In the now defunct Sarum Rite (Usage) of the Roman Rite one can find the title of this **Feast of the Triumph of Christ over the Devil** as celebrated on February 15th. This “historical” feast was extremely ancient and is only found in some of the more ancient Sarum Liturgical Calendars. It is now completely obsolete. Sadly enough, I can not find sources of this feast online. It existed on a few of the more ancient documents and Sarum Liturgical Calendars. I am guessing that with regards to the Sarum Liturgical Calendar some online sources state that the inclusion in liturgy calendars of several *"historical dates"* was quite common in the Middle Ages, such as the listing of the [Resurrection of Our Lord on March 27th](https://archive.org/details/cu31924092460033/page/n31/mode/2up?view=theater) . Given the fact, that historical Liturgical sources would be very difficult to non-existant about what this feast of the ***Triumph of Christ over the Devil*** actually celebrated like or what Gospel events it entailed, would anyone have any input or information on what the Sarum meant by he Triumph of Christ over the Devil. If no such information can be found, would anyone possibly have the liturgical inclination as to what the inspiration and meaning would be and why it would be placed on February 15th. As a side note, this question may be of help or interest to some: [Did the Annunciation and Good Friday coincide?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/47170/did-the-annunciation-and-good-friday-coincide) I would prefer a Canon or traditional type of answer. However, if no one can provide a response that is factually supported, one that is based liturgical principles and/or tradition Catholic logic will be acceptable.

We read in Mtt 2:1-2: > After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”. As per the First Commandment, God alone is to be worshipped. It is not written if the Magi realised that the newborn babe they were searching for was God's Only Son. And it is traditionally believed that the Magi were Gentiles. But why did Herod say that he too wished to worship the newborn King (Mtt 2:8) ? Agreed that he had a hidden agenda, but why Herod, himself raised as a Jew, did not correct the Magi? That leads one to the conclusion that the Magi indeed saw Jesus as the Saviour. The gift of frankincense they offered him (though listed second by Matthew in 2:11), also points to the fact. **My question therefore is**: Why did the Magi want "to worship" Infant Jesus after identifying him as King? PS: Psalm 72:11 (KJV) says that all kings shall "fall down" (prostrate) before him. Prostration is a physical symbol of paying utmost respect or acknowledging submissiveness, and not necessarily of offering worship.

This question pertains to confessional Lutherans (i.e., those whose subscription to the Book of Concord is a "*quia* subscription "), and only to the portions of the Book of Concord that were composed after the Reformation (i.e., this question does *not* pertain to the ecumenical creeds ). These, then, are the documents I'm asking about: | Confessional document | Principal author(s) | Original language(s) | Year of composition | | ------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ------------------- | | Augsburg Confession | Philipp Melanchthon | German and Latin drafted in parallel | 1530 | | Apology of the Augsburg Confession | Philipp Melanchthon | Latin | 1531 | | Smalcald Articles | Martin Luther | German | 1537 | | Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope | Philipp Melanchthon | Latin | 1537 | | Small Catechism | Martin Luther | German | 1529 | | Large Catechism | Martin Luther | German | 1529 | | Formula of Concord (Epitome & Solid Declaration) | Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz, Nicholas Selnecker, David Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, Christopher Koerner | German | 1577 | Once these documents were compiled into the Book of Concord, it wasn't long before there was both a complete German and a complete Latin edition. While the intent of a translation is of course to render the original as faithfully as possible, there will inevitably be some differences. When it comes to the authority the documents hold for Lutherans, I could imagine confessional Lutherans believing one of the following: - the Latin versions are authoritative - the German versions are authoritative - the original language version of each is authoritative - the version translated into the primary language of the particular Lutheran denomination (e.g., English for the WELS and LCMS) is authoritative for that denomination - some alternative I haven't thought of I'm sure the number of people who could answer confidently about the worldwide population of confessional Lutherans is vanishingly small. I would accept an answer that conveys the position of any one large confessional Lutheran body, even knowing that other bodies may answer it differently.

In 1858 St. Bernadette asked for the name of the beautiful Lady who was appearing to her. The Beautiful Lady answered her "I am the Immaculate Conception." Why didn't she simply tell her she was the Mother of God? Or why didn't she say "I am immaculately conceived."

Do you have to be in a state of grace to be invested with the Brown Scapular?

After reading and doing light research concerning [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66072/is-mercy-above-orthodoxy) , I'm compelled to ask, what is the process for establishing the orthodoxy of a belief in the Catholic church today? [From m-w.com](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodoxy) : > 1 : the quality or state of being orthodox
> 2 : an orthodox belief or practice [From Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy) : > Orthodoxy is adherence to correct or accepted creeds, especially in religion. In the Christian sense the term means "conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church." The first seven ecumenical councils were held between the years of 325 and 787 with the aim of formalizing accepted doctrines. Based on these two references (and my own, personal understanding), *orthodoxy* is a belief established by a religion, presumably based on its source canon. Thus, the Biblical "Thou shalt not kill" might be considered doctrine, and therefore an accepted/official belief of the church that capital punishment is unacceptable as a form of punishment would be considered an "orthodox belief" or "orthodoxy." What, then, is the official procedure in the Catholic church for establishing a belief (new or modified) as *orthodox?*

Did any theologians think that the limbo for children (*limbus puerorum*) is part of purgatory?

Exactly what God wants to teach us, in describing that Jesus is the only begotten son (only begotten - monogenes), because we see a parallel in generating Eve from Adam's ribs.

Many contemporary Catholic commentators claim that there have been only two ex cathedra statements in history—Ineffabilis Deus (1854, on the Immaculate Conception) and Munificentissimus Deus (1950, on the Assumption). Yet the Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican I (1870)—the official interpretive document for Pastor Aeternus—insists that papal infallibility had already been exercised “thousands and thousands of times.” This document was appended to the council’s acts and cited again at Vatican II. If the magisterial tradition acknowledges repeated infallible teachings, why does the notion of “only two ex cathedra statements” persist? Where does this restricted interpretation originate? Requested excerpts from the Relatio: > (30). But some will persist and say: "[...] let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment." It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend fathers, **this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?**" > (90). In this definition we treat: (01) the subject of infallibility, namely the Roman Pontiff as Pontiff, i.e., **as a public person in relation to the Universal Church.** (02) There is contained in the definition the act, or the quality and condition of the act of an infallible pontifical definition, i.e., the Pontiff is said to be infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra." This formula is received in the schools, and the meaning of this formula as it is found in the very body of the definition is as follows: when the supreme Pontiff speaks "ex cathedra," **not, first of all, when he decrees something as a private teacher, nor only as the bishop and ordinary of a particular See and province, but when he teaches as exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians.** Secondly, not just any manner of proposing the doctrine is sufficient even when he is exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher. Rather, **there is required the manifest intention of defining doctrine, either of putting an end to a doubt about a certain doctrine or of defining a thing, giving a definitive judgment and proposing that doctrine as one which must be held by the Universal Church.** ... Some common examples of statements that clearly passs the "Gasser test" for infalliblity. > **Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject [both spiritually and temporally; see prev. paragraphs] to the Roman Pontiff.** > > — Unam Sanctam, *Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302* Included in _Sources of Catholic Dogma, 'Denzinger'_, see 468 and 469 1. In discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority: The document is an authoritative papal bull. 2. Defines a doctrine: "we declare, we proclaim, we **define**…" 3. Regarding faith or morals: Yes. He speaks about what is necessary for salvation. 4. To be held by the universal Church: Bulls are addressed to the whole Church. > The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches [...] that no one existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life, but will go into _the eternal fire_ _prepared for the devil and his angels_, unless they are gathered to it before the end of life, and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only those who remain in it benefit from the ecclesiastical sacraments and fasting, almsgiving and other offices of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery bring forth eternal rewards, and that no one, no matter how much alms he gives and if he sheds blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. > > — Cantate Domino, *Bull of Pope Eugene IV, February 4, 1442, Council of Florence* Included in _Sources of Catholic Dogma, 'Denzinger'_, see 703 to 715 1. In discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority: The document is an authoritative papal bull. 2. Defines a doctrine: The necessity of submission to the Roman Church for salvation. 3. Regarding faith or morals: Yes. He speaks about what is necessary for salvation. 4. To be held by the universal Church: Bulls are addressed to the whole Church. Additionally, Wikipedia lists five others: 1. *Tome to Flavian*, by Pope Leo I (449), on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon. 2. Letter of Pope Agatho (680), on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople. 3. *Benedictus Deus*, by Pope Benedict XII (1336), on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to the final judgment. 4. *Cum occasione*, by Pope Innocent X (1653), condemning five propositions of Cornelius Jansen as heretical. 5. *Auctorem fidei*, by Pope Pius VI (1794), condemning several Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical.

Joan Carroll Cruz, *Prayers and Heavenly Promises: Compiled from Approved Sources* claims: >PROMISES: According to St. Bridget of Sweden (1303-1373), the Blessed Virgin grants seven graces to the souls who honor her daily by saying seven *Hail Marys* while meditating on her tears and dolors: > > 1. “I will grant peace to their families.” > 2. “They will be enlightened about the divine Mysteries.” > 2. “I will console them in their pains and I will accompany them in their work.” > 2. “I will give them as much as they ask for as long as it does not oppose the adorable will of my divine Son or the sanctification of their souls.” > 2. “I will defend them in their spiritual battles with the infernal enemy and I will protect them at every instant of their lives.” > 2. “I will visibly help them at the moment of their death—they will see the face of their mother.” > 2. “I have obtained this grace from my divine Son, that those who propagate this devotion to my tears and dolors will be taken directly from this earthly life to eternal happiness, since all their sins will be forgiven and my Son will be their eternal consolation and joy.” Where exactly in *The Revelations of St. Birgitta of Sweden* do these promises occur? I couldn't find them there.

In the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as both fully divine and fully human. This raises the question of whether He exercised attributes like omniscience while living on earth. For example, Philippians 2:6–8 speaks of Christ “emptying Himself” (κένωσις) by taking the form of a servant, which some interpret as a limitation of His divine prerogatives. Luke 2:52 also records that Jesus “grew in wisdom and stature,” suggesting a human process of learning. On the other hand, there are passages where Jesus seems to demonstrate supernatural knowledge, such as knowing people’s thoughts (Mark 2:8; John 1:48). Yet, in Mark 13:32, Jesus says that “no one knows the day or the hour… not even the Son, but only the Father,” which appears to imply a limitation in knowledge. How do Christian theologians reconcile these passages? Did Jesus, as a human, retain omniscience and choose not to use it at times, or did He genuinely limit His knowledge while on earth?

My community recently found out that one of our local priests is also a [Freemason](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry) . I'm not entirely sure of what Freemasonry is about and how it relates to Christianity. What exactly can outsiders know using publicly available sources about what Freemasonry teaches about the relationship between itself and Christianity? Does it teach that they overlap with, are a subset of, or are unrelated with the Christian faith? Note: Since one of our local priests is one, there must be others who profess Christianity and practice Freemasonry. How do they view the practice in relation to their faith? Where do ultimate allegiances lie for practitioners of both?

Encounters with God (the Father) are called *Theophanies*, encounters with Jesus are called *Christophanies*, but what about encounters with the Holy Spirit? Is there a specific term for an encounter with the third person of the Trinity? **Note**: by encounter, I mean any sort of self-authenticating experience through which a supernatural being makes its existence or presence known, obvious and clear (i.e. reveals itself) to a person. _____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86291/50422

Related answered questions: [Chalcedonianism is a moderate between Nestorianism and Monophysitism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19867/is-it-proper-to-state-that-chalcedonianism-is-a-moderate-position-in-between-nes) , [What does it mean that the two natures of Christ cannot be separated?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/31552/what-does-it-mean-that-the-two-natures-of-christ-cannot-be-separated?rq=1) , and [Does the Chalcedonian definition mean Christ has two minds? ](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66264/does-the-chalcedonian-definition-mean-christ-has-two-minds) Related unanswered question: [How would miaphysites approach monothelitism versus dyothelitism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64416/how-would-miaphysites-approach-the-question-of-monothelitism-versus-dyothelitism) I know the Sixth Ecumenical Council affirms the orthodox position of the two wills of Jesus and rejects monothelitism. And the Chalcedonian definition states >One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in **Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably**; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather **the properties of each Nature being preserved**, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; **not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons**, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ. My understanding is that the indivisbility of the two natures means we can't attribute particular adjectives or actions that apply to the Person of Christ to the individual nature, though that may be its source. Such as, it would be incorrect to say that "Jesus' human nature died on the cross, but his divine nature did not." Or even "Jesus' divine nature is omnipotent, but his human nature is not." Though we may know that the source or origin of his omnipotence from his divinity, we cannot attribute omnipotence to Jesus' divine nature but the person as a whole. It seems the Chalcedonian definition supports this, unless "the properties of each Nature being preserved" implies the opposite of that. By "attributing" a property, or perhaps "identifying" a property to be of one nature, I am referring to the accuracy of statements such as "Jesus' human nature slept, but Jesus' divine nature was always awake" (because "God never sleeps", Psalm 121:4). If we can't attribute a property to a particular nature, then we must stop at saying "Jesus slept" (the person of Christ) and cannot say anything in particular about what each individual nature experienced, though we perhaps could say that the origin of Jesus' ability to sleep is from his human nature. The same applies with Jesus' omnipotence. Perhaps we could say that the origin of Jesus' omnipotence is his divine nature, but we can only say that Jesus is omnipotent (not saying 1/2 of his natures is omnipotent). The communication of properties between Jesus and God seem to come into play here, as well. If we can say that Jesus slept, then that means God slept. But, if only His human nature slept while His divine nature was awake, then perhaps we could escape concluding that God slept? Except that the Bible seems to be denote the person of Jesus with actions or adjectives, rather than an individual nature. It seems like this being the case, we could only attribute the will of Jesus to the person of Jesus, and not either individual nature when the two are inseparable. It seems like the same arguments apply for His wills as for various adjectives. "Jesus wouldn't be 'fully' human if he didn't have a human will." "Well, Jesus wouldn't be 'fully' human if he wasn't limited in knowledge, and yet he possesses omnipotence." Or something like that. Take the claim "Jesus can't be fully human without a human will;" why can't Jesus be fully human because He has a will as a person? As in, a will that is attributed to the person of Christ rather than to his individual human nature. I don't get how that wouldn't fulfill the "fully human" requirement. It seems that to say otherwise is just based on how we define what "human" is (which of course would be important). **If we can't attribute adjectives or actions to either individual nature, why can we attribute wills to the individual nature? How is that not separating the two natures that should be indivisible?** From a typical orthodox Trinitarian view, I want to know how this doctrine is properly formulated in light of these concerns, whether through Church creeds or early church fathers or theologians of the day or through someone's explanation. Edit: suggested from comments below, **how do do we know it is acceptable to attribute a property to one nature and not the other given that the two natures are inseparable? What does it mean for them to be inseparable if you can identify properties of each individual nature rather than the Person?**

In the New Testament, in addition to the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, The Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles written by Paul, there are other letters (epistles) written by James, Peter, John and Jude. Do we know definitively in what order these letters were written?

It is common to associate Abraham as "father of the faith" and the first Jew. However, since Abram's family came from the land of Ur, isn't it more accurate to say that he wasn't a Jew but - in reality - a Babylonian that **became** a Jew because of his faith in God? This is open for answer by all denominations. I would like to hear their thoughts on the matter.

How did God command the killing of children and woman when the commandments command us not to kill. I understand that God has right to kill who He pleases but why did he command the Israelites (humans) to kill others when thou shalt not kill

According to Catholicism, is a Catholic priest's power of exorcism acceptable evidence of the Catholic Church's truth and validity of its claim to be the one true church?

Evolutionism [claims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion) that religious beliefs result from their ability to give us a cooperative ability to survive. This, an Evolutionist would argue, would imply that religion comes into existence, not on any truth claim, but from evolution giving us useful, but otherwise untrue beliefs. What is the proper response to this argument? (Here is [another article](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429488818-18/ritual-made-us-human-matt-rossano) on the subject.)

Why isn't every venial sin the mortal sin of scandal? If someone knows you are Catholic and sees you commit a venial sin, wouldn't that be scandal? Where do you draw the line? Or is this like lying where it can be a venial sin but there's no test to know so you have to assume it's always a mortal sin in practice?