**Unique Catholic Blessings of local Churches?** Just as I asked this question concerning Catholic feasts of local Churches, I would like to know if some readers here know of any local blessings attached to a local church, diocese or region which have been approved by the Catholic Church? I am interested in more historical blessings, even if they are no longer in vogue or usage.

I'm interested in whether there was an early Church Father who ***explicitly*** drew the connection that Trinitarians commonly draw today: the connection between Jesus' "**I am**" statement, found in **John 8:58** and God Almighty calling Himself the "**I am**" in **Exodus 3:14**. I would be interested in any Trinitarian answer that holds on to the Chalcedonian creeds. **When did the Church start drawing this connection?** I couldn't find such an **explicit** reference to such a connection being made by any of the 1st to 3rd-century Church Fathers in my research and am wondering if I'm missing something.

Polycarp is said to be a student of the Apostle John. Yet he never mentions it in his epistle, nor does he quote the Gospel of John. Why is that?

It is my understand that John Calvin arrived at Geneva in 1537; and then, because of various theological disagreements and conflicts, was exiled a year later. Then, some years later (1541 I think it was), he not only returned to Geneva, but had been *invited* to do so. QUESTION: Why was John Calvin invited to return to Geneva?

Acts 4:23-31 (ESV): > 23 When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard it, **they lifted their voices together to God and said**, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, > > “‘Why did the Gentiles rage, > and the peoples plot in vain? > 26 The kings of the earth set themselves, > and the rulers were gathered together, > against the Lord and against his Anointed’— > > 27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. 29 **And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness**, 30 **while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”** 31 **And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness**. This is an account of a powerful visitation of the Holy Spirit to the early church in response to fervent communal prayer. And what was the outcome? Extraordinary power and boldness for preaching and witnessing -- exactly what the church needs to carry out the great commission. With such a powerful divine assistance at the church's disposal, it would seem very strange to me if Acts 4:23-31 were an isolated case. **Question**: Have other group visitations of the Holy Spirit similar to Acts 4:23-31 been reported in church history? If so, what was the aftermath of said visitations? Did revival follow as a result?

Martin Luther lived from 1483 – 1546 and John Calvin from 1509 – 1564. Both thse men wrote about the importance of infant baptism which can be read in The Large Catechism by Martin Luther & Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin Was there a period in the history when all who believed in Christ allowed infant baptism? If it is true who or which sect started/revived "only credo baptism" procedure?

Most mainstream Christian denominations refer to Christ as having a "glorified body" and teach that saved humans will have glorified bodies in the afterlife. The concept seems to be based on **Philippians 3:20–21**: > For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: > > Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his **glorious body**, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. The word "glorious" is an adjective, meaning: "*having, worthy of, or bringing fame or admiration*", or "*having a striking beauty or splendor that evokes feelings of delighted admiration*". It is used casually, without further explanation, yet today the term seems to be used quite freely in many publications, as if everyone understands that it means something very specific and very different from the basic meaning of that adjective. For instance, [*A Glorified Body: The Necessity of Our Resurrection*](https://www.gty.org/blogs/B130701/a-glorified-body-the-necessity-of-our-resurrection#:~:text=They%20will%20be%20real,and%20glorified.) says that glorified bodies: > will be real, physical, genuinely human bodies — the very same bodies we have while on this earth—yet wholly perfected and glorified. What exactly is the definition of "glorified body", and what is the origin of this term, the concept and doctrine that it will be physical? --- Note that I'm not asking for what scriptures are consistent with this belief, I'm asking for the history of its development.

My research into the Council of Nicaea called by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine, shows they Council of Nicaea voted to change the name to iesus kristus by a vote of 161 for & 157 against. Again, why did they vote to change the Name of The Messiah?

Virtually all resources published these days make Biblical citations in the same way: "John 3:16" with the chapter and verse numbers in Arabic numerals, separated by a colon and with no other punctuation. However, when I read books printed a long time ago (maybe from 100 years ago or so), I find many other ways of referencing Biblical passages. As some examples: > "John iii. 16" - used in this 1885 translation of 1st Clement and throughout that collection of the Ante-Nicene fathers. > > "John 3. 16" - used in the 1917 printing of the Scofield Reference Bible . > > "John, iii, 16" - used in the 1912 printing of the Catholic Encyclopedia . However, there is not such diversity of citation styles among more recently published works. When and why did the modern convention become standard?

The term 'substitutionary atonement' has been used within Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed Baptist circles for some time, and it is those I wish to examine in this question. But the word 'substitute' does not translate a Greek word found in scripture, nor does the term 'atonement'. The word 'atonement' is found once in the KJV, Romans 5:11, but it is a clear mis-translation of the word καταλλαγην, *katallagen*, in all other places rendered 'reconciliation'. Both words are vague in meaning. Nor does 'substitute' or 'substitution' convey a concept that the apostolic epistles express, the emphasis of the doctrine of Christ being union with Christ (in his sufferings, in his death and in his resurrection) rather than some kind of 'exchange' (another word never found in Greek except μετηλλαξαν, *metellazan*, in Romans 1:26). The word 'atonement' has a weak etymology and an ill-defined concept, its meaning a loose 'at-one' derivation and its application being a very general and overall term for the both the sufferings and death and resurrection of Christ that is never found in the greater precision of the apostolic writings. What exactly is being conveyed by the term ? When was the expression first coined ? What error was being resisted by the introduction of this couplet ? Again, I am looking for a response in regard to Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed and Baptist usage of the terminology. -------------------------- EDIT upon comment : I believe that 'Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures'. I believe that 'Christ gave his life a ransom for many'. I believe that 'He bare our sins in his own body on the tree'. I believe that 'he was made sin for us, who knew no sin'. But the scripture never uses the word 'substitute' to express that. I am questioning the terminology, not the doctrine of Christ. Further explanatory EDIT : My concern has always been the *emphasis*. If I have no relationship with Christ, if I am not in union with Him, if I know not his presence before my face when I pray, then *the facts* of his sufferings, death and resurrection are just that - historical facts. The terms 'substitute' and 'exchange' are distant terms. But kinsman-redeemer, for example, (*gaal* in Hebrew) conveys a relationship that exists *before the redemption takes place*, (see the book of Ruth, on this). And one is chosen 'in Christ' (not apart from him) before the foundation of the world. These are my concerns and the reason for my question.

In Apostles' Creed , the name of Pontius Pilate is forever associated with the infamy of being Jesus Christ's persecutor. >I believe in God, the Father almighty, >creator of heaven and earth. > >I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, >who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, >born of the Virgin Mary, >**suffered under Pontius Pilate,** >was crucified, died, and was buried; >he descended into hell. >On the third day he rose again; >he ascended into heaven, >he is seated at the right hand of the Father, >and he will come to judge the living and the dead. > >I believe in the Holy Spirit, >the holy catholic and apostolic Church, >the communion of saints, >the forgiveness of sins, >the resurrection of the body, >and the life everlasting. Amen. My question is, why did the authors of the Apostles' Creed include Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees? From this resource I found (which I am not sure presents a convincing argument), quoting Fr. Hardon, it is because > it has been “apostate Christians who have used the State to crucify > the martyrs of Christianity.” > > Pilate symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church, which > is the Mystical Body of Christ. That doesn't seem to explain much. Even if this explanation is true, one can still ask why did the *Apostle's Creed use Pilate to symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church? Why not use someone or the Roman Empire else*? So, why did the authors of the Apostle's Creed pen Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees?

I have been encountering more and more often news about charismatic churches, which I understand are part of the Pentecostal movement, and their connection with the supernatural and modern politics. Is there a good book about the history of these churches and the alleged miracles? On Amazon, for instance, there are several books, but they appear to have been self-published by these churches; thus, I won't rely on them for an objective evaluation of their work. Thank you

According to the Wikipedia article on [Territorial spirit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_spirit) : > **Territorial spirits** are national angels, or demons, who rule over certain geographical areas in the world, a concept accepted within the Charismatic movement, Pentecostal traditions, and Kingdom Now theology. This belief has been popularized by the novel, *This Present Darkness* by Frank Peretti, as well as by the ministry of Peter Wagner. The existence of territorial spirits is viewed as significant in spiritual warfare within these Christian groups. > Peter Wagner promotes **"Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare"** (SLSW) which involves the practice of learning the names and assignments of demonic spirits as the first step to effective spiritual warfare. Opponents of this theological construct, and associated beliefs in "spiritual warfare", point out that while the Bible may describe some form of demonic control over geography, it does not prescribe many of the behaviors and teachings that proponents advocate in response. There is no mention in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament of believers banding together and praying a form of "spiritual warfare" against particular territorial demons. The battles occurring in the spiritual realms (as described in Daniel 10) have no Biblically identified link to the actions and prayers of God's people in the physical world. Are the belief in "territorial spirits" and the practice of "Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare" innovations of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Did they borrow these ideas from prior sources? Can we find evidence of similar beliefs being held in other periods of church history? _____ **Note**: an interesting book that reports the alleged application of these ideas in the context of the Argentine Pentecostal Revival is [*Listen to Me, Satan!*](https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Me-Satan-Carlos-Annacondia/dp/1599792346) by Carlos Annacondia (an interview is available at [Carlos Annacondia: The evangelist at the forefront of revival](https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/carlos-annacondia-the-evangelist-at-the-forefront-of-revival/2092.article) , and a YouTube documentary called [Carlos Annacondia - "Listen to Me Satan"](https://youtu.be/gaK67UFQ6kI)) .

Do you know of any other books (besides those by John Sailhamer) that advocate for Historical Creationism?

I wonder if this practice was uniquely part of the 'Jesus movement' at the time or if it was just standard?

Matthew 16:3 (KJV), which says, "And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" Can this be the world today in 2025?

In c. A.D. 189, St. Irenaeus wrote: > Since, however, it would be very tedious . . . to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vanity, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that Tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and **universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul**; also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, because the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere [*Against Heresies* 3:3:2] Why did St. Irenaeus say the Church was founded and organized in Rome by Peter and Paul? I'd understand if he was speaking of the lowercase 'c' church in Rome, but he spoke of "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church," so—correct me if I'm wrong—he was speaking of the entire Church rather than the singular church in Rome. So what does he mean exactly?

The book of Esther is included in both the Jewish canon and Christian canons of all denominations. However, it seems to have enjoyed a questionable status for much longer than any other of the now-accepted writings. For example, it is the only Old Testament book not to be found at Qumran, it is one of the few OT books not referenced by Sirach, it is omitted from Melito of Sardis's canon, and Athanasius also expressly categorized it with the Apocrypha as useful but not canonical. Jerome, whose opinion is often cited by Protestants in discussions of the canon, counted Esther as canonical but not the deuterocanonical books (although it seems he changed his opinion on the deuterocanonical books at some point in his career). I haven't read Jerome's comments myself but, usually his reason is explained to be that the canonical books were the ones where the Hebrew manuscripts still existed while the others were only preserved in Greek (or were composed in Greek). However, Jerome seems to have known of Hebrew manuscripts of 1st Maccabees, so there must be something else going on to distinguish it from Esther. Protestants usually cite as the main criterion for OT canonicity some prophetic authority guaranteeing the divine inspiration of a book. However, Esther has no association with the prophets, unlike any other book of the Protestant OT canon. However, Esther was included in the canon by the Council of Rome (382) and by all subsequent streams of Christian thought. Why? What reasoning lead the Church to set aside the doubts specifically about the book of Esther that apparently had existed for quite a while prior? **This is a historical question.** I am not asking why it is included in the canon by Protestants or Catholics today, but rather why it was included starting in the 4th century, i.e. **why the doubt which originally surrounded the book was cleared up.**

In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: … The whole power of the mysterious dogma is at once established by the one word homoousios … with one pronouncement the Church identified a term (homoousios) that secured its … beliefs against heresy. ... Such older accounts are deeply mistaken ” (LA, 11) “What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture ) “For nearly twenty years after Nicaea nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” (RH, 170) “During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (LA, 431) “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.” (LA, 96) “During the years 325–42 neither Arius nor the particular technical terminology used at Nicaea were at the heart of theological controversy.” (LA, 100) The word homoousios appears only once in Athanasius’ the Orations. This is understood as “evidence of Athanasius’ lack of commitment to Nicaea's terminology at this stage of his career.” (LA, 115) “Athanasius' decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s and the structure of emerging Homoian theology.” (LA, 144) > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United > Kingdom. > > RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God > – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 Question: Why was the term homoousios not part of the controversy during the 25 years from 325-350 and when and why did this change, so that it is today regarded as the key term in the Nicene Creed?

I have four closely related questions on this topic (if overall this is considered too broad, I'm happy to receive advice as to which questions—if any—would be better off in a separate post): 1. What is the earliest documented use of the term "Queen of Heaven" being applied to Mary, the mother of Jesus? (cf. Wikipedia on *the Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven* - there seems to be a contradiction between the first and second paragraphs in this section ). 2. Given that the only Biblical references to this title are regarding a false goddess being worshipped in the nation of Judah during Jeremiah's time (cf. Wikipedia's *Queen of heaven (antiquity)* ), is there evidence of any discussion or dissent (over whether such a title was in any way appropriate) in evidence in the wider church when this title was being adopted and disseminated (prior to the Reformation)? 3. Are there any arguments from Church Fathers or other historical records of why such a title would have been adopted in the first place? 4. It seems on the surface (at least to some) that this might be an example of Syncretism , but perhaps there are convincing arguments that can exclude that possibility - if so what would be the outline of such arguments? Or otherwise, what additional evidence (ie not covered in 2. or 3.) would support the idea that this *is* an example of Syncretism? **Please note**: I'm looking for answers that are supported by quotes from Church fathers and Church historians, not doctrinal expositions from denominational perspectives. I'm only looking for a very brief outline of an argument (one way or the other) to question 4 (one or two paragraphs maximum) - if there are the seeds of a worthwhile further question to be developed from such responses, I will ask a separate question to elicit a more detailed answer."