A while back I read the book ***Remembrances of a Journey in Tartary, Tibet and China***. The book chronicles two French Catholic Missionaries in these regions during the years 1844, 1845, and 1846. In order to avoid too much reprisals from locals Father [Evariste Huc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Régis_Huc#Works) and Father Joseph Gabet darkened their skin and donned the robes traditionally worn by religious [Buddhists lamas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama) of these regions and called themselves ***lamas of the western skies*** (meaning Europe). > When his Chinese was considered sufficient, he disguised himself for work on the mainland by growing out his hair, cutting it into the obligatory queue, wearing loose Chinese garments, and dyeing his skin to a yellower shade. He took a ship up the Pearl River to Guangzhou ("Canton") and oversaw a mission in the southern provinces for a time. He then traveled north to Beijing ("Peking"), where he improved his Mandarin. > > In Mongolia > > He then settled in the Valley of Black Waters or Heishui, 300 miles (480 km) north of Beijing and just within the borders of Mongolia. There, beyond the Great Wall of China, a large but scattered population of native Christians had taken refuge from the persecutions of the Jiaqing Emperor ("Kia-king") who had added Christianity to China's list of condemned superstitions and cults, threatening missionaries with execution and converts with enslavement to the Muslims of Xinjiang. Huc devoted himself to the study of the dialects and customs of the "Tartars," for whom he translated several religious texts. - [Évariste Régis Huc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évariste_Régis_Huc#Works) My question is as follows: **What are the unique ways Catholic Missionaries are employing in Mongolia nowadays to expand the Christian faith?** I am also leaving this question open to other Christian denominations in Mongolia, seeing that the Christian population of tthis country is extremely small.

Adam was created in the original state of justice and holiness, he have a pure heart originally, a sinless creature. >The concept that Adam was created in a state of original justice and holiness is a doctrine rooted in the biblical narrative of Genesis 1-3 and supported by New Testament reflections on the image of God. >Key Bible verses and theological points supporting this doctrine include: Ecclesiastes 7:29: "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (KJV). This verse is widely cited as direct scriptural evidence that humanity’s original condition was one of moral integrity, righteousness, and innocence. Genesis 1:26-27, 31: God creates man in His own image and likeness and declares all of creation, including humanity, "very good." This state is interpreted as original justice—a harmonious relationship with God, oneself, and creation. >Ephesians 4:24: While referring to the "new self" in Christ, this verse highlights the original state intended for humanity: "...put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (NIV). This implies that the restoration of humanity brings them back to the original holiness Adam possessed. >Colossians 3:10: Speaks of being "renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator," referencing a return to the original righteous state. >Genesis 2:25: "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." This describes a state of innocence, internal harmony, and lack of sin before the Fall. >**Key Aspects of Original Justice:** >Original Holiness: Friendship with God and sharing in God's own life (sanctifying grace). >Original Justice: Harmony between Adam and Eve, inner harmony of the human person (reason, will, and desires were aligned), and harmony with creation. >Preternatural Gifts: Freedom from sickness, suffering, and death. >The Council of Trent (Session V, 1511) formally affirmed that Adam lost this "holiness and justice" through disobedience. It would seems that Adam was created with a pure heart before the fall, and there's no obstacle for him to see the face of God. **Did Adam saw the face of God before the fall?** This question is open for Catholicism, Protestant and Christians who have a source or writings that stated, Adam had seen the face of God before the fall.

In the Magnificat, Mary refers to God as *her* Savior. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Mary was born sinless and remained sinless throughout her life. So, why does Mary refer to God as **her Savior** if she was sinless (and therefore would not have need of a Savior or even have one). > And Mary said: > > “My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in **God my > Savior**. For He has had regard for the humble state of His > bondslave; for behold, from this time on all generations will count me > blessed. For the Mighty One has done great things for me; and holy > is His name. And His mercy is upon generation after generation Toward > those who fear Him. He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has > scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He > has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who > were humble. He has filled the hungry with good things; And sent away > the rich empty-handed. He has given help to Israel His servant, In > remembrance of His mercy, As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and > his descendants forever.” (Luke 1:46-55)

If Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless, even so Jesus was her savior, for she said, > “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my > Savior..." (Luke 1:46-47) What do Catholics claim that Mary needed to be saved from? I imagine natural disasters, murderers, and Satan might be in the list, plus the grief of seeing her son executed. What does the church teach?

At John 13:1-30 we see the narrative of the last Passover meal that Jesus partook with his disciples, in which Judas is identified as the one who would betray him : > .... After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.” .... So while reclining next to Jesus, he (John ) asked him, “Lord, who is it?” . Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.” ... So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night Now, the Gospel according John does not contain an explcit narration of the Institution of Holy Eucharist . Reading that with I Corinthians 11:25 which says that the supper had been ended as Jesus took the cup calling it the new covenant of His Blood, one is inclined to believe that Judas had left the venue even before the Eucharist was constituted. My question therefore, is: **Does the Catholic Church categorically teach that Judas Iscariot participated in the First Eucharist instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper?** If it does not, why do the images of Last Supper that we have, contain the picture of twelve Apostles?

One of the many important areas of disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism is how the two understand the intercession of the saints. Both groups agree that saints in heaven may pray to God on behalf of the Church on earth. However, Catholics believe that it is appropriate for Christians alive on earth now to ask the saints in heaven to pray for us, whereas Protestants do not think so. In defense of their view, Catholics often cite 2nd Maccabees 12:39-46, which reads in the *New American Bible:* > 39 On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs. 40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. 42 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin. I don't see what the connection is. I would think that people on earth praying for the deceased is the opposite of people on earth praying to saints in heaven. In the former case, it is *our* prayers which are meant to be helpful to *them*. In the latter, it is *their* prayers which are meant to help *us*. Furthermore, in the former case there is no communication between the living and the dead, quite unlike the idea of directing prayers towards people in heaven. (And that is a very important detail, as that is the point of divergence between Catholic and Protestant regarding the Intercession of the Saints.) The footnote in the 2012 *New American Bible* also makes no reference to prayers to the saints on these verses: > This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (v. 42) and sacrifices (v.43) for the dead are efficacious. Judas probably intended his purification offering to ward off punishment from the living. The author, however, uses the story to demonstrate belief in the resurrection of the just (7:9, 14, 23, 36), and in the possibility of expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died. This belief is similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. So basically, I do not see how the practice of praying *to* people in Heaven is similar to praying *on behalf of* people in Purgatory. **I would like some clarification on the purported connection between the two concepts.**

Benedict Ashley, O.P., *Spiritual Direction in the Dominican Tradition* p. 50 claims: >Naturally speaking, the human species is divided equally into male and female, so that every human can find a partner and form a marriage, and if there had been no fall into sin, naturally all persons would have married. Is this true? Would've everyone married if there were no Original Sin? It seems not, as isn't celibacy equally natural as being married? What did Catholic fathers or doctors of the Church have to say about this?

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.)

**NOTE :** This question is aimed at narrowing down the probability, when did Mary committed an actual and personal sin, and what is the most likely nature of sin that She would commit? Protestant and Bible Alone Believers do not accept the Dogma on Immaculate Conception for lack of biblical support, so its only fair for Catholics, that we also, cannot accept the accusation that Mary is a sinner, for the same reason that it also lacking in biblical support. And so, its now the Protestant and Bible Alone Believers turn to prove their accusation and judgement that Mary is a sinner, by providing us biblical proof? Sin of pride, lust, envy, gluttony, sloth, etc. What is the most probable nature of sin that a lowly handmaid, a human being with profound humility, who is daily praying and embracing the Will of the Father, can fall into? Let's check on Mary's age. At age 1 to 3, is the age of innocence, therefore, Mary cannot commit sin here at this age. At age 3 to 13, Mary had spent her life in the Temple as a servant of God. Most likely, Satan cannot offer any of his temptations as he did to Jesus as money, fame and power will not entice the young Mary of this non-sense. https://www.mdrevelation.org/the-presentation-of-mary-in-the-temple/ At age 13, Angel Gabriel having faculties to see the soul of human being, saw Mary's soul as "full of grace", and telling us that in Mary's soul, the Lord presence can be seen. -Dominus tecum. Before conception, during conception and after giving birth it is unlikely that Mary can commit sin, as She was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. And so, for all the Bible Alone Believers and wizards here at CSE, we only have one choices left. Mary is possible to commit sin, after giving birth to Jesus Christ. But what is the nature of sin, that a person who is docile to the voice of God, and had shown holiness and righteousness in her life,so, the simple and direct question is... What is the nature of sin that Mary would fall into after giving birth to Jesus Christ? **Can anyone tell us according to the bible, what is the nature of sin that Mary had fallen into, after giving birth to Jesus Christ?** Catholic, Protestant and Christian can answer this question, using only bible as the source and nothing else.

When does Christmas really end for Catholics? I know it starts different for most Eastern Orthodox, but for Latin Rite Catholics, like myself, I don't know when it actually is supposed to end. At the very least I know it's over by Ash Wednesday, but there there seem to be very real reasons to celebrate from 1. December 25 - January 1st (the octave of Christmas, ending with the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God) 2. December 25 - January 6th (the 12 days of Christmas, ending with the Epiphany) 3. December 25 - February 2nd (40 day celebration, ending with the Presentation) So, I guess the real question is who has the stamina to party Catholic style for 40 days, especially after the hubbub leading up to Christmas, but in a liturgical sense, when does the Christmas season end?

I've heard that both Reformed and Roman Catholic eschatologies have Augustine as a major foundation. True?

I read something recently and it reminded me of oil I asked a priest to bless. He read the rite word for word except that he did not sprinkle it with holy water. Is it still as efficacious? Thank you. God bless!

Searching from different bible translations, I had looked deeply into Douay-Rheims version. > "And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth." - Luke 1:40 From this passage, we can see that it ends with a period. This event is finished. A casual greetings can be inferred on this passage and nothing much, it's like Mary saying "Hi! or Hello!" to Her cousin Elizabeth, who knew nothing, about what happened to Mary in the annunciation and Her, having conceived the Messiah. Moving on to next verse... > And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? - Luke1:41-43 The word ***"and it came to pass"***, meaning, this event is separated from v.40, where the casual greetings occured. This salutation is much different, it delivered a profound effect on the child in the very womb of Elizabeth, who never knew the Blessed Virgin Mary. The greeting in v. 40 compare to v. 41 can be seen as two separate events. Luke described that it was Elizabeth who heard the salutation and not the infant in her womb. Elizabeth was overjoyed, cried out in a loud voice...this unexplainable feelings was then felt by the child in her womb, that made the infant leaped, as if he shared in the joy that Elizabeth her mother was experiencing at that very moment, that made him leaped. Could it be, that the ***"greetings or salutation"*** that Elizabeth heard at that moment from Mary while praying, is the **Magnificat**. Hearing the words from the Magnificat, was the cause, and the instrument that made her filled with the Holy Spirit. Because Mary's Magnificat was uttered, having overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, the very words of Mary are inspired by the Holy Spirit, to praise the Father in spirit and truth. Elizabeth heard Mary's Canticle, and had realized that Mary was pregnant with the Messiah, and hearing Mary saying, ***"All generations shall call me blessed..."***, Elizabeth reacted,and she is the first one who praised Mary, saying ***"blessed are you among women..."***, and also the first one who proclaimed ***"Jesus is Lord"*** by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recognizing, the child as her Lord, the way she knew the Lord as the chosen People of God, addressed God in the Old Testament. John the Baptist in Luke1:15 had been prophesied to be filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb of his Mother, and Luke's gospel described the moment, how it happened in v.44 > *For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.* - Luke 1:44 From the discernment above, we can see that the *"greetings"* in Luke 1:40 is different from the *"greetings"* in Luke1:41, the two greetings are a separate event. The other is obviously a casual greeting and the other is a mysterious greetings. In view of the above, I am looking for a commentary or writings from Catholic sources or Christian sources,biblical even extra-biblical showing that the "greetings" in Luke 1:40 and Luke 1:41 is a separate event and different from each other. Elizabeth didn't need to hear Mary's Magnificat to know that she was pregnant with the Lord. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, who was perfectly capable of conveying that knowledge. Elizabeth's intuition was very manifest here.

There are many holidays/feasts that end in -mas, like: 1. [Christmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas) 2. [Marymas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Mary#cite_note-A-2) 3. [Michaelmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelmas) 4. [Roodmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roodmas) 5. [Candlemas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlemas) How many other -mas's are there?

So I've been thinking of visiting other churches to see how they do their worship, and so on. And I kind of came across the question that if I go to a church such as a Catholic parish that doesn't recognize me as being able to take communion but I still need to take my communion, how do I go about that? Shall I bring my own bread or what? I want to respect what they believe but also want to stay true to what I believe.

Why are the 3 distinct Masses on Christmas (Dec. 25): 1. Mass at Midnight 2. Mass at Dawn 3. Mass at Daytime ?

According to Catholicism, can Satan or the Devils perform true and genuine miracles? God can perform great wonders and miracle, but can the Devil and his minions perform such wonders and miracles as Almighty God is able to perform. > A miracle is defined as an extraordinary sensible effect wrought by God that surpasses the power and order of created nature. - [What Constitutes a Miracle?](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-constitutes-a-miracle)

My question is directed to the Catholic perspective. While meditating on the Ascension of Our Lord, this thought came to my mind: There's only One Christ, which ascended into Heaven. If so, does that mean that when we unite ourselves to Him, be in our sorrows uniting to His, or our joys or some other aspect of the human life, does that mean this which we unite to Him (or what is His) is elevated to Heaven also, respecting, of course, the degree of perfection of this union? Furthermore, if that is the case, is this at least one sense of Christ's mediation between us and God? I'm asking this because I'm new to the faith, a cathecumen indeed.

In the words of the blessed apostle Saint Paul (cf. Philippians 2:5-9): > 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became **obedient unto death, even the death of the cross**. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. Is according to the obedience of Christ unto death, in contrast with the disobedience of the first Adam (which was also for death, cf. Genesis 2:17), that Christ fulfilled the Law and was exalted above all creation. Meditating on what this obedience was, I encoutered this theological opinion in an [article](https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/obedient-unto-death) : > What theologians are trying to do when they distinguish between the active and passive obedience of Christ is point to a very real distinction between different aspects, or different dimensions, of the one life of Christ. Throughout His entire life, Christ fulfilled the Moral Law. But so would Adam have done if sin had not entered the world when he sinned. **It’s the entrance of sin that brings in a new, darker dimension to the obedience required of Man: he must now submit to God’s holy judgment as a result of his transgression. So when Christ comes as the Second Adam, it won’t suffice for Him simply to live the holy life that unfallen Adam ought to have lived. The Second Adam’s obedience also means submitting humbly to the awesome divine verdict on human sin.** but it goes further, saying: > He was submissive throughout His life as He underwent all the hardships and sorrows of a sinless man in a fallen world. But His submission to His Father’s judgment on our sin reached its apex on the cross. **Prior to this, Christ had only walked in the outer shadow of judgment, so to speak, still enjoying the light of His Father’s face. On Skull Hill, He entered the innermost darkness when He cried out, “My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Yet still He embraced the darkness with a submissive spirit — a Son obeying His Father’s purpose, at one with the Father in His redemptive design**. Of course, this is not a Catholic opinion, and it's indeed Catholic doctrine that Christ, in His human nature, had the beatific vision of the Father at all moments of His earthly life, including on the cross. Reading the first part that I quoted, I come to the contemplation that Christ's obedience to the Law, the Eternal Law that emanates from the Father, has really this twofold meaning: Christ fulfilled the Law firstly in virtue of his holy life, out of love to the Father, but secondly, because man sinned, and the punishment of sin is the spiritual death (i.e. eternal separation of God), and because sin requires atonement according to this Law, then, in obedience to this decree of the Father and out of love for us, Christ provided in himself this atonement on our behalf, through His passion and consequently death on the cross. Now, because of the second part that I quoted (and rest), I have the impression that the article was pointing to the view of atonement by penal substition, which is contrary to the Catholic theology (at least, to the consensus of the Church). **My first question is**: According to Catholic theology/teaching, is my reading of the first part wrong, valid or there is no saying on this particular view. Again, my reading is not of penal substition, but on this reflection of the twofold aspect of Christ's obedience. **My second (and main) question is**: What are the main theological opinions within the (Catholic) Church about the nature of the obedience of Christ? It was obedience to the Law of the covenant of Moses? To the Eternal Law of the Father, the Divine Justice? To, specifically, the plan of human redemption of the Father? Every of these at once? I apologize if this question appears to be too simple (I have not completed my catechism yet, if this can serve as an excuse), but what I'm really searching is how to run away from the simplistic view that "he was obedient fulfilling the Father's redemption", or something like that, and to go more deeply in this mystery. God bless.

When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that he may be punished on our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the Offended something that He loves equally or even more than He hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of humankind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general terms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He, being God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why is it that Christ's sacrifice needs to be in the sense of Christ giving His life to suffer and die on the cross, instead of just an offering of Himself in a less bloodshed way? I know that God could save us in any other way, for He is omnipotent, and that He chose the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I came to another facet of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Gethsemane He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how can the Father is pleased in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven by feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I want a way to resolve this. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.