What is the difference between Anglo-Catholicism and Catholicism?

Granmirupa, in fact you are wrong. There remain considerable differences between most who consider themselves "Anglo-catholic" and those who self identify as Catholic, other than whether the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Bishop of Rome exercises authority over the church. One of the differences between [Roman] Catholics and Anglo-catholics is that it's much easier to define who is a Roman Catholic. Simply put, a Roman Catholic is a person who accepts the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and accepts the correctness of those doctrines and dogmas, like the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Assumption of the Mother of God, the doctrine of purgatory, and the church's rules regarding the celibacy of the Clergy, and the existence of seven sacraments, that the Catholic church demands that the faithful believe.

An Anglo-Catholic, especially in the present times, is a much more nebulous identification. The present use of the term dates only as far back as the last 3/4 or 1/2 of the nineteenth century, when certain Divines in the Church of England began to reconsider, and recover some of the customs and ceremonial of the Roman Catholic Church, and began to develop greater appreciation for some parts of Roman Catholic theology. Some of these individuals, including John Cardinal Newman and Henry Manning, joined the Catholic Church, but others, like John Keble and Edward Pusey continued in the Anglican Communion, and continued to subscribe to the thirty nine articles, which rejected the doctrines of transubstantiation, and purgatory, denied the supremacy of the pope, the necessity of unmarried clergy, held that there were two, and not seven, sacraments, and denied that the Apocrypha (deutero-canonicals) were to be included in the Canon of Holy Writ. Also, at the time of the origin of the Anglo-catholic movement, the Roman church still insisted that all liturgy be in Latin, while the 39 articles required that Anglican liturgies be in a language that the people could uncerstand. The result was a series of volumes such as the Anglican Missal, which incorporated most of the form and structure of the Mass, but in English, and with some additions to the prayer of consecration in the English prayer book. During this period, Briggs and Frere produced a psalter which helped re-introduce plainsong tunes (using Sarum, rather than Latin rite endings) for singing the Psalter, and other canticles. And while Anglo-catholics recovered some of the practices relating to rites that the Roman Church considered sacraments, like extreme unction, confessions, and holy orders, the understanding of these rites was never changed so that they were considered sacraments; article 25 (of the thirty nine), still explicitly is the official position of Anglicans, that

  There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord
  Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel...

Anglo-catholiism was never universal in any branch of Anglicanism. In most dioceses, there might be a number of Anglo-Catholic Parishes (sometimes only one or two), while most of the rest of the parishes and missions in the dioceses were Anglican (or in the US, Episcopalian), at the same time as in other dioceses, there might be a larger proportion of Anglo-catholics, and a smaller number of those who were not.

More recent events have cast made the situation even more confusing. There are a small number of Anglo-catholic parishes which are socially progressive, so that they support the Ordination of Women to the clergy, and perhaps other recent social movements. A number of others who self-identify as "Antlo-Catholic" have rejected some of these recent developments, and have joined one of the "continuing" groups. Further, some in the Anglo-catholic movement have come to hold views more aligned to the Roman Catholic church in areas such as the doctrine of purgatory, and some of the more recent Marian developments (e.g., the dogma of the Immaculate conception of the Mother of God), though this is not the official position of any Anglo-catholic group of which I am aware [Note: I am not meaning to represent that there are no Anglo-catholics who hold these view; I'm just not aware of them.]

As to the recent developments of the Anglican personal ordiariate, note that this affects only customs and ceremonies of the liturgy. Presumably, those choosing to take advantage of the terms of Benedict's ordinariate, are still required to adopt the doctrines to which the Catholic Church demands all adherents of the western rite subscribe, such as transubstantiation, and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

So the reasons Anglo-catholics (or at least the Anglo-catholic authoring this answer) do not come together with those who profess the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, is that there are several areas where there is great difference of opinion about matters of the Faith and the Church. I would also note that since the changes in Roman Catholic theology that have occurred since World War II, (used, not because I mean to suggest that war had much to do with the changes in theology itself, but mainly because it provides a convenient marker for the period of time), and especially since the second Vatican council, do seem to make the differences between Anglo-catholics on the one hand, and Catholics, on the other, at least seem less than they once did.


Not explicitly, that being said, there are a variety of scriptures that indicate that men are to be ordained to the priesthood, rather than women.

There are no scriptures where it speaks of the priesthood in terms of daughters or mothers. The Priesthood has always been a Patriarchal order, even in the beginning with Adam.

Examples:

Numbers 3:3

  “These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests which were
  anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the priest’s office.”

Numbers 3:10

  “And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on
  their priest’s office…”

D&C 20:38

  “The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of
  the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to
  baptize;”

D&C 48 and 49

  “And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

  “And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder
  present;”

It also must be noted that all interactions related to the priesthood were males. Christ himself, Adam Melchizedek, Abraham, Noah, Elijah, Elisha, Moses, Aaron, Peter, James, and John, John the Baptist… All told, not a single reference to women when the priesthood was explicitly given or received.


Why didn't the universe fall apart when Jesus died?

I am answering the question from Evangelical Protestant perspective.

The reason the universe didn't fall apart when Jesus died is that death does not mean "cessation of existence."

  For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart
  from works is dead.

  James 2:26 (ESV)

James 2:26 says that death is a separation of body and spirit. Both do not undergo annihilation after death. Rather, both merely separated.

Other Bible verses agree:

  . 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the
  third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know,
  God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into
  paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God
  knows—

  2 Corinthians 12:2-3 (ESV)

  Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the
  body and at home with the Lord

  2 Corinthians 5:8 (ESV)

This is perfectly attested in the death of Jesus Christ:

  Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your
  hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

  Luke 23:46 (ESV)

At Jesus' death, his spirit did not cease.Rather, he commited his spirit to his Father.

  Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing
  a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight.

  John 19:38 ( ESV)

On the other hand, Jesus' body was buried.

Conclusion

Jesus, being God who became flesh, identifying with our limitation by his own choice (John 1:1,14; Phil. 2:6-7) to save us (Matthew 1:21) ,was not the only person who is fully God. The Father and the Holy Spirit, his co-equals do exist (Matthew 28:19) to take hold of the universe.Jesus is both God and Man ( Col. 2:9) and his death is 100% real.

References:

http://www.gotquestions.org/absent-from-the-body.html

https://carm.org/soul-cease-exist-after-death


What traditions hold that Satan is not actually a person?

The "Swedenborgian" or "New Church" denominations that accept the Christian theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) do not see Satan, or the Devil, as a person, but as a personification of, or collective term for, evil and hell.
The following rather long (for this site) explanation of this position, and its Biblical basis, is extracted and slightly edited from my even longer article, "Is there Really a Devil? Why??"
The Devil in the Bible
First, it helps to understand the original meanings of the words that are commonly translated as "the Devil," "Satan," "demons," and so on.
Satan
The primary meaning of the Hebrew word שָׂטָן (satan) is "an adversary, an opponent." So in the Old Testament, satan is commonly used to mean "an enemy." For example, 1 Kings 11:14 says:

Then the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the royal house in Edom.

The word translated "adversary" in this verse is the Hebrew word satan. It is used the same way for another enemy of Solomon in 1 Kings 11:23-25.
In fact, outside of the book of Job, the Hebrew word satan is most often used to refer to human enemies, though it is also sometimes used of spiritual figures who stand as adversaries. In many of the places where it is traditionally translated "Satan," it should really be translated as "an enemy" or "an adversary."
There are no capital letters in the original texts of the Bible. Editors and translators must use their judgment in deciding whether or not words like satan in the original languages are meant to be proper names ("Satan") or just a description of something or someone ("an adversary, opponent").
The Greek word σατανᾶς  (satanas), comes from the Hebrew word satan, and has the same meaning: an adversary or enemy. In the New Testamant, Satan is more often used as a personification of evil, traditionally interpreted as a powerful evil angel who opposes God and tempts humans to sin and destruction.
However, even in the New Testament it is sometimes used to refer to human beings. Consider, for example, this passage from Matthew:

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." (Matthew 16:21-23 - see also Mark 8:31-33.)

Though the Greek word is usually translated "Satan" in this passage, it should probably be translated as, "you adversary!" In other words, Jesus uses the Greek word satanas to refer to a human being who is, at that time, opposing God’s will and God's truth.
So even though the Greek word satanas is commonly used in the New Testament to mean Satan, a figure who is the personification of evil, it still also retains its original meaning of an enemy or adversary—specifically, anyone or anything who stands in opposition to God.
If we keep this original meaning of the word satan in mind when we read about "Satan" in the Bible, it gives new meaning to many statements about this evil being, or force, in the Bible.
And it's clear from the Bible that "Satan" comes from a very human reality. Its original meaning was human enemies and adversaries.
The Devil
Although the word "devil" appears in a few places in traditional translations of the Old Testament such as the King James Version, the Hebrew words so translated are actually words for hairy goats, satyrs, idols, or perhaps demons. The idea of some evil overlord called the Devil doesn't appear until the New Testament.
In the Greek of the New Testament, there are two primary words commonly translated "devil."
One of them is διάβολος (diabolos). Most of the time, this word means a ruling evil figure, the Devil, which is also called Satan. This is the figure that led Jesus into the desert to be tested:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." (Matthew 4:1-3; read the full story in Matthew 4:1-11)

However, even this word is sometimes used to speak of individual human beings. For example:

Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil." He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him. (John 6:70-71)

Notice that Jesus didn't say "one of you has a devil," but "one of you is a devil."
So even the Greek word most commonly used to mean "the Devil" can also be applied to an individual human being who is bent on evil.
And the underlying meaning of the Greek word διάβολος is "a false accuser, a slanderer." So once again, when we read "the Devil" in the New Testament, it refers to a very human reality: those who slander others and make false accusations.
Demons
The other Greek word commonly translated "devil" is δαιμόνιον (daimonion). This word is most commonly used to mean an individual demon, or devil, who possesses a person, and causes that person to harm self or others. When the Gospels speak of Jesus casting out devils, this is the Greek word used.
However, the New Testament also refers at times to "the prince of the devils," or "the ruler of the demons," who is synonymous with the Devil. For example, after Jesus had healed a mute man who was possessed by a demon, the Pharisees said, "By the ruler of the demons he casts out the demons" (Matthew 9:34).
The ancient Greek word δαιμόνιον originally meant simply a spirit or spiritual messenger, or even a deity (in early polytheistic Greek culture), whether good or evil. But in the New Testament, it is almost always used to mean evil spirits.
So the general picture that emerges is of a host of evil beings, or spirits, ruled over by a figure called Satan, the Devil, or the ruler of the demons. This is the usual picture painted in traditional Christianity.
And yet, the Bible also uses the words for "devil" and "satan" to refer to human beings who are evil and who speak falsehoods and lies.
Swedenborg on the Devil
This use of the original Hebrew and Greek words for Satan and the Devil to also mean not only individual evil spirits, but also human beings who oppose God, speak falsehood, and do evil things suggests that there is more to the Devil and Satan than meets the eye.
And according to Emanuel Swedenborg, that is precisely the case.
Contrary to all of the Christian teachings of his day—the teachings that still hold sway in most of Christianity—Swedenborg said that there is no such thing as a Devil, or Satan, who had been a powerful angel that fell away from God and became the ruler of hell. After all, that idea of Satan as a fallen angel isn’t in the Bible. It comes from non-Biblical books, and from various traditions that had grown up over the centuries. In fact, most "Christian" beliefs about the Devil and Satan come from various human traditions rather than from the Bible itself.
Swedenborg presented a very different reality—one that is more in line with the Bible’s use of these words to mean both evil spirits and evil human beings.
In fact, Swedenborg said that these are really one and the same thing.
Evil spirits, he said, are all human beings who have lived evil and selfish lives here on earth, and have gone on to live in hell after their death. According to Swedenborg, there is no separately created race of angels, nor are there fallen angels who have become devils instead. All angels and devils were once human beings living in the material world.
Then what about the Devil and Satan?
These, Swedenborg says, are really just personifications of hell.
You know how the United States is sometimes called Uncle Sam? Have you heard of the Russian Bear? Have you seen China depicted as a Panda?
Likewise, in the Bible hell is personified as the figure of the Devil and Satan. And hell is simply the combination of all human evil gathered together in one vast evil region of the spiritual world.
So when the Bible talks about Jesus or human beings being tempted by Satan or the Devil, it's really talking about the evil influence of hell working on us, and trying to drag us down into false beliefs and evil actions.
The figures of evil such as the Devil, Satan, and the ruler of the demons, that appear in the Bible were either individual evil spirits who were once humans, or they were whole communities of hell that banded together to attack Jesus, or to infest human beings.
These collective demons can be seen in the story of the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5:1-20. In this story, Jesus confronts a demon-possessed man:

When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. He shouted at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!" For Jesus had said to him, "Come out of this man, you impure spirit!"
Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?"
"My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area. (Mark 5:6-10, italics added)

Here the demon possessing the man speaks of himself in the singular, yet names himself "Legion," with the explanation, "for we are many."
The angels and the demons that appear in the Bible may be individual angels or evil spirits, or they may be whole communities of angels or evil spirits banded together and acting as one. This, according to Swedenborg, is a very common occurrence in the spiritual world. And it explains many seemingly strange things about the angels and evil spirits who appear throughout the Bible.
Further, according to Swedenborg, while we humans may be attacked by individual evil spirits and by whole crowds of evil spirits, Jesus Christ was attacked by all of hell together, meaning by the combined power of all human and spiritual evil. So when Jesus was tempted by the Devil, he was fighting not just individual evil spirits, nor merely communities of evil spirits, but against all of hell working together as a single vast Devil in a futile attempt to destroy him and derail his work of saving the human race from the power of evil, falsity, and hell.


Was Solomon interested in studying the Scriptures?

Proverbs 1:1
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;
Proverbs 4:20-23
My son, attend to my words;
incline thine ear unto my sayings.
Let them not depart from thine eyes;
keep them in the midst of thine heart.
For they are life unto those that find them,
and health to all their flesh.
Keep thy heart with all diligence;
for out of it are the issues of life.
Proverbs 21:2-4
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes:
but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
To do justice and judgment
is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
An high look, and a proud heart,
and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.

Yes Solomon wrote the book a Proverbs which magnifies God's wisdom in the seemingly small and yet altogether important things.


What is the biblical basis for why the sending of the Holy Spirit was necessary?

The disciples could have carried out the Great Commission immediately, but they had already received word from the Lord that they would receive the Holy Spirit prior to this. Jesus had commanded that they wait in Jerusalem until then.

  Act 1:4,6-8 KJV - And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father,... When they therefore were come together, they asked of
  him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to
  Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or
  the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall
  receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye
  shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and
  in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

This passage and the Great Commission of Matthew 28 are invariably linked: They both involve going to all the world with an evangelistic mission. While Matthew doesn't record Jesus mentioning the Holy Spirit like this before his ascension, these additional words of Jesus from around the same time in Acts (after appearing to his disciples and before He ascends) makes the connection to the Commission clear. The apostles already had experience going out on their own and bringing the Message with power of the Holy Ghost (Mark 6:12-13), but they  knew to wait, or else Jesus wouldn't have given that timeline: The Holy Ghost comes upon you, You receive power, You will be My witnesses. This is why it was necessary that they wait before following the Great Commission. The second part of your question is why the Holy Spirit is necessary.

The Gospel's effectiveness doesn't come with persuasion, but with power.

  1Co 1:17-18 KJV - For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the
  gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be
  made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that
  perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of
  God.

and again:

  1Co 2:4-6 KJV - And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing
  words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
  power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in
  the power of God.

Without the power of the Holy Spirit blowing, there can be no conversion:

  Jhn 3:6-8 KJV - That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that
  which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto
  thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and
  thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh,
  and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

I suppose you could keep asking why and way, but at the end of the day, this is just how God works. Were it not for the Holy Spirit, there could be no effective evangelism. There is active agency on His part that is more important than the actual words used.


Does Christianity claim that the Bible is God's only Word?

The assumption that you make is that the Bible is "Jesus' book." It may or may not be the "Injil." In fact, Jesus neither wrote nor actually authored any piece of the book. Indeed, unlike Muhammed, Jesus did not even receive the Word, but rather was the Word of God.  As John 1 tells us:

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.  ... 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

This is picked up in Hebrews, where the author states:

  1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

Indeed, while the Bible is our perfect guide to the nature of God, it is to be understood that the Word points us to God because God is holy.

That Jesus is the exclusive way of salvation is made clear by Jesus' first disciples, Peter and John.  When the Jewish High Priest brought them up on charges, they said of Jesus:

  Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Furthermore, Jesus himself was clear that he was the exclusive one and only Word, saying in John 14:6:

  Jesus answered, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

The fundamental distinction I am making is this - Christians do not believe Jesus to be a prophet or a teacher. Christians believe him to be God. As God, he was "the Word" (a Greek term Logos that brings the fundamental idea of being the one through whom all things are created and given meaning.) Muhammed did not claim to be God. Jesus did. The exclusivity of the "Bible" as God's Word doesn't make sense, because Jesus is the point, not the book. Unlike Islam, we do not restrict our understanding of God's Word to a single language, nor do we venerate the Scriptures as Islam does. Instead, we believe that God is "the Word" and that Jesus is God, not a prophet

The Bible (and I say this as one who has an exceedingly high view of the authority of Scripture!) is not the "ONLY" word of God, because Jesus is the Word. Any would-be Scripture that denies this fundamental tenet of who Jesus is, is by definition, not a Christian Scripture. Jesus, being the fundamental Word, is the only test.

Unlike a prophet who merely is God's servant, as Christians, we make the audacious claim that God became flesh, dwelt among us, loved us, and saved us.  Jesus is not a messenger, but God.


To what extent were original papyri used as sources in the translation of the NIV New Testament?

The editors of the 2011 NIV write:

  The Greek text used in translating the New Testament is an eclectic
  one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible
  Societies’ Greek New Testament. The committee has made its choices
  among the variant readings in accordance with widely accepted
  principles of New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call
  attention to places where uncertainty remains.

I believe that at this time the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament would have been the latest.  Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament lists the following papyri as the most important witness texts for this edition:

P20 - 3rd c.
P23 - 3rd c.
P29 - 3rd c.
P38 - c. 220
P45 - c. 250
P46 - c. 175-225
P48 - 3rd c.
P50 - c. 163-172
P66 - c. 200
P69 - 3rd c.
P75 - c. 175-225

Since the editors state that they based their translation on the Nestle-Aland text, they would have at least considered the above in their translation.  A full list of the available papyri can be found here.

You specifically asked about papyri, so I took your question literally.  All of the above texts are fragmentary and sometimes don't even include complete chapters.  The only complete Greek New Testament texts from antiquity (as far as I know) are the codices, listed here, the earliest of which date from the 4th century.

(There is, of course, no guarantee that the age of a text is any measure of its "authenticity" in the sense that it is faithful to some "autograph".  There is no way to know whether there are some still earlier texts that are lost.  The Nestle-Aland text makes educated guesses about what might be in the supposed "autographs" by considering all of the available manuscripts.  The actual text used by the Greek Orthodox Church today follows fairly closely what is found in the majority of the available manuscripts, which varies widely in places from the Nestle-Aland "Critical Text".  Some of the Orthodox readings are quite different from what is found in the NIV).


What is the biblical basis against seeking medical advice?

The overwhelming majority of Christians, based on their understanding of the Bible, see nothing wrong with seeking medical advice and help.
There are, however, a few passages which may deter people from seeking medical advice.

And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians. 2 Chronicles 16 12
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:James 5 14

In the first of these Asa sought the help of physicians but did not pray about it. In the next verse he died. In the second, prayer is recommended in the case of sickness.
These verses could be seen as saying that prayer is the best response to sickness. It is what Asa omitted to do, and what James urges his readers to do. There is no suggestion, in the text,  that Asa was wrong to seek the help of physicians, or that James was saying that prayer alone is needed. Some however have seen an either/or dichotomy here. Adherents of the Christian Science movement have traditionally held this view. Should we pray or should we go to the doctor? A relevant text in considering this possible dichotomy, if it exists at all, is:

Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" Matthew 4 7

Any idea of avoiding medical help with the intention of seeing whether God will  perform a miracle, seems condemned here.
Another verse is worth mentioning here. It  concerns a lady who had been unwell for twelve years:

And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse. Mark 5 26

This may deter some, or at least act as a cautionary tale, to be on our guard. Modern professional regulation may provide some assurance on this issue.
Finally there are some treatments which may be considered forbidden or unethical. Jehovah's Witnesses do not condone blood transfusion, for example. Also, many Christians consider abortion a sin and so requesting medical help to end a pregnancy would be considered wrong and counter to the commandment not to kill.


How could Jesus' audience hear Jesus without audio installation?

You are right, communication before modern electronics relied more on the speaker yelling and a crowd who surrounding attentively.  Consider the ancient Roman coliseum for example. This place could house an audience of 50,000+ and people would need to shout loud to the crowd and be heard.

When we imagine the crowds that Jesus spoke to a typical Jesus movie seems to portray it right. Sometimes crowds followed him to a place where he could be heard well, like for the sermon on the mount.  Other times they pressed in on him and he even had to sort of hurry away so that it did not become too chaotic. Also many would be responding and discussing among themselves what the meaning was for something he had said. In these conditions many would not hear exactly what was said and only get bits and pieces.  There is also the repetitive second hand reiteration of what he had said. For those who could not hear they would listen to the stories told by others, even late into the night throughout the towns where Jesus preached.

Then there is the example of the Baptist preaching by the river. Have you ever yelled in a valley and heard the echo carry your voice seemingly for ever?

In summary, one could definitely communicate to large crowds in ancient Rome, such as for entertainment in the amphitheaters or when generals gave pre-battle speeches for example. When large crowds were addressed, sometimes good places were chosen for the acoustics, and the crowd would be more aware of when to hush for the communication to be effective. Even making a makeshift blow horn with your hands could have been used as ancient Greek actors already had horn shaped mouths in their masks for this purpose. However, there would certainly be some, especially among noisy crowds, who could not hear and would rely on what others said.


Which monk states that the Old Testament is about the Father and the New Testament about the Holy Ghost

The monk mentioned by the O.P. sounds like Joachim of Fiore (c. 1135 – 1202) to me. He was active mostly during the 12th century, but he did make it to the 13th.
Some of his ideas about the nature of the Holy Trinity were refuted posthumously by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).
However, his doctrine of the “three ages” is a bit different from what the O.P. States. According to Joachim,

The Age of the Father corresponds to the Old Testament.
The Age of the Son corresponds to the New Testament.
The Age of the Holy Spirit corresponds to a future age yet to come.

(See the Wikipedia article for a summary.)


The fruit of the spirit are listed in Galations 5:22-23:

  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (NIV)


How do Christians understand the existence of God in relation to the scientific concept of energy?

Energy is merely matter in another form (see Wikipedia). Matter and energy are both part of the created universe, made by God (see Book of Genesis). Energy, like matter, was created by God. It is not an attribute of God, any more than height, weight or hair colour.

Obvious exception for the incarnated Jesus, who would have had energy, height and hair colour.


Who was the Egyptian that led the revolt of the Assassins in Acts 21?

Here is a summary of what I found on this subject :

The Greek word for “dagger men”, used in the the quoted verse, is derived from the Latin sicarii, which means “users of the sica,” or dagger. First-century historian Flavius Josephus describes the Sicarii as a band of fanatic Jewish patriots, unrelenting enemies of Rome, who engaged in organized political killings.

Josephus adds that the Sicarii later played a leading role in the Jewish revolt against Rome in 66-70 C.E. Thus, the Roman commander would be anxious to detain the supposed leader of such a group.

The “Egyptian” seditionist with whom the military commander at Jerusalem confused Paul is possibly the same one mentioned by Josephus. (The Jewish War, II, 254-263 [xiii, 3-5]) His insurrection is stated to have taken place during the reign of Nero and the procuratorship of Felix in Judea, circumstances fitting the account at Acts 21:37-39; 23:23, 24.


How could Christ offer His blood to those under the Law, when He was forbidden by heritage?

Jesus was a rabbi who was adept at the law. The unique thing about Jesus is that he frequently and routinely used the rules of the talmud in order to spar with the pharisees. The way Jesus typically "won" these sparring matches was instead of falling victim to the legalism of the law, he would examine the moral behind the law.

In order to avoid the same traps, we too will need to examine the moral behind the law too. Before we begin to address the authority for offering the sacrifice of Christ's blood and how Jesus was not a high priest in the order of Aaron, we should take a step back and look at the Law's prohibitions against the sacrifice itself. First, in Leviticus, it was forbidden for anyone to consume the blood of any living thing. How then, could Jesus offer his blood to his Disciples, saying "Drink from [this cup,] all of you,  for this is my blood"? Seccondly, there were prohibitions in the law against human sacrifice, so how could Jesus offer himself as a sacrifice?

The answers comes from the explanation of these prohibitions. For example, Leviticus 17:11 notes

  For the life of every living thing is in the blood. So I myself have
  assigned it to you on the altar to make atonement for your lives, for
  the blood makes atonement by means of the life.

Since Jesus is described as the giver of life and living water, this uniquely qualifies Jesus as the only allowable source of drinkable blood. This is because the prohibition on drinking blood was to remind us that we should only be seeking life through God.

Likewise, the reason that God prohibits human sacrifice is that he is seeking to restore us from our fallen broken state. Substitutionary atonement is God's attempt to save us from death. Therefore by sacrificing those which God seeks to save from death, it defeats his purpose. On the other hand, offering Jesus as the sacrifice does nothing but serve God's purpose.

As we can see, keeping righteousness under the law using a wide array of technicalities in order to keep the spirit of the law is an art that Jesus was adept in. This then brings us the the heart of your question. Under the law, Jesus could not officiate his own sacrifice because he was not a Levite Priest. This is why Paul goes to great lengths to explain that Jesus was a priest in the Order of Melchizedek.

In order to understand why this important, we must first understand who Melchizedek was. In Genesis 14, the Bible notes that Melchizedek, King of Salem was a pries of the most high God. What you notice from this passage is that he is making offerings on behalf of Abram. What this means is that there was a priesthood which existed before the 12 tribes of Israel and therefore the tribe of Levi did. Melchizedek is often noted as being the Kind-priest. Paul is trying to make the point that because Jesus is the King of Kings, then he is qualified as a priest in the order of Melchizedek, since he is King of even Melchizedek the king-priest. As such, for yet another reason (according to Paul,) this Makes Jesus not just a priest, but the High Priest because he leads even other priests just as he is King of other kings. And oh, by the way, since Melchizedek wasn't a Levite, Jesus needn't be either. In fact, this qualifies him even more, because he is a priest in the original order of priests , an older order which predate even the Aaronic Priesthood.

(Interestingly, several note that Melchizedek was the basis of the Samaratin's claim to priesthood Authority as well)

And so we see that Jesus is yet again using his expert knowledge of the law and all of its' loopholes in order to save us from our sins.


Do Christians believe that Jews must still follow the Mosaic law?

It's a fundamental belief of Christianity that the coming of Jesus fulfils the Old Testament law. In other words that the Law was only ever intended to be until the coming of Messiah. Jesus did not therefore abolish or diminish the law. His coming simply marked the end of its original intended purpose. Jesus says as much in Matthew chapter 5 verse 17.

  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Because of this Christians believe that nobody should be following the Law, Jews or non-Jews. A better way is available to them, namely following Jesus.

There are a relatively small number of Christians who believe that a way of salvation is open to the Jews who continue to follow the law, instead of Jesus, but it is a minority.


What is the biblical defence used by Anglicans to appoint female vicars/bishops?

Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion (Wikipedia)

The Anglican church has different ordination guidelines in different countries, and often the parishes are allowed to make the decision for or against provided they give sufficient argument and evidence.

For example, although CofE as a rule accepts ordaining women, here is a case where it was forbidden: Anglican church bans women from vicar's job on 'biblical' grounds.

Arguments given

As you already know, it's a hot topic for debate. Typical biblical defences given by Anglicans to appoint female vicars and bishops can be among the following:

that Paul's request to Timothy was actually referring to women exercising their authority over their husband and unbalancing the marital unit, not about whether women can be given titles of leadership;
that it may have been a cultural norm at the time for women to exercise self-restraint, and the lack of it was bringing embarrassment on the Christian community in front of the unbelievers instead of them functioning as a light to the world;
that there may be certain laws in the Bible which are based on customs which become less relevant as times change, or when perfection sets in (such as the eating of certain animals);
that there are already examples of female leaders in both the Old Testament (Deborah who was appointed as a leader over the people) and the New Testament (Priscilla, wife of Aquila, whom Paul himself called his "fellow worker[s] in Christ", and who helped teach Apollos with her husband in Acts 18:26).


Human effort consistent with the will of God, does not oppose God's Grace. However, the words of Jesus to Peter (cf. Matthew 16:21-23),

  "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things, but on human things" (NRSV)

are a proclamation from God himself that human effort can, indeed, oppose God's grace.

The assertion that one's best is impossible to attain is a logical paradox, and a fallacy. Everyone can do his or her best, so it is obviously possible to attain. The issue is the extent to which the "best" of any particular individual comes close to God's objective standards. But God exhorts in Genesis 4:7

  "If you do well, will it not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." (NRSV)


When was the title of "Mother of God" first ascribed to Mary?

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh".

If this is not so then it is like saying that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion will be same as heresy of Nestorianism. On the contrary Mary carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

Precisely for this reason, both Martin Luther and John Calvin  insisted on Mary’s divine maternity.

Here are some of the summarized forms of Mother of God references from very early age of Christianity:

  Irenaeus: [A.D. 189] "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1).

  Hippolytus [A.D. 217] ….Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Discourse on the End of the World 1).

  Gregory the Wonderworker [A.D. 262] "For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Four Homilies 1).
  "It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).

  Peter of Alexandria: [A.D. 305] "They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria).
  "We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D. 324]).

As the length of this answer is increasing, I will restrict here in mentioning only the names and dates when these references were made:
Methodius: (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]); Cyril of Jerusalem:(Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]);Ephraim the Syrian:(Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]); Athanasius:  (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]); Epiphanius of Salamis:(The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]); Ambrose of Milan:(The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]) and many more.


Jesus was dead for close to 36 hours, what happened to trinity?

This is the answer from the Catholic point of view.

In short, the Trinity - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit existed just as it always did and ever will (since God is eternal).

Now, to understand better what happened when Jesus died, we need to remember that death is not a complete annihilation, the state of non-being - it is rather a separation of body and soul, which will end on the last day (the last judgement).

Secondly, we need to remember that Jesus had two natures - Divine and Human. It means that if somebody asked Him "What are you?", he could answer both "God" and "Human". However, if somebody asked "Who are you?" there is only one answer: "Jesus", because there is only one person.

Nature (divine or human) dictates what we are, what we can do - for example we can talk, love, pray - all these things are common to human nature, but no human can, for example breath under water, as this is not part of human nature. In the same way, Jesus could not have died in His divine nature, which cannot know death, but He died in His human nature just as all human beings die - i.e. His Body (which was the body of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity) was separated from his soul. It didn't mean he ceased to exist, he simply died, like humans die.

At the moment of resurrection, His human body was again united with His soul, so in His human nature, God the Son rose from the death (himself), just as He will rise us on the last day.

The answer is based on "Theology for beginners" (Chapter 11, The Redeemer), by Frank Sheed.


Your question presupposed that salvation is acted out by the believer. Coming at it from a reformed/calvanistic point of view here is out I would answer it.

Salvation starts  by God in eternity past through his election. Here is how Wayne Grudem describe election in is book Systematic Theology chapter 32. (Sorry could not get a direct link to the page)

Then if God calls those who will be save, then the believer receive the gift of salvation. In God eye, the believer is already in heaven. Then salvation is an act of God, and also God is the one responsible for the calling and the keeping on the path of faith.

Here is how Romans present this thought:

  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8.29-30) ESV

God chooses, the christian respond in faith and God keeps the believer during all the life of the believer. Salvation is then a state matter.

Although the end matter as well, a Christian is called to perseverance in his faith. If he was to fall he would be sinning, not loosing is salvation. Because God choosed the believer before any good work or any faith on his part. The sinning does not rob salvation, but his joy , his peace and different gifts.

In 1 Jonh one of the test of a true christian is his walk in the light.

  If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 john 1.6-7) ESV

In a way salvation is a path, but not unto salvation but unto holiness.


What, if any, were the Catholic orders that opposed the Catholic Inquisition?

Distinguo:

That Gregory IX, through his appointment of Dominicans and Franciscans as inquisitors, withdrew the suppression of heresy from the proper courts (i.e. from the bishops), is a reproach that in so general a form cannot be sustained. So little did he think of displacing episcopal authority that, on the contrary he provided explicitly that no inquisitional tribunal was to work anywhere without the diocesan bishop's co-operation.
Old Catholic Encyclopedia on Newadvent.org

I only throw this out there because of the popular support of the Inquisition would make it highly unlikely that orders were opposed to the Inquisition.
The other thing to distinguo is that the Dominicans and Franciscans were new orders, mendicant orders. Preachers and friars who went out to meet the people.  The other orders hung out in their monasteries.
I only mention these things to break down the two principles that form this question

That the Dominicans and Franciscans were the main church inquisitors.  They certainly had no power outside of the local bishop and were not independent of them when they were in his diocese.

That you can compare Dominicans and Franciscans to Benedictines.

However, the Catholic Encyclopedia says that St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who the Bernadines are named after, was opposed to the tactics of the inquisition.  However, I don't think the Bernadines were 'lead' by him, just formed in his honor.

Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church.
ibid

so I think that doesn't jibe with your request that it not just be a person who took issue with the inquisition.  But he was a highly influential Cistercian - and apparently not rebuked for his stance; he was known for his preaching against the Cathars.


Which doctrine was formalised first: Infant Baptism or Original Sin?

Was Infant Baptism practiced before the development of the idea of Original Sin?

Ultimately it is not possible to historically know for with  any great amount of surety as the two seem to be based on very little historical documents as well as the interpretation on a few choice passages of Sacred Scripture. It does seem that the two developed at the same time. There is a definite relationship between infant baptism and original sin.

The Catholic Church believes that there is a biblical basis for baptizing infants to cleanse them for original sin.

    And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." [Acts 2:38–40]

    We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [Romans 6:4]

    God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. [1 Peter 3:20–21]

  The Catechism holds that infant baptism is "an immemorial tradition", practised from the earliest days of the Church recorded in Acts.

    1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized [Cf Acts 16:15, 33; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16] - What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic teaching that infant baptism cleanses from original sin?

"Seek forgiveness" goes on to add this to this very question.

  Furthermore Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision.

    In Col. 2:11: In him you also were circumcised – not, however, with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal of the fleshly body, that is, through the circumcision done by Christ. 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead.

  If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

  Augustine also taught that,

    “It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated ... when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or “ by the faith of those born again of water and the Holy Spirit’[John3:5]. The water, therefore manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who is generated in Adam”(Letters 98:2)

  Origen also wrote in the third century that 'according to the usage of Church, baptism is given even to infants'(Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11,AD 244).

  The council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eight day after birth.

    Later Augustine taught, 'The custom of Mother Church in baptising infants is certainly not to be scorned ....nor is to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic' (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39, AD 408) - What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic teaching that infant baptism cleanses from original sin?

Original sin in Scripture

  The classical text is Romans 5:12 sqq. In the preceding part the apostle treats of justification by Jesus Christ, and to put in evidence the fact of His being the one Saviour, he contrasts with this Divine Head of mankind the human head who caused its ruin. The question of original sin, therefore, comes in only incidentally. St. Paul supposes the idea that the faithful have of it from his oral instructions, and he speaks of it to make them understand the work of Redemption. This explains the brevity of the development and the obscurity of some verses. Original Sin

Original sin in tradition

  On account of a superficial resemblance between the doctrine of original sin and the Manichaean theory of our nature being evil, the Pelagians accused the Catholics and St. Augustine of Manichaeism. For the accusation and its answer see "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", I, II, 4; V, 10; III, IX, 25; IV, III. In our own times this charge has been reiterated by several critics and historians of dogma who have been influenced by the fact that before his conversion St. Augustine was a Manichaean. They do not identify Manichaeism with the doctrine of original sin, but they say that St. Augustine, with the remains of his former Manichaean prejudices, created the doctrine of original sin unknown before his time.

  It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, "The International Critical Commentary: Romans", 134, 137; Hastings, "A Dictionary of the Bible", I, 841). It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.

  That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine's time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. The Pelagians held that baptism was given to children, not to remit their sin, but to make them better, to give them supernatural life, to make them adoptive sons of God, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven (see St. Augustine, Of Sin and Merit I.18). The Catholics answered by citing the Nicene Creed, "Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum". - Original Sin

It seems the Early Church probably practiced infant baptism from apostolic times due to concept of original sin as it was understood at the time.

Related Questions:

  Has the term “born again” always been synonymous with baptism with the Christians of the Early Church?

  What is the earliest explicit mention of infant baptism?


According to Calvinists, Luke 22:8 what date did it happen?

The Last Supper seems in the Synoptic Gospels to take place at the time of the Passover Meal. This would imply that Luke 22: 7 took place in the morning of Nissan 14.

However, John's Gospel appears to put the Crucifixion on Nissan 14.

In his commentary Calvin posed the question this way:

  How did Christ observe that ceremony on the day before the whole nation celebrated the public Passover? For John plainly affirms that the day on which Christ was crucified was, among the Jews, the preparation, not of the Sabbath, but of the Passover,

In Calvin's view then, Jesus and His disciples observed the Passover a day earlier than most of the Jews.

It may be worth mentioning that the Jewish calendar was used for religious feasts but the Roman civil calendar was in more general use. The month of Nissan, like all months, began with the first sighting of the New Moon. However if the barley was not sufficiently ripe at the start of the month then they would wait until the following New Moon to announce that Nissan had begun.

In this way there were sometimes 13 months in the year and sometimes 12, and it would not be known until just before the month started whether it would be Nissan or not. Since the fourth century AD Jews have used a mathematical formula to add a 13th month 7 times every 19 years, but at the time of Christ it was done on an ad hoc basis.

Back to Calvin, how does he explain why Jesus celebrated Passover a day earlier than most of the Jews? He says:

  I have no doubt, therefore, that Christ observed the day appointed by the Law, and that the Jews followed a custom which had been long in use. First, it is beyond a doubt that Christ was put to death on the day before the Sabbath; for he was hastily buried before sunset in a sepulchre which was at hand, (John 19:42,) because it was necessary to abstain from work after the commencement of the evening. Now it is universally admitted that, by an ancient custom, when the Passover and other festivals happened on Friday, they were delayed till the following day, because the people would have reckoned it hard to abstain from work on two successive days.

Calvin's view was that there was a Jewish tradition that if Passover fell on a Friday then it was transferred to Saturday instead. This is because Saturday was the Sabbath and people thought it too hard to abstain from work two days running. Jesus however celebrated it at the correct time according to the Law.

If this is true then the incident in Luke 22: 7 took place on Nissan 14.

This was Calvin's view, but is it the Calvinist view? Not necessarily, there Is no definite doctrine on the matter.

The Reformed view generally would usually be that the apparent contradiction between Luke and John must have some explanation. Rather than choose between conflicting accounts the Reformed tradition would tend to find some way to choose both, and if none can be found then that still doesn't prove there isn't one.

Beyond this, is there anything in Calvin's theory which is representative of his thought, beyond being his personal view on a non-dogmatic issue? Maybe.

Calvin's idea is that the priests had been doing it all wrong for a very long time. This is a motif seldom far from Calvin's thought. As in Rome at Calvin's time, so in Jerusalem at Christ's.

Secondly Calvin says the idea of having to abstain from work for two days running would be too hard to bear. The modern weekend did not exist in sixteenth century Geneva. Perhaps Calvin's aversion to two days off is an an example of the Calvinist Work Ethic.

Nevertheless, we cannot really say there is a Reformed position on this.


In Western communion services, when was the origin of the practice of consistently offering only the bread to the laity?

The answer is not so clear cut as one would imagine. One can not say that at this date in time, communion was uniquely offered to the laity under the form of bread only. In fact the practice of receiving communion under the form of bread (Body of Christ) came about little by little over several centuries.

  From the earliest times: The faithful received Communion under both species, standing. The Host was distributed in de hand but women were reguired to have a cloth over their hands to receive.

  ca.590: Practice of Communion on the tongue appears but not common.

  Xth-XIth Century: Communion in the hand decreases and is abolished for fear of profanation.

  XIth-XVIth Century: Practice of kneeling to receive Communion becomes primary practice.

  1414: After a long decrease in reception from the chalice, practice abolished to combat Hussite heresy.

  1963-1970: Communion under both species restored in most cases along with option to recieve in the hand and standing.

  1968: Permission granted for laity to distribute Communion in extraordinary circumstances for the fist time in the history of the Church. - Source

Although communion under both kinds was the general practice in the Early Church and it lasted thus for many centuries. It took to the twelfth century for the Church to tried to suppress this practice. The Council of Lambeth (1281) stated that wine is to be received by the priest alone. The practice took time to be imposed and it is impossible to say exactly when the new custom became universal or when, by the Church's approval, it acquired the force of law. It seems the communion with the chalice may never have true vanish completely or truly universally as the Catholic Encyclopedia more or less points out.

  From the first to the twelfth century

  It may be stated as a general fact, that down to the twelfth century, in the West as well as in the East, public Communion in the churches was ordinarily administered and received under both kinds. That such was the practice in Apostolic times is implied in 1 Corinthians 11:28 (see above), nor does the abbreviated reference to the "breaking of bread" in the Acts of the Apostles (ii, 46) prove anything to the contrary. The witness to the same effect for the sub-Apostolic and subsequent ages are too numerous, and the fact itself too clearly beyond dispute, to require that the evidence should be cited here. But side by side with the regular liturgical usage of Communion sub utraque, there existed from the earlist times the custom of communicating in certain cases under one kind alone. This custom is exemplified (1) in the not infrequent practice of private domestic Communion, portion of the Eucharistic bread being brought by the faithful to their homes and there reserved for this purpose; (2) in the Communion of the sick, which was usually administered under the species of bread alone; (3) in the Communion of children which was usually given, even in the churches, under the species of wine alone, but sometimes under the species of bread alone; (4) in the Communion under the species of bread alone at the Mass of the Presanctified, and as an optional practice, in some churches on ordinary occasions. To these examples may be added (5) the practice of the intinctio panis, i.e. the dipping of the consecrated bread in the Precious Blood and its administration per modum cibi. We will notice briefly the history of each of these divergent practices.

  Since the twelfth century

  The final suppression of intinctio was followed in the thirteenth century by the gradual abolition for the laity of Communion under the species of wine. The desuetude of the chalice was not yet universal in St. Thomas' time (d. 1274): "provide in quibusdam ecclesiis observatur", he says "ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur" (Summa, III, Q. lxxx, a. 12). The Council of Lambeth (1281) directs that wine is to be received by the priest alone, and non-consecrated wine is to be received by the faithful (Mansi, XXIV, 405). It is impossible to say exactly when the new custom became universal or when, by the Church's approval, it acquired the force of law. But such was already the case long the outbreak of the Hussite disturbances, as is clear from the decree of the Council of Constance (see I above). The Council of Basle granted (1433) the use of the chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under certain conditions, the chief of which was acknowledgment of Christ's integral presence under either kind. This concession, which had never been approved by any pope, was positively revoked in 1462 by the Nuncio Fantini on the order of Pius II. The Council of Trent while defining the points already mentioned, referred to the pope the decision of the question whether the urgent petition of the German emperor to have the use of the chalice allowed in his dominions be granted; and in 1564 Pius IV authorized some German bishops to permit it in their dioceses, provided certain conditions were fulfilled. But, owing to the inconveniences that were found to result, this concession was withdrawn in the following year. Benedict XIV states (De Missae Sacrif. II, xxii. n. 32) that in his time the kings of France had the privilege of communicating sub utraque at their coronation and on their death-bed. In the eighteenth century the deacon and subdeacon officiating at High Mass in the Church of Saint-Denis, Paris, on Sundays and solemn feasts, and at Cluny on all feasts of obligation, were allowed to receive sub utraque (Benedict XIV, loc. cit.) The only surviving example of this privilege is in the case of the deacon and subdeacon officiating in the solemn Mass of the pope.


What is the official Catholic position on same-sex marriage and same-sex civil partnerships?
Let us keep in perspective that the words of Pope Francis were spoken when he was Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires (Argentina)!
The words quoted from Pope Francis do not change what Catholics believe about the Catholic position on same-sex marriage and same-sex civil partnerships.
We words quoted as coming from the present Sovereign Pontiff are merely his personal thoughts on this subject and do not alter the official stance of what the Church teaches on the subject.
The pope’s comment’s should not or even can be taken as an infallible Church statement. They ‘re not!
As in many statements made by various pope’s in various media postings, one begs to know how accurately the statement are to the actual words of the pope. In any case, the statement is far from an official statement on the part of the Catholic Church. Even Pope Francis seems the be saying that very fact on a personal level: ”That way they are legally covered. I stand up for that."
Off the cuff remarks, are often the hardest ones to get genuine interpretation, especially if a translation is involved.
Apparently, in October 2020, as pope, he did a make similar statement, as taken from Wikipedia:

He stated that he supports legally recognising same-sex civil unions in a statement from an interview published in October 2020; this passage was from an interview from 2019, but this passage had been cut from public releases at the time. The statement was also interpreted as supportive of LGBT adoption.

What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. They're children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out of be made miserable because of it.

It seems that Pope Francis is more to saying that in those countries which permit civil same-sex marriages that they should be legally covered by the state in question with the same rights as traditional marriages. He states nothing about sacramentally blessed marriages within the Church.

Why Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Is Impossible for Catholics
One of the key questions is that of same-sex “marriage.” Can Catholics ever endorse or allow same-sex “marriage”? If a secular government enacts legislation allowing two persons of the same sex to “marry,” there is little Catholics can do about it. We have good reasons for opposing same-sex “marriage” in society generally, but we have no power to impose those objections on others, and if the state approves same-sex “marriage,” all we can do is protest peacefully and assume a position — as we do with abortion — of tolerant resistance.
Those who disagree with Catholics on this issue should recognize and respect our position of tolerant resistance and attempt to understand why we are opposed.
We are not opposed to same-sex “marriage” because we hate homosexuals. We don’t “hate fags”; nor do we believe that God does. We don’t judge a person’s heart simply because he or she is attracted to persons of the same sex. The official teaching of the Catholic Church says homosexual persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (Catechism, 2358).
Are there some Catholics who are hateful bigots? Sure. There are people like that in all segments of society. They’re not only bad people, they’re bad Catholics.
However, when it comes to same-sex “marriage,” we are dealing not only with the question of homosexuality per se, but also of the Catholic sacraments. Those who disagree must therefore try to understand Catholic beliefs because the Catholic intransigence on the subject of same-sex “marriage” is not so much about homosexuality, but about the very foundation and core of the Catholic faith.
Catholic teaching is a unified, coherent and consistent body of thought that encompasses not only religious beliefs and behaviors, but also includes history, anthropology, political and economic theory, sexuality, cosmology and ecology. In other words, what we believe about God and humanity touches everything.
If we don’t allow same-sex weddings, we also don’t allow child brides, polygamy or remarriage after divorce for the same reason. We realize that others may disagree with our beliefs. We know members of other religions allow remarriage, child brides and polygamy. We also understand that other Christians and those with no belief may permit same-sex “marriage.” They may do so. We cannot stop them, but they should also realize that what their religion allows ours does not.
This doesn’t mean that we hate homosexuals, Muslims, Mormons, Episcopalians or atheists. It doesn’t mean that we are racists and bigots. We acknowledge that homosexual people may love one another. We can admit that if the law allows they may establish a civil union and live together. They may do as they please. They can even call what they do “marriage,” but that doesn’t make it marriage, and it certainly doesn’t make it a Catholic sacrament.
Catholic beliefs are not simply a matter of opinion; they are a matter of fact.
Even if we want to, we can’t change the essentials of the sacrament of marriage — not because we can’t change our beliefs, but because we can’t change facts.

Here follows what Catechism of the Catholic Church say on this matter:

Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

For further information, the following articles may be of interest:

The Role of Civil Unions
Francis becomes 1st pope to endorse same-sex civil unions


At what time of day was Jesus crucified?

John operates on a different chronology than Mark.

Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7-9 all have the disciples asking Jesus where to prepare the Passover supper on first day of the feast of unleavened bread, with the crucifixion the next day.   But John 19:14 has the crucifixion itself taking place on "the preparation of the passover" which is the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.   So the day that Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us Jesus had the disciples prepare the Passover, is the day he was crucified according to John.  So John makes the whole thing take place a day earlier than the Synoptics.  Once you realize that, it won't seem so important to be stuck on a difference of 3 hours.

There's an obvious theological reason why John does this. We are told in Mark 14:12 that the passover lamb is killed on the preparation day

  "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?"

In the Synopics, then, Jesus' death does not correspond directly to the killing of the Passover lamb.  Rather, on the day the lamb is killed, the disciples are preparing for the Last Supper, and Jesus then eats an actual Passover seder with the disciples that night.

But John, who alone among the gospel writers speaks of Jesus as "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29, 1:36), wants Jesus' death to correspond exactly to the time that the Passover lamb is killed.   So John moves the Last Supper to a day earlier, thus having Jesus' crucifixion on the day of preparation when the lamb is killed.  Or does he?

The question is which is historical and which is merely theological spin.  Its possible the Synoptics are historical here and John is the spin because he wants Jesus' death to correspond exactly to the Passover lamb.  However, its also possible that John is historical and the Synoptics are spinning because they wanted Jesus to eat a real Passover meal as his last meal. [In John he's crucified while Passover is being prepared, so he doesn't get to eat a Passover meal.]  You will note that in John, there is no institution of the Lord's Supper (Communion, Eucharist) at the Last Supper as in the Synoptics.  Rather, John deals with this subject in John 6 when he has Jesus declare in the Synagogue at Capernaum that he is the bread from heaven.  It could be that the Synoptics moved the date of Jesus' crucifixion in order to accommodate having Jesus institute the Lord's Supper at the Last Supper during a real Passover, or it could be that John moved the date in order to have Jesus' death correspond to the killing of the pascal lamb, and we'll never know this side of heaven which it is.


What is an overview of different stances on whether and why it is a sin to pay taxes?

Some Protestant groups, like those represented by the conservative R.C. Sproul Jr and the Acton Institute, believe that even if the government does nothing but evil, one nonetheless is obligated to pay taxes to support it, because what the government does is not the responsibility of the people supporting it but the fault of the government itself.  This is similar to but distinct from the material v.s. formal assistance issue discussed below.

Some Catholic groups, like those represented by the extremist Catholic Worker movement, support the refusal to pay taxes in many cases, in accordance with the rule of conscience.  This is not technically different than mainstream Catholicism except that these extremist groups cultivate a spiritual culture that encourages members to question the fundamental aspects of their way of life and supports them even when mainstream society would (or does) condemn them, which makes the likelihood that members make choices like the decision to protest a government by refusing to pay taxes much more likely (since, whether or not they ought to morally, people will rarely take up stances that they know will ostracize them from their support network).

More official stances of the Roman Catholic Church tend to reference the differences between material and formal assistance and generally support refusal to pay taxes only as a method of opposing the whole of the government.  Paying taxes to an immoral government is argued to be licit from several directions, including the mitigation of moral culpability do to duress (a weak argument), the distinction between material and formal support and vested interest in the public good (a strong argument when it applies), and the principle of double effect.  In sum, Catholicism tends to support tax paying in general for most people living in most countries, but supports not paying taxes as a form of resistance in certain unusual circumstances.  Basically "It depends".  Again, the rule of conscience is the most typical method of actually determining answers within the Church, in combination with the Church's pastoral care and teaching authority.

Christian Pacifists, who oppose war unilaterally, often engage in war tax resistance.  Many of them do so in legal ways, simply by reducing the amount of money they have below the taxable threshold (most Christian Pacifists live in countries where this is a thing).  Such protestant denominations clearly believe that, at least in some cases, taxes ought to be denied to a government.

For most groups, this is a question of balancing the need to comply with righteous authority and serve the common good with the need to oppose evil and injustice in the world, it's just answered in different ways.


Catholic View
Baptism necessary for justification
Catholicism teaches that "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof," (Council of Trent, Decree On Justification, Canon 4) one cannot be justified.
In Catholicism, the laver of regeneration has one and only one referent, namely, Christian baptism; as does equally "born again of water and the Holy Ghost.")
'Justified' here refers to cleansing from sin and thus the acquittal of all guilt (as far as God is concerned: 'What sin?'). First and foremost this refers to original sin (that we are by birth strangers to God, and not his sons or daughters by grace, and thus stand in need of salvation from Hell, where such can only go and are only fit), but also to actual sin (sins you actually do—you don't 'do' orginal sin or depravity).
For adults, this involves full and complete forgiveness of all their "past sins," (2 Peter 1:9) and not only this, but the remission of any and all attached temporal punishment (i.e. being forgiven but nonetheless being given punishment, like the loss of a house, car, or even a child, in the case of King David—some form of corrective chastizement which always follows even forgiven sins). The value of this sacrament cannot be overestimated. It is the bounty of the merits of Jesus Christ on display for the world to see and take hold of, freely, if they would but take hold.
When one is baptized, they are utterly blameless before God and ready to enter heaven. This pure "garment" (Rev. 3:4; Mt. 22:12; Rev. 19:18) can only afterwards be "defiled" by free choice to commit evil.
The same canon of the Council of Trent teaches that "they cannot enter the kingdom of God" without baptism. This is why it is necessary in Catholicism.
Sacramental baptism specifically
They key reason Catholics believe Christ instituted sacraments in general (and thus an outward sign baptism) is because of our nature as human beings. We need signs to know what has occurred (think of Jesus using clay and miracles to prove the doctrine of His divinity, for example, and that God had truly came, not only in word, but in deed, in flesh).
We as Catholics don't believe in inward feelings being sure markers or signs of anything, even if they accompany or even precede the signs, since these are too subjective and can be mistaken—something or someone else has to bear witness to it (Mt. 18:16). In this case, one can know they have the remission of all sins and are now a son or daughter of God when they undergo the "circumcision made without hands," (Col. 2) which according to the perennial Catholic faith leaves on the soul, as it were, an indelible 'mark.' Just as someone in the Old Covenant could know they were a child of God by that outward sign on the flesh.
This is pretty much the only reason the sacrament is visible/necessary. Water, even that used in baptism, doesn't have any power in it whatsoever. It is matter used in this context that God has promised to work by and in and through, and that's the only reason it is effective. No Catholic believes in 'magic' water. Similarly, no bread is the Body of Christ and has the power to heal by virtue of it being hypostatically united to the Almighty Word of God, only that which has been sacramentally been made the 'what it is' (what they call in philosophy 'substance' or 'essence') of Jesus Christ's glorified Body: His body, blood, soul and divinity (that in which the Father delights profoundly), which we receive and incorporate by Communion into our own souls, so that "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me" (John 6:57).
Catholics believe that Jesus made baptism necessary Himself:

Mark 16:16 (DRB) He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Protestant View
Justifying vs. a Sign
Despite Protestantism not being monolithic, they generally say baptism is merely a sign of your already being (or usually only just having become) a Christian, to put it most loosely. Some believe in an ambiguous idea of it being a 'seal' of your being Christian. But hardly any Protestants (except Lutherans and some others) believe the sacrament actually confers the grace of justification.
Justification in Protestantism
Justification for most Protestants, however, does not mean (as in Catholicism) actual taking away of sins (and an expectation of an intention specifically to avoid sins, to avoid tarnishing the pure status given you, to avoid Hell), but the acquittal of them for the sake of Christ (as though Christ was a coat you "put on"—cf. Gal. 3:27—so that God the Father can declare you as righteous as Christ Himself, not based on your works corresponding directly with that righteousness). Martin Luther famously described Protestant justification by the words "a righteousness external to/outside of us" (i.e. Christ's). Just, for those Protestants who accept baptismal justification (in Catholicism we consider regeneration and initial justification from sin Adam's legacy to occur only once and in baptism, and so refer to 'baptismal regeneration' usually instead—Protestants often distinguish between justification and regeneration to such an extent that some even having it that you are not justified, but are regenerated, as in Calvinism for example). This might seem like a distinction without a difference, but one actually makes people fit for heaven as they are (since they are changed), whereas the other means you are actually still the exact same internally, but are granted access, per Christ, externally, to heaven, for Christ's sake (since the righteousness is only "extra nos"—outside of us).
For the majority of Protestants, though, baptism is not necessary for salvation; and they differ greatly on whether it is necessary even as a sign or symbol (i.e. as some kind of 'proof' you are truly Christian; or truly devoted, etc.). For those who reject its necessity, this is usually due to the doctrine that anything done pertaining to salvation, if truly pertaining to salvation and more specifically the receiving or not receiving it, must of necessity be an attempt to earn that salvation (baptism being something performed/asked for).
Eastern Orthodox View
The Orthodox view is not distinguishable in any meaningful way from that of Catholicism.

[The Orthodox Church] teaches the necessity of baptism for salvation, baptismal regeneration (John iii. 5), infant baptism, and the salvation of baptized infants (Matt. xix. 12). The effect of baptism is the remission of hereditary and previous actual sin, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. It can not be repeated; sins committed after baptism must be forgiven by priestly absolution on repentance and confession.
Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds.§ 17. The Synod of Jerusalem and the Confession of Dositheus, Section XVII, Article XVI (condensed summary by Schaff) [emphasis mine]

They do differ with Catholics on what precisely original sin is (specifically as regards guilt and its relation to fallenness), but this doesn't affect the necessity of baptism nonetheless.


Is this melody part of the French church mass?

I have recently taken few lesson of Gregorian Chant and we sung something from the Ninth Mass to Virgin Mary. Unfortunately, we stopped at Kyrie and I've heard its Sanctus just once or twice, so I can't tell whether some part of it is similar to that Aleinu record or not. I have notes for the Sanctus, so at the first opportunity I can scan the notes and link the picture, so that someone more competent can verify this theory. The guy who taught me the chant has been to France few times, so it should be what we are looking for, not "central-europian mutation" of the same chant. Unfortunately, I'm not really competent in reading (medieval) musical notation, so there might be some piece similar to this even though I didn't find any similarity.

Anyway, even if the two melodies were somewhat similar, still it is quite likely to be just an accident. There is limited (though big) set of possible melodies, and set of melodies used for sacral music is not-as-big. Provided there are some similarities between Jewish sacral music and Gregorian Chant, such occasional similarities are inevitable.

Such random similarities in music are often exaggerated by conspiracy theorist. In my nation (Czech) vague similarities between our and Irish folk music are often presented as a proof that we are more Celtic than Slavic, but I remember one of the proponents of this theory to admit that he have heard music from Tibet that sounded more similar to some kinds of Czech folk music than Irish music does.


It is a commonly held belief among Christians that transgression of any of the 10 commandments leads to death. Therefore since transgression of any of them is the same as transgressing all of them. In other words murder has no worse penalty than lying about your neighbor. Those are both accepted as mortal sins.
Paul stated:

Romans 5:12, 13, and 24  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:
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

and

Romans 6:16  Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Jesus stated:

John 8:34  Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

James states:

James 2:10 and 11  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

F.B.Meyers Commentary states:
"While the Jews taught that "he who transgresses all the precepts of the law has broken the yoke, dissolved the covenant, and exposed the law to contempt; and so has he done who has only broken one precept;" they also taught, "that he who observed any principal command was equal to him who kept the whole law," and gave for an example the forsaking of idolatry. To correct this false doctrine was the object James had in view."

Matthew 5:18 through 20  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Galatians 3:10  For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Adam and Eve did not actually commit murder as such, but what they did was to bring into the World the knowledge of right and wrong. All of the things prohibited in the 10 Commandments are willful choosing of wrong over right. It is that choice which God finds abhorrent. It is that choice which led to the expulsion of Lucifer and the rebellious Angels. Since Adam and Eve did not commit all sins enumerate in the 10 Commandments in actuality, They still brought the penalty for them into the World.
God does not regard sin as having various penalties, and therefore; it can be said that Adam and Eve are guilty of all sin, though they did not commit each separately.
Hope this makes sense to you and helps.


What are the main points of dissent between Cyril of Alexandria and John Chrysostom?

I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I think there may be a false impression that there was a big difference between these two men. The impression is caused because Cyril was involved in deposing Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak. However, if you read carefully, it seems that Cyril was not personally against Chrysostom, but rather that Cyril (who was overly aggressive, bordering on cruel by nature) was merely tricked by enemies of Chrysostom to think of him as an Origenists. Origenists held the heresy that all people will be saved without anyone going to hell.  The difference between the two seems only circumstantial and by personality. Cyril was ready to censure and punish heretics and Chrysostom was for a time falsely accused as one.

When trying to read some of their works I noticed Cyril is really a very high level thinker that was seemingly brilliant with respect to understanding the trinity, so his impact seems limited to that subject.  There also seems to be less writings from Cyril extant. Chrysostom on the other hand is a less philosophical and more of a nuts-and-bolts Bible commentator. His commentary on Romans and Galatians seems close to a modern day protestant evangelical library.

So, from my limited knowledge of these two men, I do not find any real theological differences between them. They were very different people wrapped up in very different politics. Cyril seems to have had more power in the Catholic church, but Chrysostom seems to have been more influential and charismatic upon people at large.

Chrysostom is an interesting read, especially Romans and Galatians. Some of his works can be found here.

What I found interesting about Cyril is that in arguing for the trinity he opposed Nestorius who seemed to be trying to separate the nature of the God-Man into two separate units. To oppose Nestorius, Cyril had to emphasize the unity of the God-Man and in so doing he seemed that it was necessary to over emphasis the importance of Mary, in whose womb this unity was created.  I gather that later further elevations of Mary with Catholic history actually stem as an inadvertent unhealthy spin off from Cyril's good effort in opposing Nestorius. Like an accident resulting from a victory. Of course I am looking at things through a Protestant lens.


Late for Mass, can I still receive the Eucharist?

At a week day Mass, I see no problem. Being late however should be avoided if at all possible.

First of all, we must distinguish between receiving Communion on a week day Mass and a day of obligation. Reception of the Blessed Sacrament on week day Mass is permitted, even if we are late for the obligation to attend Mass in non-existent. Canon Law permits us to actually receive Communion outside of Mass during non-obligatory days. Thus it is in essence a non-issue. Communion may be received a second time in a day, providing that the second reception of Holy Communion is within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

  The Code of Canon Law (No. 917) stipulates, "A person who has received the Most Holy Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only during the celebration of the Eucharist in which the person participates, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 921, 2." Following this lead, Canon 921, 2 stipulates, "Even if they have received Communion in the same day, those who are in danger of death are strongly urged to receive again." Succinctly, a person may receive Holy Communion twice a day. - How Many Times a Day May One Receive Communion?

If we were to receive Communion at a second Mass on a week day or at a first one on a day of obligation, when is considered that we have arrived too late to  receive Our Lord in Holy Eucharist?

In other words when it that we have not attended Mass because we have arrived too Late?

When
I was in the seminary, we were taught that if we missed the offertory, it was considered that we did not fulfill our Sunday obligation to attend Mass (or Mass on another day of obligation).

Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum puts it this way:

  Like most priests, I am loath to give a straight answer to this question because, in a way, it is a catch-22 question for which there is no right answer.

  It is true that before the Second Vatican Council some moral theology manuals placed arrival before the offertory as the dividing line in deciding whether one fulfilled the Sunday obligation of assistance at Mass. But after the liturgical reform, with its emphasis on the overall unity of the Mass, modern theologians shy away from such exactitude.

  Mass begins with the entrance procession and ends after the final dismissal and we should be there from beginning to end. Each part of the Mass relates and complements the others in a single act of worship even though some parts, such as the consecration, are essential while others are merely important.

  To say that there is a particular moment before or after which we are either “out” or “safe,” so to speak, is to give the wrong message and hint that, in the long run, some parts of the Mass are really not all that important. It may also give some less fervent souls a yardstick for arriving in a tardy manner.

  Although I prefer not to hazard giving a precise cutoff moment, certainly someone who arrives after the consecration has not attended Mass, should not receive Communion, and if it is a Sunday, go to another Mass.

  Arriving on time is not just a question of obligation but of love and respect for Our Lord who has gathered us together to share his gifts, and who has some grace to communicate to us in each part of the Mass.

  It is also a sign of respect for the community with whom we worship and who deserves our presence and the contribution of our prayers in each moment. The liturgy is essentially the worship of Christ’s body, the Church. Each assembly is called upon to represent and manifest the whole body but this can hardly happen if it forms itself in drips and drabs after the celebration has begun.

  Thus people who arrive late to Mass have to honestly ask themselves, Why? If they arrive late because of some justified reason or unforeseen event, such as blocked traffic due to an accident, they have acted in good conscience and are not strictly obliged to assist at a later Mass (although they would do well to do so if they arrive very late and it is possible for them).

  If people arrive late due to culpable negligence, and especially if they do so habitually, then they need to seriously reflect on their attitudes, amend their ways, and if necessary seek the sacrament of reconciliation.

  Depending on how late they arrive they should prefer to honor the Lord’s day by attending some other Mass, or, if this is not possible, at least remain in the Church after Mass is over and dedicate some time to prayer and reflection on the readings of the day. - Communion for Late Arrivals at Mass?

Even on Sundays we may receive Communion twice provided that the second time round is during the celebration of the Mass.