What is the waving cloth in the Creed and what does it mean?

It is called as Aër.

is the largest and outermost of the veils covering the Chalice and Diskos (paten) in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches which follow the Byzantine Rite. It is rectangular in shape and corresponds to the veil used to cover the chalice and paten in the Latin Rite, but is larger.

There was the following in Divine Lithurgy:

Just before the chanting of the Symbol of the Faith (Nicene Creed), the Priest will kiss the Diskos and Chalice (by kissing the Aër in the place where it touches each vessel) and the front edge of the Holy Table. During the Creed, the priest will hold the Aër above the Gifts and waive it slowly, indicating the activity of the Holy Spirit. When a bishop is serving the Liturgy, the concelebrating priests will hold the Aër during the Creed as the bishop kneels (or bows his head) underneath it. After the Creed, the Aër is folded and placed on the Holy Table.

And as for the Divine Lithurgy:

this symbolizes the descent of the Holy Spirit.
The aer also represents the shroud of Christ.

A priest taking the aer from Blessed Sacraments reminds about a stone, which had been shoven off from doors to Holy Sepulcher. Furthermore, taking the aer from the Blessed Sacraments is being completed in sign of the faith opens secrets of Divine Wisdom to us.
In time singing of the Credo the priest reads it himself, then take up, and fluctuate the aer over Blessed Sacraments. This takes place in sign of the breezing over them of coming descending of Holy Ghost, like breath of the wind precedes to the descending of the Holy Ghost unto Apostles.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. Act 2 KJV

Furthermore, taking up, and fluctuating of the aer reminds about the earthquake that took place during opening Holy Sepulcher, and about guard's run out of Holy Sepulcher. (In Russian).

2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matt 28 KJV


A good explanatation is given in "The Role of Godparents" by Fr. William Saunders

As per Code of Canon Law 872 - 874 the rules are as below:

  Can.872  Insofar as possible, a person to be baptized is to be given a
  sponsor who assists an adult in Christian initiation or together with
  the parents presents an infant for baptism. A sponsor also helps the
  baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and
  to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it.

  Can.873  There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each.

  Can.874  §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a
  person must:

  Be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or
  minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this
  function;
  Have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has
  granted an exception for a just cause;
  Be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in
  keeping with the function to be taken on;
  Not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;
  Not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

So the primary purpose is to take care of the Catholic faith formation, and it does not hold them accountable to taking care of the child in the future.


If I undergo baptized am I still Catholic?

There is a few parts to this simple question, but the simple answer is "Yes, you are still a Catholic."

Some one suggested to talk to a priest about this and that is the best way to confirm you are still a Catholic.  However, the thought that you are still (I assume) willing to talk to a priest means that you are still a Catholic.  Just like many other things we do, this may be a sin (talk to a priest they would know and assess best...though it doesn't sound like you had intent or full knowledge of the situation and even so it might only be a venial sin).

As with any sin, we may turn away from God for some time but we are always welcome back once we admit wrong, and we are even welcome as we repent and make reparations.  The Catholic Church takes the same attitude, and we and we may sin against her, but we are always welcome.  Just because you sin doesn't make you not Catholic, it just makes you a mortal human.  The Catholic Church is filled with mortal sinners trying to do better everyday, so you are right at home with everyone.

I just mentioned sin a lot, and in order for this to be a sin, you had to have full knowledge of what is happening, full knowledge of how it's wrong, and willingly choose and intend to do this action.  Not having all these components means that you may still have made a mistake but may not have sinned or it may just be a venial sin.  Again this depends on what exactly happened and you intent and knowledge.  A priest could discern this the best with more details that you may want to share.
Based on my limited knowledge of the situation and your knowledge, it does not sound like you sinned at all.  You didn't know and didn't fully participate with full knowledge and you definitely didn't participate to spite God, the church or someone, let alone intend to do harm with your participation (or know of any possible harm with your actions).

In order to NOT be a Catholic anymore, in a nutshell, you have to publicly state your intent.  Some write a letter to the bishop with this intent.  Others in a different drastic way will publicly denounce their religion possibly by speaking ill of it or by promoting heresies.. Even at those points, those people are still welcome back, though at that point they may possibly not be known as a Catholic anymore.

As a side topic with this, there are people who haven't been to mass in 40+ years and are still technically Catholic.  There are people who started to go to a Protestant church after going to. Catholic church for 40+ years and they are still Catholic, technically.  And there are people in between both and other situations, who are all still Catholic.  Some of those situations are sinful, all of whom we need to pray for and welcome back.

Depending on who they were and what they did, the "baptism" is probably nothing more than a blessing.
 I know of one group where they will "baptise" everyone they see and come in contact with and even people sleeping.  I forget the name of that group, but all they are doing is sprinkling "holy water" or "holy salt" (I use those terms loosely as they are blessed by their church leader and not a minister with spiritual authority)., And while sprinkling they say a basic informal prayer for you to accept Jesus I hour heart.
I know that many Protestant religions don't believe in baptism (ironically enough Baptists don't) and some have something similar they call a christening....which is very similar to a baptism but without a sacrament.
There is only a few that believe in baptism and call it such and perform it in a similar way as Catholics do.  The very few will do something similar as to what I just mentioned with people blessing others.
You, possibly being curious about it and asking as they go through the motions and prayers isn't necessarily sinful and isn't enough to get kicked out.  If you were just sleeping (or resting) as they did a "drive-by" baptism I don't think counts for anything really, and really is not even a blessing.
Knowing more about who these people and their intent would be helpful...we're they the Church of Satan trying to have people denounce Christianity and be baptised in their church, or were they a 7th day Adventist just trying to bless the world  through their version of "baptism", or what we Catholics might call a consecration.

A baptism is similar to a blessing and there is more to it, but in general you can only be blessed by someone whom you allow and by someone whom has authority over you.  A baptism, as a sacrament and as a blessing with more (as an over simplification), means that they would have to have spiritual authority over you, and that would only be valid if you gave them that authority by denouncing your religion and willingly joining theirs.
Spiritual authority is a big deal when it comes to blessings and sacraments.  Without that spiritual authority it would not be valid.


The Catholic Encyclopedia reports:

  In the Middle Ages, and indeed almost down to the invention of printing, the books used in the service of the Church were much more divided up than they are at present. Instead of one book, our modern Breviary for example, containing the whole Office, we find at least four books — the Psalterium, the Hymnarium, the Antiphonarium, and the Legendarium, or book of lessons, all in separate volumes. Rubrics or ritual directions were rarely written down in connexion with the text to which they belonged...

The Encyclopedia starts by explaining the situation regarding Liturgical books (that is to say, for Holy Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours) through the Low Middle Ages. Since both parchment and manpower was expensive, liturgical books usually ommitted the rubricated directions for priests and only recorded the words for reciting, and were also split into smaller volumes, easier to copy.

  However, about the eleventh century there grew up a tendency towards greater elaboration and precision in rubrical directions for the services, and at the same time we notice the beginning of a more or less strongly marked division of these directions into two classes, which in the case of the Sarum Use are conveniently distinguished as the Customary and the Ordinal.

Eventually, as Europe recovered from the Dark Ages, as well as the Carolingian imperative towards more uniformity in worship, these rubrics were collected and spelled out in Liturgical books which simplified the preparation work for the priest, as well as minimised the possibility that a less well trained priest might mix up directions and celebrate wrongly. These compendia of Liturgical directions were collected into two classes, one more general ("Customary" in the case of the Sarum Use) and one more specific ("Ordinal" in the same Use).

  It is out of the latter of these books, i.e. the Ordinal (often called Ordinarium and Liber Ordinarius), that the "Directorium", or "Pye", and eventually also our own modern "Ordo recitandi" were in due time evolved.

Here we see the connection between your term Liber Ordinarius and the Sarum Ordinal (which was not limited to Sarum, and was produced by other dioceses), which eventually evolved into "our own modern" (that is, pre-Vatican II, because by "modern" we mean "1913") Ordo recitandi.

As for how the Ordo recitandi is laid out:

  It consists simply of a calendar for the year, in which there are printed against each day concise directions concerning the Office and Mass to be said on that day. The calendar is usually provided with some indication of fast days, special indulgences, days of devotion, and other items of information which it may be convenient for the clergy to be reminded of as they occur.

The Liber Ordinarius seems to have taken much the same shape, a calendar where the priest looks up all the special rubrics which must be followed in a given day.

Note that nowadays the Mass of Paul VI seems to take a different approach, letting the priests queue up the correct readings for the day by using a system of several bookmarks out of the same single book, either the Ordo Missae for Holy Mass or the Breviarium for the Liturgy of the Hours, which are prepared beforehand before starting Liturgy.

In conclusion, regarding your points:

Does it cover the entire liturgical year?

Yes, libri ordinarii were conceived to be a handy reference to the rubrics which were to be used in a given diocese or group of dioceses for a single year.
Do I remember correctly that it may contain only incipits of the to be used texts/chants?

Yes, they had (as the Encyclopedia puts it) "concise directions" regarding Office and Mass, which means the text was generally abbreviated, though enough of the text was given that a priest would have no doubt as to which specific forms were to be used, whenever there was a choice of two or more.
If so, are there ones that contain the full texts/chants?

Not libri ordinarii, although there were other books, like the Ordo missae, legendaria, which together were able to specify the entirety of the Liturgy in those times. It's important to remember that this is pre-printing press, so these books were extremely expensive to produce; therefore a single, "all in one" version of the books was prohibitively expensive. This eventually changed from the 15th Century on, though.
Are they still in use today or did they get replaced by something else?

They eventually evolved into the Ordines recitandi which were used until the general reforms in 1970 after Vatican II, and were basically the same thing — a book with an entry for each day of the year and which specific readings, antiphons, psalms, and proper prayers were due for that day.

However, when the most recent Liturgical reform was promulgated, the rubrics were collected into single books, the Ordo missae for Holy Mass and the Breviarium for the Liturgy of the Hours. Note, however, that a Traditionalist group under a company called Saint Lawrence Press produces Ordines Recitandi for the current year, according to the pre-Vatican II Missal.


Is there no Heaven, Hell, or Satan in the Old Testament?

Heaven and Satan:

  Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.”

We see the entrance of Satan, and his response tells us that their current "location" is one distinct from Earth, as Satan says he was on Earth previously. If we are to understand Heaven be the "realm of God" so to speak, we have it explicitly here.

As for Hell, there's a meaningful sense in which iit may not exist yet, as it is properly developed in the NT. But, in the OT, we have many references to "Sheol", a "realm of the dead". One such is 1 Samuel 2:6:

  The Lord kills and brings to life;
      he brings down to Sheol and raises up.

If you affirm the Deuterocanonical scriptures, we also have Tobit 13:1-2, which mirrors the first samuel text:

  Blessed is God who lives for ever, and blessed is his kingdom. For he afflicts, and he shows mercy; he leads down to Hades, and brings up again, and there is no one who can escape his hand.


Was God "unmerciful" to Ananias & Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10?

Is God “unmerciful” to Ananias & Sapphira in Acts5:1-10?

The answer is No, as scriptures tell us that God is Merciful;

  Merciful and gracious is the Lord (Ps. 111:4)

  "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,"(Titus3:5)

  "David said to God, “I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands.”(2Samuel24:14)

  "The Lord is good to all, He has compassion in all He has made." (Psalm145:9)

  "Be merciful just as your Father is merciful." (Luke6:36)

  "But because of His great love for us, God who is rich in mercy." ((Ephesians2:4)

  "Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."(Hebrews4:16)

Even Apostle Peter speaks of the great mercy of God;

  "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"(1Peter1:3)

We can see from scriptures that our loving God is rich in mercy. we have the teachings of St.John Paul II the Great "1980 encyclical Dives in misericordia" and
Pope Francis announced a Year of Mercy with his 2015 Misericordiae vultus.

For more on God Divine Mercy here is a latest article expounding on the coming Divine Mercy Sunday.

  Nothing God Won’t Redeem
  Merciful and gracious is the Lord (Ps. 111:4), who, out of great love with which He loved us (Eph. 2:4) and [out of] unspeakable goodness, gave us his Only-begotten Son as our Redeemer, so that through the Death and Resurrection of this Son He might open the way to eternal life for the human race, and that the adopted children who received his mercy within his temple might lift up his praise to the ends of the earth. In our times, the Christian faithful in many parts of the world wish to praise the divine mercy in divine worship, particularly in the celebration of the Paschal Mystery, in which God’s loving kindness especially shines forth. Acceding to these wishes, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II has graciously determined that in the Roman Missal, after the title “Second Sunday of Easter,” there shall henceforth be added the appellation “(or Divine Mercy Sunday),” and has prescribed that the texts assigned for that day in the same Missal and the Liturgy of the Hours of the Roman Rite are always to be used for the liturgical celebration of this Sunday.
  https://www.hprweb.com/2019/04/the-tender-heart/

Answer

Therefore, the answer based on scriptures and the teaching of the Two Popes of our times is our God is Merciful to all mankind as God desires the salvation of all souls.

  "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."(1Timothy2:3-4)

To answer your specific on the case of Ananias & Sapphira.By the very meaning of the name Ananias it already proclaim that God is merciful or "Yahweh Has Been Gracious".http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Ananias.html#.XL46E4kzZdg

It's clear in the passage that the sin of Ananias & Sapphira was "lying" and they did not "blaspheme" the Holy Spirit, lying and blasphemy are two different sins. Lying although a grave matter as written in the 8th commandment but it is not a blasphemy that the scriptures described in Matthew12:32 like the "unforgivable sin".
Did Ananias & Sapphira committed a "mortal sin"?According to Catholic Church teaching three conditions must be satisfied for it to become a "mortal sin". The answer if we look at the passages is No!, Why? Ananias doesn't know that when he lied to the Apostle he was actually lying also directly to the Holy Spirit as Peter explain it to him. So, the "absence of full knowledge" on the part of Ananias & Sapphira makes their sin not mortal.Although they committed a grave matter with intent but the lack of full knowledge on their part was very clear.

3.Ananias died in the judgement or in the Hands of God. We know that King David stated that it is better to die in the Hand of God rather than hands of man more so in the hands of satan.

  "David said to God, “I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands.”(2Samuel24:14)

Ananias & Sapphira might not know that Satan is the one who deceived them and put malice in their heart to withheld portion of the money which as part of the community vows to share whatever they have in full to meet the needs of all the church members.Satan had infiltrated the heart of Ananias & Sapphira like what he did to Judas as St.Peter stated “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit ". St.Peter was familiar to the tragic death of Judas when the malice of satan entered his heart that led to his suicide.

  Why hath Satan filled thine heart?--The narrative is obviously intended to leave the impression that St. Peter's knowledge of the fact came from a supernatural insight. He had that prophetic gift which gave him insight into the hearts of men, and through this outward show of generous devotion he read the baseness and the lie. And that evil he traced to its fountain-head. Like the sin of Judas (John 13:2; John 13:27), it had in it a malignant subtlety of evil, which implied the perversion of conscience and will just at the moment when they seemed to be, and, it may be, actually were, on the point of attaining a higher perfection than before. The question "why" implies that resistance to the temptation had been possible. Had he resisted the Tempter, he would have fled from him (James 4:7).(Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers)
  https://biblehub.com/acts/5-3.htmqgdfghfhgfjhgjghhjgcxfgfdgnnvbmbjuuij

Apostle Peter is not only the Chief Shepherd but he is also a priest and Jesus gave Peter the Keys to God's Kingdom. We can see from the passage that Peter not only identifies the "root of sin", he also explain to Ananias what kind of sin that he committed as Ananias thought it was just a simple sin of lying to the Apostles but he was gravely mistaken when Peter indwelt by the Holy Spirit convicted him of his true sins.
The question is, if you were in the feet of Peter whom Jesus entrusted the care of His flock towards their salvation, will you lead a sinner to seek the Mercy of God after explaining the nature of his sin? The answer is YES, as Ananias "heard" what Peter had explained and he gave up his spirit to God, meaning he embraced the judgement of God. Remember Ananias & Sapphira did not commits mortal sin but God acting on His Mercy prevented Satan to fully corrupt their heart like what he did to Judas. Ananias & Sapphira with the help of the priestly powers of St.Peter had accepted the judgement of God and as King David had said it is better to die in the Hand of God. If St.Peter did not intervene immediately, Ananias & Sapphira's heart might be fully corrupted by satan like Judas and we know the possibility for despair and suicide is immenent.
We can see from this passage that God gave His Mercy to Ananias & Sapphira by revealing and convicting them of their sins before it take roots deeply into their heart. The intervention of St. Peter is an act of mercy of God using the priestly powers of Peter to discern the heart of sinners and the power to give absolution of their sins.

As St.Augustine had said in his commentary on this passage;

  ... There are likewise different opinions among the Fathers, respecting the salvation of Ananias and Saphira. Some are of opinion, that as their fault was great, they died, and perished in their sin. but the ideas we are fond to cherish of the infinite mercy of God, would rather incline us to say, with St. Augustine, "I can believe that God spared them after this life, for his mercy is great ... They were stricken with the scourge of death, that they might not be subject to eternal punishment." (St. Augustine, Serm. cxlviii. olim. 10. et in Parmen.)
  George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary
  https://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/5-5.html

Lastly, we can see from the Book of Acts that God wanted to preserve the unity of the infant church and God would not allow satan to sow disunity by sowing malice in the heart of church members even if it will cause great fear among the followers. Satan was uprooted early by St.Peter to preserve the unity and God used to St.Peter to set an example to the rest of the followers that one must lived by obedience to their vows in community/church life and point out the importance of obeying their leaders as they are indwelt by the power of the Holy Spirit to fulfill the mission of the church towards the salvation of all souls.

  "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had."(Acts4:32)

To summarize, God is "Merciful" to Ananias & Sapphira as they both died knowing their sins and they died in the presence of a Priest who have the power to absolve their known sins in the hour of death. As we can see Ananias "heard" and Peter called the attention of Sapphira to "listen" stating his concern for her soul.But, most importantly they both died in the Hands of a loving and merciful God who desires their salvation.


Do we have any more information on Jesus's Sisters?

As you rightly say, the sisters are not named in the Bible which means we have to look to other sources for this information. I think it's fair to say that overall we don't know for certain, but different churches have developed different teachings and traditions on this subject.

The Roman Catholic Church teach that the word "sisters" is used purely figuratively. They believe that Mary remained a virgin until her death, so Jesus had no full brothers or sisters (but possibly some half-siblings - children of Joseph with another partner).

The Eastern Orthodox Apostolic Tradition teaches that Jesus had a single (half-) sister called Salome and that it was she, not Mary, that was the mother of James and John. They also teach that Joseph had two sons, Jude and another James. They believe that Joseph's first wife died and he was 60-80 years old when he married Mary, having had these three children with his first wife.

Other denominations tend to take the usage of "sisters" at face value and believe that Jesus had more than one sister. The Bible refers to "all his sisters"; in English that would imply at least three (otherwise it would say "both his sisters" or "his sister") but the Greek word that's translated to "all" can mean two or more. Richard Bauckham, a Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews, tells us that...

  Later Christian literature gives the names Mary and Salome to sisters
  of Jesus. These names were extremely common Jewish women's names within
  Palestine, but Salome seems not to have been used in the Jewish
  diaspora. There is therefore some probability that the tradition of
  these two names goes back to Palestinian Jewish Christian tradition,
  and so it may be a reliable tradition.

However that "may be" is about as reliable as we can get.

Bauckham's essay The Relatives of Jesus makes for good further reading on this subject; it is well referenced and covers a wide range of viewpoints, including the Catholic and Orthodox ones I've mentioned above.


What service is more 'important' in Orthodox Christianity?

Lamentations.

And here is why. While the 12 Gospels contains much more theological material, at the end of Lamentations there usually is (at least in my experience) the moment where you enter the church 'under the bier', as though you are entering the grave following Christ, which you only come out of after the procession early on Sunday morning.

So, symbolically in the liturgical dance of the Church, Lamentations is more significant. But The 12 Gospels is probably more pedagogical.


Are there any Christian sects that believe in "curative intercourse"?

There is such a thing as corrective rape that is practiced in parts of Africa, India, and Thailand. However, it is generally rooted in cultural ideas of heteronormativity and is most often used as a form of retribution or punishment for perceived lewdness rather than any specific curative religious ideology.  While anything is possible in the world of fringe cults, I have never heard nor could I find any evidence of any Christian sect or cult that practices it as a tenet of their faith.

A quick Google search of the phrase "curative intercourse" just leads to a few pages of links referring to that episode of SVU before veering off-topic. It looks like the writers of SVU coined the phrase themselves.


How does Christianity respond to scientific theory that Man originated through evolution?

Asking this question against all of "Christianity" turns this into an overview question of a very broad scope. In order to answer such a broad question, one must paint with broad strokes. There are two basic approaches taken.

Deny the validity or applicability of any scientific claims that directly conflict with the origin of man being God's direct creation. In general this position is held using one or more of the following ideas:

Science is based on presuppositions about reality, what kinds of things can be understood through observation/testing, etc. Asserting different presuppositions leads to a radically different outcome even using the same reference material. This relegates science to operate only inside a certain realm and refuses to allow it to draw conclusions about matters outside of that realm. Historically most of Christian theology has taken this approach. *
The actual nitty gritty of the science can be disputed. Facts, measurements, conclusions, methods of reasoning, the way unknowns are filled in, can and are often called into question. Many modern Creationists take this primary approach to the problem.

Explain away the creation account as metaphorical and not relevant to an actual historical understanding and adopt the current understanding of secular science. Those who take this approach usually fall along a scale, but we can still generalize two groups.

Some take the entire body of Scripture to be non-applicable to the physical world, only applying it in a "spiritual" sense. Very often, this position can be summarized as Non-Overlapping Magestaria, a principle which limits the ability of religion and science to make dogmatic pronouncements about each other.
Some take the content and try to reconcile it the content with modern scientific beliefs, producing things such as Theistic Evolution or Intelligent Design.

In between these two extremes lie several genres of belief depending on how much reign science is given, what premises it is allowed to operate under, and how the Scripture is to be understood.

If you would like more details on a particular view, ask a specific question rather than an overview one.

* My personal affiliation is here. By presupposing that the account we have in Scripture is true divine revelation, our understanding of the world as a spiritual reality with an aspect of physical manifestation makes all the pieces fall into place. Science has great value, but can only be trusted when it is based on these same presuppositions, often coming to faulty conclusions when those premises are altered or removed. It serves a very valuable purpose by informing our interaction with the created order, but steps out of bounds when it tries to define its own existence. See also my answer to How do Christians understand the omniscience of God in relation to the Uncertainty Principle


Has a slave served as a priest?

Geremia does a great job in demonstrating that a being a slave is a serious impediment to being ordained.

Nevertheless the Church does have examples of ex-slaves being ordained priests and even consecrated bishops and eventually canonized a saint. The following are a few examples:

St. Patrick
Servant of God, Fr. Augustus Tolton

There is saint who vowed to become a slave of slaves:

St. Peter Claver, Apostle of Slaves

There are Religious Orders for the redemption and freedom of slaves:

Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mercy
Order of the Most Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives

However according to the Orthodox, St. Paulinus volunteered to become a slave by taking the place of another:

  When the Vandal barbarians invaded Italy and carried off many people to Africa in captivity, Saint Paulinus used church funds to ransom the captives. However, he did not have enough money to ransom the son of a certain poor widow from slavery in the household of the Prince of the Vandals. So, he volunteered to take his place. Dressed as a slave, Saint Paulinus began to serve the Vandal prince as a gardener. - St. Paulinus the Merciful the Bishop of Nola

St. Paulinus of Nola is also a saint in the Catholic Church. However Wikipedia makes this story a legend:

  Gregory the Great recounts a popular story that alleges that when the Vandals raided Campania, a poor widow came to Paulinus for help when her only son had been carried off by the son-in-law of the Vandal king. Having exhausted his resources in ransoming other captives, Paulinus said, "Such as I have I give thee", and went to Africa to exchange places with the widow's son. There Paulinus was accepted in place of the widow's son, and employed as gardener. After a time the king found out that his son-in-law's slave was the great Bishop of Nola. He at once set him free, granting him also the freedom of all the captive townsmen of Nola. According to Pope Benedict XVI, "...the historical truth of this episode is disputed, but the figure of a Bishop with a great heart who knew how to make himself close to his people in the sorrowful trials of the barbarian invasions lives on."


Do Roman Catholics believe Saints are omnipresent?

Are saints supposed to be omnipresent, or are you just rolling the dice that they are paying attention to you at that moment?

No they are not omnipresent (or omniscient for that matter), only God is. But they can hear our prayers by the power of God. Since we believe they are in heaven where they dwell in God, it is not strange that they can hear multiple 'messages' at the same time. Heaven is not present in "earth time." Heaven is outside of earth time, in-fact there is no time in heaven. Eternal now is that all is there. The saints live in the power and energy of the Divinity; So, They hear us through God.

  The saints are aware of our prayers is that, because they have the beatific vision of God, they see in God all of the knowledge they need, all of the knowledge that is relevant to them, and so they see our prayers to them. On the standard account is thus by the omniscience of God that they become aware of our prayers, though they themselves are never omniscient and never take in the full scope of God’s knowledge, only those parts that are relevant to them.James Akin

We do not expect them to be listening to us at "that moment", because they are not "in that moment", but they are out of it.

They hear us through God, more specifically Holy Spirit. In the Holy Spirit, we have communication with all the Saints, because of this, it is the Holy Spirit that unites us, spiritually. Bible says that it is the Holy Spirit who prays on our behalf.Romans 8:26 So it not not a big deal for God to make this happen.

Bonus question, if a non-catholic Christian asks them to pray for them do they hear that?

Yes they do.


Why didn't God omit non-essential information from the Bible?

We can't always know the exact reason why there appears extraneous information in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, but there are often discernible reasons why it was important at the time.  To us it seems extraneous, but to them it was not.

Let's explain through the cases you listed.

First,  the details of the ark.

Only the priests on rare occasion could see these holy objects and then only briefly. As they had great symbolic value in representing the future Messiah and as each detail should therefore be pondered on by those ancient worshippeers, to somehow catch a heavenly view, typed out into future prophecy, the details may have been quite important.  To us, maybe not so much.

Second, the sixty six son's of Israel that went down into Egypt

Here we go, yes, some people went into Egypt, became slaves and were eventually delivered by Moses, so what? However at the time a promise was made to Abraham that the Messiah would be born under his lineage, and that he would be made into a great nation.  Now all the ancestral lineage of this family to which the Messiah would be born is important to those who followed it, because eventually it must be proven that Christ descended from that line. Yet in this case there is even more interest to those who later were delivered from Moses.  Was it not worth pondering on the facts that even in servitude to a foreign power that almost tried to exterminate the Jews to control population, yet from these few names over a million were taken out of Egypt! So even under these difficult situations the details of these names would shown to those people at the time that God kept his promise to Abraham.

Third, Nehemiah's list of families that returned from the Babylonian exile

To us again these are just names. To Israel at the time this was a great miraculous work of God delivering his people similar to the Exodus under Moses.  That each family retuning to Jerusalem was precious tokens of the prophets who foretold a remnant would return, Nehemiah takes care to record.  Not only would this might spur on other to leave their lives behind in Babylon and join the 'city of God' but to ponder on God's concern for each family and his fulfillment of prophecy to them. Use have kindled Jewish hope after the sorrowful despair and attach on their faith in seeing something they never believed possible, the destruction of the temple of their God.

So we see, what is extraneous to us, was important to them, and yet it still teaches us useful things today. Not everything was written just for us but God preserved a people of faith since Adam, and they needed many support not to be swallowed whole by a world under the Devil's command, who desired nothing more than to destroy and stamp out any remaining fragments of true faith.  it is a miracle like carrying a candle across a stormy sea, that a people of God, and the lineage of Christ was sustained from the call of Abraham until the birth of a Son from a virgin. Each supporting beam that carried these people fully to the Promise is precious, beautiful, natural, yet divinely rich. Just like Christ, who was a like a tender plant, and a root out of a dry ground, or like Aaron's rod, which seemed like just a dry stick, but became a living branch, budded, and blossomed, so the dry scripture actually rose up into a living support of God's loved people and reach far into the future to safely support the arrival of Messiah.


Neither. Both if these options are built around a human centered view of justice.

In reality, God isn't working under the same constraints as we would be and he has other purposes in mind. It still comes down to justice, but not quite the same kind of justice that would be metered out on a court on earth.

Here on earth, our purposes in "punishment" are usually either corrective or protective. Some punishments are given to try to convince the wrongdoer that "crime doesn't pay". Others guard against future harm, sometimes at the expense of giving the offender any more chances.

Also in human terms, "revenge" is in some way trying to regain something that was lost whether possessions or honor, or at least restore a balance between victim and perpetrator but reversing the crime and setting the original perpetrator back.

God's judgement against sin is not quite either of these things. The nature of His person is not such that he has lost anything that would need to be restored and he is certainly not trying to hurt somebody else the way he was hurt just to get even.

On the other hand all of our ideas in this are in some way just echos of something more real and true; our ideas of "punishment" are but a memory destroyed by our own sin of what God's idea of punishment is.

Hell is a just punishment for the crime humanity has committed. In eternally damning some humans to there, God is doing the only just thing. He is also giving men just what he asked for. In his pride man set himself up as god apart from God, and in sin he continues to demand his independence from God. Being permanently cut off from Him is just the logical extension of that.

At the same time there is an element of vengeance in it. God is extracting from the rebels everything they tried to steel from Him. He is demonstrating for all eternity that HE is Lord, there is no other, and that he will not tolerate evil. Never will it be said of Him that he let the wicked prosper unjustly. While human revenge is unjust, God eradicating evil is not.


Do infant-baptizing Protestant denominations have any requirements on names?

The enquiry is about the policy of Protestant denominations on the choice of baptismal names.

I am an ordained minister (Presbyter) of the British Methodist Church with thirty years' experience.

In the Methodist Church, this matter would be up to the judgment of the officiating minister's conscience, though parents could appeal to superior authorities in the church, or just look around for another Protestant minister.

In practice, I have never had reason to forbid any name, though many times I have wondered about the parents' wisdom of choice.

Exceptions to this might be when adults brought up in another religion and being called, say, Muhammad or Krishna, would be advised to choose an additional Christian name for themselves at adult baptism.


Is the idea that God is infinite in all ways accepted by all Christians?

In short, no. Concepts such as infiniteness, omnipotence, ect do have slight variations among Christian theologians.

Alternative interpretation of the infiniteness of God:

Infinity is a pattern which is able to repeated endlessly. God contains characteristics and qualities- patterns- which will be repeated without end, such as His existence, goodness, and so on.


How can women be forbidden to speak and yet prophesy and speak in tongues?

It seems that in Corinthians some women were assuming to much in the equality and liberty that the gospel provided them. They supposed since thy were equal they could 'speak in public gatherings' as though exercising authority over others including men.  There may have been other fellowship gatherings where they could exercise gifts of prophesy such as during worship, more private discussions or teaching children, etc. It is difficult with full accuracy to recreate what the primitive church service was actually like, but there does seem to be some part of it when 'non clergy' could speak with gifts that moved them, one at a time, possibly women included.

I assume in this view that prophetic gifts (wise insights into biblical subjects which may or may, or more usually did not, include future predictions) were not seen as 'always operative on demand' as the regular teaching of a person in authority was. Rather the nature of these gifts is that they would 'come and go' like the 'wind', so when a person was 'inspired' to speak, 'allowing' them to do so, was not seen as rebellious at all. They were seen as humble people being moved by God, even 'daughters' could prophecy under this scenereo per Joel
2:28. This respect for the inspiration of the Spirit seems to carry its own meek authority removing the concern over the pretense of 'speaking officially' as those in charge that allowed the more ecstatic impromptu sharing. This 'respect for random inspiration' is clearly seen by the fact that 'one person speaking' will 'stop and remain silent' so that another who receives inspiration can start. This switching from one to the next was regardless of the persons involved and how regularily important they may have otherwise been. (1 Corinthians 14:30).

This ancient practice of allowing people to speak in a service seems more or less lost in most churches today. In fact quite soon in the history of Christianity this practice of the ancient synagogue and more miraculous version added by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit seems to have been abandoned or in some sense possibly not Gods will in some aspects. Instead the preacher just gives a one way sermon with no opportunity for any discussion afterwards (ref this post). There are some charismatic groups that try to re-create it, or even to the more fringe movements support 'sales oriented' woman leading whole ministries, but in my experience this is often even worse and carnally based than the dry charismatic resistant churches which I confess to mostly attend as a lesser of two evils. Pray for me ;)

So one must think this 'speaking' was some kind of 'public', 'authoritative' and 'official' role which Paul did not at all grant women, nor did any other church. This is why he then says about a less private forum such as:

  If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:35 ESV)

It seems a little harsh to most of us today but we should keep in mind Christianity promoted a status for women and slaves high above what was the norm while not compromising the God ordained structure of the family which most world cultures actually have little difficulty with, recognizing the need for wives to submit and husbands to love and cherish. Actually most wives do not find it that hard to submit to men who genuinely love them. The church was not meant to overthrow these house relationships once various families joined together into community under Christ as their head.


How are Roman Catholics to receive the holy Eucharist at Mass?

In the US, what are the guidelines on how one should receive Holy Communion?

  Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the
  tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving,
  not of the person distributing Communion. If Communion is received in
  the hand, the hands should first of all be clean. If one is right
  handed the left hand should rest upon the right. The host will then be
  laid in the palm of the left hand and then taken by the right hand to
  the mouth. If one is left-handed this is reversed. It is not
  appropriate to reach out with the fingers and take the host from the
  person distributing.
  Source: The Reception of Holy Communion at Mass | USCCB.

For the Holy See's position, please see: Communion received on the tongue and while kneeling | Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.

  The most ancient practice of distributing Holy Communion was, with all
  probability, to give Communion to the faithful in the palm of the
  hand. The history of the liturgy, however, makes clear that rather
  early on a process took place to change this practice.

  From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and
  consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became
  more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on
  the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to
  avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b)
  second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence
  of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
  [...]
  In continuity with the teaching of his Predecessor, starting with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the year 2008, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, began to distribute to the faithful the Body of the Lord, by placing it directly on the tongue of the faithful as they remain kneeling.

For the history of Holy Communion in the hand please see: Library: Holy Communion in the Hand? By Paul Kokoski | Catholic Culture.
Please see also: Communion in the hand: Documents and History | Most Reverend Juan Rodolfo Laise, Bishop of San Luis, Argentina.
Please see this video: Make Of Our Hands A Throne. Typical reception of Holy Communion in the US. (OP: withholding comments).

Endnote

It is important to note that no bishop or bishop conference decide on their own what manner Holy Communion should be received by the Faithful. They must first petition the Vatican for an indult and a concession be granted. cf. Communion-in-the-Hand | EWTN.
For the communicant, the reception of Holy Communion by whatever manner that is approved in their own diocese ought to be done with the right and proper reverence due to the One being received. In my diocese the Bishop asks that the communicants bow before receiving Holy Communion, which they do standing.
@AndrewLeach has shared "The practice [...] of not handing the chalice to each communicant is actually laid down in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal." This is something not observed in my parish and therefore worth investigating further.


Repetition of "and he begat sons and daughters:"

That repetition is called epistrophe which is an optional repetition to make a point.

This comes in a context where humans were expelled from paradise (where they were given a clear command we can read in Genesis 1:28, "fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky..."), fear and shame entered the world and there's a sign of redemption.

Even though we can't be sure or know what's in human hearts, i believe by reinforcing the idea humans are now following what God commanded while they were in paradise and not questioning Him, they are either trying to please Him to compensate for their wrongdoings or simply because they trust that's the best.

Quoting Thomas Brooks (1824). “The select works of ... Thomas Brooks".

  Till men have faith in Christ, their best services are but glorious sins.


What did Mary and Joseph do with the gold, frankincense, and myrrh?

From the Wikipedia entry on the Biblical Magi:

  There was a 15th-century golden case purportedly containing the Gift of the Magi housed in the Monastery of St. Paul of Mount Athos. It was donated to the monastery in the 15th century by Mara Branković, daughter of the King of Serbia Đurađ Branković, wife to the Ottoman Sultan Murat II and godmother to Mehmet II the Conqueror of Constantinople. They were apparently part of the relics of the Holy Palace of Constantinople and it is claimed they were displayed there since the 4th century. After the Athens earthquake of September 9, 1999 they were temporarily displayed in Athens in order to strengthen faith and raise money for earthquake victims. The relics were displayed in Russia and Belarus in Christmas of 2014, and thus left Greece for the first time since the 15th century.

The above paragraph quotes a Russian TASS article, which says in part:

  The Gifts the Wise Men of the East, one of the few relics connected with the earthly life of Jesus Christ that have been preserved to the present day - gold, frankincense and myrrh are kept at the sacristry of the Agiou Pavlou (St. Paul’s) monastery on Mount Athos in Greece. The gold is in square and triangular plates bearing the finest ornament and measuring 5 by 7 centimeters. The frankincense and myrrh are in dark olive-like balls numbering 70. The box brought from Greece has part of the original Gifts: three gold plates with a thin filigree ornament with beads from a mix of frankincense and myrrh attached to it on a silver thread. The legend has it that shortly before her death, Virgin Mary gave these gifts to two righteous women. Later on, these relics were brought to Byzantium, and after the Turkish conquest in 1453, they were taken to Mount Athos by a Serb nun Mary.

Whether any of this has any historical truth to it is obviously pure speculation.


Is the Pope morally obliged to submit to every secular authority?

It's a mistake to interpret the 1 Peter passage as meaning "every conceivable human authority". It means only those that have legitimate authority over you. People in Roman Israel were not expected to obey the laws of Roman Britain, unless visiting there. Likewise a US citizen is not expected to obey the laws of France while in the US.

Christians have also recognized that there are situations which override this passage. If the state forbids you to worship or follow God, that is not something you should obey. If the state commands you to kill and persecute those of a particular race, that is not something you should obey. Jesus himself demonstrated this by refusing the commands of the religious authorities to stop teaching.

On the specific case you ask about, the Pope is head of state of the Vatican, and as such is his own 'human authority'. That doesn't mean he is immune to the rules of that state, as is the case with most heads of state. If he were to violate the rules of the Catholic Church he would, as I understand it, be subject to discipline.

Regarding other countries' authorities: countries rules mostly don't extend to those who who are not citizens and not present in the country. Visiting heads of state are usually subject to diplomatic immunity, and so other countries' rules again don't apply.

In the unlikely event that the Pope found time to study for a fine arts degree, and that he didn't do so at a Vatican institution, I don't see any reason to think he wouldn't abide by the rules of the institution.

Finally: the Pope has only been in his office a week. If you want to find out what his teaching is on this subject, I recommend waiting.


The Bible actually does indicate that angels have wings, as both cherubim and seraphim are angels.

  In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a
  throne, high and lifted up; and the train[a] of his robe filled the
  temple. 2Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two
  he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he
  flew. 3And one called to another and said:  "Holy, holy, holy is the
  LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"

Isaiah 6:1-3 ESV

  The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the
  mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the
  mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.

Exodus 25:20 ESV

  He put the cherubim in the innermost part of the house. And the wings
  of the cherubim were spread out so that a wing of one touched the one
  wall, and a wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; their
  other wings touched each other in the middle of the house.

1 Kings 6:27 ESV

It is also assumed that the four living creatures are angelic beings, since it's hard to imagine what else they could be:

  And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!"

Revelation 4:8


What is the role of Mohammed in the Bible?

Introduction
Muḥammad has absolutely no role in Christianity, and there is no explicit mention of him in the Christian Bible.
The Comforters
The first «παράκλητος» (“Comforter”) was the Lord Jesus Christ.
In 1 John 2:1, it is written,

1 My little children, I write these things to you so that you do not sin. And if anyone sins, we have a comforter with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
Αʹ Τεκνία μου ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον TR, 1550

Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ mentions «ἄλλον παράκλητον» (“another Comforter”).
In John 14:16-17, it is written,

16 And I shall ask the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, so that he may dwell with you forever, 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him, neither does it know him, but you know him, for he dwells with you, and he shall be in you.
ΙϚʹ καὶ ἐγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν ἵνα μένῃ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ΙΖʹ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει αὐτό ὑμεῖς δὲ γινώσκετε αὐτὸ ὅτι παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται TR, 1550

The Greek word ἄλλον (“another”) implies that there is an original Comforter. As mentioned, the original Comforter is the Lord Jesus Christ. The one who is “another Comforter” is the Holy Spirit.
In his commentary on 1 John 2:1, Henry Alford wrote,1

In addition, regarding the Spirit of truth, the Lord Jesus Christ told the apostles that “he dwells with you, and he shall be in you.”2 The Greek verb «μένει», translated as “dwells,” is conjugated in the present tense, meaning that the Spirit of truth was dwelling with the apostles, right then, and right there, in the present. Muḥammad was not born for another 500-600 years. Therefore, Muḥammad could not be the other Comforter, the Spirit of truth. In addition, even Muslims would never admit that Muḥammad is actually in them. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians.3
The reason that the Spirit of truth was dwelling with the apostles in the present, although the Holy Spirit would not be given until Pentecost,4 is because the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of the Son, Jesus Christ.5 The Lord Jesus Christ was dwelling with the apostles, and there exists a divine community between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – the Holy Trinity.
The Prophecy of Joel
Many Muslims assert that the Holy Spirit cannot be the “Spirit of truth” or the “Comforter” because the Holy Spirit had always been with the faithful. However, there is no evidence that everyone who had faith in God prior to Pentecost possessed the Holy Spirit. Rather, God gave the Holy Spirit to whom He willed.
The prophet Joel prophesied of a time when God would pour out His Spirit (i.e., the Holy Spirit) upon all flesh, meaning both Jews and Gentiles, bondmen and freemen, men and women, children and adults, rather than upon select individuals. Logically, if God would in the future pour out His Spirit upon all flesh, then it had not been done so prior to that time.
In Joel 2:28-29, it is written,

28 And it shall come to pass afterwards, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. 29 And in those days, I shall also pour out My Spirit upon the servants and upon the handmaids.
כח וְהָיָ֣ה אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֶשְׁפֹּ֤וךְ אֶת־רוּחִי֙ עַל־כָּל־בָּשָׂ֔ר וְנִבְּא֖וּ בְּנֵיכֶ֣ם וּבְנֹֽותֵיכֶ֑ם זִקְנֵיכֶם֙ חֲלֹמֹ֣ות יַחֲלֹמ֔וּן בַּח֣וּרֵיכֶ֔ם חֶזְיֹנֹ֖ות יִרְאֽוּ׃ כט וְגַ֥ם עַל־הָֽעֲבָדִ֖ים וְעַל־הַשְּׁפָחֹ֑ות בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔מָּה אֶשְׁפֹּ֖וךְ אֶת־רוּחִֽי׃ WLC

In the New Testament, the apostle Peter confirms that this event occurred at Pentecost.

Acts 2:1

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all of one accord in one place.

Acts 2:4

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:16-18

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, 17 “And it shall come to pass in the last days,” said God, “I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And in those days, I shall pour out My Spirit upon My servants and upon My handmaidens, and they shall prophesy.”

The Inadequacy of any Future Revelation
If indeed the Lord Jesus Christ is God as the majority of Christianity confesses, then any future revelation is inadequate compared to the revelation which came from the Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate.
The reason is simple. A messenger is sent by, and delivers a message or revelation on behalf of, someone greater in authority. In the case of Moses, a man, he was sent by Yahveh, God, to deliver Yahveh’s message and revelation to the people of Israel.6 However, because Moses was a man, this left open the possibility that someone “greater than Moses” (i.e., a greater man) could come thereafter to deliver another message or revelation on behalf of Yahveh to the people of Israel. Of course, the one “greater than Moses” was the Lord Jesus Christ.7
Had the Lord Jesus Christ been just a man, the possibility would then exist that someone “greater than Jesus” could come after him with another message or revelation on behalf of Yahveh to the people of Israel. But, because the Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate, “the same yesterday, today, and forever,”8 no later message or revelation from someone who is just a man can supercede the message and revelation given by the Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son, on behalf of God the Father.
Since Muḥammad is just a man, and in addition, he claimed to have received the Qurʿān, not directly from God, but from the angel Gabriel, his message and revelation can in no way supersede that of the Gospel delivered by the Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate, who spoke only what God the Father gave him to speak.9
A Contrary Gospel
There is one more thought that I feel is necessary to include. In Gal. 1:8-9, the apostle Paul wrote,

8 But if we, or an angel from heaven, preach [a gospel] to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be anathema! 9 As we said before, so now I say again — if anyone preaches [a gospel] other than what you have received, let him be anathema!
Ηʹ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται ὑμῖν παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν ἀνάθεμα ἔστω Θʹ ὡς προειρήκαμεν καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ᾽ ὃ παρελάβετε ἀνάθεμα ἔστω TR, 1550

Since the revelation of Muḥammad which he claimed to have received from an angel contradicts the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ that was later preached by the apostle Paul and the other apostles, Muḥammad is considered anathema, or “accursed.”

References
Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. Vol 4. Boston: Lee, 1878.
Footnotes
1 p. 432
2 John 14:17: «παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται»
3 2 Tim. 1:14
4 Acts 2:4
5 Rom. 8:9
6 Exo. 3:15
7 Heb. 3:3
8 Heb. 13:8
9 John 12:50


Has anyone heard of or seen anything that Angels can be redeemed?

First, I agree with DJClayworth's comment:

Because this is a real situation with real consequences, I strongly recommend that you consult a Christian leader or a physician personally about this. There are issues here that are far beyond the question of whether angels can be redeemed. Your boyfriend's physical and spiritual health may be at stake.

Now for a short explanation, which I answer from mainstream Christian traditions (Catholic, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox).  You are asking:

Whether angels can be redeemed (I assume this is referring to fallen angels)
If #1 is a yes, whether humans can help with the redemption, and
If #2 is a yes, whether the way a human person can help with the redemption is by vicarious substitution offering to take the place of a fallen's angel destiny (lake of fire).

The answers are:

We don't know for sure since God didn't reveal it to us in the Bible.  From the little that the Bible implies, and from medieval theology (as in Aquinas), fallen angels made their decision before humans were created and it's a done deal, irreversible.

No, because the scope of redemption that Jesus provided as revealed in the Bible is limited to human beings.  Jesus may have done more to save the fallen angels, but we are not told in the Bible.

No, since nowhere in the Bible a human person can even sacrifice one's destiny to save another person, let alone an angel!  The only way a human person can assist in another person's redemption is through prayer, NOT through sacrifice.  Only Jesus saves human beings through sacrifice on the cross !!  Remember that the sacrifice has to be acceptable to God, and the Bible is explicit in saying that only Jesus's sacrifice is acceptable, and that the Old Testament offerings (which involved killing a clean animal) has been superseded after Jesus.


According to Ravi Zacharias's apologetic argument, how could love have existed prior to the fall?

You appear to be slightly misunderstanding Zacharias's argument.  Here are his four options:

No world
Amoral world (no such thing as good and evil)
Constrained world (no possibility of choosing evil)
Free world (possibility of choosing evil)

Out of these options, he says that the fourth option, the actual Creation, is the only one in which love is possible.

Perhaps the root of your confusion is what is meant by the "knowledge of good and evil."  The Genesis account makes it clear that Adam and Eve had the option of disobeying from the very beginning; otherwise there would have been no need for God to give them a commandment (Genesis 2:17).  And of course the Fall is the ultimate demonstration of man's freedom to choose evil.

This awareness of the possibility of disobedience is different from the "knowledge of good and evil" associated with the forbidden fruit.  Zacharias explains that knowledge in these terms:

  Eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil basically gave humanity the power to redefine everything. God had given language, identification, and reality to humankind. He imparted to humans the power to name the animals. But essential to the created order was a moral framework that the creation was not to name or define. This was the prerogative of the Creator, not of the creation. I believe that this is what is at stake here. (source)

So the correct way to understand Zacharias's argument here is that Creation has always been "option #4," both before and after the Fall.


According to Thomas A. Bailey what does “stark but reassuring order in the divine plan” mean?

First thing we need to establish is what the Divine Plan is.  Predestination is certainly part of it but it also has to do with redemption and salvation. “In him [Christ Jesus] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Ephesians 1:7).  Here is a brief Reformed Protestant view:

Salvation is entirely the work of God and since the plan of salvation was conceived before Adam and Eve were created, then it is entirely proper to conclude that there is divine order at work.  The Bible demonstrates God’s sovereignty and shows that nothing happens that God does not ordain, cause, or allow.  The Creator God is not a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33) but is a God of order.

First, within the Godhead, the divine plan of salvation is agreed.  Second, the divine plan is executed when Christ Jesus willingly gave up his life in order to atone for the sins of the world.  Third, the divine plan is to this day seeing fulfilment in the lives of believers who have come to saving faith through the good office of the Holy Spirit.  Nothing was left to chance.  Everything necessary was planned in advance and all three parties were in agreement.  And because God is Sovereign and Omnipotent, and because Christ Jesus was resurrected from the dead (as part of that divine plan), then the outcome is assured.

That’s the good news.  That’s the reassuring part of the divine plan.  The bad news (the stark reality) is that those who reject the means by which salvation can be granted are also part of the divine plan.  They are deemed to be eternally lost – which is the opposite of being eternally saved.

The article in the link below has this to say about Calvin’s third book - The Mode of Obtaining the Grace of Christ. The Benefits It Confers and the Effects Resulting from It:

  God’s predestination is sovereign and independent of foreknowledge, and His election is eternal. Men’s claim that predestination is unfair merely exposes their inability to understand God. All those who are predestined will be called by God and will have faith. The final resurrection will be physical for both the elect and the reprobate. Hell is real and eternal.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/John-Calvin.html

It’s not so much Calvin’s “message of stark but reassuring order in the divine plan” as it is God’s message to humanity regarding the stark consequences of rejecting the divine plan of salvation.  That the divine plan of salvation is ordered by God is plain to see from what the Bible tells us about the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, who gave up the glory he shared in heaven in order to dwell with us and to do the will of the Father who had sent him.


Was the Lord with whom Abraham negotiated material or Holistic?

It was the understanding of many Church Fathers from the early Christians that the LORD who appeared to Abraham, Jacob, Moses and the prophets was Jesus Christ, the word of God, who is distinct from God the Creator.

In "The Dialogue with Trypho" written by Justin Martyr(100-165 AD), Justin explained to Trypho the Jew that one of the three men who visited Abraham was God in human form, who is distinct from God the Creator. Justin said that it was Jesus Christ, who appeared to Abraham, Jacob and Moses, who is called "LORD" in the Scripture, and recorded by Moses in the Scripture.

  Dialogue with Trypho, CHAPTER LVI

  I replied again, "If I could not have proved to you from the
  Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel,
  because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God
  the Maker of all things wishes[messages to be brought], then in regard
  to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner
  as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the
  creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the
  same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation."

  "Assuredly," he said, "for up to this moment this has been our
  belief."

  Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to
  persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to
  Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who
  made all things,--numerically, I mean, not[distinct] in will. For I
  affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made
  the world--above whom there is no other God--has not wished Him both
  to do and to engage Himself with."


How can common believers be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?

The simple answer is know your Bible.  God has given us His Word to guide us.  The church, being filled with sinful men, is going to err and has erred.  But God's word is 'settled in the heavens', is perfect, is truth (John 17:17).  So the primary source for truth must be God's words and not men's words.

It is however difficult sometimes to go against the church and her teaching.  The leaders of any given church have usually studied the Bible a lot more than the average Christian.  But we must also remember that God guides His children into truth, so study your Bible, know it, and then ask God for His Holy Spirit to guide you in all truth.


By what ordinary methods has God preserved infallibility in the Catholic Church?

In the last chapter, ch. V "The Relation of the Holy Ghost to the Divine Tradition of the Faith" (pp. 210-48), of Card. Manning's The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, he shows how the Holy Ghost has preserved the Church pure, comparing it to the dissolution of other sects like Protestantism.

Anytime the Church convenes a dogmatic, General Council (like Trent, to fight Protestantism) or a pope infallibly defines something ex cathedra (like Pope Pius XII did the Assumption in Munificentissimus Deus, defined to promote the love of truth, virtue, Marian devotion and to protect the Catholic teaching on the Blessed Virgin), and fraternal correction given and well received like when St. Paul rebuked St. Peter at Antioch, these are some of the concrete ways the Holy Ghost preserves the faith unchanged and combats the errors threatening it.


In Catholicism, why should Jesus have been murdered on the Cross instead of just dying of old age?

Introduction

There are a number of ways to approach this question for example my answer to this question: How is the matter of why the Son of God needed to be sacrificed explained in the Roman Catholic Church? contains some essential points that will be common to all answers from a Catholic standpoint. Some of those points are:

1) God is free.

2) God does whatever he pleases in accordance with his nature.

3) God has infinite solutions to each of what to creatures are problems: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”.

4) Faced with the "problem" of man's redemption, God could have chosen to act or not to act. Once he chose to act, he had infinite solutions to the "problem".

5) Once he decreed the work of redemption, he also decreed the manner by which the redemption would be wrought.

6) According to Church teaching grounded in scripture and explained by theology, redemption is by blood.

7) There is meaning behind and fittingness of the manner of redemption, in this case redemption by the blood of the God-made-man.

Answer

This answer takes from The Theology of the Precious Blood by Edwin Kaiser, C.PP.S. | Catholic Culture. The articles lays out some key points:

1) That God was not obliged to accept any atonement; God could have condoned the sin and demanded no atonement whatever; God might have been satisfied with partial atonement and granted partial condonation. In all of this God was free, nor would either His justice or His mercy have been impaired by His choice. But God decided that man should be shown mercy and be pardoned.

2) The very act of God assuming created nature [not necesarily human], God abasing himself, would have been more than sufficient to redeem because every act of God-made-creature has infinite value.

Therefore according to Catholic teaching and theology, Christ need not have been "violently murdered" and could have "simply died old age", and this could have been more than sufficient for the redemption.

Mary could have brought forth [the] male child, [and] her child [...] caught up [immediately] to God and to his throne without undergoing any pain and suffering and still this would have been more than sufficient for the redemption.

In my other answer I have also stated from Church teaching that since redemption is by blood, a small drop from Jesus as when he was circumcised would have been more than sufficient for the redemption.

Endnote

There is a paragraph in the article that ends:

  We insist on this point because some have misunderstood the whole
  Catholic doctrine of Redemption as though it were based on a cruel and
  vindictive concept of divine justice. (my emphasis)

I thought perhaps this is what may have prompted the OP's question. I would encourage the OP to read the entire article but I would also add that whichever was the things of God are looked at, man is always faced with a mystery.

Further Reading

Redemption - Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > R > Redemption.


Yes, this is one of many allegorical meanings attributed to the unicorn. Sometimes it seems that just about every possible meaning is attached to every possible creature, in the medieval mind. The unicorn's main associations are:

power, as with any horned creature.
purity: the horn was believed to have the power to magically purify water, counteract poison, and cure diseases.
divine intervention, as the horn suggests divine power reaching, penetrating or transforming the mundane horse - resembling a ray of light striking the horse's forehead.

Much of this comes from classical sources, such as the Natural History of Pliny, which were familiar to Christians. Additionally, there are possible unicorn-references in the Bible which can be made to fit with these classical ideas. Saint Basil the Great makes this connection, for example in Homilies on the Psalms 13.5 (commenting on Psalm 92:10):

  On the whole, since it is possible to find the word 'horn' used by Scripture in many places instead of 'glory', as the saying 'He will exalt the horn of his people' (Ps 148:14) and 'His horn shall be exalted in glory' (Ps 112:9), or also, since the 'horn' is frequently used instead of 'power', as the saying 'My protector and the horn of my salvation', Christ is the power of God; therefore, he is called the Unicorn on the ground that he has one horn, that is, one common power with the Father.

Other writers to link Christ to the unicorn include Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem 3.18, Adversus Judaeos) and Ambrose. The specific interpretation involving Mary's virginity and the conception of Jesus comes about a bit later, influenced by the Physiologus that you mention, an allegorical bestiary written at some point between the second and fourth centuries, and containing the legend of how the fierce and wild unicorn can be tamed only by a virgin (chapter 36). This, and subsequent bestiaries, developed a more elaborate version of the imagery. By the fifteenth century it could include Gabriel as a hunter who blows his horn to drive the unicorn into an enclosed garden (hortus conclusus) representing Mary's virgin womb. This is a merging of two separate artistic traditions - the unicorn hunt and the secret garden.

The dense web of symbolism is rather difficult to unpick. Because these traditions are essentially mystical, there are many things simultaneously represented or suggested. And so the purifying nature of the unicorn horn may be connected to Mary's virginity, Christ's purity, his purifying of the world, and even the transformative consecration of the Eucharist. The hunted unicorn may sometimes stand for Christ's death at the hands of his persecutors (Das Buch der Natur, Konrad von Megenberg, 14th century; Bestiaire Divine, Guillaume le Clerc, c.1210-1211). Or it may refer to (secular) courtly love as the powerful knight-unicorn chooses to submit to a virtuous and virginal lady.

This extravagance did not last, however. It was a source of mounting embarrassment that Christ was being represented by a creature whose existence was doubtful, and of course all this sort of imagery was unacceptable to the Reformation leaders. Within Catholicism, the last session of the Council of Trent (1563) passed a decree against superstitious or unseemly images, also ensuring that bishops would have the authority to suppress anything that was confusing, unusual, or tending to excite lascivious thoughts. This was backed up by detailed expert guidance in the following years, such as the De picturis et imaginibus sacris of Molanus (1570). He allows the hortus conclusus (but without a unicorn) for Mary, as well as other scripturally-supported imagery, such as the lily among the thistles or the city of God, but generally rejects more fanciful allegories and non-Biblical legends. And so unicorn-imagery gradually died out.

References:

The Unicorn Tapestries, Adolph S. Cavallo. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998.
The Unicorn, Lise Gotfredsen. Abbeville Press, 1999.


How do seraphim in Isaiah 6 relate to the cherubim?

According to The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, definition of Cherub

  They do not seem to be identical with the seraphim (Isa. 6:2). The cherubim apparently have to do with the holiness of God as
  violated by sin; the seraphim with uncleanness in the people of God.


Why is God asking questions or appearing uncertain in the Bible if He's omniscient?

Gaining information is not the only reason for asking questions.  Asking questions is a very powerful teaching device--not because the teacher does not know the answer, but because in the answering of the questions the students learn.

Adam was hiding from an omniscient God.  He had never felt the need to hide from God before.  The question helped Adam understand and confess what he had done.  "I'm hiding... I've never hid before... this is the consequences of my sinful choice..."  Adam even had a choice of whether to answer or not.

In response to the question of whether he had eaten of the fruit, Adam blames Eve and even tries to implicate God in it, since He brought her to him.  He had a chance to take responsibility, but he failed in that and reverted to the blame game.

God also asks rhetorical questions, as He did to Job.  "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

So, the fact that God asks questions does not mean He lacks knowledge or information and must gain it from the minds of men.  He asks questions for other reasons, just like you and I do in our conversations with other people.

For the question about when God wasn't asking questions (2 and 5)...

God doesn't say He doesn't know what's going in in Sodom.  He just says that He is going to go there to observe it.  He doesn't just observe either--He also takes Lot out of the city.

Testing is another issue.  Like questions, God is not gaining information by it.  It actually does a lot for us, as we build up a history of learning from both the right and wrong decisions we make.  If we are tested and fail, we deal with the guilt and the understanding of what we ought to have done.  If we are tested and succeed, we set a pattern for future testings.


What is the farthest back an LDS Member has traced his family tree?

Robert C. Gunderson, Senior Royalty Research Specialist, of the Church Genealogical Department stated, in regards to the possibility of accurately tracing back to Adam and Eve, that the answer is No.  The reason being that European royal genealogy before 500s A.D. Cannot be verified.  This would exclude biblical characters as well.

See
https://familysearch.org/blog/en/family-tree-adam-eve/

https://familysearch.org/blog/en/family-tree-adam-eve-part-2/

It's probably not possible/easy to know who has traced the furthest back since there are so many people doing it and their records aren't all public.


How do Pentecostals theologically justifiy when "faithful" snake handlers die?

You ask about a specific segment of the denomination. You are confusing the Pentecostal movement (a loose description of churches that believe some similar things about the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts) with a denomination (such as the United Pentecostal Church International, which is a denomination within the movement).

The churches that practice snake handling are (as many Pentecostal churches are) non-denominational, only recognizing the authority of the local church. They may fellowship with like-minded churches, but there is no denominational hierarchy to issue official policy or doctrine.

So for any death caused by a snake-bite, the local pastor would likely offer the interpretation as to why God allowed or caused it. This article gives one interpretation:

  When someone does dies of snake bite, it means that he or she must not have been "anointed" by the spirit to do so. Handlers don’t believe that you should just go around picking up poisonous snakes any old time.

But the original article you linked to in your question has an alternate answer from the son of the pastor:

  when it's your time to go, it's just your time to go

In another article the same son expounded briefly:

  His father's death, he says, was "God's way" of taking him home, and his family will embrace the deadly rattlesnake that delivered his death sentence at the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name church in Middlesboro again this Saturday.

  "It was God saying, this is how you wanted it, and it's your time to go. ... If he didn't plan [to die this way] he would have stayed alive," Cody reportedly told TMZ.

Here is another example of a son explaining his father's death from handling serpents. In this case, the article is about the death of the son (Mack Wolford, died in 2012 after being bitten by a Timber Rattler during a service) but in the article, he describes his own father's death from a serpent bite.

  Wolford was 15 when he saw his father die at age 39 of a rattlesnake bite in almost exactly the same circumstances.

  “He lived 10 1/2 hours,” Wolford told The Washington Post last fall.
  “When he got bit, he said he wanted to die in the church. Three hours
  after he was bitten, his kidneys shut down. After a while, your heart
  stops. I hated to see him go, but he died for what he believed in.”

One thing you must remember is that for any Christian, death is not viewed as the end, but the beginning of eternal life. The word martyr means witness. So in the eyes of this man's church, his death may not be seen as a bad thing, but that he died while bearing witness to his faith. (After all, Jesus, the Apostles, and many early church fathers died martyr's deaths.)

But due to the lack of structure within the movement, an official policy or statement is unlikely to be found.


Why was Jesus not welcomed and carefully tested by the Jews if they were (and are) actually waiting for Messiah?

He was tested

The Jews living in the time of Jesus did try to discern whether Jesus was the real Messiah that they had been yearning for, because they disliked living under Roman rule and wanted to go back at least to the Hasmonean period, or better yet, to the David & Solomon period (the golden age).

They were waiting for God to provide them with what God Himself promised in His covenant with David (2 Sam 7:12-17), confirmed through His prophet Isaiah hundreds of years later ("a shoot from Jesse's stump", Isa 11:1-10). But as the waiting grew to hundreds of years after Isaiah, theories of what form the Messiah would take abounded. One theory even predicted 2 messiahs, one from the line of David, another from the line of Aaron.  False pretenders came and went.  By the time of Jesus the yearning didn't go away, it only became stronger.

Many passages in the Gospel showed how they approached Jesus, observed what He said and did, saw His miracles, heard testimonies including by John the Baptist, asked for miraculous signs, etc.  They were excited for a while, but when Jesus began to claim that He was the Son of God and broke what they thought to be the right way of observing the Sabbath (and many other rules added to the Torah by the Pharisees) they began to have doubts and thought that maybe Jesus was another false pretender.

The lack of a warm welcome

It was because Jesus did not meet their expectations.

The climax was when Jesus was crucified.  It was a scandal.  A messiah shouldn't die a shameful death.  That meant God was not with him.  The problem was that they didn't read OT the way Christians do.  Many passages in the OT continue to be interpreted differently by the Jews of today (just see Judaism.SE for yourself, such as this answer, to see how different the interpretations can be).  For example, the Suffering Servant prophecy in Isa 53, so critical to Christian theology to identify Jesus as the Messiah sent by God, is interpreted to refer to the nation of Israel which had been displaced and persecuted throughout thousands of years (the 20th century Holocaust only made that interpretation stronger).  The Jews then as well as today don't believe that God resurrected Jesus from the dead.  To them then as well as today, Jesus was either a lunatic or if not a lunatic he committed the most serious blasphemy by claiming to be God.  If Jesus was the latter, by that calculation Jesus deserved to die, since God commanded them to treat false prophets that way (Deut 13:1-5).

I hope reading the Gospels against the background above helps answer all your questions.  Read especially how Jesus responded to them.
Basically, they were too close minded.  They didn't want to believe Jesus's "more than enough" signs and wonders and testimonies, and Jesus & the Gospel writers chalked it up to "hardness of heart", predicted by Isaiah as well (Matt 13:12-17 quoting Isa 6:9-10).


Why do Catholics make the sign of the cross at the Eucharist?

It is an act of Catholic piety!

Before going on into the main body of my answer, I would like to point out that in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, Communion was given in to communicants in the following way:

As the priest places a Host directly from the chalice into the mouth of each communicant, he prays for life everlasting.

Holding the Sacred Host in his right hand, the priest makes the sign of the cross with it and says:

Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.

An example of this can be seen in the YouTube video explains how a priest performs these sacred actions in very clear detail (1:42:00 and following): The Latin Mass Explained and Demonstrated for Priests.

In the Mass of Paul VI, the sign of the cross is not made by the priest at communion, unlike that of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. And although it is not prescribed by the Church for the faithful to make the sign of the cross at communion, many do so. The laity are simply carrying on this pious tradition themselves. In the Old Rite the priest made the sign of the cross. In the New Rite, the faithful make the sign of the cross. It is a natural and organic liturgical development that should be encouraged.

Should we make the sign of the cross when we receive communion?

  The rubrics don’t call for the faithful to cross themselves after receiving Communion. If a person wants to do it, as a personal act of piety, there is nothing that stops him, however.

  The Church asks that we receive Communion reverently, either by slightly bowing before receiving (if we receive standing up) or by kneeling (which is always an option). Communicants should respond with “Amen” when the minister says, “The Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ.”

  One word of caution regarding crossing oneself: It isn’t advisable to do it too quickly after receiving Communion. If a person raises his hand too quickly to cross himself, he risks striking the ciborium or chalice, which could cause an accident with the Eucharist. Before making the sign of the cross it is better for the communicant to wait a second for some distance to open up between himself and the minister. - "Ask a Priest: Should we make the sign of the cross when we receive communion?"

Some of the faithful are either taught or encourage to perform this pious act(Gestures and Postures), but it is not found in the General Instruction Of The Roman Missal (Vatican Source).

Many catholic make the sign of the cross at various occasions of their daily living and communion is one of those important moment the faithful feel called to make this pious act of devotion.

  The sign of the cross permeates a Catholic’s prayer life, from the public prayer of the Mass to private prayer around the dining room table. The priest opens Mass by leading the congregation in the Sign of the Cross. At the end of the Mass, he blesses the people “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” and they cross themselves as he blesses them. At home, when Catholics pray before meals, they usually open and close the prayer by making the sign of the cross. In Catholic schools, the prayers the school prays in common usually begin and end with the sign of the cross.

  The sign of the cross often introduces and closes other prayers, but it is a prayer in itself and can also be prayed on its own. Sometimes Catholics make the sign of the cross, with or without words, at other times as well. Many Catholics will cross themselves when they pass by a Catholic church or chapel where the Eucharist is present. Some may make the sign as they drive past a cemetery as a quick prayer for the dead who are buried there. Sometimes Catholics may make a quick Sign of the Cross when receiving bad news, or when sirens pass, as a way of praying for those involved.

  Praying the sign of the cross is so common that we often rush through it without thinking much about it. But the sign of the cross is an ancient tradition with deep theological meaning.

  The sign of the cross, in words and in action, reminds us of the two central realities of our faith: who God is (the Trinity) and what God has done for us (the Cross). These are the core of why Catholics do the sign of the cross. - Why do Catholics make the Sign of the Cross?

We should constantly recall to ourselves when and if we make the sign of the cross at communion time that without the passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross, we would have no Mass or Holy Communion.

At Mass we participate in Calvary

  Vatican City, Nov 22, 2017 / 03:40 am (CNA/EWTN News).- On Wednesday Pope Francis said that when we attend Mass, it is as if we are approaching Jesus on the Cross at Calvary, and that at every Eucharist we not only experience Christ’s redemption, but we participate in it.

  “When we go to Mass, it is as if we go to Calvary, the same,” Pope Francis said Nov. 22. “This is the Mass: to enter into this Passion, death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus.”


Why do some churches eat leavened bread and wine for the Lord's Supper?

Theologically, Episcopalians liken the leaven to the power of the Holy Spirit giving lift and rise to the loaf. As an Episcopalian myself, however, my pragmatic analysis is that this is primarily because they like the taste better (silly 'Episcopalians).  I, too, however dislike the symbolism, because in my mind, leaven is associated with sin.