I might be making much ado about nothing and/or being nit-picky. However, was it an accepted custom amongst the Ancient Israelites to name their children Ishmael? I'm asking because in 2 Kings 25:25-27 and the Book of Jeremiah, it mentions a person named Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the royal family. > 25 But it came about > in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of > Elishama, of the royal [a]family, came [b]with ten men and struck > Gedaliah down so that he died along with the Jews and the Chaldeans > who were with him at Mizpah. - 2 Kings 25:25-27 (New American Standard Bible 1995) > 8 So they came to > Gedaliah at Mizpah, along with Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and > Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah, and Seraiah the son of > Tanhumeth, and the sons of Ephai the Netophathite, and Jezaniah the > son of the Maacathite, both they and their men. - Jeremiah 40:8 (New American Standard Bible 1995) However, is it strange for Ancient Israelite to name one of their children, Ishmael, which is a name usually associated with a quasi rival as Ishmael was an opponent of Isaac (one of the paternal ancestors of the Ancient Israelites)?

What is spiritual warfare ? And how is it different from malefic ("black") magic ? One Evangelical Christian sums it up with, *Prayer should not be spellcasting. God is not your djinni.*

Is it obligated in Catholic or Orthodox churches to strike one's breast while making confession, during Mass and/or sacrament of Confession? How old is this tradition? When is its earliest documented practice? This picture shows an example of what I mean (notice the fist over the heart): There is also [a short Instagram video](https://www.instagram.com/cardinaltimothymdolan/reel/CxnhHpeL1SZ/) (of Cardinal Timothy Dolan), showing the meaning and how it is done.

Currently, the common practice of confession in the U.S. is... A person completes an examination of conscience, tells the priest how long it has been since their last confession, and then makes their confession, whereupon the priest absolves their sins and gives them a penance, usually to say a few Hail Marys or Our Fathers. In texts written by Catholic Saints, at times they talk about confession. Specifically St. Therese of Liseaux and [St. Gemma](http://www.stgemmagalgani.com/2010/08/similarities-between-st-therese-st.html) both mention their confessor in their autobiographies. Implying that they usually confessed to one specific priest, which is not a practice currently taught in U.S catholic schools. St. Francis de Sales also talks about making a general confession in his Introduction to the Devout Life, which he describes as confessing all of one's sins, from their entire life, to one confessor. Then keeping the same confessor, for subsequent confessions. He also describes a very detailed way of making a confession, including stating motives behind sins, etc... A detailed description of his writing on everyday confession can be found in this article: [On Confession](http://www.ccel.org/d/desales/devout_life.iv.xix.html) . Currently, Catholic Schools do not teach to go to one confessor. In fact they do not even mention the term "confessor", but rather "priest." Also, Catholic Schools do not teach to state one's motives, or to make a general confession, if switching confessors. It seems to me that, based on reading the texts of Saints, that Catholic confession has changed somewhat throughout the centuries. If it has not changed then these saints must be describing optional ways of confessing. My specific question is, has confession changed throughout the centuries, specifically since the 16th century, and if so how?

Among the different eschatological schemes in Christian theology, I perceive that amillennialism and historical premillennialism do not differ in what they believe will happen before the second coming of Christ. (Or at least, they do not have to. I know that there exist some disagreements about futurist vs. preterist understandings of Matt. 24 or about the gathering of Israel in Rom. 11, but it does not seem to be the case that the interpretations of these passages separate premillennialist from amillennialist in general.) Postmillennialism and dispensational premillennialism on the other hand differ from one another and the aforementioned views in that they assert a different timeline of pre-Second Coming events, with postmillennialism looking forward to a millennium of the triumphant church and dispensationalism looking forward to a pre-tribulational rapture (and a very different understanding of that tribulation than would be found in other views). I am wondering what difference does the distinction between historical premillennialism and amillennialism make, practically speaking? Does it have any effect on how Christians will conduct themselves in the present age? I can see that, if we look forward to different events *prior* to Christ's return, this may affect the way we live our lives now, in order that we might be prepared to face those circumstances. However, I do not see how the difference between historical premillennialists and amillennialists who agree on those issues would lead to any different practice of the faith in the present time.

According to St. John Chrysostom in his [*Baptismal Instruction* 11.28](https://archive.org/details/20191212st.johnchrysostombaptismalinstructions/page/n171/mode/2up?view=theater) : > After stripping you of your robe, the priest leads you down into the flowing waters. But why naked? He reminds you of your former nakedness, when you were in paradise and not ashamed. When did this practice originate? It doesn’t seem to be in the [*Didache*](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm) . Further, when did it end?

The Apostolic Tradition was the work of Hippolytus, written somewhere between 215 and 400 AD. Recent scholars seem to take the later date (source ). The whole writing can be found here: Apostolic Tradition . Among the 'oddities' of this Tradition, seems to be that people were baptized 'nude', which I assume means that only deaconesses were overseeing the baptism of woman. Am I reading this correctly, or not? >21 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition )

The New Testament was originally written in Greek. But yet Roman Catholics held Mass in Latin for hundreds of years. What scriptural evidence, if any, caused Latin to be picked over Greek? Was any scriptural reasoning used to defend keeping the Mass in Latin for so long? What are the reasons?

*(Pardon the length - my original post was more concise, but wasn't clearly conveying my question.)* Background: ----------- I am currently studying the Spiritual Disciplines at a Protestant seminary. For those unfamiliar with this term, I will give a very brief explanation. Paul instructs Timothy to: > **discipline** yourself for the purpose of godliness... For it is for this we **labor** and **strive** **- 1 Timothy 4:7-10** For example, one Spiritual Discipline which is generally recognized among Protestant theologians is fellowship (or regular church attendance). > let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, **not forsaking our own assembling together**, as is the **habit** of some **- Hebrews 10:24-25** Basically the idea is that there are certain **disciplines** which followers of Christ are called to **practice regularly**. Despite the overwhelming witness from "Church Fathers" regarding the extreme importance of such disciplines, many Protestant theologians have called this the **single greatest weakness in modern Protestantism**. *(Complete rejection of the doctrine of Spiritual Disciplines is a very modern position.)* For the record, this is not "works-based salvation"; it is not "earning God's acceptance"; it is not church-mandated religion; it is simply a mature personal response to God's call for followers of Christ to be serious and intentional in following Him in all the ways which He has called us to follow Him. **Please note: My question has nothing to do with *whether* we should practice Spiritual Disciplines, or what *value* they have.** Confession as a Spiritual Discipline ------------------------------------ One commonly recognized Spiritual Discipline is **confession**. The following passage is used to draw attention to the importance of confession. > Therefore, **confess your sins to one another**, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. **- James 5:16** Although Scripture does not (to my knowledge) explicitly command us to make regular practice of this, the idea behind the Protestant doctrine of Spiritual Disciplines is that we **practice** right behavior intentionally and **diligently**, including things like confession. Rejection of the Catholic implementation ---------------------------------------- My impression is that: - Luther took issue with how the Catholic Church **viewed** confession. (i.e. working your way into right standing with God, intermediary "Priests", etc.) - Luther did **not** take issue with confession as a **practice** (Discipline) - Luther rejected **practices** which he deemed heretical, while retaining others - Somewhere along the line, the **practice** of confession in Protestant churches took a completely different **form** than in Catholicism. (Perhaps when Luther's band split?) - Protestant theologians have long regarded confession as an important Spiritual Discipline - Modern Protestant believers are generally very undisciplined about confession My question ----------- I began to wonder if there might be aspects to the Catholic implementation which Protestants should have retained (from a Protestant perspective, of course). For example, Catholic confession seems to be **any time**, **any sin** (and indeed **every sin**), **private**, **anonymous**, etc. As a Protestant, this sounds like a very good idea - if Protestant churches had such a "booth" available, I wonder if Protestants wouldn't be more disciplined in this practice. I became very curious... Why didn't Protestants just replace the "Priest" with a Pastor, guard against thinking of it as "working your way up to God", and retain the rest of these potentially valuable elements? Furthermore, if a Catholic Priest was a believer, and didn't think of confession as "earning salvation", what would be wrong (from a Protestant perspective) with Catholic confession in that case? **What I am specifically looking for:** - **When** did the Protestant church reject the Catholic **method** of practicing confession? (Again, not the *views*, but the *elements* I just mentioned.) - **Why** were these **methods** originally rejected? - Are there any reasons why the Catholic **methods** should still be rejected **today** (according to Protestant doctrine)? - If not, would a Protestant find value in participating in Catholic confession today? (I am of course asking about the church's doctrinal position, not personal opinions.) - Are there modern Protestant groups which participate in confession at Catholic churches? Thanks!

In my experience, every church I've either been in or seen recorded ask the congregation to stand when they sing. Without having done a scientific study, it seems this is a near-universal practice among Christians (and please correct me if this is wrong). Is there a biblical basis for this, or is it merely a wide-reaching convention? If so, is there anything to suggest when or how this practice may have begun? *I recognise this question may be at the border of what's on-topic. I've tried to keep in on-topic by not asking why we sing, but for the biblical basis and history of this specific Christian practice. Given this practice seems to be the same amongst many denominations, I hope it's ok not to specify a particular group.*

I have been a Christian since my youth, but I have never received a satisfactory answer to this question. **Why must a Christian close their eyes during prayer?** In large services in the west, (I am not familiar with other traditions) believers bow their heads and close their eyes while being led in prayer, often speaking internally to God or self reflecting. Bowing one's head, or prostrating themselves is itself a form of worship. Personally, in moments of personal prayer I do not close my eyes because I find it more distracting. But in my family and church I grew up in this would be seen as very offensive if someone might walk in and see me praying with my eyes open. I'm mostly interested in the scriptural basis for closing one's eyes while praying. Not so much the historical reason for the tradition developing, although I recognize it might be difficult to separate the two.

I'm aware that there is a specific act of contrition read in confession. However, when one seeks to make a private act of contrition (such as in the case where a mortal sin has been committed but a priest is for some reason unavailable), is there a specific prayer taught by the Church, or is it just a prayer expressing sorrow and penance?

Was the immersion in water by **the hand/s of others** (such as the pastor's) for joining Christianity, *already practiced* in the time of Jesus in Judea (or right after), or was it something relatively new? I am trying to find what was the origin of the practice of the immersion with the help of other people, shown either in the New Testament or in the writings of the early church. (Please, see many examples here) N.b. My question is not about immersion in water, but about the help of others (by hands), while imersing. (Please, see here many examples of what I mean).

Tried to put the gist of this in the subject. Often in my tradition (ELCA), the preacher will say a quick prayer before preaching; often it's the "May the words of my mouth.." prayer, or something similar. I can't seem to find any history on it, though... why do we do it? Is it historical? And the most important question: ***what is its liturgical name?*** - this is the question that lead me down this rabbit hole. The closest I can find is the Munda cor Meum, but that's technically before the Gospel, not the homily, if I'm not mistaken. Is what I'm talking about just that, but transposed? Any ideas or insight you could give would be tremendously helpful -- I've come to a dead end on my search, and I don't have my liturgy professor's phone number anymore. /: Thank you, and Peace, Jarrod

I was reading about American prisoner Clayton Fountain and then stumbled upon the Trappists who are vegetarians. Generally, as a Baptist and having many Catholic friends, I don't see any vegetarian amongst them unless of course some of them avoid something for taste or health like mutton or duck. I see quite often people from some other religion avoid a certain meat or meats altogether which has their religious basis. I would like to know about the religious basis on which the Trappist monks avoid eating meat.

What do Protestants who deny transubstantiation do with the remainders of wine and bread after the Eucharist? For example, in Eastern Orthodox Church, after the liturgy the priest must consume (I mean eat) all remainders of the Body and the Blood of Christ. And is not permitted to leave even some the smallest parts of consecrated bread and wine, or lose some of them or to let fall on the floor some of them. As I understand, many Protestants do not believe that the wine is real blood and the bread is the real Body of Christ. So, how do Protestant pastors treat such remainders?

As the title asks: What is the significance of this particular haircut (the tonsure), why is it associated with monks and what is the history behind it?

In the small baptist churches I've been a part of, (and the LDS service I attended), the communion elements are served to worshippers in the pews. In my Episcopal church, everybody comes up to the rail. I'm wondering a bit about how this variation in practice arose (Anyone know which came first?) and if there is a way of predicting how any given church will practice it.

According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_Church_(Redding,_California)) : > **Bethel Church** is an American non-denominational **hyper-charismatic megachurch** in Redding, California with over 11,000 members. The church was established in 1952 and is currently led by Bill Johnson. Bethel has its own music labels and Bethel Music and Jesus Culture ministries, which have gained large popularity within contemporary worship music. The church runs the Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry with over 2,000 students annually. Senior church leaders have been supporters of conservative politics. At Bethel Church, they have a very peculiar ritual known as "Fire Tunnel" or "Tunnel of Fire" (you may come across either wording). In a nutshell, people who are deemed more mature in the faith form two lines (a human tunnel) that novices are made to go through so that those forming the tunnel may lay hands on them and transfer into them the same "anointing" that they supposedly carry. It's very common to see people display strange physical manifestations during these events, which may include appearing drunk, laughing hysterically, being "slain in the spirit", jerking or shaking, etc. Here are a few videos illustrating the ritual: [video 1](https://youtu.be/JEtQ3zG-c3g) , [video 2](https://youtu.be/PqGLJ0b5lh4) , [video 3](https://youtu.be/homoFFqhz-I) , [video 4](https://youtu.be/kY6AJOEWdcQ) , [video 5](https://youtu.be/O6t0O3O-2_k) . (You may find many more by using your favorite search engine.) **Question**: What is the origin of the practice? When was the **first time** that a "Fire Tunnel" was ever practiced in the history of the Church? Did Bethel Church originally come up with the idea of the ritual or did they borrow it / take inspiration from a prior source?

If the Jansenists did not deny the gratuity of grace, thinking grace cannot be earned or merited , why did they practice penances sometimes considered harsh?