Crucifixion and the principle of double effect

Jesus' obedience to his Father's will was more important than one more example  of people sinning

His sacrifice paid for their sins, because it pays for all of mankind's sins.  Looked at through the lens of the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement Jesus was about to pay for their sins himself.  The sins of the Roman were but a few of the sins of mankind that called for satisfaction.

  The satisfaction due to God was greater than what all created beings
  are capable of doing, since they can only do what is already required
  of them. Therefore, God had to make satisfaction for himself. Yet if
  this satisfaction was going to avail for humans, it had to be made by
  a human. Therefore only a being that was both God and man could
  satisfy God and give him the honor that is due him.

Jesus' obedience is the opposite of sin.

  CCC 1850 Sin is an offense against God ... Sin is thus "love of
  oneself even to contempt of God." 1(~St. Augustine). In this proud
  self-exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of
  Jesus, which achieves our salvation.(Philippians 2: 6-9)

Note that this answer is a frame challenge, since from the Catholic perspective none of this alleged "double principle" in play.

The Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane

As recorded in all four Gospels, after the Last Supper, Jesus went into the Garden of Gethsemane to pray before he was arrested.  The Gospels present him as confronting his fate, during which prayerful time he asks his Father to take this cup (his looming passion / crucifixion) away.  In the end, he submits to his Father's will.  "Not my will, but yours."  Being obedient to God is not a sin, it is a virtue.

  (Matthew 26:42). "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by. Nevertheless, let it be as you, not I, would have it." Then, a little while later, He said, "If this cup cannot pass by, but I must drink it, your will
  be done!"

Agnus Dei

"Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis*
(Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us)

In the Roman Catholic liturgy, the Agnus Dei is a reaffirmation that Jesus, the Lamb of God, takes away the sins of the world.  This is drawn from Scripture:  John 1:29

  The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Behold, the
  Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."

That's what Jesus did on the cross: since the Romans were of the world, their sins were an included case.  That's Jesus' role, which he accepts during the Agony in the Garden.  From his arrest to his crucifixion (the passion) Jesus was not able to stop the railroad job that was coming his way.  He knew that ahead of time, based on his prayer in the Garden, and remained obedient to his Father's will.  Trying to stop it would have been in direct opposition to God's will, and thus a sin.
Their sins (the Romans') were paid for by Jesus' sacrifice, as was everyone else's.  From the Catechism.

  CCC 457 The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by
  reconciling us with God, who "loved us and sent his Son to be the
  expiation for our sins": "the Father has sent his Son as the Saviour
  of the world", and "he was revealed to take away sins"

  God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love
  CCC 604 By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that
  his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our
  part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and
  sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins." God "shows his love
  for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:24)

Even before he was nailed to the Cross, Jesus recognized their sin in putting to death an innocent (per Luke 23:4, even Pilate recognizes Jesus' innocence).

So does he whine about it?  No.  He not only remains obedient to God, He makes an appeal to his Father, asking for them to be forgiven because they did not know what they were doing.  That's (1) loving your enemy, and (2) loving your neighbor as yourself --  at the same time.  If there's any principle of double effect going on, it is one of love, not sin.

The question you ask has some odd assumptions.  It is hardly a sin to be unable to stop someone from sinning when you have not the ability to do so.  (I can't stop someone in Pakistan from committing murder: I haven't the means to do so).  What he did is what he could do, based on his obedience to his Father: take their sins to himself, as was his role, as he takes the sins of all of mankind.

Expiation, featuring Jesus as victim of expiation for human sins, is covered in CCC articles 457, 604, 615-16, 1476, 1992;


Since God provided for the forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament, why do we need Jesus?

Actually, it never worked.

  Hebrews 10:4 (ESV)
  For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

All the OT sacrifices were useless in an of themselves. What they did all along was not actually solve something but point people to the idea that something needed to be solved and the way that had to happen was through sacrifice. All the OT sacrificial rules only served to point us to Christ, who was already arranged as the Lamb to come.

In other words, the forgiveness for sins that God "provided" in the Old Testament was through Jesus from day one, so you can't just take him out of the picture. There isn't another way.

See also: How were people saved before ~33AD?


Did the congregation have input into leader selection in the early church?

While the New Testament does not give complete details about the selection process, the role of other leaders is much more clearly documented than the role of congregations, at least in the appointment of elders.

Acts 6, by contrast, involves the selection of servant leaders, known in most churches today as deacons. The Apostles were too busy to "serve tables", so they asked the congregation to select seven men "to this duty". These men were not appointed elders (although at least one, Stephen, did later do some preaching.) The Apostles laid their hands on these servants, possibly as a blessing (see, e.g., Genesis 48:14-20) or a commission (see, e.g., Numbers 27:22-23).

Acts 14 specifically refers to the appointment of elders.

Although Dr. Perkins goes to great lengths (in your linked article) to show that the Greek verb in Acts 14:23 can be used of either appointment or election, the footnote from Alexander Strauch still stands:

  the point is, cheirotoneo can mean to elect or appoint. The context, not the etymology, determines its meaning. The context [Acts 14:23] is perfectly clear that appoint is the only possible meaning here.

The phrase, "they had appointed elders for them in every church", can only reasonably be interpreted that Paul and Barnabas chose the elders for the churches. As to whether Paul and Barnabas sought input from the congregations, we are not told.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, we see Titus being chosen by Paul to appoint elders:

  I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.—Titus 1:5

Again, we are not told (nor is Titus, for that matter) how much input Titus should receive from the congregation; however, since the qualifications for the office were listed in the private letter to Titus, it seems likely that the opinions of the congregation would not carry much weight.

So although congregations may have had some input into the selection of their elders, the New Testament is only clear in stating that elders were appointed by other church leaders.


Why did Jesus commit Mary into the care of the beloved disciple, not James, who is known as his brother?

Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
(Matthew 12:46-50)
Because John the beloved does the will of Jesus' Father in heaven. That is why Jesus made John His brother (as Mary's son).
So, this was the reason why John (the beloved) became Jesus' brother (or Mary's son) and his mother Mary. The crowd knew Jesus' brothers, and so they are his biological brothers including James (Matthew 13:55).


What is the Amish view on the use of social media?

Unfortunately, the Amish are a hard group to get a grasp on.
First you have to clarify which order of Amish. There are some super conservative groups which are more like what most people have been taught to envision when they think of Amish.
The majority of your basic "Old Order" Amish have electricity,  just not on the grid, through generators, batteries and even solar. It's not present inside the home, but is often in their barns and offices. They do have phones, usually the land-line is in a phone booth outside (notice the emphasis on the home). They mostly have cell phones, at least for business, but they are cracking down on smart phones with internet.
Internet is the real key. It's access to dangerous things (primarily pornography is pointed at) makes it the real problem with computers. Not the computer itself. Amish use "word processors" ever day at our work. They are PCs made with modified network cards so they are incapable of connecting to the internet with a browser.
Bishops are figuring out that smart phones are basically just small computers with internet, so that is being discouraged. (My Amish boss had an iPhone for business for several years up until 6 months ago, now he's back to basic flip phone, as are the others in his Bishop's district).
Obviously, no internet means no social media.
However the kids have smart phones and facebook and all that and there doesn't seem to be any issue with it. Though it is family by family what the kids are allowed to do. The children aren't bound by Amish rules since they aren't a part of the church until they choose, so it's up to the parents.
Conclusion
Judging by its use by the teenagers, the Amish parents have no moral issue with social media. It's use by full members of the church would clearly not be allowed as it requires the use of the internet. But any Amish rule against something cannot be equated as an absolute moral judgment against it.
They wouldn't look down on you for your facebook, at least not any more than they would for you watching TV or driving them to the store in your car.

Most information I have given is from personal daily contact with the Amish in Pennsylvania.  However this article highlights some of the things I reference:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/the-surprising-ingenious-amish-gadget-culture#.wnob1lVjG


Why did Jesus say that "Mary has chosen the better part"?

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all
  these things shall be added unto you.

  Matthew 6:33

This is what Mary was doing. Although what Martha was doing was not wrong, her focus was on those things and not on Jesus. Many people can get so caught up in church and completely forget about Jesus. Fixing things, making sure everything is ok, cooking, etc... They're not bad things, but when you leave Jesus aside, you are leaving salvation aside. We must seek Him first, everything else will be added on. This is what Mary did.


Movies and Music during Lent for Orthodox Christians

I know very little about the Orthodox church, but I am familiar with Lenten practices of other churches.

Lent is not a time for giving up things which are sinful. Things which are sinful are bad for you, and should be 'given up' all the time. In other words if movies (or music) 'perpetuate sinful activity', then they should be avoided at all times, not just during Lent. One should not "avoid sin during Lent" - one should avoid sin all the time.

What many people do during Lent is to give up something which is not in itself bad. Things like chocolate, sugar, coffee or meat (all popular choices) are not bad in themselves. But abstaining from them for a time allows a person to focus more on God, to become more self-disciplined and to better identify with people who don't have the kind of resources and luxury as us. Movies or music might well fall into this category. However these choices are usually personal and not something prescribed by the church.

P.S. Some people do indeed use Lent as a starting point to give up some sinful activity they have previously been doing - but the purpose is always to continue avoiding it after Lent is over, not to go back to the sin.


Does the Catholic Church teach there is only one person?

No, in fact the Catholic Church teaches no such thing. One approach to seeing this is to understand the way the Church sees the body and soul:

The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. ... The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God ... and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 362, 366)
This implies that every human being is a separate creation with an individual soul, so that "Other people are only another physical form of yourself" is in fact false. So, indeed, is the statement that "The body we don is temporary". Our bodies, though they will die, will return at the Resurrection where they and the soul will be united eternally.
This doesn't say much directly about the mind. Aquinas, however, did deal with this. In his Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 76 Article 2, Aquinas asks "Whether the intellectual principle is multiplied according to the number of bodies", that is, whether there is just one mind, or one mind for each body. His conclusion is:

If there is one intellect ... in no way is it possible to say that Socrates and Plato are otherwise than one understanding man. And if to this we add that to understand, which is the act of the intellect, is not affected by any organ other than the intellect itself; it will further follow that there is but one agent and one action: that is to say that all men are but one "understander," and have but one act of understanding. ...
However, it would be possible to distinguish my intellectual action from yours by the distinction of the phantasms---that is to say, were there one phantasm of a stone in me, and another in you---if the phantasm itself, as it is one thing in me and another in you, were a form of the possible intellect; since the same agent according to divers forms produces divers actions. ... But the phantasm itself is not a form of the possible intellect; it is the intelligible species abstracted from the phantasm that is a form. Now in one intellect, from different phantasms of the same species, only one intelligible species is abstracted; as appears in one man, in whom there may be different phantasms of a stone; yet from all of them only one intelligible species of a stone is abstracted; by which the intellect of that one man, by one operation, understands the nature of a stone, notwithstanding the diversity of phantasms. Therefore, if there were one intellect for all men, the diversity of phantasms which are in this one and that one would not cause a diversity of intellectual operation in this man and that man. It follows, therefore, that it is altogether impossible and unreasonable to maintain that there exists one intellect for all men.

This is difficult; but essentially what he's saying is that if there were only one mind, then there would be only one "understander" and therefore only one way of understanding each thing. Everyone, then, would understand everything the same way. But this is obviously false. Therefore there is not "only one unpossessed and indivisible mind".
What your friend seems to be embracing is not Catholicism, but something a bit like Buddhism and a bit like some form of gnosticism.


What was the point of the laws written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia?

Let us try to see the whole passage in context. (All scripture quotation in NLT)

  Acts 15: 20-21 - Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain
  from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating
  the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood. 21 For these
  laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on
  every Sabbath for many generations.”

Verse 21 says the reason for the some of them/or all of the restrictions was

  "laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city
  on every Sabbath for many generations"

. Also from verse 7,  we can see this happened after "At the meeting, after a long discussion", so it is clear that this was a topic of intense debate. Other biblical evidences point to that the leadership wanted a consensus which will respect those who seek more freedom (like Paul and even Peter at Jerusalem) and those who felt much more strongly about some of Jewish Traditions (James). So it is clear that last two was added considering there are large number of Jews  and Jewish Christians around in those cities and church needed to be sensitive to their strong reservations.

There are more biblical evidences says to "abstain from eating food offered to idols and from sexual immorality". So Epistles and other part of new testament re-inforces them. But I believe the other two requirements to abstain "from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals" is applicable to the situation ONLY at the time of Acts 15, not binding now.

This line of argument  can be illustrated further from Galatians.

Galatians 2:12 explains the struggle the church had in those days.

  "When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were
  not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter
  wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism
  from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision."

So correct interpretation of what laws applicable to us is given next to that.

Galatians 2:15-16

  “You and I are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. 16 Yet
  we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ,
  not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that
  we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not
  because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right
  with God by obeying the law.”


In what order should the books of the (Protestant) Bible be read?

Reading the Bible as a story is a good way to get a lot out of it and broaden your understanding.

The narrative books in order are:

Genesis
Exodus
Numbers
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Ezra
Nehemiah
1 Maccabees
Luke
Acts

This is what T3 Bible timeline uses (which we used in our parish Religious Ed. teacher formation), and it was the first time I ever saw the bible as a cohesive story.  Everything else is still good for teaching, refutation etc... but  those 14 books have the story.

Genesis is the story of the Primordial History and the Patriarchs, Exodus - Judges is the beginning of the Mosaic law and the cohesive part of Israel.  1 Samuel - 2 Kings is Saul, David, Solomon and their awful (and occasionally good) descendents.

Ezra and Nehemiah chronicle the exile and return.

Maccabees is the story of the further persecution of the Jews a few hundred years before Christ.

Luke and Acts are the two volume set Chronicling Jesus's life and ministry and the early church.

One thing to point out which struck me as very interesting is to see the folks who show up in Luke's and Matthew's genealogies pop out at you as you work through the story of the Bible.  It makes seemingly unimportant people, like Rahab and Ruth, seem much, much more important when you get to thinking about it.


Jesus' power to forgive sins and to cure the sick

It is not true that others were given the power to forgive sins on the Earth. Only Jesus had that authority. Forgiving sins is not a power it is an authority.

Matthew 21:23 and24 KJV  And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? 24  And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

Only God himself can forgive sins, but he gave Jesus the authority to pass that forgiveness to others while on Earth. Jesus explained this relationship in the following passage:

John 5:24 through 30 KJV Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26  For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27  And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28  Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29  And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. 30  I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Before leaving Earth Jesus gave his disciples certain authority, but not the authority to forgive sins.

Luke 9:1 KJV  Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

Even Peter did not pretend to forgive sin, but professed that the authority to overcome infirmities was of Jesus.

Acts 3:6 KJV Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Acts 4:10 KJV Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Hope this helps.


What translations differ (and where) in regards to whether a text is a direct quotation of Jesus?

There is certainly disagreement over whether certain passages are direct quotes of Jesus. For example in John 3, some commentators believes that Jesus speaks the whole of the passage from verse 10 to verse 21, but other believe that Jesus' quote ends after verse 15 and the remainder is commentary written by John. There is also disagreement over whether his next quote ends at verse 30 or verse 36. Because of the absence of punctuation in the original languages there is no way to be definitive about it. The footnoes of the New International Version give some more details. (The choice has little theological significance and doesn't lessen the authority of the passages)


Mechanical Inspiration sees the writing of the Bible as God dictating to the author every word that needed to be inserted in the Bible or that the author was in some sort of trance and did not know what he was doing. God using the author has a puppet.

The view is presented in doctrines classes as a view put forward in history to explain the inerrancy or ineffability. I do not know any evangelicals who hold this position in the current day.

Current evangelicals believed that the Bible was breathed by God, but that the human author was still lucid and that he wrote with his own words, his own style. There is a miracle component to the evangelical position, but it is not mechanical inspiration.


Would Nicene Christians consider a Unitarian Baptism sufficient for entry into the Church?

Μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.

Repent and believe in the Gospel.

Mark 1:15.

Of course, this cannot be accomplished unless the Father draws a man to His Son, as it is written (John 6:44),

  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him on the last day.


What is the Biblical support for Hell as a singular concept?

This is what we know of "Hell".

It's a place of darkness

Jude 1:13 (NIV)

  They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

It's a place of torment

Luke 16:28 (NIV)

  for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

It's a place of fire

Jesus says in Matthew 13:42 (NIV)

  They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

It is eternal

Mark 9:48 (NIV)

  where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

It is separation for God

Matthew 25:41 (NIV)

  “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

God does not want you to go to Hell

John 3:17 (NIV)

  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Those are the highlights.  There are many other places that support each one of those facts.  I just picked a nice representative of each verse.


What was Adolf von Harnack's case that Priscilla wrote Hebrews?

The authorship of Hebrews cannot be known for certain, but we can know several things about the author.

The early church counted Hebrews among the letters of Paul, even though it does not bear Paul's name. Clement of Alexandria and Origen noted that the writing style did not match Paul's, but did not consider it a forgery. This indicates that they believed Hebrews contained teaching from Paul and likely was written by someone who traveled with him.
The author quotes extensively from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible) and has an extensive Greek vocabulary. This indicates a highly educated Jew who was also a Roman citizen.

The Book of Acts provides us with several names that fit this profile:

Barnabas, a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36)
Apollos, an Alexandrian Jew (Acts 18:24)
Aquila, native of Pontus (Acts 18:2)
Priscilla
Luke, the author of Acts

The original intended audience of Hebrews also may provide clues as to its authorship. Harnack (among others) suggested the original recipients were in Rome, for the following reasons:

Of all Paul's letters, Romans is the most similar to Hebrews in terms of its treatment of Jewish law and customs.
Second century Roman Christians quoted Hebrews much earlier than Christians in other locations.
The mention of the recipients' previous suffering, persecution, imprisonment, and confiscation of property (Hebrews 10:32-34) appears to be a reference to Nero's persecution of Christians after the fire in Rome.
The reference to "those from Italy send their greetings" in Hebrews 13:24 Harnack took to refer to Christians who had been exiled from Rome by Claudius (Acts 18:2)

If the letter was addressed to Roman Christians, Priscilla and Aquila are the most natural candidates for authorship. They had hosted a house church in Rome (Romans 16:3-5).

They were also known to have "explained the way of God more fully" to Apollos (Acts 18:24-26). Furthermore, the author of Hebrews sometimes uses the pronoun "I" and sometimes "we", which would make sense if Priscilla and Aquila both had a hand in organizing the material.

Finally, Harnack argued that because of the lower status given to most women in ancient times, Priscilla would have had a greater incentive to have written anonymously than any of the other possible authors. (Or alternatively, that the original recipients would have had a greater incentive to delete her name from the beginning of the letter before distributing it.)


Why is the Ark always depicted as a ship?

A lot of images of the ark do not attempt to be realistic at all, in terms of scale, but only try to give a general impression; it's also fairly common to have lots of extra windows with animal heads peeking out. (This is more fun for the artist, and lets the viewer understand what is being shown.) We see versions which are just a box; a box on top of a ship's hull; or a ship that's all one piece.

Examples:

Basilica di San Marco, Venice, 13th C. - basically a box with a roof.
Duomo di Monreale, 12th C. - box-on-a-boat. A splendid touch is the raven eating the drowned corpse of some unfortunate person - explaining why it did not return to Noah.
The Bedford Hours, BL Add MS 18850 f.13r, 15th C. - a three-story box, with proportions resembling a church nave.
Le Livre des hystoires du Mirouer du monde, BNF Français 328 f.4v, 15th C. - ship with a curved dome of wood, reminding me of a wooden blimp.
BNF Français 64 f.17r, 15th C. - same idea of a domed ship, reminds me of a flying saucer.

None of these are to scale, and realism in general is not something that the artists were trying to achieve. They want to convey that this thing is Noah's ark. They also often want to show Noah himself doing things.

The Bible doesn't say emphatically that the ark is not ship-shaped; Genesis 6 gives three dimensions, but modern ships can also be summarized by their lengths, widths and heights (perhaps also draughts) with no implication that they are boxes. In favour of the box shape, it would maximize the capacity of the ark, within the specified dimensions.

I don't have any competence in maritime engineering, so I can't speak to the seaworthiness of a big wooden box, but I'd imagine at least some of the artists involved have their doubts. Including ship-like details helps to render the whole image more acceptable, especially if the ark is being shown in a stylized way already.


What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about covenant theology?

Outline from some RCIA material on the Six Covenants

This outline is backed up by various Cathechism articles and the Catholic Encyclopedia.  I have included some of the scriptural references that I have in the notes.

The Catholic Church teaches that there are six covenants.  But first ...

What is a Covenant?

God’s Covenants are ways that he reveals Himself, and his Gifts, to His people.

  CCC 204 God revealed himself progressively and under different names to his people, but the revelation that proved to be the fundamental one for both the Old and the New Covenants was the revelation of the divine name to Moses in the theophany of the burning bush, on the threshold of the Exodus and of the covenant on Sinai.

It took a bit of explaining from our deacon to get my head around these points.  You see the Old and New Covenants referred to often, to include here in the Catechism:

  The celebrants of the heavenly liturgy
  1138 "Recapitulated in Christ," these are the ones who take part in the service of the praise of God and the fulfillment of his plan: the heavenly powers, all creation (the four living beings), the servants of the Old and New Covenants (the twenty-four elders), the new People of God (the one hundred and forty-four thousand), especially the martyrs "slain for the word of God," and the all-holy Mother of God (the Woman), the Bride of the Lamb, and finally "a great multitude which no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes, and peoples and tongues."

A Covenant (used in this older sense) can be both a Gift and a commitment
A key difference between a covenant and a simple contract is that a covenant in this older sense can be a one-way transaction; it does not hinge upon "offer and acceptance" in the way that a contract does, but for practical purposes the recipient will at least acknowledge it.
The terms Covenant and Testament in English are linked in meaning to the original Hebrew and Greek terms

  (Strong's 1242 diathḗkē (from 1223 /diá, "thoroughly," intensifying
  5087 /títhēmi, "place, set") – properly, a set-agreement having
  complete terms determined by the initiating party, which also are
  fully affirmed by the one entering the agreement).

It's meaning takes a little bit of digging to get a handle on.

  However, at an early date, the Alexandrian translators of the Scripture, known as the Septuagint, employed the word as the equivalent of the Hebrew berith, which means a pact, an alliance, more especially the alliance of Yahweh with Israel.  In St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) Jesus Christ uses the words "new testament" as meaning the alliance established by Himself between God and the world, and this is called "new" as opposed to that of which Moses was the > mediator.  (Catholic Encyclopedia, Testament)

There is the added nuance that ancient Mid-Eastern covenants could be of either a promissory or obligatory character.

The Five OT Covenants

One of the themes we had to emphasize as Catechists was that the History of The Church is The Record of the Covenants between God and Mankind.

Adam and Eve
God revealed the beginning of humanity and gave Man and Woman to each other (Gifts from God, they were to each other, in the beginning)  (Genesis, numerous passages in books 1, 2, 3)
Noah / The Flood;
The covenant/gift/Promise was to never again to wipe clean the world with a Flood (Genesis 6-9) (CCC 56-58)
Abraham
God revealed that all families on Earth would be blessed through Abraham him & his seed.
“I will multiply your descendants as the stars in the heavens.” (Exodus 32:13)
Moses
God freed His people from slavery (Exodus 5: 1). The great gifts of the Law (Ten Commandments) and The Promised Land were granted.
A Kingdom with an everlasting throne.
This covenant is associated with King David. (Isaiah 9:6-7)

In each of the above cases, the people eventually fell into sin, which is by Catholic definition "a turning away" from God.  The call would come through the prophets to repent, which means to "turn toward God" in that sense, although in Noah's case he heard a call to simply listen to and obey God, and in Abraham's his heart's call was to completely trust God.

The Prophecy that foretold the new Testament, the final Covenant, was that “The Kingdom will be re-established by The Messiah” (The anointed one).  That's linked to the fifth OT covenant.

The New Testament (also The Final Covenant)

God’s 6th (final) covenant is that God reveals Himself in “The Word, Incarnate” and in so doing gives the Gift of his only begotten Son.  (Matthew 16:15-17)  This promise, this gift, is meant for all of mankind.  (See Peter Turner's answer on the "scaling up" as the covenants progress).  The fruits of that gift are eternal life.

=================================

I had pages and pages of material on this, but that's a summary of what we  taught.


How could Jesus be born during the reign of Herod, and when Quirinius was governor of Syria, if those periods were not contemporary?

This is a fairly common question, and there is a very good answer.  A detailed answer can be found here and here.  These are some of the highlights.

It is important to note that Luke mentions that the census to which he is referring is the first census taken while Quirinius was governing.  This seems to indicate that at the time of writing, the readers would need to distinguish between multiple censuses.  Luke specifies that this was the first one.

Additionally, the term used for the ruling of Quirinius in Luke is not specific to a certain position.  So, it's quite possible that he held one position at first and then was promoted to the specific position of governor and performed a census then as well.

So, linking the census mentioned by Josephus to this first census that took place when Quirinius was in a position of governing is uncertain at best.

Being 2,000 years removed from this, our historical data and understanding are certainly not what they would have been to first century readers of Luke's account.  It is doubtful that Luke would have created such a glaring inconsistency, and if there were one, the readers of that day would surely have raised objection to it and discounted the narrative.  Indeed, there were many in that day who would have loved to expose Christianity as false, if given the chance.

Still, there is ample evidence to resolve this apparent discrepency when we pull back from the assumption that there was only one census that must be connected between Josephus and Luke, and we also understand that Luke does not specify a particular position in mentioning the governance of Quirinius.


Who are the hypocrites associated with fasting in the Didache?

It is indeed about the Pharisees. Here's what Shmuel Safrai's paper “Religion in Everyday Life" says:

  Mondays and Thursdays, which were synagogue days, when country-folk came to town and the courts sat and the Torah was read, were the favoured days for public and private fasts. People would assemble for prayer, mention the reason for the fast, as follows from a baraita in the Babylonian Talmud. Most texts which mention fasting on Mondays and Thursdays are later than 70 C. E. though some are definitely earlier. Epiphanius says that these were the days of the Pharisees’ fasts in Jesus’ time, and the Didache warns against fasting ‘along with the hypocrites’ (the Pharisees) on these days, urging for Wednesday and Friday instead. The Pharisee in Luke who boasted of his twice-weekly fasting must have meant Mondays and Thursdays. But the custom was confined to certain circles among the Pharisees and their disciples. (page 816)


Where in the Pentateuch does it indicate that it's better to sin against God than against your spiritual director?

I suspect that John Climacus has Exodus 32 in mind:1

  11 But Moses implored the Lord his God and said, “O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your offspring, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people. (ESV)

Moses could be seen here as the "spiritual director" who turns God's wrath away from his "spiritual children." On the other hand, if the Israelites anger Moses, they have no one to stand between themselves and Moses.  Thus, it is "better" to anger God, rather than the spiritual director.

Given the way John presents this, it seems doubtful that he would extend this teaching beyond this perhaps tongue-in-cheek usage.  He introduces it as something that would sound strange to his audience, and then closes by calling the two sins "the same thing." Thus, his argument seems to be: it's bad to sin against God, and it's bad to sin against your spiritual director, but at least if you sin against God, you have a spiritual director who can plead with God on your behalf.

For what it is worth, this Eastern Orthodox blogger recommends the same passage with respect this quote.


What is the history of the doctrine of inerrancy?

The doctrine of inerrancy, a salient feature of Christian Fundamentalism, was "a creation not of the 16th century Reformation but of 19th century Princeton University theologians attempting to preserve traditional belief in divine origins."1 As you can see, there is evidence for supporting the notion that the doctrine of inerrancy is a relatively new doctrine.

Infallibility refers to "the divine assistance given by Christ to the Church to teach specific doctrines without error." 2

Whereas, Indefectibility refers to "the divine assistance given to the Church to remain fundamentally faithful to the teachings of Christ, or 'there can be no wholesale departure from the teaching of Christ' even though various leaders and/or various populations in the Church may sometimes go astray. Thus, 'indefectibility' refers to the generic divine assistance that the church will remain basically faithful to the teachings of Christ over the long run, while 'infallibility' refers to the specific divine assistance for the church to teach particular fundamental doctrines without basic error." 2

Biblical inspiration results in inerrancy, 2,3 which the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes as "the attribute of the books of Scripture whereby they faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to have confided through the Sacred Scripture." 2

As you can see, there is support suggesting that the doctrine of inerrancy was originally a Catholic doctrine.

References

DOYLE, R. (2003). Sizing Up Evangelicals. Scientific American, 288(3), 37.
FORD, J. T. (2013). INFALLIBILITY--TERMINOLOGY, TEXTUAL ANALYSIS, AND THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION: A RESPONSE TO MARK POWELL. Theological Studies, 74(1), 119-128.
Gigot, F. (1907). The Bible. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 26, 2014 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm


Why were Jehovah's Witnesses holding a Memorial Service for Jesus on Tuesday, March 26 2013?

Apparently, per Wikipedia, this date corresponds to Nisan 14, converting the date from the Hebrew Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar.

I don't believe they're saying it happened on a Tuesday.  In 2012, it was a Thursday.


Why are Holy See-PLO's relations "special"?

It's special because the PLO is not a sovereign body, that is, it is not a national or supra-national body like other countries or the United Nations or European Union. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is headquartered in Rome, and is "widely considered a sovereign subject of international law" [according to a quote in Wikipedia].

Although the Palestinian National Authority was established (by the PLO) in 1994, the PLO Executive Committee performs the functions of the government of the State of Palestine. Currently, the PLO maintains a network of offices in foreign countries and also represents the PNA abroad [Wikipedia]. Thus foreign relations are maintained with the PLO rather than the Authority.

It may also be considered special because neither representative resides in the territory of the other. The PLO representative is in London, and the Apostolic Nunciature is in Tunis.


Apostle Paul in the book of Ephesians continues this thought known as the “Christocentric” principle.  This principle introduces Christ in us the hope of Glory.  To me it means that we live our lives with Christ being the center of it, and by doing so we find ourselves taking on a new life in Christ.  As Paul stated in Acts 17:28, “In Him we live, and move, and have our being.”  This life is made possible by the “indwelling” holy spirit that Jesus said he would send to us so that we could live in Him, and He in us.


How is Freemasonry related to Christianity?

Freemasonry is promotes indifferentism. Indifferentism is the heretical belief that all religions are equally legitimate attempts to explain the truth about God which, but for the truth of His existence, are unexplainable. Such a view makes all truths relative and holds that God can be equally pleased with truth and error.

Freemasonry's teachings and practices also result in syncretism which is the blending of different religious beliefs into a unified whole. This is evidenced most especially by Masonry's religious rituals which gather men of all faiths around a common altar, and place all religious writings along side the Bible on the Masonic altar.


Is Holy Absolution necessary in the Lutheran Church?

Absolution concept is found in the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Anglican churches, Lutheran churches and Methodist churches.

Lutherans practice "confession and absolution" in two forms:

The first form of confession and absolution is done at the Divine Service with the assembled congregation (similar to the Anglican tradition). Here, the entire congregation pauses for a moment of silent confession, recites the confiteor, and receives God's forgiveness through the pastor as he says the following (or similar): "Upon this your confession and in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
The second form of confession and absolution is known as "Holy Absolution", which is done privately to the pastor (commonly only upon request). Here the person confessing (known as the "penitent") confesses his individual sins and makes an act of contrition as the pastor, acting in persona Christi, announces this following formula of absolution (or similar): "In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Holy Absolution is there for people who feel they need it.


Do any Christian traditions intentionally use the name  'Yahweh'?

In Jewish tradition, speaking the name was forbidden because it was so holy that people didn't dare speak it.   This has been the case for centuries.

In essence, the idea has two aspects.  First, it was a sign of respect, and reverence for the word, that it should not pass through unclean lips.  Second, it was a fear of accidentally taking the Lord's name in vain.

There's a related question here that sheds more light on this in greater detail.  it covers a question from the Catholic perspective, but traces back to the Jewish traditions.

This article states it nicely:

  The avoidance of the original name of God both in speech and, to a
  certain extent, in the Bible was due, according to Geiger
  ("Urschrift," p. 262), to a reverence which shrank from the utterance
  of the Sublime Name; and it may well be that such a reluctance first
  arose in a foreign, and hence in an "unclean" land, very possibly,
  therefore, in Babylonia. According to Dalman (l.c. pp. 66 et seq.),
  the Rabbis forbade the utterance of the Tetragrammaton, to guard
  against desecration of the Sacred Name; but such an ordinance could
  not have been effectual unless it had met with popular approval.

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=165&letter=T#ixzz1aWpOisHS

In other words, the traditional view is that using the name is less respectful.  This would be the view I'd take, given the reverence that God expects from us when approaching Him.

Certainly, there are Christian groups that feel the opposite.  A Google search for "don't speak the name Yahweh" returned a plethora of sites from various groups that hold that not using the name is disrespectful, and even sinful.

Some prefer to use the name because they believe out of a fear that using the words "God" and "Jesus" mean that we're referring to someone else, and almost equate using any name other than the originals at idolatry.  http://newlifeonahomestead.com/2011/02/why-say-yahweh-instead-of-god-and-why-yeshua-instead-of-jesus/

Others (like this one) come to the conclusion that the meaning of God's name indicates that we are God. (That's sort of the opposite of Christianity, thought, so I don't think it counts as a "Christian" perspective.)


Why is it that God the Father is alone capitalised in the third person?

Depends on the style guide, but it is a convention to capitalize names of God.

The Chicago Manual of Style does not require it, but does acknowledge it.

If a person doesn't capitalize He in regards to Jesus or the Holy Spirit, it is probably just an unintentional slip.

Alternatively:

They could be Nestorian, and deny the divinity of Christ.
They might be Unitarian or Agnostic, and just not be sure.
Their Shift key might be possessed.
They might be anti-German, and thus hate capitalization on principle.

Or

They might have just screwed up.

"Never to attribute to malice where simple incompetence will suffice."


What is the Difference between a Heretic and a Schismatic, according Catholic and Orthodox tradition?

Heretic are they who restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure. They believe not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind. - (Summa Theologica - Second Part of the Second Part - Question 11)

Schismatics are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. It is to be noted that Schism is NOT the same as disobedience to authority. Some disobedience can be schematic in nature. But not every disobedience is a schism; In order to become Schism, along with disobedience to authority, there should be denial of Divine right of the Authority to command. Its is to be noted that because of this in Catholic and Orthodox tradition all Schismatics are Heretics too.


so few churches acknowledge singles in light of 1 Corinthians 7: 6-9 is this an oversight?

Churches/Pastors should never discriminate or cater to any specific group. This is especially true with a group that appears to be elevated in the heart of God.

The Bible speaks of a group, yes those that Paul identifies with:

  1 Corinthians 7:7,8 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I

How amazing that this group would be shunned as less significant.  It does not appear that this was always so.

  Isaiah 56:4,5 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off

Jesus speaks to this same group:

  Matthew 19:11,12 …he said unto them, "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb”.

Who are the eunuchs spoken of by Isaiah? Are they those to whom it is given, those born to live a celibate life?  Are they those like Paul, unencumbered by a physical marriage, wholly united to Christ?

This group should be elevated, set apart, and sought out for their insight into the things of God.

We are in an age where "herd mentality" is very strong and unfortunately a celibate life in an age of hyper-sexuality is not likely going to be understood.  Rest-assured, your Heavenly Father esteems those so born.


Why did Jesus not want to be known as the Messiah?

In the next verse Jesus tells of how he will have to suffer, die, and rise again.

  Matthew 16:21 NIV
  21 From that time on Jesus began to
  explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many
  things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers
  of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised
  to life.

Perhaps he did not want the people to know he was the messiah until after these things had happened.

He may also have known that he would not have much time left after people started calling him the messiah publicly.  He still had a lot of teaching left to do.

He may also wanted the people to come to the realization that he is the messiah on their own.  As it seems they did, even though he still does not state this directly at his trial.

  Matthew 26:63-64
  NIV
  63 But Jesus remained silent.

  The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living
  God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

  64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you:
  From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of
  the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”


In Catholic evening prayer, why do some days have Psalm prayers, other days do not?

The psalm prayer consists of optional prayers that may be said after each psalm. The General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours describes them as follows:

  112. Psalm-prayers for each psalm are given in the supplement to the Liturgy of the Hours, to help in understanding them in a predominantly Christian way. They may  be used in the ancient traditional way: after the psalm a period of silence is observed, then the prayer gathers up and rounds off the thoughts and inspirations of those taking part (Source: http://dariasockey.blogspot.it/2013/04/divine-office-factoid-5-perenniel-psalm.html).

They appear in the Office of Readings, Morning Prayer (Lauds), the Daytime Prayers (Terce, Sext, and None), and Evening Prayer (Vespers). They do not appear at Night Prayer (Compline).

There are a number of reasons why a psalm prayer might not appear after the recitation of a given canticle. First of all, a psalm prayer appears only after a true psalm, one of the 150 chapters of the Book of Psalms (as numbered in the Vulgate, not in the Hebrew Old Testament). Hence, they never appear after the second canticle of Lauds (which is always taken from an Old-Testament source other than the Psalms) or the third canticle of Vespers (which is always taken from the New Testament).

Second, especially in the Office of Readings and the Daytime Prayers, sometimes a psalm runs continuously, constituting two or three of the canticles. (Also Psalm 118, or 119 in the Hebrew, is so long that it is spaced out during several weeks.) In those cases, the psalm prayer is found only at the end of the complete psalm.

Since the psalm prayer is optional and not usually used in public recitation, many editions omit it altogether.

(However, the online edition on iBreviery in English, which uses the American text, does have them.)


Who documented biblical events before Moses?

This is a great question, and one might have thought that we have nothing at all to go on, except guesswork.  But actually we do have something to go on, and that is the existence of Hebrew words in early Genesis which are loan-words from other languages.
According to Robert D. Wilson, throughout most of the first five books of the Bible the predominant language from which words are loaned is Egyptian.
But there are no Egyptian loanwords in the chapters prior to the descent into Egypt.  The loanwords in the first chapters are from Babylonian and Sumerian, suggesting that either Moses simply fully incorporated something already written into Genesis or he summarised something already written - and what he included was something which had been written by an (unknown) author who lived in southern Mesopotamia/modern southern Iraq.
Personally, I think the most likely means, even the only means, by which he could have received these writings was via the Hebrew community, and they received them from Abraham.  (Even though Moses would have had access to the libraries of Egypt these would not have contained divine/prophetic literature, or even if they had contained prophetic literature it is still necessary to have a reliable witness to authenticate them.  The authenticating witness to these writings in my opinion could only be the Hebrew people.)
For more information on this look at "Foreign words in the Old Testament as an Evidence of Historicity" by Robert Dick Wilson,and scroll down to start reading from page 210.
(The English of) Hebrew words known to be of Babylonian origin are: Adam, Abel, Methusaleh, Amraphel, Chedorlaomer, Tidal, Abram, Sara, Babel, Ur, Erech, Haran, Havilah, Calah, Padan, Ninevah, Eden, Shinar, to cover with pitch, pitch, cherub, oven, to dwell, flood.
(The English of) Hebrew words known to be of Sumerian origin are: Arioch, Gihon, Pishon, Hiddekel, gopher-wood, cereal, canal.
The whole of this work by R.D. Wilson is worth studying but its not an easy read.
Foreign Words in the Old Testament as an Evidence of Historicity by Robert Dick Wilson:-
https://biblicalreadercommmunications.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/foreign20words20in20the20ot20as20evidence20of20historicity20192820ptr2026-2.pdf


What role does the Holy Ghost fill that the Father can't?

Regarding the mission (missio = a sending) of the the Divine Persons,

The Father cannot be sent:Summa Theologica I q. 43 a. 4 co.:The very idea of mission means procession from another, and in God it means procession according to origin, as above expounded (a. 1). Hence, as the Father is not from another, in no way is it fitting for Him to be sent; but this can only belong to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, to Whom it belongs to be from another.missio in sui ratione importat processionem ab alio; et in divinis, secundum originem, ut supra dictum est. Unde, cum pater non sit ab alio, nullo modo convenit sibi mitti; sed solum filio et spiritui sancto, quibus convenit esse ab alio.

The Son is sent invisibly:Summa Theologica I q. 43 a. 5 co.:The whole Trinity dwells in the mind by sanctifying grace, according to Jn. 14:23: "We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him." But that a divine person be sent to anyone by invisible grace signifies both that this person dwells in a new way within him and that He has His origin from another. Hence, since both to the Son and to the Holy Ghost it belongs to dwell in the soul by grace, and to be from another, it therefore belongs to both of them to be invisibly sent. As to the Father, though He dwells in us by grace, still it does not belong to Him to be from another, and consequently He is not sent.per gratiam gratum facientem tota Trinitas inhabitat mentem, secundum illud Ioan. XIV, ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus. Mitti autem personam divinam ad aliquem per invisibilem gratiam, significat novum modum inhabitandi illius personae, et originem eius ab alia. Unde, cum tam filio quam spiritui sancto conveniat et inhabitare per gratiam et ab alio esse, utrique convenit invisibiliter mitti. Patri autem licet conveniat inhabitare per gratiam, non tamen sibi convenit ab alio esse; et per consequens nec mitti.

Holy Ghost is sent visibly:Summa Theologica I q. 43 a. 7 co.:God provides for all things according to the nature of each thing. Now the nature of man requires that he be led to the invisible by visible things, as explained above (q. 12 a. 12). Wherefore the invisible things of God must be made manifest to man by the things that are visible. As God, therefore, in a certain way has demonstrated Himself and His eternal processions to men by visible creatures, according to certain signs; so was it fitting that the invisible missions also of the divine persons should be made manifest by some visible creatures.This mode of manifestation applies in different ways to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. For it belongs to the Holy Ghost, Who proceeds as Love, to be the gift of sanctification; to the Son as the principle of the Holy Ghost, it belongs to the author of this sanctification. Thus the Son has been sent visibly as the author of sanctification; the Holy Ghost as the sign of sanctification.Deus providet omnibus secundum uniuscuiusque modum. Est autem modus connaturalis hominis, ut per visibilia ad invisibilia manuducatur, ut ex supra dictis patet, et ideo invisibilia Dei oportuit homini per visibilia manifestari. Sicut igitur seipsum Deus, et processiones aeternas personarum, per creaturas visibiles, secundum aliqua indicia, hominibus quodammodo demonstravit; ita conveniens fuit ut etiam invisibiles missiones divinarum personarum secundum aliquas visibiles creaturas manifestarentur. Aliter tamen filius et spiritus sanctus. Nam spiritui sancto, inquantum procedit ut amor, competit esse sanctificationis donum, filio autem, inquantum est spiritus sancti principium, competit esse sanctificationis huius auctorem. Et ideo filius visibiliter missus est tanquam sanctificationis auctor, sed spiritus sanctus tanquam sanctificationis indicium.


What do Chinese Catholics call their priests?

Catholic priests are called 神父 "Shenfu" (Mandarin) or "Sunfu" (Cantonese), literally "God- father". For reference please go to http://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A5%9E%E7%88%B6; then click on English (on the left hand side) to see a (rough, not very precise) translation of the page.
Another source is myself: Chinese is my native language and this is the word I use when addressing people who are Catholic priests.


Does God lie? And does the devil tell the truth?

This is not necessarily a Catholic perspective, but I suspect the exegesis would pass muster.  (Feel free to ignore if you wish)

Faulty Premise #1: God is lying

God did not lie. In the day she ate of it, she became subject to death. Her body (and Adam's) began to decay, and went from immortality to mortality.

Additionally, she and Adam were, in fact, separated from God which is a type of death.

This question has specifically been asked, here and there is more to the explanation.

In short, most priests would disagree with the premise that God is lying.

Faulty Premise #2: The Devil is incapable of telling the truth

Although the Devil is "the Father of Lies," it does not follow that the Devil is incapable of telling truth (or at least using Truth) when it suits his purposes.  The Devil's aim is to deceive, not to lie.  He deceived Eve by suggesting that God was lying (see above) and that God was withholding something "good" from her.  Neither was the case.

In general, it is often said that every lie contains a truth, if only so that someone will believe it.  If I knew that everything the Devil said was false, for example, I could always discern the truth by negating what he said.  Simple Logic - Everything A becomes !A.  Ergo truth.  Again, not the Devil's problem.  The Devil merely deceives and destroys. If he can use accuracy to get there, he will use it.

I have little doubt that a Priest would agree with me on this.

Faulty Premise #3: Honesty is the supreme value

(Here is where I become a Protestant again), the highest duty of man is to love.  As this question shows, our duty is to love.

When the Nazis were clearing the Ghetto, they might have asked, "Are there any Jews here?"  A Christian could rightly "lie" and say "No," simply by re-framing the question in higher terms - "Are there any Jews here whom we may kill?"  No, you may not kill them, since love bids me to protect them. If I must lie, then that too is a sin - but being unloving is worse.

Again, here, I suspect that most RC Priests would accept this premise, but I defer to Roman Catholics to weigh in on that.

In summary, God isn't lying, the Devil is still deceiving even when he appears to be telling the truth, and we are under no obligation to answer deception in the terms handed to us.


Were Catholics originally offended by the Sacred Heart?

By the 1796 Janenism, which disdained devotion to the Sacred Heart, was very roundly condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei one paragraph stated:

  The doctrine which rejects devotion to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus among the devotions which it notes as new, erroneous, or at least, dangerous; if the understanding of this devotion is of such a sort as has been approved by the Apostolic See,—false, rash, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Apostolic See.

So, prior to this, in the nearly 8 centuries of practicing the devotion in the Church, there may have been some who said made a big todo about those who over-did it.  Jansenists, who started as a movement within the Catholic Church, were certainly among them.  They'd say that it's inappropriate to worship a portion of Jesus, especially a wholly material and fleshy part.

But seriously, in reading through the Catholic Encyclopedia article and not finding one condemnation of suspicion of the authentic devotion.  I doubt that the cult was ever suppressed (if that's the right thing to say about Our Lord) like it might be for some saint of dubious origin or some aesthetic practice taken too far.


What is the significance of the message “every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” in 2 Corinthians 13:1?

Since Paul was coming to deal with a sinning church member, he is back referencing Jesus' command on dealing with sins in the church in Matthew 18:

  But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

Which is itself a reference to Deuteronomy 19:15:

  A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.

Paul is reiterating that while he "knows" there is sin in the church, even as an Apostle of Jesus, he won't cast a man out on hearsay: it must be confirmed in the proper process.


According to Molinism, what is the meaning of a counterfactual of freedom?

The confusion may arise from the way you've stated the view.  A clearer version might be:

"If person P experienced circumstances C, she would freely choose to perform action A."

This doesn't mean that P must choose A, it means that P will freely choose A.  If P were to freely choose not-A, then God would know something different from eternity, namely P will choose not-A, given C.

An example: if you offered your friend the opportunity to freely choose to stick his hand in a pot of boiling water for the fun of it, you
"know" (really "assume", since you're not omniscient) that he would never do so.  The Molinist view is similar, but stronger. Since God knows all things infallibly, he knows with absolute certainty what you would freely do in all possible circumstances, not just the extreme, boiling water contrivances.

An excellent (and short) book on this topic is The Only Wise God:  The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom  by Dr. William Lane Craig.


Before anything was created, did God already know the events that would unfold?

The Bible indicates that God is eternal and outside of time.  As we understand from science, time, space, and matter all came into existence at once.  The Creator of time, space, and matter must of necessity be outside of time, space, and matter.  God reveals in the Scriptures that He is eternal (outside of time) and He is spirit (outside of space and matter).

Learning or growing in knowledge takes place inside of time, so, in a way, this concept is irrelevant to a Being who is outside of time.

Psalm 139 seems to indicate that God's knowledge includes what we will do in the future:

  Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it
  altogether.  Psalm 139:4 ESV

It also indicates that God was able to see what was yet unformed, and that every one of our days was written in a book before we were born.

  Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every
  one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was
  none of them.  Psalm 139:16 ESV

So, a very common position is that God has always known everything.  His knowledge has never grown, but has always been complete and infinite.

As one person questioned, "Has it ever occurred to you that nothing has ever occurred to God?"

This doctrine is one that provides us with exceedlingly abundant comfort, because it means that God will never be surprised at our failures.  There will never be a time when God gets buyer's remorse when our sins become greater than he originally anticipated.  His salvation accounts for all of our sins that we will ever commit--even sins we didn't know we would commit--from the very beginning.  He drew us to Himself knowing full well how frequently and how great we would fail and continue in our sin.


Is it ever possible to tell the purpose-driven purpose (in general sense) of a respected distressed disabled person?

[Isaiah 43:5-7] Fear not; for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back; bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the end of the earth; every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory; I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

The purpose of life is to live for the glory of God. So all things and people, that include man and women, healthy and sick, young and old are created to glorify God, there is no other purpose.

[1 Corinthians 10:31] Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
[1 Corinthians 6:20] For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Now we can ask, How we can glorify God?

[Romans 3:10-18] as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one: Their throat is an open sepulchre; With their tongues they have used deceit: The poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood;Destruction and misery are in their ways;And the way of peace have they not known:There is no fear of God before their eyes.

We can't
The only way we can glorify God is through Jesus Christ

[John 14:6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Now that we are in Christ, this is how

[1 Peter 1:16] because it is written, Ye shall be holy; for I am holy.

Being Holy, that is

[1 Thessalonians 5:14-22] And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be longsuffering toward all. See that none render unto any one evil for evil; but alway follow after that which is good, one toward another, and toward all. Rejoice alway; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus to you-ward. Quench not the Spirit; despise not prophesyings; prove all things; hold fast that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.


What does the Bible say about the appearance of angels?

The Bible has many descriptions of angels, and in some cases they obviously appear as men, because they are mistaken for men.

The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.” “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but if the LORD is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, ‘Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the LORD has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.” Judges 6:11-13
...
Then the angel of the LORD touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of the staff that was in his hand. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the LORD disappeared. When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the LORD, he exclaimed, “Alas, Sovereign LORD! I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face!” Judges 6:21-22 emphasis mine

Other passages describe angels in a variety of different ways.  Ezekiel presents one of the stranger

I looked, and I saw beside the cherubim four wheels, one beside each of the cherubim; the wheels sparkled like topaz. As for their appearance, the four of them looked alike; each was like a wheel intersecting a wheel. As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the cherubim faced; the wheels did not turn about as the cherubim went. The cherubim went in whatever direction the head faced, without turning as they went. Their entire bodies, including their backs, their hands and their wings, were completely full of eyes, as were their four wheels. I heard the wheels being called “the whirling wheels.” Each of the cherubim had four faces: One face was that of a cherub, the second the face of a human being, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle. Ezekiel 10:9-14

I can't recall (and a quick search doesn't turn up) any biblical description of an angel that actually includes the elements of most of their art, a human form with wings and a halo.


The argument for Cessationalism tends to be empirical rather Biblical.

While there is significant evidence for glossalia in the NT writings (it is mentioned heavily), by the time of the Church Fathers  (1 Clement, Didache, Polycarp, etc...), the evidence is scant.
During most of recorded church theology (everything from say, Origin, Jerome, etc... to the Azusa Street Revival in 1900, this gift seems to have largely bypassed written record.
This is often excused / explained by the idea that the gift of prophecy and miracles was superceded by the written Word of God.  Another idea is that the gifts were no longer being used for their intended purpose.

The presence of miracles in Jesus' testimony, for example, was clearly given "in order that you might believe" (see Mark 2:8, Matt 17:26) and not for show (e.g. Luke 11:28-32). In Acts 2, the toungues were given as a miracle to substantiate the authority of the Apostles (those who would be 'sent out'). But, as Paul indicates in 1 Cor 12, the showy gifts like toungues and prophecy were causing divisions amongst believers.

As mentioned by Software Monkey, Pentecostal churches explicitly reject Cessationalism.  The aforemention Azusa Street Revival (and modern manifestations such as the Toronto Blessing) are, for the Penetcostal movement, the evidence of their legitimacy.  The term, of course, refers to the contrary position held by non-Pentecostals.


Do Protestants believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?

Good question with a simple answer: No. Categorically no.

All mainline Protestants (and actually most branches of Christianity including Catholic and Orthodox) believe that they are radically different. "Categorically" different if I may overload that word.

Jesus is God.

Son of God in that he is the "son" part of the Trinity, but the very person of God, not a separate being.
Satan is a created being.

As an angel or archangel or whatever (the nuances of what sort of creature he is vary between traditions) he is in every way separate from and subordinate to God. There is no relation or lineage, and he is not himself a God.

Furthermore Protestants (and again most Christian groups) believe that God's work of creation was done through the person of Jesus per Colossians and others:

  The Preeminence of Christ

  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

  (Colossians 1:15-17 ESV)

Satan would fall in the one of the categories above (e.g. "thrones" or "dominions"). In other words: Jesus created Satan. They are not on a level.


Are Many Christians postmodern in their approach to modesty?

With all due respect, to compile the entire Christian community into a composite entity and then direct the question at that entity is at best unfair. To be a Christian certainly involves always being cognizant of the image that one is projecting to others in their daily life, and to that end a Postmodern stance on one's level of modesty is contrary to the teachings of Christ. Do some Christians reflect a Postmodern preference of modesty? Of course. Do some Christians consciously value humility instead? Most definitely. It's no different for any other religion. This really comes down to a case-by-case basis and can't be applied to the Christian collective.


The ‘lake of fire’ is a final progression of the theological development of God’s judgment. The ‘lake of fire’ is a final ‘hell’ which is a New Testament description of the more generic realm of the dead previously called ‘Hades or Sheol’, in the Old Testament. The Greek Old Testament uses Hades ( ᾅδης ) for the Hebrew name Sheol ( שְׁאוֹל). To fully understand the ‘lake of fire’ we need to trace the meaning of God’s judgment as ‘fire’ in the Old Testament and relate how it pertains to Sheol/Hades and Hell.

Sheol/Hades in the Bible is similar but not exactly the same as that found in ancient pagan philosophy.  Sheol is basically the grave with its unknown disembodied life beyond it. Originally, the idea from the lack of any further clarity is without any revelatory definition in the Bible. Like many biblical doctrines the subject is progressively revealed. In this original undefined idea, both the good and the evil went to that ‘unknown/unrevealed world’:

  before I go—and I shall not return— to the land of darkness and deep shadow, the land of gloom like thick darkness, like deep shadow without any order, where light is as thick darkness. (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Job 10:21–22).)

Sheol was perceived as a place beneath the Ocean where ‘the dead tremble under the waters’ Job 26:5.

It is tempting to resist and admission to the ancient understanding of what we now call hell, because it assigned both the good and the evil to it as well as imagined silly geographical elements, which may have even been related to the view of the earth ad the center of the universe. For these and many more reasons it seems contrary to the New Testament teaching. In the New Testament the division between paradise and hell is spelled out more clearly. This was not a result of progression in human thought but as result of further revelation from God himself. On one hand Death was basically an obscure unknown in the Old Testament, therefore speculation of unrevealed details would naturally be only a little better than current Greek pagan philosophy. On the other hand the trajectory of revelation progression from God, and not from human development, included solid hints at the resurrection, such as the disappearance of Enoch, or the necessary implications of the hope of salvation whereby a return to paradise in Eden was anticipated. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that God as he unfolds heavenly matters to humans, who in turn conjecture and imagine things along the way, to at time allude to those same half-baked speculations in further extruding his doctrines to us in clarities never imagined by the human heart.  This is essentially what happens at the time of Christ, for in between the last book of the Old Testament and the Gospels; popular rabbinical writings had already speculated a great del about paradise and the idea of Sheol was becoming more and more a concept that included only the wicked. Somehow speculation about the unknown was to a certain degree scripturally inspired and sanctified and extended by Jesus himself into a modern New Testament higher definition.

At the time of Christ Hades was still referred to, for example in Luke 16:23, where the rich man is there in Hades, while Lazarus is like a child in the lap of Abraham. Also, when Peter made his confession the ‘gates of Hades’ could not stand against the church. Clearly Hades has become another name for hell where only the disembodied wicked live. While paradise is the place for the disembodied righteous, such as the place where the thief next to Jesus on the cross was to go that ‘very same day.’ However, Jesus often referred to hell under different imagery that moves beyond the general abstract notion of Hades. Jesus often referred to hell as a fiery place called “Gehenna”. Hades was also considered to be a place of ‘fire’ but Gehenna amplifies the fiery aspect.

  “Gehenna” (Hebrew “Hinnom”), the name of a valley south of Jerusalem. The valley was noted in the OT period for the abomination of child sacrifices (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; 23:10) and in the NT period for its smoldering garbage. (Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (592).)

The Lake of fire is essentially the final development of the concept of the judgment of Gehenna. We can imagine hell as temporary steam of fiery judgments, which will flow into the final basin.  It is a full lake of hell, meaning there is no further judgment to occur, as it is complete and endless without any adjustments. It is ‘forever and ever’ that the wicked will be burdened under a full awareness of their just desert and where the ‘weeping and gnashing’ of their ‘teeth’ (a cliché for sorrow and angry frustration) due to being eternally separated from the creator is forever felt.

If we trace the imagery of fire using Sodom and Gomorrah as well as the altar of the temple court we find that it represents God’s eternal judgment on sin. The lake of fire includes ‘brimstone’ and so we find one of the very first lively ideas of the lake of fire in his destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, for we see ‘the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens’ (Gen 19:24). In addition according to Jude, Sodom is to be understood as ‘eternal’, for hose that died under that fire ‘serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire’ (Jude 7). Then again, God is in himself and his own just nature the ‘consuming fire’. (Heb 12:29).  We see it everywhere in the Old Testament for in the daily practice of the altar ceremonies, justice punishes sin in the ‘fire’ upon the sacrifices.  ‘Fire’ was God’s anger inflicting judicial punishment upon the sinner, or more correctly, the animal in the sinners place. This occurred every day in the temple.

In the prophetic books we find further supporting evidence of the New Testament high definition view of the lake of fire. In Isaiah we see the phrase that Jesus commonly referred to in his parables:

  “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 ,Is 66:24)

In Daniel 7:10 ‘A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him’. That is Christ is seated on a throne and the lake of fire is that body of fire flowing out from his throne to judge his enemies. (As an aside, to maintain information of pagan thoughts that scripture is still free to borrow when beneficial in extruding it doctrine out from the elements of knowledge within men’s understanding, this imagery has a specific parallel to another Greek idea of a ‘river of fire’ beneath the earth that emptied out into a lake called Tartarus, which is also referred to by ‘hell’ in 2 Peter 2:4)

In summary, the ‘lake of fire’ is that final development of the concept of eternal death under the punishment of God. Sin, death, hell, devils, sinners and all the garbage that Jews used to throw into Gehenna ‘for burning’ will forever rest in a broad final ‘lake’ flowing out of God’s eternal throne of judgment. The fact that is also has brimstone in it, indicates the original horror and ‘stench to the senses’ of that molten fire that rained down on Sodom. ‘Brimstone’ or ‘sulfur’ is that rock that slowly burns and melts making a rotten egg like smell. It does not sound good.  What this fire is, in terms of literal location, experience and suffering is not even slightly indicated in the Bible. We are to read between the lines of the images and humbly accept that we can only vainly imagine. However, as the wicked are resurrected with ‘spiritual bodies’, analogous to the ones we have on earth, it seems that the wicked will at a minimum have bodies that can endure this punishment whatever it is. The wicked are raised to pay for their sin and they must have bodies capable for the task. A human body would probably collapse just at the thought of approaching God’s throne let alone understanding, accepting and paying with full regret for a wasted life. This is truly a prophecy of warning concerning the end of the world for those outside of Christ. At the same time is a great comfort to those who are in Christ, for whose name they suffer the hatred of the world. He who has an ear to hear…


Why the wrongness of "Our Father" translation wasn't spotted earlier?

The Our Father has not been wrongly translated.

It is Catholic dogma of the highest degree (de fide) that there are no errors in Holy Scripture, and the 4th Session of the Council of Trent defined the dogma that St. Jerome's Vulgate translation—which says in both Mt. 6:13 and Lk. 11:4: "et ne nos inducas in tentationem" ("lead us not into temptation")—is "free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals," as Pope Pius XII later summarized Trent's dogma.

Read St. Thomas Aquinas's Expositio in orationem dominicam a. 6 for an explanation of "and lead us not into temptation," specifically:

  But does God lead one to evil, that he should pray: "Lead us not into temptation"? I reply that God is said to lead a person into evil by permitting him to the extent that, because of his many sins, He withdraws His grace from man, and as a result of this withdrawal man does fall into sin.


Why is Saint Paul considered gnostic? (by some)

It seems as though many that assert the possibility are either looking at why the Gnostics believed that Paul was a member of such, as Pagels, they are not Christian, as Massey, or are either mysticism or on the periphery of accepted or mainstream Christianity.

Pseudo-Apocrypha like The Apocalypse of Paul  and other Gnostic documents from Nag Hammadi seem to sway non-conventional or liberal leaning theologies to consider the possibility of Pauls Gnosticism.

  What Muhammad 'All discovered at Nag Hammadi is, apparently, a library of writings, almost all of them gnostic. Although they claim to offer secret teaching, many of these texts refer to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and others to the letters of Paul and the New Testament gospels. Many of them include the same  dramatic personae as the New Testament--Jesus and his disciples. Yet the differences are striking.

  Orthodox Jews and Christians insist that a chasm separates humanity from Its creator: God is wholly other. But some of the gnostics who wrote these gospels contradict this: self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical.
  - Pagels

In the Tekton article you listed Pagel even declines to declare if Paul is or is not gnostic.

  Was Paul actually a Gnostic? The idea is taken seriously by no one in NT scholarship today; even Elaine Pagels, the Gnostic-promoter premier, declines in her book The Gnostic Paul to say yea or nay to whether Paul was actually a Gnostic, instead concentrating on how the Gnostics interpreted Paul's letters.
  - Tekton Apologetics

I would struggle to take Freke & Gandy, authors of 'The Jesus Mysteries: Was The Original Jesus A Pagan God?' as serious Christian theologians and would classify them more toward mysticism.

As for the Apocalypse of Paul, Augustine considered it bunk.

  St. Augustine laughs at the folly of some who had forged an Apocalypse of Paul, full of fables, and pretending to contain the unutterable things which the apostle had heard. This is, I doubt not, our book.
  - (Aug. on John, Tract 98.)

The 'Nazirene'  seems to be in the fringe and misrepresents Origins "Gospel  of God" as support for Paul's 'mysteries, of God.  Origen in fact fought against the gnostic heresies.

Massey, I believe I could say is not a Christian because he believes it is a myth and our gospels as a product of Gnosticism.

  It has been shown in previous lectures that the matter of our Canonical Gospels is, to a large extent, mythical, and that the Gnosis of Ancient Egypt was carried into other lands by the underground passage of the Mysteries, to emerge at last as the literalised legend of Historic Christianity.
  - Massey

So, as far as the scripture verses you listed above, personally I don't see a gnostic connection with the Ephesians verse.  The 1 Corinthians verse and others, if taken in context with all of Paul's writing and the totality of all of scripture, would not justify a gnostic connection either.

The answer to your question would be then that the reason 'some' believe Paul was a Gnostic is due to using non-canonical writings, non credible resources, or taking Pauls words out of context.  When theologians such as Augustine, Tertullian, Origin, etc. discredit inferences of any Gnostic bent of the Apostle Paul I've yet to see credible commentary on the contrary.  If I read some commentary from credible, even critical sources I may alter my answer.


What is the scriptural evidence for Satan "taking hold" of Christians' minds or implanting/whispering thoughts?

I love Acts 5 (verse 3):

  Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your
  heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself
  some of the money you received for the land? ...

Peter clearly implies agency of Satan here, and apparently, Ananias and Sapphira, while not necessarily believers, were held in that esteem by the early church.  I would consider this an incidence of Satan directly prompting actions of believers.

This sounds to me like an instance of implanting new thoughts.  I believe this to be the most Biblical supported concept (no quotes as it's a holistic view).


Is "There's more sanctity in a dog's loyalty than there is in all your human laws." a quote from the Holy Bible?

"There's more sanctity in a dog's loyalty than there is in all your human laws."

The above quote is not of biblical origin and can not be found in Scripture.

References to dogs in the bible are extremely rare. Most are in an unfavourable light, but not all.

In the Book of Tobit, ”man’s best friend” accompanies Tobiah on his journey to Media.

  Tobit's dog appears only twice (in 6:2 and 11:4) and plays no role in the story (actually he accompanies Tobias, Tobit's son). Like many dogs, he just shows up whenever something seems to be going on. This little detail has greatly exercised the commentators, and even now no one seems to know how the dog got into the story. - Tobit's Dog

Even family pets eating scraps is a ancient custom since immemorial times. Even Jesus talked about it:

  21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

  23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

  24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

  25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

  26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

  27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

  28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment. - Matthew 15:21-28

The most macabre dog story can be found in 2 Kings 9: 30-37:

  30 And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window.

  31 And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace, who slew his master?

  32 And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on my side? who? And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs.

  33 And he said, Throw her down. So they threw her down: and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses: and he trode her under foot.

  34 And when he was come in, he did eat and drink, and said, Go, see now this cursed woman, and bury her: for she is a king's daughter.

  35 And they went to bury her: but they found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands.

  36 Wherefore they came again, and told him. And he said, This is the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel:

  37 And the carcase of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel; so that they shall not say, This is Jezebel.

Queen Jezebel Being Punished by Jehu, by Andrea Celesti

  9I will make the house of Ahab like the houses of Jeroboam son of Nebat and Baasha son of Ahijah. 10And the dogs will eat Jezebel on the plot of ground at Jezreel, and there will be no one to bury her.’” Then the young prophet opened the door and ran away. 11When Jehu went out to the servants of his master, they asked, “Is everything all right? Why did this madman come to you?” “You know his kind and their babble,” he replied.… - 2 Kings 9:10

To be called a dog is to be considered of low status. I guess it is not a compliment to say the least.

  There is evidence in the Bible that physical violence toward dogs was considered acceptable (1 Samuel 17:43; Proverbs 26:17). To compare a human to a dog or to call them a dog was to imply that they were of very low status (2 Kings 8:13; Exodus 22:31; Deuteronomy 23:18; 2 Samuel 3:8; Proverbs 26:11; Ecclesiastes 9:4; 2 Samuel 9:8; 1 Samuel 24:14). In the New Testament, calling a human a dog meant that the person was considered evil (Philippians 3:2 ["Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." (KJV)]; Revelation 22:15). - No, No, Bad Dog: Dogs in the Bible


What is a Catholic's response to advice contained in Laudatio Si?

Since you distinguish "practical advice" from "theological aspects of everything", the latter by which I think you mean "faith & morals" [the competency of the pope], then by CCC 891 & 892, this does not require adherence to with the obedience of faith or religious assent.

Since the Pope is Father, good children listen with profound respect to even the simplest advice of the common Father and try sincerely to put it into practice. [cf. In Conversation with God, 68.3, Francis Fernandez, Fourth Sunday of Easter, THE GOOD SHEPHERD. LOVE FOR THE POPE.]

Assuming of course, just as in the case of an earthly father, that the practical advice is good.

The Pope is also Pastor, and provided he speaks in the name of the Good Shepherd, the sheep will hear his voice, if not, the sheep will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers. [Cf. Jn 10:1-6]

Cf. Encyclical Ghostwriter: Pope Francis 'Did Not Intend to Canonize' Scientific Theories, by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D..


What is the relation of Jesus's and Jonah's boat stories?

Published commentaries, with insights
The stories of Jonah and Jesus in boats are quite similar, so the question becomes one of whether the story of Jonah in some way prefigures that of Jesus or whether the story of Jesus calming the storm was substantially based on the story of Jonah.
Many commentaries that find prefigurement in the Book of Jonah really only focus on the three days Jonah spent in the belly of a whale as a prefigurement of the Resurrection, suggesting that these authors do not find the parallels with Jonah 1:4-5 to be very compelling. One such example is An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels (pages 156, 354) by Frederick James Murphy.
Hahn, Mitch and Walters (Gospel of Matthew: Ignatius Study Bible, page 38) describe Jesus as the new Jonah, not only because he calmed a storm but even more so because his three days in a whale prefigured Jesus' three days in the tomb.
Alonzo L. Gaskill (Miracles of the New Testament: A Guide to the Symbolic Messages) lists the parallels between the two miracles and finds them strong and obvious, but reaches no conclusion.
The first New Testament gospel to be written was Mark's Gospel, so  Timothy Keller (King's Cross: The Story of the World in the Life of Jesus) looks to Mark for an explanation. He says that Mark has deliberately laid out his account using language that is parallel, almost identical, to that in Jonah. Although Jesus is not tossed into the sea, as was Jonah, he says that Mark is showing that the stories are not actually different when you stand back a bit.
Robert M. Price says in The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems, page 80, that Jonah 1:4-6 forms the basis for Mark 4:35-41, with elaboration via Psalm 107:23-29. He cites Dennis R. MacDonald in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, pages 68, 174-175, as identifying a parallel between Mark 4:35-41 and Odyssey 10:1-69, with particular reference to Jesus' rebuke of the disciples (4:40) and the puzzling "there were also with him other little ships" (4:36).  In copying from Mark, the author of Matthew omitted the reference to the other boats accompanying them.