According to Mormons, why did God make Eve's childbearing painful?

While there may not be a direct answer, that is specifically answered in LDS (Mormons) doctrine, there are a few that together may provide an answer. The LDS have a strong belief in opposites.

2 Nephi 2:11

  For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

The LDS also believe in having children and that they are a blessing. Elder Neil L. Anderson said:

  It is a crowning privilege of a husband and wife who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for these spirit children of God. We believe in families, and we believe in children.1

The LDS understand that pain is part of being mortal2.

But like everything pain has it's opposite: joy, happiness, etc (which come later). (in my words)

On intense pain Elder Robert D. Hales said:

  In the past two years, I have waited upon the Lord for mortal lessons to be taught me through periods of physical pain, mental anguish, and pondering. I learned that constant, intense pain is a great consecrating purifier that humbles us and draws us closer to God’s Spirit.3

See also:

The Family - A Proclamation to the World

Opposition in All Things

1 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/children?lang=eng

2 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/the-sanctity-of-the-body?lang=eng

3 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/healing-soul-and-body?lang=eng

Emphasis added by me


Proverbs 1:4-5 tells us his audience:

  4 for giving prudence to those who are simple, knowledge and
  discretion to the young— 5 let the wise listen and add to their
  learning, and let the discerning get guidance—

They were written to the "simple," which the NIV defines as "The Hebrew word rendered simple in Proverbs denotes a person who is gullible, without moral direction and inclined to evil." They are also directed to the "young," "wise," and "discerning."

In 2:1, 3:1, 6:1, 7:1, Solomon addresses "My son," and in 4:1, "Hear, my children" (or "sons," depending on the translation).

Chapter 30 includes proverbs written by "Agur the son of Jakeh," and were declared to "Ithiel and Ucal" (30:1).

Chapter 31 was written by "King Lemuel" (31:1) and he addresses "my son" (31:2) and kings and princes (31:4).


Do people of different denominations think that the others are going to go to hell for holding false views?

I currently belong to an Independent Baptist church, and my answer is one that my Pastor would echo.

We do not believe that Christians from other denominations are going to Hell because of their denominational affiliation.  We do not believe that all Baptists will go to heaven, either.

What we believe is what the Bible teaches, which is that ANYONE who does not receive Christ and accept His free gift of salvation are going to hell. Not because of what they believe, but because of their rejection of the free gift. (John 3:18)

The split between denominations primarily appears to be differences in interpretation of the Bible.  The book Handbook of Denominations in the United States does a fair and unbiased job of examining the differences.

However, of course, there are splits that are caused by a struggle for power.  The Church of England comes to mind.  (Quote from this article below:)

  Prompted by a dispute over the annulment of the marriage of Henry
  VIII, the Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church
  in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy, beginning a series of events known
  as the English Reformation.


What is the basis for forbidding prerecorded music in worship services?

Clear statements against the use of prerecorded music have been made by the National Association of Pastoral Musicians ("On the Use of Pre-Recorded Music in the Liturgy") and Paul S. Jones (Singing and Making Music).  Both emphasize two arguments:

Authentic worship requires active participation
Recordings are static and inflexible

Authentic worship through participation
The first argument, that recorded music implies inauthentic worship, rests on the idea that both musicians and congregation should be participants in worship.  The NAPM writes:

The liturgy is a complex of signs expressed by living human beings.  Music, being preeminent among those signs, ought to be 'live.' [...] [Recorded music] should, as a general norm, never be used within the liturgy to replace the congregation, the choir, the organist, or the instrumentalist.

Paul Jones sees recordings as a sort of "worship by proxy":

Playing a recording does not truthfully represent the real people in the church who should be offering the music.  It imports commercial players from a static moment in time, from a recording studio that is likely many miles away.  It is like hiring an agency to worship in our stead.

Recordings are static
The second major issue seen with prerecorded music in the worship service is its rigidity.  Jones argues that recordings lack the "flexibility, subtlety, and choice" that makes music "organic" as opposed to a "single performance trapped in time." The NAPM's statement develops the argument further:

Just as the homilist must hear the Word of God and proclaim it with a knowledge and understanding of the community, so too is the musician to lead the assembly's song with a sensitivity both to the text and to the particular assembly that is singing.  Different times and seasons affect the way that a particular piece of music is to be sung.  Tempo and volume or accompaniment may vary according to the size of the assembly.  The different thoughts and moods expressed in a hymn call for different ways of accompanying and leading the congregation from verse to verse.  Pre-recorded music cannot take any of these factors into account.

Develop instead of replace
To those who argue that prerecorded accompaniments are necessary to supplement the live musicians or mask their deficiencies, Jones argues that the worship of God requires that "if we can do better, we should," and therefore calls for an emphasis on development of musicians:

Use your musicians and provide training and encouragement to those who need it.  Do not mask the lack of tone or diction in your choir with backup vocals on an accompaniment CD.  Build up the choir instead.  If you do not know how, consult with someone who does.  Any choir can improve.

Summary
Advocates of live music in worship services argue that authentic worship requires active participation, and that it is hindered by the rigidity of recordings.  Development of musicians, rather than replacement of them, is part of understanding the role of music in the worship service:

Because the liturgy is an encounter between the God of Life and the human beings created in God's image, its modes of expression ought to be authentic expressions of living persons. (NAPM)

National Association of Pastoral Musicians, "On the Use of Pre-Recorded Music in the Liturgy" (July 12, 1991).  Published in Pastoral Music, October–November 1996, 51
Paul S. Jones, Singing and Making Music (2006), 51–55.


Did Calvin and Luther believe in free will?

Yes Luther denied we had the ability to choose to respond affirmatively to the Gospel and so save ourselves. He held that it was only through God's intervention that we could be saved. God had to convert a person through the Word, by means of the Holy Spirit changing our hearts and leading us to embrace Christ as our Saviour, in order for us to be saved. This wasn't something in our power to achieve since we had been corrupted by the sin of our first parents and could only reject the Gospel and oppose God. Also in order to be saved God must first elect to save us from eternity and predestine us to believe. This was Luther's position as found in his book “The Bondage of the Will”. Luther also explained his position in his Table Talk where for instance he says:

  Ah, Lord God! why should be boast of our free-will, as if it were able to do anything ever so small, in divine and spiritual matters? when we consider what horrible miseries the devil has brought upon us through sin, we might shame ourselves to death. For, first, free-will led us into original sin, and brought death upon us: afterwards, upon sin followed not only death, but all manner of mischiefs, as we daily find in the world, murder, lying, deceiving, stealing, and other evils, so that no man is safe the twinkling of an eye, in body or goods, but always stands in danger. And, besides these evils, is afflicted with yet a greater, as is noted in the gospel—namely, that he is possessed of the devil, who makes him mad and raging. We know not rightly what we become after the fall of our first parents; what from our mothers we have brought with us. For we have altogether, a confounded, corrupt, and poisoned nature, both in body and soul; throughout the whole of man is nothing that is good. This is my absolute opinion: he that will maintain that man’s free-will is able to do or work anything in spiritual cases be they never so small, denies Christ. This I have maintained in my writings, especially in those against Erasmus, one of the learnedest men in the whole world, and thereby will I remain, for I know it to be the truth, though all the world should be against it; yea, the decree of Divine Majesty must stand fast against the gates of hell… (CCLXII, Table Talk, translated by William Hazlitt)


What do Catholics think of the Philokalia?

The Catholic Church has no problem with the Philokalia; it is a legitimate mystical text in the Eastern Christian tradition. Eastern Catholics make use of it all the time. (I am not aware of any official pronouncement by the Magisterium, but all of the authors are well regarded monks.)

As far as mysticism in the Western Church, there is not a “single” work, but there is long tradition of mysticism. For example, among many others works, there is the following:

El castillo interior (The Interior Castle) of St. Theresa of Avila.
The works of St. John of the Cross.
The works of St. Hildegard of Bingen.
The works of St. Bernard of Clairvaux.
Many works inspired by the writings of (Pseudo)-Dionysius the Areopagite, including the anonymous Cloud of Unknowing.


What is the Biblical Basis of a "water canopy", and is there scientific evidence to support it?

In Genesis 7:11, we read:

  11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

The implication here is that water came from two directions - springs from the deep (i.e. underground water) and from above (the floodgates of heaven).  Extending the metaphor ever so slightly, a floodgate is holding something back - according to the Institute for Creation Research, that is the canopy.

The Institute for Creation Research has published this paper to explain the physics behind it:

This study, however explains some of the problems. Amongst these problems:

A water canopy of more than about 40 feet would, by the pressure, boil itself away
A water canopy of more than a few inches would also block all the sunlight.

In the link, however, the paper argues that these problems are not insurmountable depending on the assumptions made about the canopy, but I'll admit, it gets a little stretched for my tastes.


Can the gloria and sanctus be replaced at the Mass with some other hymn or song?

General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2003):

53. The Gloria is a very ancient and venerable hymn in which the Church, gathered together in the Holy Spirit, glorifies and entreats God the Father and the Lamb. The text of this hymn may not be replaced by any other text.


Were other sins possible in the paradise?

Adam and Eve were given only one restriction but they were also given a few instructions.  They were to "tend and dress" the garden, and they were to multiply and replenish the earth.  Failure to do these things would also have been contrary to the word of God and thus a sin.

Eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the only sin that carried a promised punishment; "in that day you shall surely die".

There existed, certainly, many other evil things that should not have been done in the garden.  Adam must not kill Eve.  But there was no need to give that sort of instruction since he had not yet been influenced by Satan and had not learned to kill, to lie, to hate, etc.  These sins would have been a possibility for you and I but not for Adam who was in a state of innocence.


Why did Huldrych Zwingli oppose music in the worship service?

There were several reasons that Zwingli would oppose the use of instruments and singing in worship. One was that Zwingli was against was the RCC's view that tradition was higher than Scripture. Zwingli was a Reformer and was just as much a proponent of sola scriptura as Calvin and Luther would have been. However, Zwingli would take it a step further than both of them to say, in an attempt to distance the Reformed Church from the Catholic Church, that any form of worship that wasn't directed or commanded for the church to perform should not be performed within the bounds of directed church service. He wasn't making that statement that worship could never be performed with instruments or that it was somehow sinful to do so (as the modern RP movement would say), just that it cannot be commanded by the church if it was not commanded by Scripture.

You have to remember that in that time, the RCC would say that whatever the Church (or Pope) commanded, even if it is nor supported by Scripture, was the rule of law.

  A series of important events mark the relevant crucial points. In 1520 the city council decided that preaching should be in accord with scripture— undoubtedly a victory for Zwingli. In 1522 the ‘affair of the sausages’ took place. A group of printers broke the lenten fast by eating sausages. Zwingli was present but refused to eat the forbidden meat. The authorities moved to punish this flagrant breaking of lenten rules and Zwingli responded by preaching on the freedom of the Christian to observe or not observe the fast according to the dictates of conscience. He made the point that scripture nowhere commands a lenten fast and argued that scripture should take priority over the tradition and practices of the Church. In tandem with his support for the printers, Zwingli petitioned the bishop and the Swiss authorities, arguing for the free preaching of the gospel, an end to clerical celibacy and began to question such matters as the intercession of the saints. At the same time Zwingli secretly married Anna Reinhart Meyer, a widow, although the marriage did not become public until 1524. McEnhill, Peter, and George Newlands. Fifty Key Christian Thinkers, Taylor & Francis Group, 2004.

I think that Zwingli actually would have actually leaned away from the modern RP movement because just as he was against the church commanding a style of worship that wasn't Scripturally supported, likewise we would have been against saying that one could not worship at all in a way that Scripture doesn't command against. In other words, the modern RP movement goes so far to claim that worship with instruments was tied to sacrificial practices thus sinful today since Christ was the final sacrifice. Some others have claimed that any worship with instruments would actually be rejected by God as displeasing to Him. However, if we apply Zwingli's perspective on lent that one does not have to participate given that lent appears nowhere in the Bible, there are no commands against worship with instruments in the Bible.

In essence, Zwingli's first priority was to distance the sola scriptura based Reformed Church from the tradition first RCC. It was less about what is pleasing to God and more about how far can/should the church command a certain style of worship or certain traditions. Precedent from the OT meant little because the emulation of those styles would have still equated to tradition and not command. Even using the psalter was not commanded but recognized as mere material for liturgy and devotion but nowhere was it commanded to be used.

The second major reason that Zwingli was against singing and instruments in worship was that he felt that worship was an inward action, a reflection and could be a distraction from true spiritual worship.

  The opposition of inward and outward was an element in Zwingli's opposition to outward forms in religion. It helps explain why someone as musical as Zwingli could banish music and singing from church. Singing could distract from true spiritual worship, just as images inside church could, though not necessarily those outside. In worship as in the whole of life the glory and honor of God was fundamental. Zwingli, Huldrych (1484-1531), An Introduction to." In Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800, edited by Jelena O. Krstovic. Vol. 37. Detroit, MI: Gale, 1997. p. 392

Zwingli led a reformation to remove anything from inside the church that could distract from true worship, but he wasn't so naive to claim that Christians couldn't use other things as reminders or helps for more efficacy, they just needed to remain outside the church.


Was there a reason why God sent Jonah to Nineveh and not some other city?

Jonah 1:2 says

  "Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me." (NIV)

So, we can say from there that they had sinned greatly in the eyes of God, and had they not repented, they would be destroyed (Jonah 3:4 says "...Nineveh will be overthrown"). Of course, your question was "why Nineveh in particular?" I'll elaborate on that.

First, a correction: Nineveh wasn't a Babylonian city, it was one of the largest cities of Assyria, another one of Israel's enemies. I want to say it was also the capital during Jonah's time; at the very least there is a mention of a "king of Nineveh" (Jonah 3:6). Sennacherib lived in Nineveh (see 2 Kings 19:36), though he is a little bit after Jonah's time.1

Using your analogy then, I wouldn't equate Nineveh with New York City, I'd equate it with Washington, D.C., though the Bible does explicitly mention that the city is big

  ...Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in breadth (Jonah 3:3, ESV)

As far as strategy goes, there's also this to consider: Assyria was the one that conquered Israel (the ten tribes) not long after Jonah went to preach to Nineveh.2

In short, you could single out Nineveh since it was a very important city for one of Israel's enemies, and posed a very real threat to Israel and Judah.

1 My bible has a table of dates putting Jonah in 793-753 BC. Sennacherib attacked Judah during Hezekiah's reign (2 Kings 18:13-19:36), which according to the same table is 727-698 BC. This is also consistent with Wikipedia's pegging of Sennacherib's reign at 705-681 BC.
2 The same table lists the conquering of Israel by Assyria at 722 BC. See also 2 Kings 17:6.


In contrast to Judaism and Islam, what is the importance of Abraham's sacrifice of his son in Christianity?

There are basically two contrasting faiths in regards to Abraham sacrificing his son.  The two views are between the Christian faith and then the similar Jewish and Muslim faiths.  The second contrast is over which son was being sacrificed.  We will look at the second contrast first.

Some of the Muslim faithful believe Abraham was sacrificing Ishmael, while others believe it was Isaac, as in the Christian and Jewish faiths.  The source of the two different beliefs is that Ishmael was the first born, the righteous son.  But for Christians, the first born of the promise was Isaac.  So, it was Isaac being sacrificed.  In turn, this motif plays out in Christianity in a number of ways.  For example, the role of the promise and faith therein for one’s salvation is indicated.

The primary contrast in all of this, however, is the view of the sacrifice itself.  For Jewish and Muslim faiths, it appears they believe the sacrifice would not happen in the end.  For Christians, the sacrifice would happen.

To rephrase the contrast, was Abraham actually sacrificing his son (leaving alone the question of which one)?  For the Jewish and Muslim faiths, the answer is a qualified yes.  Yes, it was happening, but Abraham would not go through with it.  G-d would intervene.  It was only a very serious test.

The swoon theory that views Christ's sacrifice on the cross is one result of that belief structure.  This theory is that the sacrifice of Christ, like with Abraham's son, only appeared to happen, but Jesus was revived in the cave, never died on the cross, and never resurrected out from the dead on the third day.  They may believe he was a good man or a prophet of G-d, but not Messiah.

For the Christian faith, the answer is absolutely yes.  The son was as good as dead as they traveled up the mountain to the altar.  The son is on the altar, Abraham’s arm raised, and but for G-d, it was over.

  By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
  Heb 11:17-19

So for Christians, the sacrifice of the promised seed in Isaac was a real sacrifice.  To be sure, it did not happen with Isaac, but it was a clear foreshadowing of the reality in Messiah to come who would die and be resurrected out from the dead.  Even if G-d had not stayed Abraham’s hand, G-d would have raised Isaac back from the dead.  That sequence of course then took place in Jesus Christ who was sacrificed as the promised righteous seed.  G-d raised Him from the dead to everlasting life, as He will for all those who believe.


How does washing your face and anointing your head hide that you are fasting?

It wouldn't, except that people might expect you to be like "The hypocrites":

They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting.

(Matthew 6:16)
You might expect this dialogue:

Hey Joe, you OK these days? Man, you gotta take care of yourself, you know, shower once in a while, wash the hair, right?
Hey man, lay off, I'm fasting, you know?
Oh, hey, fasting! Well nothing wrong with that, man. Good on you!

And "they have already received their reward". If you look after your appearance, only God, "who sees what is hidden" and will repay you.


It is the number of the Beast in Revelation:

  Revelation 13:18 (ESV)
   18  This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

Its significance is often claimed to be that the Emperor Nero, during whose reign Revelation was written, has a name with the numerical value 666. Citing Wikipedia:

  The Greek spelling, "Nerōn Kaisar", transliterates into Aramaic as "נרון קסר", nrwn qsr. The Aramaic spelling is attested in a scroll from Murabba'at dated to "the second year of emperor Nero." Adding the corresponding values yields 666.

Personally, I'm not really satisfied with this explanation at all and am waiting for other answers.


What is the basis for why certain musical beats are deemed by some to be unchristian or immoral?

As I've read in several books on worship (see below), the basis for this belief goes back to the roots of various kinds of music in African tribal music. The reasoning goes that since the tribal music was demonic (by intention), therefore its successors must have a demonic back-beat.

However, I once read a senior thesis by a student at New St. Andrews College, in Moscow, Idaho, USA, that had a powerful argument against this line of reasoning. Alas, I do not have access to the thesis. She argued against the line of reasoning on various biblical bases.

We have virtually no idea how the Psalms were originally sung. We certainly do not have any original tunes, and we have very little idea of instrumentation.  Again, that is simply something I have read in books (a few mentioned below).

On a more general worship/music note, I've found the book All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes, by Ken Myers, to be extraordinarily helpful, as well as Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns, by T. David Gordon, and Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down, by Marva Dawn.


What support is there in the Patristic writings for Marian Devotion?

As has been mentioned in answers to other questions, the prayer Sub tuum praesidium appeared around 250. It was originally written in Greek.

  Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν,
  καταφεύγομεν, Θεοτόκε.
  Τὰς ἡμῶν ἱκεσίας, μὴ παρίδῃς ἐν περιστάσει,
  ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ κινδύνων λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς,
  μόνη Ἁγνή, μόνη εὐλογημένη.

  Beneath your compassion,
  We take refuge, O Mother of God:
  do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
  but rescue us from dangers,
  only pure, only blessed one.

Dr Mark Miravalle of the Franciscan University of Steubenville has written an entire book on the subject, Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion [Queenship 2006], a summary of which — with references — is available from piercedhearts.org. He mentions St Ambrose (d. 397) calling Mary "Mother of Salvation".

He goes on

  The Christian witness of the first centuries of the Church also provides us with examples of direct prayer to Mary as a means of intercession to the graces and the protection of her Son.

  For St Irenaeus, Mary is an "Advocate," or interceding helper, for Eve and for her salvation. St. Gregory Thaumaturgis (d.350) depicts Mary interceding for those on earth from her position in Heaven.

  St Ephraem (d.373), the great Eastern doctor and deacon, directly addresses the Blessed Virgin in several Marian sermons. Direct prayer to Mary is also found in a sermon of the great Eastern Father, St Gregory Nazianzen (330-389). By the last part of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, we have numerous explicit examples of direct prayer to the Mother of God, for example in the writings of St Ambrose, as well as by St Epiphanius.


Can a Christian have clinical depression?

Has anyone thought about Job?
Anyway...Paul wrote to Corinthians;

  2 Corinthians 1:8-11 (NKJV)
  8  For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia: that we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life. 9  Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead, 10  who delivered us from so great a death, and does deliver us; in whom we trust that He will still deliver us, 11  you also helping together in prayer for us, that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf for the gift granted to us through many.

Certainly Paul was expressing a sense of depression when he wrote that he was "burdened beyond measure" and "above strength". So it would seem that, yes, Christians can be depressed.

We won't know why many of us are burdened to the limits of our endurance until God chooses to enlighten us. There is one scripture, however, that has helped me during dark times. Jesus tells us in Matthew 10:22;
..."But he who endures to the end will be saved."


What is the role of a permanent lector at a Traditional Latin Mass?
Both lectors and acolytes were known as minor orders and as such were steppingstones towards priestly ordination.

A lector (reader) in the West is a clerk having the second of the four minor orders. In all Eastern Churches also, readers are ordained to a minor order preparatory to the diaconate. The primary reason for a special class of readers was the need of some persons sufficiently educated to be able to read the books in church, for the Christians continued the Jewish practice of reading the Sacred Books publicly. The first mention of a Christian liturgical reader is by Justin Martyr (d. about 165) in I Apol., lxvii, 3, 4. The homily known as "II Clem. ad Corinthios" also contains a reference to a lector, anaginoskon (xix, 1). The position of reader was honourable and dignified. It involved a higher standard of education than that of most offices. Although Justin says that the bishop preached the sermon, it appears that the reader himself often went on to expound what he had read. As the idea obtained that a special blessing and dedication should be given to everyone who performs an office for the Church, the reader too was instituted by prayers and some ceremony. Readers were blessed and set apart, as were the fossores who dug graves, the notarii who kept registers, and widows. All the group of rituals that depend on the "Apostolic Constitutions" contain the rite of ordaining readers. "Apost. Const.", vii, xxii, tells the bishop to ordain a reader by laying on his hand and saying a prayer, which is given. The derived documents however forbid an imposition of hands. ("Epitome Const. Ap.", xiii; Funk, "Didascalia", Paderborn, 1905, II, p. 82; see also the "Egyptian Church Order", V, ib., p. 105).
During the first centuries all the lessons in the liturgy, including the Epistle and Gospel, were read by the lector. Cornelius I (251-53) in a letter to Fabius of Antioch mentions that the Church of Rome has forty-two acolytes and fifty-two exorcists, readers and doorkeepers. (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", n. 45). In the fourth century in Africa the Church of Cirta had four priests, three deacons, four subdeacons, and seven readers. The account of the persecution ("Gesta apud Zenophilum" printed in the appendix to Optatus of Mileve in the Vienna edition of "Corp. Script. eccl. lat.", XXVI, 185-97) describes how the readers kept the sacred books which the magistrate demanded to be given up (p. 187). An old set of Western canons, ascribed (wrongly) to a supposed Council of Carthage in 398, but really of the sixth century, gives forms for all ordinations. Canon 8 is about our subject: "When a reader is ordained let the bishop speak about him (faciat de illo verbum) to the people, pointing out his faith and life and skill. After this, while the people look on, let him give him the book from which he is to read, saying to him: Receive this and be the spokesman (relator) of the word of God and you shall have, if you do your work faithfully and usefully, a part with those who have administered the word of God" (Denzinger, op. cit., n. 156). But gradually the lectorate lost all importance. The deacon obtained the office of reading the Gospel; in the West the Epistle became the privilege of the subdeacon. In the Eastern Churches this and other lessons are still supposed to be read by a lector, but everywhere his office (as all minor orders) may be supplied by a layman. The lector is still mentioned twice in the Roman Missal. In the rubrics at the beginning it is said that if Mass be sung without deacon and subdeacon a lector wearing a surplice may sing the Epistle in the usual place; but at the end he does not kiss the celebrant's hand (Ritus celebr. Missam", vi, 8). On Good Friday the morning service begins with a prophecy read by a lector at the place where the Epistle is usually read (first rubric on Good Friday).
Everywhere the order of reader has become merely a stepping-stone to major orders, and a memory of early days. In the Roman Rite in is the second minor order (Ostiarius, Lector, Exorcista, Acolythus). The minor orders are conferred during Mass after the first Lesson; but they may be given apart from Mass, on Sundays or doubles, in the morning. The lectorate involves no obligation of celibacy or of any other kind. The Byzantine Office will be found in the "Euchologion" (Euchologion to mega, Venetian 8th edition, 1898, pp. 186-87). The Armenians (Gregorian and Uniate) have adopted the Roman system of four minor orders exactly. Their rite of ordaining a reader also consists essentially in handing to him the book of the Epistles. Lector

As for acolytes the Catholic Encyclopedia says the following:

An acolyte is a cleric promoted to the fourth and highest minor order in the Latin Church, ranking next to a subdeacon. The chief offices of an acolyte are to light the candles on the altar, to carry them in procession, and during the solemn singing of the Gospel; to prepare wine and water for the sacrifice of the Mass; and to assist the sacred ministers at the Mass, and other public services of the Church. In the ordination of an acolyte the bishop presents him with a candle, extinguished, and an empty cruet, using appropriate words expressive of these duties. Altar boys are often designated as acolytes and perform the duties of such. The duties of the acolyte in Catholic liturgical services are fully described in the manuals of liturgy, e.g. Pio Matinucci, "Manuale Sacrarum Caeremoniarum" (Rome, 1880), VI, 625; and De Herdt, "Sacrae Liturgiae Praxis" (Louvain, 1889), II, 28-39.
According to the ancient discipline of the Roman Church the order of acolyte was conferred as the candidate approached adolescence, about the age of twenty, as the decree of Pope Siricius (385) to Himerius, Bishop of Tarragona, in Spain, was interpreted (P.L., XIII, 1142). Five years were to elapse before an acolyte could receive subdeaconship. Pope Zosimus reduced (418) this term to four years. The Council of Trent leaves to the judgment of bishops to determine what space should elapse between the conferring of the acolythate and subdeaconship; it is also interesting to note, with Dr. Probst (Kirchenlex., I, 385), that the Council's desire (Sess. XXIII, c. 17, de ref.) concerning the performance of ministerial services exclusively by minor-order clerics was never fulfilled. In ancient ecclesiastical Rome there was no solemn ordination of acolytes. At communion-time in any ordinary Mass, even when it was not stational, the candidate approached the Pope, or in his absence, one of the bishops of the pontifical court. At an earlier moment of the Mass he had been vested with the stole and the chasuble. Holding in his arms a linen bag (porrigitur in ulnas ejus sacculus super planetam; a symbol of the highest function of these clerics, that of carrying, as stated above, the consecrated hosts) he prostrated himself while the Pontiff pronounced over him a simple blessing (Mabillon, op. Cit., II, 85, ed. Paris, 1724). It may be well to mention here the two prayers of the ancient Roman Mass-book known as the "Sacramentarium Gregorianum" (Mabillon, Lit. Rom. Vetus, II, 407), said by the Pontiff over the acolyte, and the first of which is identical with that of the actual Roman Pontifical "Domine, sancte Pater, aeterne Deus, qui ad Moysen et Aaron locutus es," etc.
According to the aforementioned "Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua," which give us the ritual usage of the most important churches in Gaul about the year 500, the candidate for acolyte was first instructed by the bishop in the duties of his office, and then a candlestick, with a candle extinguished, was placed in his hand by the archdeacon, as a sign that the lights of the church would be in his care; moreover, an empty cruet was given him, symbolical of his office of presenting wine and water at the altar for the holy sacrifice. A short blessing followed. Acolyte


According to Protestantism is the Holy Spirit a Spirit of a Spirit?

Both of these verses use the same Greek word: pnuema, but in slightly different contexts. The first uses it as a name, the second as a description of essence. The Spirit of God (1 Cor. 12:3) is the man name used of the third person in the trinity whereas saying that God is a Spirit (Jn. 4:24) places the one God in the essential category of Spirit as opposed to within the category of material creatures or gods which must be worshiped within physical temples. Therefore, blueletterbible.org would categorize the first use under the "I." and the second use would fit definition "III."

An analogy would be the use of the word Son. It is one word but with several meanings and potential definitions. I may say: "I have a son" or "You are my son" or I might call you it as a name "Come over here Son!"


According to the wider hope/inclusive framework, why does the church still exist?

I can state what I believe are the Eastern Orthodox (my faith) answers to your questions.

  For example, one commonly stated purpose of the church is to
  evangelize the lost. But is that actually necessary in a wider
  hope/inclusive framework? (see related question) If not, then what is
  the purpose?

The Church (capital "C") is what Christ established for us on earth in order for us to work out our salvation (Philippians 2:12), making use of the Grace-given means of sanctification provided by it.  It is where all are gathered together in Christ (Ephesians 1:10).

The Orthodox Church has a much different understanding of sin, salvation, the nature of man, and his relationship to God, than the Roman Catholic and most, if not all, Protestant Christian confessions.  We believe in ancestral sin, which has damaged our nature, but we do not believe in ancestral guilt.  Thus, salvation is seen more as a process of healing - the word "save" in Greek really means "heal" - than of escape from punishment.  It is, if you will, a faith of restoration rather than retribution.

Orthodox believe, furthermore, that although we are only saved by virtue of God's grace, we must cooperate with that grace - a process known as synergy.  This cooperation of man's free will with God's grace was a subject of somewhat bitter debate in the early 4th century between Augustine and many (but not all) western bishops in the west, who held that man cannot do anything at all to enable his salvation; and other Church Fathers such as John Cassian who took the view that man cooperates with God.  The Augustinian view logically led to a somewhat dismal theology of predestination and salvation that has persisted to this day in the west.

To your statement,

  In the wider hope/inclusivist theological framework, very simply put,
  people who have not heard the Gospel are not necessarily lost and
  destined for hell.

I would say that this framework does not have a solid foundation in Scripture, unless one were to construct a logical chain of very specific pericopes.  The Gospels are very straightforward and very clear.  Unfortunately - in my opinion - western Protestant theology has tended to rely on interpreting the Gospels through the writings of Paul, rather than interpreting what Paul wrote through the Lord's own words.  The Lord Himself stated very clearly who would be lost and who would be saved:

  When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered
  all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a
  shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the
  sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will
  say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit
  the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I
  was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink,
  I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I
  was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then
  the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and
  feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a
  stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we
  see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer
  them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these
  my brethren, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left
  hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for
  the devil and his angels;for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I
  was thirsty and you gave me no drink,I was a stranger and you did not
  welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and
  you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we
  see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in
  prison, and did not minister to thee?’ Then he will answer them,
  ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these,
  you did it not to me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment,
  but the righteous into eternal life (Matthew 25:31-46)

In short, the Lord is stating how important love of our neighbor is for our salvation - something we see him emphasizing elsewhere in the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-31).

Why should I "go to church", one might ask, if according to the parable it doesn't even seem to matter whether I believe in Christ, or even God?  I would answer this by saying that given how the devil, the world, and our own sinful nature conspires against us, we cannot succeed in loving our brothers and sisters without the grace of God.  Some of us have a great gift available to us - the Church - that helps us to heal our souls and learn from the Lord Himself (viz. Matthew 11:29).  Others of us, however, do not for whatever reason have this gift available.  We must recall, perhaps with fear and trembling, however, that the Lord told us that we who have His Church available to us will be held all the more accountable for how we lead our lives.  Every one to whom much is given, He told us, of him will much be required (Luke 12:48).


It seems you're asking about the difference between precepts and counsels. All are bound to follow the precepts (10 Commandments, Precepts of the Church, etc.), but a person not bound by religious vows does not sin by not living up to the counsels (poverty, chastity, obedience) to their fullest.

See:

St. Thomas Aquinas's question "Whether, in this life, perfection consists in the observance of the commandments [precepts] or of the counsels?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 184 a. 3).
Fr. Antonio Royo Marín, O.P.'s Theology of Christian Perfection

p. 141 on the obligation of the laity to strive toward perfection,

We are all (religious and non-religious) obliged to strive for perfection (Mt. 5:48: "Be you therefore perfect").

p. 142 on choosing the better good.

cf. St. Thomas's commentary on Mt. 19:12 ("He that can take, let him take it [celibacy]."):Is not a man obliged to do the greater good? I say that one must distinguish the greater good in regard to the actual performance or in regard to the desire. One is not held to the greater good in regard to their actual performance, but to the desire to do them, because every rule and every action is determined to something defined and certain: but if one is bound to do every action that is better, one is bound to something uncertain. Hence, in regard to exterior actions, because one is not bound to do something uncertain, one is not bound to do the greater good; but in regard to the desire, one is held to desire the greater good. Hence, he who does not always wish to be better, cannot wish without contempt [of doing the greater good].** "There is a way of fulfilling this precept, so as to avoid sin, namely, if one do what one can as required by the conditions of one’s state of life: provided there be no contempt of doing better things, which contempt sets the mind against spiritual progress" (II II, q. 186, a. 2 ad 2um).Thus, married Christians must have the spirit of the counsels, even if they do not have the opportunity to put them into practice.


If God wants everyone to repent, why God didn't do such miracles in Tyre and Sidon?

There are several possibilities:

  And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. (Matthew 13:58)

It is not in God's nature to forcefully 'prove himself' to the cynic. Jesus may have simply been indicating that had Tyre and Sidon been anticipating the Messiah, they would have received Jesus better than the very people God had shepherded for thousands of year. However, such miracles were not done there as their openness to them was non-existent.
The messianic mission of God had reached an incredibly special point. The Jewish people did not seem to grasp just how special the occasion was. Jesus stressed this to them on several occasions

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

And in the scriptures you mentioned, where Jesus basically says, 'Hey even the people you remember from history who were completely wicked would have recognized how special this moment is.'
It may be that to preserve human choice, God reveals himself to people enough for rational proof, but not so much as to convict them without recourse. How hard the hearts of his listeners must have been if the miracles shown to them would have been for Tyre and Sidon conviction without recourse.


Moses wrote many things that foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah.

Jesus is, indeed, the Passover Lamb, as those who put their faith in His death and the blood He shed are rescued from the judgment that is to come.  (John 3:16-18)
Like the manna in the desert, Jesus is the Bread from Heaven (John 6:51) that satisfies our spiritual hunger and gives us life.
Like the water that sprung from the rock, Jesus is the living water (John 7:37) that satisfies our spiritual thirst.
Like the snake in the desert that was lifted up that those who were bitten by deadly snakes could look upon and be saved, Jesus was lifted up so that we who have been bitten by Satan in our sin can look upon Jesus and be saved from spiritual death.  (John 3:14-15)
Like the rock that was struck the first time, but should never be struck again, Jesus suffered once for all. (1 Peter 3:18)
Jesus is the offspring of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3 that would crush the head of Satan (Genesis 3:15)
Jesus is the fulfillment of the life of Joseph, which foreshadows Him being the beloved Son, being envied by His own, begin rejected by His own, cast down into the pit, resurrected, sent to a distant country where He became lord of all, and who then provided salvation for His own.
Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah: cf. Genesis 49:8ff as interpreted by Revelation 5:5
Moses also said that God would raise up "a prophet like me" (Deuteronomy 18:15), and this is probably the clearest reference to the coming Messiah.


Why is blasphemy against Mary, mother of God, bad?

Honestly, I think this is as much a question about Italian culture as it is about any Christian belief. The Italian culture produced laws against blaspheming saints; in the USA there were sin taxes and then the prohibition movement. I'm not sure that the reasons why are directly Christianity-related.

That said, one can point to common beliefs that influenced the practices. In this case Christians believe:

First, it falls generally under the umbrella of obscenities. Here is a previous answer regarding "bad words."

Secondly, to speak disrespectfully of those to whom one owes respect is wrong. It is, among other things, a violation of the principle of love. The ultimate transgression of this is to speak disrespectfully of God. Another example is to disrespect one's parents. Both of these cases make it into the Ten Commandments. These two cases are given special attention, but the general principle holds.

However, as to the laws themselves, I'd put them down to human nature in the context of a common moral code. Compare with modern attempts to outlaw "hate speech."


What are the theological reasons some Protestants are Zionists?

It would be wrong to think that a majority of Protestants are Zionists, but Christian Zionism is nevertheless a substantial movement, especially in the United States. There is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. The idea that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christians, as a means of fulfilling a Biblical prophecy has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation.

Some Christian Zionists believe that the gathering of the Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. This belief is primarily, although not exclusively, associated with Dispensationalism, a movement begun by John Nelson Darby in the 1830s. For those who eagerly await the coming of Jesus, it is important to accomplish the return to Israel as quickly and as thoroughly as possible so that Jesus can return and establish his kingdom on earth.

Barbara R. Rossing says, in The Rapture Exposed, page 23, that Darby  invented 'dispensations' – intervals of time ordering God's grand timetable for world events. She says (pages 55-56) the dispensationalist's script ca1ls “these things” absolutely necessary for Jesus to come again to reign on earth:

The rebirth of the nation of Israel;
The Rapture of born-again Christians off the earth;
The emergence of an evil Antichrist (and his one-world currency),
probably from Europe;
The Antichrist signs a seven-year peace treaty with Israel, setting
in motion the seven years of tribulation – but the Antichrist will
break the treaty after three and one half years;
The rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and resumption of animal
sacrifices there;
The desecration of the temple by the evil Antichrist, followed by the
second half of the seven-year period of tribulation;
Jesus' return in the "Glorious Appearing" exactly seven years after
the Rapture, beginning with his touch-down on the Mount of Olives,
which will split the mountain into two.

One of the resolutions adopted during a series of Bible and Prophetic Conferences held across North America beginning in 1868 states:

  We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation, but is fast ripening for judgment, while there will be fearful apostasy in the professing Christian body; and hence that the Lord Jesus will come in person to introduce the millennial age, when Israel shall be restored to their own land, and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord; and that this personal and premillennial advent is the blessed hope set before us in the Gospel for which we should be constantly looking.


According to Catholicism, what is meant by the Church being indefectible?

"Indefectibility" is, according to Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John Hardon, S.J., the

Imperishable duration of the Church and her immutability until the end of time. The First Vatican Council declared that the Church possesses

an invincible stabilityinvictamque stabilitatem

and that,

being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world.fundata super petram ad finem sæculorum usque firma stabit.

([Latin:] Denzinger 3013, 3056)
The Church's indefectibility, therefore, means that she now is and will always remain the institution of salvation, founded by Christ. This affirms that the Church is essentially unchangeable in her teaching, her constitution, and her liturgy. It does not exclude modifications that do not affect her substance, nor does it exclude the decay of individual local churches or even whole dioceses.


Wikipedia has an article entitled List of Blesseds in the Catholic Church. One can click on the heading of the column giving the date of beatification. Doing so, the earliest that shows up is Eutychius of Como, who died in 539; however, no specific date of beatification is given. The earliest date of beatification is 1259 for Bronislava of Poland.

The external references for the article are:

Catholic Online list of saints and blesseds
Patron Saints Index

Wikipedia also has an article entitled List of Venerable People. The person in that list with the earliest date of declaration is María de Ágreda, declared venerable in 1673.


How to propose a change in a prayer?

Such a proposal would have to have a considerable following to even to be considered a valid (optional) from of the Hail Mary from the traditional form at the local level. Rome would not be against such a usage as a local tradition.. Praying the Hail Mary in the form you suggest, apart from not being traditional, does not seem inappropriate or pose any problems. It is simply not the form the Church uses in English speaking countries at the moment.

In fact the last part of the Hail Mary was added to the original Hail Mary during the Black Plague.

  The “Hail Mary” prayer that Christians have been praying for centuries is composed of two main parts. The first part of the prayer is derived from the Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel greeted Mary by saying, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” (Luke 1:28) The next part of the prayer is taken from the Visitation, when Elizabeth greeted Mary with the words, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:42)

  At first the prayer was known as the “Salutation of the Blessed Virgin,” and only consisted of the two verses joined together. However, during the Black Plague (also known as the “Black Death”) the prayer was further developed and a second part was added to it.

  This second part (“Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death”) is believed by many to have been added during the plague to ask for the Blessed Mother’s protection from the fatal disease.

  Venerable Fulton J. Sheen explains this origin in his book The World’s First Love.

    Since it seizes upon the two decisive moments of life: “now” and “at the hour of our death,” it suggests the spontaneous outcry of people in a great calamity. The Black Death, which ravaged all Europe and wiped out one-third of its population, prompted the faithful to cry out to the Mother of Our Lord to protect them at a time when the present moment and death were almost one.

  How the Black Plague changed the “Hail Mary” prayer

Another example comes from the French form of the Hail Mary contains a few items of interest for us here.

First of all Hail Mary does not conclude with the word Amen, although some French do. While I was living in France, we all said Ainsi soit-il in lieu of Amen.

Second point which I truly love about the French Hail Mary is that they add the words poor sinners (pauvres pêcheurs) to their Ave Maria.

  For those who wanted prayers: here's the "Hail Mary.

  Je vous salue, Marie, pleine de grâce. Le Seigneur est avec vous. Vous êtes bénie entre toutes les femmes, et Jésus, le fruit de vos entrailles, est béni. Sainte Marie, mère de Dieu, priez pour nous pauvres pêcheurs, maintenant et à l'heure de notre mort. Ainsi soit-il. - Hail Mary Prayer


People sometimes make the assumption that the Bible divides everybody - or even every thing - into either 'good' or 'bad'. However that is not the case. The Bible realistically understands that everybody (excepting God himself) is neither perfectly good nor unutterably evil. People can do a mixture of good or bad things. Because some people did some good things (went to worship Jesus at his birth) that does not imply that everything else they did was also good.

Some examples:

Rahab was a prostitute (Joshua 6), but in the book of Hebrews she is commended for her faith, and in the book of James she is "listed among the righteous". That doesn't mean the Bible approves of prostitution, it just means she did some bad things as well as the good.
King David committed adultery and murder, yet was called "a man after God's own heart". That's not to condone adultery and murder, it just means he did some bad things.
Abraham lied about his wife on at least two occasions, saying she was his sister. Again that does not imply that lying is approved of.

On the celebration of the feast of the Magi, the denominations I have been associated with that do not celebrate it have done so simply because it is a lesser festival, and they tend not to celebrate many. They can and do use the story of the Magi for teaching, and there is no thought that their visit was evilly inspired.


The problem is what we see as soul has different meanings based on when in history you are looking at it.

For example, the Hebrews didn't see the soul as immortal, as shown here:

  "The soul [nephesh] who sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4, 20)

So, the soul (word was nephesh) was not immortal.

Then in the first century AD, Philo introduced the immortal soul to the Jews as they interacted more with the Greeks:

  The death of a man is the separation of his soul from his body ..."
  (The Works of Philo, translated by C.D. Yonge, 1993, p. 37).

So, in Greek the work psuche is translated as soul or life.

Jesus stated that God can destroy the soul (Matt 10:28):

  Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
  Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in
  hell.

Paul described death as sleep, as shown in this sample:
1 Corinthians 15:51-58

  51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed —

  52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
  last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised
  imperishable, and we will be changed.

  53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

  54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the
  mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come
  true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”[a]

  55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”[b]

  56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

  57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus
  Christ.

  58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the
  Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

  13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who
  are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no
  hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God
  will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep [a]in Jesus. 15 For
  this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive
  [b]and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who
  have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven
  with a [c]shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet
  of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are
  alive [d]and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds
  to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
  18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

An immortal soul isn't mentioned in the Bible, but immortality is mentioned, such as:

  "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the
  Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise
  him up at the last day" (John 6:40).

So, Origen wrote about the immortal soul:

  In Origen De Principiis he wrote: "... The soul, having a substance
  and life of its own, shall after its departure from the world, be
  rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an
  inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have
  procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and
  punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to
  this ..." (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, 1995, p. 240).

and the Augustine wrote more on the subject:

  In The City of God he wrote that the soul "is therefore called
  immortal, because in a sense, it does not cease to live and to feel;
  while the body is called mortal because it can be forsaken of all
  life, and cannot by itself live at all. The death, then, of the soul,
  takes place when God forsakes it, as the death of the body when the
  soul forsakes it" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, 1995, p. 245.)

Thomas Aquinas probably wrote the most on the subject of the soul, and you can read various issues about the soul here:  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm, and starting at Question 75.

In various places the Book of Mormon talks about the immortal soul, and this page is a good reference, as it also shows where the Bible doesn't agree on the immortality of the soul:

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/a02mormon/basicapproacha02.html

For example:
Mosiah 2:38

  38 Therefore if that man arepenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an
  enemy to God, the demands of divine bjustice do awaken his immortal
  soul to a lively sense of his own cguilt, which doth cause him to
  shrink from the dpresence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with
  guilt, and epain, and fanguish, which is like an unquenchable gfire,
  whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

Due to the complexity, you may want to narrow down the focus of your question, perhaps.


Why do some Christians think it's not a sin to charge interest?

The verse your article talks about is Nehemiah 5:10 which says:

  I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury.

Some translations also say "interest" in place of "usury."  This is an important distinction... A prohibition against usury is only a prohibition against "exorbitant interest" in modern English.  This would be one reason the verse is not interpreted as forbidding the charging of interest.

However, I think the more important thing is to take the verse in it's larger context.  The verse comes in the middle of a story about a famine, where people were literally in danger of starvation.  They were mortgaging their "fields, vineyards, and homes" to be able to afford to buy grain. These people were hanging on by a thread, and in desperate need of help.

The response of many of the Jews was to lend money, at an interest rate (of 1% according to verse 11, although 1% per what time period?).

Nehemiah's anger appears not to be at the specific fact that they were charging interest, but at the fact that these Jews were not being charitable.

Not only did Nehemiah demand that they stop charging interest, but also that he give back their collateral--and with no mention of being repaid. The people's response is (verse 12) "And we will not demand anything more from them." This also seems to indicate that they did not demand repayment of their loans.

If we are to apply the principles of this story to every situation, then not only should Christians not charge interest, but they also should not even ask to be repaid when they make a loan.

I hope it is apparent that this is not the intention of the story, but rather the intention is not to take advantage of people in need.


Does the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) have a policy regarding admitting members who do not accept its doctrines?

The Presbyterian Churches of America have in their church order a section on membership. This does not require the members to adopt all the doctrines of the church, but it does require a credible profession of faith in Christ.

CHAPTER 6
Church Members
6-1. The children of believers are, through the
covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church.
Hence they are entitled to Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight,
instruction and government of the church, with a view to their
embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the
covenant.
6-2. Communing members are those who have made a profession
of faith in Christ, have been baptized, and have been admitted by the
Session to the Lord's Table. (See BCO 46-4 for associate members).
6-3. All baptized persons are entitled to the watchful care,
instruction and government of the church, even though they are adults
and have made no profession of their faith in Christ.
6-4. Those only
who have made a profession of faith in Christ, have been baptized, and
admitted by the Session to the Lord's Table, are entitled to all the
rights and privileges of the church. (See BCO 57-4 and 58-4)

To clarify on "a profession of faith in Christ", the church order states that the following questions must be agreed upon by the potential member to constitute a profession of faith in Christ:

Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His
sovereign mercy?
Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for
salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the
followers of Christ?
Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

In addition, to become a communicant member (that is, to participate in the Lord's Supper), the church order does stipulate that:

58-2. The ignorant and scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's
Supper.

This would suggest that if the potential member has no knowledge of the doctrines of the church, then they would be ignorant and thus not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, also excluding them from church membership.
There is also the matter of what constitutes an offence worthy of church discipline. The church order states the following:

29-1. An offense, the proper object of judicial process, is anything
in the doctrines or practice of a Church member professing faith in
Christ which is contrary to the Word of God. The Confession of Faith
and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly,
together with the formularies of government, discipline, and worship
are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard
expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith
and practice. Nothing, therefore, ought to be considered by any court
as an offense, or admitted as a matter of accusation, which cannot be
proved to be such from Scripture.

This suggests to me that, if a person were to become a member of the church who did not hold to the doctrines maintained to be true by the confessions of the church, they would immediately be subject to church discipline as offending through false doctrine.
It is possible that this is not typically exercised in this way by many/most PCA church sessions. For your particular case I would ask the session of your church what they recommend.


What's the main logical basis that is put forth by those Christians who don't believe in the existence of God?

As an alternative to "Christian Atheism" as a belief system, there is another interpretation here of a Christian who does not believe in God, which is the "cultural Christian". This was reminded to me by a comment on the question referring to "Jewish" as both the adherents and / or the society - but is has been identified that this is very genuinely the case for Christianity too. This obviously is not based on a scriptural position, but on society and observation; there really are a large number of people who will identify (when asked in passing) as Christian, by which they mean (typically) they have been raised within Christianity, but don't really believe in it as such (and don't typically attend a church or worship, except maybe things like "saying grace" at mealtimes through habit and expectation).

This may be tied to the fact that to say "no, this is not what I believe, and I shall separate myself from it" can sometimes take a lot of effort and energy, jeopardise friendships and relationships (and humans are social creatures) and prospects (perhaps impacting business relationships). It can also cause friction within a family, etc. I can fully accept that it may be a lot easier to just "go along with", since that takes no effort (not even church attendance etc) - especially if their stance one way or the other on the matter is not of huge importance for them (compared with, say, more pressing needs like feeding the family and paying the bills). There are also sometimes additional factors if they want to get their kids into a particular school (alarmingly common), where rocking the boat may cause complications.

So - looked at from that perspective, the cultural Christian (in reality, not a true believer) is a very real phenomenon. This is not, however, a Biblical basis - it is, simply, an observation on the complexities of modern society.

(removed "modern", as there is no reason to suppose this is in any way new)


Why did God the Father choose suffering for Christ and not the lucrative reigning power of an emperor of this world?

Jesus told us the answer when explained three things:

What is God's chief motivation?
What is the greatest expression of that motivation?
Who are the disciples?

First, God's chief motivation is love:

  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
  with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first
  and greatest commandment. (Matthew 22:36-37)

Second, the greatest expression of love is to lay your life down for your friends:

  9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my
  love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as
  I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have
  told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be
  complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
  13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for
  one’s friends. (John 15:9-13)

Third, Jesus declares the disciples are his friends:

  14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer
  call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s
  business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that
  I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not
  choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and
  bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my
  name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.
  (John 15:14-17)

We know of soldiers, firemen, parents, and police who have laid down their life for people they loved. Are they greater than God? No! Thus if God values love and is the greatest lover in the universe and that love requires giving your life for those you love and you have picked people to call friends, you must do as Jesus did.

As for the false choice, Jesus will return to reign as emperor of the world. However, when he does, the time for mercy will have passed; he will come to judge the living and the dead. It is for the sake of sinners who need time to repent that Jesus delays his return, so that as many may be saved as possible.

However, since you are a poet, a fitting response is found in one of God's greatest poems, Job. As you read this, having heard all the things that Leviathan will NOT do for you, understand that the point of this speech is to declare what God WILL do for you!

41 “Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook
    or tie down its tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through its nose
    or pierce its jaw with a hook?
3 Will it keep begging you for mercy?
    Will it speak to you with gentle words?
4 Will it make an agreement with you
    for you to take it as your slave for life?
5 Can you make a pet of it like a bird
    or put it on a leash for the young women in your house?
6 Will traders barter for it?
    Will they divide it up among the merchants?
7 Can you fill its hide with harpoons
    or its head with fishing spears?
8 If you lay a hand on it,
    you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing it is false;
    the mere sight of it is overpowering.
10 No one is fierce enough to rouse it.
    Who then is able to stand against me?
11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
    Everything under heaven belongs to me.

Jesus was tied up, was pierced, does speak tenderly, does make a covenant to serve us, his garments were bartered away, and his side was thrust through with a spear. On the flip side, Leviathan represents the evil world system (and its head, Satan), an empire of force that dominates the World for evil. That is something God did not want for his Son. Leviathan will be destroyed, and its end is written of in Revelation 13. Jesus' empire will be different, because the master will be the servant of all.


How do molinists justify a world where not everyone freely chooses salvation?

I am not especially Molinist, by either formal declaration or preference. But, as a 3rd party observer, my quick review of wikipedia indicates to me that both options A and B require underlying assumptions that Molin may not have accepted.

Both seem to assume that everyone choosing belief in God before they die is a good thing.

And they both seem to assume that every individual, if given the choice, would choose to believe in God while they are alive.

A bit in the apparent converse, they also both seem to assume that there is ultimately an option, after death.

"Every knee shall bow," etc., but we are not told that everyone will choose to do the same thing with their ultimate confession of God. In fact, we are told that some will acknowledge God and choose to go their way into some lesser happiness, where the glory of God is seen in reflection, or at a distance, not directly.

At least that's how I understand this version of the question of evil.


Was the white smoke ever supposed to be miraculous?

No, it's never been miraculous.

Paper burns with a light-coloured smoke, so to produce white smoke just the ballot papers are burned. To produce black smoke, it used to be the case that damp straw was added but that was also capable of producing smoke which didn't look black.

AP reports that for the 2005 conclave (which elected Benedict XVI) the Holy See introduced a second stove which produced coloured smoke. The ballot papers were burned, but the colour was chemically produced in order that it was unmistakeable.

Judging by the first emission of black smoke, which was clearly black even in the evening, it would appear that this chemical method is in use for the current conclave too.

Picture from AP reproduced on The Blaze blog


That is certainly how that is interpreted by a large percentage of Christian groups, and it's how the author of Hebrews interpreted it.

  Hebrews 10:10 KJV By the which will we are sanctified through the
  offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

I assume the second part of the question deals with the fact the high priest offers sacrifices for sins. In Hebrews 5:1-3 we read...

  Hebrews 5:1-3 New International Version (NIV)

  5 Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed
  to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and
  sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal gently with those who are
  ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to
  weakness. 3 This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins,
  as well as for the sins of the people.

Also

  Hebrews 10 1-18 NIV

  Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All

  10 The law is only a shadow of the
  good things that are coming—not the realities
  themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices
  repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near
  to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered?
  For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no
  longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an
  annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and
  goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world,
  he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
      but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
      you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
      I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a] 8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did
  not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered
  in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to
  do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And
  by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body
  of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Day after day every priest stands and
  performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same
  sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest
  had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the
  right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to
  be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect
  forever those who are being made holy. 15 The Holy Spirit also
  testifies to us about this. First he says: 16 “This is the covenant I
  will make with them
      after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts,
      and I will write them on their minds.”[b] 17 Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts
      I will remember no more.”[c] 18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

This is referring to a human priest, who must sacrifice "for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people". Jesus, as the sinless Son of God, was sinless, so He would not have to sacrifice for His own sins.

This means that these sacrifices are ordinary sacrifices offered by sinful humans. Offering animals - the best animals, spotless, presumably, if they were following the Law, but animals nonetheless.

Jesus' sacrifice was unique.  It was offered by a preist who was sinless (Christ) and the offering was perfect - something unlike any other offering that ever had, or could, be offered (The sinless Son of God).

So His sacrifice only needed to be a one-time sacrifice.

And the Priestly title?  His work as Priest, at least as far as sacrifice is concerned, is finished, but He still retains the title, because it describes an aspect of who He is. The author of the passage above was showing that Jesus was greater than any other High Priest.

Much more can be found here: http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/Melch8.htm

Excerpt:

  Finally, in Heb 7:18, the author argues that, if there is a new High
  Priest, there must be a setting aside (athetêtis) of the (old)
  commandment (regarding priesthood) because it was weak and useless
  (asthenês kai anôpheles) (see "fleshly commandment" in Heb 7:16). As
  he already indicated, a new priesthood would not have neen necessary
  if the old priesthood was effective. So, according to the author, the
  promise of a perpetual Levitical priesthood in Exod 29:9 ("And they
  shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute") and 40:14 ("Their
  anointing will qualify them for a perpetual priesthood throughout
  their generations") should be interpreted to mean until the time of
  the eschaton, when the greater High Priest appears. The author
  denigrates the Law further by saying that it made nothing “perfect”
  (eteleiosen) (Heb 7:19a). Actually, according to the author, the Law
  was not intended to be eternal but only preparatory for something
  better and perfect. When he says that the Law did not make perfect, he
  means that the Law as pertaining to the priesthood and the Temple cult
  did not serve to make anyone acceptable to God. As a result a better
  hope is introduced (through a better High Priest), which allows for a
  new approach to God (7:19b).


Were there implicit laws not referenced in the Acts 15 letter to gentile believers?

The laws that were stated here are laws about ones self not pertaining to love. We know from the new testament that the thing we are commanded to do is to love.

  John 13:34 NIV

  A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have
  loved you, that you also love one another.

We also know that it is love which fulfills the law.

  Romans 13:10

  Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of
  the law.

In the letter that you're quoting in your question, the Elders are telling people about the laws that are not under the law of love. Thus you don't have to worry about those laws. For the law is fulfilled in love.

  Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV)

  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
  with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first
  and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your
  neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on
  these two commandments.”

The laws that you're asking about: stealing, murder, covetousness we are still commanded to follow because those are under the law of love.


The ramifications of the severing of ties between the Eucumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Church

For those not familiar with the situation, on October 15, 2018, a Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church ceased communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.  The Synod's resolution read:

  Henceforth and until the Constantinople Patriarchate renounces its accepted anti-canonical decisions, for all clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church it is not possible to serve with the clergy of the Constantinople Church; and for the laity, it is not possible to participate in the sacraments served in its churches.

The "anti-canonical decisions" that the resolution refers to are those undertaken by the Ecumenical Patriarch to, according to the Russian Orthodox Church*:

"lift the anathema from Philaret Denisenko, the self-proclaimed 'Patriarch” of the “Kiev Patriarchate”', which was placed on him by the Moscow Patriarchate for his oath breaking and unrepentant schism from the canonical Church, leading others into that schism'

and

revoking "the document it signed 300 years ago transferring the Kiev Metropolia to the Moscow Patriarchate"

Although several autocephalous Orthodox Churches have expressed support for the Russian Orthodox Church in this matter, no other Orthodox Church has as yet broken communion with Constantinople.  The Orthodox Church in America, which itself was granted autocephaly by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1970, has made the decision that its members may continue to commune in parishes of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America (which falls under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch).  Furthermore, I don't think that the Ecumenical Patriarch has reciprocated the Russian decision, forbidding clergy and laity from participating in services within a Russian Orthodox Church.  My reading of the Synod's resolution would also not bar lay Orthodox who previously attended a church under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch from participating in Russian Orthodox services, but it would bar clergy from the Patriarchate from serving in a Russian Orthodox Church.

It should be noted, I think, that many of the recent decisions undertaken by the Ecumenical Patriarch have been controversial and have faced criticism, even within the Constantinople Patriarchate itself (e.g. Mt. Athos).  A pan-Orthodox council held in 2016 was boycotted by the Russian, Antiochian, Georgian and Bulgarian Patriarchates for various reasons.

* Holy Synod Resolution: Moscow Patriarchate Ceases Communion for Clergy and Laity with the Constantinople Patriarchate, October 15, 2018


Does the JEDP Theory propose that the Scriptures are not inerrant/inspired?

JEDP is scholarly theory on the history and development of the Scriptures. It focuses on the internal structure of the documents while keeping in mind the context of the writing. The analysis treats them as if they are just like any other texts. The authors' motives, culture, etc are considered.

This means that while analysing the documents, inspiration is not assumed. Traditions about the authorship are ignored or taken as just one input.
This had a significant effect when attempting to date the texts. It is assumed that texts were written after the events they describe. No clear prophesy of historical events.

Note however, that this does necessarily exclude inspiration. There are many textual critics who accept JEDP (or another version) but also accept the inspiration of the Scriptures. They tend to emphasize the inspiration of the process of the development of the document, the writing of the sources, the selection of sources, the redaction of sources.

Pete Enns is one such scholar who as achieved some notoriety professing this view. His blog and more so his books provide an accessible introduction.


In light of the many changes in regulations, what is the purpose of the Roman Catholic altar and is it neccessary for a valid Mass?

In light of many changes in regulations over the centuries, what is the purpose of the Roman Catholic altar and is it neccessary for a valid Mass?
The purpose of an altar is to have a noble material upon which a priest may celebrate the the Eucharist.
The Mass celebrated not on an altar is valid, but illicit.
As the Eucharist stands at “the apex” of all Christian prayers, so too the altar is the central feature within our churches be it is where the priest consecrates the bread and wine into the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The use of fine bronze or cast iron, beautifully carved wood, or various stones may all be appropriate. In all cases the Church has a longstanding preference for stone, especially for the mensa or top. Pope Saint Sylvester (314-335), who was the patron of Saint John Lateran, is said to be the first to have made stone altars obligatory. Saint John Chrysostom writes that “this altar is an object of wonder: by nature it is stone, but it is made holy when it receives the body of Christ”.6 It is this mensa that is anointed at the time of dedication, much like Christ’s body was anointed with oil both before and after His death. Because it is a holy object, we also incense the altar. Just as the altar represents Christ, the stone material represents “Christ the rock” and “the stone that the builders rejected which has become the cornerstone” (Ps 118:22).
The question for us is, how can the design of the altar (and by extension, the area around it) indicate its sacredness and the honor it deserves? People are quite intelligent about these things, and an altar that is a simple wooden table or an abstract metal structure will not be approached with the awe and reverence it actually deserves. An abstract or minimalist object may be fine to read a book on, or eat sandwiches off of, but it can never fully hold our attention.
Instead, the design of the altar should be such that it portrays the theological truths we wish to express. And if we have a beautiful altar, then should we not make the sanctuary and the church beautiful as well?
The mensa, or top stone, receives relics of the saints, following the early tradition of celebrating Mass over the tombs of the martyrs. As the Eucharist is a joining of the Church in Christ’s sacrifice, it can be expressed in the body of a holy man or woman who exhibited that sacrifice in their life. That is, the body or relic of the saint is a material reminder of Christ’s one immemorial sacrifice and bodily death. Saint Ambrose explains that in this way “the triumphant victims may occupy the place where Christ is victim: He, however, who suffered for all, upon the altar; they who have been redeemed by His sufferings, beneath the altar”.7 This is why altars have been dedicated or named after saints, the relics of whom are often placed therein. For instance, in Saint Peter’s Basilica each altar has a dedication to the saint or saints buried underneath. It is imperative for us to recover this cult of the saints and martyrs, especially after the twentieth century, which saw the greatest persecution against Christians since Roman times. - The Altar as the Center of the Church

Modern liturgists may claim that certain changes in the liturgy bring us closer to the way the first Christians worshipped. This may be true, but as it has to be pointed out: The early Christians worshipped in the way they did using a table, for example because they were a persecuted minority, forbidden to build places of worship. Once the persecution ended, they built churches which were a fitting setting for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which was offered in an increasingly elaborate rite inspired by the desire to render the greatest possible glory to God, to whom all honor is due. The way one worships in a time of persecution cannot be considered the norm for a time of freedom.
Now let me address your three point in reference to altars:

Altars consecrated by relics were not required for the celebration of the Mass for 700 years and then were required for 1100 years and now are not required again.

There are regulations in place regarding the use of relics as pertaining to altars (which are no longer required for their consecration).

Portable altars were once not allowable but now a suitable table (with or without a relic) may be used always with the use of a cloth, a corporal, a cross, and candles.

Firstly, altars are consecrated with relics placed into the burial chamber to the mensa or top altar stone. If the altar is placed over the tomb of a saint this burial chamber is not required.
One more point, I would like to clarify here is that a relic of a saint, preferably a martyr. In fact, as you pointed out: Canon Law makes this an obligation.

Canon 1236 §1. According to the traditional practice of the Church, the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone, and indeed of a single natural stone. Nevertheless, another worthy and solid material can also be used in the judgment of the conference of bishops. The supports or base, however, can be made of any material. §2. A movable altar can be constructed of any solid material suitable for liturgical use.
Canon 1237 §2. The ancient tradition of placing relics of martyrs or other saints under a fixed altar is to be preserved, according to the norms given in the liturgical books.

Secondly relics are still required in consecrated altars.
Thirdly portable altars were once not allowed, but now a suitable portable altar may be used if it is equipped to receive a actual “portable” altar stone.

Here is an example of a small moveable altar stone which is place into a portable altar. Thus Mass may be celebrated outside of Catholic Churches.
However the way one worships in a time of persecution or war cannot be considered the norm for a time of freedom.
The Early Church used simple wooden table in the homes of the faithful or in the catacombs in times of persecution.
During World War II, military chaplains were granted the privilege of using an Antimension in lieu of a portable altar stone. This was granted as an indult and as such is not a norm to be followed. Think it as an emergency measure in times of war!

During the Second World War, the Holy See granted to military chaplains the privilege of using for the celebration of Mass, instead of the Latin-rite portable altar stone, "a veil which had enclosed, and well fastened, authentic relics." This was later extended to peacetime military activities. Since it was not always possible to obtain a veil with authentic relics, the use of an Eastern-rite antimension was considered an acceptable alternative.
Finally, Paul VI's "Pastorale Munus," a letter issued "motu proprio" (on his own initiative) in November 1963, gave to all local ordinaries of the universal Church (of all rites, Western and Eastern) the faculty to grant, for a just and serious reason, to all priests subject to them, who enjoy the faculty of the portable altar, the faculty of substituting for the portable altar stone the Byzantine or the Latin forms of the antimension.

Another point I would like to make here is about how the celebration of the Eucharist is celebrated by priests the are seriously persecuted for their faith and some are even been imprisoned for simply being a priest or bishop. I have heard how some have said Mass secretly while in Communist prisons simply using the actual ground as their altar. Many made wine using raisins! Faith finds a way!

Example of a portable altar with a portable altar stone in place.(Have Altar – Will Travel)

In the 14th century the portable altarstone become common.

Addendum:
According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, it seems that “”the celebration of the Eucharist in a sacred place is to be carried out on an altar; but outside a sacred place, it may be carried out on a suitable table, always with the use of a cloth, a corporal, a cross, and candles.”

The Altar and Its Appointments

The altar on which the Sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs is also the table of the Lord to which the People of God is called together to participate in the Mass, as well as the center of the thanksgiving that is accomplished through the Eucharist.

The celebration of the Eucharist in a sacred place is to be carried out on an altar; but outside a sacred place, it may be carried out on a suitable table, always with the use of a cloth, a corporal, a cross, and candles.

It is appropriate to have a fixed altar in every church, since it more clearly and permanently signifies Christ Jesus, the living stone (1 Pt 2:4; cf. Eph 2:20). In other places set aside for sacred celebrations, the altar may be movable.

An altar is called “fixed” if it is attached to the floor so as not to be removeable; otherwise it is called “moveable.”

The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.[116] The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.

An altar whether fixed or movable is dedicated according to the rite prescribed in the Roman Pontifical; but it is permissible for a movable altar simply to be blessed.

In keeping with the Church’s traditional practice and the altar’s symbolism, the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone and indeed of natural stone. In the dioceses of the United States of America, however, wood which is worthy, solid, and well-crafted may be used, provided that the altar is structurally immobile. The supports or base for upholding the table, however, may be made of any sort of material, provided it is worthy and solid.

A movable altar may be constructed of any noble and solid materials suited to liturgical use, according to the traditions and usages of the different regions.

The practice of placing relics of Saints, even those not Martyrs, under the altar to be dedicated is fittingly retained. Care should be taken, however, to ensure the authenticity of such relics.

In building new churches, it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.


The first part of The Gospel of James, an apocryphal Gospel "contains the story of the unique birth of Mary to Anna and her childhood and dedication to the temple". Similarly The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew confirms "Mary entering service as a temple virgin".
David Hughes gives a fascinating historical background on this subject where he says:

Mary "the Virgin", the only child and daughter of Heli (Luke 3:23) (Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies", 3:21) (Palestinian “Talmud”, Haggigah, Book 77, # 4) [possibly identified with Alexander "Helios", son of the Maccabee Queen Alexandra II by the first of her three husbands], who was a Davidic Dynasty prince, and his Levite wife, Anne, was born around 20/17BC.
In one of the apocryphal gospels Mary’s parents appear as an elderly couple, childless, whose prayers for a child are granted by God and made known by an angel who visits them. Heli and Anne, when Mary was age three, dedicated her to God’s service at the Temple in Jerusalem and at age nine or ten gave her into an order of temple virgins. . . .
Mary, according to apocryphal literature, was early orphaned at age ten and placed into an order of temple-virgins. There are different stories of this event: one, that, Mary, age ten, following the execution of her father, Heli, is taken from her mother, Anne, and, as a possible heiress, to prevent her from marrying or having any children to later rival King Herod or his heirs on the throne, was put by King Herod into an order of temple-virgins, whose members were made to take a vow of chastity, hence, the theory developed that Mary, under a vow, was “ever-virgin”. Her mother, Anne, came to visit her daughter on occasions, but appears to have died while Mary was still a young girl, around age twelve. Here, enters the story of her aunt Elizabeth and uncle Zacharias, Elizabeth‘s husband, a priest, who periodically served in the Temple at Jerusalem according to the schedule of his particular religious order [Abijah].
There is a story that says Mary remained in the temple until she was age 13 when the High-Priest, during a change of political climate, gave Mary into the custody of her aunt and uncle, Elizabeth and Zacharias, who took Mary into their home [either at Hebron or Juttah], and for a while were her guardians. She returned to Jerusalem with them on the occasions of her uncle's periodical temple-service. (bolding is added; bracketed material is in the original)


Is prayer to Jesus required for salvation?

There's an old saying (more or less) in Christianity that it's not a religion, but a relationship.  There is biblical support for this coming from this verse:

  Matthew 7:21-23 (NIV)
   “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Very simply, it's not just what about is in our hearts; nor is it about what we do; it's about having the relationship with Jesus.

Without prayer, there is no relationship (and can be no relationship).  Without prayer, we cannot make ourselves known to God.

  Phillipians 4:6 (NIV)
  Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.

Phillipians shows that if we do not pray, our requests won't be presented to God and so he will (as stated in Matthew) not know us.