Why do translations use words like "servants" to mean "slaves"?

Translation philosophy

The translator's job is to pick the best word(s) to fit their translation philosophy.  This could mean the most "literal" (i.e. technically accurate, ignoring connotations) term, or it could mean trying to most accurately capture the intent of the original author, even if that means changing the words.  The first option is called "formal equivalence", while the later is called "functional equivalence".   Most translators opt for a middle-ground approach where the words can be "changed", but only if there is a strong reason to do so.  (This ignores that 1-to-1 correspondence is very rare.  In reality, all translators must make such choices, regardless of philosophy.)

Slavery in Ancient Rome

It is true that δούλος most closely corresponds to "slave" from a technical standpoint.  The problem is that slavery is typically inseparable from racism in the modern readers mind, at least in most of the English-speaking world (due to American slavery being the most familiar form).  This would be a concept totally alien to the original New Testament writers.  An estimated 95% of slaves in Italy were Italian born, for example.  There is good reason to believe the concept of "race" didn't exist at all in Roman society.

While it is certainly true that conquered people by the Romans were sometimes sold into slavery, people could also sell themselves to pay a debt, and parents could sell their children into slavery.

Additionally, the modern reader associates slavery with forced, hard physical labor.  This kind of slavery existed in Roman society too (e.g. mine workers), but it was not the only or even main kind of slavery.  Almost any type of job you can think of, including cooks, doctors/nurses, housecleaners, private tutors, accountants, and so on, was a possible profession for a slave.  (At least 55 distinct slave jobs are known.)  Slaves with such skills were highly valued; cooks in particular enjoyed a high social status because of their value in entertaining guests of wealthy patrons.

Roman slaves were allowed to earn a wage (page 147) and could, in principle, buy their own freedom (although it was very hard to do).  Significant social mobility was not unheard of for skilled slaves.  Slaves that were freed by their masters choice often chose to keep the same job.  Thus, there was little practical difference between a technically free servant and a slave.  The Latin word servus (from which we get servant) could refer to either.  (The word sclavus, from which we get slave, was not invented until very late in Latin history, well after the Biblical period.)

Implication for translation

What this all means is the that the first century conception of "slave" and the twenty-first conception are very different.  A translator is thus left with a difficult choice - he can either translate as "slave" and possibly add racist and/or violent overtones to a text where there was none originally, or he can translate as "servant" and lose the lack of freedom vibe.

The normal practice in Latin texts (where servus can mean either slave or servant) is to translate the word as servant in most situations, except when the immediate context only fits a "slave" translation.  (E.g. when talking about the activities of the cook, the cook is a servant; when talking about the rules regarding buying and selling cooks, the cook is a slave.)  This is done for reasons of accuracy, not "political correctness",  and applies to texts of all types, including those that have zero to do with Christianity.

Even though Greek does have a separate word for servant, it is still a legitimate translation practice to translate δούλος as "servant" when the context does not demand a "slave" reading.  (Only a hyper-literal translation philosophy would demand otherwise.) This is not done to "hide" anything from the reader, but rather is done because the idea of a "slave" in the culture of the writer more closely matches the idea of a "servant" in the mind of the modern reader in those passages.

Luke 12:45-48

Turning to the passage that prompted the question, it is seems likely that the δούλος described in this passage are household slaves.  (That is, that they do jobs that a modern reader would associate with servants.)  I say this because a master leaving the household for an extended period is a more natural occurrence than a master leaving mine workers, for example, unattended for an extended period.  Additionally the description of the δούλος eating and drinking excessively implies he may be in charge of such provisions.

Thus, the "servant" of the NIV (also ESV) is justifiable under a more functional equivalence based approach.  "Slave", which is used by NRSV and NASB, is also justifiable, under a more formal equivalence based approach.  The meaning of this passage does not in any way change based on the translation of δούλος, so any suggestion that the translation choice is made for theological reasons is off-base.

Addendum

After writing this answer, it came to my attention that the ESV actually explicitly states how they translate δούλος:

  Third, a particular difficulty is presented when words in biblical Hebrew and Greek refer to ancient practices and institutions that do not correspond directly to those in the modern world. Such is the case in the translation of ‘ebed (Hebrew) and doulos (Greek), terms which are often rendered “slave.” These terms, however, actually cover a range of relationships that require a range of renderings—either “slave,” “bondservant,”
  or “servant”—depending on the context. Further, the word “slave” currently carries associations with the often brutal and dehumanizing institution of slavery in nineteenth-century America. For this reason, the ESV translation of the words ‘ebed and doulos has been undertaken with particular attention to their meaning in each specific context... In New Testament times, a doulos is often best described as a “bondservant”—that is, as someone bound to serve his master for a specific (usually lengthy) period of time, but also as someone who might nevertheless own property, achieve social advancement, and even be released or purchase his freedom... Where absolute ownership by a master is in view (as in Romans 6), “slave” is used; where a more limited form of servitude is in view, “bondservant” is used (as in 1 Corinthians 7:21–24); where the context indicates a wide range of freedom (as in John 4:51), “servant” is preferred.

A few thoughts on the King James

The above answer only applies to recent translations.  The 1611 King James Version obvious did not make its decisions based on the later American slavery.  Ultimately, it speculation to define their motives for mostly avoiding "slave" (then spelled "slaue"), but I see several possibilities:

They did so for "politically correct" reasons.  This seems unlikely to me since slavery was legal and probably "socially acceptable" in 1611.
They did so for reasons of personal conviction against slavery.
They were influenced by the use of servus in the Latin Vulgate.
"Slave" was a relatively rare word, and as such was avoided. I think this unlikely - see Google N-grams.
"Slave" could be confused with other uses of the term in contemporary English.  In support of this hypothesis, see the following Oxford English Dictionary definitions that are now archaic, but were in use in 1611:

Used as a term of contempt:

  Where is that Slaue Which told me they had beate you to your Trenches? (Shakespeare, Coriolanus, I. vii. 39)

In less serious use: Rascal; fellow.

  Oh Slaues, I can tell you Newes, News you Rascals. (Shakespeare, Coriolanus, IV. v. 175)

I'll leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about the KJV.


What did Jesus actually get up to in America (according to Mormons)?

If you have a quad, [a four-in-one book containing all four Standard Works that Mormons recognize as canonical scripture, for those unfamiliar with the term,] this account can be found in the Book of Mormon, in 3 Nephi, beginning at chapter 11.  It contains an account of Jesus's ministry among the Nephites, (the inhabitants of the land who the Book of Mormon is a history of,) how he preached the Gospel to them, established/reorganized the church under the Law of the Gospel instead of the Law of Moses, and performed miracles among the people.


What are the historical arguments against a literal interpretation of Luke 22:44?

By historical, do you mean arguments coming from church history aka the early church fathers?

Just a couple notes: sweating drops of blood is a medical condition called hematidrosis. It is understandable if Jesus did undergo this amount of stress when looking forward to "becoming sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21) and being cursed by God (Galatians 3:13 which references Deuteronomy 21:22-23) and having the wrath of God poured out on him instead of us. We can be confident that it wasn't the physical torture that he would have to endure that caused him duress, as many early Christians were tortured and killed in similar to worse ways (Peter crucified upside-down or another disciple being burned while being crucified) and yet they would be singing hymns approaching their death. Jesus had much much worse to deal with - bearing the sins of the entire world.

Athanasius is often attributed as being the most important and influential Christian in defense of the Trinitarian conception of God, mostly against Arianism. However, Arianism would have no problem with the drops of blood of Jesus because Arianism believes in the full humanity of Jesus but not the full deity. So, as bradimus commented, it likely was against Docetism, which rejects the full humanity of Jesus. There are all sorts of other heresies in the early church that had to be protected against, such as Nestorianism, modalism/Patripassianism/Sabellianism, Pelagianism, monophysitism, homoiousian (not the name of a heresy but a view of Jesus contrary to homoousian), etc. Very interesting reads.

Conclusion, Jesus had to be fully God and fully man united in one person, the hypostatic union, or else the atonement fails and should be considered heterodoxy.


What is the basis for the Apostles devoting themselves to prayer for nine days in Acts 1:14?

The existing answers give much valuable and interesting information. This is just to indicate, as asked, how the number of days is actually calculated.

Leviticus 23 16 gives the date of the Jewish Festival of Pentecost as occurring fifty days after the Passover Sabbath. On the basis that the Jewish Passover began on the evening of Good Friday then Pentecost was the Sunday 7 weeks after Easter Day,

This question on the Judaism stack exchange has more about this.

Acts 1 verse 3 tells us that the risen Jesus was seen by His apostles for a period of forty days. Beginning on Easter Sunday, as the first day, we get that the fortieth day was a Thursday, which the Church celebrates as Ascension Day. (In practice it is often celebrated on the following Sunday for convenience.)

Acts 2 verse 1 tells us that the Holy Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost, that is on the Sunday ten days after the Ascension of Christ. This is why Whit Sunday, or  Christian Pentecost, is always exactly 7 weeks after Easter Day.

This leaves the intervening days between Ascension Day and Whit Sunday on which the apostles prayed, as the Friday and Saturday after the Ascension and the whole of the following week, that is nine days in all.


What is the meaning of "sola scriptura"?

I’m not at all convinced that the two interpretations of Sola Scriptura presented in your question are definitive, let alone which one is a corruption of the original meaning.  But before we go any further, it is important to establish what “Tradition” means.  One source of information says this under the heading ‘Irenaeus and Tertullian held to sola Scriptura’:

It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition (tradition handed down in the Church from the apostles in oral form). The word tradition simply means teaching.  Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures. Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.  In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture...  The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church.  Source: https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

Here are a few excerpts from an article adapted from a chapter entitled "Sola Scriptura" by Mark D. Thomson in Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary, edited by Matthew Barrett.  What Did Luther Really Believe about Scriptural Authority?

Luther was summoned to an interview with Tommaso de Vio, or Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534), following the Diet of Augsburg in October 1518. When Cajetan challenged him on the basis of the church’s teaching, Luther insisted, “The truth of Scripture comes first. After that is accepted one may determine whether the words of men can be accepted as true.” [1 Martin Luther, Acta Augustana (1518), WA 2:21.5–6; LW 31:282.]
It is clear that Luther was not dismissing the authority of “the words of men” but rather submitting them to what he regarded as a higher authority, “the truth of Scripture.” Throughout his ministry Luther would cite the fathers and the creeds and even some decisions of the early church councils in support of his teaching, but he did not consider them decisive. Yet they were also more than merely illustrative. Insofar as they faithfully expressed the teaching of Scripture, they were to be regarded as authoritative. Scripture was not the only authority but rather the final authority.
He recognized other subsidiary and contingent authorities, not alongside but under the rule of Scripture, which remained his final authority. These other authorities included not only the church fathers but also a number of significant medieval theologians.
His willingness to reason from the Scriptures (following the example of Paul in Acts 17:2) is evident as early as the famous statement made at the Diet of Worms in May 1521:6
”Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by evident reason—for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself conquered by the Scriptures adduced by me and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” [7 Martin Luther, Verhandlungen mit D. Martin Luther auf dem Reichstage zu Worms (1521), WA 7:838.4–7; LW 32:112.]
So for Luther, Scripture itself remained the final authority, but this did not eliminate all appeal to the fathers, the creeds, and the decisions of the church. Reading Scripture is a fellowship activity in which the voices of those who have read before us need to be heard attentively.  Source: https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-sola-scriptura-really-means/

Finally, here is an extract from an article on the Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura and Tradition:

Sola Scriptura in Lutheran form is not against tradition per se.  While some brands of Christianity might insist that if it’s not in the Bible then it’s not Christian, Lutheran theology understands that a tradition is allowable when (a) it is not contradicted by scripture, (b) it serves a purpose that is scriptural, and (c) it is not enforced as a pre-condition for Christian unity.  It is nonetheless possible to assert the principle of Sola Scriptura in a manner similar to the bumper sticker that says: “The Bible Says It, I Believe It, That Settles It.”  However, a Lutheran theological approach resists simplification.  For Lutheran Christians, reading the Bible does not mean setting aside critical thinking skills. Source: https://lutherantheology.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/a-brief-introduction-to-sola-scriptura/

To answer your question, I agree with Martin Luther who said the truth of Scripture comes first and that Scripture is the final authority.  Yes, the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  (KJV but took the liberty of replacing ‘throughly’ with thoroughly)

However, that does not mean we have to disengage our intellects or refuse to acknowledge biblical teachings (traditions) that have been handed down from the early church fathers who were taught by Jesus’ disciples.
I’m now going to track down that bumper sticker.


What was the Jewish understanding of baptism?

what was the existing Jewish thought about Baptism?
  Who needed to be baptized and when?

According to the German Wikipedia, baptism was not common in the time of John the Baptist among the normal Jewish people at all.

There were different smaller (and probably more radical) religious groups (like the Essenes) that practiced rites similar to baptism.

  ... the message of John the Baptist and the Jewish leaders reaction to it ...

The reaction of the Jewish leaders is surely caused by John's message, not by the rite of baptism itself:

According to Mt 3,7, John the Baptist explicitly accused the religious Jewish leaders of his time to live in sin.

This explains that the Jewish religious leaders definitely did not agree to his message at all.


WARNING - CATHOLIC ANSWER

A religious sister at the end of the Faith Formation class I teach at was talking about this difference last night.

Angels are pure spirit, like God.

"Angel is their office, Spirit is their nature" - St. Augustine (see CCC)
Angels do not need to be saved by Jesus.

They made their choice to serve God or not before time began and do not have a fallen nature brought about by original sin.
Angels cannot consume the Eucharist.

Some theologians believe that this, coupled with the vision that Jesus would come to redeem mankind and be born of a woman, is the reason for Lucifer's revolt.

Catechism entry on angels

The internet does not seem to be a good place to source this info, or my google-fu is a little off.  Most of what we posit about the nature of angels is borne of private revelation.

So take it or leave it, I'll try to improve this answer when I come across the places I heard this information.


In a Catholic viewpoint, is it possible for Rome to fall?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  754 "The Church is, accordingly, a sheepfold, the sole and necessary gateway to which is Christ. It is also the flock of which God himself foretold that he would be the shepherd, and whose sheep, even though governed by human shepherds, are unfailingly nourished and led by Christ himself, the Good Shepherd and Prince of Shepherds, who gave his life for his sheep.Lumen Gentium 6; Cf. Jn 10:1-10; Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:11-31; Jn 10:11; 1 Pet 5:4; Jn 10:11-16.

The Church is a community established by the Lord Himself, and He unfailingly nourishes and Leads her; if she were subject to "complete institutional corruption," as you put it, then it would mean that the Christ failed to nourish and lead her.

  765 The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the Twelve with Peter as their head.Cf. Mk 3:14-15 Representing the twelve tribes of Israel, they are the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem.Cf. Mt 19:28; Lk 22:30; Rev 21:12-14 The Twelve and the other disciples share in Christ's mission and his power, but also in his lot. Cf. Mk 6:7; Lk 10:1-2; Mt 10:25; Jn 15:20 By all his actions, Christ prepares and builds his Church.

The structure of the Church was endowed by Christ and will remain until the completion of the Kingdom, and therefore isn't subject to complete corruption unless the Kingdom has already been fully achieved.

  768 So that she can fulfill her mission, the Holy Spirit "bestows upon [the Church] varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her."LG 4 "Henceforward the Church, endowed with the gifts of her founder and faithfully observing his precepts of charity, humility and self-denial, receives the mission of proclaiming and establishing among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is on earth the seed and the beginning of that kingdom."LG 5

The Holy Spirit is responsible for directly guarding and protecting the Church by dispensing His gifts, both hierarchical and sacramental. It is the Holy Spirit who guarantees both Conciliar and Papal Infallibility, by preventing them from teaching in their Canons or ex Cathedra, respectively, anything which will corrupt the Church.

In any case, there is also the Biblical promise in Mt 16:18:

  18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Here Christ clearly says that the Church shall subsist until the end of time, so we are justified in believing that she will not fail.

Now, regarding the city of Rome itself, or the temporal power of the Papacy, that might (and has, at times) fallen, but the point of the Vatican existing is so that the Church isn't seen as an Italian institution, and the Pope isn't seen as a subject of the Italian State. For contrast, recall that the Ottomans would not allow a foreigner to occupy the Patriarchate of Constantinople after they conquered that great city.

In any case, the fall of the Vatican City State does not imply the fall of the Pope's global authority, though it might affect his standing among the diplomatic corps of the world. Even if he were chased out of the Eternal City and had to take up residence in Pisa, Avignon, Dharamsala or New Jersey, he would remain the Supreme Pontiff, Vicar of Christ, and the Rock upon which the Church is built.


How do those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture explain that not everyone who remains will believe?

It is not only the failure to notice those disappearing in the rapture, other more significant events also fail to motivate people to repent.

  Revelation 16:9-11  And men were scorched with great heat, and
  blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and
  they repented not to give him glory.   And the fifth angel poured out
  his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of
  darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,   And blasphemed the
  God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not
  of their deeds.

The rapture may occur coincident with or just prior to the events described in the first part of chapter six of Revelation where one out of every four people on earth dies. The rapture might not be discerned, but even if it was we have a picture of hardened hearts that would rather try to fight against God and endure unprecedented pain out of their hatred than chose a path of repentance.

There is also the possibility that their hardened hearts were sealed such that they have no interest in repentance.

  2 Thessalonians 2:9-12  Even him, whose coming is after the working of
  Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,  And with all
  deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they
  received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.   And
  for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
  believe a lie:   That they all might be damned who believed not the
  truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

There is an interesting line from the movie "The Maltese Falcon". Humphrey Bogart is toying with those trying to get information from him. His tactic is to exaggerate each scenario his inquisitors suggest so that they would have to kill him. He thinks that this effectively blocks their proposals. Sidney Greenstreet then urges caution, "Let's be careful because in the heat of the moment men are likely to forget in which direction their best interests lie".

While Greenstreet's warning does have truth in it, it fails to consider the obdurate. depraved, or reprobate mind. Men who have no interest in God when pressed by calamity will probably not make decisions based on even their own best interest, but simply vent their hate and frustration on others. We get a picture of this frustration when such men are not allowed to die.

  Revelation 9:6  And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not
  find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

The tribulation does an effective job of showing the heart of natural (fallen) man. We may deceive ourselves that we are evolving as a species and getting ever wiser, smarter, and more compassionate. However, unprecedented calamity and the righteous wrath of God will expose these delusions for what they are. Like Dorian Gray, we may have to face the ugliness of our real selves.


How are John 17:3 (the Father being "the only true God") and John 14:6 (Jesus being "the truth") reconcilable?

Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., explains in his commentary on John 17:3:

That they may know Thee, the only true God. Hence the Arians infer that Christ is not true God. In reply,

S. Augustine (in loc.), Bede, and others, connect together Jesus Christ and the Father under the one term “Deity,” and interpret thus, As the Father is true God, so is the Son also true God. (See S. Hil. lib. ix. de Isaiah.) The statement would otherwise be imperfect, for if we believed that the Father alone was true God, we could not have anything else to say about Jesus Christ, unless we understood that He was true God also. The Fathers, in fact, infer from this Christ’s Godhead.

S. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others reply that the word “only” does not exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit, but merely idols and false gods. And the meaning is that they may believe in Thee, who art that God, who only is the true God, as is also the Son and the Holy Spirit. That the Son is true God is sufficiently indicated, when it is said that eternal life consists in the knowledge of Him and of the Father alike. For eternal life necessarily consists in (the knowledge of) the one supreme and true God. (See S. Ambrose de Fide, v. 2.) Christ therefore through modesty does not call Himself God, but one sent by the Father, as the Redeemer of the world. For such He was when Incarnate, and made man. And hence we infer that faith in the Incarnation and the Trinity is required in order to salvation. For the Father cannot be fully believed in, apart from the Son and the Holy Spirit, for the Paternity of the Father requires also the breathing forth of the Holy Spirit.


How should a Christian respond to "Does this dress me look fat?"?

A successful marriage relationship will need a full measure of agape love.  Here's how Paul defines it with particularly relevant words bolded:

  Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.—1st Corinthians 13:4-7 (ESV)

Let's take these in reverse order:

Rejoices with the truth

Presumably, the husband does not think he is telling the truth.  By this standard, lying to your wife is not loving.

It is not arrogant or rude

However, if the husband said exactly what he thought, that would be rude (and possibly arrogant):

  It makes you look like a pregnant cow.

Honestly, given the choice, it would be more loving to lie to your wive than to be rude.

Love is patient and kind

But there's another way.  The patient thing to do is to ask questions or let the wife down easy.  I've found that saying things like "I wonder if it would be a good idea to accessorize?" communicates that something is not quite right, without being rude.  (I don't know what accessorizing means exactly or how it could help, but it shows my wife that I care.)  Another thing that works for me is to spend "too long" appraising the outfit.  After a minute of looking and contemplating, my wife will get the hint: something isn't right.

If we are about to go out and I think there's a good chance she will be embarrassed if someone posts a picture of the outfit on Facebook.  The kindest thing I can do is let her know:

  Dearest, I know you spent the last hour and a half getting ready to go, but I really think you'd look better in some other dress.

Then I will (Lord willing) spend whatever time is needed helping her look her best.


Do Protestants believe that all sins are equal?

The consensus among Protestants is that some sins are worse than others, but even the smallest sin deserves God's wrath.  Or, put another way, sins are equally damning, but not equally heinous.  The Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it succinctly:

Every sin deserves God's wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come. (Answer 84)
Some sins [...] are more heinous in the sight of God than others. (Answer 83)

Reformed theologians like Louis Berkhof1 and John Frame2  follow this framework.  So do Baptists like A. H. Strong3 and Wayne Grudem.4  Grudem explains:

In terms of our legal standing before God, any one sin, even what may seem to be a very small one, makes us legally guilty before God and therefore worthy of eternal punishment.
On the other hand, some sins are worse than others in that they have more harmful consequences in our lives and in the lives of others, and, in terms of our personal relationship to God as Father, they arouse his displeasure more and bring more serious disruption to our fellowship with him.

Arminian theologian H. Orton Wiley5 similarly holds that the penalty of sin is "death physical, temporal and eternal," but that the term "penalty [...] must be made to include the consequences of all the various evils included in sin."  He thus describes "degrees of both guilt and penalty as in the case of sins of ignorance or infirmity as over against sins of knowledge."
Anglican W. H. Griffith Thomas6 explains that "[a]ll sin is deadly in that it tends toward death, but there are sins which because they are deliberately committed against light are obviously more injurious to the soul."
Lutheran theologian John Mueller, condensing Franz Pieper's work,7 likewise writes:

Every transgression of the divine Law is rebellion against God and therefore damnable, Gal. 3, 10.  From the viewpoint of damnability therefore we cannot speak of "smaller" and "greater" sins.  Still Scripture itself distinguishes degrees in sinning [....] [and] degrees also in the eternal punishment which the damned will suffer.

References

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.2.4, p252
Frame, Systematic Theology, Chapter 36, p851.
Strong, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Part V, Chapter VI, pages 656 and 648-650
Grudem, Systematic Theology, Chapter 24, D-4, p501.
Wiley, Christian Theology, Chapter 18
Thomas, Principles of Theology, p230-31
Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, p230


Are there any Christian sects that believe the Old Testament was written (inspired) by Satan or that these scriptures are evil in some way?

Catharism (a Gnostic Christian movement in the 12th to 14th centuries), held the belief that the Old Testament God was Satan (and thus that the scriptures were inspired by Satan). From Wikipedia:

  The idea of two Gods or principles, one being good and the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good God was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, contrasted with the evil Old Testament God—the creator of the physical world whom many Cathars, and particularly their persecutors, identified as Satan.

The Cathars were branded heretics by the Catholic Church. After sending missionaries failed and the Pope's legate was martyred, the Albigensian Crusade was launched, killing most of the Cathars and forcing the survivors to recant and rejoin the church.

Another question on this site asks: What was the explanation for why Catharism identified the Old Testament God as Satan?


No, Michael Corleone would not be absolved, because he was not answering for himself.

A godparent at an infant baptism speaks on behalf of the infant.  When the priest asks, "Do you renounce Satan?" and the other questions, he's asking this of the infant to be baptized, not of the godparent. The godparent answers because the infant can't speak for him/herself at that age.

An older child or adult being baptized would answer the questions for him/herself.


How does the Reformed tradition understand Philippians 2:6-9 as it regards the Hypostatic Union?

A refers to the fact that He became incarnate, and His humility (motive, "mindset" 2:5). Thus, it implicitly contains what He was thinking before the incarnation, but isn't strictly speaking of a specific time.

B the example used for His humility—that He took on the form of a man. Again, it's not so much a time point, rather than recounting the mindset He had in becoming incarnate in general. Now that he is speaking of the incarnate Word (implicit post-incarnation), He is not likely (and doesn't) go back to speak of Him before the Incarnation.

C He is "in human form" and thus this is speaking post-incarnation.

D He is exalted because God the Father loves the perfect humility of His Son; the incarnation necessarily meant God the Father granted to His blameless and divine Son every privlege, including and included in exaltation.


How is it possible to have a high view of the authority of the Bible and a positive view of textual criticism?

Perhaps another way to answer the OP is to say that it is based on a false contrast. As an analogy, consider the following sentences:

  Jazz is the best kind of music and country is the best kind of music.
  Jazz is the best kind of music and the trumpet is the best instrument.

In the first sentence there is a contradiction because the contradictory opinions relate to the same category. But in the second sentence there is no contradiction because the categories are not the same. A musical style is not identical to a musical instrument.

In the same way, textual criticism and authority are not the same category. Textual criticism answers the question, "What is the correct content of the original document?" Authority answers the question, "Is this document one which I should accept as true and normative?" Two different questions.

A simple illustration may assist. The apocrypha are a set of inter-testamental writings that are accepted as authoritative by some but not all sections of the Christian church. A Catholic may accept 1 Maccabees as part of his authoritative bible; a Baptist may not. But both of them, if they choose to read 1 Maccabees, would want to read the most accurate version of that text that is available. The debate over the authority of 1 Maccabees is based on different grounds than the mere determination of the text.


What did Jesus mean by 'take up your cross and follow me'?

What Jesus means is to crucify our "old man" ie. our flesh. Paul talks about this.

  That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
  Eph 4:22 (KJV)

We are to crucify (put off) the old man.


Is the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of "the Monarchy of the Father" consistent with the Athanasian creed?

The official Orthodox answer to this question can be seen most clearly in the answers to two questions in the Revised Catechism:

  094 What difference is there between the Persons of the Holy Trinity?

  God the Father is neither begotten nor proceeds from any other Person, he is the cause, source and principle. This is called the Monarchy of the Father.

  etc.

and

  095 Are the three Hypostases or Persons of the Most Holy Trinity all of equal majesty? Why then does Jesus say “the Father is greater than I?”

  The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit share equal majesty as being the eternal, uncreated Savior and Lord. The Father is true God, the Son equally true God, and the Holy Spirit true God. This ontological or essential equality was expressed by the Church by the expression “homoousion” (of the same essence) to condemn Arianism and affirm that the Son is co-eternal and co-uncreated with the Father. This does not negate different roles or functions:

  Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and hold firm to the traditions as I delivered them to you. But I desire you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

  ‘For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is obvious that this excludes the one who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one (1 Corinthians 15:27-28).

  When the Son says that the “Father is greater than I am,”
  (John 14:28) he is referring to the fact that the Father is the
  cause and origin, as the Holy Fathers interpret this text:

  The Son does not say, “My Father is better than I,” lest we should conceive him to be foreign to his nature, but “greater,” not indeed in greatness nor in time, but because of his generation from the Father himself. (St Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, 1.58)
  Since the Son’s origin (arche) is from the Father, in this respect the Father is greater, as cause and origin. This is why the Lord says, “My Father is greater than I.” Indeed, what else does the word Father signify unless being the cause and origin of that which is begotten of Him? (St Basil, Against Eunomius, 1.25)
  Superior greatness belongs to the cause, equality to the nature.... To say that [the Father] is greater than [the Son] in his humanity is certainly true, but it is not the point here, since it is no wonder that God is greater than man... (St Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration, 30.7)
  If anyones say that the Father is greater in so far as He is the cause of the Son, we will not dispute this. But this, however, does not make the Son to be of a different essence. (St John Chrysostom, Homily, 70)

In summary, the Orthodox position explains the Monarchy of the Father in terms of his superior greatness as 'cause, source and principle', while simultaneously maintaining co-equality amongst the Persons of the Trinity due to their being of the same essence. This, is maintained not to be contradictory to the 'Athanasian creed' which (although not used liturgically in the Orthodox churches) is recognised as sound doctrine (source).


What is the difference between man's soul and spirit?

There is an interesting passage in the magnificat in Luke,

The phrase in verses 2:56,47   seems to indicate that Spirit and Soul basicly mean the same thing. Jewish verse uses a technique called parallelism where one line says something, and the next ,the same thing but using diifferent words for emphasis.

It might be pushing it a bit but the phrasing here does tend to present an interterminology and holistic viewpoint of the inner aspect of man.

Logicaly to say that there are two seperate parts of Mary rejoicing or exulting leads to an assumption that there are two independendant self consciouse, self expressing entities with in one person, who by the way is aware that they are present and active! Such a conclusion does not make sense.Especialy to the Jewish thinking, which was not so clear cut as the Greek dualism of the time. Up to that time many scholars indicate that the view was held that the body and the soul were a composite whole one linked to the other and not seperate in the way that later Theology developed and expressed the nature of man.

Therefore we must conclude that these terms "spirit" and "soul" refer to the immaterial part of human beings and are aspects and interchangable terms of expression of these.

I feel it is rather difficult and confusing to try to define too clearly the various parts of the above in terms of differentials. Especialy with those are all used in the NT particularly.

There are mysteries within the acts of God that are beyond our comprehension.cf Psalm 139. The problem we have is that we always want things to be 2+2= 4. It is just not that easy to come down hard and fast and defend a particular emphasis on the Biblical expressions of the nature of mankind.

In the classic text in Thessalonians Paul seems to be making a tri-partite affirmation, but it could well be he is using interchangeable terms to relate that he is talking about the entirety of the human being. Once again a kind of parallelism or overstatment for emphasis to give fullness of meaning could be the style in this passage. The rich vocabulary of the Greek Paul used gave ample opportunity for this kind of prose.

In summary the full data of the scripture uses the terms spirit, soul, and even heart interchangeably and the context indicates the process or functionality rather than a difference in substance or place within a human being. To press one or the other to make an absolute point of reference and fixed meaning tends to move away from the holistic view that the biblical record suggests.


According to the Catholic Church, is there any indirect mention of purgatory in the Gospels?

In the encyclical Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict XVI provides an interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in which the rich man is in Purgatory:

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.
This early Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but, as the parable of the rich man illustrates, are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss. There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God. The early Church took up these concepts, and in the Western Church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory.


According to Aquinas, does "love" towards something always bring "desire" towards that something?

St. Thomas Aquinas defines love (amor) as something that "belongs to the appetitive [spec., concupiscible] power which is a passive faculty" (Summa Theologica I-II q. 27 a. 1 c.).

"Love (amor) is something pertaining to the appetite". (ibid. I-II q. 26 a. 1 c.)"Passion is the effect of the agent on the patient." (ibid. I-II q. 26 a. 2 c.)

A sensitive appetite (i.e., an appetite pertaining to the senses) can be concupiscible or irascible. St. Thomas says (ibid. I q. 81 a. 2 c.) that the concupiscible appetitite is that

  through which the soul is simply inclined to seek what is suitable, according to the senses, and to fly from what is hurtful

The irascible is that

  whereby an animal resists these attacks that hinder what is suitable, and inflict harm

When you say "desire," it seems you mean what St. Thomas calls desire/cupidity or desiderium/cupiditas (cf. ibid. I-II q. 40 a. 1).

Hope might be the irascible analogue of "love" that you're looking for (cf. the aforementioned article).


If God is omnipotent, then God is ultimately in charge of everyone, even demons. No one does anything apart from the will of God.

Many accept the existence of two wills in God - a hidden will of election (hidden or decretal will), and a revealed will. Following that idea, we could say that demons are obedient to God's hidden will (as indeed, everything perfectly is), while disobedient to God's revealed will. But it is his decretal will that they be disobedient to his revealed will, so it is his will that they disobey his will, and their disobedience is itself thus a form of obedience to God.

My answer is heavily influenced by Reformed theology, although Luther likewise believed in two wills. (I myself am a universalist rather than Reformed, but TULIP is only one step away from universalism - replacing the L with a U.) As I see it, the two wills doctrine is the only way to maintain the omnipotence of God.

I guess the alternative is to embrace metaphysical libertarianism, and maybe the sovereignty of God can be salvaged through middle knowledge. Personally, I find metaphysical libertarianism to be incoherent, and middle knowledge even more so. (I'd also note that both notions are, in my appraisal, alien to the Bible.) But there is no denying this is an alternative possible answer to your question.


How do non-Sabbatarians interpret Revelation 14:12?

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. - Romans 8:1-9

In light of much of what the New Testament and Jesus Himself has to say about Love and about the Law and the Prophets:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 22:37b-40

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” - John 13:34-35

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. - Romans 13:8-10

It is fair to conclude that those saints in Revelation 14:12 have kept the commandments of God, not in the letter of the Law but in Love.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses maintain 'secret' teachings?

All the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are publicly available on their Jehovah’s Witnesses' Official Website and made known in their public ministry and literature.  There are no secrets that take time or merit to unlock.

I have been a Witness my entire life (42+ years), and the things I study and learn now are the same things I studied in my teenage years before I was baptized.

The only thing that might be considered "secret" is the guidebook that elders receive upon their appointment, which is kept confidential and not distributed to other congregation members or the public.  There is nothing in there related to teachings, however, it is merely procedural guidelines for handling congregation matters. Much of what is written there is sourced from other publicly available Witness literature.


I should probably let a member of the LDS Church answer this, as I only attended the LDS Church for a few months.  There was an LDS conference during that time, and I'm going to attempt to answer based on what I can find for official statements and my own memory of the event.

From the LDS Website:

  What is general conference?

  General conference is a semiannual gathering of The Church of Jesus
  Christ of Latter-day Saints. During general conference weekend, Church
  members and others gather worldwide in a series of two-hour sessions
  to receive inspiration and instruction from Church leaders.

Even though the main conference occurs in Salt Lake City, it's something that every member of the LDS Church can attend, in the local congregations.  In the one I was attending, it was shown over a projector, and all of the members attended.  They also use modern technology like Podcasts, YouTube, and others to give people that absolutely couldn't attend in person, or in their local place of gathering a chance to see and listen to the entire messages.  On top of that, the Deseret News provides extensive coverage.

The purpose is to give the leaders a chance to give guidance to the Church (as a whole - all members of the LDS Church, rather than local Churches), to preach, to exhort, and to instruct.  Also, announcements such as changes to Church Leadership, new direction, new understanding of doctrine based on divine revelation to Church Leadership is all common as well.

The teachings covered here are considered to be authoritative, and according to the following, are considered inspired.

Again, from the official LDS site: (bold text added by me)

  Read Doctrine and Covenants 68:2–4. What “scriptures” do we have today in addition to the standard works? (The inspired teachings of
  modern-day Apostles and Prophets.) Where can we find the teachings of
  modern-day Apostles and Prophets? (Church magazines and general
  conference reports.) How have you been blessed as you have treated
  their counsel as scripture?

For the members, it's a chance to hear directly from those highest in the Church leadership.

As much as I hate quoting from Wikipedia, it covers the basics quite well:

  General conferences are held on the weekends containing the first
  Sunday in April and the first Sunday in October. The April conference
  is known as the Annual General Conference, and the October conference
  as the Semiannual General Conference. The April conference includes
  annual statistical and financial reports not included in the October
  meeting. Both conferences are identified by the number of years since
  the church was founded in April 1830; thus, the April 2011 meeting was
  the 181st Annual General Conference, and the October 2011 meeting was
  the 181st Semiannual General Conference.

As for the significance to the Church members, aside from the obvious implications of the above:

It's not much different than any other annual or semi-annual business meeting for many secular businesses.  It's a chance to make big announcements, and motivation speeches, but of course, related to the Church and revelation from God, rather than the types of things important to businesses.

For someone who has never attended one, it's hard to describe on one hand.  To say that the Church Leaders give messages is a true statement, and they make announcements, and in general, give direction to the Church as a whole.  That all sounds a bit dry.  The official descriptions don't adequately describe the excitement and adoration that is evident.  It reminds me of how Apple employees reacted to Steve Jobs.  I don't mean that in a derogatory way.  I included it to attempt to convey the atmosphere, which is something I've never seen matched in other Church events. (Clarification - the meetings themselves are not like that - I was referring to the excitement of anticipation, the discussion in the car on the way to the Church, in the parking lot, etc.  Once the general sessions start, the atmosphere was much more reverent, but everyone gave rapt attention to the leaders.)

The excitement is understandable, considering that those they hear from include the President of the Church, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Considering that the Church teaching is that these people are still receiving divine revelation from God, it's only one step removed from hearing from God Himself.

You can find much more information simply by searching their amazingly well done online Scripture Citation Index for "General Conference".  For example, from there I learned that Elder Paul V Johnson (one of the Seventy) considers it a sacred responsibility for all members of the Aaronic Priesthood to attend.

  It is a sacred responsibility to address you in this general
  priesthood meeting. I always look forward to attending these
  priesthood sessions with my sons. I have great memories of sitting by
  them in our stake center as we listened to the teachings of the
  General Authorities. These meetings made a difference in my life when
  I was a young man, and they continue to make a difference in my life
  now. I know they have been an influence on my sons and on millions of
  Aaronic Priesthood holders around the world.

And, not that it's doctrinally important, it's a chance to listen to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, who are really quite good.


What is the basis of St. Pius X in 1906 that led to the approval of the prayer devotion: "Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us"?

What are the origins that lead Pope St. Pius X in 1906 to approve the prayer invocation: “Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us”?
Prior to Pope Pius X’s approval to this invocation, Blessed Pope Pius IX had manifested his approval of the same title in a letter addressed to Msgr Oswald Van den Berghe, author of Marie et le Sacerdoce.

Marked by the priestly piety of the school of Bérulle, Pope Saint Pius X was singularly favourable to the invocation of Our Blessed Lady under the title of Virgo Sacerdos. Already in 1875, Blessed Pius IX had manifested his approval of the same title in a letter addressed to Msgr Oswald Van den Berghe, author of Marie et le Sacerdoce. Saint Pius X was pleased when an Italian translation of this work appeared.
When the Daughters of the Heart of Jesus, founded by Blessed Marie de Jésus Deluil-Martiny, asked for permission to invoke the Mother of God, in their chapels, as Maria Virgo Sacerdos, Saint Pius X wishing to extend the devotion to all the faithful, charged Cardinals Vanutelli and Vivès with composing a prayer that would make this Marian title better known. The prayer appeared, indulgenced by Pope Saint Pius X, on 9 May 1906. - Prayer to Mary, the Sacerdotal Virgin

The Postulator of her Cause of Canonization is a priest from my home archdiocese.

The Daughters of the Heart of Jesus
The second phase of Marie Deluil Martiny’s life was a flowering of the first. After a long preparation in prayer, she opened the first house of the Society of the Daughters of the Heart of Jesus at Berchem near Anvers in Belgium on June 20, 1873. The new foundation was characterized by a burning desire to console the Heart of Jesus, and by a mystical participation in His victimal priesthood, patterned after that of His Holy Mother at the foot of the Cross.
Divine Jealousy for Sacerdotal and Consecrated Souls
Mother Marie de Jésus wrote: “They will live from that life of suffering love that was the intimate life of the Heart of Jesus; they will penetrate the most tender secrets of His love: the Eucharist, the Church, His divine jealousy for sacerdotal and consecrated souls.”
Priests: Sacrificers and Victims
“What a calling! The Work must give to Christ souls who offer themselves as a sacrifice of Love, these will be “the victims of Love that Jesus asks for,” by the Holy Eucharist. The Host has become indispensable to my life; I should wish never to leave it for the sake of sacerdotal souls [priests]. Too many of them are satisfied with being Sacrificers and exercise their sacred functions without steeping them enough in the Priestly Spirit, that is, without themselves becoming truly Victims at the same times as Sacrificers, and so God wills that legions of souls who are truly Victims offer themselves as humble supplements for what certain priests are lacking in the Priestly Spirit. Their example is Mary, the Mother of Jesus.”
Offering for Priests
“To offer yourself for souls is beautiful and great,” wrote Mother Deluil Martiny, “but to offer yourself for the souls of priests is so beautiful, so great, that you would have to have a thousand lives and offer your heart a thousand times. . . . I would gladly give my life if only Christ could find in priests what he is expecting from them. I would gladly give it even if just one of them could perfectly realize God’s divine plan for him.”
The Blessed Virgin Mary United to the Victimal Priesthood of Her Son
Marie Deluil Martiny presents the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of Christ the Victim Priest and of all who are called to follow Him in the way of His Victimal Priesthood. By her most intimate and perfect participation in the Victimal Priesthood of her Son, the Blessed Virgin Mary is both Coredemptrix and Mediatrix. She is the Virgo sacerdotalis, sacerdotal, not by virtue of sacramental ordination, but by virtue of her unique and entire adhesion to the Sacrifice of Christ. - A Life Offered for Priests

The above information provides the basis that led to the approval of the prayer devotion: “Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us” by Pope St. Pius X in 1906?
Fr. Francis Marsden, 36 yrs a priest of 36 years with a Cambridge chemistry doctorate puts it this way:

As a Catholic priest, when I saw this question, I thought it was untrue. It’s forty years since I started theological studies, and I don’t remember ever seeing a prayer which addressed Mary as Virgin Priest.
The expression made me rather uncomfortable, especially in the modern context of agitation for the ordination of women.
However, the questioner turns out to be correct. There was a prayer for priests issued in 1906 which uses the expression “Maria, Virgo Sacerdos, ora pro nobis.”
The rationale quotes St Antoninus: “although you (Mary) did not receive the Sacrament of Order, you were full in dignity and grace of whatever is given by it.” You are therefore rightly hailed as Virgin Priest.
It was a prayer which the Daughters of the Heart of Jesus were accustomed to recite in their churches. That’s a religious order I’ve not heard of.
Back in 1906 nobody would have thought of women becoming priests, whereas now it’s all the rage to campaign for it. So I doubt that such a prayer would today obtain official approval.
Just to make sure, in 1916 the Holy Office prohibited pictures of Mary shown in Mass vestments.
Denominations which have ordained women to their priesthood might have less qualms about this expression Virgo Sacerdos. - What is the basis of St. Pius X in 1906 that led to the approval of the prayer devotion; “Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us”?

Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFMCap, Pontifical Household Preacher states that the invocation is officially not permitted publicly!
Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa O.F.M. Cap. (born July 22, 1934) is an Italian Catholic cardinal and priest in the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin and a theologian. He has served as the Preacher to the Papal Household since 1980, under Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. Pope Francis raised him to the rank of cardinal on 28 November 2020.

"First of all I would like to refer to the question of the title of priest attributed to the Virgin in tradition. A writer of the end of the fifth century calls Mary "Virgin, and at the same time priest, and altar who has given us Christ -- bread of Heaven for the remission of sins." After this, there were frequent references to the topic of Mary as priest, which subsequently became the object of theological developments in the 17th century, in the French school of St. Sulpice. In it, Mary's priesthood is not placed so much in the context of a relationship with the ministerial priesthood, but rather with that of Christ."
At the end of the 19th century a true and proper devotion to the Virgin-priest spread, and St. Pius X even accorded an indulgence to its relative practice. However, when the danger was perceived of confusing the priesthood of Mary with the ministerial priesthood, the magisterium of the Church became reticent and two interventions of the Holy Office practically put an end to such devotion.
After the council, the priesthood of Mary is still spoken of, but it is no longer linked to the ministerial priesthood nor to the supreme priesthood of Christ, but rather to the universal priesthood of the faithful. As figure and first fruits of the Church, she possessed in a personal way that "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9), that all the baptized possess in a collective way. - Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM Cap, Pontifical Household Preacher.

Decree of April 8,1916:

Decretum
Circa  Imagines Exhibentes BeatIssimam Virginem Mariam Indutan Sacerdotalibus.
Cum recentioribus praesertim temporibus pingi atque diffundi coepissent imagines exhibentes Beatissimam Virginem Mariam indutam vestibus sacerdotalibus, Emi ac Rmi DD. Cardinales Inquisitores Generales, re diligenter perpensa, fer. iv, die 15 ianuarii 1913, decreverunt: « imaginem B. M. Virginis vestibus sacerdotalibus indutae esse reprobandam ».
Feria vero iv, die 29 martii 1916, huiusmodi Decretum publicandum mandarunt.
Datum Romae, ex aedibus S. Officii, die 8 aprilis 1916.
Aloisius Castellano, & R. et U. I. Notarius.


Does the Eastern orthodox church prohibit Christian meditation?

The current usage of the word meditation is strongly linked to buddhist/zen/hindu practices of sitting in a certain position, breathing in a certain way, focusing on emptying the mind and ultimately altering one's consciousness.

That kind of meditation and any other spiritual practices from other religions are strictly forbidden by the Orthodox Church for obvious reasons: being a christian and meditating is like being a buddhist and praying to God.

However, the word meditation itself is not imported from asian languages, like samsara, nirvana, chakra, karma etc. It comes from the latin meditatio meaning to contemplate, to ponder. So its original meaning was different, not linked to asian spiritual practices.

One of my friends started his conversion to Orthodox Christianity after reading a book called "Orthodox meditation". He picked it up with exactly your question in mind: Do the orthodox christians also meditate? thinking of course, about the current connotations of the word. In this book, he found out that orthodox meditation has nothing to do with the asian spiritual practice.

The Philokalia, a collection of eastern orthodox writings about the hesychast tradition, abounds in the use of the word meditation, which is used, of course, with its original meaning e.g. in order to attain humbleness, one should meditate on God's infinite powers as often as possible (not a direct quote, just an example I made up).

As another user advised, it's better if you talk to your confessor priest about this, he will tell you whether doing this is beneficial to you or not and give you the proper instructions on how to do it right.


What does it mean to magnify or glorify the Lord?

I'd give the same answer I gave on this similar (but not quite duplucate) question.

Clearly, those phrases can't mean that we have the ability to alter God in any way.  I don't think that the definition of "magnify God" in these phrases means to actually make God "bigger" or "greater". I understand them to mean "Make God more prominent in my life, our culture, etc."

Magnification doesn't make objects bigger, it alters our perception of an object, making it appear bigger to us.

Similarly, magnifying God doesn't make Him bigger, it means He becomes more prominent to us.

The phrase "God, I magnify you" simply means "I am making you greater (more important) in my life, and putting you first, because you are my focus and priority."


Did the LDS believe that Christians are doomed to hell?

Update 2 Wednesday, October 08, 2014: The error in an article by an author of an article on the Vatican website CANNOT be attributable to the Catholic Church.

Summary of the findings so far

Is there evidence that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) officially teaches or has taught in the past

  "... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) used to
  teach with some vehemence that Christians were doomed to hell."

No there isn't.

What appears to be the primary source of the above quote that has gone on to be quoted by vatican.va?

It appears to be this book The Protestant Revolution: From Martin Luther to Martin Luther King Jr. By William G. Naphy.

What did this article - Forside  Publikationer  Læs Spirituality  No. 13  I said, you are gods - actually say? It said

  Previously, Mormons were taught, and said in their witnessing, that
  Christians are going to hell.

Is this accurate?

There seems to be some truth to it as Bruce R. McConkie went on to write a book that stated

  "Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation
  to their souls (Morm. 8; Moro. 8)" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, Bruce R.
  McConkie, 177)

What appears to be the error of vatican.va?

They have attributed

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) used to
  teach with some vehemence that Christians were doomed to hell.

to: Spirituality in East and West, Easter 2000 (No. 13), from Dialog Center International, 46 Katrinebergvej, DK-8200 Aarhus, Denmark. info@dci.dk

And that's an error as that's not what Spirituality in East and West's article said as shown above.

What is the answer to OP's

  Does the Catholic Church support this statement? From what
  teaching/teachings do they suppose this statement is founded? Better: Can the Catholic Church ...

From what has been presented above, she can't. Please note that vatican.va is NOT the Catholic Church. The error belongs in the first place to the author of THOUGHTS FROM THE DIALOGUE CENTRE IN ÅRHUS, DENMARK.

What is the OP to do now?

Suggest OP contact vatican.va directly.

vatican.va as any human website can and even recently made a mistake and corrected it. cf. Scalfari interview taken down from the Vatican website.

What follows below is what helped in shaping the answer above.

For these kind of questions, my response is better contact the author of the document directly

  "I suppose you'd have to ask the author of the Spirituality in East
  and West article." –  @MattGutting

One may wish to start here: Vatican emails and the contact of relevance appears to be: Pontifical Council for Culture: cultura@cultr.va. That to me would be the best way to answer/clarify Does the Catholic Church support this statement? from what official LDS resource/resources do they suppose this statement is founded?

From ShemSeger's answer, it appears that opposing views were published in in Volume No. 13 of the periodical journal, "Spirituality in East and West".

Thus perhaps the question is asking why has the Vatican website posted only one of the views. That is a question only the Vatican website can answer.

This is what my research has uncovered

  Joseph heard so many competing versions of truth that he decided to turn to God for answers.

  After careful study, he still felt confused. He later wrote, "So
  great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations,
  that it was impossible for a person young as I was [ … ] to come to
  any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong [ … ] In the
  midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to
  myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or,
  are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it,
  and how shall I know it?" (Joseph Smith-History 1:8, 10).

  Joseph turned to the Bible for guidance. [...] He decided to pray
  about what he should do, with simple faith that God would hear and
  answer him.

  Source: Joseph Smith, History & Belief of the Mormon Prophet | Mormon.org

In response to a humble prayer, God called Joseph to re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ.

  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all
  wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds
  were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all
  corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their
  hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of
  men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” -
  (Joseph Smith-History 1:19).

It does appear that a certain Bruce R. McConkie went on to write a book that stated

  "Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls (Morm. 8; Moro. 8)" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966,
  Bruce R. McConkie, 177).

  Source: Mormon Stumpers | Catholic Answers.

From the comments to the answers to the OP, some have stated that this does not constitute official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).

Perhaps a book such as The Protestant Revolution: From Martin Luther to Martin Luther King Jr. | William G. Naphyan  - which in turn references A Closer Look at the Book of Mormon (2001) | Tal Davis - was the source of what the OP stumbled upon on Vatican's official website.

cf. Online Full Text of Mormon Doctrine . (Find: "damnation to their souls")

For further research please see this Google search.

Update Wednesday, October 08, 2014

I contacted a Mr. Tal Davis as follows (sans links):

  Mr. Davis. Please take a look at:

  The Protestant Revolution: From
  Martin Luther to Martin Luther King Jr. | William G. Naphyan (scroll up)

  That books (sic) references  a Tal Davis’  A Closer Look at the Book of Mormon (2001) as the source of the quote. Not sure whether you are associated with the 2001 item.

This was his response:

  In 1992 I wrote an article that was adapted for a pamphlet titled "A
  Closer look at the Book Of Mormon- Is It Another Testament of Jesus
  Christ?" You can see the text of that article, with more current
  statistics, on the MarketFaith website at The Book of Mormon: Is It
  “Another Testament of Jesus Christ?”  If you read it you will see that
  the quote is not there.  I do not know why it was attributed to me
  unless the original magazine article had the quote in an introduction
  written by the editor (I would not have spelled Latter-day Saints as
  Latter Day Saints). The magazine ("Church Training") went [out] of
  publication years ago and I don't have a copy of the issue so I cannot
  verify that theory.

  In any case, I know that the LDS does not
  teach that all Christians (nonMormons) are doomed to hell (just to
  Spirit Prison and the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdoms). However,
  Mormon leaders on numerous occasions have clearly stated that all
  Christian denominations are apostate. In fact, until 1990 the LDS
  temple dramas portrayed Protestant ministers as followers of Satan.


What does it mean for the Spirit to only speak of what he hears? (trinitarian perspective)

From John Gill's exposition of this passage:

  For he shall not speak of himself:
  as Christ, the Son, spoke not of himself in opposition to the Father, so the Spirit speaks not of himself in opposition either to the Father, or the Son, but in perfect agreement with both; being, as of the same nature and essence, power and glory, so of the same mind, understanding, and will; and as they agreed and wrought jointly and harmoniously, in the works of nature and providence, so in the economy of grace and salvation.

  But whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak;
  as Christ himself did, ( John 15:15 ) ; and they are such things as ear has not heard besides; what were secretly transacted in the council and covenant of peace, and agreed upon by all the three persons; things which concern the salvation of men, the Gospel church state, another world, and the glory of all the divine persons: ... (source)

This is extremely useful in two respects:

Recognising the Spirit when He comes: What the Spirit says will align with what the Father says and what the Son says - His voice will be familiar in that sense and a previous familiarity with words from the Father and the Son will serve as a suitable 'introduction' for a believer to therefore recognize the voice of the Spirit when He speaks.
A Safeguard from error - particularly Montanist style errors. There are many who claim to have received the Spirit, but are actually deceived as the words they claim as being from the Spirit are inconsistent with words that come from the Father and the Son. This passage of scripture makes it abundantly clear that the Spirit will not contradict the revelation previously given, therefore prophecies, 'words of wisdom' or 'words of knowledge' should be subjected to the test of whether they are consistent with scripture.


What is the earliest use of the phrase "God the Son"?

This question is complicated, of course, by the fact that we must work with translations of the original texts in order to find this wording. However, at least three second-century authors use this phrasing when translated into English: Justin Martyr, Athenagoras of Athens, and Clement of Alexandria.
Justin Martyr (100–165) writes, in Dialogue with Trypho:

And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.1
Καὶ ὅτι κύριος ὢν ὁ Χριστός, καὶ θεὸς θεοῦ υἱὸς ὑπάρχων, καὶ δυνάμει φαινόμενος πρότερον ὡς ἀνὴρ καὶ ἄγγελος, καὶ ἐν πυρὸς δόξῃ, ὡς ἐν τῇ βάτῳ, πέφανται καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς κρίσεως τῆς γεγενημένης ἐπὶ Σόδομα, ἀποδέδεικται ἐν πολλοῖς τοῖς εἰρημένοις.

At least one translation of Athenagoras's Plea for the Christians (~177) includes the specified phrasing, but see the note for an alternative translation:

Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?2
τίς οὖν οὐκ ἂν ἀπορήσαι τοὺς ἄγοντας θεὸν πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν θεὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, δεικνύντας αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ τάξει διαίρεσιν, ἀκούσας ἀθέους καλουμένους

Clement of Alexandria (150–215) writes in Salvation of the Rich Man:

They rave about the carcase, which they despise as weak, being blind to the wealth within; knowing not what a “treasure in an earthen vessel” we bear, protected as it is by the power of God the Father, and the blood of God the Son, and the dew of the Holy Spirit.3
καὶ μαίνονται περὶ τὸ σαρκίον, οὗ καταφρονοῦσιν ὡς ἀσθενοῦς, τῶν ἔνδον ὄντες τυφλοὶ κτημάτων, οὐκ ἐπιστάμενοι πηλίκον τινὰ "θη σαυρὸν ἐν ὀστρακίνῳ σκεύει" βαστάζομεν, δυνάμει θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ αἵματι θεοῦ παιδὸς καὶ δρόσῳ πνεύματος ἁγίου περιτετειχισμένον.

I'm unable to find this phrasing in the earliest fathers, like Polycarp or Ignatius, suggesting that the middle of the 2nd century is the earliest such record available to us.

References:

Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 128, in Ante-Nicene Fathers.  "God the Son" also appears in a modern translation, published 2003, in Selections from the Fathers of the Church.
A Plea for the Christians, chapter 10, in Ante-Nicene Fathers.  In a 1956 translation, the phrasing is "Who then would not be amazed hearing those called atheists who call God Father and Son and Holy Spirit...?"
Salvation of the Rich Man, chapter 34, in Ante-Nicene Fathers.  The same language is used in Butterworth's 1919 translation.


Was Thomas a believer before seeing the resurrected Jesus?

Yes and No.

Faith is not a binary option - it comes in degrees, has differing objects in view, and requires testing to discern it's genuine worth.

Thomas was a believer in the sense of trusting in Jesus as his master and teacher and forsaking all to follow him - this was akin to the faith of the Old Testament saints.  He may even have agreed at one point with Peter's assertion that Jesus was 'the Christ, the Son of the living God'. However, prior to 'receiving the Holy Spirit' (post resurrection) he did not fully understand what this meant (even though Jesus had forewarned his disciples on multiple occasions) - that the Christ would have to suffer and die for the sake of the sins of His people and would be later raised to life as Lord over all creation.

Thomas was yet to receive what most Evangelical Christians think of as 'saving faith' through the work of the Holy Spirit in Regeneration which did happen sometime in the period between his first post-resurrection encounter and the outpouring at Pentecost. There are some differences of opinion amongst Christians (even amongst Evangelicals) as to exactly when this happened, the main options being:

a. Through Revelation by the Holy Spirit of the risen Christ as Lord (immediately prior to Thomas's declaration of 'my Lord and God'.

b. When Jesus breathed on his disciples to receive the Holy Spirit.

c. When the disciples received the outpoured Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

Scripture References: John 20:19-29, Luke 24:36-53, Acts 1:1-14, Acts 2:1-4


When was “pistis christou” first understood as a statement about Christ’s faith?

Having chased up the account provided in the answer that follows, I now find there is a full-blown and properly specialist study of precisely this question. Gratifyingly, the main contours are the same, and it looks like Benecke is indeed one of the "heroes" of the tale. Interested readers should therefore consult: Benjamin Schliesser, "‘Exegetical Amnesia’ and ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: The ‘Faith of Christ’ in Nineteenth-Century Pauline Scholarship", Journal of Theological Studies 66.1 (2015): 61-89 for wider context, full details, further references (including patristic resources) and informed discussion.

So far as I'm aware, the first argument for the "subjective genitive" (something like "the fidelity of Christ") rather than the commmon understanding as the "objective genitive" (something like "faith in Christ") for Πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis christou) appears in the Romans commentary of Wilhelm Benecke, Der Brief Pauli an die Römer (Heidelberg, 1831), pp. 69ff. = An exposition of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Longman et al, 1854), pp. 142ff. It is a clear, non-technical explanation of and plea for the "subjective genitive". Benecke was not a professional theologian: he is best known for a work on marine insurance! The preface to the English translation of his Romans commentary gives a full biography supplying the background for his foray into theological commentary.

Benecke was followed by J.P. Lange, Der Brief Pauli an die Römer (2nd edition; Velhagen und Klasing, 1868; first published 1865), p. 84 = Lange and F.R. Fay, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Scribners, 1869), p. 129. Lange chides contemporary interpreters for failing to reckon with Benecke's arguments.

Another 19th C. proponent is Johannes Haussleiter, Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der christliche Glaube: Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung des Römerbriefes (= The Faith of Jesus Christ and the Christian Faith: A Contribution to the Exposition of Romans), published in 1891 by Georg Böhme (Verlag). He is credited with challenging "the hitherto almost universally accepted view" by Sanday & Headlam, in their older ICC commentary on Romans, pp. 83-84, who summarize and reject his view.1

George Howard wrote a useful article addressing OP's interests (drawing attention to Lange & Fay along the way). He supports the "subjective genitive" interpretation in his article "On the 'Faith of Christ'", Harvard Theological Review 60/4 (1967): 459-465. In it he argues that the Syriac Peshitta unambiguously uses the subjective genitive, and that the Gal. 2:16 occurrence in particular almost demands it.

Howard claims in turn (p. 461) that the "objective genitive" -- almost ubiquitous in more recent writing -- has its origins with Luther. I have checked Luther's Romans and Galatians commentaries, and can't see any special interest in the phrase there (although his remarks on Gal. 3:26 come close, still without explicitly rejecting a "subjective" construal). Howard appears to be basing his comment on Luther's translation practice, though, and Luther's Works are voluminous enough that it might be in there somewhere.

At any rate, this is enough to make clear that the "subjective genitive" understanding goes back at least into the 19th C -- 1831 the first clear expresssion (so far found!) -- and possibly earlier if Howard is correct.

Having posted this answer, I see that the Hays volume referenced by OP also has a discussion of this issue, noting contributions by both Haussleiter and Howard -- although different than the ones cited here! Here Hays is in need of supplementing, and this may be another one of those places where somehow academic tradition enshrines a faulty memory: clearly Haussleiter was not the first to argue for the subjective genitive, even in the 19th C.

HT: @Nathaniel for help tracking down Lange's German commentary.


Is Catholicism the only religion to uphold the indissolubility of marriage?

I feel that this question can be answered without a list. Honestly I learned throughout many leadership courses in the Navy that the only foolish question is the one that remains unasked. Therefore I feel that at least a Scriptural answer to this question may be appropriate. In our culture today many see divorce as a positive solution to a troubled marriage. But Harvard sociologist Armand Nicholi III concluded, "Divorce is not a solution, but an exchange of problems." In a more personal way, novelist Pat Conroy said of his own marriage break-up, "Each divorce is the death of a small civilization."

Malachi 2:16 states: "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit that you do not deal treacherously. And why does He hate divorce? One reason is that marriage is meant to be a special covenant between a man, a woman, and their God.
Any covenant—including the marriage covenant—is a binding, weighty obligation.

In Proverbs 20:25 we read, "It is a trap for a man to dedicate something rashly and only later to consider his vows" (NIV).
Deuteronomy 23:23 says, "You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised."
Jesus said that "every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment" (Matthew 12:36).

Another reason God hates divorce is because it tears at the very heart of God's redemptive plan for the world. It is interesting to note the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-9.

When the Pharisees ask, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?'' Jesus answers by pointing them to God's purposes for marriage:

  "Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

One of God's major purposes for marriage is to mirror His image. After God created the earth and the animals, He said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." The account continues, "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:26–27).

References

Halley, H. (1927). Halley's Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing.
Jackson, W. (2014, March 15).
Marriage: As Designed by God. Retrieved from The Christian Courier
The Holy Bible: New American Standard Version. (1971). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing.


Was There a '7' Associated With the New Covenant?

We do know that the sabbath happens on the seventh day. It is also the case that the Hebrew word for seven stands not only for a number. Sheba is also a verb, “and it means to swear a covenant oath – literally to ‘seven oneself"

  see. Genesis 21:27-32

The sabbath is not so much a day for the Father to rest, but stands as a sign of the covenant God made with creation.  “The sabbath symbolized man’s God-given destiny: to rest in God’s blessing and holiness for all eternity”

So the number seven is an "covenant oath". When making covenant oaths the lord would also establish outward signs of that covenant oath.  Christ is his earthly Minestry did the same.

The Seven sacraments of the Catholic Church according to Saint Augustine are

  outward signs of invisible Graces

These graces, given to the Church by our lord and savior, are covenant oaths, signs of the new covenant.

For more information check here:

http://rcdow.org.uk/att/files/faith/catechesis/baptism/sacraments.pdf

There is indeed a "7" accociated with the new Covenant, they are the Seven Sacrements of the Catholic Church.


Has Catholic Church always taught that our corporeal nature necessary for humans to experience affection? (Catholic)

Passions of the soul
The OED defines "affection" as:

I. Senses relating to the mind.
1.
a. The action or result of affecting the mind in some way; a mental state brought about by any influence; an emotion, feeling.

By "affection," it seems you mean what St. Thomas calls "passion" (passio) in his Treatise on the Passions (Summa Theologica I-II qq. 22-48). Passio literally means "suffering" (as in Passio Christi, the Passion of Christ), but more generally it means "passive"—i.e., able to suffer something, receive something from an active agent.
Summa Theologica I-II q. 22 a. 1 ("Whether any passion is in the soul?") c.:

The word "passive" [pati = "to be suffered"] is used in three ways. First, in a general way, according as whatever receives something is passive, although nothing is taken from it: thus we may say that the air is passive when it is lit up [because it receives the light]. But this is to be perfected rather than to be passive. Secondly, the word "passive" [pati] is employed in its proper sense, when something is received, while something else is taken away: and this happens in two ways. For sometimes that which is lost is unsuitable to the thing: thus when an animal's body is healed, and loses sickness. At other times the contrary occurs: thus to ail is to be passive; because the ailment is received and health is lost. And here we have passion in its most proper acceptation. For a thing is said to be passive from its being drawn to the agent: and when a thing recedes from what is suitable to it, then especially does it appear to be drawn to something else. Moreover in De Generat. i, 3 it is stated that when a more excellent thing is generated from a less excellent, we have generation simply, and corruption in a particular respect: whereas the reverse is the case, when from a more excellent thing, a less excellent is generated. In these three ways it happens that passions are in the soul. For in the sense of mere reception, we speak of "feeling and understanding as being a kind of passion" (De Anima i, 5). But passion, accompanied by the loss of something, is only in respect of a bodily transmutation; wherefore passion properly so called cannot be in the soul, save accidentally, in so far, to wit, as the [body+soul] "composite" [compositum] is passive. But here again we find a difference; because when this transmutation is for the worse, it has more of the nature of a passion, than when it is for the better: hence sorrow is more properly a passion than joy.

Dogma that a human is a body+soul composites
As I mentioned here, the Council of Vienne (1311-1312), under the authority of Clement V, defined the dogma that the soul is the form of the human body (Denzinger 481):

Moreover, with the approval of the said council, we reject as erroneous and contrary to the truth of the catholic faith every doctrine or proposition rashly asserting that the substance of the rational or intellectual soul is not of itself and essentially the form of the human body, or casting doubt on this matter. In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.

"Form" is "the actualizing principle that makes a thing to be what it is." Thus, a body without the substantial form of a human being (a soul) is a corpse.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines form as:

In the Scholastic philosophy: The essential determinant principle of a thing; that which makes anything (matter) a determinate species or kind of being; the essential creative quality.
This use of form (Aristotle's μορϕή or εἶδος) and matter (ὕλη) is a metaphorical extension of their popular use. In ordinary speech, a portion of matter, stuff, or material, becomes a ‘thing’ by virtue of having a particular ‘form’ or shape; by altering the form, the matter remaining unchanged, we make a new ‘thing’. This language, primarily applied only to objects of sense, was in philosophical use extended to objects of thought: every ‘thing’ or entity was viewed as consisting of two elements, its form by virtue of which it was different from, and its matter which it had in common with, others.

Read St. Thomas's short work On the Principles of Nature (De principiis naturæ) for more information on matter and form (hylemorphism).


As per dictionary.com, here are two of the definitions of "mandate":

a command from a superior court or official to a lower one.
an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.

Keep that in mind. Now, as david brainerd mentioned, the International House Of Prayer (IHOP) has a page named "Israel Mandate". As there are only a couple paragraphs, I'm going to go ahead and copy-paste the whole thing here.
IHOP

Our mission is to mobilize intercessors in the Church to pray for Israel, and to stand with and encourage Messianic believers in Israel.
The International House of Prayer is committed to seeing the nation of Israel walking in their full destiny at the end of the age. Our primary role is to pray for and partner with Messianic Jews who are living in Israel. The operation and visitation of the Spirit in Israel is a vital part of releasing the great end-time harvest among the nations (Ezek. 36:23–36). However, this full release will only come as a result of a body of believers who are committed to a life of night-and-day prayer and fasting.

The "Messianic Jews" part tipped me off, so I made a Google search with those terms included. Most of the results that came up had to do with IHOP, though they were different branches. Here are a couple of them along with selected quotes:
IHOP: Eastern Gate

The International House of Prayer: Eastern Gate's Israel Mandate is being set in place to mobilize to pray and stand with the Jewish people regionally, nationally and spiritually.
Our confidence is that believers being filled with the Spirit of the L-rd will stir Israel to embrace Yeshua/Jesus as her Messiah. In return, God will use Israel as the instrument to bring restoration to the earth at the end of the age.
The strategy of this reality is in the building up of a network of prayer and partnership with the local Messianic Jewish communities and churches in the region. The key to this network will be Messianic prayer sets geared towards specifically praying for the salvation of the Jewish people and the restoration of Israel.

Cincinnati House of Prayer

One of our specific assignments at the Cincinnati House of Prayer is to partner with and stand for Jesus’ purposes concerning Israel and the Jewish people in our region and beyond. We do this by praying, mobilizing and teaching on Israel and standing with and encouraging Messianic believers in our region and throughout the earth.
Ways we Stand at the Cincinnati House of Prayer for the Purposes of God Concerning the Jewish People and the Nation of Israel

We intercede with prophetic acts of prayer, worship, love and justice

We partner with our Messianic Jewish brothers & sisters for God’s purposes and glory in the Tri-state region and on earth

We reject Anti-Semitism, Replacement Theology and other false teachings concerning Israel and God’s purposes for the Jewish people

We encourage the release of resources (time, talents and treasures) unto the purposes of God concerning the Messianic Jewish people, the nation of Israel and those desiring to return to Israel.

We strive to nurture and build-up our Messianic Jewish brothers & sisters in the Body of Christ

Finally, if you really want to learn a lot more, IHOP has a Israel Mandate Resources page that has many audio files from their Israel Mandate Conferences.

So, to sum up, the Israel Mandate seems to be the belief that we Gentile Christians are commanded by God to pray for Israel and to work with Messianic Jews. The goal is to bring more Jews to Christ, which continues Jesus' and Peter's work as well as honors the position that the Jews have as the chosen people of God. There seem to be other attached beliefs, but so far as I can tell, that is the core of the Israel Mandate: pray for and reach out to the Jews in Israel.


Are there any denominations that believe in "Eternal Security" but deny "Perseverance of the Saints" or vice versa?

Difference in origin and groups
Perseverance of the Saints (POTS) is the "P" of the TULIP formulation of early Calvinism, conceptually originating roughly from the 5 article headings of the 1618 Canons of Dort, although the acronym came later.  It is founded on the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election (the "U").
Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) came later (although conceptually it was earlier), held by Baptist groups who don't subscribe to unconditional election, but base the eternal security on Jesus' promise.  Their theology is not full Calvinism but goes back to St. Augustine, now sometimes labeled Free grace theology.  This probably happened due to the influence of Wesleyan revival compromising the doctrine of Predestination.
So what's the difference if the result is the same?  One forum poster smartly said that:

"Eternal security" is simply a Free Grace [theology] relabeling of "Perseverance of the Saints"

Difference in the "experiencing"
But as blog article Five Differences Between Perseverance of the Saints and Eternal Security shows (emphasis mine):

[First two points I used in the previous section above]
Third, POTS and OSAS have different views of the condition of salvation. This comes out clearly when POTS advocates say that people who fall away into error or unbelief never truly believed to begin with. In effect, POTS advocates typically teach that you are born again or justified by a continuous faith that must be the “gift” faith that God only gives to the elect. Essentially, salvation does not only depend on what you believe, but how you believe it. By contrast, OSAS says there is only one kind of faith (persuasion that something is true) and that what matters is what you believe, not how you believe. Salvation requires a single act of faith in Jesus for eternal life (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47).
Fourth, POTS and OSAS take different perspectives on sanctification. According to POTS, sanctification is unconditional. Since the elect are predestined to salvation, and God causes them to be sanctified, they will never fall into major sin or unbelief in this life but will persevere in faith and good works until death. By contrast, OSAS sees sanctification as conditional. You have to choose to be a doer of the word to be sanctified, and there is no guarantee that you will progress from a carnal state to a spiritual one. But believers are eternally secure whether they experience practical sanctification or not.
Fifth, POTS and OSAS have different effects on assurance. Under POTS, you cannot be sure of your salvation because you cannot be sure if you are one of the elect with special gift faith who will persevere in faith and good works until death. By contrast, for OSAS, assurance is not only possible, it is the essence of saving faith. Jesus promised believers everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 11:25-26). Hence, you cannot believe that promise without believing the life He gives is everlasting.

Ken Hamrick's post explains in a lot more depth the differences summarized above.
Conclusion
The two labels survive because they help distinguish the two kind of salvation "experience" and in so doing clarify discussions and reduce confusion as the two concepts have quite different content after investigation.
Although the result is the same, because the doctrine's content is different, the experience of the salvation journey is also different.  In addition:

Baptist groups who label the experience as "Eternal Security" usually don't subscribe to the full TULIP, so they deny "Perseverance of the Saints"
Calvinist groups who label their doctrine as "Perseverance of the Saints" in full fidelity to their theological tradition will deny "Eternal Security" doctrine once they realize it doesn't necessarily have the critical component "Unconditional Election"