I am looking for a **public domain** English translation of all four volumes of Perter Lombard's *The Sentences*---"one of the least read of the world’s great books". I am, however, not sure that such exists. The earliest translation that I have found is by Giulio Silano, which came out roughly fifteen years ago. See, for example, [The Sentences Book 1: The Mystery of the Trinity (Mediaeval Sources in Translation)](https://www.amazon.com/Sentences-Book-Mystery-Mediaeval-Translation/dp/0888442920/ref=d_pd_vtp_vft_none_sccl_2_2/136-3867385-3257915?pd_rd_w=l04Mp&content-id=amzn1.sym.8e065679-52e9-4d16-ae63-fa3d08b93cef&pf_rd_p=8e065679-52e9-4d16-ae63-fa3d08b93cef&pf_rd_r=E88PDH4H8Y2DVGX50FPD&pd_rd_wg=1yey7&pd_rd_r=e702d2dc-a129-473f-986c-8ff314301285&pd_rd_i=0888442920&psc=1) . If this is indeed the earliest such translation, then what I am looking for does not exist. As for Latin, I have found [Petri Lombardi's Libri IV Sententiarum](https://ia800502.us.archive.org/20/items/libriivsententia01pete/libriivsententia01pete.pdf) , but it does not appear to contain all four books. QUESTION: Does anyone know of a public domain English translation of all four volumes of Peter Lombard's, "The Sentences"? Or, is anyone reasonably certain that none exist? If no such English translation exists, is there a complete Latin translation to be found that was published in the last two hundred years or so? (i.e., not [Liber IV sententiarum (Four Books of Sentences)](https://archive.org/details/lewis_e_170/page/n5/mode/2up))

Did the famous Papal Legate, Cardinal Cajetan reject the catholic view of deuterocanonical books? > “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old > Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of > Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and > are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and > Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou > disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either > in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as > canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be > reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, > in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books > (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not > canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters > of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of > a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and > authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of > this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which > Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of > Carthage.” > > ~ Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old > Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII )

I know that a council is ecumenical if a Pope ratifies or confirms it. However, I have not seen any explicit affirmation of this by a pope, saint, theologian, etc. I would like to see a quote from before 1958 if anyone has one. I've already read this answer.

In the movie [Constantine](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360486/) , Rachel Weisz's character begs a Catholic priest to give her twin sister a funeral, but he refuses because she committed suicide. Is this an accurate depiction of Catholicism? I know expecting fair or accurate religious portrayals from the heathens that run Hollywood is probably expecting too much. Wondering how accurate that is?

The town of Shingo in Japan claims to be the burial site of Jesus of Nazareth: someone took his place on the cross, and he made his way to Japan, where he died. ([Wikipedia.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing%C5%8D,_Aomori)) Do, or did, any denominations of Christianity believe this, and which?

I am a Christian but also I have a strong belief in demons Japanese (no better Tototro http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096283/ why edited anyway) style like beer demon, wine demon maybe cigars demon anyway good food demon. Now this belief helps a lot because from that I understand they are strong forces and shall be treated with respect but controlled. But then the Bible says little about demons and almost always like 'pagan gods' or something. That is not exactly it, I think. But then as Christian Colridge style I have my doubts maybe I shall not believe in such demons? A brief description from Wikipedia: > Depictions of oni vary widely but usually portray them as hideous, > gigantic creatures with sharp claws, wild hair, and two long horns > growing from their heads. They are humanoid for the most part, but > occasionally, they are shown with unnatural features such as odd > numbers of eyes or extra fingers and toes. Their skin may be any > number of colors, but red and blue are particularly common. (totoro is not like that)

Most people know that March 17 is the Feast of St Patrick. But in Japan, the faithful celebrate the Feast of the Discovery of the Hidden Christians or Kakure Krishistans . In 1614, all Catholic missionaries were expelled from Japanese soil. Fr. B. Petitjean arrived in Nagasaki, Japan in August 1864 and was able to construct a small Church. On March 17, 1865 he discovered that the Christian faith had survived in Japan for some 250 years without any missionaries (priests) to administer the sacraments! Outside the celebration of the Mass for this [feast](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar) , how do Japanese Catholics celebrate this feast?

In the city where I live there's a church called Mana Church . I know they venerate (not to the level of God) the founder, Jorge Tadeu. This gives me chills because of Luke 4:8 [KJV] > And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for > it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt > thou serve. In fact, they call this person Apostle. Without providing clarity, this term is misleading people into believing Jorge Tadeu is at the same level of authority as "the twelve" (Matthew 26:14; John 6:67, 20:24; 1 Corinthians 15:5) and we know > a true apostle in the New > Testament style is no longer possible because it would require that > the person had been with Christ and/or have seen the risen Lord. Can't stop thinking if there are any christian doctrines they deny? If yes, which ones? (Psalms 11:3) > If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

If the pope is infallible, than what significance does beautifying and canonizing him have? They did both to Pope John Paul II, but it seems odd that the Church wants to make him a saint, unless I am misunderstanding the concept of saints.

Often quoted in the "Sayings or the Desert Fathers," St. Poeman is venerated in the Roman Catholic Church, as well as some of the Eastern Orthodox churches. QUESTION: Was St. Poeman ever formally canonized in the Roman Catholic Church; i.e., solemnly declared so by a Pope? If so, by whom? Also, how did the epithet, **"the great"**, get attributed to him?

I have a friend who joined a religious order after his first dissolved. But he had to start from scratch starting with postulancy. My question is what does normally happen to someone's final vows after his religious order dissolves? Are these people free to leave the monastic life or do they or should to find another religious order?

In a statement urging Israel to abandon idolatry and return to the Lord (Jehovah) Samuel says: > And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the LORD, and serve him only: and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines. - 1 Samuel 7:3 This theme of serving God only as illustrated by forgoing the service of idols or false prophets and returning to the service of Jehovah God is oft repeated in Scripture: > Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. - Deuteronomy 13:3-4 > Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.  And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. - Joshua 24:14-15  This theme is picked up by Jesus in responding to the temptations of Satan in the desert and recorded almost identically in both Matthew and Luke: > And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.  Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. - Matthew 4:9-10 > If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. - Luke 4:7-8 It is interesting to note how, in responding to the temptation to worship Satan, Jesus links worship and service of God together. To worship an idol is to serve that idol and to serve a false God is to worship that God. Jesus categorically declares (and also echoes all of God's revelation to us) that only God, Jehovah God, the Lord Almighty should be worshiped and served. > Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. - Colossians 3:22-24 And in another place, regardless of what is meant by the strange Chaldean word mammon, Jesus says that two different masters (one God and one non-God) cannot both be served: > No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. - Matthew 6:24 My question, therefore is, given Jesus exhortation to serve the Lord thy God only and the apostle Paul's reminder that it is the Lord Christ whom Christians serve: Whom do Biblical Unitarians serve?

In Matthew 4:8-9 we read about the temptation of Christ by Satan: > Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and > showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said > to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and > worship me.” In Christ's response, he did not challenge Satan's authority to make such a claim. Taken together with 2 Cor 4:4 where Satan is described as "the god of this world" it seems we can conclude that Satan is the ruler of the world. How can we reconcile this with God's sovereignty?

As a Catholic, I have to take it as a dogmatic tenet of faith that everything in the Latin Vulgate during the council of Trent was inspired by the Holy Sprit. That being said, I am seeing good arguments for Mark 16:9-20 being later additions, for example, it is missing from both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. What would be the best arguments in favor of Mark 16:9-20 being part of the original text? Edit: I found this (very long) article very helpful in answering this question for myself. I realize now looking back that this question deserves a small book as an answer and is therefore not appropriate for this medium. If you are also asking this question I recommend you read the article linked to below. God bless! https://www.bereanpatriot.com/majority-text-vs-critical-text-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/

>...**Chapter 16. Watchfulness; the Coming of the Lord**. Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord will come. But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: **for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time...** Is that the Catholic view? The Protestant view? Any other major sect's view?

Did the reformers believe that Christ's church was visible ?

Is there any way a priest can stay in one location for his whole life?

My previous question pertained to the weird manteletta/mantellone hybrid the ICKSP canons seem to wear in choir, but here I would like to focus just on the cassocks. There is some conflicting information circulating regarding the type of cassock the ICKSP canons wear in choir - some sources show a plain, fully black cassock, while others suggest a black one with aqua blue buttons and piping, like the one Prior Genral Wach is wearing here as his formal outfit (with a matching pellegrina, fascia and even a ferraiolo, no less): The priests accompanying him have fully black cassocks, fascias and ferraiolos, with no pellegrina, and I'm assuming they're also of the ICKSP because of the ferraiolo (a sign of travel or envoy). And that appears consistent with what I've seen of the canons in choir dress too - fully black cassocks. I've perused many photos showing both canons and superiors, and I was unable to find a single one where blue buttons/piping would be visible (where it was even possible to see the front of the cassock, which was usually hidden by the mantelletta), in fact they seemed to be fully black at all times. One exception would be one of the Superiors, who wore a cassock with purple buttons and piping ("traditional" canon/Chaplain of his Holiness cassock) in one picture - somewhat coloristically jarring, but understandable. So is it that only the Prior General is entitled to a blue-laced black cassock as a sign of his authority, while all other canons (including superiors) wear fully black cassocks on all occasions? That would make him mirror a bishop in the difference between a piped normal cassock and a fully-colored choir one.

I'm aware that black mozzettas are usually bestowed upon canon chapters. Most of them, however, will use at least ones with purple piping and buttons (some of them with crimson ones, or fully purple mozzettas like those of bishops). I wonder though - are fully black mozzettas used somewhere at all? Perhaps by some particularly modest canon chapter or some such? They're definitely sold from many places, so there must be some degree of demand for them.

The skeptic, Matthew Wade Ferguson, writes the following at the infidels.org website: > The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, > written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, > after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, > redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a > narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the > faith of their communities. (sourced from here ) If one goggle searches, "historical reliability of the Gospels" an article in Wikipedia pops up which pretty much vindicates the skeptical view that mainstream scholars believe the Gospels are anonymous works. Is it really true that the traditional view of Christian apologists - i.e. that the New Testament was composed by either eyewitnesses are close associates of eyewitnesses of Jesus, is out of step with mainstream scholarship? Are there good reasons, in support of traditional Christianity, to doubt the doubts of the mainstream scholars on this question? And if so, what can be done to free up traditional Christianity from being subject to a type of “Babylonian captivity”?