I was wondering what the different names of the various hours mean in the liturgy of the hours? Where did they come from and what is their significance? They sound badass, but it would be nice to know why they are called what they are called. The hours: - Matins - Prime - Lauds - Terce - Sext - None - Vespers - Compline (I have a hunch that "None" is etymologically related to the english word "noon", seeing as this hour is prayed close to noon)

The previous posted question in this link, has no accepted answer yet, > https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/75449/spiritof-god-the-father-son-and-the-holy-spirit In Christianity the *"spirit of God"* is commonly viewed as the Holy Spirit, the Third person of the Holy Trinity. I am looking, for the less common view, the unpopular view that the *"spirit of God"* is related to the *"spirit of created Wisdom"* in Proverbs8:22, which Christianity also commonly viewed as personification only of Jesus Christ, and to Catholicism, a personification of the Jesus Christ and also the Blessed Virgin Mary. I am looking for denominations, theologians or biblical scholars whose biblical interpretation of *"spirit of God"*, does not point to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, but to a *"created spirit"*, a *"created spirit"* that emanates from God, a *"created spirit"* distinct from the Holy Spirit. Its like, how the Book of Wisdom described it in Wisdom Chapter 7 and Book of Proverbs, a *"created spirit"*, but not the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Douay-Rheims >*For she is a vapour of the power of God, and a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God: and therefore no defiled thing cometh into her.* -Wisdom7:25 New American Standard Bible >*“The LORD created me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.*-Proverbs8:22 The view that the *"spirit of God"* is distinct from the Holy Spirit will support the narration, if we continue to read the whole chapter 8 of Book of Proverbs, that speaks of the *"spirit of created Wisdom"* as a beloved companion of God, a beloved daughter, and an *"artisan"*. >30 then was I beside him as artisan;* i >I was his delight day by day, >playing before him all the while, >31 Playing over the whole of his earth, >having my delight with human beings.-Proverbs8:30-31 Looking at Wisdom7:25, Proverbs8:22, Proverbs8:30-31, the uncommon view that the *"spirit of God"* is not the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity can be seen. In closing, I would like to repeat, for clarity sake, that I am looking for views and teachings, who sees the *"spirit of God"*, as a *"created divine or holy spirit"*, distinct from the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

I've observed that some modern Christian denominations, such as Hillsong and others influenced by contemporary worship culture, often conduct services in dark or dimly lit environments, sometimes using stage lighting, fog machines, and concert-like atmospheres. This seems to contrast with more traditional worship settings, which tend to be well-lit and minimalistic. A possible justification might come from 1 Samuel 16:7, which says: >*“The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (NIV)* My question is: Do denominations that worship in darker environments use 1 Samuel 16:7 to justify this style, emphasizing internal sincerity over external aesthetics?

I am a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in the USA. I belong to a group discussing various theological issues. I am interested in the differences between our doctrine and Roman Catholic doctrine in regards to excommunication. Specifically, I read on [catholic.com](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/excommunication-its-not-what-you-think) that the teaching on excommunication in the Roman Catholic Church changed in 1983. Specifically, at present, "being excommunicated does not mean one is no longer in the Church." According to that article, prior to 1983, an excommunicated individual "was kicked out of the Church". In order to understand this change, I have the following questions: 1) does being "kicked out of the Church" imply the loss of salvation, i.e., does it mean the person, unless reinstated, will go to Hell? 2) is it now the case that an excommunicated individual retains salvation, even if he/she remains unrepentant (that is, will not go to Hell)? 3) Does the answer to these questions relate to Roman Catholic doctrine concerning whether someone can be a member of the Church and yet not be saved (perhaps I am using the incorrect terminology, i.e "retain or loss of salvation" If so, please inform me of the correct term.) Let me emphasize that I am not interested in quarreling or demeaning the Roman Catholic Church. I only wish to obtain authoritative answers to our questions.

For a while, I have had thoughts on areas of scripture that suggest different degrees of punishments and rewards for different kinds of people both for and against Christ. Starting with Christians, we see Jesus making a statement in Mathew 5:19 where he says: > 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Note how Jesus doesn't say they won't be saved but rather, they will be of a lower status in heaven than those who actively put their faith to action. Paul repeatedly echoes this point in multiple places such as: (2 Corinthians 5:10 ) > 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may **receive what is due us for the things done** while in the body, whether good or bad. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15 ) > 11 **For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ**. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 **their work will be shown for what it is**, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and **the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.** 14 **If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward**. 15 **If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved**—even though only as one escaping through the flames. Paul here also implies that all those who are in Christ will be saved because he is a strong foundation even if the work they build in that foundation is poor. However they will be at a loss when it comes to receiving whatever inheritance (possibly other than eternal life which will be given to all Christians) God has prepared for us. The same also goes for the other side where Jesus mentions the punishment given to the pharisees and those towns that reject his disciples being worse than the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah on judgment day.(Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:24, Luke 10:12 ) or his parable in Luke 12:47-48 : > 47 “**The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows**. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Considering all these (and more), is it safe to assume (and why) that there will be varying levels of punishment and reward within both hell and heaven respectively? If not, kindly explain how and why these verses do not support that idea. Appreciated.

One of the key differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the practice of prayer to saints in heaven, which encouraged in Catholicism but absent in Protestantism. My question is, **according to Catholic teaching, when did this practice begin?** I can find many resources from Catholic sources arguing that it ancient Christians prayed to the saints, pushing the beginning back at least to the late 1st or early 2nd century. How much older they believe "at least" means is not clear. For instance, this article at Catholic Answers has a lengthy collection of quotes from the Fathers, the earliest of which cited is Shephard of Hermas. However, it doesn't say when this practice actually began. They give a Biblical argument for its legitimacy, but nowhere claim that any of the Biblical figures *actually did* pray to deceased saints in heaven. So, I can think of several possibilities for the origin that are consistent with that: * It was first practiced by the early church shortly after the Apostles. * It was first practiced by the Apostles after the ascension of Christ, as an inference from his teachings and revelation from the Holy Spirit. * It was explicitly affirmed by Jesus to the Apostles while he was on the earth. * It was already practiced prior to the Incarnation. The last of these is the most interesting. If it's a pre-Incarnation practice, how far back does it go? Might Noah have prayed to Seth, for instance? Or is it an intertestamental development? Or somewhere in between? *Please note I am **not** asking about any of the following:* 1. Critical perspectives on the origin of prayers to saints. (I want a Catholic perspective.) 2. The idea that the saints in heaven pray for people still on Earth. (That's something Protestants generally accept; the point of difference is whether *we* should invoke *them*, not whether they're praying for us.) 3. The theological foundations of the intercession of the saints. (I want to know when it began to *actually be practiced by the Church,* not when it could have been theoretically valid.) 4. Anything related to prayers to angels. (I'm specifically asking about prayer to human beings in heaven.) 5. Prayers on behalf of the deceased, such as 2nd Maccabees 12:42-46. (There's a significant difference between praying *to* and praying *for* the deceased—in the former case the living are communicating directly with the dead while in the latter they are not.)

A primary point in the Reformation was the issue of *sola fide*--the position that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works. This was to distinguish the position that works were necessary for salvation. In LDS/Mormon theology, what is the position on faith and works in salvation? Is it *sola fide* or something else?

In some Christian traditions, particularly those that hold to the doctrine commonly summarized as “once saved, always saved” (eternal security), salvation is considered permanent and cannot be lost. However, there are cases where individuals who once professed genuine faith in Christ later renounce Christianity and identify themselves as “ex-Christians.” Some even explicitly reject core Christian beliefs they previously affirmed. According to proponents of “once saved, always saved,” are such individuals still considered saved despite their later rejection of the faith? This raises a theological question: - According to proponents of “once saved, always saved,” are such individuals still considered saved despite their later rejection of the faith? - How do supporters of this doctrine interpret passages such as 1 John 2:19 (“They went out from us, but they were not of us...”) in relation to such cases?

This question is following my question before. At my question there I have a quotation from Reformation Study Bible (2015) : > Divine illumination and persuasion is necessary for the heart blinded > by sin to respond to the **gospel**. From my question there, the conclusion : *"Lydia is not a believer in the sight of God when Paul walk to approach the women there"* because Lydia has not hear the Gospel yet (as Paul hasn't even sit there let alone talk to the women). > Genesis 6:9(NIV)
This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah > was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he > walked faithfully with God. > > Job 1:8 (NIV)
Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my > servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and > upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." 1. When God declare in the verse above, are they a non-believer in the sight of God ?
2. what is the Good News heard by Noah and Job when they are a non-believer in the sight of God ? This question appear because in a Christian Forum (in our mother language) I propose that Cornelius (before he met the angel, before he met Peter let alone heard the Gospel from Peter) is a believer in the sight of God, but the Calvinist in that forum say that *Cornelius is not a believer in the sight of God before those events, although he worship God*. The same with Lydia. Their reason : *because they (Cornelius/Lydia) haven't heard the Good News yet... so, God hasn't regenerate them. Besides there is no text read that God already opened Cornelius heart before those events*. When I ask the two questions above, I get the answer which consistent with their reason ---> *Noah/Job are a non-believer in the sight of God although they worship God because they haven't heard the Good News, so God hasn't regenerate them yet.* That's why I ask here to confirm.

In Christian theology, Jesus is said to establish the New Covenant and fulfill the Old Covenant rather than abolish it. My difficulty concerns a specific Temple-related messianic expectation. For example, Zechariah 6:12–13 says of "the Branch": “Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne.’” (ESV) From a Jewish perspective, this seems to envision a visible, physical Temple-building as part of messianic expectation. If a visible restoration of the Temple had accompanied Jesus’ mission, it seems to me that the Christian claim would have been easier for Jews to accept without appearing to abandon covenantal faithfulness. I understand that many Christian interpretations address this by pointing to spiritual fulfillment: Jesus’ body as the Temple (John 2:19–21) Believers as God’s Temple (1 Corinthians 3:16) The Church as a dwelling place for God (Ephesians 2:19–22) My difficulty is this: God could, in principle, have fulfilled the prophecy in a fully observable way — restoring the Temple for the Jewish people — while simultaneously revealing the spiritual significance Christians now see. Such a course of action would have preserved both the prophecy’s visibility and persuasiveness from a Jewish perspective, while still conveying the theological truth Christians attribute to the Temple. Instead, the fulfillment remains largely non-obvious to those expecting a physical Temple, leaving a strong basis for Jewish non-acceptance. Question: How do mainstream Christian traditions explain why God allowed Temple-related expectations such as Zechariah 6:12–13 to be fulfilled in a spiritualized, postponed, or otherwise non-obvious way, rather than in a visibly persuasive way that could have satisfied both Jewish physical expectations and Christian spiritual interpretation?

Many evangelical Christians say that once a person has accepted Jesus as their Savior and repented of their sins they have formed a bond between their soul and the Lord that is unbreakable. Do Catholics believe that this is true? I have heard that confession of sins to a Priest is common in Catholicism, and wondered how a Catholic would respond to a once saved always saved Christian.

Genesis 1:2 (NRSVCE) reads : >the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. The same verse in New King James Version (NKJV)reads: >The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. I wish to know if the term ' a wind from God' as used in NRSVCE implies the Holy Spirit, or does it only mean a creative energy which set the stage for the creation of primordial life in water? What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell about the latter prospect?

There is a religious group that believes that angels were pre-existent as humans. While researching the Scriptures to examine that, I found this quote, which confirms what I personally found in my own study: >Though the doctrine of angels holds an important place in the Word of God, it is often viewed as a difficult subject because, while there is abundant mention of angels in the Bible, the nature of this revelation is without the same kind of explicit description we often find with other subjects developed in the Bible: Every reference to angels is incidental to some other topic. They are not treated in themselves. God’s revelation never aims at informing us regarding the nature of angels. https://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels I didn't find anything of usefulness to this topic in the OT. This is what I found so far in the NT, which is why I think the verses address the nature of angels. - Matt. 13:38-39: > "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." That verse is about the final judgement, of all the men on earth. How can the angels, then, be the reapers? - Matt. 16:27 > "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." This implies that the angels are a separate class of creation than man. - Matt. 22:30 > "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." This says they are as the angels in heaven: that is, *like* them, not that they *become* them. - Matt. 24:36 > "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." This is saying no man knows, no angel knows, only the Father knows, differentiating the beings. - Luke 12:9 > "But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Luke 20:36 > "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." equal unto - become *like* angels, not *become* angels. - 1 Cor. 4:9 > "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." 1 Cor. 6:3 > "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" Indeed, many believe that man will ultimately be higher than the angels. Two separate orders of creation. - Heb. 2:16: > "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." 2 different natures. - Jude 1:6 > "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Kept not their first estate. Not their second estate. **Now my question**: since the OT really didn't address, as far as I could see (and I welcome anyone else's findings), I wondered if, and what, the ancient Jewish scholars wrote about concerning the nature of angels. They might have been privy to lost documents, or just understood the Hebrew differently than we do today. I am not looking for denominational positions, just really information that any OT or ancient religious history scholars on this site might have. Thanks.

Saints sometimes exhibited mystical phenomena in the cognoscitive order such as visions, locutions, revelations, discernment of spirits , and hierognosis (ability to distinguish blessed from profane objects); cf. Antonio Royo Marín, O.P., *Teología de la Perfección Cristiana* p. 814. Discernment of spirits in the sense of reading souls (as opposed to distinguishing good from evil spirits; cf. *ibid.* p. 826) would seem to include the ability to know what state of life God is calling a particular soul to. What saints gifted with spiritual discernment were able to accurately determine what vocation God is calling someone to?

In the account of creation in Genesis 1, it seems that God describes many of the things He creates as being "good". Verse 2 indicates that prior to there being light, there was "darkness over the face of the deep". God's first created act, aside perhaps from the heavens and the earth themselves, is light. He specifically calls the light "good", but not the darkness. So, was the darkness "not good", or did God simply not explicitly declare it as such? > 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. > > 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that *the light* was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. *(Genesis 1:1-5, ESV)*

Heard one preacher teaching on 1 Samuel 16 that when the prophet came to annoint another king in the house of Jesse he actually tried to pour oil on David's brothers but it would not come out until he came to David KJV 1 Samuel 16 : 1 >And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Beth-lehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these. Tried to search for this information in 1 Samuel 16 but couldn't find it. Got me thinking whether this was from some extra biblical source. Could be someone has an idea on this source?

I was looking up some stuff and noticed that multiple sources claim that the Catholics and Orthodox have a different view on the "first sin" or "original sin". - There is this answered question within the exchange. Which is what I've found through research as well. - As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404). - The Council of Carthage (418) is considered Ecumenical by the Orthodox Church, and it contained the doctrine of "Original Sin"... so no issue here. - Instead of original sin, which is used in Western Christianity, the Orthodox Church uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make one key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so. The Greek word for sin, amartema, refers to an individual act, indicating that Adam and Eve alone assume full responsibility for the sin in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church never speaks of Adam and Eve passing guilt on to their descendants, as did Augustine. Instead, each person bears the guilt of his or her own sins. (Saint John the evangelist orthodox church ) - The OCA website claims the "West" understand the doctrine of Original guilt. It is possible they meant the protestants and not the Catholics, but in my experience the Western Church is usually the catholics. - There is the OrthoCuban website who provides a summary, but perhaps it is just the authors flawed understanding of the words used? ------------- As the two churches appear to be still maintaining that there is a difference between Original Sin and Ancestral/First Sin... what exactly is the difference? Because as far as I can tell, there seems to be no difference. Both the catholics and orthodox churches say we suffer the consequences of the first sin, not the guilt. I think the difference is that the Catholic Church defines sin as a violation, and for the Orthodox sin is the separation from God. Is that the issue?

Jesus taught the woman of Samaria that "God is spirit" . The answer to the Penny Catechism Q17. *What is God?* is **God is the supreme Spirit**, *who alone exists of himself, and is infinite in all perfections.* As the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit is God and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. A diagram as one below is sometimes used to explain the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. This is where it gets confusing for me. If each of the persons is God, then from the foregoing we can say > The Holy Spirit is the supreme Spirit. Since the Father and the son are each also the supreme Spirit but not the Holy Spirit, what is "spirit" in the Holy Spirit and how is it different from "spirit" in the supreme Spirit? Catholic perspective preferred but any others welcome from Christians who believe in the Blessed Trinity.

Besides Palm Sunday 2026, when was the last time Mass was not said at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher?

I am a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in the USA. I belong to a group discussing various theological issues. I am interested in the differences between our doctrine and Roman Catholic doctrine. One of the problems we have run across in the past is understanding what is the official Roman Catholic position on various questions. Many times we will find people who claim to know Roman Catholic doctrine and then discover that their explanations misrepresent the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. This is not helpful. So, I am trying to discover where we can get correct and official answers to our questions. Is there a forum or other online resource that we can use? We are not looking for resources that simply point us to online versions of canon law, since becoming an expert in canon law by reading it would probably take years; and then we might not interpret it correctly. We are looking for resources that we can use to ask questions. We are not interested in quarreling or demeaning the Roman Catholic Church. We only wish to obtain authoritative answers to our questions.