius and Eusebius counter this argument (having no beginning of days) and how did they attempt to translate Hebrews 7:3 ? Is there any reliable record ?

Is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father? It's a pretty simple question, so I don't really know if there is much I can add to the body.

I would think it's a natural transition for Catholics who prefer the [Traditional Latin Mass](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass) (TLM) to go to the [*Novus Ordo* mass](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI) celebrated under [General Instruction of the Roman Missal](https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal) (GIRM) rubric **in the Latin language** while preserving as much non-GIRM-prescribed elements from TLM as much as possible, so they can be part of the post Vatican II church fully along with the vernacular *Novus Ordo* faithfuls. Yes, there will be differences from TLM, but I would think it's a much smaller price to pay for both the faithfuls and the Vatican committed to implement Vatican II. Does it even make sense? And if so, are there parishes who do this? It would also be helpful for the answer to include a brief listing of the differences.

Addition after Comment : The title header does not provide sufficient space to word the question without ambiguity. Thus : **If the one born in Bethlehem was ‘a creature’ (as says Arius) and yet did not sin, then why was the first humanity (Adam) not so created (according to the words and doctrine of Arius ?) ...** ... is the full and unambiguous title. ----------------------------------- In an open letter to the Alexandrians, the signatories to the Council of Nicaea state the following of the doctrine of Arius : >In the first place, then, the impiety and guilt of Arius and his adherents were examined in the presence of our most religious emperor Constantine, and it was unanimously decided that his impious opinion should be anathematized, with all the blasphemous expressions he has uttered, in affirming that "the Son of God **sprang from nothing**" and that "there was **a time when he was not**." He said moreover that "the Son of God, because possessed of free will, was **capable either of vice or virtue**," and he called him **a creature and a work**. All these sentiments the holy synod has anathematized, having scarcely patience to endure the hearing of such an impious opinion—or rather madness—and such blasphemous words. (*Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus I:9.*) Quoted from Christian-history.org [As has been noted, and as is well known, it is difficult to source documents from Arius himself, but easier to cite from his opponents, who quote him extensively.] Elsewhere, Trinitarian doctrine is quite clear in stating that He who is called ‘word’ was ‘with God’ ‘in the beginning ‘ (John 1:1), and ‘God was the word’ (John 1:1, literal) ; that ‘the life the eternal which was with the Father’ (1 John 1:2, literal) is ‘manifested’ (1 John 1:2) which ‘manifestation‘ is also named ‘the Son of God‘ (1 John 3:8); and that ‘God was manifest in the flesh’ (1 Timothy 3:16, TR/KJV). Trinitarian doctrine clearly states that Jesus of Nazareth is not merely a human person, whose existence began in Bethlehem, on earth, in flesh, but that this humanity is a ‘manifestation’ of Him who is divine, eternal and co-equal in deity with the Father. Trinitarian doctrine makes it clear that the first man was of earth, earthy, only ; mere flesh and blood, with breath breathed into him, no more. But Jesus of Nazareth is a new creation, humanity manifesting God himself ; humanity and deity in one unique Person. Thus Trinitarian doctrine is clear that Jesus is ***not*** another created Adam, a second creation of mankind. But Arius ***did*** so state. Thus Arius seems to me to be finding fault with the Creator. For if Adam is a man of sin and death (as scripture unarguably conveys, and as every penitent soul admits) then the one born in a manger in Bethlehem was a ‘second attempt’ ; surely. [**Note after comment** : I am speaking of the manifested humanity, not of any 'prior' (presumably angel-like) spirit sort of existence. The question is about manifested humanity and its propensities within the created sphere.] For if it be the case that the babe in the manger is ‘capable of virtue or vice’ and is a ‘created creature’ and yet did not do any vice, but only ever did good ; then why did the Creator not make this creature to begin with ? Why the failure of Adam ? For Trinitarian doctrine clearly states that the liability inherent in any creation (and therefore in the best of all possible creations) is, firstly, the creature itself (that it is just that - creature) and, secondly, the inevitable presence in the creation of a certain knowledge (the knowledge of good and evil) which knowledge is at once both so irresistibly tempting to the creature yet so utterly and fatally catastrophic to the creature. *But does Arius’ doctrine convey that truth ?* For if the one come of woman in Bethlehem is merely another creature, and that creation was such that he did not fail or fall, *yet he could do either, it is said,* then why - O why ? - did not the one whom Arius calls ‘Creator’ create that perfection in the first place ? What do we know of the doctrine of Arius that would demonstrate he had a solution to this doctrinal problem ? ------------------------------------------- Scripture quotations are from the KJV (1769) or from the literal translation provided by the Englishman's Greek New Testament (1877).

Quite often, people use hand sanitizer before distributing the Host. Indeed, sometimes you can *taste* the hand sanitizer. Has there been any discussion in the Catholic Church about whether this profanes the sacred species? As St. Thomas Aquinas says, > [O]ut of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but > what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are > consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this > Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except > from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or > else in some other case of urgency. Yet, here we have hand sanitizer touching the Sacrament. Should the hand sanitizer, at the least, be consecrated, as the chalice is?

According to Catholic teaching, is a priest who does not agree that homosexuality is a sin and affirms transgender identity a heretic or a dissenter? For instance, would the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany who do so be heretics or dissenters?

On the one hand, it seems LDS reject the concept of original sin. See for example Articles of Faith 1:2: > We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for > Adam’s transgression. But is that really the case? Moroni 8:8 makes it sound as if there is in fact original sin, but it is atoned unconditionally by the atonement. Moroni 8:8 (emphasis added) > Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. > Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to > repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; > wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of > committing sin; wherefore **the curse of Adam is taken from them in > me**, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is > done away in me. So, what is the status of original sin in LDS doctrine?

>**Job 31:1–4 (DRB)** I made a covenant with my eyes, that I would not so much as think upon a virgin.1 2 **For** what part should God from above have in me, and what inheritance the Almighty from on high? 3 **Is not destruction** to the wicked, and aversion to **them that work iniquity?** 4 Doth not he consider my ways, and number all my steps? The very similar New Testament equivalent might be: >**Ephesians 5:1–7 (DRB)** Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness. 3 **But fornication,** and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: 4 Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. 5 ***For know you this and understand,*** that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things **cometh the anger of God** upon the children of unbelief. 7 Be ye not **therefore** partakers with them. As a *Catholic*, it seems obvious to me from reading this that Job avoids sin in general (something for which Scripture praises him: cf. 1:1), but here fornication or thoughts thereof, *because* if he did not he would have no part in God, because he would be wicked by definition. This directly links works with justification, and Job lucidly and freely chose to take this course of life ('made a convenant with [myself]') because of the risk of not having done so. But in Calvinism *there is no* even theoretical risk of losing salvation, and therefore no need to avoid sins *so as to avoid* such a fate (i.e., whereas there is motive for avoiding sins which is not a salvific reason, so Calvinists believe). Question -- According to Calvinists, how does Job view his works in relation to his justification/salvation? Thanks in advance. --- 1 Cf. Mt. 5:28.

To what extent do mainline Protestant seminaries in the United States involve rigorous study of Hebrew and Greek? What is the minimum course load in learning these languages? How rigorous are such courses? How many elective courses tend to be offered, and how frequently are these chosen by current students? By mainline Protestant seminaries, I mean the seminaries of the sort that are associated with Ivy League universities (eg Princeton Theological Seminary, Union Seminary) or those affiliated with mainline denominations (eg Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, associated with the PCUSA).

Before going to communion I took a sip of water, realizing afterwards that it may have been water to which drops of minerals to prevent cramping had been added the night before. It was too late to spit out. Should I have refrained from receiving communion. I'll mention it to the priest in my monthly confession.

This *Simply Catholic* article [Catholic Burial and Cremation](https://www.simplycatholic.com/catholic-burial-and-cremation/) explains the **rationale** behind the prohibition of spreading the ashes from a cremated person, along with the **precondition** that the cremated person needs to believe in the resurrection of the body. Instead, the ashes are to be buried or stored in a sacred place to encourage prayer on behalf of the deceased as a member of the communion of saints. The basis for the article is the 2016 instruction from the Vatican's CDF. My question has to do with the *authority structure* and the consequent variations of **local implementation** of this teaching: - how much of the rules is set in canon law, how much by CDF, how much is set by a country's congregation of bishops (like USCCB) - whether bishops or even priests can relax or add further restrictions in connection with preserving the ashes - how much of the actual practice varies by country / diocese

I am not a christian so please forgive me if there maybe a lack of knowledge from my side about it in the question. If I say that I am a son of god (God forbid) , then no christian will believe me. But they believe Jesus to be so. This is because there's special distinction between a normal person like me and Jesus. Moreover, it's not any wise to listen any normal person blindly and believe him. So, the Jesus was different from normal persons, and his miracles proved it. One of his miracles was to heal people who were deaf/blind from their birth. So, **preserving the un-ambiguity and distinction of Jesus, does Christianity claims that humans will never be able to cure congenital deafness/blindness ** ?

I read that claim in an article written by A.M. Toplady (reproduced in a 2020 Christian magazine.) Toplady (1740-1778) did not go on to give his reasons for that claim, apart from adding, "An Antinomian looks to be justified by his works." Toplady is best known for hymns, such as *Rock of Ages* and verse 2 shows his view on the matter of works: "Not the labour of my hands can fulfil thy law's demands. Could my zeal no respite know, could my tears forever flow, all for sin could not atone. Thou must save, and thou alone." His article, however, was dealing with text from the Bible letter of James, written before the end of the first century. Therefore, ***I'm asking this question to those who know about ancient Gnosticism circa the end of the first century, and who also know about Antinomianism.*** Please bear in mind that I'm *not* looking for any opinions about Gnosticism and/or Antinomianism, whether they are good, bad or indifferent religious beliefs. **I'm simply wanting to know why Toplady could have made the claim, "Gnostics were the Antinomians of their day."** What basis might he have had for that?