**What would Catholics have in a religious bug out kit in their homes if the events that the three days of darkness actually becomes real, as expressed by several Catholic mystics?** I am very much into the Great Outdoors, so I always have an [EDC kit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyday_carry) with me when I am out camping or hiking in the wilderness. This has inspired me to ask this question here as a sort of Catholic EDC kit for those Catholics that are more traditional minded or even very Marian minded Catholics. Catholic Stigmatists and Mystics like Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (1769—1837) have spoken about the three days of darks that will befall mankind as something that will inevitably happen to the human race. What do Catholic saints, mystics and stigmatists recommend that the faithful keep on hand in their homes in the event that the three days of darkness actually becomes a reality. Any other things that the faithful must do in order to remain as safe as possible during these days are also welcome.

In a recently posted article on St. John Henry Newman (See: [*St. John Henry Newman's Elevation as Doctor of the Church Seen as a Gift for Our Times*](https://www.ncregister.com/news/pentin-newman-doctor-providential)) , Fr. [Ignatius] Harrison who commented on five key teachings of the Saint only briefly addresses Newman's thoughts on the importance of the laity and their role in the Church: "that the laity is not supplementary' but crucial to the very foundation of the Church, and that he wanted an informed, and well-educated laity for the Church's mission.'" QUESTION: Can anyone expand in more detail St. John Henry Newman's teaching on the importance of the laity and their role in the Catholic Church? Primary references are appreciated. Thank you.

> No one knows the one-hundredth part of sin that clings to his soul. This quote is [frequently attributed to Calvin](https://www.google.com/search?q=No+one+knows+the+one-hundredth+part+of+sin+that+clings+to+his+soul+calvin) , but I can't find a specific citation or reference. Did Calvin actually say this, or something like it? Or has it been misattributed to him, perhaps as someone else's pithy summary of Calvin's teachings? Can anyone trace the origin of this quote or notion?

The subject of the "calvinist" Patriarch of the Orthodox Church comes up from time to time, with the 2 sides presenting conflicting versions of events. Here is what I am certain of already. 1. Lucaris was viewed as having heretical beliefs as viewed by the rest of the Orthodox Church at that time. 2. There was a tension between the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant faiths. 3. There were other ottomans who didn't like Lucaris. The Execution was deceptive from the start, as Lucaris was taken away as if to be banished. But later out of sight of the majority of people they strangled him with a bowstring. --- #### Question: Are there any sources or evidence that indicate one of the 4 parties mentioned were directly involved? Reason: A common assertion is that the orthodox church was attempting to remove him at "any cost", though I can't find evidence to support that.

I'm interested in exploring a theological understanding of work from a Reformed perspective. Most of the literature I find tends to be sociological, especially Weberian, but I'm specifically looking for theological treatments grounded in the Reformed tradition. Ideally, I’d like recommendations that are not politically driven or overtly proselytizing, but instead focus on biblical and theological foundations for work, vocation, and labor in Reformed thought. What are some good books or authors to start with?

I recently took the time to re-read the prelusive words of William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith. This quote stuck with me:

When a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.

A decade after first reading this, I remember I was struggling to understand who he intends the book to be for, and Craig's motivations. If we are not to assume that Craig is not serious or that he is lying about his sincerity, it could be that he is sincere but wrong: in the sense that he genuinely cannot make sense of atheism as an intellectual position. But then it seems to me that he is so caught up in his own religious convictions he cannot fathom the possibility someone could sincerely disagree with his position. An unfortunate position, in my view. The disagreement is also shifted from the intellectual realm of evidence to the moral realm of personal integrity, effectively *faulting the non-believer* for an emotional or spiritual deficiency. It appeals to notions of spiritual deficiency rather than engaging directly with intellectual critiques. The quote makes apologetics seem like its whole purpose is to convince those who already are convinced. I also think this type of argumentation renders the argument difficult to empirically verify or falsify. If non-belief is attributed to an internal disposition (such as a preference for "darkness" over "light"), it becomes impossible to test or refute through evidence. Thus I am curious if Craig has revised these position in recent times, if he has matured as he has gotten older. Questions: 1. Has Craig changed his view or added nuance to his stance? Does he still attribute unbelief primarily to the willful rejection of God rather than to intellectual or evidential challenges? 2. Is evidence still something that, for him, acts only insofar as a dual warrant of one’s Christian beliefs alongside the inner witness of the Spirit? 3. Has he acknowledged intellectual or evidential factors as genuine obstacles to faith? 4. What role does he currently assign to evidence and objective methods in relation to the work of the Holy Spirit?

I looked at the [*Wikipedia* page on the St. Thomas Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians) , the oldest school of Indian Christians who follow the teachings of St. Thomas the Apostle, who had travelled to India to preach. However, I couldn’t find what their beliefs *were* from that page. Were they Trinitarian or Unitarian? Are there any academic references (books, papers) that discuss their religious beliefs on the nature of God, Jesus, etc?

This booklet was published by the Catholic Truth Society in 1938: [*The Cure of Ars by Dom Ernest Graf*](https://www.etsy.com/listing/1661856232/the-cure-of-ars-vintage-booklet-1938?show_sold_out_detail=1&ref=nla_listing_details) I recall coming across this same image in a 19th century book written in French---but I don't recall the title nor have I been able to stumble upon the book I am looking for with basic searches such as *vie le curé d'ars*. QUESTION: Can anyone tell me where I might find an older version of the same image depicted in the link? If someone can tell me the original source and illustrator---that would be great. Whenever I see this image (or one strongly related to it) in a publication, is never comes with an attribution. Thank you.

>Education is the food of youth, the delight of old age, the ornament of prosperity, the refuge and comfort of adversity, and the provocation to grace in the soul. Does anyone know in which of his writings, the above quote attributed to St. Augustine may be found? If not, does anyone know the *type* of education to which the above quote refers? I ask because for a thousand or so years after St. Augustine, the [*Imitation of Christ*](https://archive.org/details/TheImitationOfChristChalloner) , for example, admonishes us about devoting too much time acquiring secular knowledge at the expense of the spiritual with warnings such as these quotes from [Book 1 Chapter 3 (The Doctrine of Truth)](https://archive.org/details/TheImitationOfChristChalloner/page/n15/mode/2up) (translation by Rev. Richard Challoner, 1893): > *What availeth a great dispute about abstruse and obscure matters, for not knowing which we shall not be questioned at the Day of Judgment?* and > *Tell me where are now all those great doctors, with whom thou wast well acquainted, whilst they were living and flourished in learning? Now others fill their places, and I know not whether they ever think of them. In their lifetime they seemed to be something, and now they are not spoken of.*

I am currently working on a project devoted to the thoughts of the Curé of Ars (St. John Vianney) on various topics. One of the topics is *scruples*. St. Alphonsus Liguori, for instance, has this to say about scruples itself: > A conscience is scrupulous when, for a frivolous reason and without rational basis, there is a frequent fear of sin even though in reality there is no sin at all. A scruple is a defective understanding of something. St. Philip Neri seemed to have a fair amount to say on the subject, including > The scrupulous should remit themselves always and in everything to the judgment of their confessor, and accustom themselves to have a contempt for their own scruples. And he offered the following advice to those pestered by scruples: > If those who are molested by scruples wish to know whether they have consented to a suggestion or not, especially in thoughts, they should see whether, during the temptation, they have always had a lively love to the virtue opposed to the vice in respect of which they were tempted, and hatred to that same vice, and this is mostly a good proof that they have not consented. and > When a scrupulous person has once made up his mind that he has not consented to a temptation, he must not reason the matter over again to see whether he has really consented or not, for the same temptations often return by making this sort of reflection. However, when I searched, for example, the various sermons and catechetical instructions of the Curé of Ars, I could find nothing along these lines. In fact, I could find nothing at all in which anything directly regarding *scruples* in the above sense is even mentioned. St. John Vianney, has, however, used the word in a slightly different sense on several occasions; when, for example, he says: > My children, you make a scruple of missing holy Mass, because you commit a great sin in missing it by your own fault ; but you have no scruple in missing an instruction. and also, > He [lukewarm Christian] has few scruples in cutting out, on the least pretext, the Asperges and the prayers before Mass. But, alas, I can find nothing regarding his having addressed *scruples* specifically as a spiritual disease. I have consulted his definitive biography by Trochu, and all I could find in there regarding scruples as a disease, is a reference that Trochu makes in regards to St. Benedict Labre en route to receiving the hospitality of the Vianney household when St. John Vianney was a little boy: > Tortured by scruples, Benoit Labre had just left the Trappist monastery of Sept-Fonds, where he had been a novice under the name of Brother Urban. He had now acquired a certainty that his vocation was to be a wayfarer for the remainder of his life, so he set out for Rome. His first halt was at Paray-le-Monial, where he paid long visits to the chapel of the Apparitions. From Paray he journeyed to Lyons, but rather than enter the city at nightfall he chose to spend the night at Dardilly. On observing a number of poor persons going to the house of Pierre Vianney, he went along with them. QUESTION: Does anyone know if the Curé of Ars had had anything to say about the disease of *scruples* directly, perhaps along the lines of the Liguori and Neri quotes provided above; and if so, what are they or where I may find them? (The sources I have used, for the most part, are in English. Perhaps there is something in the French in which the subject is directly addressed?) Thank you.

Can someone apprise me of a website or a book that solely contains novenas formally approved by the Catholic Church and containing some mark or designation as to that effect? There are novenas galore on the Internet, but I have yet to find one that comes with stamps of approval from either the local ordinary or the pope. Hence, this question. Thank you.

I've seen the following quote attributed to St. John Chrysostom : >The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path. Where did he say this?

Is there a bilingual, Greek-English version of St. Romanus's *Akathist Hymn* ?

St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of *Opus Dei*, once said "God in his providence has two ways of blessing marriages: one by giving them children; and the other, sometimes, because he loves them so much, by not giving them children. I don’t know which is the better blessing." One [web article](https://surprisedbymarriage.com/2020/09/08/to-the-small-catholic-families-god-loves-you-too/) quotes this. I also read somewhere that Scott Hahn was quoting St. Josemaria Escriva saying this in his book on his journey with *Opus Dei*, which I put on hold at my local library, but don't have in my hands yet. I am trying to track down the origin of this quote. Was it something the Saint wrote and published? Was it part of a speech or homily? Was it something he just said off the cuff that someone happened to write down? If no one here knows, I will answer the question once I get Hahn's book in my hands and can track the source down.

Rather than busting out a KJV and a JST and comparing them verse by verse I am lazily hoping that there is, somewhere, a list which has already been generated providing all of the verses from the Bible which the JST has modified or allegedly 'restored'?

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.

According to Stéphane-Joseph Piat, O.F.M., *Story of a Family* ch. 3, St. Thérèse of Lisieux 's father Louis Martin >had closely studied the theological value of such a [[virginal] marriage][4] as that of St. Cecilia and that of [Sts. Elzéar de Sabran and Delphine de Glandève ], as witnesses the following note, copied by his own hand at this time, and found among his private papers: >>*Concerning the doctrine of the Church on the Sacrament of Matrimony* >> >>The bond which constitutes this Sacrament is independent of its consummation. We have a striking proof of this truth in the case of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph who, although they were truly married, observed perpetual continency. These illustrious spouses have since had as imitators several saints who, living as virgins in the married state, have limited themselves to a perfectly pure union of hearts, renouncing by common consent the physical union which was permitted to them. These marriages contained everything essential to their validity; they had even this advantage over the others that they represented more perfectly the chaste and wholly spiritual union between Jesus Christ and His Church. Has this *Concerning the doctrine of the Church on the Sacrament of Matrimony* (presumably titled *De la doctrine de l'Église sur le sacrement du mariage* in 🇫🇷) been published, as a result of his beatification and canonization process ?

According to Catholicism, how long can the main meal during Lent last for (time wise)? Most Catholics who fast regularly know how to fast and abstain on fast days, especially during Lent. But, is there some guidance or rule in the writings of Catholic theologians or Canon Law on how long (duration in time) the main meal of a fast is permitted to be? For example, are Catholics permitted to make the unique meal of the day last one, two or perhaps even three hours? Are there any historical references that deal with this subject matter? Naturally we must avoid gluttony even on fast days!

My common sense tells me that there must be many such churches, but I'm having a hard time finding concrete examples on the web where this is officially stated in their doctrinal statement of faith. Does anyone know concrete examples that can be backed up with references? _______ Note: by "keeping the Sabbath" I mean from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, according to Exodus 20:8-11 (ESV)'s instructions: > 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Isaiah 58:13-14 (ESV) sheds more light on this commandment: > 13 “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; 14 then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” ____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89124/50422

I heard a Christian apologist Dr. Frank Turek making a claim that God designed Jupiter that big so He would protect us from destructive meteorites, because the gravity of Jupiter (which is twice as strong as the earth's) pulls these objects to crash on its surface. Photographic evidence has shown that very huge meteorites, some even bigger than the size of the earth, have crashed on the surface of Jupiter thereby making Jupiter a planet that saves lives according to the plan of God. If so, how do they then reconcile this with how another meteorite *did* crash on the Gulf of Mexico which caused the dinosaurs to be extinct?