Why does the Bible say that people no longer need to ‘feel guilty’ under the gospel, as compared to the Old Testament?

Note: I am providing an exhaustive answer as it is difficult to find this subject being answered to any degree of depth anywhere.

I think the answer can only be found by contrasting how these two covenants differ.  These covenants largely differed: in their time in history, location, atmosphere, persons who inaugurated them, the persons who acted as mediator in them, subject matter, priests officiating under them, method of their dedication, success, permanency of their effects, aims, level of light in them, and the mode of governance that they established.

So the implicit question is, “How are they different in reality and how does that then specifically explain the difference in ‘feeling guilty’?"

Introduction:

The following comparisons show the difference between the Law and the Gospel, but it is not indented to imply there was no gospel in the Old Testament. The Old Testament does not just have the Laws given under Moses, it also had the Promise given to Eve (Genesis 3:15), renewed to Noah (Gen. 9:12-16), then made more clear to Abraham (Gen. 17), through David (Sam. 7:12-16), and continuing, running parallel to the Law but not joined in it by faith in the promise (Galatians 3:12), as the Law, as a covenant of works, pointed away from itself to the Promise. (Galatians 3:24)

Also the Prophets, under the Law, defended and applied the Law, while also directly pointed to the Messiah as that person who would fulfill all its demands for ever. (Acts 3:24) This is why Moses and Elijah both met Christ on the mountain during his transfiguration, whereby it was understood by them all that He would descend from that hill to the cross from which all the law and the prophets testified. (Luke 9:18-36) Moses was the representative of the Law, while Elijah was the representative of the Prophets as its most zealous defender.

In fact, the same contrasted comparison between Law and Gospel could be made with the Covenant of Promise made to Abraham, versus the Law given to Moses. If we lived before Christ, we could have written such an article. However, as the Promise in the Old Testament was pointing forward to the times of the Gospel, the comparison between Gospel and Law is more properly done with the perspective of the New Covenant being already established. There is much less benefit of making the comparison between the Law and the mere prefiguring shadows of the gospel.

Although the gospel is in the Old Testament, running parallel to the Law, and directed sinners away from itself by commanded full obedience (Leviticus 18:5, James 2:10, Mathew 19:21) it is a different subject not under the focus of the task at hand. We only desire that it should be clear from the outset that the kernel of the gospel was always in the Old Testament as the Covenant of Promise as distinct from the Law.

It is through the Covenant of Promise that men could always be saved even before the Law was introduced (Galatians 3:17). Yet it must also be recognized that even those who were saved by faith, apart from the works of the Law, while being made subject to the Laws of Moses at that time, could not have fully enjoyed the ‘liberty of the gospel’ as will be shown under this comparison.  If they could have, there would have been no reason to change anything. (Hebrews 8:7) We would have kept the daily sacrifice for sins ‘looking back at Christ’ who they prefigured, just as an ancient man, full of faith, may have presented his beast ‘looking forward’ to the Messiah. The truth is that many under the Old Covenant were not circumcised of heart, but flesh only. It was to this sort of person that the Law was principally made for and who it principally speaks to (Hebrews 10:1-3):

  We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers (1 Timothy 1:9)

Under the same token we must add that although the Law was removed in Christ, as to its outward form and power over the conscience, its ruling jurisdiction has always existed since the fall, for it merely took the law of conscience that condemns sinners by nature and expounded on it under commands. (Romans 1:18-21) Therefore, the Law has always been in place since the fall and will always be in place as long as sinners remain. We are all born in sin, under law, even if Moses had not manifested what those Laws were, and all who believe in Messiah, since the fall of man to the return of Christ, are freed from that Law inwardly and are transplanted into grace by the gospel. (Colossians 1:13, Romans 4:1-3)

Those saints of Old who had to suffer under the legal, ceremonial and civic Laws of Moses, being somewhat contrary to their inward liberty and circumcision of heart, did so as a theatrical service for those who had not yet believed. As Christ had not yet come, the Law assumes all have not yet believed until He came. For although both sinner and saint were circumcised as a child of Moses, the law had to assume they were one, or the other. It is clear that it assume a state before Christ was raised. In a similar but less strict manner, even in the New Covenant believers assume the salvation of those who claim faith and allow them to take part in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Even a Devil we be assumed a saint under the gospel, if faith in Christ is claimed without any scandalous sins to question the claim. This explains why a Jew under the Old Covenant would die if attempting to draw near to God in the Holy of Holies. It was assume that that Messiah had not yet come to tear that curtain from top to bottom (Mathew 27:51, Leviticus 16:2).

How the Covenants Differ in Terms of the Spirit of Guilt:

1-They differ in time:

The Old Covenant refers to the covenant inaugurated during the time of Moses. It was a covenant of Law that many have defined under the categories: moral, civil and ceremonial. When the words ‘The Law’ are used in scripture it most commonly refers the first five books of the Bible with respect to the Laws of Moses. The 'moral law' is generally tied to the Ten Commandments, the 'civil law' to various capital punishments and rules related to the 'eye for an eye' precept of justice. The 'ceremonial law' has to do with the Levitical Priesthood and the entire God ordained rules of worship that were conducted in God's Temple.

The New Covenant was delivered in the “in the latter days,” (Hebrews 1:1-2) and “in the dispensation of the fullness of times.” (Ephesians 1:10) and it formally made the Old Covenant obsolete during the actual death of Christ when the inner certain of the Temple was torn from top to bottom (Mathew 27:51).

2-They differ in the location that they were inaugurated:

The first was declared on Mount Sinai. This mountain is Arabia was the home of Ishmael and his race. The Arabian name for Mount Sinai was Hagar. The New Testament was declared on mount Zion, and the law of it went forth from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3).

The Apostle Paul takes special notice of this difference of location, because ‘Hagar’ was also the name of the slave who gave birth to Ishmael, Abraham's first lawful child. Hagar's child was a child of Abraham by law, but Isaac was the child that God ‘promised’ to Abraham and his wife in their very old age. Therefore, the Old Covenant is associated with slavery and bondage under the name Hagar the slave. The New Covenant, or the Covenant of Promise, originally established with Abraham, but not fulfilled until Messiah appeared in the flesh, is associated with ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’. It was promulgated from Jerusalem, not from Hagar.

  22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

  24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 (Galatians 4:22-27)

3-They differ in the atmosphere of their establishment.

The Law of Moses was delivered on:

  a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19 to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.”[c] 21 The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.” (Hebrews 12: 18-21, See also Deuteronomy 5:23-27)

By this means a spirit of fear and bondage was administered to all the people, so as that they chose to keep at a distance, and not draw near to God, (Deuteronomy 5:23-27).

The message from Jerusalem has a free spirit of pure worship and praise without any gloom whatsoever:

  22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. ((Hebrews 12: 2-23)

4-They differed in the persons that declared them and promised there with:

In the Old Covenant the Law was given to Moses by angels and the whole church became subject to the authoritative rule of angels under it. (Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19)

In the New Testament we find this subjection to the angels was not meant to last. (Hebrews 2:5) Rather the gospel was declared directly from the Son of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:17-18)

5-They differ in their mediators.

The mediator of the first covenant was Moses (Exodus 32:11-14, Hebrews 3:5) Moses stood between the people and God because the people could not endure the frightening terror and horrible gloom of His presence.

  24 And you said, “The Lord our God has shown us his glory and his majesty, and we have heard his voice from the fire. Today we have seen that a person can live even if God speaks with them. 25 But now, why should we die? This great fire will consume us, and we will die if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any longer. 26 For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived? 27 Go near and listen to all that the Lord our God says. Then tell us whatever the Lord our God tells you. We will listen and obey.” (Deuteronomy 5:24-27)

As Moses was a mediator it is sufficiently clear the Law treated those who were under it a sinners who must not approach God.

The mediator of the New Covenant is the Son of God himself. For “there is one God, and one mediator between God and

  5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

6-They differ in their subject matter.

The Old Covenant renewed the commands of the covenant of works. The Law threatened death for sin, any kind of sin with eternal death. The Law promised life only to those who fully obeyed it with sinless obedience.

The Ten Commandments is the very words of the covenant (The Covenant of Promise to Abraham is not included under the Law, as it was actually the gospel in its pre-Christ form):

  28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments. (Exodus 34:28)

  5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 18:5)

  10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (Galatians 3:10-14)

Therefore under the strict Law had no promise of grace, to communicate spiritual strength, or to assist in obedience. It was therefore hopeless under the Law to obtain eternal life, so in its stead material blessing in the land of Canaan became inseparable with it.

7-They differ in the manner of their dedication.

It is the solemnity and manner of the confirmation, dedication, and sanction of any promise or agreement, that gives it the formal nature of a covenant or testament.

The Old Covenant was sanctioned by the sacrifice of ‘beasts’, whose blood was sprinkled on all the people. (Exodus 24:5-8).

The New Testament was sanctioned by the sacrifice and blood of Christ himself, which became ‘the blood of the covenant’, which we remember at the Lord’s Supper.

8-They differ in the priests that were to officiate before God in the behalf of the people.

In the Old Covenant, Aaron and his posterity alone were to discharge that office.  On account that those old priests were sinners and had to make sacrifice for their own sins, the priest were many.

In the New Covenant, the Son of God himself is the only priest of the church. Not only does his priesthood go uninterrupted so that He is a Priest forever, but as a Priest without sin He can officiate those things that pertain to our spirit, making us spiritually clean:

  22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.(Hebrew 10:22)

This directly speaks to the ‘guilty feeling’ that we will return to in the conclusion.

9-They differ in the sacrifices whereon the peace and reconciliation with God was proposed and was depended on.

In the Old Testament, the sacrifices offered were merely animals. They were designed to prefigure the Messiah as the only proper sacrifice for sin. They could only therefore purify the worshiper externally in order that worshippers may continue to enter into the Temple after they had encountered unclean things, meats, mold, etc.

In the gospel the Son of God offered His own Holy soul and body for the sins of the world so that anyone who believed in Him might have eternal life. (John 3:16)

10-They differ in their permanency and effectiveness of their writing.

All covenants were of old solemnly written in tables of brass or stone, where they might be faithfully preserved for the use of the parties concerned.

The principal part of the law was “carved in tables of stone” which were kept in the ark (Exodus 31:18, Deuteronomy 9:10; 2 Corinthians 3:7). However God ordained its foundation to be destroyed as soon as it was made, in order to show that none could meet its requirements and that never was it to be viewed as permanent.

In the New Covenant the words were not written on stone, rather they were written in the heart. This largely distinguished the two covenants and shows that the New Covenant is not just an unfolding of the same covenant, with the same nature. Rather the Old Covenant is something God himself had ‘fault’ with and God himself made obsolete.

  7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:

  “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a New Covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

  10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. ”

  13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (Hebrews 8:7-13, Jeremiah 31:31-34)

11-They differ in their aims.

The principal end of the Law was to discover sin, increase it, to condemn it, and to set external bounds to it through fear of punishment. Therefore it was always accompanied with judgments and punishments.

  20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. (Romans 5:20)

Fear prevented sinners from sinning, but yet increased the desire making them ‘locked up’ and leading to Christ from God’s wrath:

  23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. (Galatians 3:23)

As the Law was employed in this manner as to hold sinner under the torment of their sin, the scripture refers to the Law as a Law of sin and death.  For although the Law was Holy and good, by the sinfulness of flesh it became a harsh lord over the damned doing nothing else but driving to despair in order to smash the self-righteousness of men who suppress the truth.

The aim of the New Covenant is to declare the love, grace, and mercy of God and by doing so give: repentance, remission of sin, and eternal life. (John 3:6)

In contrast to the law of sin and death, the gospel is a law of the Spirit of life. As the law brought death on mankind by one man, and so death reigned unto all, the righteousness of Christ and the obedience of one man, brings righteousness to all who believe.  Yet the power of this new law is sin in that it overwhelmed manifold sins, deaths, hells, Satan’s and curses. It came after many sins had increased the aggravation of the first sin. Yet by One man, all these offences, death, hell, curses, etc were killed by Christ death. Therefore the death of death, the death of sin, the death of Satan, the death of guilt, the death of mortality were all made by the death on the Messiah.

How was this done?  All sin was hammered into the flesh and soul of Christ making Christ the biggest sinner. And as a man who submitted and perform everything the Laws of Moses required including the submission to the baptism of John and all additional requirement that the Law had upon the Messiah as the literal 'beast' to truly remove sin under its legal bench, Christ not only took upon our sin, but released up his perfect obedience that was in turn charged onto our account.

Now if our state under Law is to be found with Christ’s very own righteousness than the law has no more purpose, abandoning its charge of us.
The Law can't accuse those who have been made perfect. The Law can only see sinners in Christ as having obeyed all its precepts from cradle to grave.
Therefore if the Devil tries to resurrect the Law and pull Christ down from heaven pointing His finger our way and saying, "Yes but you have committed many big sins, and someone must pay!".  The believer san say to the Law and the Devil who has tried to resurrect it, "Yes, and what are you going to do about it!". The devil can only than flee with his attempts and seek someone else to devour.

12-They differed in their effects.

The first covenant was a “ministration of death” and “condemnation,” it brought the minds and spirits of those that were under it into servitude and bondage. This slavery and bondage was typified under the practices of the temple where none could approach God. The Most Holy Place in the temple, where God’s presence was, was accessible only to the high priest and only once a year. Approaching God in any other way than that prescribed by God was forbidden.

2 The Lord said to Moses: “Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. (Leviticus 16:2)

Those under the Laws of Moses are considered comparatively as and underage sons, or even slaves, for even the servants of a home can boss around children in the household:

  4 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir. (Galatians 4:1-7)

As the Law (though perfect and holy) increased fear of death due to its condemnation the Devil himself used the Law to increase sin and bring them in further subjection to his malice:

  14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil — 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. (Hebrews 2:14-15)

So it was truly the “letter that killed” them.

In the New Covenant spiritual liberty is the immediate effect. This contrast between covenants is often attributed to the gift of the Spirit, which is a Spirit of liberty in contrast to bandage and fear.

  15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:15)

  17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3:17)

13-The level of light to relieve the conscience is different.

In the Old Covenant they did have the Promises of Abraham which was the gospel and no law. Some, and at time many were able to enter into the rest of New Covenant from afar. Even in those days faith in the promised Messiah was just as effective in providing eternal life as is faith looking back at Messiah.  However even the Prophets who predicted his coming were under darkness about what they spoke.

  17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it. (Mathew 13:17)

Even John the Baptist who was the greatest of those prophets since He actually could see He who all the Prophets spoke of was considered less than the least of those who believed after under the New Covenant:

  11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Mathew 11:11)

In the New Covenant believers are able to obtain much clearer knowledge and faith of His incarnation, sufferings, and sacrifice, through which he made atonement for sin. This gives them liberty and boldness in their obedience:

  16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)

The great difference of light and glory in the two covenants renders the Old Covenant without glory by comparison:

  10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. (2 Corinthians 3:10)

Although there was some grace and truth in the Old Covenant, for all the ceremonies prefigured Messiah and the Law is perfect and holy, yet by comparison the scripture speaks as there was no truth or grace before Jesus Christ:

  17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

14-The mode of governance in the level external details and rites are different:

In the Old Covenant many ceremonies were required because each was not good enough to foreshadow Messiah. Therefore many laws were added and increased by the yoke of a multitude of laws, rites, and ceremonies, imposed on them. This made the whole of their worship a burden to them, and insupportable:

  10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?  (Acts 15:10)

This burden, in addition to sin itself, must have been at least in part the simple appeal of Christ’s call:

  28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Mathew 11:28-30)

In summary when we understand that the Law was meant to lead to Christ it must now be obvious that it directed away from itself to the Promise made to Abraham.

He suffered them to all sort of fears, bondage, guilt and restlessness so that they might not rest in that state, but continually look out after deliverance. Even those who entered into that faith, they saw things too faintly to full obtain the same freedom and boldness which is now proclaimed under the gospel.

Under the New Covenant there is freedom from the commanding power of the law as far as it required perfect obedience and increased our sin by making us aware of sin without providing any help to obey. On this account we can consider all our good deed under an accusing conscience as ‘garbage’ and in full liberty cling to Christ’s righteousness alone apart from any of our own efforts of faithfulness and holiness:

  8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. (Philippians 3:8-9)

  28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. (Romans 3:28)

We are free from all the condemnation itself because Christ absorbed all its threats and curses:

Conclusion:

From surveying the difference between the Law and the Gospel we have more than enough knowledge to accurately answer why 'guilty feelings' are encouraged under the Law as part of its bondage and the removal of those feelings by the 'sprinkling of blood' as one of the rests tendered in the gospel.

Since the gospel frees the conscience from the power, condemnation, curse, fear of death, ceremonial reminder of guilt, terrifying civil of punishments and any other thing that might make us feel unworthy of joyfully approaching the throne of grace with boldness in a spirit of liberty we have no reason to carry on under the gloomy dread of guilt.

But someone may ask, "Yes but if you sin you must feel guilty?" But this question is not reasonable. Yes we sin every day yet we do not feel guilty every day as Christ was punished for the sin.  "Oh No!", some might say.  "This is encouraging sin that grace may abound!". But not true again when looking at the scriptures. A liberated conscience from the curse of the Law brings true holiness and guilt merely increases sin, even when its outward form is bound in prison under fear.  Therefore the person who claims these things only deceives himself and increases his own sin, while judging those who are free. This is why Hagar and Jerusalem are symbols of people today.

The real relationship of sin to guilt, is that when we do not believe in God's grace with sufficient faith as to thoroughly cleanse the conscience then our minds become subject more and more to the flesh which is still under the Law. As our mind become more and more fleshly we can't get rid of guilt no matter what we do, for guilt can't be washed by the blood of beats which include any fleshly thought we may use to comfort ourselves. No, only faith can clean the conscience from the guilt of sin, and once the conscience is cleansed and a joyful praise resounds in the liberated soul, then and only then does faith go on to produce to holiness and works.

Guilt is not cleansed by works, but by faith.  This is the practical application of living by the Spirit and not by the works of the Law.
Every other notion is madness and sin.

And by all these and any other instances of spiritual liberty, the gospel frees believers from that “spirit of slavery", "guilt" and "fear” administered under the Old Covenant.


Did the LDS ever recognize non-LDS polygamous marriages?

The Church has never recognized polygamous unions formed outside the Church.  The authority to enter into a polygamous union is given in Doctrine & Covenants 132 and can only be done (when it was authorized) inside an LDS temple (when temples were available) by Priesthood holders authorized to use the Sealing Keys.  Hypothetically, back when the Church was authorizing polygomous unions, someone married polygamously outside the Church would be required to be sealed by proper authority, in the proper place.  Which is a long way of saying, no, we have not and do not recognize the authority of other religions to create polygamous unions.

Having said that, it should be noted that the LDS church accepts marriages performed outside our church from a civil point of view, but we consider the marriages to be temporary, "until death do we part."  An LDS marriage (called a Sealing, "for time and all eternity") can only be performed by the same sealing authority I mentioned above in our temples.  In that regard, we don't recognize marriages performed by other religions at all.


What do Protestants think about canon laws given by the Church Fathers?

In general, Protestants don't think about the early church canon laws much at all! Protestants endorse the ecumenical creeds, and they accept the councils' judgements of heretics, but that's about the extent of our engagement with the ecumenical councils. In my four year MDiv degree I don't think we discussed the canons at all, even in the early church history subject. We discussed early church hagiography more than the canons.
Protestantism sees itself as a descendent of the early church, but its relationship to the early church is a critical one. Protestants uphold the Trinitarian theology of the early church, but they challenge many other aspects of early church theology and practice. Most Protestants would align themselves with the Antiochene school of interpretation and be highly critical of Alexandrian allegorical interpretations. So Augustine, who is highly respected in Protestantism for his theology, is evaluated critically in his exegesis when he strays too far into allegory. Some other aspects of early church thinking which are not well regarded in Protestantism include its growing Mariology, and its strange (almost creepy) focus on female virginity.

The canons themselves (they can be read here, although there are different lists on different sites) focus mostly on church polity and church discipline. Most Protestant denominations are not episcopal (ie, hierarchical with bishops), and have developed their church polities based on the Biblical passages of qualifications of elders independently from these canons (or at least they'd think of themselves as doing it independently, though some ideas could surely be traced back.) Some canons would be flatly rejected as being out of touch with general Biblical teaching and wisdom:

10: All those of the faithful that enter into the holy church of God, and hear the sacred Scriptures, but do not stay during prayer and the holy communion, must be suspended, as causing disorder in the church.
27: Of those who come into the clergy unmarried, we permit only the readers and singers, if they have a mind, to marry afterward.
50: If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the three immersions of the one admission, but one immersion, which is given into the death of Christ, let him be deprived; for the Lord did not say, “Baptize into my death,” but, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Do ye, therefore, O bishops, baptize thrice into one Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the will of Christ, and our constitution by the Spirit.
54: If any one of the clergy be taken eating in a tavern, let him be suspended, excepting when he is forced to bait at an inn upon the road.
69: If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or reader, or singer, does not fast the fast of forty days, or the fourth day of the week, and the day of the Preparation, let him be deprived, except he be hindered by weakness of body. But if he be one of the laity, let him be suspended

But some canons are seen the practices of other denominations, such as this one by the Brethren, though they would likely say they are following Biblical examples rather than the canon:

34: Do not ye receive any stranger, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, without commendatory letters; and when such are offered, let them be examined. And if they be preachers of piety, let them be received; but if not, supply their wants, but do not receive them to communion: for many things are done by surprise.

Now the exception are the Anglicans, whose polity is inherited from the Catholic Church. As such, they have maintained the relevance and authority of many of the canons, including such ones as bankruptcy being cause for immediate disqualification of the clergy. (I am not sure whether the Lutheran churches, who also have episcopal polities, have kept the canons as well.) Many of the canons concerning bishops and clergy still rule the Anglican churches, although their formal authority comes from being included in the current Anglican church canon law, not their ancient pedigree.
Some ancient canons have been seen to be directly relevant to current issues, such as when conservative GAFCON bishops gathered in the US in 2017 to ordain Andy Lines as a missionary bishop to England. In response Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, and others, said that this action contravened these canons from the Council of Nicaea:

6: Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
15: On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.
16: Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes; and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if anyone shall dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop, from whom although he was enrolled in the clergy list he has seceded, let the ordination be void.

Each Anglican province is formally independent, and sometimes ordinations are recognised by those who decide to recognise them rather than it being a matter of rules. Even so, these early church canons are still recognised in the Anglican churches, and appeals can be made to them, even if not all of them are legally binding. Those in favour of the missionary bishops do not completely disregard these canons but argue that they are not directly applicable to the current situation, such as this response by Australian Rob Smith.
And one final sad note, it is possible that canons such as these were part of how prior generations of church leaders justified themselves for not seriously investigating allegations of clergy sexual abuse.

75: Do not ye receive an heretic in a testimony against a bishop; nor a Christian if he be single. For the law says, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”


What is the biblical justification for permitting female pastors?

This is a question on which Christians disagree among themselves. Even those who hold the Bible as a sole source of authority reach contradictory conclusions on the matter.

On the side of not permitting women pastors, the main passage is 1 Timothy 2:12-14:

  But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.

On the side of those who permit women pastors is Galations 3:28:

  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

There are others of course. Each side has good arguments why their favorite verses are definitive, and the others are a matter of context.

In short this is a highly complicated issue, which cannot be resolved in a single answer. I strongly recommend further reading on both sides:

NT Wright
Who said Women Can't Teach?
Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy


Are sins forgiven without a payment in Matthew 9:1-7?

This question could also entail those who lived prior to the giving of the law, such as Abraham.

Paul gives us the answer in his letter to the Romans.

  But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.  Romans 3:21-26 ESV

It must also be noted that the blood of bulls and goats never took away sin:

  For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.  Hebrews 10:1-4

So, God "forbear" the sins committed beforehand, waiting until the time that the penalty would actually be paid.  It is as if Jesus had taken on the sentencing already, but the sentence had yet to be enacted upon Him.  Thus, the sinner was still free to go, as he was no longer liable for his sin.

In the case of Abraham, the case of the person in this passage, and in the case of us today, it is faith that results in the transfer of our penalty to Christ.


Is 'Non-Catholic Non-Orthodox Modern Western Denomination' an ok definition of Protestant?

Your question is a good one, but it is slightly misguided.  You are seeking a precise definition for a term which does not have one.  The word Protestant can mean different things depending on the context in which it is used.  When used in a historical context, it may be used to strictly refer to those involved in the Reformation and to the churches that they directly founded.  However, it is also perfectly legitimate and acceptable to use the term Protestant to refer to any Christians or Churches that espouse the same principles as the original Protestant reformers.

The biggest commonality among Protestants is that they denounce the universal authority of the Papacy.  Beyond that, the term Protestant is much like the term Christian.  It essentially applies to anyone who chooses to apply it to themselves.  In that sense, I do think that you were using the term appropriately, as long as you only intended it in a loose way.  It would be wrong to correct someone's use of the term by suggesting that the term can only legitimately be used in a historically precise way.


Are there any Christian denominations that reject some of the gospels in the New Testament?

I can't find any evidence for whole denominations which reject any of the Gospels, however among scholars the most contestable book tends to be the book of John. In particular the authorship and age of the book of John is a controversial subject - and if you consider this to be an important factor in whether John is a genuine gospel, then this will affect whether or not you accept the book as inspired.

As I say though, this isn't really a denominational issue so much as a scholarly one.

There have been issues with some of the letters on the other hand - for instance Martin Luther originally had issue with the inclusion of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Also Syriac Christian traditions didn't initially accept 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Both of these traditions ultimately came to accept these though - the main difference remaining is over the Deuterocanonical books which are included by Catholic/Greek Orthodox traditions but only deemed "useful for reading" and removed from the Biblical Canon in the Protestant traditions.


In Matthew 5:25 what does it mean to be in the way with our adversary?

The meaning of Matthew 5:25 may be clearer if you consult a more recent translation:

  Come to terms quickly while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. [NRSV]


Is it true that if we make a good confession and receive the sacrament of Eucharist on the following Sunday of Easter all our sins will be forgiven?

Did Jesus Christ promise to St. Faustina that if people make a good confession and receive Holy Communion at mass on the second Sunday of Easter they will have a fresh start all over again?
The short answer is yes.
There are two things to be considered in this question. What are the promises made by Our Lord to St. Faustina in regards to Divine Mercy Sunday and what are the indulgences that the Church has granted for the Sunday following Easter.

Plenary Indulgence
To ensure that the faithful would observe this day with intense devotion, the Supreme Pontiff himself established that this Sunday be enriched by a plenary indulgence, as will be explained below, so that the faithful might receive in great abundance the gift of the consolation of the Holy Spirit. In this way, they can foster a growing love for God and for their neighbour, and after they have obtained God's pardon, they in turn might be persuaded to show a prompt pardon to their brothers and sisters.
Three conditions for the plenary indulgence
And so the Supreme Pontiff, motivated by an ardent desire to foster in Christians this devotion to Divine Mercy as much as possible in the hope of offering great spiritual fruit to the faithful, in the Audience granted on 13 June 2002, to those Responsible for the Apostolic Penitentiary, granted the following Indulgences:
A plenary indulgence, granted under the usual conditions (sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and prayer for the intentions of Supreme Pontiff) to the faithful who, on the Second Sunday of Easter or Divine Mercy Sunday, in any church or chapel, in a spirit that is completely detached from the affection for a sin, even a venial sin, take part in the prayers and devotions held in honour of Divine Mercy, or who, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed or reserved in the tabernacle, recite the Our Father and the Creed, adding a devout prayer to the merciful Lord Jesus (e.g. Merciful Jesus, I trust in you!");
A partial indulgence, granted to the faithful who, at least with a contrite heart, pray to the merciful Lord Jesus a legitimately approved invocation. - Indulgences attached to devotions in honour of Divine Mercy

Here are the other main differences between the "special graces" promised by Jesus for Divine Mercy Sunday, and the plenary indulgence offered by the Church for special devotions to The Divine Mercy on Mercy Sunday:

The special graces that our Lord promised for Mercy Sunday come solely through the reception of Holy Communion on that day, in a state of grace, with trust in The Divine Mercy. Any plenary indulgence granted by the Church, on the other hand, involves the fulfilment of a number of conditions, including prayer for the pope's intentions, confession and Holy Eucharist, and the carrying out of the special indulgenced work (in this case: participating in public devotions to The Divine Mercy on Mercy Sunday itself).

The special graces promised by our Lord for Mercy Sunday can be received by a soul in a state of grace, but with imperfect love for God, and imperfect contrition for sin—as long as the soul merely trusts in the Mercy of God, and clings to Him because of His promised benefits. A plenary indulgence, however, can only be obtained through the performance of an indulgenced work as an expression of pure love for God. If the intentions of one's indulgenced work are not pure (say, the work is done in part out of fear of hell or purgatory, and loathing for oneself — or the desire to impress one's friends and relatives! — rather than purely out of love for God) then the indulgence obtained will be only partial, not plenary.

The special graces that our Lord promised for Mercy Sunday can only be received for oneself, through the devout reception of Holy Communion on Mercy Sunday (as stated in #1 above). A plenary indulgence, however, can be offered for oneself, or for souls suffering in purgatory.

The most special grace promised by our Lord for Mercy Sunday is nothing less than the equivalent of a complete renewal of baptismal grace in the soul: "complete forgiveness (remission) of sins and punishment." Such a measure of grace can only be received otherwise through baptism itself, or through making a sacramental confession as an act of perfect contrition for sin, out of pure love for God.

As you can see, this is no easy topic. However, you can find a more in-depth treatment of this same subject in the John Paul II Institute of Divine Mercy section of this same website, in the document entitled "Understanding Divine Mercy Sunday." - Mercy Sunday's Special Graces, Plenary Indulgence: Are They the Same?

According to St. Faustina, Our Lord promises to those who go to confession and communion on this day, the remission of the guilt and the punishment of sins.

On that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the fount of My mercy. The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion shall obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment.  On that day all the divine floodgates through which grace flow are opened. Let no soul fear to draw near to Me, even though its sins be as scarlet. My mercy is so great that no mind, be it of man or of angel, will be able to fathom it throughout all eternity. (Diary of Sr. Faustina, 699) - Mercy Sunday or Feast of Mercy


"How does the bible describe heaven?" The fullest description found in the Bible is in Revelation 21.

Your first question presupposes belief in God, those who don't have faith by definition won't follow God. And of the people that do believe, not all put that belief into practice (James 2, in particular look at verse 19). People do not and cannot choose to go to heaven, it is a blessing given to those who truly believe and follow after God.

What I mean is, if someone was to become a "christian" purely motivated by wanting to go to heaven and not hell, then heaven is nothing more to that person than a carrot-on-a-stick. Being a christian requires far more than simply wishing to go to heaven, it requires belief (John 3:16-18, Romans 10:8-10), repentance (Romans 2:3-4, 1 John 1:6-10), transformation (Romans 12:1-2, Galations 2:16-21), and faith-produced action (James 2:14-26).

In answer to the first portion of your second paragraph, I direct you to
1st Corinthians 15:35-44 (ESV)

  35) But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" 36) You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37) And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38) But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39) For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40) There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42) So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43) It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

So to summarize, our physical bodies on earth are entirely different from our spiritual bodies in heaven.

"do we have like houses or we just stand all together?" Look at John 14:1-3

"what are things we do in heaven? besides praise and worship? if we do stop praise and worship does that mean we have a schedule on doing praise and worship?" The short answer is we don't know what we will do in heaven (besides praise and worship and not sinning). You may be interested in the articles here and here which both discuss the possibilities (with biblical support of course).


Can the Pope speak ex cathedra about the return of Christ?

Answer

This question cannot be answered according to the criteria of this site as there is no current Church teaching or Church doctrine that can answer this hypothetical and specific scenario set in the future and at odds with the deposit of faith. And also no one knows what a future Pope will or will not do in a specific situation.

Here is why

Since the question is asking, 'could the Pope then "certify" this person as Christ [come the second time]  while speaking ex cathedra?' let's investigate what Popes have said on the second coming of Christ.

Second coming of Christ at the end of time | Pope St. JOHN PAUL II [The Great] | GENERAL AUDIENCE, Wednesday, 22 April 1998

  2 This twofold dimension, both present and future, of Christ's coming is apparent in his words. In the eschatological discourse which
  immediately precedes the paschal drama, Jesus predicts: "They will see
  the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then
  he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds,
  from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven" (Mk 13:26-27).

  In apocalyptic language clouds signify a theophany: they indicate
  that the second coming of the Son of Man will not take place in the
  weakness of flesh, but in divine power. These words of the discourse
  suggest the ultimate future that will bring history to an end.
  However, in the answer he gives to the high priest during his trial,
  Jesus repeats the eschatological prophecy, formulating it in terms of
  an imminent event: "I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of
  Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of
  heaven" (Mt 26:64).

Humanity's journey to the Father | Pope St. JOHN PAUL II [The Great] | GENERAL AUDIENCE, Wednesday 26 May 1999

  4 Christ's resurrection, ascension and the announcement of his second coming have opened new eschatological horizons. In the Last
  Supper discourse, Jesus says: “I go to prepare a place for you. And
  when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take
  you to myself, that where I am you may be also” (Jn 14:2-3).
  Therefore, St Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: “For the Lord himself
  will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's
  call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ
  will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught
  up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and
  so we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thes 4:16-17).

  We have not been told the date of this final event. We must wait patiently for the risen Jesus, who, when asked by the Apostles
  themselves to restore the kingdom of Israel, answered by inviting them
  to preach and to bear witness: “It is not for you to know times or
  seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you shall
  receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be
  my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end
  of the earth” (Acts 1:7-8).

The fact that the 'Christ' to be certified 'approached the Vatican, met with the Pope, and convinced him that he was the second coming of Christ' is at odds with what Pope St. John Paul II [the Great] quoting Scripture, has said on the second coming of Christ. For example, 'great power,' 'divine power,' 'in glory,' are absent in the scenario.

When the Pope is said to be infallible it is meant he cannot err when ... [please see below] and since the OP forces one to take into account as a fact a scenario at odds with Scripture and Papal teaching and the dogma of Papal Infallibility itself,

The possibility of making such an ex-cathedra 'certification'(sic) is wrought with problems because other than the Pope's subjective conviction, there aren't any bases in the deposit of faith to make such a declaration.
The Pope would not be infallible if he were to certify the 'Christ' as Christ come the second time and that contradicts the dogma of Papal infallibility. Subsequent questions would the arise about the Pope himself.
According to the dogma of Papal infallibility, even if the Pope were convinced, he would not be able to go ahead and make such a certification because he cannot err in such matters.

Hence there isn't a Church teaching or doctrinal answer for such a future scenario i.e. saying this is what the Pope will or will not do because the Church teaching or doctrine says he will do this or that in such a situation. It is also abundantly clear that no one knows what a future Pope will or will not do in such a scenario.1

1. "It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal." - Explanation of papal infallibility | Infallibility | New Advent.

Additional Note & Passages On the second coming of Christ

The note USCCB note on Matt 24:3 has in part

  Coming: this translates the Greek word parousia, which is used in the gospels only here and in Mt 24:27, 37, 39. It designated the
  official visit of a ruler to a city or the manifestation of a saving
  deity, and it was used by Christians to refer to the final coming of
  Jesus in glory, a term first found in the New Testament with that
  meaning in 1 Thes 2:19.

Acts 1:10-11 (RSVCE)

  10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do
  you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you
  into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

Rev 1:7 (RSVCE)

  7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail
  on account of him. Even so. Amen.

The following is presented for information

It is important to clear up  a few things. Ex-Cathedra declarations are all limited to faith and morals as contained in the deposit of faith handed to the Church by the Apostles.

Simply, if it [faith + morals] wasn't with the Apostles and handed down to the Church, and by the Church from one generation to the next, it CANNOT be part of that which can be declared ex-cathedra as infallible teaching.

If the Pope were to sit on the Chair of Saint Peter and declare that Mr. Obama is the President of the United States of America, he would be telling the truth, and apart from doing a silly thing and misusing his office, he would not have made a infallible declaration, because Mr. Obama being or not being the President of United States of America does not belong to the deposit of the faith. The faithful need not believe that to save their souls.

Please note that Popes in the past have venerated the Shroud of Turin, a fact telling of their inner conviction. Yet even in this case, the said Popes have not declared the Shroud of Turin as the burial Shroud of Jesus. Why? It does not belong to the deposit of faith.

The same can be said of Church approved (because not contrary to the faith) private revelations after the death of the last Apostle.

Some definitions

  EX CATHEDRA The term commonly applied to the special and explicit
  exercise of papal infallibility. When the Pope speaks from the chair
  (cathedra) of authority, as visible head of all Christians, his
  teaching is not dependent on the consent of the Church and is
  irreformable. (Etym. Latin ex cathedra, from the chair.)

  Source: Dictionary: EX-CATHEDRA | Catholic Culture

What does the Pope teach infallibly?

For that we go to PENNY CATECHISM 92 and 93

  Q 92 Is the Pope infallible?

  A 92 The Pope is infallible.

  Q 93 What do you mean when you say that the Pope is infallible?

  A 93 When I say that the Pope is infallible, I mean that the Pope cannot err when, as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines
  a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the whole
  Church.

Where do those faith and morals come from?

From the Sacred Deposit of the faith  = Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition.

cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 890 and 891.


Did Martin Luther ever admit that his approval of Philip's bigamy was wrong?

Luther did not recant.

From: John Alfred Faulkner, "Luther and the Bigamous Marriage of Philip of Hesse, The American Journal of Theology Vol. 17, No. 2 (Apr., 1913), pp. 206-231 (on pp. 228-9) -

  Whatever occasional regret on account of the scandal Luther may have felt, he never wavered as to the essential right of his course with Philip. In June, 1540, in a letter to his electoral prince
  (first printed in 1872) he gives his own philosophy of the matter, and before I close the reader ought to see the important parts of
  this statement:

    ..."    If such a matter as this of Philip's came before
    me today, I would advise as I have already advised. I am not ashamed of
    such a counsel, even if it should come before all the world...."


Grace is a quality (a type of accident) that inheres in the soul, analogous to how the quality of redness inheres in a red apple.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II q. 110 a. 1 ("Whether grace implies anything in the soul?") co.:

  when a man is said to have the grace of God, there is signified something bestowed on man by God.

I-II q. 110 a. 2 ("Whether grace is a quality of the soul?") ad 1:

  Grace, as a quality, is said to act upon the soul, not after the manner of an efficient cause, but after the manner of a formal cause, as whiteness makes a thing white, and justice, just.

ad 2:

  because grace is above human nature, it cannot be a substance or a substantial form, but is an accidental form of the soul.

Being is divided into substance (that which exists in itself) and accident (that which exists in another). Accidents are divided into quantity, quality, relation, etc. See this diagram.

That grace is a quality infused and inherent in the soul is also evident from the Council of Trent, session 6:

  CANON XI.—If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost [Rom. 5:5], and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.

  [Cdl. Manning's transl. of:] Canon XI.—Si quis dixerit, homines justificari, vel sola imputatione justitiæ Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et caritate, quæ in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diffundatur atque illis inhæreat; aut etiam gratiam, qua justificamur, esse tantum favorem Dei: anathema sit.

Trent argues against Luther, who did not believe a transformation of the soul by grace is necessary for justification.


What is the Lutheran view on sovereign election?

Lutherans believe that God elects to salvation, but not to damnation.  That is to say, we believe that our salvation is due to God's election on account of His grace and mercy for the sake of Christ (i.e. God chooses us because He is merciful, not because we've done something to earn it or because He sees that we will do something to merit salvation).  See, for example, Ephesians 2:1-10 and Romans 5:6-21.

By way of comparison, Calvinists would then typically go on to say that the logical corollary is that God therefore chooses who is damned; i.e. He "elects to damnation."  However, Lutherans say that this is not correct.  We believe that Christ died for the sins of all people (e.g. 1 John 2:2) and that God wants all people to be saved (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:4).

Lutherans also believe that it is God Himself who brings people to faith through the working of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel in its spoken, written, and sacramental forms (see, for example Romans 10:10-17 where Paul talks about faith coming from hearing through the "Word of Christ").  So, even our very faith is a work of God (a point also touched on in the earlier example from Ephesians 2:8-9).

To the question then, of why some people are not saved, even though Christ died for their sins and even though God wants them to be saved, Lutherans would answer, "We don't know."  It's a paradox that we don't believe we can resolve (Paul seems to touch on this also in Romans 9).

We often make a distinction between the "revealed God" and the "hidden God" that's useful in considering this paradox.  The "revealed God" is the aspect of God that He reveals to us in the Scriptures; i.e. He created all things, He came in the flesh to redeem all things, Christ died for all people, He wants all people to be saved.  The "hidden God" is the aspect of God that He does not reveal to us; it's His hidden will that He does not show us.  Lutherans believe that questions like why some people are saved and others are not and why good people sometimes suffer and bad people sometimes prosper fall into this category of the "hidden God."  We can't know or discover the answers through our own efforts, because God hasn't told us the answers.  It's similar to how young children only know their father based on what he has told them about himself.

In the end, then, we lean back on what God has clearly revealed to us and go from there.  So, we can confidently tell people that Christ died for their sins and that the Gospel is for them, because this is what God tells us in the Scriptures.  Then, we trust in God to bring them to faith in the Gospel for their salvation.  Maybe another way of saying it is that we do all we can in spreading the Gospel, and trust in God to work through this proclamation to save people by bringing them to faith.

We also believe that people can fall from faith (e.g. Luke 8:13, Hebrews 6:1-8).  Typically, we believe this happens when people persist in some sort of unrepentant sin after coming to faith.  That is, they fight against the working of the Holy Spirit in them, until they ultimately destroy their faith.  For this reason, Lutherans talk about a daily "living out of our baptism" by dying and rising each day through repentance and forgiveness.  Our entire lives are ones of confession and absolution, whereby we confess our sins (e.g. in prayer or to the pastor) and receive absolution (e.g. in the Gospel and Sacraments, or the pronouncement from the pastor).  Note, though, that God's forgiveness is already there for us before we confess and before we repent; confession and repentance, in essence, open our eyes to the fact that we need God's forgiveness and mercy.


The King James Version and the English Standard Version use the name Evil-merodach, as does the New Living Translation.  Clearly, using lower-case m is not a typographical error!  However, as to why the second part of the name does not have a capital letter M, there is no explanation.

The New International Version uses the name Evil-Merodach and notes he was also called Amel-Marduk.  He was Nebuchadnezzar's successor.

History records that Nebuchadnezzar was a follower of the Babylonian gods Nabu and Marduk.

The 'Enuma Elish' describes a great clash between various gods of the Babylonian pantheon:

  The two most important characters are the god Marduk and the goddess Tiamat. After Tiamat prepares many monsters and lesser gods to destroy the remainder of the pantheon, and a few younger gods have already failed at challenging her, Marduk offers to destroy Tiamat in return for being made highest among the gods. The other gods readily accept this offer, and Marduk becomes locked in mortal combat with Tiamat. After killing Tiamat, Marduk splits her body in two, making one half the sky and one half the earth. He makes humans from his own flesh and bone and brings order to the universe.
  Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm

The Enuma Elish is one of the oldest creation records ever discovered, likely dating to 1100 BC (Genesis, which is older, was written around 1400 BC).

As to why older Bible translations record the king's name as Evil-merodach, no explanation is given.  But Ken Graham's fulsome answer sheds light on his character, which may account for the prefix of Evil.


What day and year was the first public and general confession held in the Church of England?

It was not prescribed in the Act of Supremacy, which occurred in 1534 (see that info further below). It looks like the rights to confession were first included in the "39 Articles of Religion," a small book with revisions throughout the years. Several sources confirm that these articles were drawn up in 1563 but I managed to find "An Essay on the 39 Articles of Religion," partially typed and partially handwritten, and as you can see below, it reads: "Agreed on 2 in 5 1562."

Also found this audio where you can actually hear the articles here, on MP3: (pdf)

The right of confession is listed under the 25th article, titled "On Sacraments." This is a partial text.

  "There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith."

Antonio Garcia Fuerte, with a Theology degree from Catholic University in Spain, is Anglican and supportive of his religion. He explains the apparent controversies of his church's beliefs on confession in a scholastic paper here: (pdf)

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Act of Supremacy (1534) was issued through Parliament, making Henry VIII the head of the church of England. It required its patrons to acknowledge his marriage to Anne Boleyn. The act was revoked in 1555 and in 1559 a new act was adopted under Queen Elizabeth.

You can find it in its original, older English language here: (pdf)

This is The Act of Supremacy (1534) in its full text:

  "Albeit, the King's Majesty justly and rightfully is and oweth to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognised by the clergy of this realm in their Convocations; yet nevertheless for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirp all errors, heresies and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, Be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the King our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm as well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities, to the said dignity of supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining. And that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed corrected, restrained or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity and tranquillity of this realm: any usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority, prescription or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding."


How does the Bible differentiate between sickness and sin?

The full context of Adam's claims are obviously hidden from us here. However, addressing the visible claims from a lay Catholic perspective, I'd say he's simply off the mark with a few premises.

The First Faulty Premise

  To call drunkenness a "sickness" is to take away hope; there is no
  pull that will cure such a "disease".

If secular medicine and psychology aren't enough to convince us that disease is not a hopeless state, we can open any one of the gospels and take a peek at almost any page to find healing upon healing upon healing. And these healings always denote the forgiveness of sin and the purifying power to go forward and "sin no more."

See Matthew 4:24, which gives us a short list of diseases Jesus cures. This items on this list are very important and relevant, mind you -- they're all conditions that directly inhibit our ability to perform God's will.

  His fame spread to all of Syria, and they brought to him all who were
  sick with various diseases and racked with pain, those who were
  possessed, lunatics, and paralytics, and he cured them.

Or refer to Matthew 8:1-17, in which healing the diseased is portrayed again as routine operation for Christ. Even more astounding, note how final verse in the list of healings ends.

  When it was evening, they brought him many who were possessed by
  demons, and he drove out the spirits by a word and cured all the sick,
  to fulfill what had been said by Isaiah the prophet: He took away our
  infirmities and bore our diseases.

One of Christ's missions and trademarks, as explicitly stated in scripture, is to cure the sick, take away our infirmities, and bear our diseases. Thus, I'd submit that hopelessness in the shadow of disease is sin; it rejects Christ's power and mission to heal.

The Second Faulty Premise

  Adams has made and I have made an assumption that a thing cannot be
  both a disease and a sin.

I'm not sure this statement of yours matches Adam's exactly:

  Because organic problems, which result from Adam's sin and the
  subsequent curse, are not themselves sin

From what I can see in your citations, Adam's seems to leave room for the interpretation that the organic roots of sinful behavior are not sinful, but that the resulting actions may still be sinful.

But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, since I'm not familiar with Adam's or his book(s), one passage in particular comes to mind. See Mark 9:42-48.

  42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe [in me] to
  sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around
  his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you
  to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed
  than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. 44
  45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for
  you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into
  Gehenna. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better
  for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two
  eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, 48 where ‘their worm does not die, and
  the fire is not quenched.’

In this segment, Christ is not necessarily addressing diseases, but He is very clearly addressing biological causes for sin. And in doing so, He makes it very clear that the sins resulting from these biological causes do condemn us. And while we tend to believe He's speaking in hyperbole here, the importance of earnestly trying to cut oneself off from any and all sources of sin, even those ingrained in our own body, is very important to our salvation.

In Summary

We can certainly distinguish between disease (or any biological cause) and the resulting actions, be they sinful or not. However, a biological cause is neither a hopeless condition nor a judgement free condition. For, if the biological causes for sin left us guiltless, Christ would neither warn us against them, nor spend His time healing us and "bearing our diseases." Bearing our diseases is a large part to Christ's mission. So, we're definitely not left hopeless.

Catholic doctrine teaches that our guilt is diminished to the extent our actions are beyond our direct control. However, sinful actions are still sinful even when we are guiltless in performing them. Thus, if we are complacent in our diseases or sins, I would argue I think with the support of Catholic doctrine, that we regain the guilt of those sins!

(And by "guilt" I mean some measure by which we may be condemned.)


Does the Catholic Church officially claim that the Bible is insufficient without tradition?

Yes she (Catholic Church) does.  I've copied the pertinent parts from the previous poster's quotes to show this.

  82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

While it may or may not be true that her Tradition sources to apostles, since after all, the Orthodox say the same thing, yet the two groups contradict at a number of well known Tradition points, the whole point in answering your question is for them, Scripture alone as regards all things necessary for salvation, is incomplete.  They are quite clear and open about this.  Why someone would think otherwise is beyond the scope.

PS From the authentic Catholic mouth 1965:

  Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION DEI VERBUM

Can't be any clearer than that.


Why does God not show Himself beyond reasonable doubt?

Because God decided faith was an absolute requirement in His kingdom:

  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is Hebrews 11:6 KJV

Actually, Jesus is apparently frustrated with those who desire the type of "sign" you suggest:

  And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. Mark 8:12 KJV


What's the difference between the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment?

They are both speaking of the same thing, it is just that the "Judgment Seat of Christ" is how Paul refers to it while the "Great White Throne" is how John the Revelator refers to it!

NT scholar Craig Keener says of 2 Corinthians 5:10:

  Paul's allusion here is directly to the standard OT and Jewish image of the day of judgment, in which GOD's throne became the ultimate judgment seat.

And of Revelation 20:11:

  Although many writers also stressed a judgment of souls at death, Judaism had much to say about the day of judgment before GOD's throne at the end of the age.

Thus meaning that both Paul and John the Revelator were heavily influenced by their own Jewish understanding of the throne of GOD being where judgment would happen but also influenced by their belief in Christ being that GOD AND KING who sits on the throne!


As we know, the Roman Missal of !965 introduced some changes to the way the Mass of Pope St. Pius V's Mass was celebrated.

Amongst the changes are:

  The possibility of concelebrating the Mass on days where it would deemed appropriate.
  The use of the maniple is optional.
  There was also some shortening of the prayers at the foot of the altar and the omission of the Last Gospel.
  Use of concelebration on certain occations.

This is the Mass that the monks of the Abbey of Fontgombault use since September 1989. I was a postulant in the abbey when the community received the permission through the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei at the Vatican. It could also be noted that Cardinal Ratzinger gave several talks on the liturgy in July 2001: Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger: Proceedings of the July 2001 Fontgombault Liturgical Conference

The only clear source of Fontgombalt's usage of the Roman Missal of 1965 is in French:

  A la messe conventuelle, les bénédictins célèbrent selon l’Ordo missae de 1965. Les liturgistes eux-mêmes ont souvent oublié que le pape Paul VI publia un nouvel Ordo cette année-là (lequel Ordo fut très bien accueilli par Mgr Lefebvre).

  En effet : le vendredi 7 octobre 2011, près d’un millier de fidèles était réuni dans l’église abbatiale de Fontgombault pour la bénédiction du nouveau Père Abbé succédant au T.R.P. Dom Forgeot qui avait résilié sa charge après 34 années d’abbatiat. Mgr Maillard, Archevêque de Bourges, avait accepté de remettre la mitre et la crosse au T.R.P. Dom Plateau, le nouvel Abbé. A cette occasion, Mgr Maillard a concélébré avec cinq autres évêques ainsi que plusieurs pères abbés… selon la forme de la liturgie Romaine définie par l’Ordo de 1965.

  Mais surtout, l’Ordo de 1965 restaurait le rituel de la concélébration qui avait été abandonné au cours du Moyen-Âge. - L’Abbaye Notre-Dame de Fontgombault : un exemple à suivre pour la « réforme de la réforme »

In essence it states the Following:

  The Conventual High Mass is celebrated according to the Ordo of the Mass of 1965...

  On Friday, the 7th of October, 2011 in the company of about a thousand faithful were present in the abbatial church of Fomtgombault for the benediction of the new abbot Dom Jean Plateau, OSB. At this occasion Bishop Maillard concelebrated with five other bishops and several abbots .. according to Roman liturgy of the Ordo of the Mass of 1965.

  The Ordo of 1965 restored the rite of concelebration which had been abandoned sometime during the course of the Middle Ages.

Fontgombault's daughter houses also follow this reform.


Are there Christian equivalents for the four sublime attitudes or brahmaviharas of Buddhism (metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha)?

Yes, there is in Christianity something similar to the four sublime attitudes in Buddhism. Instead of four, however, there is one, and that one is composed of eight significant attitudes. Those eight attitudes are expressed in a Christian's lifestyle.
In the apostle Paul's letter to the Christians in the province of Galatia, the apostle calls that one thing "the fruit of the Spirit" (Chapter 6, verses 22-23 NIV):

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

Too often, I have observed, Christians refer to the fruit of the Spirit as the fruits of the Spirit. That is unfortunate, however, because the fruit of the Spirit is what you might call a "package deal." We could say quite accurately that with the fruit of God's Spirit, the whole is, in a sense, greater than the sum of the parts.
When a person is born again (or born from above) through the regenerating power of God's Holy Spirit, that person has been given all that he or she needs to live a godly life (see 2 Peter 1:3). Is there an instant transformation in that person's life? No. That transformation, referred to in Scripture as sanctification, is a lifelong process. Moreover, that process does not come about through human effort alone. The fruit of the Spirit is made possible by the Holy Spirit, not by human effort.
Salvation, of which sanctification is an important part, is a joint effort between God and every individual believer in Jesus Christ. In his letter to the Philippian Christians, Paul put it this way:

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure (2:12-13 KJV, my italics).

Christians do not work for salvation. Salvation is a gift from God and not of works (see Ephesians 2:8-9), but Christians do work out their salvation in the warp and woof of life. Since God is the one who works within Christians to will and to do His good pleasure, all the credit and all the glory go to God. Christians are but vessels or channels through whom the fruit of the Spirit is fleshed out existentially.
Jesus put the same concept--different words--this way:

I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing (John 15:5 NASV, my bolding).

In short, the Christian's primary responsibility in working out their salvation is to  be "filled with the Holy Spirit" and "to keep in step with the Holy Spirit." Whatever attitude is needed in any given moment is a gift of the Holy Spirit. That gift comes through yieldedness, sensitivity, and obedience to the Spirit. While one Christian might struggle more with yieldedness in the area of patience than another Christian, the same Spirit is at work in both. The good news is that when a Christian fails to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, he or she can confess that failure God, receive forgiveness, and live to fight another day.


Penances are set at the discretion of the priest. I think there are some very general guidelines, to prevent penances that are wildly disproportionate to the sins, but there's plenty of room for discretion within the guidelines.  One could get different penances for the same sins, not only from different priests, but even from the same priest on different occasions.

The priest can take into account not only the sins that one confesses but also other information that he happens to know, e.g., has this person confessed essentially the same sins to me before? He can also make the penance fit the time of the confession, e.g., giving a different penance during Lent than at Easter or Christmas, or even adapting the penance to a particular feast.


Why doesn't the Catholic church have prophets and apostles?

Why don't Catholics…use those titles [apostle, prophet]?

Apostle
Fr. John Hardon defines "apostle" in his Catholic Dictionary as

A messenger and authorized representative of the sender. Broadly used in Scripture, it refers to many followers of Jesus who spread his message. More precisely, however, it applies to the original twelve men chosen by Jesus to be his immediate aides. They are referred to as disciples during the period in which he was instructing the, but following his ascension they are always called Apostles. After Pentecost they spoke and acted with confidence and assurance in teaching others what he had taught them and in assuming leadership roles in the early church. They were ordained priests by Christ at the Last Supper and were commissioned by him to preach the Gospel to all mankind (Matthew 28:19-20). (Etym. Latin apostolus, an apostle; Greek apostolos, one who is sent off.)

Prophet
Aren't prophets only known to be such after the fact?
For example, Pope Pius XII—in his encyclical promoting Catholic missions, Evangelii Praecones §27—described his predecessor, Pope Pius XI, as having "prophetic vision":

We are profoundly grieved as We behold these conditions which Our immediate Predecessor [Pope Pius XI] described with almost prophetic vision verified in many parts of the Far East.

Pope Paul VI's prediction in his 1968 encyclical Humanæ Vitæ of the damaging effects of contraception to marriage and society has also been called prophetic. He said that contraception "could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards" (§17), which has indeed occurred—e.g., as illustrated below:

(Cf. also Pope Pius XI's encyclical on marriage, Casti Connubii §§53 ff.)


According to Catholicism, how was Mary born without original sin?

And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. - Luke 1:35

The idea that the Virgin Mary was Immaculately conceived and born without any stain of original sin was due to the fact that it was by a unique privilege accorded by Almighty God.

The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception. It proved highly controversial in the Middle Ages, but was revived in the 19th century and was adopted as Church dogma when Pope Pius IX promulgated Ineffabilis Deus in 1854; this had the overwhelming support of the Church's hierarchy, although a few, including the Archbishop of Paris, warned that the Immaculate Conception is not stated in the New Testament and cannot be deduced from it. Protestants overwhelmingly rejected Ineffabilis Deus as an exercise in papal power and the doctrine itself as without foundation in Scripture, and Eastern Orthodoxy, although it reveres Mary in its liturgy, called on the Roman church to return to the faith of the early centuries. The iconography of the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception shows her standing, with arms outspread or hands clasped in prayer, and her feast day is 8 December.
Doctrine
The Immaculate Conception of Mary is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church, meaning that it is held to be a truth divinely revealed, the denial of which is heresy. Defined by Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus, 1854, it states that Mary, through God's grace, was conceived free from the stain of original sin through her role as the Mother of God:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

(Since the 19th century a dogma has come to bear the meaning of a divinely revealed truth proclaimed by Church teaching and hence binding for all time on the faithful; while the Immaculate Conception asserts only Mary's freedom from original sin, the Council of Trent, held between 1545 and 1563, affirmed in addition her freedom from personal sin.)

The Immaculate Conception in Scripture is not explicitly supported for the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception, but Catholic theologians say that biblical support is not totally absent either.

Sacred Scripture does not explicitly proclaim the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception (i.e. freedom from original sin from the very start of her life). The Catholic Church reflected on this question for centuries, considering biblical texts which seemed related to the topic, at least implicitly. As a result of this prolonged reflection, Pius IX issued a dogmatic definition in 1854 affirming Mary's Immaculate Conception. This declaration (Ineffabilis Deus) indicates that the teaching has been infallibly revealed by God through the living Tradition of the Church. There are also a number of scriptural passages which may be cited in support of the teaching. The angelic greeting in Lk 1:28 refers to Mary as "highly favored" or "full of grace." Both translations refer to the Greek term kecharitomene, the past perfect participle of charis which means a gift, favor or grace. In Biblical Greek, this verbal form suggests permanence and singularity. Such singular, permanent grace in Mary is essentially the same concept affirmed in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Another source of biblical evidence involves the references to Mary as "Woman" (e.g. Jn 2 and Jn 19). The evangelist alludes to Eve, who is called "Woman" in Gen 2. There are other parallels between the Genesis account of Creation and its Fall and the Johannine account of the Redemption. For example, the tree of knowledge caused Adam's death in paradise. The tree of the cross caused the death of Jesus, the new Adam, in Jn 19. So there is a certain biblical parallel between Mary, the Woman of the New Creation, and Eve, the Woman formed in original justice at the first Creation (i.e. before the Fall). This parallel is stated explicitly by very early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr (d ca 160) and Irenaeus (d. ca 220). None of this is explicit proof of the doctrine. However, it is solid support from Scripture alone. - Immaculate Conception: Scripture

For more information about this subject matter the following may be of interest:

What is the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception?


When was the festival of the see of Peter in the 6th Century?

When was the festival of the See of Peter in the 6th Century?

It would seem that the festival in question would be the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter. But the date of this feast was January 18 and not February 22, as noted in Sempaiscuba's answer on the History SE site.

In the modern liturgy of the Roman Rite, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter is the 22nd of February. But prior to 1969, this feast was in fact on January the 18th. Wikipedia backs this up.

  In the Roman Rite, the feast of the Chair of Saint Peter is celebrated on 22 February.

  Before Pope John XXIII's revision in 1960, the Roman Calendar also included on 18 January another feast of the Chair of Saint Peter (denominated the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome, while the February feast was then called that of the Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch).

The Catholic Encyclopedia is still clearer:

  From the earliest times the Church at Rome celebrated on 18 January the memory of the day when the Apostle held his first service with the faithful of the Eternal City. According to Duchesne and de Rossi, the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (Weissenburg manuscript) reads as follows: "XV KL. FEBO. Dedicatio cathedræ sci petri apostoli qua primo Rome petrus apostolus sedit" (fifteenth day before the calends of February, the dedication of the Chair of St. Peter the Apostle in which Peter the Apostle first sat at Rome). The Epternach manuscript (Codex Epternacensis) of the same work, says briefly: "cath. petri in roma" (the Chair of Peter in Rome).

  In its present (ninth-century) form the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" gives a second feast of the Chair of St. Peter for 22 February, but all the manuscripts assign it to Antioch, not to Rome. Thus the oldest manuscript, that of Berne, says: "VIII kal. mar. cathedræ sci petri apostoli qua sedit apud antiochiam". The Weissenburg manuscript says: "Natl [natale] sci petri apostoli cathedræ qua sedit apud antiocia." However, the words qua sedit apud antiochiam are seen at once to be a later addition. Both feasts are Roman; indeed, that of 22 February was originally the more important. This is clear from the Calendar of Philocalus drawn up in the year 354, and going back to the year 311; it makes no mention of the January feast but speaks thus of 22 February: "VIII Kl. Martias: natale Petri de cathedra" (eighth day before the Calends of March, the birthday [i.e. feast] of the Chair of Peter). It was not until after the insertion of Antioch in the copies of the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" that the feast of February gave way in importance to that of January. The Roman Church, therefore, at an early date celebrated a first and a second assumption of the episcopal office in Rome by St. Peter. - Chair of Peter

The Church of St. Peter of Antakya (Antioch) is locally believed to be the Church founded by the apostle St. Peter. This is the first see founded by this Prince of Apostles. With the reform of the liturgical calendar, the feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Rome is celebrated on February 22. The feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch was suppressed. Notwithstanding this fact, the local church at Antioch celebrates its' own particular Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch nowadays on February 21st instead of February 22nd.

Facade of the Church of St. Peter, originally built ca. 1100 by Crusaders and rebuilt in the 19th century


Is there a term for a marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant?

In Catholic Canon Law, there is a term that applies: a mixed marriage.

A mixed marriage is one in which one person is a Catholic and the other has been baptized into another Christian denomination.  This isn't specific to Protestants, of course, it applies to any non-Catholic Christian denomination.


What does it mean for the soul to be "immediately" created by God?

"Immediately means that God directly creates soul without any mediators, for example parents."

  God creates human bodies through the reproductive powers of human
  parents. But each soul is a direct creation and gift of God (see
  Catechism, No. 366). Source


Joel 2: From Eden to Ruination? To what is this referring?

How do you know how fabulous the Garden of Eden was? There's no description of it where it appears, and we have many places on earth that are just "heavenly" to stroll through.

I believe the phrase is being used the same way we use it today to describe beautiful scenery.

If the location of this destruction is in Israel (scholars are not unified in a position on its location), you can see its lush greenery in these photos:
https://www.google.com/search?q=greenery+in+israel&safe=active&client=firefox-a&hs=X3q&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=7ojnU7atOZTioATttYKoBg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoATgK&biw=1280&bih=566

So all that is beautiful in the land will be destroyed by a foreign invading army, which is left unspecified.


Why is this music chosen for a Catholic Mass?

This music that you think of as 'concert music' was originally church music.

I don't recognize the specific piece in the video, but pieces of a similar style were originally written to be used in church services. Most classical music with "Mass" or "Requiem" in the title (or linguistic variants such as "Missa" or "Messe") were intended to be used in celebrations of the Mass. This includes works by Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi and Bach among many others.

The words being sung are actually the prayers said during mass, and the sung versions are used in place of the recited prayers.

The music is commonly called choral or church music, and has been part of Catholic and other traditions for many centuries. These settings require a high quality choir to do well, so you will usually hear them only in larger churches and cathederals - and with changing musical tastes they are only infrequently used even there. But there is absolutely nothing unusual about using this style of music in church, and singing it in church was the original intention.