What is the basis for the practice of Intinction (the dipping of the bread into wine during the Eucharist)?

There's an article here that covers the history of intinction quite extensively.  (I apologize that it's a PDF reference.  It's the best article I could find.)

The article starts out like this:

  The common wisdom among opponents of intinction is that it arose after
  the doctrine of  transubstantiation, and was a method of preventing
  Christ's blood from spilling, and that it is associated primarily with
  Roman Catholicism. Although there are elements of truth in this
  assessment, the true history of the practice is a fair bit more
  complicated than that.

In summary, as far as the history goes, there's no consensus on why the practice as started.  The earliest mention of the practice was in the writings of Julius I in 340 A.D.

  In the context of rejecting several irregular  practices regarding the
  Eucharist, he states the following:  But their practice of giving the
  people intincted Eucharist for the fulfillment of communion is not
  received from the gospel witness, where, when he gave the apostles his
  body and blood, giving the bread separately and the chalice separately
  is recorded

There is no mention of the reason for the practice, just that it occurred.

Further, the article states:

  It is not clear how or why intinction first was introduced into the
  church. According to William Freestone, the possibility exists that it
  was a convenience directed towards the administration of the Eucharist
  to the sick, making the bread easier to swallow. However, this was
  usually not our modern practice of intincting the bread into the wine,
  but rather of dipping bread into unconsecrated liquid.  According to
  the Ohio Presbytery Report, the first mention of it is connected to
  paedocommunion, to make the bread easier to swallow by an infant.
  Freestone thinks it more likely that the practice  originated from the
  fear of accident, and then passed over into communion of the sick

The remainder of the paper goes on to document various historical disputes over the practice, some of which are quite fiery.  The dispute isn't really on-topic to the question, but it is worth a read.

In the Catholic Church, intinction seems to be something that is not meant to be common.  I've found several articles (like this one) that state that it " is permitted when done according to Church directives".  It also states "The Church provides that when Communion is given by intinction, it must be planned beforehand.", indicating that it's not something to be taken lightly.  But nowhere does it outline why it should be given, and in what cases.

The only article I could find that had any sort of official support for there answer was this one.

  With reference to the previous section on the theology of intinction
  (i.e., responses to Questions 2 and 3), this study committee found
  strong, compelling biblical and theological support for the practice
  of partaking of the elements separately – of “eating” AND of
  “drinking”. Therefore, intinction is out of accord with Scripture.

  Practical considerations appear to be the primary reasons for
  intinction. During this study, the committee heard a variety of
  pragmatic reasons for the practice, including: (a) it is one of the
  “touch points” for a more meaningful worship, (b) it saves time, (c)
  it takes longer, (d) it may better appeal to those who come from
  church traditions that practice intinction (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox),
  (e) it avoids the Congregationalist practice of distributing the
  elements in the pews, (f) it better enables communion in the
  battlefield, and (g) it is practiced in the PCA.

Again, it points to convenience, or practicality as a reason.

From the Anglican Church:

  Resolutions from 1948

  Resolution 118

  Administration of Holy Communion

  The Conference holds that administration from a common chalice, being
  scriptural and having a spiritual meaning of great value, should
  continue to be the normal method of administration in the Anglican
  Communion; but is of opinion that there is no objection to
  administration of both kinds by the method of intinction where
  conditions require it, and that any part of the Anglican Communion by
  provincial regulation according to its own constitutional procedure
  has liberty to sanction administration by intinction as an optional
  alternative to the traditional method, and that the methods of
  intinction to be adopted or permitted should not be left to the
  discretion of individual priests.

The only guideline appears to be "where conditions require it".  Implying some special set of circumstances where the traditional method is inconvenient or impractical.

I did manage to find one specific example that lists a specific reason:

  Q.      Why does St. Peter’s intinction, rather than using the cup
  like other parishes?

  A.      There are several reasons. We have had some difficulty in the
  past getting a sufficient number of EMHC. And even if we had them,
  numerous EMHC sometimes make for a rather cumbersome crowd in the
  Sanctuary at Communion time. There is the additional problem of
  preparing the proper amount of wine for the Offertory. When the
  Precious Blood is then distributed, we either run out before all have
  received, or have much remaining, which then must be consumed by the
  Priest and/or EMHC. Many people also refrain from receiving the
  Precious Blood of the Lord from the Cup because of hygiene concerns.
  Intinction eliminates these problems.

So (and I'm repeating myself)  it is a matter of practicality for them as well.


Why does the Episcopal Church take votes on moral questions?

Why? Because the Episcopal Church (in the United States) is governed by a legislative body and a constitution. It is a democracy.

You can blame the founding fathers and the American revolution, probably. Though not written by the same people as the U.S. Constitution (as is commonly held) the men who first wrote the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church desired to

  replace hierarchical rule with egalitarian, democratic government (1)

Here is Article I, Section I of the aforementioned Constitution (emphases mine):

  There shall be a General Convention of this Church, consisting of the
  House of Bishops and the House of Deputies, which Houses shall sit and
  deliberate separately; and in all deliberations freedom of debate
  shall be allowed. Either House may originate and propose legislation,
  and all acts of the Convention shall be adopted and be authenticated
  by both Houses

Though probably not as much a "matter of faith and morals" than it is simple democratic governance, the General Convention is likely as much guided by the Holy Spirit as is the Pope.

EDIT: As concerns comment toward the word "likely" and to further improve this answer in response to improving the question, here's this from the House of Deputies.

  Deputies and bishops cannot be instructed to vote one way or another
  by their diocese. They agree to come to Convention with an open heart
  so that they can prayerfully listen to others and be led by the Holy
  Spirit. And, they cannot refuse to vote on an issue.

And this, from The Anglican Understanding of the Church: An Introduction by Paul Avi. (The Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion.)

  Anglicans maintain that the doctrine, worship, ministry, sacraments
  and government of their Churches are those of the Church of Christ and
  that they are owned and blessed by the Holy Spirit.

And this delightful passage from The Journal of the 38th Annual Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Southern Ohio (1912)

  And now, with all my confidence in your right-mindedness as a body, I
  still feel bound to remind you at least of the spirit in which you
  ought to enter into such an election, of the utter conscientiousness,
  of the utter independence of judgment and action, and of the utter
  dependence upon the leading of the Holy Spirit with which you ought to
  vote.

And, you know, we're Christians. We trust God. We pray all the time. For guidance, strength and wisdom. Especially when making tough decisions.

God has made a promise to us:

  I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will
  counsel you with My eye upon you (Psalm 32:8)


Can anybody identify from which order these nuns are?

The order I believe it is the order of Grey Nuns (of the Sacred Heart).

Here is a US branch with an image with a similar headpiece.

Here are a few different orders but the leftmost is a Grey Nun with a heart-shaped headpiece.

This is the original posting of that image but there aren't any details besides those given by OP.

@MattGutting found a nun who disagrees with me (I am not certain in my answer so it is definitely possible). She says:

  Def not Gray Nuns. They have more of a widow's peak looking thing. Could be Sisters of Christian Charity of St Elizabeth w/ modified neck piece. They may be an order unique to the UK, however. The ones that tend to have the "heart" facepiece are usually some form of "Charity" nun.


Married man becoming Latin Rite Catholic priest if giving up sex?

This is not what the 1983 Code of Canon Law says.

  The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:

  a man who has a wife, unless he is lawfully destined for the permanent diaconate;

  ...

A "simple" impediment is one which applies at the time in question but is not permanent. That is, if a man later becomes unmarried (which means he is widowed, in practice), the impediment no longer applies and he can receive orders.

But while he is married, even if he separates from his wife or promises not to have conjugal relations, he is impeded from receiving orders.

It's the same in the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, although that is even more restrictive, applying to putative permanent deacons as well:

  Sunt simpliciter impediti:

  Viri uxorem habentes;

  Simply impeded are:

  Men having wives;

Thus the Future Church site can't be referring to the old abrogated Code either.

Canon 1047 §2 n.3 of the 1983 Code allows the Apostolic See [viz., the Pope, or CDF on his behalf] to dispense individuals from the impediment. Each one is treated individually; there's no blanket dispensation for a class of person. This is what allows married clergy from other denominations to be reordained as priests in the Catholic Church. Since it is applied individually, to each applicable candidate on his own merits, it could be applied to "cradle Catholics", but I know of no cases.

CIC Reference — my print copy which I quote is a slightly different translation.


Why do Indian Christian women wear head coverings?

This is in fact a Christian tradition coming from Paul:

  I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious— we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)

For an exposition of what the last verse means: 1 Corinthians 11:16.

So the question is rather why Western women do not go to Church with their heads covered: Uncovering the Head Covering Debate.

In cultures where headcovering is the norm anyway, there is less push to abolish the custom and thus women still wear the head covering. It was also in fact a Christian custom.


What is the relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Bible?

Essentially, the Book of Mormon starts at about the time that Isreal was being scattered. It follows a prophet not mentioned in the Bible named Lehi, and his family, as they leave Isreal, and eventually travel to somewhere in the Americas. They have a copy of the teachings of the prophets with them that, as stated in 1 Nephi 5:11-14

  11 And he beheld that they did contain the five abooks of Moses,
  which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam
  and Eve, who were our first parents;

  12 And also a arecord of the Jews from the beginning, even down to
  the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah;

  13 And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning,
  even down to the commencement of the reign of aZedekiah; and also many
  prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of bJeremiah.

  14 And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the
  aplates of brass a bgenealogy of his cfathers; wherefore he knew that
  he was a descendant of dJoseph; yea, even that Joseph who was the son
  of eJacob, who was fsold into Egypt, and who was gpreserved by the
  hand of the Lord, that he might preserve his father, Jacob, and all
  his household from perishing with famine.

They follow the Jewish traditions at first, with some slight differences. There are many cross referenced scriptures, including much from Isiah. The quoted scriptures do not match word for word. Towards the end of the book, Jesus Chris visits the people in resurrected form, after he died and was resurrected. He teaches many of the same/ similar things that he taught before he was crucified.

Essentially, members of the LDS church believe that the Book of Mormon continues the teachings of the bible, but from a different point of view. They believe that the Book of Mormon was recorded on metal plates, such that it could not be destroyed or changed as easily as the paper of the bible could be changed. As there have been fewer translations and people handling the words, members of the LDS church believe it to be more accurate in it's teachings than the Bible, but that they both have the same purpose, to help a man do what God and Jesus Christ want us to do.


If you are in mortal sin but went to mass anyways are you in less of a sinful state?

TL;DR: no, for the same reason that one can't be "a little bit pregnant."

I am going to answer in reverse order, since going to mass or not seems to be the active ingredient of this question.

Making the best of a difficult situation

  Is going to mass beneficial to him?

Yes, going to mass is still beneficial to someone in a state of sin.

By attending mass, even if he is unable to receive communion due to the "work in progress" regarding his marriage's convalidation, he is:

Turning toward God, rather than away1
Staying connected to the faith community
Participating in receiving the Word, and joining in the prayers of the faithful
Keeping his priorities (thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy) in accord with the Commandments
Acting in humility by accepting God's offer of love and friendship, even while dealing with the temporary state of sin. (That work in progress will come to fruition ...)

  CCC 1 He{God} calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church.

On Compounding Sin

  Does it make him in a less sinful condition than if he quit going until the convalidation?

The question is asked in reverse, so I'll challenge its frame.  The question "Does sin compound" was answered here.  The choice to refrain from going to Mass would compound the state of mortal sin in a serious way.  Beyond that, choosing to stay away from the Eucharistic celebration is also a rejection of the Faith Community (all of the other people who go to his church).  It shows by his actions that he chooses not to accept their company in the communal worship embodied in the Mass.  It may be a small sacrifice of ego to attend mass when one cannot receive communion, and others can, but of such small sacrifices is love, agape love, built.  When it comes to love, show don't tell.

John 13:34

  34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another: as I
  have loved you, that you also love one another.

1 Choosing to not go to Mass is a specific and mortal willful turning away from God. Sin, in general, is a turning away from God.

  1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I
  sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."  Sin sets itself
  against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the
  first sin, it is disobedience ...

Repentance, as it has come to us in translation from the original Greek and Hebrew, is in origin a term that connotes a turning toward God, or a turning again toward God (which implies an initial turning away from God at some point, aka sin).  As we each deal with sin, be it venial or mortal, a conscious effort to turn towards God keeps our faith priorities aligned with His will.  Conversely, to willfully turn away is to reject his mercy.

  CCC 1864 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who
  deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the
  forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.
  Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

CCC references are citations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Anecdotal point: I've a former work colleague who attends the same church that I do. He comes to mass, with his wife and children, regularly.  He is still working through the convalidation process, which has some quirks based on the circumstances surrounding their marriage.  He was raised Catholic.  To say that the process has been frustrating for him is an understatement, but he remains faithful and hangs in there even though he can't receive.  I am looking forward to celebrating with him on the day that their marriage is convalidated.


Why did only 4 people write about the Life of Jesus Christ?

Way more than four people wrote about the life of Christ.  Literally hundreds of 'gospels' included stories about Jesus of Nazareth—from the Gospel of Thomas to the Epistle of Barnabas to Gospel of Judas to Marcion in his own Gospel.  The only difference is that the early church either didn't trust the veracity of those 'gospels' or else they found them to be not as good as these four.

Additionally, we have external sources such as Flavius Josephus and Tacitus who record stuff about Jesus. But those are strictly 'historical' not even religious in nature.

As such, the early church said that the four Gospels we have are the best ones, not the only ones.


According to Eastern Orthodoxy, does Matthew 17:20 apply to all people?

According to many Church Fathers, Christ was not, in fact, referring to the faith of the Apostles, but rather to the faith of the man who came to them when He gave this teaching.

Theophylact's commentary on the previous verses (Matthew 17:16-18):

  Do you see how the man has shifted the blame for his own lack of faith upon the disciples, saying that they were too weak to heal?  The Lord, therefore, is shaming him for accusing the disciples, saying "O faithless generation," that is, "It is not so much the fault of the weakness of the disciples as it is of your lack of faith, which, being great, has prevailed over the equal measure of their strength."  He rebukes not only this man, but everyone who lacks faith, even the bystanders.*

Thus, Christ's teaching was for all who heard Him, and not just the Apostles (to whom the teaching seems not to have even been directed).

Cyril of Alexandria (378-444) provides the same interpretation of the parallel passage in Luke (9:37-43), though the reference to the mustard seed appears later in a different context:

  The father therefore of the demoniac was rude and uncourteous: for he did not simply ask the healing of the child, and in so doing crown the healer with praises, but, on the contrary, spake contemptuously of the disciples, and found fault with the grace given them. For I brought him, he says, to Thy disciples, and they could not cast it out. And yet it was owing to your own want of faith that the grace did not avail. Don’t you perceive that you yourself are the cause that the child was not delivered from his severe illness?

* The Explanation of the Gospel According to St. Matthew (tr. from Greek; Chrysostom Press, 2008), p.149


One mortal sin forfeits all friendship with God, forfeits all sanctifying grace, and forfeits the ability to merit by performing good acts with the proper intentions.

Addressing whether the damned demerit, St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica suppl. q. 98 a. 6 c.):

  We must draw a distinction between the damned before the judgment day and after. For all are agreed that after the judgment day there will be neither merit nor demerit. The reason for this is because merit or demerit is directed to the attainment of some further good or evil: and after the day of judgment good and evil will have reached their ultimate consummation, so that there will be no further addition to good or evil. Consequently, good will in the blessed will not be a merit but a reward, and evil will in the damned will be not a demerit but a punishment only. For works of virtue belong especially to the state of happiness and their contraries to the state of unhappiness (Ethic. i, 9,10).

A person who commits adultery and murders certainly deserves more of a penalty than if he only committed adultery. In both cases, these are mortal sins (due to the grave matter and assuming they're committed freely and with the full knowledge of their sinfulness), which causes the supernatural death of his soul. It's not like his soul is less supernaturally dead in the former case and more dead in the latter.

Addressing whether every act of an unbeliever is a sin, St. Thomas Aquinas answers (Summa Theologica II-II q. 10 a. 4 c.):

  …mortal sin takes away sanctifying grace, but does not wholly corrupt the good of nature. Since therefore, unbelief is a mortal sin, unbelievers are without grace indeed, yet some good of nature remains in them. Consequently it is evident that unbelievers cannot do those good works which proceed from grace, viz. meritorious works; yet they can, to a certain extent, do those good works for which the good of nature suffices.

  Hence it does not follow that they sin in everything they do; but whenever they do anything out of their unbelief, then they sin. For even as one who has the faith, can commit an actual sin, venial or even mortal, which he does not refer to the end of faith, so too, an unbeliever can do a good deed in a matter which he does not refer to the end of his unbelief.


What are the foundational texts on biblical interpretation?

As @fredsbend has said, each group has their own "go to" theologians that they lean on heavily, at least for theological interpretations. Because of this, you would need to specify a denomination or group that uses a particular source or foundational texts as a guide to interpreting the Bible from a theological perspective.

You ask about the process through which Christian scholars interpret the Bible, and this is somewhat easier. Here I interpret 'scholars' in terms of critical scholars, rather than theologians. The theory of biblical text interpretation is called hermeneutics.  There is a concept known as exegesis, or reading meaning out of the text, and this is contrasted with eusegesis, reading meaning into the text. Eusegesis can result in preferential interpretations, and is generally avoided by critical scholars.

Since at least the nineteenth century, scholars have identified processes for interpreting the Bible from different perspectives, attempting in different ways to discover the underlying meaning and original sources of biblical text. The most important of process is Historical criticism, which includes Source criticism, Form criticism, Redaction criticism, Tradition criticism and Radical criticism. These methodologies do not have standard texts which scholars using the method must follow, but were proposed by a pioneer scholar and then refined and improved by peer review and experience.

Historical criticism attempts to understand the cultural context in which passages were written and thereby the degree to which cultural context should influence our understanding of the texts.

Narrative criticism is a relatively new methodology, originating around 1970, that takes a completely different approach than historical criticism, at the same time being consistent with it. Narrative criticism attempts to understand how a book was written and how it influenced its intended audience.  One of the earliest texts from that period is Mark as Story, by David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey and Donald Michie, now in its third edition. This book quite clearly demonstrates the use of Narrative criticism.


According to Catholic Church, what does it mean to worship God in spirit and truth?

According to Catholic Church, what does it mean to worship God ”in Spiritu et Veritate”?
These words are taken to the deep profound meanings of the vary essence and meaning of what prayer, adoration and union with God details in a faithful’s worship of God and all that pertains to the Divine realities while still in this life on earth.
I’ll try my best to explain what it mean to pray in spirit and truth!
To start with I will be basing my response on the works of two Catholic authors. Others exist, but these two will get my point out.
The first one is Fr. Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange OP, known by the nickname as Sacred Monster of Thomism. While at the Angelicum, in Rome from 1909 to 1960, he wrote his magnum opus, The Three Ages of the Interior Life (Les Trois Ages de la Vie Interieure) in 1938. This work shows us how to pray and advance towards union with God through prayer, meditation and those practices which are helpful in our spiritual life to attain perfection in a life of prayer. He masters he work with theological perspective due to his station in life. Perhaps the most famous of his students was the future Pope John Paul II, who was supervised by Garrigou-Lagrange for his doctoral research in the mid-1940s at the Angelicum, and whose encyclical Fides et Ratio is attributed to his training under the learned Dominican.
The second person I will employ to help us in understanding this concept is the Abbess Cécile Bruyère, OSB. Mother Cécile's spiritual thought and teaching, entirely inherited from Dom Guéranger but presented with the benefit of many years' experience in Benedictine life and meditation, is well summarised in her book La vie spirituelle et l'oraison, d'après la Sainte Ecriture et la tradition monastique (The Spiritual Life and Prayer: According to Holy Scripture and Monastic Tradition). In this work, she explains the primary importance of the liturgy in the religious life in developing the specific grace arising from the sacrament of baptism.
Both authors are explain how to attain union with God though genuine prayer or true worship. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange writes from a theological perspective, while Mother Cécile writes from a more practical and tradition point of view. The end result is the same: Attaining union with God through prayer.
The phrase to ”worship God in spirit and truth”, if in essence the manner of praying with our whole being to become in complete union with is spirit and in truth. Simply put it is a lifestyle of prayer based on genuine, deep and profound way of living in such a manner.
Some Catholic writer(s) have compared St Paul's vision of the ”third heaven” to the third or final stage or way of perfection.
This concept is not easy for many to understand. Many authors have written about the Ways of Perfection, For example, both Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and Mother Cécile used St. Paul's vision of 2 Corinthians 12:1-7 as a comparison to the unitive state of prayer.

Paul’s Vision and His Thorn
12 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.* 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, 7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

In Catholic thought the three stages (ways,state) of interior life or prayer are the purgative stage, the illuminative stage and the unitive stage.
In one’s spiritual journey, Catholic spirituality generally notes three basic “ways” or “stages” of the interior life (or spiritual life) through which the soul must pass that draws one into deeper union with God: the Purgative, the Illuminative, and the Unitive. Those who seek union with God must realize that such union, while always the gift of God, still requires a process, often painful, that must “pave the way” for that union. Look at it this way: If a box is filled with sand, it cannot be filled with gold. The lives must be cleaned, and then there is room enough for the gold of God’s presence.
The Purgative Way: The Purgative Way is the first stage in mental prayer, according to the teachings of the great Carmelite mystics St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. The soul’s chief concern in this stage of perfection is an awareness of its sins, sorrow for the past, and a desire to expiate the offenses against God.
The Purgative Stage: In this stage, our desires and affections must be “purged” of attractions to sin. The disorder caused by sin must be set aright by the Lord, for a disordered soul cannot perceive or appreciate well enough the glory and beauty of God. The distractions of the world must be diminished and wrongful passions, attachments, and evil inclinations must be subjugated so that we can more easily overcome temptations and preserve and exercise the virtue of charity. There is a focus, too, in this stage of uprooting the remnants and bad habits of former sins, perhaps through mortifications, the practice of austerity and simplicity, and the submitting of our will to be in conformity with the will of God. We seek to diminish and “purge” the attraction of wrongful or excessive pleasures. We also seek to diminish our natural shrinking from pain and to develop a repugnance to whatever is contrary to the will of God. The main virtue to be cultivated within this purgative stage is humility, which helps us be aware of our own weakness and our dependence on the grace of God.
The Illuminative Way: The Illuminative Way is the second stage between “purification” and “union” on the path to Christian perfection. Also called the “Way of the Proficients,” the main feature of the Illuminative Way is enlightenment of the mind in the ways of God and a clear understanding of His will in one’s own state of life. Most souls with not get passed this stage in their spirituality.
The Illuminative Stage: Those attaining this stage have made progress and have their passions better under control of the will, so that they more easily keep themselves from mortal sin, but they still do not easily avoid venial sins since they still take pleasure in earthly things and are distracted by various imaginations and desires, not all of which are necessarily unlawful, but which may get in the way of a deeper union with God. In this stage, the mind becomes more and more enlightened to spiritual things and the practice of virtue. Love is stronger and the soul seeks progress in the spiritual life and in all the virtues. But purgation is still somewhat incomplete, and the purification of the senses is not yet completed. There are also aridities, difficulties, and trials, sometimes more severe than in the past, and the need to endure suffering from temptations.
The Unitive Way: The Unitive Way is the third and final stage of Christian perfection, beyond the Purgative and Illuminative. Its principal feature is a more or less constant awareness of God’s presence, and a habitual disposition of conformity to the will of God. Although commonly regarded as the last stage in the spiritual life, it is recognized that the three traditional levels of progress in holiness are not necessarily chronological. They may be present, in greater or lesser degree, at any point during a person’s growth in holiness and sanctity.  This is an important point to remember.
The Unitive Stage: This is the way of those who have their minds detached from temporal things, such that they enjoy great peace, and are not agitated by various desires, nor are they moved to any great extent by sinful passion. Having been largely purged of these things, they have their minds fixed chiefly on God. It is called “unitive” since, at this stage, there is a “union” with God by love and the actual experience and exercise of that love.
It is at this final stage that those accustomed to be united to God receive those great mystic graces of interior allocations directly from Jesus and so on.
The graces expressed in such vivid light in  Mother Cécile‘s works are so easily understood that I personally can not imagine that she, herself had not attained this level of union with God. She had to have experienced the graces received in order to be able to explain a life of prayer In Spiritu et Veritate.


What do proponents of "Free Grace" theology believe about the salvation of Judas?

I have never heard anyone argue for the salvation of Judas before, but I believe that grace is free, and that justification is by grace alone, in Christ alone, by faith alone, according to the Scriptures alone...

The Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born (Matthew 26:24)
'But there are some of you who do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and would betray him (John 6:64).

I take from these verses that Judas was not justified by returning the silver, nor was he condemned expressly for taking it in the first place.  It was his lack of belief in Jesus as Messiah that led him to betrayal.  His betrayal merely revealed his lack of belief, and for that he is condemned:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18)


According to Roman Catholicism, are humans the only beings that can be tempted?

The saints are in heaven, and presumably immune from temptation. They "are in glory, contemplating 'in full light, God himself, triune and one, exactly as he is.'" (CCC954)
The angels "are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendour of their glory bears witness." (CCC 330)
Thus neither saints nor angels can be tempted. That does not mean that they do not have free will; merely that they are protected from temptation by their perfection in heaven.
Lucifer is the agent of temptation. "The Devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing" (Lateran Council, 1215; CCC391).

Scripture (2 Pet 2:4) speaks of the sin of these angels. This "fall" consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign.
(CCC392)

Temptation is the luring away from the will of God, and sin its rejection (that is, accepting the lure) by the exercise of free will contrary to his ordinances. Only creatures with free will can be tempted. The Catechism shies away from explicitly saying that animals do not have free will, although it certainly implies that (CCC1730–1738), and it is likely that animals cannot reject what is right; they simply do as they will, even though they might seem remorseful afterwards.
With regard to Satan tempting God in Christ, don't forget that Jesus was fully man (as well as fully God). As a man, he had free will. However, he doesn't reject God's will, because that would be to deny himself as God. Satan's attempt was entirely forlorn — doomed from the outset — but by being obedient to the divine will, Jesus offers us something to emulate.

Jesus is the new Adam who remained faithful just where the first Adam had given in to temptation. Jesus fulfils Israel's vocation perfectly: in contrast to those who had once provoked God during forty years in the desert, Christ reveals himself as God's Servant, totally obedient to the divine will. In this, Jesus is the devil's conqueror: he "binds the strong man" to take back his plunder. Jesus' victory over the tempter in the desert anticipates victory at the Passion, the supreme act of obedience of his filial love for the Father.
Jesus' temptation reveals the way in which the Son of God is Messiah, contrary to the way Satan proposes to him and the way men wish to attribute to him.
(CCC539–540)

So, yes: by a process of elimination, human beings are the only beings who can be tempted.


What is the difference between an Apostate and an Antichrist?

The Greek ἀντίχριστος, meaning 'antichrist', is used in 1 John and 2 John to refer specifically to an opponent of Christ.  On the other hand, an apostate is someone who has voluntarily left his or her former religion. The apostate need not be in opposition to the former religion and, depending on circumstances, could even be on good terms with those who remain behind. The secularisation of many Western countries, particularly in Europe, means that a large proportion of the populations could be regarded as apostates.

The LDS Teachings, Chapter 12, states:

  Apostasy is turning away from the Church and ultimately denying the faith.

This usage of the term 'apostate' does not imply any opposition to Christ.

On the other hand, the Latter Day Saints Doctrine and Covenants, Section 86, refers to:

  3 And after they have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign—behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat and drive the church into the wilderness.

This usage of the term 'apostate' is unusual. In normal usage, you can be an apostate without being the other.


What rubric, canon, and/or rules forbid(s) the use of recorded music in a Tridentine Missa Cantata?

Recorded music is not permitted.

  As far back as 1958 in the important Congregation of Rites’ instruction De Musica Sacra we find at 60 c:

    "Finally, only those musical instruments which are played by the personal action of the artist may be admitted to the sacred liturgy, and not those which are operated automatically or mechanically."

  Recorded music does not substitute for a living human choir or singer. The artificiality introduced is contrary to the concept of our active participation in the sacred mysteries and the action of the true Actor at Mass, who is Christ the High Priest.

  That said, recorded music can be played in church for the purpose of instruction in singing. I also recall that it can be used outside church for the sake of processions.

  It may be tempting, from the desire to have excellent music, to use a recording. But that’s a no-no, I’m afraid. - QUAERITUR: Recorded music during Mass


Is the dignity of man pertains to his soul only or to the wholeness of his being meaning body & soul?

This is only speculation, but they may have been drawing their ideas from Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5, when he was addressing the issue of a serious sin among the congregation that was being glossed over:

  1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you,
  and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with
  his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone
  into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been
  doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I
  am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I
  have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one
  who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you
  in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this
  man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit
  may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Apparently there is debate on the precise meaning (or, for that matter, the proper translation) of the Greek that here appears as "destruction of the flesh."  The 2011 NIV supplies these notes on the text:

  a. 1 Corinthians 5:5 In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh
  (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as
  a power in opposition to the Spirit.

  b. 1 Corinthians 5:5 Or of his body

Regardless of that question, in v.5 Paul is clearly drawing a line between "the flesh" and "the spirit" -- and just as plainly declaring that it's "the spirit" which is of paramount importance, so much so that "the flesh" may, and even should, be "destroyed" if need be to save the spirit.  In this regard his priorities were in line with Jesus' words from Matthew 5:

  29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it
  away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your
  whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes
  you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to
  lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Looking to a modern RC commentary on the 1 Corinthians 5 passage, the current interpretation looks to be a command of excommunication merely, and not the inflicting of any kind of physical punishment.  This still makes sense, in that by ejecting this young man from the protection of the church (spiritual as well as physical), he would be exposed to both human and demonic threats.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/5

  Deliver this man to Satan: once the sinner is expelled from the
  church, the sphere of Jesus’ lordship and victory over sin, he will be
  in the region outside over which Satan is still master. For the
  destruction of his flesh: the purpose of the penalty is medicinal:
  through affliction, sin’s grip over him may be destroyed and the path
  to repentance and reunion laid open. With Paul’s instructions for an
  excommunication ceremony here, contrast his recommendations for the
  reconciliation of a sinner in 2 Cor 2:5–11.

But in ancient times, the standards and interpretations may have differed.  It'll need someone with a deeper knowledge of church history and tradition to respond on that point.


According to Lutherans, what is the Kingdom of God?

This is what the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, has to say about the Kingdom of God:

Kingdom of God: Term prominent in proclamation of John the Baptist, Jesus, and apostles; evidently synonymous with “kingdom of heaven.” Formerly it was taken for granted that “kingdom of God” is equivalent to “Christian ch.”; contemporary scholars hold that “kingdom” usually means dominion or rule, and that only in a derived way, by figure of speech, does it in some passages designate subjects in God's kingdom. When Jesus said that the kingdom of God had come near (Mk 1:15), he announced that God was, through the Messiah, laying the foundation for His gracious rule in human hearts. This rule presupposes that forgiveness of sins has been procured and that people accept it in faith. Where there is such acceptance, God has entered the heart and governs human thoughts and actions. Those who heard the message of John and of Christ were informed that God was preparing something special, that the fullness of the time had come (Gl 4:4), and that the plan of God for man's salvation was now to be carried out. The term did not point to an external kingdom like that of David or Solomon or the Roman Empire, but to something spiritual, the gentle rule of God through the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men. Passages which speak of the rule of God include Mt 12:28; Mk 4:11; Lk 9:27; 11:20. Passages which speak of the sum total of the subjects include Mt 13:41; 16:19. The kingdom is at times spoken of as a future blessing (Mt 7:21; 8:11), at times as a present reality (Lk 16:16; 17:20; Jn 3:3–5). It should be our heart's desire to be under the gracious rule of God (Mt 13:44–46).

This is what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has to say about politics, earthly princes, and ‘Faith in the Left-Hand Kingdom’:

[2] The familiar Lutheran distinction between the two kingdoms is useful here. God rules the right-hand spiritual kingdom through the gospel and grace and the left-hand secular kingdom through law and the sword. The spiritual kingdom is an internal kingdom existing within the hearts of Christians. It produces true righteousness. The earthly kingdom is an external kingdom that exists in the rest of the world. It does not produce righteousness but only peacefulness. Since the spiritual kingdom is a kingdom of faith, the earthy government, which effects only our external actions, has no authority there. And since the earthly kingdom is--according to Luther--largely a kingdom of unbelievers, the earthly prince should not try to rule it through the Gospel.
[3] Since rule in the earthly kingdom is not based on the Gospel, there is no reason why the earthly prince must necessarily be a Christian and consequently no reason why we, as voters, should make our support of candidates conditional upon their profession of Christian faith. We are not electing pastors or bishops; we are electing presidents and governors, and non-Christians can fill these offices as well as Christians.
[4] However, while Luther recognized that an earthly prince did not necessarily have to be a Christian, he also saw an advantage in the prince being a Christian. When the government wields the sword properly -which means solely for the purpose of restraining the wicked and protecting the good -it preserves peace on earth and is a great benefit to all, Christian and non-Christian alike. When the sword is used wrongly, to make the prince powerful or rich, everyone suffers. Unfortunately, the power for the sword proves a great temptation for most mortals. In On the Secular Authority, Luther wrote that most princes are of the latter kind, selfish and corrupt. Selfless princes are a "miracle… not impossible, but quite unusual."  According to Luther, the only hope of having a selfless prince is when the prince is a Christian who has the Holy Spirit within. A Christian prince will approach the office as an opportunity to serve others rather than as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. Such righteous behavior can be expected of "No one but a real Christian and one who is full of the Spirit…. It cannot be done without grace."

Because I am not a Lutheran and I know absolutely nothing about American politics, I would not presume to comment on what that gentleman meant when he said “the United States is not included among the kingdoms of the inhabited earth because the USA is of the Kingdom of God.”  However, from what Luther had to say about God ruling the right hand (spiritual) kingdom through the gospel and grace and the left-hand secular kingdom through law and the sword, I would take that to imply that God allows secular governments and authorities to rule and they are “God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4).
It seems to me that Lutherans perceive politicians and rulers as “princes” and that these “earthly princes” have no authority over the spiritual Kingdom of God.


Is there a Christian name of the Destroyer Angel?

No Christian Traditions have a Christian name for the Destroyer Angel named such in the texts of Sacred Scriptures.

The destroying angel is also commonly referred to as the angel of death. On numerous occasions, God used angelic beings— heavenly messengers of some kind—to bring judgment to sinners on earth. Various Bible translations refer to this being as a “destroying angel.” There is no clear biblical evidence that any one particular angel was given the title “destroying angel” or “angel of death.” The most we can say is that the Bible’s mentions of a “destroying angel” are references to a heavenly being or beings that came to destroy those under God’s judgment.

  The destroying angel or angel of death in the Hebrew Bible is an entity sent out by Yahweh on several occasions to kill enemies of the Israelites. In 2 Samuel 24:15, he kills the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In I Chronicles 21:15, the same "angel of the Lord" is seen by David to stand "between the earth and the heaven, with a drawn sword in his hand stretched out against Jerusalem." Later, in II Kings 19:35, the angel kills 185,000 men of Sennacherib's Assyrian army, thereby saving Hezekiah's Jerusalem.

  The angel (malak) is referred to under various terms, including Mashḥit, meaning "destroyer" (pron. mash-heet(h) or -kheet(h)) (Mashchit(h), מַשְׁחִית and Ha-Mashchit(h)/Ha-Mashḥit, הַמַשְׁחִית), "destroying angel" (מַלְאָך הַמַשְׁחִית, malak ha-mashḥit or in the plural מַשְׁחִיתִים, mashchitim/mashchithim/mashḥitim—"spoilers, ravagers"), Angel of the Lord, (מְמִיתִים, memitim—"executioners", "slayers") is found in Job 33:22 and in Proverbs 16:14 in the plural, "Messengers of death". - Destroying angel (Wikipedia)

Of all names given to angels in God’s service, only three are found in Scriptures: Michael, Raphael and Gabriel.

In fact it is tradition, in the Catholic Church not to give names to angels.

  The practice of assigning names to the Holy Angels should be discouraged, except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael and Michael whose names are contained in Holy Scripture. - Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (217)

The thought of an angel that brings death is an ominous one indeed, and it's small wonder such a figure might be associated with an evil nature given many people's fears about what happens after life ends. This has led some people to a belief that there is a close link between the death angel and the figure of Satan. However, there is no Christian biblical reference that Satan and this figure are one and the same. Rather, the Angel of Death is portrayed as someone doing God's work to help people as they reach fated end of their lives.

Allegorical skeletal representation of the Angel of Death (created in the XVII. century) in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli

Historical Note:

The Nazi Josef Mengele (16 March 1911 – 7 February 1979), a German Schutzstaffel (SS) officer and physician in Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II was also known as the Angel of Death.


Were Luther and Calvin Aphthartodocetists?

The Augustinian tradition, going back to the early anti-Pelagian writing On Nature and Grace, distinguishes between the human nature and the defect of original sin. We have a defective nature, therefore, and that is what we pass on to our children, but Christ is still consubstantial with us even though He was always without sin. Sin is not part of human nature any more than cancer is part of human nature.

The Formula of Concord (the final Lutheran Confession, 1580) handles this well in its first article. Here's the part that's most immediately relevant:

  44] Now, if there were no distinction between the nature or essence of
  corrupt man and original sin, it must follow that Christ either did
  not assume our nature, because He did not assume sin, or that, because
  He assumed our nature, He also assumed sin; both of which ideas are
  contrary to the Scriptures. But inasmuch as the Son of God assumed our
  nature, and not original sin, it is clear from this fact that human
  nature, even since the Fall, and original sin, are not one [and the
  same] thing, but must be distinguished.

In the Aphthartodocetist controversy, the East phrased the matter in a typically Eastern way (in terms of corruption), just as Augustine phrased it in a typically Western way (in terms of sin). The East sees corruption (the vitiation of our natural powers) as hereditary and sin as the inevitable result in every child of Adam. The West sees sin itself as the hereditary corruption, and everything else as a symptom of that. You can say that Christ took a vitiated nature and lived a perfect life with it, but you can't say that Christ started out as a sinner and then lived a perfect life anyway.

The Lutherans and Calvinists and the whole Augustinian tradition do, however, affirm that Christ took His humanity from Mary, and not from some reservoir of abstract, unfallen Humanity. He is the Son of Mary and the Son of David, and hence also the Son of Adam on His mother's side, even though He is the Son of God on His Father's side (and hence coordinate with Adam, who is also called the son of God in Luke 3:38, and greater than Adam by as much as His Sonship is greater). As such, He took and made use of all the weakness that is characteristic of human nature as we know it, except that He did not yield to temptation. "Like us in every way, save without sin."

In your second-to-last paragraph you confuse Christ's glorification with the revelation of the perfect humanity He had always possessed. In Lutheran theology, at least, His glorification is the revelation of the divine prerogatives that He had always possessed, but had not made use of.


Connection between the serpent in the garden of Eden and the brass serpent

Paul teaches that :

  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [Romans 5:12 KJV.]

And he also teaches that :

  For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin. [II Corinthians 5:21 KJV.]

Jesus said :

  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up. [John 3:14 KJV.]

Sin entered the world and when sin is judged, the judgment focuses, first, on the origin of sin. A spirit other than God was the Tempter who was, originally, responsible. Then, also, the woman was deceived by the spirit who behaved in a serpentine manner. Then, further, the man transgressed, influenced by the woman.

In the wilderness, the plague (of death) was only stayed when the serpent of brass (a figure of judgment) was raised up by Moses on  a 'pole', Numbers 21:9, or as an ensign (see the Hebrew meaning of 'pole' Strong 5251).

Likewise was the Son of man lifted up, whereupon he was made sin (here, the Greek word for 'made' covers both 'do' and 'make' and can be also translated 'effected' or 'caused', see Strong 4160).

In judgment, Jesus Christ, the Son of God - in manhood - was effectively caused to be sin - sin was contained within him. And with sin contained within him, he died. Thus was sin eradicated : in him, through death.

As Paul teaches :

  Our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed. [Romans 6:6 KJV].

This is received by faith, as the question states - 'the faith of the believer'.

In the same passage in which he mentions the serpent in the wilderness, Jesus makes this clear, that faith is the way of salvation :

  Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [John 3:16 KJV.]

Jesus Christ - he without whom nothing was made that was made (John 1:3) - is he who took responsibility for the entering of sin into the world, receiving effectively in himself - in a clean humanity - the spiritual consequences of sin's entry into the world, in order that the world, through him, might be saved.

  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [John 3:17 KJV.]


How do Catholic apologists explain the cross to a Muslim?

What the saints have said about Islam [cf. What Did the Saints Say about Islam? | 1P5] may assist you in this regard. For example St. John of Damascus’s Critique of Islam (sans references) has a paragraph on how to answer the accusation of idolatry when Christians venerate the cross:

  They furthermore accuse us of being idolaters, because we venerate the
  cross, which they abominate. And we answer them: ‘How is it, then,
  that you rub yourselves against a stone in your Ka’ba and kiss
  and embrace it?’ Then some of them say that Abraham had relations with
  Agar upon it, but others say that he tied the camel to it, when he was
  going to sacrifice Isaac. And we answer them: ‘Since Scripture says
  that the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood
  for the holocaust and laid it upon Isaac, and then he left the
  asses behind with the two young men, why talk nonsense? For in that
  place neither is it thick with trees nor is there passage for asses.’
  And they are embarrassed, but they still assert that the stone is
  Abraham’s. Then we say: ‘Let it be Abraham’s, as you so foolishly say.
  Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on it or tied a
  camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for
  venerating the cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and
  the deceit of the Devil was destroyed.’ This stone that they talk
  about is a head of that Aphrodite whom they used to worship and whom
  they called Khabár. Even to the present day, traces of the carving are
  visible on it to careful observers.

As regards 'I want to present it in a way that answers the question correctly, but also is stated in a way that bridges the two religions and doesn't cause a rift in administration' the Church and Scipture teaches that we have to speak the truth, but with Charity. With the help of God and knowing your audience, you have to figure the how.

Cf. Encyclical: Caritas in veritate (June 29, 2009) | BENEDICT XVI.
Cf. 1 Pt 3:14-16 (RSVCE) & Eph 4:15 (RSVCE).

Perhaps a modern resource: Franciscan University Presents: Catholics and Islam | Franciscan University of Steubenville.


What is the modern argument against obligatory head coverings?

Since the question does not specify a denomination, I am assuming that any denomination is OK.  I thus am basing my answers with one of the clearest doctrinal statements I could find.  However, it is pretty representative of most arguments that argue against obligatory head coverings, coming from a variety of theologies.

Here is a statement by the Reformed Presbytery In North America, which I believe is considered pretty conservative on most issues.  The argument is that the context of 1 Corinthians shows it is an example of Paul's larger argument of being culturally sensitive, not an instruction for all people in all cultures.  In the later part of chapter 10, Paul discusses meat offered to false idols.  He says that it would be unlawful for a Christian to eat such meat in the context, because that would constitute worshiping the idol.

  10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (NRSV)

Immediately after that statement, however, he says

  23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are beneficial.

(The quotes are added by NRSV because it is seen as something Corinithians were saying to justify their behavior.  Paul responds not be denying the statement, but by saying there are other considerations in play than just lawfulness.)  Paul goes on to make it clear that it is not the act of offering it to the idol that makes the meat unlawful, but the cultural context.  He goes on to say

  27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I mean the other’s conscience, not your own. For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience?

Thus he is saying 27) don't cause offense by asking if the meat had been offered to an idol, but also 28-29) if you know it is, don't eat it and appear a hypocrite, because (implied) this may inhibit the unbeliever from being Christian.

Next comes the head covering passage at the start of chapter 11 and then instructions about receiving the Lord's Supper.  He says that some member have been causing offense by making their higher social status known during the meal.  He advises these members to "eat at home" so as to not cause offense by displaying their cultural status.  Or as the linked document says:

  similar to Paul's concern for godly order, decorum, and the eschewing of offense in 1 Corinthians 10 (in regard to meat offered to idols), Paul instructs the Corinthians how they should order the circumstances that surround the celebration of the Lord's Supper. He teaches them that it is offensive and divisive to fail to wait for one another, and that if the reason one cannot wait is hunger, then it would be expedient to eat something at home before coming. Although, we may never see this particular offense arise in our circumstances, nevertheless the principle of unoffensive behavior in a public setting is applicable to many circumstances.

The argument continues that the next several chapters cover similar themes - the orderly use of spiritual gifts and how to conduct church service in an orderly fashion - which can be understood as respecting cultural norms.  Thus

  In keeping with this context, we believe that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 was continuing in the same general line of argument. He addresses the headcovering practice which was culturally acceptable to the Corinthians, and seeks to teach them that they are not to be offensive, divisive or contentious by altering the customs of the land, when they come to worship. He is laying down the same principle as that taught both before and after the headcovering passage. In effect he is saying, do not alter the established order of this circumstance when you see that it will be offensive and destructive to the unity of the church.

Since it is no longer a cultural norm to where head coverings for women, the advice no longer applies.

To cross-reference, here is another argument by a believer coming from a completely different background.  He adds some points (such as the setting of Paul's instruction likely not being a church service) and explains the cultural background, but the basic argument is the same - the context of the passage shows it is not a specific instruction, but rather part of a general argument to respect cultural sensitivities.  I imagine this would be the route taken by most who would not adhere to a "headcoverings are required" doctrine.  This reasoning wouldn't apply to (most) other passages, because there is no surrounding context saying "X is lawful, but should be avoided anyway" in other NT writings.


Are relics only considered first class if they were collected from a Saint's dead body?

You answered this question yourself in your other answer.

Relics are the remains of a saint. They are classified according to degrees. First degree relics are physical remains of a saint. They are most typically bones. Second degree relics are objects or items that touched a saint while he was alive. The relics of Christ's Passion would be second degree relics. Third degree relics include anything that touched other relics. Normally, it is the bones of the saints and the relics of Christ's Passion that are mentioned among the relics.
— Catholic Forum: Relics

The hairs are certainly not merely items that touched the saint. They are of his body.
Physical remains are first-class relics.


When did the concept of "wine is grape juice" originate?

According to this PDF, the theory comes from the idea that the current process of fermentation far exceeds the fermentation process of Jesus time, therefore the concentration of alcohol in the wine must have been so weak compared to wine today, that people started to assume it must have been like grape juice compared to the wine today.

However, the bible does talk about drunkenness, and the only way to get drunk is with alcohol so the wine described in the Bible must have had some alcohol.


Christian Literature In the format of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress

Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses isn't exactly two characters talking, but as an expository allegory, you may find it right up the same alley.

What Nyssa does is to write a biography (a hagiography, really) of Moses, following him through the Exodus and Numbers' narratives, but expounding up the various symbols therein. These symbols are highly allegorical, but still interesting to ponder.  For example, in his Life of Moses, Gregory of Nyssa remarks on the fact that Moses was nursed by his own mother while growing up in Pharaoh's household:

  "This teaches, it seems to me, that if we should be involved with profane teachings during our education, we should not separate ourselves from the nourishment of the church's milk, which would be her laws and customs."

The idea is that every detail in the text is a symbol to be explored in some way.  Candidly, had Gregory written this in seminary, he would have gotten an "F," because allegory is highly out of favor - but the story and the symbolism is still interesting, if not the "way we do things" today.


What does it mean when God 'hardens' a heart?

A friend of mine who has been reading a great deal of John Calvin's Institutes said something to me a couple months ago which has been resonating within me ever since. At this point (as of today, that is) I'm beginning to think that what my friend had to say--thanks, in part, to Calvin--is probably closer to the truth than what I believed previously.
What did my friend say? I'm glad you asked that! He said, and I paraphrase:

Unfortunately, many Christians tend to bandy about the words "free will," as if we are somehow on the same level as God in this regard. Now no one would likely even suggest she or he were on the same level as God, but does not attributing "free will" to human beings, simply because they are created in the image of God, imply that? Perhaps a far better expression than "free will" would be "the ability to choose." Now I can live with that!

Having talked with my friend just today, I think he is saying that God has not given an absolutely free will to those He created in His image; rather, He has given them the ability to choose, or to make choices. Only God's will is truly free.
God can do, say, or think virtually anything and everything He wants to do, say, or think. I say virtually, of course, because God cannot lie, He cannot be unfaithful to His holy word and His promises, and most significantly, He cannot think, say, or do anything which is not in keeping with His holy and perfect will, Being, and character. (Oh, and no, He cannot create a rock which is too heavy even for Him to lift, because God does not even entertain a single, solitary, illogical thought, let alone engage in illogical behavior.)
Of the scores of Bible passages I could quote in support of my last paragraph, I will quote but one, and that is 2 Timothy 2:13 NAS:

"[Even] if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself."

Put differently, God cannot be anything but what He is, and He is perfection personified. The heavenly hosts realize this truth, and that is why they worship God ceaselessly, and will continue doing so through all eternity. Furthermore, God is immutable, unchangeable, and His holiness assures us of His unchangeableness. In this regard, the hymn writer caught some of the transcendence of God when he wrote,

"Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inaccessible, hid from our eyes.
Most blessèd, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,
Almighty, victorious, Thy great name we praise. (words by Walter C. Smith, 1824-1908)

All this to say, there are times when God intervenes in the affairs of mere mortals, and for His own purposes and according to His own sovereign will does things which both surprise and mystify us. After all, He alone is God. We are not. God told Isaiah,

"'For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD.
'For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts'" (55:8-9).

This is not to say, however, that God, as in the account of the hard-hearted Pharaoh of Moses' day, completely bypassed Pharaoh's will. God's will simply trumped Pharaoh's will in the matter. Pharaoh was free to choose to ignore God's word through Moses, but only because it was God's will for Him to do so. Only God's will is free; Pharaoh's will, on the other hand, was constrained and hemmed in by God's sovereign will. Then too, the hardening by God of Pharaoh's heart was at least in part because Pharaoh hardened his heart first. That is at least something to think about.
Does this mean we are not free to choose whether we harden our hearts or not? No, but it does mean our choosing takes place within a larger context; namely, God's ultimate (aka decretive, sovereign, or hidden) will. As one author put it, and I paraphrase for perhaps better clarity,

This understanding of [God's] sovereign will does not imply that God causes everything to happen. Rather, it acknowledges that because He is sovereign, He . . . permits or allows whatever happens to happen. This aspect of God’s will acknowledges that even when God passively--seemingly, to us--permits things to happen, He . . . [in fact] chooses to permit them, because He always has the power and right to intervene. God can always decide either to permit or stop the . . . events of this world. Therefore, [only] in the sense He allows things to happen, has He . . . [willed them to happen] . . ..

God, in other words, can intervene at any time and at His discretion. In doing so, He neither obviates our wills nor makes us choose to do His will; rather, His decretive will trumps our finite human wills. In Jeremiah 18 we read,

"'Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will announce My words to you.'
Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something on the wheel.
But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make. 'Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?' declares the LORD. 'Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel'"(vv.2-6).

Apostle Paul mirrors these words in Romans chapter 9, which apropos your question includes a section on God's dealings with Pharaoh:

What shall we say then ? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!   For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."  So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault ? For who resists His will ?"  On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God ? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?  Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

The key verses, above, would seem to be verses 18-20, which I paraphrase as follows:

God chooses either to have mercy upon or to harden whomever He wills. If we say to God, "Well, how can you blame Pharaoh for hardening his heart if You are the One who hardened it? Evidently, no one can resist your will!" By saying that, you miss the point. Who are you, a mere lump of clay in the Master Potter's hands, to question His ways and say "You can't do that, God!"? What hubris!

There is no contest between God's will and ours. God's will always trumps ours, because He will sovereignly bring to pass the plans He formulated within the Godhead from eternity, before time existed. As Paul said in Ephesians, chapter 1:

". . . we [have] been predestinated according to His purpose, who works all things after the counsel of His will" (part of v.11)

In His sovereign will God gives us the ability to choose to obey or choose not to obey His revealed will, whether it be delivered to a stubborn and proud Pharaoh through Aaron and Moses, or to an average Joe or Jill today through His written word, the Scriptures.
In conclusion, until the end of time, I imagine, God's image bearers will never cease trying to reconcile two seemingly irreconcilable, yet inevitably true, biblical statements. I put forward only two such statements:

"'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light'" (Matthew 11:29-30 KJV).

And,

"'No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day'" (John 6:44 NASB Updated Version).

What other two seemingly irreconcilable biblical statements can you come up with? I leave it to you.


Some believe (Lutherans for example, and me - I am Episcopalian) that Jesus is God incarnate, therefore it is not the son at all, but God that is hanging on the cross. But if you must, consider John 10:18

“No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”

Christ has chosen to accept the assignment and can also refuse. Even He has free will. Free to come and go as it were.


Do Catholics believe that they are actually eating the body of Christ? Does this make them cannibals?

Yes, Catholics do believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood. Sort of. The "sort of" is because the technicalities of it go back to Aristotelian philosophy, which greatly influenced Thomas Aquinas, who is still in many ways the preeminent theologian of the Catholic Church.

Before we get to Aquinas, though, let's look at the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is a teaching document, not primarily a theological discussion, so it doesn't go into technical specifics the way we'll see that Aquinas did. But we see (numbers are paragraph numbers):

  1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread...." "He took the cup filled with wine...." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation.

  1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit. ...
  In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

  1374    The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real'—by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

  1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.

(emphases added, except epiclesis emphasized in original)

Now, what does Aquinas say about the technicalities of the situation? In other words, if the wine becomes the Blood of Christ, why isn't there hemoglobin in it?

Aristotelian philosophy made a distinction between what (in modern philosophical jargon) is called "substance" (from Latin substantia, the essence or nature of something) and "accident" (from Latin accidens, something that happens to be true of an entity). Aristotle of course used Greek, but Aquinas used the Latin. The substance of something is what makes it what it is: I am a human being because I am human "in substance"; that is, because I have "humanness". I look the way I do as a human because I have particular accidents—my eyes are a given color, my hair and skin, I'm a given height. Any of those things could change, or could have been different; that would change what I looked like, but not what I am (i.e. human).

The Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is that during the Eucharistic celebration, the substance of the bread and wine—what they truly are—is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. But their accidents—what they look and act like physically—remain the same.

In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas devoted several sections to this. The first one (Third Part, Question 75, Article 1) is titled "Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as in a figure or sign?" After looking at several objections, he concludes:

  I answer that, The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Lk. 22:19: "This is My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril [i.e. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem] says: "Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not."
  Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 10:1: "For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things." And therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ's virtue is participated.

  Secondly, this belongs to Christ's love, out of which for our salvation He assumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the special feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily presence as a reward, saying (Mat. 24:28): "Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together." Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us of His bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in this sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence (Jn. 6:57) he says: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him." Hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar union of Christ with us.

  Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to Jn. 14:1: "You believe in God, believe also in Me." And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.

In other words, he says:

Given that we have faith in Christ, it's incumbent on us to have faith that when he says "This is my body", we are to believe that he is giving us the truth, and not just a signification.
It is more characteristic of Christ's love for us that he would find a way to actually be with us, not just to be represented among us.

So, yes; Catholics believe that the bread and wine are substantially (in a couple of different senses) transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This belief is part of a longstanding interpretation of Scripture, and writings of the early Church fathers. Catholics do not, however, consider themselves to be cannibals, because the "accidents" of the bread and wine (the ingredients, the flavor, the shape, and so on) are not those of Christ Himself.

I could go into the details of what potential objections to the belief Aquinas considers, and how he responds to them; but that would be matter for a different question.


How do Protestants understand major differences in doctrine between denominations?

At the First Vatican Council (1869), the Catholic Church defined the doctrine of papal infallibility.  The Church certainly believed in papal infallibility long before that, but there was some disagreement over the specifics.  At that council, the long-held belief was codified as, itself, an infallible teaching.

First Vatican Council - Section 4, Chapter 4, Part 9

  ...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

The doctrine of papal infallibility was one of the primary things against which Martin Luther fought.  At the Diet of Worms, when he was questioned on the infallibility of the Pope, he stated, "I deny that he is above scripture."  He argued that since Jesus rebuked Peter, Peter must have been fallible, and since Peter was fallible, it logically follows that all of his successors would be fallible too.

Martin Luther, and other reformers, did not believe that the Pope was the wrong person to be considered infallible.  Rather, they believed that no person, not even Peter, was infallible (save Jesus, of course).  Protestant churches do not believe that their church, leaders, or anyone else is infallible.  They typically believe that only the scriptures (sola scriptura), in the form of its original writing, is actually inspired and infallible.

It is not only admissible, but even expected, among Protestants, that different people will come to different conclusions about the meaning of the scriptures, because, as they believe, we are all fallible people.  It is expected that good-people will disagree for many reasons.  Depending on which ancient manuscripts you are using, which translation of those original languages you are reading, which hermeneutical approach you are using to interpret its meaning, and the theological framework to which you are pinning your understanding, there are many possible ways to "properly" interpret the same passage.

Having so many theological differences does not contradict Protestant teaching.  On the contrary, it confirms their teaching of the fallibility of all people.  In Protestant circles, truthfulness of doctrine is not judged by who stated it, but rather by what methods they used in arriving at it.


John Hagee, the author of the book Jerusalem Countdown that forms the basis of that movie, is a dispensationalist, non-denominational pastor.  His book follows in the tradition of Hal Lindsey's The Late, Great Planet Earth, and both rely on a dispensationalist understanding of the Book of Revelation and OT prophets in order to predict the future.
Most relevant here, the story of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38 and 39 plays a significant role.  In it, Israel is attacked by foreign nations, and dispensationalists interpret it as a prophecy that will be fulfilled at the end of the age. Many seek to identify the protagonists with modern nations: like other Cold War-era dispensationalists, Lindsey identified the Soviet Union with Gog and Magog, while more recent authors, like Hagee, see a connection with modern Islamic states.
Hagee has gained some notoriety for some extreme views and how vocally he shares them.  But on this particular point he isn't far out of the mainstream when it comes to modern dispensationalism.  The Moody Bible Commentary, commenting on Ezekiel 38:5–6, takes a similar approach, though it sees less Russian involvement than Hagee does:

Some interpreters, especially during the Cold War period, inaccurately identified Israel's attackers with the USSR.  The interpretation was based more on headlines and hysterics than hermeneutics and history.
All the countries mentioned here by Ezekiel are today Muslim countries.  Assuming their spiritual allegiance does not change, the future invasion of Israel by these nations will not be a Russian invasion, but an Islamic invasion. The coordination of attack on Israel will not come from Moscow, but from the leadership of these Muslim governments.

So yes, it's fair to say that this sort of thing is commonly taught in churches influenced by dispensationalism.  In the US, that's a significant number, especially among the "non-denominational" churches.


Why did the RLDS change its name to the Community of Christ?

That is indeed the reason.  They sought and received guidance and instruction from the Saint Paul School of Theology and one of the first things to be changed was the name of the church (in 2001).

Source: Mulliken, Kenneth Robert (2011). Historical Amnesia: Corporate Identity and Collective Memory in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1915–2001 (Ph.D. thesis). University of Missouri-Kansas City

Acceptance into the larger Christian community was eagerly sought in 2002 but rebuffed by the World Council of Churches in 2004 until finally granted in 2010 by the National Coincil of Churches.


What are the requirements for a teacher in the Baptist church?

One of the key distinctives of Baptist churches is that they are congregationally governed and generally non-creedal. That means there's no overriding "Baptist" policy on who can and cannot teach in the church. You can be fairly certain that most Baptist churches will require a person to have been baptized as an adult in order to teach, but there are exceptions even to that. It's up to the individual church, and usually would be specified in the church's bylaws (or, if not, up to the discretion of the pastoral staff).

This isn't to say that Baptist churches are universally lax about who can teach, only that their standards aren't unified. Besides baptism, the typical requirements would be based on 1 Timothy 3 and similar passages, which hold leaders to high moral standards and require a certain level of respect and standing within the community.

Some of the more conservative Baptist churches would also exclude women from all teaching roles except that of teaching children. This is becoming less and less common, as even those churches that exclude women from the ordained pastorate often will permit them to teach in some capacity. Of course, many Baptist churches also fully affirm women in pastoral ministry. Again, it's up to the congregation.


When was the last time, if ever, the secular world acknowledged a demonic possession?

Demonism and general belief in a spirit world are all interrelated. Surprisingly in Africa there is still an arguable case to say the secular government still admits the existence of potential demonic possession as it still has laws against witchcraft. In most other places 'secular' recognition of a spirit realm ended around the 1700s. For example in 1745 witchcraft was no longer a crime in England.

Every culture has a history of belief in ghosts and spirits. The outward phenomenon or behavior that would be potentially described by historical Christianity as 'demonic possession' is described by similar terms according to the form of religion the culture has. The question is therefore when did society make legal systems that no longer admitted the existence of a spiritual realm that could interact with the the physical realm. In other words when did governments truly become 'secular' in the modern atheistical, agnostic scientific sense?

The quickest and most accurate way to answer this difficult question is to see when laws against witchcraft ended. In most countries laws against witchcraft have ceased. However as Africa has had arguably the most extensive history of spiritism and apparent demonic possession, it seems that even today the laws are not fully repealed.

The legal system enacted in 1957 with respect to witchcraft is still in force and states:

  The act criminalises a number of actions. The following two crimes, the most serious under the act, attract a fine of up to R400,000 or imprisonment for up to 10 years.[3]
  Imputing to any other person the causing, by supernatural means, of any disease in or injury or damage to any person or thing, or naming or indicating any other person as a wizard

This does not directly answer the question in terms of demonism but I think you can see that when secular governments still believe that spirits can cause disease then they will usually believe is some sort of demonism also. Every culture has since this time people recorded history generally believed in a spirit world and some form of what we would call possession.  Even in the modern secular era many civil servants and lawmakers will,personally have religious private beliefs. So the lack of belief is in some ways imaginary for the sake of separation between church and state. Usually only genuine atheists confidently deny an existence of a spirit world.


Do any Christian denominations consider Pontius Pilate as a saint?

Yes, by the:

Ethiopian Church with a feast day on June 19
Coptic Church with a feast day of June 25

Why?

The above churches believed that Pilate became Christian, was baptized, and even tried to save St. Stephen from being executed, and built a church in honor of Stephen.

Source: Wikipedia on Pontius Pilate

See also: Pontius Pilate, a saint?


In Genesis 18, does Jesus meet with Abraham?

It does not explicitly state such, but it is possible to logically deduce it.

Jesus himself said that no one had ever seen the Father (John 6:46). In addition, Jesus said, "Before Avraham was, I am" (John 8:58).

Technically, however, Avraham wouldn't have seen Yeshu'a of Nazareth, the incarnate Word of God. Rather, he would have seen the pre-incarnate Word. (Of course, I'd say most Christians don't find it necessary to make such a distinction.)

Many early Church fathers believed that Avraham and the other patriarchs saw God the Son when they are said to have seen God.

In Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. LVI §1, Justin Martyr wrote,

  Therefore, Moshe, the blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that he who appeared to Avraham by the oak in Mamre simultaneously with the two angels in his company, is God, having been sent for the judgment upon Sedom by Another who eternally dwells in the supercelestial places, and never appears, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe is the Maker and Father of all things.

Roberts-Donaldson English Translation

  Μωυσῆς οὖν, ὁ μακάριος καὶ πιστὸς θεράπων θεοῦ, μηνύων ὅτι ὁ ὀφθεὶς τῷ Ἀβραὰμ πρὸς τῇ δρυῒ τῇ Μαμβρῆ θεὸς σὺν τοῖς ἅμα αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τὴν Σοδόμων κρίσιν πεμφθεῖσι δύο ἀγγέλοις ὑπὸ ἄλλου, τοῦ ἐν τοῖς ὑπερουρανίοις ἀεὶ μένοντος καὶ οὐδενὶ ὀφθέντος ἢ ὁμιλήσαντος δι' ἑαυτοῦ ποτε, ὃν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων καὶ πατέρα νοοῦμεν.

Greek Text

Two persons, both God, one who is sent (the Son), and the other who sends (the Father).


What is the function of dreams according to Christianity?

In the Bible, they often mention visions as prophecies or a supernatural appearance by Jesus or other biblical figures. They give the person receiving the vision a sense of spiritual clarity and revelation. Evelyn Underhill mentions these visions as "Corporeal - A supernatural manifestation of an object to the eyes of the body. It may take place in two ways: either a figure really present strikes the retina and there determines the physical phenomenon of the vision, or an agent superior to man directly modifies the visual organ and produces in the composite a sensation equivalent to that which an external object would produce." You can read more about this phenomenon on Wikipedia: Vision (spirituality).


At the Last Supper what would the disciples make of what Jesus said about partaking of the bread and the wine?

The occasion of Last Supper (called so because it was the last earthly supper that Jesus partook of with his apostles) was not on any count the first in which the apostles would hear of Jesus offering his own flesh and blood as their spiritual food. John the Evangelist does not mince words when he writes the following at 6: 47-68 (NRSVCE).

"Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life.  I am the bread of life.  Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.  This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.  I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”  So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;  for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.  Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.  Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”  He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum. When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?”  But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you?  Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.” Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. "

Of course, Jesus and the apostles also had the normal food of Passover on that day , as we see from Mtt 26:26 :

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread,  spoke a blessing and broke it, and gave it to the disciples....."

So, the apostles had been well-oriented into believing what Jesus said about partaking of his body and blood, at the last supper. And they did believe .