What did Jesus mean by his apparent racial taunt to the Canaanite woman in Matt 15 when he inferred that they were "dogs"?

There are actually two different Greek words for the English term “dog” that was used in the New Testament. One word is “κύων” (“kýōn”). The actual definition of this word is: “a man of impure mind, an impudent man.” This word would be the word a Jew would use if they were really calling someone else (Jew or Gentile) an “unclean” or unspiritual animal (Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Philippians 3:2). This word was not the word used by Jesus in Matthew 15:26, however.

The word Jesus used was “κυνάριον” (“kynárion”), which simply means “a little dog.” If Jesus truly wanted to insult the Canaanite woman (or Gentiles in general), He would have used the word “κύων,” not “κυνάριον.”

Also, let’s use a little bit of logic here: if the woman had taken what Jesus said as an insult, her faith would have been damaged and her daughter would not have been healed. She clearly understood Jesus’s reference as nothing more than a harmless metaphor. It’s the same thing as when people are commonly described as “sheep” in the Bible.

Ultimately, Jesus frequently tested people to prove their intentions, often through response questions or challenges (see John 4:16–18; and 4:50–53). His response to the Canaanite woman is similar. In testing her, Jesus declined her request and explained that she had no legitimate expectation of His help. The woman, however, lived out the principle Jesus Himself taught in the parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18:1–8). Her response proved that she understood fully what Jesus was saying, yet had enough conviction to ask anyway (Matthew 15:27). Jesus acknowledged her faith—calling it “great”—and granted her request (Matthew 15:28). In the end, Jesus happily granted the woman’s request due to her faith.

So, according to both the context and language involved, Jesus wasn’t referring to the Canaanite woman as a “dog,” either directly or indirectly. He wasn’t using an epithet or racial slur but making a point about the priorities He’d been given by God. He was also testing the faith of the woman and teaching an important lesson to His disciples.


In early times, salt was substantially more significant than it is today. (E.g., see the etymology for salarium at Wikipedia.)

Salt has some association with holiness; it was part of the grain offerings (Leviticus 2:13 [NIV]):

  Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings, add salt to all your offerings.

This contrasts with verse 11 (NIV) prohibiting the inclusion of yeast:

  'Every grain offering you bring to the LORD must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in an offering made to the LORD by fire.

In 1 Corinthians 5:8, Paul associates yeast with "malice and wickedness" (NIV).

Salt is also important as a preservative and a seasoning. This points to the fact that Christians are supposed to be positively effective in the world.

Perhaps most significantly salt is similar to light (another image Jesus used) in being beneficial, distinctive (salty is a major aspect of the sense of taste, light defines the sense of sight), powerful (a little salt or light goes a long way), present in the world (salt was part of everyday life, a light is not hidden under a basket), and even a bit disruptive or annoying (e.g., early morning light can be annoying when one is tired, salt can be similarly unpleasant) while also being attractive (one tends to be drawn to eating salty foods not unlike how one tends to be drawn to a lighted area).


According to Protestants, must clergy be ordained by other ordained clergy?

John Calvin, whose theology heavily influenced every Reformer (here I exclude the Anabaptists and other such groups), has a chapter in his Institutes of the Christian Religion which discusses the clergy generally, and has some paragraphs on the ordination of clergy. I suggest you read the entire chapter for better context (and the entire book for good theology!), but I will quote the relevant section.

  It remains to consider the form of ordination, to which we have assigned the last place in the call (see chap. 4, sec. 14, 15). It is certain, that when the apostles appointed any one to the ministry, they used no other ceremony than the laying on of hands. This form was derived, I think, from the custom of the Jews, who, by the laying on of hands, in a manner presented to God whatever they wished to be blessed and consecrated. Thus Jacob, when about to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, placed his hands upon their heads (Gen. 48:14). The same thing was done by our Lord, when he prayed over the little children (Mt. 19:15). With the same intent (as I imagine), the Jews, according to the injunction of the law, laid hands upon their sacrifices. Wherefore, the apostles, by the laying on of hands, intimated that they made an offering to God of him whom they admitted to the ministry; though they also did the same thing over those on whom they conferred the visible gifts of the Spirit (Acts 8:17; 19:6). However this be, it was the regular form, whenever they called any one to the sacred ministry. In this way they consecrated pastors and teachers; in this way they consecrated deacons. But though there is no fixed precept concerning the laying on of hands, yet as we see that it was uniformly observed by the apostles, this careful observance ought to be regarded by us in the light of a precept (see chap. 14, sec. 20; chap. 19, sec. 31). And it is certainly useful, that by such a symbol the dignity of the ministry should be commended to the people, and he who is ordained, reminded that he is no longer his own, but is bound in service to God and the Church. Besides, it will not prove an empty sign, if it be restored to its genuine origin. For if the Spirit of God has not instituted anything in the Church in vain, this ceremony of his appointment we shall feel not to be useless, provided it be not superstitiously abused. Lastly, it is to observed, that it was not the whole people, but only pastors, who laid hands on ministers, though it is uncertain whether or not several always laid their hands: it is certain, that in the case of the deacons, it was done by Paul and Barnabas, and some few others (Acts 6:6; 13:3). But in another place, Paul mentions that he himself, without any others, laid hands on Timothy. “Wherefore, I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6). For what is said in the First Epistle, of the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, I do not understand as if Paul were speaking of the college of Elders. By the expression, I understand the ordination itself; as if he had said, Act so, that the gift which you received by the laying on of hands, when I made you a presbyter, may not be in vain.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 3, Section 16

In short, only already-ordained ministers could ordain clergy (whether ministers, elders, or deacons).

The Reformers did not consider themselves to be schismatics creating a new church, but rather considered themselves as the continuation of the true church, with the Roman Catholic Church being the schismatic drifting away from true theology. As such, those ordained as priests under the Roman Catholic Church would not be expected to cease their duties in the event that they converted to Protestantism. This is evidence at the very least in both Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, who were both ordained as priests in the Roman Catholic Church, and who both continued their duties as clergy after taking their stance in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church.

It is most likely that most, if not all Reformed clergy could then theoretically trace their ordination back through to a Roman Catholic ordination at some stage.

It is another matter entirely as to whether they considered it necessary or important to have an unbroken line back to the Apostles (and presumably not just the Apostles, but the Jewish clergy who "became" Christian, as they would also not be re-ordained at that time).


Is the Patriarch of Alexandria an Eastern Orthodox or an Oriental Orthodox?

St Mark the Evangelist is recognised as the first Patriarch of Alexandria. The twenty-fifth was Dioscorus. In 449 he presided over the Second Council of Ephesus. Two years later another Council, regarded by Rome and Constantinople as the Fourth Ecumenical Council, was held at Chalcedon. The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the Second Council of Ephesus, known as the Robber Synod, and deposed Dioscorus, sending him into exile, where he died in 454.

Proterius was chosen to replace Dioscorus but not widely accepted by many Alexandrians who still regarded Dioscorus as their patriarch. When Dioscorus died Timothy Aelurus (the cat) was chosen as non-Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria and is said to have arranged the murder of Proterius on Easter Day 457. The final split came in 536 since when there have been two separate patriarchs of Alexandria, the Coptic one (oriental Orthodox) supported by most Egyptian Christians, and the Eastern Orthodox one supported by Constantinople. (This is somewhat similar to Armagh in the UK where both C of I and RC primates of Armagh clain continuity from St Patrick.)

From the thirteenth century there was also a titular Latin Patriarch, and in recent centuries a "Coptic Catholic" patriarch leading an Oriental Rite Catholic Church in communion with Rome. The Latin patriarchate was abolished after Vatican II.

The only two in a continuous line from St Mark are the Coptic patriarch  and the Eastern Orthodox patriarch. The Coptic Patriarch, Pope Tawadros II, is recognised by over 90% of Egyptian Christians. His name was picked at random from a chalice containing three names by a blindfolded boy in 2012.

There is, then, an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria of ancient lineage,  but the great  majority of Egyptian Christians, now and across the centuries, have accepted  the Oriental Orthodox Coptic Patriarch, also of ancient lineage, as head of the African Church.


What was Jesus referring to when He said "it is finished"? What is "it" in this case?

Yes, victory over Satan and over sin, for HE had accomplished what had been promised since the beginning with Adam and Eve: First Promise of the Savior?

Furthermore, note Jesus' prayer in John 17

  “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may
  glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He
  should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is
  eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus
  Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have
  finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had
  with You before the world was. (nkjv)

What is the work that God sent his Son our Savior to accomplish?

John 3:16-17 (nkjv)

  For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
  whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
  17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world,
  but that the world through Him might be saved.

The death and resurrection of Jesus was the fulfillment of many prophecies (ex psalm 22), fulfillment of the Law (Matt 5:17), victory over Satan and sin, what ultimately ushered in the New Covenant, that is saved by grace through faith (ephesians 2:8), and I'm sure the list goes on.. :)


What questions raised by ancient Greek philosophy were answered by Christianity?

I won't give you a list of these questions for I don't know them but I think it is very important to know that Greeks, in their search for truth, somehow realized there should be a God to worship (distinct from the gods they had created in their mythology) so at the time when the apostles came, they had been worshipping a so-called 'Agnostos Theos' (The Unknown/Anonymous God). And apparently, at least, the Christian truth that was preached by Paul was exactly what they had been waiting for!


Which people in the Bible are antichrists?

I think the only antichrist specifically identified from the bible is Lucifer, the great antichrist, as is mentioned in the link you've provided.

You're right about Cain though, it is mentioned in the scriptures (Pearl of Great Price) that he loved Satan more than God (see Moses 5:13,18). This by definition makes him an antichrist.

The link you provided lists all of the references in the standard works to all the other individuals who were specifically identified as antichrists.

I imagine there could be more that fit the definition, but to my knowledge no one has yet put the work into identifying them all. I will speculate however that it could be debated that one other person who could be considered an antichrist is Judas Iscariot (see Luke 22:3). Judas is often regarded as a son of perdition, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest he was also an antichrist.


Explain to those knowing only of the Ordinary Form of Mass, what incense is and why it is used during the Liturgy at Mass?

Incense as used in Christian rites, including the office of readings, as well as the Mass, is a sensory manifestation of the prayers of the faithful rising to God, as mentioned in Psalms, particularly 141:2 (RSVCE) and Revelations 5:8 (RSVCE).

This is probably more a matter of style than anything else. The incense ceremonies take time, and my own sense is that among those who favor the Ordinary Form, that what the use of incense adds to a celebration of the mass is not worth the time it takes to complete the ceremonies, while those with a preference of the Extraordinary Form are more tolerant of the time it takes, and willing to practice the patience required to attain the benefits they remember. To my knowledge nothing in the Rubrics that mandates the reduction of the role of incense in the Ordinary form, but this is not my primary area of expertise.

Please see  Incensation, 276 & 277 |  IV. SOME GENERAL NORMS FOR ALL FORMS OF MASS | GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL


The "festival of dedication" (or "feast") in this verse was indeed the forerunner of what is today Hanukkah.  It was established by Judas Maccabeus in the intertestamental period, as Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write:

  [This festival of the Dedication] was instituted by Jude Maccabeus, to commemorate the purification of the temple from the profanations to which it had been subjected by Antiochus Epiphanes 165 B.C., and kept for eight days, from the twenty-fifth Chisleu (December), the day on which Judas began the first joyous celebration of it (1 Maccabees 4:52,56,59; and Josephus, Antiquities, 7.7.7).

Now, the festival goes by the name Hanukkah, as Wikipedia indicates, but it is observed on the same day and celebrates the same event.

As to whether Jesus actually celebrated Hanukkah, that's a bit more controversial.  John Wesley, following Grotius, thinks so:

  So our Lord observed festivals even of human appointment. Is it not, at least, innocent for us to do the same? (source)

But Calvin suggests that his purpose was to further his ministry:

  Christ appeared in the temple at that time, according to custom, that his preaching might yield more abundant fruit amidst a large assembly of men. (source)

So yes, this is a reference to Hanukkah, but it's harder to say if Jesus actually "celebrated" the holiday.


TL:DR; Sleep does not cause temptation, prayer prevents it.

  How does sleep put the apostles into temptation?

It doesn't.  The most likely source of your question is that the cause and effect you attribute is a misunderstanding of the Scripture.  On that scene in Matthew we can choose four insights of many, with sources and expanded discussion below.  In short, the point being made is that it is prayer that will protect you against temptation, rather than that sleep causes temptation.

  Origen: Finding them thus sleeping, He rouses them with a word to hearken, and commands them to watch; "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation;" that first we should watch, and so watching pray. He watches who does good works, and is careful that He does not run into any dark doctrine, for so the prayer of the watchful is heard.
  St Jerome: It is impossible that the human mind should not be tempted, therefore He says not "Watch and pray" that ye be not tempted, but "that ye enter not into temptation," that is, that temptation vanquish you not.
  St Hilary: And why He thus encouraged them to pray that they might not enter into temptation, He adds, "For the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak;" this He says not of Himself, but addresses them.
  Origen: These then He would have watch and pray that they should not enter into temptation, for the more spiritual any one may be, the more careful should he be that his goodness should not suffer a great fall.

Detailed discussion.

What's available for the Catholic perspective on this?

In footnote 26 of the English version of Scripture hosted at the Vatican web site, you find an explanation of that snippet of verse.  Note that the translation uses "undergo the test" rather than "temptation."

  41 Watch and pray that you may not undergo the test. 26

The footnote:

  26 [41] Undergo the test: see the note on ⇒ Matthew 6:13.  In that
  verse "the final test" translates the same Greek word as is here
  translated the test, and these are the only instances of the use of
  that word in Matthew.  It is possible that the passion of Jesus is
  seen here as an anticipation of the great tribulation that will
  precede the parousia (see the notes on ⇒ Matthew 24:8; ⇒ 24:21) to
  which ⇒ Matthew 6:13 refers, and that just as Jesus prays to be
  delivered from death (⇒ Matthew 26:39), so he exhorts the disciples
  to pray that they will not have to undergo the great test that his
  passion would be for them. {emphasis mine}   Some scholars, however,
  understand not undergo (literally, "not enter") the test as meaning
  not that the disciples may be spared the test but that they may not
  yield to the temptation of falling away from Jesus because of his
  passion even though they will have to endure it.

From this explanation we find that the understanding of that line in scripture is nuanced, but it does not present sleeping as the trigger to temptation.

The context.

It is good to consider a verse in the greater context of the narrative.  Lines 40 and 41 together address his desire that they keep the watch with him (you have to stay awake to keep watch) and that they pray that they (his disciples) do not have to undergo the test.  (See the note above).  That more complete reading of the scene does not link sleep to temptation, but links prayer as a way to ward off, or be protected from, temptation.  (Cf also the Lord's Prayer).

  36  Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he
  said to his disciples, "Sit here while I go over there and pray."   37
  He took along Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to feel
  sorrow and distress.   38 Then he said to them, "My soul is sorrowful
  even to death. Remain here and keep watch with me."    39 He advanced
  a little and fell prostrate in prayer, saying, "My Father, if it is
  possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you
  will."    40 When he returned to his disciples he found them asleep.
  He said to Peter, "So you could not keep watch with me for one hour?
  41 Watch and pray that you may not undergo the test. 26
  The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."   42 Withdrawing a
  second time, he prayed again, "My Father, if it is not possible that
  this cup pass without my drinking it, your will be done!"   43 Then he
  returned once more and found them asleep, for they could not keep
  their eyes open.   44 He left them and withdrew again and prayed a
  third time, saying the same thing again.    45  Then he returned to
  his disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and taking
  your rest? Behold, the hour is at hand when the Son of Man is to be
  handed over to sinners.    46  Get up, let us go. Look, my betrayer is
  at hand."

What about a more traditional look?

An older translation examining scripture uses the term "temptation".  That rendering is then addressed in Saint Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea.  The commentaries of previous theologians are presented and compared on that scene in Matthew.

  And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:
  nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." 40. And he cometh unto
  the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, "What,
  could ye not watch with me one hour? 41. Watch and pray, that ye
  enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh
  is weak." 42. He went away again the second time, and prayed,
  saying, "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I
  drink it, thy will be done." 43. And he came and found them asleep
  again for their eyes were heavy. [p. 909] 44. And he left them, and
  went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

St Thomas Aquinas lists some of the commentaries from theologians who preceded him.

Origen: And though Jesus went but a "little forward," they could not
watch one hour in His absence; let us therefore pray that Jesus may
never depart even a little from us.
Chrysostum: He "finds them sleeping," both because it was a late
hour of the night, and their eyes were heavy with sorrow.
Hilary: When then He returned to His disciples and found them
sleeping, He rebukes Peter, "Could ye not watch one hour with me?"
He addresses Peter rather than the rest, because be had most loudly
boasted that he would not be offended.
Chrysostum: But as they had all said the same, He charges them all
with weakness; they had chosen to die with Christ, and yet could not
even watch with Him.
Origen: Finding them thus sleeping, He rouses them with a word to
hearken, and commands them to watch; "Watch and pray, that ye enter
not into temptation;" that first we should watch, and so watching
pray.  He watches who does good works, and is careful that He does
not run into any dark doctrine, for so the prayer of the watchful is
heard.
Jerome: It is impossible that the human mind should not be tempted,
therefore He says not "Watch and pray" that ye be not tempted, but
"that ye enter not into temptation," that is, that temptation
vanquish you not.
Hilary: And why He thus encouraged them to pray that they might not
enter into temptation, He adds, "For the spirit indeed is willing,
but the flesh is weak;" this He says not of Himself, but addresses
them.
Jerome: This is [p. 912] against those rash persons who think that
whatever they believe they can perform. The more confident we are of
our zeal, the more mistrustful should we be of the frailty of the
flesh.
Origen: Here it should be enquired, whether as all men's flesh is
weak, so all men's spirit is willing, or whether only that of the
saints; and whether in unbelievers the spirit is not also dull, as
the flesh is weak. In another sense the flesh of those only is weak
whose spirit is willing, and who with their willing spirit do
mortify the deeds of the flesh. These then He would have watch and pray that they should not enter into temptation, for the more spiritual any one may be, the more careful should he be that his goodness should not suffer a great fall.


Canon law - vows, acquired rights meaning problem

Acquired rights are refered to several times in the Canon Law. The concept of acquired rights is common in many legal systems, including International Law.

An acquired right differs from a natural right or a general legal right. A person may have an acquired right because of something that has happened to him, or more usually something he has done. It is not a right everybody has.

A country might decide nobody can be a doctor unless he can pass an exam in Portuguese. But people who are already doctors have an acquired right to continue being doctors. Also medical students who have begun training may  have an acquired right to continue, and to qualify as doctors, without learning Portuguese.

An acquired right is not absolute. The country could make a law that any doctor who does not pass a Portugese exam by a certain date is no longer a doctor.

Another example is a man who owns a field and asks for Planning Permission to put up a tall fence round it. Permission may be granted on condition it does not injure the acquired rights of another person. Somebody may have used the field as a path for so long that he has acquired a right to continue using it. Or somebody may have paid for the right to keep sheep in it. The Planning Authority does not know what acquired rights there may be. But it could grant permission provided it does not injure any rights there may be.

Alternatively permsssion could be granted despite certain rights, thus overriding the rights, either specific rights stated, or any rights at all, known and unknown.

In the case of Dispensation from a Vow the Dispensation must not injure the acquired rights of another person. The rights are   those acquired by any means up to the date of the dispensation.

A private vow, known to a third person who stands to benefit from it, could give rise to a right. For example, a vow to fund somebody's education.

A private vow, known only to the person making the vow and to God, cannot of itself confer a legal right on anybody. The dispensation from the vow cannot therefore alter the rights of another party.

If OP's brother already had a legal right before the vow and he still retains that right now,then neither the vow nor the dispensation has had any affect on his rights.

There may be other moral issues though, which is why if at all possible, it may be best to seek the advice of a priest who will seek to understand the full picture of the situation and advise accordingly.


Can a male Catholic and a female Non Catholic have their marriage blessed at the Sacristy?

Cathy Caridi, JCL, is a canon lawyer who has a blog, and she commented on a very similar situation to yours. Let me try to paraphrase what she has written about it:
According to Canon 1108, a valid marriage where at least one of the parties is a Catholic must be officiated by the local Ordinary, parish priest, or a priest or deacon appointed by them:

1108
§1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.
§2. The person who assists at a marriage is understood to be only that person who is present, asks for the manifestation of the consent of the contracting parties, and receives it in the name of the Church.

This is referred to as the marriage having canonical form. Since your marriage was officiated by a non-Catholic priest, then it lacked the relevant canonical form, and thus its validity hinges on you getting a previous dispensation from canonical form, as per Canons 1124–1126:

1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:
1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;
2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;
3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.
1126 It is for the conference of bishops to establish the method in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, must be made and to define the manner in which they are to be established in the external forum and the non-Catholic party informed about them.

However, since the marriage has already happened, and its only reason for invalidity is the lack of dispensation of canonical form, you can petition your Ordinary to receive a retroactive dispensation, called a radical sanation, as described in Canons 1161–1163:

1161
§1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects.
§2. Convalidation occurs at the moment of the granting of the favor. Retroactivity, however, is understood to extend to the moment of the celebration of the marriage unless other provision is expressly made.
§3. A radical sanation is not to be granted unless it is probable that the parties wish to persevere in conjugal life.
1162
§1. A marriage cannot be radically sanated if consent is lacking in either or both of the parties, whether the consent was lacking from the beginning or, though present in the beginning, was revoked afterwards.
§2. If this consent was indeed lacking from the beginning but was given afterwards, the sanation can be granted from the moment the consent was given.
1163
§1. A marriage which is invalid because of an impediment or a defect of legitimate form can be sanated provided that the consent of each party perseveres.
§2. A marriage which is invalid because of an impediment of natural law or of divine positive law can be sanated only after the impediment has ceased.

It is this radical sanation, or else another procedure called a simple convalidation, which is canonically meant when people speak of having marriages blessed. This means it is not a ceremony, but a canonical procedure. Therefore any ceremonies that might take place in addition can be done anywhere your parish priest and you two think prudent.
Therefore, I would talk to him about the issue; I'm sure you will be able to work out something which is acceptable to all parties.


Does a Catholic have recourse if a priest gives a ridiculously harsh or impossible penance?

Does a Catholic have some recourse if a priest gives a ridiculously harsh or impossible penance?
Well, the short answer is yes.
What recourses one has as a Catholic in the confessional when one receives an arbitrary ridiculous harsh or unpractical (undoable) penance, let us take a look at the sacrament of reconciliation more closely.
Priests are obliged to hand out penances during the sacrament of confession. This point is not open to debate.
If one receives an extremely harsh or undoable penance, one should approach the priest in question and ask for a doable, yet reasonable penance.
One can always go to another confessor and explain the situation get guidance about what to do.
And yes you are always free to report the matter to a priest's superior, either the local bishop or in the case of a religious priest, their immediate religious superior. This should be done in cases where the priest imposes something like you must fly to the moon. Bishops should be notified about priests that are sloppy about the sacrament of confession.
There is an obligation in can. 981 to impose penances during confession.  Can. 981 is a legal and not just instructional type of canon.  It places an obligation on the confessor and the penitent:

Can.  981 The confessor is to impose salutary and suitable penances in accord with the quality and number of sins, taking into account the condition of the penitent. The penitent is obliged to fulfill these personally.

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf puts it nicely:

In other words, penances are to be given, and the penitent is to do them, not some one else. You cannot pay another person to do them.  But this obligation to give and do penances does not affect the validity of the absolution or the efficacy of the sacrament. If the penitent hasn’t done the assigned penance before going to Communion, he is still forgiven and can still go to Communion.
And, yes, it is a bit arbitrary to assign penances. How do we really judge that 3 Hail Marys are proportioned to, say, serial adultery. But how would 10 Rosaries be proportioned?
In any event, the penances assigned in confession do not affect the efficacy of the sacramental absolution we receive.
Confession can be hard, but it shouldn’t be the rack.
Priests should take it easy on people and not assign penances that are vague or hard to do. They should make clear to people what the requirements are for the sacrament of penance to be efficacious, so that they are not left in doubt or, by falling into error, run the risk of becoming discouraged or overly scrupulous. - Am I forgiven if I don’t do a penance assigned in confession?

Penances should be very clear, not vague or undoable.

And remember, validity of absolution is not contingent on the penance that is assigned.  Yes, we penitents must do our best to do some penance and we have a strong motivation to take the penance that the priest assigns seriously.  But sometimes these well-meaning nitwits suggest something incomprehensible or undoable.  So, we get out of the box, scratch our heads, and do something else that’s meaningful.  Or, if there is time and opportunity, go to a different confessor, explain the situation, and get guidance about what to do.  Not everyone has that option. - Penance given in confession was too vague

Note that a penitent has a moral obligation to report the priest to religious and/or civil authorities if the penance is illegal and/or immoral. If a priest were ever to solicit sex in the confessional, this crime should be reported to religious authorities as soon as possible. (Although not directly in Canon Law, this is still a moral issue not to be taken lightly):
Sex abuse and the seal of the confessional

The 1917 Code of Canon Law continued Benedict XIV’s 1741 decree, and required the penitent to denounce the soliciting priest within one month. The 1983 Code abolished the requirement to denounce and the reservation of absolution to the pope for false accusations against priests. Instead, it imposed an automatic interdict, a form of excommunication, on anyone making a false accusation. Canon 982 further provides that anyone who confesses to making a false accusation “is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation, and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.”

The Code of Canon Law (1983) does not forbid the denunciation of such acts. It warns us more about false accusations instead than denouncing bad priests. We are still free to speak the truth if a priest were to solicit evil in the confessional. The Code of Canon Law (1917) is much clearer and harsher on the subject. The 1917 Code of Canon Law "required the penitent to denounce the soliciting priest within one month". We are no longer required to denounced within a month, but this should nevertheless still be done, as soon as possible. I know I would!
The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1962) speaks of how such denunciations are to be done in its' Instruction On the Manner of Proceeding in Causes involving the Crime of Solicitation.
Let us not forget to pray for the sanctification of our priests. May they imitate St. John Vianney (Cure d'Ars), the universal patron saint of parish priests.

St. John Marie Vianney would pass uncomfortable nights shaken by the “grappin” (Devil) –  happily because he knew it was a good sign that the next day some big sinner would come to the Sacrament of Confession.  Sometimes there would be a “good haul of fish,” as he called the many sinners who would show up to confess after the Cure had passed such a night.
He would rise in the middle of the night to begin hearing confessions at one o’clock in the morning, and spend an incredible 14 to 18 hours a day in the confessional.
If a penitent withheld certain sins, the Cure would admonish them and proceed, to their astonishment, tell them their sins. He was known to weep while hearing confessions, with the remark, “I weep, my friend, because you do not weep.” - The Story of the Cure of Ars


My question is for Biblical Unitarians and is based on their website as it relates to Philippians 2:6-8

"Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ."
If Paul had wanted to make a clear statement equating Jesus with God, he sure did it in a funny way - a series of verses that are highly contentious, whether between trinitarians and unitarians or just between trinitarians themselves.
IMO something clear would have been something that included "Jesus is God." Easy! Because this is an earth-shattering claim for Paul, an observant Jew who believes God is Spirit, you would think he would not only state it once in one letter, but repeat it loudly and clearly. Instead, he uses a word here which can mean all sorts of things ('morphe'), in particular 'shape' or 'outward appearance'.

Strong's Greek 3444: Form, shape, outward appearance. Perhaps from the
base of meros; shape; figuratively, nature.

On the other hand, St. Paul distinguishes time and again between Jesus and God. So which is the proper hermeneutic - a cryptic, highly debated sentence which suggests to some that Jesus is God, or clear, repeated statements distinguishing them? My hermeneutic favours the latter.
Philippians 2 5-11:

"Have this mindset in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, though
he was in the form of God, considered being equal with God not
something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a
servant, being born in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion
as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death—even death on
a cross! And therefore God raised him to the highest place of honor
and gave him the name that is above every name, in order that at the
name of Jesus every knee will bow—in heaven and on earth and under the
earth — and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to
the glory of God the Father." (Revised English Translation)

(As a sidenote, the passage distinguishes between God and Jesus just after 2:6-8 at 2:9. "And therefore God raised him to the highest place of honor [...]")
The article you linked to explains fairly clearly in what sense Jesus was 'existing' as the 'morphe' (form) of God and instead took on the 'morphe' (form) of a servant:

"Scripture says Christ was the “image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4), and Jesus
himself testified that if one had seen him, he had seen the Father.
Saying that Christ was in the “form” (outward appearance) of God is
simply stating that truth in another way. Unlike Adam, who grasped at
being like God (Gen. 3:5), Christ, the Last Adam, “emptied himself” of
all his reputation and the things due him as the true child of the
King. He lived in the same fashion as other men. He humbled himself to
the Word and will of God. He lived by “It is written” and the commands
of his Father. He did not “toot his own horn,” but instead called
himself “the son of man,” which, in the Aramaic language he spoke,
meant “a man.” He trusted God and became obedient, even to a horrible
and shameful death on a cross."

On this view, Jesus isn't just a man like any other man. He is the Son of God, the Messiah. So what does 'being made in human likeness' mean? My best guess on this view is that it means he carried himself as a typical man, the 'son of man' - a carpenter from a small-town.
So, from the OP:
"Since Jesus Christ was born as a human being like the rest of us, meaning He appeared as a man why was it necessary for Him to take the form of a bond-servant/man at Philippians 2:8 since He is a man already?"
He is born not just any man, but the Son of God. He has to empty himself of "all his reputation and the things due him" as the Christ, and follow God's plan.
Q: You say St. Paul's language isn't clear here re Jesus' divinity, but isn't he being clear at Titus 2:13?
A: Titus 2:13 is another contentious passage. See here for a Biblical Unitarian discussion of it.
Q: But how could he be born a man if he starts out a man?
A: This question seems to take a trinitarian lens to the passage. So he's in the form of God, then empties himself just before or during the incarnation, and so is born a man. This is not the unitarian view - this is not a temporal sequence referring to conception. St. Paul does not make the logical connections between the various elements clear here, but 'being born in the likeness of men' is probably a paraphrase or goes along with taking the form of a servant - i.e., “emptying himself” of all his reputation and the things due him as the Messiah and Son of God and living in the same fashion as other men. This is probably meant to refer to an on-going state of affairs (hence a 'mindset'), not an event that just happened once as in the trinitarian view.


Cleansing of unclean meat to clean meat interpretation of Acts 10:17-18 and 22-23 in relation to Isaiah 66:17

The vision was understood by Peter in a specified way as listed in Acts 10:27-29

  As Peter talked with him, he went inside and found many people
  gathered together. He said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for
  a Jew to associate with a foreigner or visit him. But God has shown me
  that I should not call any man impure or unclean. So when I was
  invited, I came without objection. I ask, then, why have you sent for
  me?”

And again in Acts 10:34, 35

  Then Peter began to speak: “I now truly understand that God does not
  show favoritism, but welcomes those from every nation who fear Him and
  do what is right.

Thus, the vision of the sheet was used by God to explain a very important lesson to Peter as observed by Ellicott in his comments on Acts 10:13

  in like manner, hungering and thirsting after a wider fellowship which
  should embrace "all manner" of the races that make up mankind, while,
  on the other hand, he was as yet waiting to be taught that the
  distinction between Jew and Gentile was done away in Christ.


Why are some words of Jesus in Aramaic transliterated in the Gospels of Mark?

In the case of "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" (Mark 15,34) the Aramaic is needed to explain the misunderstanding in verse 35 when some of the crowd think He is calling for Elijah. The mistake is explicable only because of the similarity between the sound Eloi and the sound Elijah.

In the case of "Talitha kuom" (Mark 5, 41) the Aramaic phrase seems to have connotations which are lost in translation to the Greek. Hastings Bible dictionary describes links between talitha and lamb and suggests  the phrase might be translated into English as "Lambkin arise", as we too have a word, Lambkin, which is both a term of endearment addressed to a child, and a small lamb. Matthew Henry says that Dr Lightfoot says kuom (arise) was also used as a way of wishing a speedy recovery when addressed to a sick person. Possibly then the Aramaic phrase in English could be something like "Lambkin, get betterl". The inability to fully convey the gentleness of Christ's words into Greek led Mark to leave it in Aramaic for readers who understood that language, or might learn the phrase, while also providing a better than nothing  translation in Greek for other readers.

Boanerges (Mark 3, 17) was given as a nickname to James and John, it is translated as Sons of Thunder. Here, Boanerges is given as a name, so it is transliterated as a name, and then its meaning given to show its derivation. They were not addressed as Sons of Thunder, but as Boagernes.

In the case of "Abba" Father  (Mark 14,36) the Aramaic word Abba is retained along with the Greek word for Father. In English  we have many words ("Dad", "Papa", "Pop", "Daddy", "Pater", "Farv" etc) all of which mean father but all of which hold different connotations. Mark may have felt that Abba conveyed a peculiar mix of intimacy and respect which he didn't want to lose, but couldn't exactly translate.

In the case of "Corban" (Mark 7, 11), which is translated as dedicated to God, the explanation here is that Corban was used as a technical term, or piece of jargon, referring to a particular practice. This could loosely be simplified as dedicated to God. There is  a little more to it than the plain meaning,  that Mark does not really want to go into there.

Ephphatha (Mark 7 34) was the cry uttered by Jesus when healing the deaf and dumb man. This was used in some liturgies at Baptism and Mark may have been indicating its origins here. Also it was such a startling cry that it must have been remembered by all who heard it.

There may also be the use of one or two literary devices.

Agatha Christies Poirot, a Belgian detective living in London, speaks perfect English most of the time which is good as otherwise readers could not understand him. However he often says "mon ami" (my friend) or Mademoiselle ("Miss") and this serves to remind the audience that he was foreign. Mark may have wanted readers to remember that Jesus didn't really speak Greek and so to firmly root his gospel in Palestine for the benefit of his readers.

On the Royal Mile in Edinburgh is a house called Heave Awa House. The previous house on that site collapsed and a man called Joseph  was  trapped in the rubble. The searchers were about to give up when they heard him say  "Heave awa lads, I'm no deid yet". This has become part of Edinburgh folklore.  In I637 a new and, many felt, less Protestant, Prayer Book was introduced to Edinburgh St Giles Cathedral. During the service a fishwife called Jenny Geddes exclaimed "Daur ye say Mass in my  lug?" (dare you say Mass in my ear) and threw her stool at the minister. This led to riots inside and outside the Cathedral, throughout Edinburgh and across Scotland, and arguably was one cause of the English Civil War. It is the simple colloquial phrases of Joseph and Jenny  which are remembered,  and seem to add so much to their stories.  Similarly, the directness and vernacular simplicity of some of Christ's sayings add a directness to Mark's Gospel.


What's the first recorded case of the Church's persecuting heretics?

It's difficult to give a definitive answer because of the ambiguity of words like "heretic" and "persecute". I presume that if Mr X says to Mr Y, "No, I disagree with you", that's not persecution. If he has him tortured and killed over the disagreement, that pretty clearly is persecution. But there's a wide range in the middle. If X tells people that Y is a dangerous kook and they shouldn't associate with him, is that persecution? What if so many people follow X that Y is completely ostracized from society, can't get a job, etc?

All that said, I suspect the first case would be the repudiation of Arianism at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. The Arians were exiled and their books banned, which I think qualifies as persecution. This took place shortly after Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, and so suddenly Christians went from being outlawed and persecuted themselves to having political power and influence.

Constantine was an emperor, i.e. a dictator, so it's not surprising that when he learned that his new-found religion was facing division and disagreement, he decided to step in and "solve" the problem by declaring which side was right and ordering everyone to fall in line or else. AFter all, that's what he would do if his generals disagreed about how to wage a war, or if his bureaucrats disagreed about how to administer some law.


Why is the Catholic teaching that Mary's hymen remained intact during childbirth important?

The answer is simply at that time that was the sole measure of virginity, regardless of how some came to think about it centuries later.  Basically, it is important because it was the proof of virginity.
This is shown in scripture and in a very early tradition.

And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:  Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:  Deut 22:14-15

The tokens of virginity included blood and breakage.
We find this same integrity idea in the Infancy Gospel of James.

[19]Then said Salome: As the Lord my God liveth, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.
20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show thyself; for no small controversy has arisen about thee. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire.
source

This absolutely necessary physical integrity found its way into the Catholic Dogma (de fide).

This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death; first when Mary, arising in haste to go to visit Elizabeth, is greeted by her as blessed because of her belief in the promise of salvation and the precursor leaped with joy in the womb of his mother (cf. Lk. 1:41-45); then also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it,
source

Conceived without blood or breakage.  Birthed without blood or breakage.  Mary's physical virginity remained intact as proof she was and remained a virgin they believe.


What is the Roman Catholic position on literally reading the Flood account in Genesis?

The Catholic Church does not have an "official" position on the literal interpretation of the Old Testament (including the great flood narration). Whether they are literal or not has no bearing on whether the lesson they impart is true. Catholics are free to understand them as literal or not. The Church only insists that the Bible is inspired and inerrant and that what it teaches is the truth.

Just because there is no official position on the literal interpretation doesn't mean that Catholics can interpret scriptures to mean anything they want. Catholic interpretation should always be within the boundaries laid down by the church. These boundaries are most importantly guided by church tradition. Careful attention must be paid to the actual meaning intended by the authors, in order to render a correct interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church holds that the authority to declare correct interpretation rests ultimately with the church through its magisterium.src Catholics believe that the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope) has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition.

Just a footnote about the question you referred to: that is about Card. Joseph Ratzinger's position on evolution and is not an official dogmatic teaching of the Church.


What compelled the fishermen to "immediately" follow Jesus?

Rabbi and Talmidim

First of all, I encourage you to read this article 1, it was the first thing that came to mind when I read your question as it answers it perfectly. I'll do my best to sum it up:

In short, the reason the Apostles dropped what they were doing and followed Christ at the words, "Follow me," is because Jesus surprised them with an opportinity of a lifetime.

Jesus was in a position where the situation should have been reversed, his disciples should have been the ones to approach Him and say, "Let me follow you", which happened on occasion (see Mark 5:19; Luke 9:57). But, only promising Talmidin were typically chosen by a Rabbi. Talmidim were basically students, apprentices; the law was taught orally in those days, and a talmid would seek out a teacher-a Rabbi he could listen to and learn the scriptures and the law from, and how to put them into practice. When a talimid found a teacher he desired to learn from, he would ask if he could "follow" him. Jesus was a very prominent figure in Galilee, and extrememly well educated, we know this by the fact that he was called, "Rabbi" by his disciples (Luke 7:40), lawyers (Matt. 22:35-36), ordinary people (Luke 12:13), the rich (Matt. 19:16), Pharisees (Luke 19:39), and Sadducees (Luke 20:27-28). Jesus fit the description of a first century rabbi especially one at the most advanced level, the one sought by talmidim.

If a Rabbi approached a talmid, and said to him, "Follow me" it was a big deal, because it meant that the Rabbi believed that the potential talmid had the ability and commitment to become like him.

To draw some analogies, imagine if a wall-street broker were to approach a boy at with a hotdog stand and say to him, "I want to make you my apprentice." Or if a university professor were to approach a random kid who hadn't even finished grade school and said he would sponsor the child to get a PHD.

This is essentially what Christ did to his disciples, the Rabbi went to the fishermen, who earned a meagre living, who were not learned, and who would unlikely ever have an opportunity to obtain such an education or status, men who were the least likely to be taken as a talmid by such a great Rabbi and said to them, "Follow me."

1 In case the link ever breaks:

From https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/rabbi-and-talmidim

Rabbi and Talmudic

The people of Galilee were the most religious Jews in the world in the time of Jesus. This is quite contrary to the common view that the Galileans were simple, uneducated peasants from an isolated area. This perspective is probably due to the comments made in the Bible, which appear to belittle people from this area. At the Shavuoth feast in the book of Acts for example, the people seem amazed that the Galileans were capable of speaking in other languages. But this is certainly a bias against Galileans by the people of Judea and other countries due to the very strong and passionate religious commitments of the people of Galilee. Besides, the Galileans had more interaction with the world living on the "way of the sea" (the trade route, see Matt. 4:15) than the Jews of Jerusalem who were more isolated in the mountains. The Galilean people were actually more educated in the Bible and its application than most Jews. More famous Jewish teachers come from Galilee than anywhere else in the world. They were known for their great reverence for Scripture and the passionate desire to be faithful to it. This translated into vibrant religious communities, devoted to strong families, their country, whose synagogues echoed the debate and discussions about keeping the Torah. They resisted the pagan influences of Hellenism far more than did their Judean counterparts. When the great revolt against the pagan Romans and their collaborators (66-74 AD) finally occurred, it began among the Galileans.

Jesus was born, grew up, and spent his ministry among people who knew Scripture by memory, who debated its application with enthusiasm, and who loved God with all their hearts, all their souls and all their might (Deut. 6:5). God prepared this environment carefully so that Jesus would have exactly the context he needed to present his message of Malchut Shemayim '�"The kingdom of heaven" and his followers would understand and join his new movement. He fit his world perfectly. Understanding this helps to understand the great faith and courage of his followers who left Galilee and went to the whole world to bring the good news. Their courage, their message, the methods they used, and their complete devotion to God and his Word were born in the religious communities in the Galilee.

Education in Galilee

The Mishnah(1) describes the educational process for a young Jewish boy in Jesus' time.

At five years old [one is fit] for the Scripture, at ten years the Mishnah (oral Torah, interpretations) at thirteen for the fulfilling of the commandments, at fifteen the Talmud (making Rabbinic interpretations), at eighteen the bride-chamber, at twenty pursuing a vocation, at thirty for authority (able to teach others)This clearly describes the exceptional student, for very few would become teachers but indicates the centrality of Scripture in the education in Galilee. It is interesting to compare Jesus' life to this description. Though little is stated about his childhood we know that he "grew in wisdom" as a boy (Luke 2:52) and that he reached the "fulfilling of the commandments" indicated by ones first Passover at age twelve (Luke 2:41). He then learned a trade (Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3) and spent time with John the Baptist (Luke 3:21; John 3:22-26) and began his ministry at -about thirty- (Luke 3:23). This parallels the Mishnah description quite closely. It certainly demands a closer look at the education process in Galilee.

Schools were associated with the local synagogue in first century Galilee. Apparently each community would hire a teacher (respectfully called "rabbi") for the school. While this teacher was responsible for the education of the village he had no special authority in the synagogue itself. Children began their study at age 4-5 in Beth Sefer (elementary school). Most scholars believe both boys and girls attended the class in the synagogue. The teaching focused primarily on the Torah, emphasizing both reading and writing Scripture. Large portions were memorized and it is likely that many students knew the entire Torah by memory by the time this level of education was finished. At this point most students (and certainly the girls) stayed at home to help with the family and in the case of boys to learn the family trade. It is at this point that a boy would participate in his first Passover in Jerusalem (a ceremony that probably forms the background of today's bar mitzvah in orthodox Jewish families today.) Jesus' excellent questions for the teachers in the temple at his first Passover indicate the study he had done.

The best students continued their study (while learning a trade) in Beth Midrash (secondary school) also taught by a rabbi of the community. Here they (along with the adults in the town) studied the prophets and the writings (3) in addition to Torah and began to learn the interpretations of the Oral Torah (4) to learn how to make their own applications and interpretations much like a catechism class might in some Churches today. Memorization continued to be important because most people did not have their own copy of the Scripture so they either had to know it by heart or go to the synagogue to consult the village scroll. Memory was enhanced by reciting aloud, a practice still widely used in Middle Eastern education both Jewish and Muslim. Constant repetition was considered to be an essential element of learning (5).

A few (very few) of the most outstanding Beth Midrash students sought permission to study with a famous rabbi often leaving home to travel with him for a lengthy period of time. These students were called talmidim (talmid, s.) in Hebrew, which is translated disciple. There is much more to a talmid than what we call student. A student wants to know what the teacher knows for the grade, to complete the class or the degree or even out of respect for the teacher. A talmid wants to be like the teacher, that is to become what the teacher is. That meant that students were passionately devoted to their rabbi and noted everything he did or said. This meant the rabbi-talmid relationship was a very intense and personal system of education. As the rabbi lived and taught his understanding of the Scripture his students (talmidim) listened and watched and imitated so as to become like him. Eventually they would become teachers passing on a lifestyle to their talmidim.

As a result, Galilee was a place of intense study of Scripture. People were knowledgeable about its content and the various applications made by their tradition. They were determined to live by it and to pass their faith and knowledge and lifestyle on to their children. It was into this world that Jesus came as a child and eventually a rabbi.

Jesus the Rabbi

The term rabbi in the time of Jesus did not necessarily refer to a specific office or occupation. That would be true only after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed (70 AD). Rather, it was a word meaning "great one" or "my master" which was applied to many kinds of people in everyday speech. It clearly was used as a term of respect for one's teacher as well even though the formal position of rabbi would come later. In one sense then, calling Jesus "Rabbi" is an anachronism. In another sense the use of this term for him by the people his day is a measure of their great respect for him as a person and as a teacher and not just a reference to the activity of teaching he was engaged in.

Many people referred to Jesus as Rabbi. His disciples (Luke 7:40), lawyers (Matt. 22:35-36), ordinary people (Luke 12:13), the rich (Matt. 19:16), Pharisees (Luke 19:39), and Sadducees (Luke 20:27-28). Jesus fit the description of a first century rabbi especially one at the most advanced level, the one sought by talmidim.

He traveled from place to place with his disciples depending on the hospitality of others (Luke 8:1-3) and often meeting in private homes (Luke 10:38-42)

In travel, rabbis would visit local synagogues because of the discussion of Scripture that occurred regularly in these community centers (Matt. 4:23)

Rabbis used similar methods of interpreting Scripture. For example the great teachers used a technique today called remez or hint, in which they used part of a Scripture passage in discussion assuming their audience's knowledge of the Bible would allow them to deduce for themselves fuller meaning. Apparently Jesus used this method often. When the children sang Hosanna to him in the Temple and the Sadducees demanded Jesus quiet them he responded with a quote from Psalm 8:2 "From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise." Their anger at Jesus is better understood when you realize that the next phrase in the Psalm adds the reason why children and infants would praise, because of the enemies of God who would be silenced (Ps. 8:2). In other words the chief priests realized Jesus was implying they were God's enemies.

Another example is Jesus' comments to Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). Jesus said "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (Luke 19:10) The background to this statement is probably Ezekiel 34. God, angry with the leaders of Israel for scattering and harming his flock (the people of Israel) states the he himself will become the shepherd and will seek the lost ones and deliver (save) them. Based on this the people of Jesus' day understood that the Messiah to come would "seek and save" the lost. By using this phrase, knowing the people knew the Scripture, Jesus said several things. To the people he said "I am the Messiah and God no less." To the leaders (whose influence kept Zacchaeus out of the crowd) he said "you have scattered and harmed God's flock." To Zacchaeus he said "you are one of God's lost sheep, he still loves you."

This technique indicated a brilliant understanding of Scripture and incredible teaching skills on Jesus part. It also demonstrates the background knowledge of Scripture the common people had.

Rabbis used similar teaching techniques like the use of parables. More than 3,500 parables from first century rabbis still exist and Jesus' are among the very best. He uses similar themes (landowner, king, and farmer) as well. (Matt. 13:3,34)

Jesus seems to be a type of rabbi believed to have s'mikhah or authority to make new interpretations. Most of the teachers were Torah teachers (teachers of the law) who could only teach accepted interpretations. Those with authority (today "ordination") could make new interpretations and pass legal judgments. Crowds were amazed because Jesus taught with authority (Hebrew s'mikhah, Greek exousia) not as their Torah teachers (Matt. 7:28-29). Jesus was questioned about his authority (Matt. 21:23-27). While this makes Jesus one of a small group of teachers he was not the only one with authority.

Rabbis invited people to learn to keep the Torah. This was called taking "the yoke of Torah" or "the yoke of the kingdom of heaven". Rabbi's with s'mikhah would have a new interpretation or yoke. Torah teachers would teach the accepted interpretations or yoke of their community. Jesus invitation to those who listened to many teachers and interpretations helps establish him as a Rabbi would present an interpretation that was easy and light (to understand not necessarily to do) (Matt. 13:11-30). As such, he was probably not speaking to unsaved people burdened with sin but people unsure of the many interpretations they heard in the dynamic religious debate in Galilee.

Fulfilling the Torah was the task of a first century rabbi. The technical term for interpreting the Scripture so it would be obeyed correctly was "fulfill." To interpret Scripture incorrectly so it would not be obeyed as God intended was to "destroy" the Torah. Jesus uses these terms to describe his task as well (Matt. 5:17-19). Contrary to what some think Jesus did not come to do away with God's Torah or Old Testament. He came to complete it and to show how to correctly keep it. One of the ways Jesus interpreted the Torah was to stress the importance of the right attitude of heart as well as the right action (Matt. 5:27-28).

The Disciples as Talmidim

The decision to follow a rabbi as a talmid meant total commitment in the first century as it does today. Since a talmid was totally devoted to becoming like the rabbi he would have spent his entire time listening and observing the teacher to know how to understand the Scripture and how to put it into practice. Jesus describes his relationship to his disciples in exactly this way (Matt. 10:24-25; Luke 6:40) He chose them to be with him (Mark 3:13-19) so they could be like him (John 13:15).

Most students sought out the rabbis they wished to follow. This happened to Jesus on occasion (Mark 5:19; Luke 9:57). There were a few exceptional rabbis who were famous for seeking out their own students. If a student wanted to study with a rabbi he would ask if he might "follow" the rabbi. The rabbi would consider the students potential to become like him and whether he would make the commitment necessary. It is likely most students were turned away. Some of course were invited to "follow me". This indicated the rabbi believed the potential talmid had the ability and commitment to become like him. It would be a remarkable affirmation of the confidence the teacher had in the student. In that light, consider whether the disciples of Jesus were talmidim as understood by the people of his time. They were to be "with" him Mark 3:13-19; to follow him Mark 1:16-20; to live by his teaching John 8:31; were to imitate his actions John 13:13-15; were to make everything else secondary to their learning from the rabbi Luke 14:26.

This may explain Peter's walking on water (Matt. 14:22-33). When Jesus (the rabbi) walked on water, Peter (the talmid) wanted to be like him. Certainly Peter had not walked on water before nor could he have imagined being able to do it. However, if the teacher, who chose me because he believed I could be like him, can do it so must I. And he did! It was a miracle but he was just like the rabbi! And then...he doubted. Doubted what? Traditionally we have seen he doubted Jesus' power. Maybe, but Jesus was still standing on the water. I believe Peter doubted himself, or maybe better his capacity to be empowered by Jesus. Jesus response "why did you doubt?" (14:31) then means "why did you doubt I could empower you to be like me?"

That is a crucial message for the talmid of today. We must believe that Jesus calls us to be disciples because he knows he can so instruct, empower, and fill us with his Spirit that we can be like him (at least in our actions). We must believe in ourselves! Otherwise we will doubt that he can use us and as a result we will not be like him.

Being like the rabbi is the major focus of the life of talmidim. They listen and question, they respond when questioned, they follow without knowing where the rabbi is taking them knowing that the rabbi has good reason for bringing them to the right place for his teaching to make the most sense. In the story recorded in Matthew 16, Jesus walked nearly thirty miles one way to be in Caesarea Philippi for a lesson that fit the location perfectly. Surely he talked with them along the way but the whole trip seems to have been geared for one lesson that takes less than ten minutes to give (Matt. 16:13-28).

This means that the present day talmid (disciple) must be no less focused on the rabbi. We must be with him in his Word, we must follow him even if we are not sure of the final destination, we must live by his teaching (which means we must know those teachings well), and we must imitate him whenever we can. In other words everything becomes secondary in life to being like him. When they had observed and learned for a time they were sent out to begin to practice being like the teacher (Luke 9:1-6; 10:1-24). The amazement of the talmidim in discovering they could be like their teacher is delightful (10:17). It is very understandable to anyone who has seen the deep attachment of talmidim to his or her rabbi even today. It is most affirming when a student discovers that being like the teacher is possible. The teachers joy is no less as he discovers his students have learned well and are gifted and empowered by God to act as the rabbi does (Luke 10:21; see also John 17:16, 18).

When the teacher believed that his talmidim were prepared to be like him he would commission them to become disciple makers. He was saying "As far as is possible you are like me. Now go and seek others who will imitate you. Because you are like me, when they imitate you they will be like me." This practice certainly lies behind Jesus great commission (Matt. 28:18-20). While in one sense no one can be like Jesus in his divine nature, or in his perfect human nature, when taught by the Rabbi, empowered and blessed by the Spirit of God, imitating Jesus becomes a possibility. The mission of the disciples was to seek others who would imitate them and therefore become like Jesus. That strategy, blessed by God's Spirit would bear amazing fruit especially in the Gentile world.

It also helps to understand the teaching of Paul who sought to make disciples. He invited Herod Agrippa and the Roman governor to become like him (Acts 26:28-29). He taught the young churches to imitate him and others who were like Jesus (1 Cor. 4:15-16, 11:1; 1 Thess. 1:6-7, 2:14; 2 Thess. 3:7-9; 1 Tim. 4:12. The writer to the Hebrews had the same mission (Heb. 6:12, 13:7).

This is one of the most significant concepts of the New Testament. Jesus, the divine Messiah, chose the rabbi-talmid system. He taught like a rabbi in real life situations, using the most brilliant methods ever devised. He interpreted God's word and completed it. He demonstrated obedience to it. He chose disciples whom he would empower to become like him and led them around until they began to imitate him. Then (after the gift of the Holy Spirit) he sent them our to make disciples...to lead people to imitate them by obeying Jesus. And that strategy, by God's blessing would change the most pagan of cultures.

That is our call too! Jesus calls us to be his talmidim. We must know God's Word and Jesus' interpretation of it. We must be passionate in our devotion to that word and Jesus example. As we are filled with his Spirit, we must be obsessed with being like him as far as is humanly possible. We must strive for relationships with others so they will observe us and seek to imitate our love and devotion to God and our Jesus-like lifestyle (1 Cor. 2:16, 11:1; Gal. 3:27). By God's grace, that strategy CAN change the most pagan of cultures.... our own!

1. The Mishnah contains rabbinic interpretations of Scripture written down during the second century AD. Jewish scholars believe it contains the oral traditions present during the 1st century BC to 1st century AD and therefore would reflect what was true during Jesus' lifetime.

2. Aboth 5:21, The Mishnah, Herbert Danby, ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985.

3. The Jewish people call the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) Tanakh an acronym taken from Torah (Pentateuch), Navi'im (Prophets including the history books since history is prophetic), Ketubim (writings). Boys began the study of Torah since it was the foundation of the Jewish faith and the others (writings and prophets) were believed to comment on and apply the Torah.

4. The Oral Torah was interpretation and application of the Torah believed to originate with Moses and to have been handed down orally for centuries. Many of Jesus' debates with the scribes were over issues of the Oral Torah (Matt. 23:5. God had commanded the wearing of Tassels [Lev. 19:18] but the Oral Torah specified the length).

5. An excellent treatment of this education can be found in The Jewish People in the First Century. ll, by Shmuel Safrai, Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1974.


@j.atkinson could not answer due to account limitations. I am a minister of a church he attends and he asked me to answer for him using some of our material.
It seems as if those who answered the questions on the other threads have different answers than the one I am giving.

During a year, any Israelite was able to bring a sacrifice as a sin offering. This could be for himself alone or for his family. There was the Day of Atonement where two goats were chosen for the entire nation. The KJV is filled with mistranslations and is not a good rendering of this. We read through correct translation using the Hebrew that 'One goat as a sacrifice on behalf of the people and one goat for Azazel."

Now you may be thinking, I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF Azazel before… what is that?

I open up Leviticus chapter 16 to find verse 8 at the footnotes of the page mentions Azazel.
To understand this we need to refer to some books some people do not commonly associate with Scripture. The Book of Enoch talk of 1/3 of the angels who rebelled and who were cast down to earth for their rebellion. The first 6 chapters of Enoch tell of this conspiracy of the angels. It gives names of about 20 main culprits. One of the rebellious angels is named Azazel. Remember how Scripture records of angels who left their first estate?

Moving on, we learn that Azazel taught the people on earth many wicked things. Azazel is said to have taught the people the art of warfare to fight wars for the purpose of conquest in pursuit of looting and such.

The earth was left in a wicked condition because of these angels teachings. Enoch tells of the people dying in great numbers and their bitter cries of complaint going up to heaven. God sent a committee of four archangels to investigate the matter and to report to him how bad the situation was.

Enoch records the angels investigators looked the situation over to make a report to Yahweh. These angels reported, "Thou seest what Azazel hath done, teaching all wickedness in the earth". Yahweh said, "Therefore unto Azazel ascribe all sin".

Individuals do sin but this is said to be in large part because of Azazel teaching people to sin. Yahweh tells one of the archangels "You take a chain and tie up Azazel and cast him into a pit out in the desert. Let him stay there and think it over for awhile, until I get around to his final judgment." Now we know who Azazel is.

Two goats are selected, one as a sacrifice on behalf of the people of Israel and one for Azazel.

The message sent to Azazel by a goat is, "Look Azazel, all these sins are yours, and for you there is no sacrifice. You must pay for all of these sins". This is indeed fair enough; otherwise there wouldn't be any justice. This is all done on the tenth day of the autumn month of Tishri.

This is the source from a church affiliate though we hold publishing rights of all Comparet's Works:
https://israelect.com/ChildrenOfYahweh/Comparet/great_jubilee.htm


Could a lowborn during the middle ages read the bible?

Rev John O'Brien wrote in The Faith of Millions* that in the Middle Ages (1000s to renaissance) the Bible was chained in various churches so it would be accessible to the greatest number of people.

He also says that St. Jerome, the Latin translator of the Vulgate (people's) Bible wrote words of encouragement that all should love and honor the Bible.

Luther apparently had the invalid assertion that the Bible was just sitting around collecting dust before he came around and lots of people still think there were no vernacular translations before him, but in reality, O'Brien wrote, there were more than 20 in German alone. (Maybe not Luther's German, but various high and low forms).

But in the Middle Ages the translation was more abstract and in Italy, you've got the best examples of the translation from page to art. The art was still being refined, but it's still intelligible, what exists, the Gospels were hanging up on the walls and being internalized.

St. Mark's Basilica is a prime example of such work in the 1200s.

Dominican preachers would be well acquainted with the Bible and even if you were unlucky enough to have a priest in your village who didn't think much of your lowbornness, there's a chance, at least, that an itinerant preacher would come to your aid and help you to learn your Bible.

The middle ages were truly a much more pleasant time to be a Catholic, and hopefully following Pope Francis' advice we can all shut out our techno-wizardry, learn from the sages of the past and go back there.

* see "The Chruch: Interpreter of the Bible" under subheads Bible in the Middle Ages; Luther, First Translator and Chained Bibles"


What is Augustine's original of Tolstoy's "Three Hermits" story?

Separating history from legend is often tricky. There is a legend stating that while Augustine of Hippo was writing his treatise De Trinitate (about the Trinity), he was walking along the beach and thinking about the Godhead. There he encountered a boy running back and forth between the ocean and a small hole in the sand, filling it with water. When Augustine asked the boy what he was doing, he replied, "I'm putting the sea into this hole." After Augustine commented on the absurdity of this notion, the boy retorted, "I will sooner empty the sea into this hole than you will manage to get the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity into your head!"

There is nothing in Augustine's writings containing this account, only legend. The story is told in the 15th century Legenda Aurea written by Jacobus de Voragine, and it is depicted in numerous works of art from that time until now.

It is possible that this legend influenced Tolstoy's telling of The Three Hermits, but that's somewhat of a stretch since these stories have different points they are trying to make. I am not aware of any other stories related to this associated with Augustine.


Was Apollos ever baptized in the name of Jesus?

I believe the question highlights an interesting point : that we should we see (by two different examples) that if someone is baptised (but in a limited way) then it is not essential that they be baptised again, but they could be.
After all, they have made a public profession through baptism which is one of the main features of baptism.
I say this because I was also baptised in a limited way and largely in ignorance, at the age of sixteen (over 50 years ago). But on later being received into a more enlightened congregation, they did not require me to be re-baptised.
However I had previously been 'christened' as an infant (although I remember it because, through circumstances, it was delayed until I was five) but I wanted to be baptised as an adult at the age of sixteen.
This was accepted by a congregation and they were willing to baptise me a second time, but as a converted adult. However, although sincere at the time, I was still very ignorant and I moved quickly from that congregation in my spiritual progress.
So, in the first case, I was 're-baptised' which was a necessary thing to do for doctrinal and fellowship reasons.
But in the second case I was not, for it was not deemed essential to do so.


(LDS) What kind of payment can a murderer make to receive a pardon?

I haven't taken a look at the other question yet, but after reading your question, my knee-jerk reaction was, "whaaaat?"
The word "pardon" does not exist in LDS doctrine outside of the "Unpardonable Sin."  The one and only person who can issue a "pardon" is Jesus Christ Himself.  Per D&C 64:10...

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.1

Said another way, we don't use the word.  So let's examine the issue a bit and see what's going on.
D&C 131:6 teaches, "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance."  The opposite is also true.  2 Nephi 9:25 teaches us:

...where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement.

The reality is, you can neither be saved nor punished in ignorance.  These are important concepts.  The Unpardonable Sin in context of this question is taking an innocent life — but that's from the perspective of understanding the gift of God.  People who don't understand the gift of life, who have not been born again in the Holy Ghost, cannot be judged guilty of the Unpardonable Sin and therefore can be forgiven the sin of murder.
An example of this is the ancient apostle Paul who, as Saul, consented to the death of Stephen.

And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. ... And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.  (Acts 22:4, 20)

Saul did not yet understand the glory of the Lord and, through that glory, the amazing gift of life.  He certainly understood "Thou shalt not kill," but by his day the Hebrews had effectively realigned the commandments to refer to the chosen people — and Stephen was no longer among them.  He was ignorant of the depth and meaning of Jehovah's commandment and not a believer in Jesus.  But because of his vision he became a believer and visited Ananias and was told:

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.  (Acts 22:16)

Before baptism, the only "payment" is to the laws of man and the combination of repentance and baptism.  Before baptism, the person may understand it's wrong to kill, but doesn't understand it the way God understands it.  they are ignorant.  After baptism, and after the LDS member has been taught about the sanctity of life, sobriety of the scriptures, and gifts of God, and received the Holy Ghost, murder can become unforgivable.
But before we go into that in detail, let's briefly look at the Unpardonable Sin in general.  D&C 76:31-37 tells us very specifically who those who succumb to the Unpardonable Sin are:

Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power — They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born; for they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity; concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come — Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.
These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels — And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power. (Emphasis mine)

Those who commit the Unpardonable Sin are not forgiven.  They are never forgiven.  They will be judged to reside in Outer Darkness (also called Perdition) for eternity.  But note those conditions.

One must know the power of Christ
One must have been made a partaker of Christ's power
One must then have allowed oneself to be overcome by Lucifer
And denied the truth
And denied Christ's power

The unpardonable sin isn't a mistake.  It's not an error.  It's a choice — an educated choice.  A willing defiance of God's will.
Which is why it cannot be forgiven.  This sheds new light on Matthew 12:32, which states that anyone who speaks against the Holy Ghost (in the context described above) will not be forgiven.  Had Paul committed murder after his vision of Jesus, it would have been an unpardonable sin.
But is the Unpardonable Sin restricted to denying the Holy Ghost?  If you think about it, one of the Holy Ghost's duties is to teach us all things realting to Christ and His gospel (John 14:26).  Therfore, any choice to turn against the Lord is a denial of the Holy Ghost and therefore is unpardonable.
And that includes taking an innocent life.  Consider the following:
Rev. 21:8  But ... murderers ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
We've seen that phrase, "second death," before.  Scroll back up and read D&C 76:31-37 again.  Those who commit the Unpardonable Sin, who become sons (and daughters) of Perdition, and are cast out to Outer Darkness, they suffer the second death.
But, just to make it clear in our day...
D&C 42:18 And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.
However, what about the period of time between baptism and achieving those spiritual highs descirbed in D&C 76?  Alma 39:5-6 teaches us:

Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?  For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.

Alma's last statement, "it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness" reflects the period of time between baptism and achieving the conditions described in D&C 76.  It's hard ... very hard ... to receive forgiveness.
But, is there any scripture or teaching that suggests there is a payment to be made?  No, there is not.  How can you possibly return the potential and infinite value of a life?  It's little wonder that it's hard, even when it's possible.
Before I sum up, I need to clarify something.  I don't know where that linked question found the reference to the study manual.  I visited LDS.org and ran through all the institute study manuals and couldn't find that citation.  I have no doubt Bro. Ludlow said what he did, but he was not a prophet of the Lord.  He's not wrong so long as you remember the difference between those two periods: between baptism and knowing the power of Christ, and thereafter.  D&C 132:19,26-27 specifically teaches that entrance into the new and everlasting covenant (the Celestial Kingdom and marriage) can ONLY be had if no innocent blood has been shed.  There's a lot to this that Bro. Ludlow's quote doesn't even touch, and so I would NOT take it at simple face value.  Perhaps that was an old manual that has since been updated to clarify the doctrine, but I couldn't find it.
TL/DR
OK, that was lengthy, but to specifically answer your question: there are three periods to consider:

Before baptism, killing a person is forgivable through repentance (including satisfying the laws of man) and baptism.

After baptism, it's difficult, very difficult, to obtain forgiveness because, frankly, how confusing is "thou shalt not kill," really?  On top of this, what restitution can be made as part of the repentance process.  As I said, very difficult.

Finally, once you have met the expectations of spiritual growth as described in D&C 76, having been born again, received the Holy Ghost, been made aware of Christ's power and partaken of it (a whole discussion unto itself), murder is 100% unforgivable.

1 Which means that we, individually, are expected to fogrive murders.  Having never been involved with one, or even known someone who was, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to forgive a murderer.  Note, however, there is a difference between forgivness and consequence.  The rule of the Church is that excommunicated people may not partake of the Sacrament (bread & water).  Our forgiveness doesn't change the fact that their actions required a separation from the Church that restricts their activity until or unless rebaptized.  This reflects the idea of the Unpardonable Sin.  Some actions separate you from the Kingdom permanently.


Why is Apostolic succession required in some denominations?

The Catholic Church teaches that Apostolic Succession is necessary because it was instituted by the original Apostles.  Other denominations claims are similar.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  It remains to consider whether the so-called "monarchical" episcopate
  was instituted by the Apostles. Besides establishing a college of
  presbyter-bishops, did they further place one man in a position of
  supremacy, entrusting the government of the Church to him, and
  endowing him with Apostolic authority over the Christian community?
  Even if we take into account the Scriptural evidence alone, there are
  sufficient grounds for answering this question in the affirmative.
  From the time of the dispersion of the Apostles, St. James appears in
  an episcopal relation to the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13;
  Galatians 2:12). In the other Christian communities the institution of
  "monarchical" bishops was a somewhat later development. At first the
  Apostles themselves fulfilled, it would seem, all the duties of
  supreme oversight. They established the office when the growing needs
  of the Church demanded it. The Pastoral Epistles leave no room to
  doubt that Timothy and Titus were sent as bishops to Ephesus and to
  Crete respectively. To Timothy full Apostolic powers are conceded.
  Notwithstanding his youth he holds authority over both clergy and
  laity. To him is confided the duty of guarding the purity of the
  Church's faith, of ordaining priests, of exercising jurisdiction.
  Moreover, St. Paul's exhortation to him, "to keep the commandment
  without spot, blameless, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"
  shows that this was no transitory mission. A charge so worded includes
  in its sweep, not Timothy alone, but his successors in an office which
  is to last until the Second Advent. Local tradition unhesitatingly
  reckoned him among the occupants of the episcopal see. At the Council
  of Chalcedon, the Church of Ephesus counted a succession of
  twenty-seven bishops commencing with Timothy (Mansi, VII, 293; cf.
  Eusebius, Church History III.4-5).

The Orthodox Wiki explains the significance and importance like this:

  The unbrokenness of apostolic succession is significant because of
  Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" (Matthew 16:18) would
  not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he himself would
  be with the apostles to "the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).
  According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such
  apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept as
  would an apostolic succession which, while formally intact, completely
  abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate
  successors; as, for example, if all the bishops of the world agreed to
  abrogate the Nicene Creed or repudiate the Holy Scripture.

The LDS teaching has a similar ring, if not a similar line of Presidents.  They believe that the current lines recognized by Catholic and Orthodox Churches are invalid because all other denominations are apostate, and the "true Church" was restored by Joseph Smith.  A new line of succession began with him, but the concept of succession is the same.

The belief is that the line in the "restored" Church" is ordained and protected by God.  Therefore it is by His will that succession is necessary, and by His will that it is protected.

  Succession in the Presidency of the Church has been established by the
  Lord. The Church is never without inspired leadership, and there is no
  reason for speculation or controversy over who will become the next
  President of the Church. President Harold B. Lee (1899–1973)
  explained: “[The Lord] knows whom he wants to preside over this
  church, and he will make no mistake. The Lord doesn’t do things by
  accident. He has never done anything accidentally” (in Conference
  Report, Oct. 1970, 153; or Improvement Era, Dec. 1970, 127). President
  Ezra Taft Benson (1899–1994) taught that “God knows all things, the
  end from the beginning, and no man becomes president of the church of
  Jesus Christ by accident, or remains there by chance, or is called
  home by happenstance” (“Jesus Christ—Gifts and Expectations,” New Era,
  May 1975, 16–17).

That may seem a simplistic answer, but the idea is that authority must be granted, and that for authority to be granted, it must come from one who has the authority to grant it.  The need for a line of succession is similar to the need for a central Church authority, which was asked about at What is the doctrinal or Scriptural basis for a central Church authority?  The accepted answer there provides Scriptural support for both ideas.

Borrowing from JustinY's answer:

  A central church authority is a necessary byproduct of believing that
  certain ordinances are necessary for salvation. Ordinances often have
  rules for who can be administered to as well as how it must be done.
  Church authority is a very orderly and efficient way to regulate those
  requirements. The Old Testament is an excellent example of this.
  Notice that churches who put more emphasis on ordinances also have
  more structure (Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS churches, as well as the
  Jewish faith). And it's not just a good way to regulate the
  ordinances, but also a good way to regulate doctrine.


Why doesn't the Catholic Bible include all books from Septuagint?

One of the great things about the Roman Catholic Church is that they document everything, including decisions made 1,600 years ago. So we actually do know what happened to each book.

The early Christian Church used the Septuagint as the principle work to use because it was considered to be based off of older Hebrew texts, and thus more accurate to the original Hebrew. However, over time that view fell out of favor from both Jews and the Church.

When St. Jerome first compiled the Vulgate in the 5th century, he compared the Septuagint to other Hebrew translations and found the Hebrew translations to be more accurate. As far as I understand, in the intervening years, the Jews came to the same conclusion independently.

So when the first Vulgate in 405 was compiled, decisions were made as to what was accurate and what wasn't. Works that had some basis in the Hebrew translations available at the time were kept, and others that were called into doubt were dropped.

In this respect, it's no different than the Protestant omissions a thousand years later: when new information comes to light that substantively challenges the authenticity of the work, they're removed.

However, the Eastern Orthodox Churchs continue to rely on the Septuagint as the main translation, in contrast with Jerome and the editions that came thereafter in the Roman Catholic and Protestant faiths.

To the specific works:

1 and 2 Esdras

These two are easy. The Roman Catholic Church calls these books Ezra and Nehemiah and they are part of canon, appearing after 2 Chronicles and before Tobit. As far as I understand, the principle differences between the two are that 1 and 2 Esdras contain a fair amount of restructuring and reordering from the original work (the Jewish single volume Ezra) and are from the Septuagint, whereas Ezra and Nehemiah are from the Hebrew tranlsation.

3 and 4 Maccabees

These were never considered to have any claim to canonicity, and have never appeared in any Roman Catholic canon. The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:

  III Mach. is the story of a persecution of the Jews in Egypt under Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-205 B. C.), and therefore has no right to its title. Though the work contains much that is historical, the story is a fiction. IV Mach. is a Jewish-Stoic philosophical treatise on the supremacy of pious reason, that is religious principles, over the passions. The martyrdom of Eleazar and of the seven brothers (2 Maccabees 6:18-7) is introduced to illustrate the author's thesis. Neither book has any claim to canonicity, though the first for a while received favourable consideration in some Churches.

Psalm 151

Psalm 151 isn't part for the Roman Catholic (or Protestant or Jewish) canon because most scholars of those faiths believe it to have been written after the rest of the Psalter, making it not part of the original work. It didn't make it into the original Vulgate.

Prayer of Manasseh

For the Prayer of Manasseh, it was relegated to the Appendix of the Roman Catholic Bible (until recently, the Clementine Vulgate) in 1592 by Pope Clement VIII after appearing in the original Vulgate. Originally, it appeared at the end of 2 Chronicles.

However, at the time, most people, Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, viewed the Prayer as apocryphal, namely because there were no reliable Greek or Hebrew translations (a fact overlooked in 405, where an Old Latin translation was added). However, because it's appeared in the Bible for so long, it was relegated to the appendix as a means to preserve it without having it disappear entirely.