If the hymn [*Panis angelicus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panis_angelicus) refer to the Eucharist (flesh of Christ, bread of life), why did St. Thomas Aquinas not say "Christ's bread" (*Panis Christi*, if that's the right Latin grammar) instead of "Angelic bread" (*Panis angelicus*)? Why switch the focus from Christ's body to Angels?

I am planning on leading a Bible Study and want to try and provide some commentary by people such as Augustine, St John Chrysostom, etc. I've tried looking around and found it very difficult to find anything and it seems a lot of the references are implicit rather than explicit from my searching. I found Augustine's "On Grace and Free Will" which has some good references but I'd like to find more if possible.

I'm Catholic, so I subscribe to the idea that constructing and venerating images and statues is permissible and encouraged as a matter of Church dogma. However I must admit that I find it hard to square this position with the explicit command NOT to construct and venerate statues found in scripture. > 4 “**You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them or serve them;** for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. I understand that Christ "fulfilled the law" and as such there are large portions of the law which no longer apply (for example the dietary laws, sacrifice laws, ritual cleanliness laws) while other parts of the law still apply (ie, the moral component of the law). Does the prohibition against constructing and venerating images fall under the "abrogated" category of the law, or the still in force "moral" component of the law? I've heard many arguments in defence of venerating images and statues, and I reckon they are all great arguments with much merit and insight, nevertheless I still get the feeling that they can all be easily shot down in one go with a quick quote of the proof text above. It's causing me some annoying cognitive dissonance which I would love to resolve... Stuff which is great but doesn't really answer my question: 1. Constructing images of angels, saints and Christ is permissible due to the incarnation. Christ is the perfect image of God/Christ is a "living icon" of God. Therefore by becoming man God demonstrated that it is ok to make images of Divine things. That's all well and good, but it just results in a contradiction with the above scripture quote, unless Christ abrogated that particular commandment. 2. When we pray to statues, we are not worshipping the statue, we are merely venerating what the statue represents: in other words "veneration given to an image travels to the prototype". Again, I follow the logic, but it still doesn't explain why we are allowed to construct these images in the first place, in light of the explicit prohibition in the 10 commandments. 3. Elsewhere in scripture God explicitly commands us to construct religious statues. Eg the bronze serpent, the Cherubim on the Ark of the covenant. Therefore the prohibition against statues can't be absolute. That's great, but these things seem to be very specific exceptions to a general rule, and the general rule forbids us from constructing and venerating images. 4. "Statues of Jesus and Mary are just like having a photograph of your spouse and Children in your wallet. They help you to remember them and keep them in mind". Again I follow the argument and agree in principle, however I still don't understand how we can construct these images in the first place considering we have been explicitly forbidden from doing so, even if the reason for constructing them is as benevolent as desiring a visual reminder of our Lord and Lady. The only way I can find to square this scripture quote with the Catholic/Orthodox use of images and statues is to assume that this particular commandment was abrogated by Christ after he fulfilled the law. Is that right?

The Hail Mary is [very often called a 'prayer'.](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/995/6071) Some Catholics like to distinguish between 'praying', which is only said to God, and 'asking' which is acceptable for the deceased saints. So is the Hail Mary a prayer (even though it's offered to Mary) or something else? Answers from any perspective which uses the Hail Mary would be welcome.

The practice of a saying a "Hail Mary" is often referred to in colloquial speech, sometimes as a way to caricaturize Catholics. References to the practice instantly conjure up images of Catholicism, priests, and confessionals. However, beyond these references with my Protestant background I don't actually know much about the practice. I don't even have the vocabulary to properly ask this question. What should a non-Catholic like myself understand about the practice? Where did it originate and what is the purpose? Do other traditions employ such a ritual? Is it fair to call them a ritual? **Edit:** If it's simply a prayer, what is the purpose of repeating it more than once? At least the pop-culture references often involve saying "so-many" Hail Mary's in the sense of more being somehow better.

> Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: **Who**, being in the form of God, **thought** it not robbery to be equal with God: - Philippians 2:5-6 Various translations render "*hegeomai*" as thought, consider, regard, count, esteem, deem, reckon, and even a strange "take advantage" (which I think is outside the box). All of these rightly represent a function of mind, as the object in question (equality with God) is perceived and rationally, accurately considered. For comparison, the exact same word in the exact same form appears in 1 Timothy 1:12 (he counted) and Hebrews 11:11 (she judged). Indeed, we are exhorted to have the same mind in us as was in Christ Jesus when He, Christ Jesus, thought (*hegeomai*) it not robbery to be equal with God **when** He was in the form of God. Following that consideration he "took upon him the form of a servant". The condescension follows after and flows from the consideration in the text of v. 6-8 just as the exaltation of v. 9 follows after and flows from the condescension. There are those who declare that, prior to his birth, Jesus did not exist with person-hood and that, if he existed in some form, he existed as "an idea in the mind of God". Biblical Unitarians are one such group. However this verse declares that, prior to his birth in Nazareth, Christ Jesus displayed function of mind. He considered, thought, reckoned, esteemed, or counted. Additionally, having considered he then acted by "making himself of no reputation" and "took the form of a servant" in accordance with his reckoning. It is crystal clear from the verse in question that it is the "who" which "thought" and equally clear that the "who" is Christ Jesus prior to his birth in Nazareth. The who, "being in the form of God", is prior to "in the form of a servant" and "made in the likeness of men" as evidenced by the conjunctive "but" separating the *hegeomai* of equality with God, which took place when in the form of God, and the actions of making himself of no reputation, etc. which result from the *hegeomai*. If the latter activity can be understood as Jesus' birth in Nazareth (and indeed it must if he did not pre-exist his birth), then it is prior to his birth in Nazareth when he considered. From those who deny a pre-incarnate "person" of Christ; Who or what performed "*hegeomai*", that function of personal, rational mind?

It's well known that Protestants reject the doctrine of Intercession of Saints. According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercession_of_saints#Protestant_views) : > With the exception of a few early Protestant churches, most modern Protestant churches strongly reject the intercession of the dead for the living, but they are in favor of the intercession of the living for the living according to Romans 15:30. When it comes to arguing for the rejection of the doctrine of Intercession of Saints (specifically, the intercession of *the dead for the living*), what are the strongest apologetic arguments according to Protestants? Are there compelling reasons that should be able to dissuade any rational believer from seeking intercession support from departed Saints? *Note: the counterpart question can be found at [What are the strongest apologetic arguments in defense of the veracity of the doctrine of Intercession of Saints?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/84039/what-are-the-strongest-apologetic-arguments-in-defense-of-the-veracity-of-the-do)*

The authors of the Hebrew bible make several statements declaring the oneness of God: > **Deuteronomy 6:4** - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." > **Isaiah 44:6** - "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.'" > **Deuteronomy 4:35** - "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him." > **Deuteronomy 32:39** - "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand." > **1 Kings 8:60** - "That all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other." Under trinitarian hermeneutical approaches, these verses are not contrary to the trinity because they actually refer to the *single being* of God, not to the trinitarian *multiplicity of persons*. ### Questions - How do trinitarians know that the verses of the Hebrew bible which make positive claims about the "oneness of God" are in fact only referring to the "being of God"? - How are these verses exegeted for the referent to be only the "being of God"? - What about the wording of these verses give a clue about the distinction between "person" and "being"?

I am currently in the process of understanding various religions and studying them.
While studying the Quran's English translation, I came across this footnote about this verse > 96:5 عَلَّمَ ٱلْإِنسَـٰنَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ ٥ > > taught humanity what they knew not.[1]   — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The > Clear Quran > > [1]  Verses 1-5 are known to be the first ever revealed of the Quran. > The Prophet (ﷺ) was retreating at a cave in the outskirts of Mecca > when the angel Gabriel appeared to him, squeezing him tightly and > ordering him to read. Since the Prophet (ﷺ) was unlettered, he > responded, “I cannot read.” Ultimately, Gabriel taught him: “Read in > the Name of your Lord …” Some scholars believe that this encounter is > the fulfilment of Isaiah 29:12, which states, “Then the book will be > given to the one who is illiterate, saying, ‘Read this.’ And he will > say, ‘I cannot read.’” Here's the link to this footnote. I explored Isaiah 29:12 but couldn't understand it much because maybe I could not get the right/clear translation for this verse. Please help me understand Isaiah 29:12. Does it really mean that a holy book will be given by God to someone illiterate in the future? Sorry for any mistakes as this is my first question on this forum! Thanks in advance!

While reading the Prophecy of the Popes, I noticed that the entry for the 111 Pope in the series reads: Glory of the olive (Gloria oliviae). Wikipedia's article on this subject states: > Proponents of the prophecies generally try to draw a connection between Benedict and the Olivetan order to explain this motto: Benedict's choice of papal name is after Saint Benedict of Nursia, founder of the Benedictine Order, of which the Olivetans are one branch. Other explanations make reference to him as being a pope dedicated to peace and reconciliations of which the olive branch is the symbol. The olive is considered the symbol of peace. >The use of a dove and olive branch as a symbol of peace originated with the early Christians, who portrayed the act of baptism accompanied by a dove holding an olive branch in its beak and also used the image on their sepulchres. The dove appears in many funerary inscriptions in the Roman catacombs, sometimes accompanied by the words in pace (Latin for "in peace"). - Peace symbols (Wikipedia) When Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope, he took the papal name of Francis in honor of **St Francis of Assisi**. Furthermore St Francis of Assisi is also one of the patron saints of peace. My question is quite simple: **Are there any known Catholic authors who have tried to interpret the papal reigns of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis as being a single reign in order to make both of them fit into St Malachy's *Gloria oliviae* of his Prophecy of the Popes?** To be crystal clear, Pope Francis holds the keys of St. Peter and not Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. > “That is what I have said, indeed, that – if one wishes to specify it – it is very clear, the **Plena Potestas, the Plenitudo Potestatis** [full power, incarnate authority] is in the hands of Pope Francis. He is the man who has right now the succession of Peter. And then there are no difficulties left, as I also have said it. These two are also not in a competitive relationship. That is where one has to make use of common sense, as well as the Faith and a little bit of theology. Then one does not have at all difficulties to understand properly [sic] what I have said.” - [Interview: Archbishop Gänswein on Benedict, The Two Popes, and Prophecy](https://onepeterfive.com/interview-archbishop-ganswein-on-benedict-the-two-popes-and-prophecy/)

What in the Bible makes people think that time has a beginning? I understand that Genesis says, "In the beginning....", but we use that expression for many things, such as "In the beginning, Mary thought that John was...." Gen.1:1 is not the beginning of everything. It is certainly not the beginning of God. It probably wasn't the beginning of Jesus. It probably wasn't the beginning of the angels (see Job 38:4-7 below that *seems* to imply that the morning stars and the sons of God pre-exist Gen 1:1). So why believe it was the beginning of time? Or why believe time has a beginning? Job 38:4-7 (KJV): >4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. > >5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? > >6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 **When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God** shouted for joy?

Is the Scotistic conception of the divine infinity compatible with the Thomistic conception of the divine esse (existence)? I ask because Dom Garrigou Lagrange says the following: >According to Scotus, the divine essence is formally constituted by radical infinity, and he considers that this means the exigency of all possible perfections… > >The Thomists reject this opinion, because radical infinity or the exigency of all perfections cannot be thought of, so they say, except in a subject whose essence includes precisely this idea of exigency. This latter does not constitute the divine essence, but presupposes it and is founded upon it. In fact, we shall see that infinity is deduced from the fact that God is the self-subsisting Being (Ia, q. 7, a. 1). Besides, infinity is a mode of each of the divine attributes and not the principle from which they are derived… > >Most theologians consider self-subsisting Being (aseity, ens a se) as formally constituting the divine nature, that is, ultimately distinguishing it from everything created, and as the principle from which are deduced all the divine perfections, intellection included. First of all, according to this view, God is “He who is,” as revealed to Moses (Exod., ch. iii). This is what Aristotle means when he says that God is Actus purus. Among the Thomists holding this opinion, we have Capreolus, Bannez, Gotti, Contenson, Ledesma, Del Prado, and others. Molina, Vasquez, Torres, and others not of the school of St. Thomas side with these Thomists… Yet I don’t think Lagrange was being charitable to Scotus. For if we held Scotus’s view that insofar as being is a logical concept, it can be predicated univocally of God and of creatures, then what distinguishes the Divine Nature from other beings in the logical sense would be the divine infinity.

So, I was looking up the church that the Pope wanted to be buried in, and I found this Wikipedia article about a piece of artwork that was painted on a table that Jesus built for his mother, now called the "Salus Populi Romani". The artwork is a very impressive relic in its own right, of course, as it's a portrait of Mary painted by one of her friends (who was one of the fathers of the Church and the author of one of the Gospels), but I'm really interested in the table. It was literally hand-carved by Jesus, so it'd surely be a holy relic even if it didn't have a portrait of Mary painted on it, but I can't find any images of it in an online search. I can only find pictures of the artwork painted on it, and pictures of the installation of it in a church in Rome. Are there any images of the table? Does it still have any of its legs attached, or have they been removed? If they have been, are they displayed as a relic somewhere else or have they been lost or destroyed at some point in the last 2000 years?

Trinitarian Christians say that *God has **always** existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spiri*. And that the father created everything through the son. **Did Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Job, Noah, Moses, Jacob, Ishmael, David, worship God as a triune "person/God?**" When they prayed, did they understand that they were praying to a triune God? Which one of the three answered their prayers? If they did not kmow that the God they worshipped was a triune God, **why would the greatest of believing men not know the son and or the holy spirit....and not be required to worship the son and or the holy spirit (both of whom existed in that time AS GOD)...and yet for the rest of us, if we don’t worship or acknowledge the son or holy spirit, we go to hell?** This question is for Trinitarians. Secondly, **my inquiry is not focusing on Jesus (the man/Messiah), but on the preexisting son and holy spirit as they existed during the Old Testament period (in their divine essence/nature as part of the triune God)**

I have counted over 200 prayers by believers (though not being thorough in Psalms) but find none addressed to anyone else in Heaven but God, or exhortations to do so. While support for this is attempted via appeals such as exhortations to pray for each other, and elders and angels offering incense before the climatic judgments on earth, and to tradition, yet I am looking for prayers in the Bible actually addressed, formally or implicitly, to created beings in Heaven, or instructions to do so like as "our Father who art in Heaven."

James writing to Jews, seems to ignore the value of wisdom literature: >If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. (James 1:15 ESV) Later he gives a more detailed description of wisdom from above: >13 Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. (James 3) With the detailed explanation of wisdom in mind, the earlier statement, *if any of you lacks wisdom* seems rhetorical. Of course, everyone lacks the type of wisdom James describes. So everyone should realize this condition and ask God. Paul makes a similar distinction between the wisdom of God: >For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:21) Paul is explicit, the world did not know God through wisdom. He continues making clear he is speaking of the Gospel which is foolishness to the Greek who seek wisdom (Corinthians 1:22-30). Therefore, in contrast to Judaism who would find wisdom in wisdom books, such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, the Christian whose access to God by the Spirit in the name of Jesus, would ask God. How should Christians value the relevance of Old Testament wisdom books?

Mormons appear to believe that Jesus is the literal, physical offspring of their "Heavenly Father" and "Heavenly Mother". What do they believe about how Jesus was born to a human mother? Do they believe that Jesus's human mother, Mary is distinct from "Heavenly Mother"? How did Mary come to be pregnant in Mormon theology?

From the Wikipedia article on [Eucharistic miracles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle) : > In Christianity, a Eucharistic miracle is any miracle involving the Eucharist. In the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Anglican and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the fact that Christ is really made manifest in the Eucharist is deemed a Eucharistic miracle; however, this is to be distinguished from other manifestations of God. The Catholic Church distinguishes between divine revelation, such as the Eucharist, and private revelation, such as Eucharistic miracles. **In general, reported Eucharistic miracles usually consist of unexplainable phenomena such as consecrated Hosts visibly transforming into myocardium tissue, being preserved for extremely long stretches of time, surviving being thrown into fire, bleeding, or even sustaining people for decades**. The same article includes a list of [extraordinary Eucharistic miracles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#Extraordinary_Eucharistic_miracles) . What is the Protestant view on these miracles? _______ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/22765/50422

> 2 One finds in the records that the prophet Jeremiah ordered those who > were being deported to take some of the fire, as has been mentioned, 2 > and that the prophet, after giving them the law, instructed those who > were being deported not to forget the commandments of the Lord, or to > be led astray in their thoughts on seeing the gold and silver statues > and their adornment. 3 And with other similar words he exhorted them > that the law should not depart from their hearts. > 4 It was also in the same document that the prophet, having received > an oracle, ordered that the tent and the ark should follow with him, > and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had > seen the inheritance of God. 5 Jeremiah came and found a > cave-dwelling, and he brought there the tent and the ark and the altar > of incense; then he sealed up the entrance. 6 Some of those who > followed him came up intending to mark the way, but could not find it. > 7 When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: “The > place shall remain unknown until God gathers his people together again > and shows his mercy. 8 Then the Lord will disclose these things, and > the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in > the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be > specially consecrated.” - 2 Maccabees 2:1-8 This prophecy happened on Pentecost when 3000 Judeans from all nations were gathered into one place, and believed in Jesus (the remnant, the lost sheep of Israel) which was God showing them mercy, and fulfilled a ton of OT prophecies also, and also in Rev 11 the heavens open, and the ark can be seen which would of happened over Jerusalem in 70 AD (Rev 1-12 happened 70 AD Rev 13-22 is future) which means the author of this section of Maccabees is quoting from inspired scripture written by Jeremiah however a keyword search of tent, altar, fire, ark in Jeremiah, and 1,2,3,4,5 Baruch yields none of those prophecies. Is he quoting lost work of Jeremiah or something that still exists?

**Do you know any prophecies in the books between Malachi 400s BC, and the New Testament?** > Matthew 11 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. > 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to > come. 15 Whoever has ears, let them hear. Malachi 4 is the last book, and last chapter of the protestant canon > 5 “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and > dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the > parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their > parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total > destruction.” Matthew could be saying the last prophecy in the Old Testament is about Elijah/John the Baptist which is correct. The only books written between Malachi, and the New Testament is 1,2,3,4 Maccabees, and Wisdom of Ben Sira none have (original) prophecies. 2 Maccabees has a prophecy but he is quoting something Jeremiah said (it was about Pentecost, and Rev 11). The other "deuterocanon" books were written before Malachi. The great terrible day of the lord part in Malachi was about 70 AD as John the Baptist was just before that. I have never heard that argument before. Does someone agree it is saying there was no prophecy between Malachi, and the New Testament? Zechariah 13 prophecies a period of time with no prophets. The banishing idols from the land would be Maccabees where the Israelites destroyed all the Greek idols that had been set up. > 2 “On that day, I will banish the names of the idols from the land, > and they will be remembered no more,” declares the Lord Almighty. “I > will remove both the prophets and the spirit of impurity from the > land. 3 And if anyone still prophesies, their father and mother, to > whom they were born, will say to them, ‘You must die, because you have > told lies in the Lord’s name.’ Then their own parents will stab the > one who prophesies. > > 4 “On that day every prophet will be ashamed of their prophetic > vision. They will not put on a prophet’s garment of hair in order to > deceive. 5 Each will say, ‘I am not a prophet. I am a farmer; the land > has been my livelihood since my youth.[a]’ 6 If someone asks, ‘What > are these wounds on your body[b]?’ they will answer, ‘The wounds I was > given at the house of my friends.’ Although other parts of Zechariah 13 are about Jesus that part could have been Maccabees. Or it could be about the Judean Zealots 66-73 AD. They killed each other. They could have been saying that kind of stuff in the temple complex during their wars. The 2/3 1/3 fits Maccabees though where a lot were killed but the ones that survived were faithful to God, and won the battles. Or it could be 70 AD but 1 million died 70 ad (Josephus) which means 500,000 Judean Christians would have had to survive which sounds like too much. Where do you think those Zechariah prophecies happened?