What exactly is the process of becoming a Jesuit?

Before going on into what is necessary to become a Jesuit, it must be understood that it is a clerical Order and as such is not open to women since women can not be ordained priests in the Catholic Church. The Jesuit Order is only permitted to have a small number of Brothers within the Order.

St Ignatius desired to found an Order that would be able to be called by the pope to aid him in any circumstances whatsoever, and as such a Jesuit must have a great deal of intellectual studies under his belt in order to fulfill any assignments given to them by the Holy See (pope). Jesuits make an additional vow of obeying the Pope regarding missions at their final profession to the usual three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

  St. Ignatius was strongly influenced by the Renaissance and wanted Jesuits to be able to offer whatever ministries were most needed at any given moment, and especially, to be ready to respond to missions (assignments) from the Pope. Formation for priesthood normally takes between 8 and 14 years, depending on the man's background and previous education, and final vows are taken several years after that, making Jesuit formation among the longest of any of the religious orders.

  At this point, the novice pronounces his First Vows (perpetual simple vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and a vow to persevere to final profession and ordination) and becomes either a Scholastic (entering onto the path of priesthood) or a Jesuit brother (technically known as a "temporal coadjutor", but officially styled "brother" today). The scholastics (who may be addressed by the secular title "Mister") and the Brothers (addressed by the title "Brother") of the Society of Jesus have different courses of study, although they often overlap. - Jesuit formation

Here is a sample of the steps it takes to become a Jesuit:

  1.Recognize vocation. This is the most important part of the entire formation process, and the first step of discernment. The vocations website of the Jesuits describes this initial process as hearing, answering, and considering God’s call to enter into the Society of Jesus. During this stage of consideration, men are called candidates.

  2.Become a Novice. Once a candidate decides to respond to his vocation, he enters the novitiate. This is a two year program for men to “pray, work and learn” about the Society of Jesus. During the first year, novices must partake in the “Long Retreat,” a thirty day silent retreat in which they complete the full Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. Novices also participate in a variety of experiments, often including ministering to the homeless or sick, and partaking in a pilgrimage (most of the crazy formation stories come from this part). In their second year, novices are assigned a “Long Experiment” which Martin calls an “extended supervised ministry” often in a Jesuit school. Martin also notes that technically during this stage, novices are indifferent between being brothers (not ordained) or priests (ordained), however if they feel more called towards priesthood, they may become scholastics during these years as well.

  3.Pronounce first vows. At the end of the novitiate, novices commit to poverty, chastity and obedience, which they have already been living during the novitiate. At this point, men promise to “enter the Society fully at the end of formation,” and officially become Jesuits. (Also, at this point the suffix “SJ” is added to their names).

  4.Complete First Studies. The now-vowed Jesuits must receive 1-4 years of education in philosophy and theology, depending on their previous training, while engaging in part time ministry as well. They study either at Fordham University, St. Louis University, Loyola University in Chicago, or sometimes abroad. During this stage, Jesuits can be referred to as either scholastics (future priests) or brothers, depending on which ministry they feel called to.

  5.Brothers move on to specialized training and advanced degrees. Following first studies, vowed Jesuit brothers must receive graduate education in Theology, and often additional advanced degrees in their area of interest. For this reason, most Jesuits have graduate degrees in Theology, and often a masters or doctorate in another field as well. Brothers then enter active ministry at a Jesuit apostolate (any placement operated by the society).

  6.Scholastics complete regency. Regents participate in 2-3 years of full-time work in Jesuit ministry. This can be at a high school, college or university, or elsewhere.

  7.Scholastics move on to Theology studies. They must complete 4 years of graduate level theology studies. This training is more intensive than the brothers’ as it is geared towards preparing the Jesuit for ordination. During the first two years while awaiting ordination, scholastics are called ordinandi.

  8.Scholastics are ordained to the transitional diaconate. In their second year of Theology studies, Jesuit scholastics officially become clergy.

  9.Transitional Deacons are ordained to Priesthood. Following the third year of Theological studies, after six months to a year in the diaconate, Jesuits are ordained to the priesthood. Newly ordained priests typically spend a year in ministry at a Jesuit parish.

  10.Priests and Brothers become Tertians. After an undefined period of time following advanced studies or ordination, Jesuit brothers and priests enter a year-long renewal of spiritual training called tertianship. They again have to complete the full spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius. At the end of this year, all Jesuits may apply to take final vows.

  11.Pronounce final vows. Final vows are not actually an action on the part of the Jesuit brother or priest, rather the essentially serve as the ratification of the First Vows they took by the Society of Jesus. The Superior General invites the Jesuit to reaffirm his First Vows of poverty, chastity and obedience thus marking the end of formation. Jesuits also make a vow to obey the Pope regarding missions at this time as well. - How to Become a Jesuit


Why does any Archbishop get to decide if alligator is okay for Lent?

The appropriate Canon law says:

  Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays [...] (emphasis mine).

In other words, the rules say that the Archbishop has the authority to decide what can be eaten on Fridays in his diocese (he doesn't have to declare alligator to be 'seafood' - that's just a media invention). That doesn't of course mean his decisions apply to all of Catholicism.

See also this question.


Is the term *Kyrie Eleison* Latin or Greek?

It is simply Greek that has been written in Roman letters.

The city of Rome was essentially bilingual from around the time of Caesar Augustus until at least the third or fourth century A.D.: the people spoke mostly vulgar Latin or common (Koine) Greek. Greek was the more common language among the poor, who formed the majority of the ranks of the Church at first. The Roman liturgy, therefore, was originally composed in Greek, and was only translated into Latin in the third century, as vulgar Latin gradually became the more common language. (The Wikipedia article on the pre-Tridentine liturgy has some good sources and information, actually.)

In any case, the Kyrie is simply the transliteration in Roman letters of the Greek Κύριε (or Χρίστε), ἐλέησον, “Lord (or Christ), have mercy.” It is all that remains of the original Greek version of the Roman Rite.


In Roman Catholicism, what is the right way of praying for the salvation of departed souls?

I think there's two questions here:

What is the "Glory to the Father" prayer? and

What is the proper way to pray for the dead?

The "Glory to the Father" prayer is a doxology and is a traditional way to end a prayer or series of prayers.  It's prayed at the end of each decade of the Rosary and at the end of each psalm in a psalter such as the Liturgy of the Hours.
A pious custom is to recite 3 Hail Mary's, 3 Our Father's and 3 Glory Be's when visiting a church. I believe that constitutes a partial indulgence (under the normal criteria), which is a good and easy way to get an indulgence every day.

... the Holy Council says, “that the usage of Indulgences is most wholesome to Christian people, Indulgentiarum usum Christiano populo maxime salutarem esse;” wherefore it ought to be a holy duty in every Christian to endeavour to gain them, as far as he is able, as well for his own spiritual good, as by way of suffrage in behalf of the faithful departed.
From the Raccolta

Even though it's not the norm for the Church any more, the Raccolta is chuck full of different prayers that could be prayed to receive indulgences and those indulgences can be applied to a holy soul in purgatory.
So, I think you do need to pray a Glory Be prayer, if that indulgence is specifically what you're going for.


In Mark 3:1-6, Jesus heals a crippled man's hand on the sabbath:

  Jesus went into the synagogue again and noticed a man with a deformed hand. 2 Since it was the Sabbath, Jesus’ enemies watched him closely. If he healed the man’s hand, they planned to accuse him of working on the Sabbath.
   3 Jesus said to the man with the deformed hand, “Come and stand in front of everyone.” 4 Then he turned to his critics and asked, “Does the law permit good deeds on the Sabbath, or is it a day for doing evil? Is this a day to save life or to destroy it?” But they wouldn’t answer him.

  5 He looked around at them angrily and was deeply saddened by their hard hearts. Then he said to the man, “Hold out your hand.” So the man held out his hand, and it was restored! 6 At once the Pharisees went away and met with the supporters of Herod to plot how to kill Jesus.

I believe this sets a precedent that law wasn't created to destroy life but to give it.


You may find a book that shows his writing about the followers of Islam On Heresies (see 101) by St. John of Damascus .

The writing of St. John of Damascus basically runs like this: (Actually he does not really say that much in depth, or from argumentation from scripture but still it is interesting)

He mentions Mohammed and his book
He pokes fun at the idea that a man can claim to receive such a book without any witnesses
The main heresy in Mohammed's book is that it denies Jesus to be God
He says Islamists accused the Christians at that time of idolatry because of how they venerated a cross and he in turn questions their veneration of the black stone at Mecca
He accused Mohammed of legalizing polygamy
He proceeds to make fun of some strange additional books written by Mohammed  especially the first about a Camel that went to heaven
He returns to the subject of their opposition to veneration of images, Saints , Mary, and rejection of Priesthoods.
Finally he states the traditional doctrine of the Trinity to rebuff their main error.


According to Catholicism, would it be allowed for Jews to stone a woman caught in adultery after the scenario in John 8?

The Jews did not have the right of execution under Roman power. We see this in the case of Jesus himself, whom they wanted to kill but had to go through the process of taking Jesus to Pilate to influence him to carry out the execution.

This is part of the tempting of Christ. Not only do they tempt him with regard to the principle of executing an adulteress (and where was the man, by the way ?) but they are also tempting Jesus in regard to submitting to Roman authority - as they tempted him at another time regarding giving tribute to Caesar when he asked for a coin and told them :

  Render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar's and unto God the things that be God's [Mark 12:17m KJV.]

But the Jews should have accepted the precedent of submitting to a foreign power from, particularly, the Babylonian captivity and from the prophecy, especially, of Jeremiah wherein there is much instruction regarding what sort of attitude Israel should have if God sees fit to humble them with adverse providence and with the chastisement of an occupying force.


Do any denominations believe in reincarnation?

Source: Morse, D. R. (2006, April). Reincarnation: Yes, No or Maybe!. Journal of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies. p. 61.

  Although some sects of Christianity accept reincarnation, for some
  people (e.g., innocent infants, murder victims), generally,
  Christianity does not support reincarnation, because no matter how
  evil you might have been, if you repent and accept Jesus Christ as the
  Son of God and your savior, you will go on to Heaven.

Source: Davies, M. (2004). Should Christianity Embrace Mediumship, Healing and Reincarnation?. Journal Of Religion & Psychical Research, 27(3), 132-144.

  St Paul very plainly rejects reincarnation in his letter to the Hebrews. (Hebrews 9:27-28)

  The Gnostics did believe in reincarnation, but they were squashed
  after the Council at Nicaea in 325 AD.

  St. Jerome tells us that metempsychosis (reincarnation) was a secret
  doctrine of certain sects in his day, but it was too evidently opposed
  to the Catholic doctrine of Redemption ever to obtain a settled
  rooting.

  However some sects — particularly the early Gnostics and the later
  Cathars of 13th century France — did believe in reincarnation, and
  often paid the price.

  While some individual Christians believe in reincarnation, the only
  major push for reincarnation from within official Christian circles
  has been from the "Army of Mary," a Catholic sect that is based in
  Quebec, Canada.

Conclusion:

Although there are certainly Christian individuals and sects that accept reincarnation, reincarnation has always been an iffy issue, because it has long been perceived to undermine the significance of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. There are examples of such sects, as mentioned above. Sects who do believe in this reincarnation are often persecuted, and over the centuries, the non-heretics procreate non-heretic offspring, which is why the number of people who believes in reincarnation is in the minority.


From a LDS perspective, when does the Holy Ghost get a Physical Body?

There is nothing in LDS canon about this, as far as I can tell. There are a couple statements from Joseph Smith that indicate that he felt the Holy Ghost would eventually receive a body, which I've copied from the linked article. The first is from the Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings:

  The Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and is waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did.

And the second is from the Words of Joseph Smith:

  The Holy Ghost is now in a state of probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has.

You would have to check the referenced print sources to obtain more detail on the context of these quotations.

However, note that other general authorities have failed to confirm these statements as doctrine, and have stated that there is nothing authoritative on the matter (see this link). Generally, a church leader, even Joseph Smith, making a couple of statements on a given topic doesn't automatically mean they are doctrine. In the case of Joseph Smith's recorded statements on the Holy Ghost receiving a body, we do not know if these statements are revelation or speculation.


Any instructions given by the church fathers on how to receive the gift of tongues?

Yes and No
The church fathers gave no specific instructions on how to receive the gift of tongues.
However, we can ask God for anything (including gifts) and he can give it to us. There's also credence to believe that the more often and sincerely we ask for them the more likely he is to give them to us (like in the parable of the persistent widow and the evil judge).

John 14:13-14 NLT Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
Luke 18:7b-8a ESV And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily.

Paul here is telling the Corinthians that they can pray to ask God for the gift of interpretation. It stands to reason that they could pray for the gift to speak in tongues as well.

1 Corinthians 14:13 ESV Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.

But in the end it's all in the wisdom and decision of God to give his gifts to whom he wills. You can ask all you want and God might still say 'No'; but he might say 'Yes'.

1 Corinthians 12:11 ESV All these [gifts] are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.


Why were Aaron and his son only ones eligible for being a Priest?

What was the reason for this strictness regarding the position of
  being the priest?

I have come to believe that most of the commandments from God have a logical backing. And one simply has to image herself being present in the situation and position of God to understand it.

Suppose you were setting up a software company. How would you go about hiring good programmers? The first thing might be to put an advertisement for people with a computer science degree. Now why this strictness about having a college degree? Though it is possible to find good programmers who don't have one, these cases are rare and exceptional. A degree though just a piece of paper shows that the person has put substantial time, effort and money in systematic study of the field. And since -

  Practice makes a [wo]man perfect.

Hence our strictness.

The Levites were a tribe that had a special job. They were not supposed to take up other professions like agriculture, metalworking or trading etc. Their life was made up of these things -

Recite and memorize the scriptures.
Give sermons and practice oratory skills
Meticulously copy manuscripts by hand and double-triple check them for copy errors.
Clean up and maintain the temple.
Coordinate social ceremonies and religious celebrations.

This is not to say that others could not excel in these things but that the probability was very less. Much less than in modern times because of these reasons -

There were no schools, no books and no internet to gain information not relevant to your profession.
Life was much more busy. Cooking food on coal fire, cleaning up the barn and walking to the next village took entire day. This left little time for independent research for pursuing your ideal profession.

Now put yourself in the situation. You are setting up a temple. What would your advertisement read? Why your strictness?

  Matthew 22:14 For many are eligible but few are qualified. (Monika's
  Translation)


First, the term "children" is a poor translation in the KJV.  It's better rendered "youths" (as in the NKJV), which really changes the meaning of the story.

Imagine being accosted by more than 40 teens at once, intent on making trouble for you, outside of town.  This was no simple mocking; Elisha's life could very well have been in danger, and there's no indication that he was a warrior.  So instead, he followed his Master's example.  If they were taunting him and telling him to "go up" (ascend to heaven as Elijah had,) then he would have the Lord fight for him, as Elijah had in his confrontation with the priests of Baal.


I have not read the letter in full and have no idea what it is about but I have read so many volumes of old English theology that the language comes easy to me.

I think 'conciliating their affections' is straightforward.  It means pacifying their holy sense.  The context is in reproof.  While reproving someone's wrong you also satisfy their sense of right, if you acknowledge that the person being corrected has some good things in them.  It means while opposing things, they also knew deep inside to be wrong, Darby is described as accepting other things they knew were not wrong.  This pacified their heavenly or holy feelings while correcting their evil parts which their own consciences also did.

The next line about making an appeal to their common Head this also seems straightforward. The author seems to be saying that Darby no longer pacified their sense of right but judged them unfairly. Therefore they appeal to Darby to consider Christ which is the common Head of the body of Christ, i.e. the head of the invisible Church who judges all men fairly. Or more simply they appealed to Christ.

The whole section your are pondering seems to be saying Darby was rebuking someone and at first the rebuke was received, but then he went too far and lost his authority as an older brother.  Now those who were receptive of his rebuke and leadership were no longer. However as they did not have enough confidence to rebuke him back, as they seem to hold him in some kind of esteem, they appeal to Christ directly hoping that Darby might be smitten in his own conscience and might act like an older brother again.

This seem much like a dispute within a family.  Its about a struggle between respect and hurt feelings that need to be pacified if any restoration can be made in the relationship.


Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis and the Prophecy of the Popes?

Are there any known Catholic authors who have tried to interpret the papal reigns of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis as being a single reign in order to make both of them fit into St Malachy's Gloria oliviae of his Prophecy of the Popes?
The answer is YES. The papal reigns of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis was understood as a single reign, it is called "expanded Petrine Ministry".
Are there any known Catholic authors who have tried to interpret it this way? I think there was a book already released and it's author is an italian journalist.

The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is He Still the Pope?
ANTONIO SOCCI, a native of Siena, is an Italian journalist and the director of the Perugia School of Journalism. His most recent books from Rizzoli are The Final Prophecy (2016), The House of Young Heroes (2017), and Betrayed, Subjected, Invaded (2018).

The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is He Still the Pope?

The Connection to Fatima and St.Malachi prophecy:

Socci concludes his work with Part Three, entitled “Fatima and the Last Pope.” He draws on his prior extensive study of the message of Fatima, seeing it as a key to understanding the present moment in the Church, and reminding his readers that the message of Fatima emphasized the strong link between the intercession of the Mother of God and the protection of the pope. At the center of the vision of Fatima, there are two persons: “the ‘bishop dressed in white’ and an old pope,” and Socci ponders whether perhaps this vision could refer to the present situation, noting that on May 21, 2017, while visiting Fatima, Pope Francis called himself “the bishop dressed in white.” Socci sees in Benedict a figure similar to the pope in the children’s vision: “half tremulous, with faltering steps, afflicted with pain and sorrow, crossing a large, half-ruined city” (p. 182). Socci undertakes a detailed examination of overlooked words of the children of Fatima, stating that the Blessed Virgin told them that if humanity did not do penance and convert, what would happen was “the end of the world” (p. 195). Sister Lucia declared in an interview in 1957 that “Russia will be the instrument chosen by God to punish the whole world, if we do not first obtain the conversion of that wretched nation” (p. 198). Implicit in Socci’s analysis and reflection is the sense that the outcome of the present crisis is of the utmost importance for the fate not only of the entire Church, but also of the entire world.

Socci’s final observation is that the medieval “Prophecy of Malachy,” which proposed to give a mysterious title to each future pope, ends with Benedict XVI. After this pope, it mysteriously says that there follows “the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church” and the figure of “Peter the Roman.” When asked in 2016 whether this prophecy could mean he is “the last one to represent the figure of the pope as we have known him up until now,” Benedict mysteriously replied, “Tutto può essere [Everything can be].” Further asked if this means he would be seen as the last pope of the old world or the first pope of the new world, Benedict replied, “I would say both. I do not belong anymore to the old world, but the new one in reality has not yet begun” (p. 213). Socci understands these astonishing comments to mean that both the world and the Church are on the cusp of epochal upheavals, inviting his readers to further reflection on the various prophecies in Scripture of the destruction of the Temple and on paragraphs 675-677 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the final trial of the Church. -
In New Book, Antonio Socci Speculates on the “Secret of Benedict XVI”

But if there is one person who can shed light on the expanded petrine ministry, he is none other than the secretary of Pope Benedict XVI, his name is Archbishop Georg Gänswein. Why? If there is a person that would know or familiar with the mind & heart of Pope Benedict XVI it would be his secretary.

Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry

Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome May 20, Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”

Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.

“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”*

He further stated the following reflections;

But in his speech, Gänswein insisted "it was fitting" for Benedict to resign because he "was aware that the necessary strength for such a very heavy office was lessening. He could do it [resign], because he had long thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of a pope emeritus in the future. So he did it.”

Drawing on the Latin words “munus petrinum” — “Petrine ministry” — Gänswein pointed out the word “munus” has many meanings such as “service, duty, guide or gift”. He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“

Instead, he said, "he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry, as if he had wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then-Joseph Ratzinger had as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and naturally maintained as Bishop of Rome: "cooperatores veritatis", which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”

Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry
But what is the significance of Pope Benedict XVI symbol gloria olivae and Pope Francis choosing the name of St.Francis as both of this symbolizes and represents Peace?
The significance of the symbol is connected to Our Lady of Fatima who is calling for Peace and it will end up in Medjugorje the Our Lady Queen of Peace.

The Call to Peace: the heart of the message of Our Lady of Fatima

Our Lady of Medjugorje (Croatian: Međugorska Gospa; also called Queen of Peace and Mother of the Redeemer) is the title given to the Blessed Virgin Mary by those who believe that she appeared in 1981 to six Herzegovinian teenagers in Medjugorje, Bosnia and Herzegovina (at the time in SFR Yugoslavia). Local Diocese as well as the Catholic Church have not recognised the apparitions as either supernatural or authentic.

...On May 13, 2017, a papal response came when Pope Francis declared that the original visions reported by the teenagers are worth studying in more depth, while the subsequent continued visions over the years are, in his view, of dubious value. - Our Lady of Medjugorje

The Two Great Popes reigning as one in our era representing peace symbol and link to the two Great Marian apparition in the span of century imploring the praying of the holy rosary daily for peace in the whole world is the preparation for the Church before it can enter to the New Era of Peace.


How does the loss of Wesleyan perfectionism differ from Catholic distinctions between mortal and venial sins?

First, I want to be clear that perfectionism doesn't mean being perfect as in without error. So committing a sin, such as adultery, doesn't "remove" perfectionism. Perfectionism, in the Wesleyan sense, essentially means making up your mind to do your absolute best to keep the first two commandments: love god with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself. That you fail along the way doesn't matter as long as you pick yourself back up and keep moving towards the mark. The loss of salvation can happen in two ways. First, in your effort to be "perfect" you fail at love (see Pharisees), the second is deciding that you can do whatever you want because you know God will always forgive you. Hosea 6:6 is a good summary.

  "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

http://www.theopedia.com/Wesleyan_perfectionism


Did God create man to replace the fallen Angels?

The following is a Bible based answer. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.
Creation and the eviction of rebellious angels from heaven did not occur at the same time. The angels were in existence before the creation of the earth. (Job 38:4, 7) The earth has been given to mankind as a home, not a testing ground. (Psalm 115:16, Psalm 37:29)
The eviction of rebellious angels from heaven did not happen until Jesus was appointed as the king of God's kingdom. Under inspiration, David helps us to see that at some point, the Messiah would receive a certain amount of authority, but that after this he would still have to wait for a period of time before given authorization to act against his enemies:

Psalm 110:1
Jehovah declared to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”

In Acts, the Bible helps us to see that this refers to Jesus sitting at God's right hand after being resurrected back to heavenly life, and that even after that, there was still a waiting period before he would act against his enemies:

Acts 2:32-35
God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses.
Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and
received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out
what you see and hear. For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he
himself says, 'Jehovah said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I
place your enemies as a stool for your feet."'

Bible prophecy and world events point toward the year 1914 as the year when Jesus was anointed to king of God's kingdom and he acted to evict Satan and his angels out of heaven, with Satan thereafter being confined to the earth. (Revelation 12:7-12) The idea that this did not occur until the start of the "last days" is supported in Revelation 12:17 when it brings out that once the Devil is confined to the earth he knows he only "has a short period of time" remaining. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) That means that we can rejoice because the time of living under Satan's "system of things" is nearing its end. (2 Corinthians 4:4) After that mankind can fully enjoy the earth as their home with God's physical and spiritual protection and blessing! (Revelation 21:3, 4; 1 Corinthians 15:26)
For more information look at this related question in the "Good News From God!" brochure: What is God's Purpose for the Earth?


Psalm 107:23-29 (DRB)
They that go down to the sea in ships, doing business in the great waters: 24 These have seen the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep. 25 He said the word, and there arose a storm of wind: and the waves thereof were lifted up. 26 They mount up to the heavens, and they go down to the depths: their soul pined away with evils. 27 They were troubled, and reeled like a drunken man; and all their wisdom was swallowed up. 28 And they cried to the Lord in their affliction: and he brought them out of their distresses. 29 And he turned the storm into a breeze: and its waves were still.

Here in the Psalms, God is portrayed as testing His redeemed, by willing there to rise a storm and that they would cry out to Him. I see nothing else here in Matthew 8 than this. We would be 'slow of heart' not to see the intended parallel:
(Ps. 107:25-28)

"there arose a storm of wind: and the waves thereof were lifted up.
They mount up to the heavens, and they go down to the depths: their
soul pined away with evils."

(Mk. 4:37-38)

"And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the
ship, so that the ship was filled. 38 And he was in the hinder part of
the ship, sleeping upon a pillow; and they awake him, and say to him:
Master, doth it not concern thee that we perish?;"

(Ps. 107:28-29)

"and he brought them out of their distresses. 29 And he turned the
storm into a breeze: and its waves were still;"

(Mk. 4:39)

"And rising up, he rebuked the wind, and said to the sea: Peace, be
still. And the wind ceased: and there was made a great calm."


Why did the Catholic Church adopt the use of Latin, the language of the crucifiers of Jesus?

Why has the Catholic Church adopted the use of Latin, the language of the crucifiers of Jesus?

Before going on I would simply like to point out two things.

First of all that the Language that Pontius Pilate communicated to Jesus during his trial was Greek. After all it was the language of commerce at that time throughout the Mediterranean world.

Secondly, let us not forget that Pilate's inscription on the Title of the Cross was written in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. "This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin" (John 19:20). Thus if one of the bystanders did not understand one language, he would hopefully be able to comprehend one of the other two languages.
 Each of these languages are to this day considered a liturgical language: Latin for the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church; Konia Greek for the Greek Orthodox Church and Hebrew for the Jewish nation.

During the course of the first three or four centuries the sacred liturgy in Rome was Greek not Latin.

  Ecclesiastical Latin differs from classical Latin especially by the introduction of new idioms and new words. (In syntax and literary method, Christian writers are not different from other contemporary writers.) These characteristic differences are due to the origin and purpose of ecclesiastical Latin. Originally the Roman people spoke the old tongue of Latium known as prisca latinitas. In the third century B.C. Ennius and a few other writers trained in the school of the Greeks undertook to enrich the language with Greek embellishments. This attempt was encouraged by the cultured classes in Rome, and it was to these classes that henceforth the poets, orators, historians, and literary coteries of Rome addressed themselves. Under the combined influence of this political and intellectual aristocracy was developed that classical Latin which has been preserved for us in greatest purity in the works of Caesar and of Cicero. The mass of the Roman populace in their native ruggedness remained aloof from this hellenizing influence and continued to speak the old tongue. Thus it came to pass that after the third century B.C. there existed side by side in Rome two languages, or rather two idioms: that of the literary circles or hellenists (sermo urbanus) and that of the illiterate (sermo vulgaris) and the more highly the former developed the greater grew the chasm between them. But in spite of all the efforts of the purists, the exigencies of daily life brought the writers of the cultured mode into continual touch with the uneducated populace, and constrained them to understand its speech and make it understand them in turn; so that they were obliged in conversation to employ words and expressions forming part of the vulgar tongue. Hence arose a third idiom, the sermo cotidianus, a medley of the two others, varying in the mixture of its ingredients with the various periods of time and the intelligence of those who used it.

  Origins

  Classical Latin did not long remain at the high level to which Cicero had raised it. The aristocracy, who alone spoke it, were decimated by proscription and civil war, and the families who rose in turn to social position were mainly of plebeian or foreign extraction, and in any case unaccustomed to the delicacy of the literary language. Thus the decadence of classical Latin began with the age of Augustus, and went on more rapidly as that age receded. As it forgot the classical distinction between the language of prose and that of poetry, literary Latin, spoken or written, began to borrow more and more freely from the popular speech. Now it was at this very time that the Church found herself called on to construct a Latin of her own and this in itself was one reason why her Latin should differ from the classical. There were two other reasons however: first of all the Gospel had to be spread by preaching, that is, by the spoken word moreover the heralds of the good tidings had to construct an idiom that would appeal, not alone to the literary classes, but to the whole people. Seeing that they sought to win the masses to the Faith, they had to come down to their level and employ a speech that was familiar to their listeners. St. Augustine says this very frankly to his hearers: "I often employ", he says, "words that are not Latin and I do so that you may understand me. Better that I should incur the blame of the grammarians than not be understood by the people" (In Psal. cxxxviii, 90). Strange though it may seem, it was not at Rome that the building up of ecclesiastical Latin began. Until the middle of the third century the Christian community at Rome was in the main a Greek speaking one. The Liturgy was celebrated in Greek, and the apologists and theologians wrote in Greek until the time of St. Hippolytus, who died in 235. It was much the same in Gaul at Lyons and at Vienne, at all events until after the days of St. Irenæus. In Africa, Greek was the chosen language of the clerics, to begin with, but Latin was the more familiar speech for the majority of the faithful, and it must have soon taken the lead in the Church, since Tertullian, who wrote some of his earlier works in Greek, ended by employing Latin only. And in this use he had been preceded by Pope Victor, who was also an African, and who, as St. Jerome assures, was the earliest Christian writer in the Latin language.

  Development in the liturgy

  Hardly had it been formed when church Latin had to undergo the shock of the invasion of the barbarians and the fall of the Empire of the West; it was a shock that gave the death-blow to literary Latin as well as to the Latin of everyday speech on which church Latin was waxing strong. Both underwent a series of changes that completely transformed them. Literary Latin became more and more debased; popular Latin evolved into the various Romance languages in the South, while in the North it gave way before the Germanic tongues. Church Latin alone lived, thanks to the religion of which it was the organ and with which its destinies were linked. True, it lost a portion of its sway; in popular preaching it gave way to the vernacular after the seventh century; but it could still claim the Liturgy and theology, and in these it served the purpose of a living language. In the liturgy ecclesiastical Latin shows its vitality by its fruitfulness. Africa is once more in the lead with St. Cyprian. Besides the singing of the Psalms and the readings in public from the Bible, which made up the main portion of the primitive liturgy and which we already know, it shows itself in set prayers in a love for rhythm, for well- balanced endings that were to remain for centuries during the Middle Ages the main characteristics of liturgical Latin. As the process of development went on, this love of harmony held sway over all prayers; they followed the rules of metre and prosody to begin with, but rhythmical cursus gained the upper-hand from the fourth to the seventh, and from the eleventh to the fifteenth, century. - Ecclesiastical Latin (Catholic Encyclopedia)

It is all too obvious that the Church's decision to make Latin the language of the Roman Rite had nothing to do with the fact that executioners of Jesus Christ were Romans and spoke Latin.


Can you renounce part of the bible, and still be a Christian?

Christanity != The Bible

The Bible isn't Christianity. Christianity is about believing in Jesus (and all that it entails). We learn about Christianity from the Bible, but we really learn about Christianity from other Christians. This is the primary mode of the transmission for the faith.

  John 13:35 (NASB)
  By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

Christianity was around for decades before any of the books of the New Testament were written. Christianity existed before them, and would exist even if they had never been written, because Christianity is all about the work of God through Jesus to redeem us. Christianity doesn't depend on the Bible, nor is it defined by the Bible, because Christianity is defined by Jesus.

The books of the Bible were chosen by Christians because they accurately described the faith.

The Bible was compiled by early Christians as a reliable reference that was sufficient for our needs. They were not cherry picking based on their whims. They chose books based on reasonable criteria, and most Christians since have accepted their decision because they were in a far better position to know about authorship and doctrinal coherency than we are hundreds and thousands of years later. Most Christians that place emphasis on the Bible accept their decision (or one that came much closer to it than it came to us) and do not really consider altering the canon. The original group that established the canon chose documents that were consistent with Christian doctrine as they knew it. In a sense, Christianity established the Bible, though it still claims divine origin for the material in it.

Conclusion: Yes, Theoretically

All this said, you could conceivably reject (all or part of) the Bible and still be a Christian because Christianity does not hang on the Bible itself. It hangs on belief in Jesus.

However, how would you know what Christianity actually is? Who was Jesus? What did he teach? What did the early church believe and practice? All these things are recorded in the Bible and have been preserved for our benefit. The vast majority of Christians from whom you would learn about Christianity use the Bible as an authoritative reference. On what basis would you reject what they assert to be true? I don't know what in the Bible you would have good reason to reject. How would you be certain that you were correct about such a rejection? What is your source of authority for such a conclusion? It seems like it would be very difficult to make a good logical argument for modifying the canon.


This is a very valid concern. Here are some suggestions that come to mind.

Study the word regularly. Pray that God would teach it to you and approach it as something that will shape you, not something you need to find support for your cause in. Systematic reading really aides this rather than following along with whatever verses somebody else quotes for whatever cause.
Keep your eye on other traditions. This doesn't mean church hop and float between belief systems, but it does mean keeping up on some reading, listening to some preachers you don't agree with just to make sure the ones you do are really saying something, studying different bible translations to help you get a full grasp of the word.
Stay in fellowship with other believers. Find a community that is both well grounded and diverse. The discussions, interactions and iron sharpening iron is what will keep you on the right track. A community where questioning something and examining the basis for things is not welcomed is not a safe place to be. Likewise a community that does not value truth or place any guards on itself at all is also a dangerous place to be. Use lots of discretion.
Don't be stubborn willed when you learn you're wrong about some little thing. Keep an attitude of humility and and pray regularly about what areas you need to learn and grow in. If God is trying to show you something through any of the things you need to be ready to hear it. Don't be blown around by every wave of teaching that comes along but do keep.

Lastly and most importantly, don't stop looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith.


Why do priests celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the congregation) at most Masses in the Ordinary Form?
Before getting into the crux of this question, let us see what the origin’s of this tradition might be. We can not truly understand this issue unless we can understand its’ origin.

Early evidence of Christian praying towards the east
Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220) says that, because Christians faced towards the east at prayer, some non-Christians thought they worshipped the sun.
Clement of Alexandria ( c. 150 – c. 215) says: "Since the dawn is an image of the day of birth, and from that point the light which has shone forth at first from the darkness increases, there has also dawned on those involved in darkness a day of the knowledge of truth. In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are made looking towards the sunrise in the east."
Origen (c. 185 – 253) says: "The fact that [...] of all the quarters of the heavens, the east is the only direction we turn to when we pour out prayer, the reasons for this, I think, are not easily discovered by anyone."
Later on, Fathers of the Church such as John of Damascus advanced mystical reasons for the custom.
Origin of the practice
The primitive Church had no knowledge of the origin of the practice. Origen says: "The reasons for this, I think, are not easily discovered by anyone." Although the general custom among Jews was to pray towards the temple in Jerusalem, Clement of Alexandria, Origen's older contemporary, says that the custom of praying eastward was general even among non-Christians: "In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are made looking towards the sunrise in the east. Whence also the most ancient temples looked towards the west, that people might be taught to turn to the east when facing the images."
In 1971, Georg Kretschmar proposed a connection between the Christian custom of praying towards the east and a practice of the earliest Christians in Jerusalem of praying towards the Mount of Olives, to the east of the city, which they saw as the locus of key eschatological events and especially of the awaited Second Coming of Christ. In his view, the localization of the Second Coming on the Mount of Olives was abandoned after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but the eastward direction of Christian prayer was retained and became general. Stefan Heid rejects his theory, but Lang holds that it is not without reasons to support it.
Martin Wallraff held that at the time of the formation of Christianity Jews prayed as commonly towards the east as towards the Jerusalem temple, but Lang considers that the eastward posture was rare among Jews. It was the practice, Paul F. Bradshaw says, of the Jewish sects of the Essenes and the Therapeutae, for whom "the eastward prayer had acquired an eschatological dimension, the 'fine bright day' for which the Therapeutae prayed being apparently the messianic age and the Essene prayer towards the sun 'as though beseeching him to rise' being a petition for the coming of the priestly Messiah." - Ad orientem (Wikipedia)

Celebrating the Mass facing the people is a centuries-old practice, although the vast majority historically said the Mass facing east.

After the Council, detailed directions for the celebration of the revised form of Mass were drawn up, including an instruction that the priest should celebrate Mass facing the people.
No, I am not referring to the Second Vatican Council or Inter Oecumenici or the GIRM. This was the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563), and the relevant documents were prepared under the leadership of St Charles Borromeo, the archbishop of Milan. He had not attended the Council, but he became a major implementer of the disciplinary reforms that the Council promulgated. Many of these were about removing superstitious ceremonial from the Mass; others spoke directly to the conduct of bishops and priests. The former were to avoid silken vestments, expensive furs, rings other than the episcopal ring; the latter were to exhibit restraint in their clothing and personal furnishings. Both were expected to exercise simplicity and moderation in every aspect of their lives. The splendor of faith was to be preferred to ornate display. You might say that St Charles anticipated the call for ‘noble simplicity’ of a later Council.
He also wrote extensively about the construction and furnishings of churches, in a document published in 1577, Instructiones fabricae et supellectilis ecclesiasticae. Chapter 10 speaks about the principal chapel of any church:

The site of this chapel must be chosen at the head of the church, in a prominent place and on an axis with the main entrance. The back part should face east, even if there are houses behind it. It must not face to the east of the summer solstice, but towards that of the equinox.

If this is not possible, the Bishop can decide and permit that it be built facing another direction, but in this case care must be taken at least that if possible it does not face north, but south. In any case the chapel in which the priest celebrates Mass from the high altar facing the people, in accordance with the rites of the Church, must face west.

In other words, orientem means simply “east”. When the priest celebrates at the main altar, facing the people, “in accordance with the rites of the Church”, he is to face east.
The historian John O’Malley asserts that Borromeo sought to standardize and promote a number of liturgical practices. Some were broadly adopted – for instance, placing the tabernacle in the center of the main altar. Others, which Borromeo had advocated, were not – O’Malley cites celebration with the priest facing the people as an example.
Uwe Lang speaks about Borromeo in his book about the orientation of liturgical prayer:

… the archbishop of Milan says that the capella major must be oriented, with the main altar facing east.  Where this is impossible, it can be directed towards another cardinal point (except north) but preferable toward the west, ‘as, in accordance with the rite of the Church (pro ritu Ecclesiae) the sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated at the main altar by the priest with his face turned towards the people.’

But Lang airily dismisses this as an exception:

Borromeo must have had in mind those Roman basilicas with a westward apse and an eastward entrance, where Mass was celebrated facing the people; this practice was no doubt familiar to him. Still, for Borromeo, the eastward direction was the paramount principle for liturgy and church architecture.

Celebration facing the people did not become normative, as (per O’Malley), St Charles Borromeo had wished it would. But this bit of history seems to give the lie to claims that celebration facing the people was a fabrication of the 20th century liturgical movement, or of misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. - Celebration facing the people: a centuries-old practice

While the current edition of the Roman Missal assumes that Masses are to be celebrated “ad orientem,” it is also permitted to celebrate “facing the people”. So, both ways are allowed.
No Vatican II document said that priests must face "toward the people" (versus populum). In fact, all Masses today can be celebrated ad orientem ("toward the east," the same direction the people face, which is toward the tabernacle). However, modern church architecture has made all but impossible to do so in many regions.
In many older churches, especially in Europe there are altars that make it an obligation for a priest to say the New Mass "ad orientem", facing east. Visit St Peter's Basilica at the Vatican for example.
There is no one correct answer as to why so many priests celebrate Mass facing the people. But some hints do exist.

The Mass versus populum is completely liturgically permitted by Rome.
Sadly, almost every church built or renovated since 1965 has significant design impediments to celebrating the Mass ad orientem. Because of confusion about what exactly the Second Vatican Council’s reform of the Mass required of sacred architecture, the traditional design of a church was radically altered in such a way that a return to the traditional posture of the priest facing liturgical East is difficult, if not impossible, in many churches. (Source)
Non-traditional Catholic seminaries need to teach their students the significance of saying the Mass “ad orientem”. Traditional gestures within the Mass need to be instilled into seminarians studying for the priesthood. Sadly this not being done in any great degree.
The faithful need to also to be taught the significance of the gesture of saying the Mass “ad orientem” so that the true symbolism of this gesture would be more easily accepted.
Some (with just cause) have reasoned that Jesus had the Apostles more or less in a circle or a U shape at the Last Supper when he instituted the Mass. Impossible to say whether or not Jesus faced east
(”ad orientem”). Jesus definitely faced his Apostles at the institution of the first mass. Source
Did Jesus have His Last Supper standing?

It should be noted that at Papal High Masses within the Roman Basilica of St. Peter, in either the Ordinary Form of the Mass or the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are both facing the people and the Sovereign Pontiff is still facing east (ad orientem).
As far as the Tridentine Mass goes the YouTube video Mass In Vatican With Pope Pius XII bears this fact out.
Part of this reason is the the actual basilica faces east.

Rome tourist attractions map
The traditional liturgical posture is to face East. That is the direction of the dawn, the new light and thus facing the direction of the returning Christ.
Most churches were built so that that the direction of worship literally faced East (traditional synogogues are also built in this manner).
However, St. Peters was not be build that way. Constantine literally had to carve into the side of Vatican Hill to get enough room to build the original basilica so that the altar was over the burial place of St. Peter. For these reasons, both Latin Rites share a common tread with the Supreme Pontiff facing east and facing the people at the same time.
A floor plan of St. Peter’s Basilica makes this unique unity between the the Roman Rite more understandable.


From whom or what Jesus was hiding (afraid of) in the given cases during his ministry?

Jesus was totally aware of the future, and he was also aware of all of the possibilities of people making differing decisions. In other words God will not interfere with our free will, and so the future depends heavily on all our decisions and each decision will set into motion a different course for the future.

Although Jesus was afraid of nothing, the plan of Salvation was based on all of those decisions happening in a specific order.

  Matthew 26:18 KJV  And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

Jesus had to follow the plan God had determined, and every step along that path was necessary to fulfill the prophesies of the Old Testament. As for instance the Scripture cited above, was necessary not only to show that he was diligently following a specific course, but that by knowing the specifics of the plan; he was of necessity, showing his disciples the proper reactions to God.

It need be noted here that this also led to his teaching them servitude by his washing their feet, an action normally assigned to the lowest of servants.

Jesus was afraid of no man but did fear not completely following the plans of God. Unless every facet of Jesus life were to take place exactly as planned some important part of the plan would be incomplete. Therefore, Jesus was warning them that there was a danger in not completing the plan completely.

  John 7:8 KJV  Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

John 7:8 is indicative of just how critical the timing was in Jesus life since Jesus did go to Jerusalem, but not at the minute that the others did, so it was not going to the feast Jesus was avoiding, but the timing. Had Jesus gone with them it is possible that when he got to the Temple the Sanhedrin might have been there with their Temple guards and could even have prevented his display of anger at the commercialization of the Temple.

Were not every jot and tittle of his life in the exact timing of God's plan, we must wonder how it would have effected the plan of Salvation.

Jesus was born, lived, and died in total consonance with God's plan to save you and me.

In short the only thing Jesus feared was not being totally obedient to the Father, that is not to say that he desired all of the pain and suffering he encountered, but knew that every pain was necessary to Save us from our sin


What is the will of the (Catholic) Church when she baptizes?

What is the will of the Catholic Church when she baptizes?

The Catholic Church states the following when it comes to performing a baptism in an emergency situation:

  In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate's head while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." - Catechism of the Catholic Church (1284).

You probably will not find a truly solid reference as to what “the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes” means.

In substance, the intention of the Church when administering the sacrament of baptism is just that. The will of the Church is to perform a valid sacramental baptism.

When about to perform a Baptism in an emergency situation, one must have the intention of baptizing someone while pouring water on the candidate's head while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is the will of the Church as regards to how an emergency baptism should be carried out.

  The Essential Parts

  You must have the intention of performing a valid baptism.

  For example, if children are playing church or if you perform a baptism as part of a play, or you are horsing around in a swimming pool, it is not a valid baptism.

  Water must be involved.

  Immersion is valid in all churches, but since this is an emergency, that is probably not practical. Instead, pour water on the candidate’s head three times. (This instruction goes back to the first-century document called the  Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.) Sprinkling the water, daubing water on the candidate’s forehead, or pouring the water only once may be valid in some churches but it won’t be valid in many others.

  You must use the formula in Matthew 28:19.

  You must say to the candidate, “I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” You can add any additional wording that you like, but it’s probably best to stick to the bare essentials. If you substitute other formulas or if you baptize only in Jesus’ name, the baptism may be valid in some churches, but in most churches, it won’t be valid.

  How to baptize someone in an emergency

This is the minimum that the Church requires for a baptism to be valid. This is the intention what the Church desires to be done when administering the sacrament in an emergency.

  In the case of necessity (e.g., the danger of death), the person who baptizes pours water three times over the candidate's head, or immerses the candidate three times in water, while simultaneously pronouncing the baptismal formula: "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father (the minster pours water or immerses the first time), and of the Son (the minister pours water or immerses a second time), and of the Holy Spirit (the minister pours water or immerses a third time)." A lay person who administers an emergency baptism must at least have the intention to do what the Church does when baptizing. It is also desirable that, as far as possible, one or two witnesses to the baptism be present.

  When baptism has been administered neither by the pastor nor in his presence, the minister of the baptism, whoever that was, must inform the pastor of the parish in whose territory the baptism occured, so that the pastor may record it in accord with canon 877, §1and canon 878. - Administering the Sacrament of Baptism: Who, When and How

Baptism truly conveys new life in Christ, but that is the great and glorious effect of being baptized. It restores man to the friendship with God, restores grace in man's soul, destroys original sin and actual sin. But without having that intention of performing a valid sacramental baptism as intended by the Church, the affect of the sacrament would be invalid.

  Anybody—even an atheist—can administer baptism if he has the proper intention. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1256) "the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula." The reason anybody can baptize is that it is, in fact, Jesus Christ who performs the baptism. Once again, baptism is God’s grace to us, not our work for him. - Can only Christians administer baptism?

In the case of an emergency anyone can baptize someone. If it is truly an emergency who is going to think about the consequences of performing a baptism. It is an emergency, so make sure it is administer correctly. That is the Church's' intention. One can contemplate the effects of the sacrament at a later date.


Why do Latino Christians treat their patron saint's day more importantly than their birthday?

Not just Mexican, mostly a Catholic tradition.
(http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php)

This is one way to carry-out this tradition:
Catholics ask saints to give a word or two to God for them.
So, if my name is Peter, I should IDENTIFY myself with Peter's Day,
present gifts, ask people to help me with extra treatment/presents, so
together with Saint Peter, in God's favor, I can ask what I want/need.
Can't get that on a b-day.

So, it is a TOOL to help a Catholic identify with God.
Never the less, a tradition, not that is right or wrong. But far from the truth.

Quinceañera, is a right-of-passage, personal birthday. Not answered here.


Barbara Bradley Haggerty (most known for being NPRs religion correspondent but also a former Christian Science practitioner turned Christian herself) investigated many of these claims in her book The Fingerprints of God. The book seeks to be a compendium of scientific investigations about the brain and its relationship to God.

While to book itself is fascinating, her conclusion is what speaks to your question. Her basic point was that these investigations may explain brain functioning better but ultimately still leaves a lot of room (an imperative actually) for God.

She also suggests that what all of the deepest religious practices reveal is that while each religion moves one closer to the God hinted at by the scientific research she chronicles, they do so in different ways, leading Haggerty to the analogy of a bike wheel.

She presumes that all religions get you to the same God (This is a highly questionable postulate in most forms of Christianity, but it is what she espouses). She sees each religion as a single spoke of that wheel leading one to God. Borrowing practices from other religions doesn't get you closer to the center because each one is a completely different path.

What is interesting in regards neurotheology is that in Haggertys estimation, these scientific studies in many cases point towards the reality of transcendent Spiritual being who calls but does not command adherence, thus allowing for Spirit, God, and free will, much like the original Christianity from which Haggerty begins.


How is Jesus' will in union with the Father's? (Catholic perspective)

This is the question dealt with by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (the Third Council of Constantinople). The council addressed the heresy known as monothelitism. The heresy held that Jesus Christ only had one will.

The orthodox position was defined at that Council: Jesus Christ had two natures, human and divine; he also had two wills, human and divine. If there was no human will in Christ, the Incarnation would have been incomplete, as he would not have adopted everything that belongs to humanity (cf. Gregory of Nazianzus: "What is not assumed is not healed"). This is the logical outworking of Chalcedonian Christology (the idea that Christ is both human and divine).

The Catholic (and Orthodox, and Protestant) position is that the "not my will, but yours, be done" refers to the human will in Christ.

This is dealt with directly in the writings of Maximus the Confessor (I will try to find the citation), indirectly in the definition of the Sixth Council, and directly several times in the Summa Theologica of S. Thomas Aquinas (third part, question 18).


What did CS Lewis think didn't reflect God?

I think your friend either misunderstands you or Lewis. You will find a nice essay by David Allred, comparing C.S. Lewis and Plato, at "Into the Wardrobe".

Things in themselves

It is perfectly Christian to reflect that all things in themselves are good. Indeed, Paul asserted the idea just as clearly: "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself." (Romans 14)

Thoughts in themselves

Now, you do muddy the waters a bit when you bring creative works into the picture. By "creative works", I means things to which humans have added meaning, such as "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" or "The Jerry Springer Show". The things in themselves, certainly, are not unclean. But it is difficult for us to dissociate the things themselves from the meaning we ascribe to them or the meaning intended by them by their authors. And there we have reason for reservation.

Jesus said, "Whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him." I bring up this quote only to highlight this fine distinction. In light of Paul, we would say that merely uttering the sounds of a blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is not what Jesus is warning against — otherwise, quoting someone else blaspheming the Holy Spirit would be equally condemnatory, which would place the verbalization itself on the order of an incantation. Of course, this isn't the point. As Jesus said elsewhere, "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, [etc.].... These are what make a man 'unclean'."

The subtlest evil thoughts contain a good deal of truth (which is why they are so deceptive); and it is to these fragments of truth we can cling, and by which we can grow, if we are vigilant, humble, prayerful, and earnest. This, in fact, is how any of us grow at all: we swim submerged in a sea of deceptions, venturing to breath only the bubbles of truth as we find them.

And the plainest evil thoughts serve as inversions of the good — negatives images of true things and true colors. These don't deceive us much, and though they may contain scant (if any) fragments of truth, we can still use them for growth, because they repel us to the truth, to goodness, and to beauty. (Though, indeed, it is impossible to speak for long without saying something true.)

Thus, a God-hearted individual can use any thought to draw nearer to God, no matter what the intended meaning was. But, to say that God can make good out of any thought or meaning is not to say that all thoughts therefore are good in themselves.

It is not possible to speak of the inherent goodness of thoughts with the same quick affirmation with which we speak of the inherent goodness of things. We have a habit of conflating the thing with the thought in the case of creative works — and here, I think, is where your primary objection will be found.

The meanings which viewers make

But as I said before, it is impossible to speak long without saying something true (and, likewise, I expect, something false), and so in this sense, and with this optimism, I can, with a faithful heart, find God reflected in any creative work. But this idea of "reflection" depends more upon me, the viewer, than it does upon the work itself. That is to say, the good viewer can find good where it is scarce and make good where it is absent. I have seen the Spirit in me make good of films I would recommend burned and never seen by any human being evermore (and this is important to remember). But to say that therefore the work is good in itself because I could find good in it — I cannot affirm that, and I am not sure where to draw the distinction between the thing and the thought.

Perhaps, in the case of creative works, the things can be said to be good (the ink and the shapes on the paper, and the light and sound waves which compose the video and audio), in the same sense that all other things are good, but the thoughts can be said to be amoral, and thus their moral status depends upon our relationship to them (the author and the audience), so that, as Paul says, "if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean."


What is the Catholic understanding of Antichrist?

The Antichrist is a single person, but anyone opposed to Christ can also be called an antichrist:
Sacræ Theologiæ Summa IVB on the Last Things, §264 "The coming of the Antichrist", PDF pp. 462-463, says "Antichrist"

designates: a) broadly, the one who is Christ’s adversary, so that therefore there are many antichrists; b) but by antonomasia, someone coming at the end of the world as a bitter enemy of Christ.

Fr. Hardon, S.J.'s Catholic Dictionary defines "Antichrist" as:

The chief of Christ's enemies. The New Testament specifically names him only in I John 2:18,

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour.

2:22;

Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.

4:3,

And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.

and II John [1:]7,

For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist.

where he is identified with unbelievers who deny the Incarnation. Over the centuries the Antichrist has been variously associated with historical persons, e.g., Caligula, Simon Magus, and Nero, or again with organized movements such as Arianism. The more common Catholic interpretation says that he is not merely symbolic or an embodiment of the anti-Christian. The Antichrist is a real person. (Etym. Greek antichristos, against Christ.)

The coming of Antichrist is one of the signs of Christ's second coming.
See also:

"What is the Catholic interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3" (that Antichrist "sitteth in the temple of God")?


Is it only Catholicism that says grace on food?

Christians of all denominations (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant) may all say grace before meals.  Some do and some don't consistently or not.

The origin of the practice is from Scripture.

  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

  1 Timothy 4:1-5

The word for thanksgiving is eucharist, which is a priestly word, denoting the sanctifying (setting apart) of the food to be received.


How do Protestants deal with pre-Reformation heresies?

By and large, Protestants follow Chalcedonian formulations in regards to Chalcedonian heresies.

Protestants by and large subscribe to hypostatic union, although our theories of communion vary widely from memorialism to consubstantiation. If you think in terms of the importance of these issues, however, the more "important" the doctrine (i.e. the nature of Christ is more important than the nature of the elements in the Eucharist), the more likely we are to agree.

Analogy to Common Law

The closest analogy would be like what happened in the Americas after we revolted from Great Britain.  The UK had a long, established Common Law for crime, torts, etc...  Those precedents in English Common law are still used in American Courts of Justice today. Why? Because it didn't matter if you had a President or a King - libel was still libel, theft was still theft, and double-parking was still rude.  In the same way, old heresies are still heresies.

To stretch the analogy, however, what constitutes murder is almost identical.  Libel, on the other hand, has far more nuance (and is much harder to prove) in the US than in the UK. Where does defamation become slander? Well, that's when you start getting lawyers involved.

If you ask any Christian outside of an obscure Dutch sect, "Is Jesus God?" You're going to get a yes.  If you ask about Hypostatic Union, any priest or minister will agree.  (And 90% of the people in the pew will say, um, sure, yeah.)

The point is, we agree on a lot.

What defines heresy?

Up until the rise of the Scholastic movement in the 1300s and the proto-reformers like John Wycliffe and Duns Scotus, there really was no such thing as a Protestant (or a Roman Catholic for that matter).  There was simply "the Church."  (I know someone's going to say "but what about the Orthodox?"  They were part of "the Church" too, even if they were in disagreement about who was the head honcho.) Likewise, prior to 787 and the 7th Ecumenical Council, there was no Eastern and Western church - just the "church" (albeit with different Patriarchs).  In regards to theological doctrine, there was (and still is) far more agreement than disagreement.

Look, for example, at the Nicene Creed.  There is a heck of a lot of theology in that creed, and yet with the exception of one syllable at the end of filioque, 97% of the world's Christians can still agree on the entire summary!  Each of the heresies noted by the Council of Chalcedon is a rejection of a tenet of that creed.

As such, most of the heresies as identified by the first seven ecumenical councils are regarded as heresies by modern Protestants as well. They are regarded as heresy by Orthodox and Roman Catholics too.  There is a wide body of mainstream Christianity that really is a definable entity.

If someone tries to say that your salvation is dependent on a godly pastor, a Protestant can yell "Donatism!" as easily as a Catholic.

If someone says that Jesus was strictly God and not man, it doesn't matter if your RCC or Orthodox or Protestant, you can still say "that's Monophysite" and be right.  (Incidently, a lot of Baptists are for all practical purposes Monophysite but don't know it.)

And to anyone who says that Jesus only appeared to be human or only appeared to die on a cross (like, say a Muslim), pretty much any Christian* can say "Docetism!"

Heresy simply means this - a theological position out of step with accepted majority thinking. Back in the days when people were persecuted for being out of step it meant something more, but nowadays, it just means whether or not the doctrine has historically been considered consensus or not.  (Indeed, every heretic believed it was everybody else who was going to hell.)

How I learned to stop worrying and love the heresy bomb

To your original question of "What heresies are in the church today?" well, that's a book.  The former dean of Virginia Theological Seminary once told me, "There are no new heresies, and there are no non-heretics.  Everybody has a heresy, the question is simply which ones."

Trinitarianism and Christology are two classic examples of heresy breeding grounds.  Between modalism and tritheism, monophysitism and monoergism and Nestorianism - there are so many errors on either side that the question isn't if one espouses a heresy, but which one.  In practice, I'm sure I'm a heretic, but I at least can label my heresies :)  The point is to note the error and seek to correct it in one own's theology (or point it out where there is a practical implication in others reasoning) rather than worry about or ignore it.

*Now - does that mean that there are some people who claim to Christian but hold to heresy?

Yup.  Doctrinally speaking, Christians are not pure.  We hold all sorts of mysteries in tension, and as such hold to heresy from time to time.  By the measurement of Chalcedon, some groups are further away than others.  It isn't a opinion, its a demonstrable fact. Historically, that's been the most widely accepted definition of Christianity ever.

Does that mean Chalcedon was 100% correct? That's when you start getting into bar-room philosophy and theological brawls. But if you just want to know what the (mainstream) Christian world calls heresy and what it doesn't, that's the place to start.


How many Christians believe there is time in Heaven?

Christians are diverse in their view about time and eternity but nonetheless, it does not affect orthodox teachings.

Eternity- without beginning or ending. The Father, Son and Spirit are the only persons who are eternal.

Time- the measure of any activity done either by sense in action (as in "I did it") or by sense in the stars, moon and sun (as in 9:30 pm).Immortals such as men's spirits and angels has a beginning but no ending. Mortals such as humans has both beginning and ending.

Every activity or acts of God has time in it. God makes his own time by acting. Action demands time. Or to put it more clearly:

  Action is something that is done. "Done" means it was completed in the
  past. When you do something, "do" is in the present tense. Both past
  and present tense is in relation to time. Therefore, action demands
  time.

The difference between God's time and our sense of time is that in us, change is involved in time because we are in the realm of space and matter while in God, time does not involved change because he is outside space and matter.

The Classic example of this view of time is in the doctrine of Eternal Generation of the Son:

God is outside our time but he himself is coeval with his own time as anthropomorphic revelation in the Bible allows. The Scripture says that God does things and thus, he has his own time for action demands time. In us humans, we understand God’s activities via our own concept of time.

God did accurately communicate with us his reality. Hence, the begetting of the Son is always said to be done at the present time in order to reveal the nature of the begetting as without beginning nor ending because the begetter himself is without beginning and ending ( Exodus 3:14 LXX, Psalm 45:1 LXX, Proverbs 8:25 LXX, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, Acts 13:33)

It seems like it's explicit in the Bible that time exists in heaven:

Revelation 4:8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:“‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.

Revelation 8:1 When he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.

Revelation 6:10-11 "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.


Orthodox churches recognized by Catholic Church

The Catholic Church allows both Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches to receive the sacrament if they request it of their own accord and are properly disposed. However, both Orthodox groups don't recognize that and tell their members they should not.

This came up in my Bulgarian friend's wedding.  His wife is Catholic and he's Orthodox; the church was willing to let his parents take the sacrament but they refused it on that basis.

The Catholics consider the Orthodox sacraments to be valid, but not so much vice versa, is the problem.


What is the origin of the belief that Satan tortures the unsaved in Hell?

There is no biblical support for Satan or any of his demons torturing people in Hell. Rather, the adversary, Satan is said to travel around the world (Job 1:7) and even to have access to God's presence (Job 1:6). In the gospel and Acts accounts, we find demonic figures not in Hell but on earth, dwelling in men (Matthew 12:22). Interestingly, in Matthew 12:43-45, Jesus gives us a behind-the-scenes picture of what happens to a spirit when it has been cast out of a man - it remains in this world!

Satan still has access to God's throne. He is seen there as the accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:7-10) who will be or has been (depending on eschatological chronology) cast down from heaven to earth.

In the end, Satan and his demonic angels will be cast into the Lake of Fire, not to torment others, but to be tormented themselves (Revelation 20:7-10).

It's my unsubstantiated impression that such images of demons torturing people in Hell, especially a pointy-tailed man in a Red Devil suit, were the ideas of early painters who had to illustrate such places, and their imaginations went wild.


According to Catholicism, why do some possessed people vomit during exorcisms?

The Devil and all his legions are at war against Our Lord, and all his Angels and Saints.

When The Evil takes possession of someone and they seek the aid an exorcist, the proof of possession must be fully ascertained before he can be given permission from the bishop to perform the exorcism. There are many things that must come into play here: doctors in various fields of medicine, etc...to aid the exorcist. Vomiting is just one of the many signs of possession and at times in great volume.

  According to the Vatican guidelines issued in 1999, “the person who claims to be possessed must be evaluated by doctors to rule out a mental or physical illness.” Most reported cases do not require an exorcism because twentieth-century Catholic officials regard genuine demonic possession as an extremely rare phenomenon that is easily confounded with natural mental disturbances. Many times a person just needs spiritual or medical help, especially if drugs or other addictions are present. After the need of the person has been determined then the appropriate help will be met. In the circumstance of spiritual help, prayers may be offered, or the laying on of hands or a counseling session may be prescribed. The exorcist might not perform an exorcism if he doesn't know the person.

  Signs

  Signs of demonic invasion vary depending on the type of demon and its purpose, including:

  1.Loss or lack of appetite

  2.Cutting, scratching, and biting of skin

  3.A cold feeling in the room

  4.Unnatural bodily postures and change in the person's face and body

  5.The possessed losing control of their normal personality and entering into a frenzy or rage, and/or attacking others

  6.Change in the person's voice

  7.Supernatural physical strength not subject to the person's build or age

  8.Speaking or understanding another language which they had never learned before

  9.Knowledge of things that are distant or hidden

  10.Prediction of future events (sometimes through dreams)

  11.Levitation and moving of objects/things

  12.Expelling of objects/things

  13.Intense hatred and violent reaction toward all religious objects or items

  14.Antipathy towards entering a church, speaking Jesus' name or hearing scripture.

It is not hard to imagine that the Devil tries his upmost to remain hidden, but once he has been discovered through an exorcism he will try his hardest not to be expelled. If he has to spit, vomit or worse at the exorcist he will. I had a priest exorcist tell me more than once: "You can not imagine how many times I have been spit in the face!"

Exorcists are required to be very prudent when asking questions about how a person became possessed:

  15 But necessary questions, are for example; about the number and name of the spirits inhabiting the patient, about the time when they entered into him, the cause thereof, and the like. - De Exorcizandis Obsessis a Daemonio

Fr. Gabiele Amorth in his book An Exorcist Tells His Story (Pages 137 -139) has this to add to questioning the Demon, vomit and liberation:

  Norm number 20 of the Ritual suggests asking the Demon the cause of his presence, particularly whether it is due to something the individual ate or drank. If this is the case, the exorcist must command the person to vomit. If instead the curse is due to some foreign object, the exorcist must ask to be shown where the object is hidden, find it and burn it.


What is the difference between a dogma, a doctrine, an infallible statement, an ex cathedra statement, etc.?

Most of these terms are used interchangeably. So a clear cut definition may not be possible.

Doctrine: The official teachings of the Catholic church contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment of the Church as divinely revealed truths. This may or may not be a dogma. Example, Mary, Co-Redemptrix
Dogma: Doctrines that are proclaimed formally by the Church as revealed in Scripture or Tradition. This may have been done by papal pronouncement (Pius IX: Immaculate Conception), by a Council (Chalcedon: Christ is two natures in one Divine Person). Those who do not believe in a Dogma, is considered to have left the church, on their own accord.
Statement made ex cathedra: This Literally means "Statement made from the chair". It is a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Pope. I Vatican Council says that when Pope makes a statement ex cathedra, he does so in his office of pastor and doctor of all Christians. (Session IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv). Example: when declaring and defining a dogma, Pope makes that statement ex cathedra.
Infallible statement: Statements that are considered to be exempt or immune to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, by a special Divine assistance, church/pope is preserved from making an error when defining a dogma in the matters of faith and morals. All statements (with usual conditions) made by the Pope ex-cathedra are Infallible. But this is not necessarily reserved only to the pope. The teaching of the Magisterium of the Church are also considered infallible.
Definitively proposed doctrine: In simpler terms, this is implicitly accepted doctrines which are derived from previously revealed doctrines/dogmas. These are not articles of faith by themselves, but are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith. That is, if you do not believe them, then there might arise doctrinal inconsistency in faith. These doctrines may not have been officially proposed by the Church as formally revealed. And as it is usually the case, if some one inside the Church opposes its validity, these doctrines could, by dogmatic development, one day be declared to be revealed.

For example: The declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations. You don't have to believe that Anglican ordinations are invalid to be a catholic, but If you believe Anglican ordinations are valid ordinations, then there will be a problem with what you believe constitutes a valid ordination. As a valid ordination requires to be performed by a person with valid apostolic succession.
Other examples include doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men, the teaching on the illicitness of prostitution, fornication and euthanasia.

On Infallible papal teaching and Authoritative statement, I don't have idea I am sorry. May be someone else can help.

Sources:

Summary of Categories of Belief in Professio fidei
Dogma (Catholic Encyclopedia)


Yes, Paul gives an account of how he learned his gospel several times:
2 Corinthians 12:1 1

"It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord."

1 Corinthians 11:23

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread,

Ephesians 3:3-4

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Romans 16:25

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

The whole first chapter of Galatians should really be gone through, but I'll pick out the significant parts. Right from the beginning Paul affirms he is an apostle sent directly from Yeshua the Messiah, and not from men:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Paul begins to talk about certain men that seem to be teaching a different gospel than his.2 To affirm his authority, he again claims he was taught his gospel by none other than Messiah in Galatians 1:11-12

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

After giving his account of his conversion,3 Paul says in Galatians 1:16-17 that even immediately after his conversion, he did not speak to any man, including the Apostles:

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

The translation of this verse is controversial. Here are a few different ways it's been translated
For more details about who these men were and why it was so crucial for Paul to convince the Galatians that he received his gospel directly from Yeshua, please see What role did James have in Paul's conflict with Peter
For a comparison of Paul's conversion accounts, please see Why are the three accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus different


What is the biblical basis for "spiritual drunkenness"?

Spiritual drunkenness is an informal or colloquial description of a variety of behaviors.
Briefly, Ephesians 5:18 compares two states of being-  being drunk with wine, which is to be avoided and being filled with the Spirit.  This suggests being filled with the Holy Spirit can also lead surrendering control to God.
"Do not get drunk with wine, for that is wickedness (corruption, stupidity), but be filled with the [Holy] Spirit and constantly guided by Him."
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Ephesians%205%3A18
In Acts 2, when the apostles, were baptized in the Holy Spirit, which Christ foretold
" '...the Father sends you the gift he promised, as I told you before. 5 John baptized with[a] water, but in just a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' "
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201%3A4%2D6&version=NLT
Certainly, when they received the baptism in the spirit, others thought these manifestations were drunkenness on wine.
v.13 "But others in the crowd ridiculed them, saying, 'They’re just drunk, that’s all!'"  So at least twice, the Bible has draws close parallels and contrasts between certain manifestations of the Holy Spirit and alcoholic drunkenness.
Regarding uncontrollable laughter, joy is commanded multiple times in the Bible.  Uncontrollable laughter is most certainly one example of joy.
This being said, I'm not sure "drunk in the spirit" is the best term for manifestations similar to the definition in the question, nor that all of them are strongly supported by the Bible.


If miracles stopped after the Apostles, then why are there admonitions to pray over people?

It is important to distinguish between cessation of spiritual gifts being bestowed on individuals, and cessation of all miraculous events entirely. Cessationists consider the first case (individual bestowment of spiritual gifts) to have ceased, but not all miraculous events entirely.
See B. B. Warfield's Counterfeit Miracles, in the section titled Faith Healing:

  "In the healing of every disease of whatever kind," writes Doctor
  Henry E. Goddard, "we cannot be too deeply impressed with the Lord's
  part of the work. He is the operator. We are the co-operators. More
  and more am I impressed that every patient of mine who has ever risen
  up from his sick bed onto his feet again has done so by the divine
  power. Not I, but the Lord, has cured him. And it is this fact that
  the Lord does so much, that gives to different systems of healing
  their apparent cures. He has healed many a one in spite of medicine,
  in spite of mental healers, in spite of ignorance, in spite of
  negligence and poor and scanty food. Nineteen out of twenty cases of
  grippe will get well without doing anything for it, if we are willing
  to bear it until that time. Pneumonia, even, is what the physician
  calls a self-limiting disease, and many cases will recover alone if we
  are willing to run our chances with it. The arm may drop into boiling
  water and become scalded. Nine times out of ten it will take care of
  itself and heal. But if that arm is mine it is going to have an
  outward application which will make it feel better the moment it
  touches it. And more important by far, it is going to be dressed
  aseptically to prevent blood poisoning. It might get well itself,
  probably would; but it is going to have my little co-operation, the
  most intelligent that I can render, that the Lord may have the open
  door through which He can come in and bless it." It is the very spirit
  of James, I take it, that speaks in this Christian physician. If you
  are sick, you will use means, all the means that exist; but you will
  use the means in the name of the Lord, and to Him you will look for
  the issue. (172–173)

In short, cessationists hold that the sovereignty of God is such that all healing of any sickness is the result of God's working, and also hold to the miracle of salvation as the pre-eminent form of still-continuing miracle. Indeed, the miracles that have ceased are those apostolic-era gifts used only for the purpose of spreading the gospel in the early church; those that were bestowed on individuals, rather than purely by God's working.

In James 5:14, no individual has been bestowed with a gift of healing. Rather, with prayer foremost, and secondarily medical care in the form of anointing of oil (historically considered to have medicinal value), a group of the elders of the church were to care for the unwell individual. The hope is that God would then miraculously heal the individual. However, this is quite a different circumstance to that of the apostles and those granted the gift of healing, who could "at will" heal anyone they chose.

With that in mind, cessationists would encourage this practice (perhaps not with oil specifically, but the best available medical care), but would not consider any of the elders to have been bestowed any spiritual gift of healing in the event of a miraculous healing.

It is worth noting that John Calvin, in his commentary on James 5, considered the anointing with oil, prayer, and resulting healing to be an apostolic sacrament which has passed. This is no longer the predominant position among cessationists, to the best of my knowledge. However, even at the time he wrote, others considered the anointing with oil to be medical (a common view today as well), and thus only the prayer was efficacious, in as much as God chose to heal the sick in that instance.


Changes in Rome since Trent versus the Evangelicals

It's not that doctrine has changed as much as the importance of the arguments. The Roman Catholic Church and many Evangelicals now agree that much of the arguments were semantic, and political and cultural opposition played a large role (especially ongoing political rivalries between France and Germany and the Turkish threat in the Mediterranean). So what has changed isn't really doctrine, but rather the importance of wording those doctrines in certain ways versus others.

It is actually Evangelicals who have changed their doctrines, which is the reason for the recent ecumenical successes. In fact, the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism states that ecumenical activity cannot result in changing any aspect of the Catholic faith. For example, Post Conciliar Document Number 42 says that the purpose of ecumenism is to transform the thinking and behavior of non-Catholics so that eventually all Christians will be united in one Church. It states, "This unity, we believe, dwells in the Catholic Church." In other words, "unity" means that all Christians will become Roman Catholics.

The reality of it is that the Roman Catholic Church is engaging in ecumenical dialog with Protestants and Orthodox, calling them "separated brethren," and claiming to respect their beliefs. But at the same time, it still officially declares that they are heterodox because of these same beliefs. Some Catholics have expressed concern over this.